1958-08-08

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Stanton.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the fact that the Senate foreign relations committee of the United States yesterday passed unanimously Senator Aiken's proposal for a joint congressional-parliamentary committee to consider United States-Canadian relations, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any action has been taken at this end to co-operate in that most important and desirable initiative?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: With the closing words of the
Leader of the Opposition I am, of course, in entire agreement. Throughout the years, and particularly since the first occasion in 1942 when a gathering took place in the city of Ottawa of the empire parliamentary union to which seats were allocated as observers to representatives of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, it was well shown, both on that occasion and in the subsequent meetings that took place informally, what advantages can flow from a degree of consultation between private members of parliament and members of the congress of the United States.
I am very pleased to learn that the motion in question by Senator Aiken has been passed by the United States Senate, and I will bring to the attention of the house in the next few days something of a suggestion along similar lines after consultation with my colleagues and, of course, within the limitations which our constitutional system provides and requires.
With the objective I could not be more in agreement. As to the means whereby we can co-operate in this regard, further consideration must be given. I would very much appreciate any expression of views on the part of
the Leader of the Opposition and other interested members, such as the hon. member for Assiniboia, in this connection so that the action taken will command the general approval of members of the house as a whole rather than being a matter of a government measure.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Speaking for this group, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we appreciate the remarks of the Prime Minister. We are completely in agreement with the sentiments he has expressed, and we hope such a joint Canadian-United States legislative committee may be set up and begin to function at an early date.
Having in mind the different constitutions of both countries, I feel that such a committee would have very great benefit for Canada in particular and also no doubt from the United States point of view. I say to the Prime Minister I am sure that we would support the early convening of such a committee and would support any proposals to have it convened, if it were necessary, before the next session of parliament.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Votes and Proceedings of this morning carries a notice in the name of the Minister of Transport that there is a new piece of legislation to be introduced having to do with the Railway Act and the regulations concerning the grade crossing fund. When there was a discussion of this matter on Monday and the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister what was the business of the house for the remainder of the session he outlined, on page 3061 of Hansard, what that business was to be, and there was no mention of this legislation at all.
I am not objecting to the fact that perhaps this is important legislation, but in my opinion it is so important that I doubt whether it should be brought down in the dying days of the session.
I noticed that the Prime Minister desired to rise. I do not know whether it was to interrupt me or to interrupt others, but in

Inquiries of the Ministry any event I am asking now whether it is the intention to add any more legislation to that which has already been announced, and how this has come about.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know there was nothing inherent in the question in the nature of a whining attitude, as somebody mentioned a moment ago. I am sorry I omitted reference to that legislation. As a matter of fact I had it on my list, and as I went down the list I inadvertently omitted reference to it, and it was the only omission I made. I hope the hon. gentleman will be able to permit that legislation to be proceeded with this session, because it will be generally beneficial in the matter of employment as well as removing a serious cause of accidents in this country, namely the degree to which grade crossings contribute to the death lists. I hope he will be able to permit the legislation to be proceeded with, realizing that sometimes one does slip up in details. I do not think it is a very serious omission, but I ask that he allow the legislation to be dealt with.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can assure the Prime Minister that there will be no objection to the principle of this legislation. I have looked at the nature of it and on its face, without the details before us, it seems to be good in principle. I have a supplementary question. Is this, together with what was announced on August 4, all the remaining legislation which will be brought down from now to the end of the session?


John George Diefenbaker: As far as I am concerned
the answer is yes.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Which may be brought down.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the current intense interest in the question of tolls or no tolls on the Welland canal, can the minister indicate whether there is a chance only for a reduction in these tolls following the hearings, or whether there could be a decision not to have tolls at all?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, hearings are going on at the present time on this matter. When they have been concluded a report will be made to me by the president of the St. Lawrence seaway

authority. I shall consider the matter at that time, and will probably discuss it with my cabinet colleagues.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government. I am not too sure whether it should go to the Minister of Transport or the Minister of National Defence. According to a press report this morning it appears that a United States icebreaker has gone to the rescue of some Canadians in northern waters. Why is it necessary for a United States icebreaker to go to the rescue of these men?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have not gone into the details. I saw a reference in a morning paper, and I would assume that if a United States icebreaker has gone to the rescue of these men it is because it was the nearest ship available for that particular task.


Lionel Chevrier: Could I ask a supplementary question and put it this way. If the C.G.S. Labrador, formerly H.M.C.S. Labrador, had remained under the Department of National Defence would it not have gone to the rescue of these men, since at this time of the year it would be in northern waters?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if the Labrador had remained under the Department of National Defence it could not possibly have known where this accident was going to occur, and it might or might not have been the nearest ship.



GRAIN-REPORTED STATEMENT ON RESTRICTION OF CREDIT SALES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the statement made by the chairman of the Canadian wheat board, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of August 5, represents government policy? Mr. McNamara is reported as having said that credit sales of Canadian grain should be confined only to Colombo plan countries. Does that represent government policy?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I think one would have to examine the report of the agriculture committee to see exactly what Mr. McNamara

said on that occasion. Credit sales have not been confined entirely to countries under the Colombo plan, because credit arrangements have been made with Poland and Israel.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say this to the minister in the friendliest spirit.


George Harris Hees: Watch out.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Would it then be correct to say that there is no foundation for this report?



PROGRESS OF INQUIRY INTO ALLOCATION OF BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the great interest in having the box car inquiry report made public as soon as possible in view of the new crop coming on the market in the next few weeks. Can the minister say when the report may be received and whether it will be during this session so that item No. 16 on the order paper, the resolution to provide for a transport controller, may be proceeded with if that is necessary?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the report is in the process of being written now. It may be available before the end of the session, but I cannot be sure of the exact date when it will be made public.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia. If the legislation standing in the name of the Minister of Transport for the extension of certain powers for the control of transport of goods is not proceeded with, will it be possible to appoint a transport controller?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall take that question as notice and investigate.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Will the minister table the report he referred to the other day with regard to the investigation into the death of a number of Eskimos in the Garry lake area?
Supply-National Defence


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is being done.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
220. To provide for the Canadian Forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including costs incurred in the participation of the Canadian forces in the United Nations emergency force and contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $130,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $3,158,845,866 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,350,597,670 will come due for payment in future years), $1,630,377,196.
George Randolph Pearkes: The estimates of my department which are now before this committee, Mr. Chairman, have already been examined in detail by the members of the standing committee on estimates. Of course this in no way limits the right of members of this committee to ask any questions they may wish. However, at the numerous meetings of the committee on estimates which were held during the course of the past two months, my department endeavoured to present as full a picture as possible of Canada's defence effort. The hard work performed by members of the committee deserves my thanks and appreciation. The conduct of the proceedings reflects credit on the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Calgary South. I can assure the house that a careful study will be made, both by myself and by the officials of the department, of the recommendations submitted by that committee. Many of those recommendations are most helpful, and are in line with present thought in the department.
These estimates which this committee is asked to approve were prepared a year ago, and they mark the final phase of a program which was originated to meet the conditions which existed at the time of the Korean war. You will recall that at that time the Department of National Defence increased substantially the strength of our three services, and undertook an extensive building program.

Supply-National Defence The period which began in 1950 is now coming to an end. The construction program is in the final stage, and a number of steps have been taken in connection with the reorganization of the three services.
We are now entering a new era in defence, an era when the threat of the manned bomber is being supplemented by the threat of a missile. The government will take measures to meet this new threat to our security. It is significant that during the past year attention has been focused on Canada's growing role in world affairs. In the Middle East, Canada contributes a major component to the United Nations emergency force now serving in Egypt. In this force there are over 900 Canadian army personnel and some 100 members of the R.C.A.F. The members of our armed services serving in that area deserve the highest praise for the work that they are carrying out, work which is done under extremely trying conditions.
In addition, we are taking part in the United Nations supervisory organization in Palestine, and have recently increased the number of Canadian personnel serving with the observer group in Lebanon. We are able to provide these personnel to the various United Nations missions without impairing the operational element of our services. The fact that Canada has fulfilled these requests for assistance may be an indication that in future we will be asked to accept further commitments to help maintain peace in troubled areas. If Canada should again be asked to send a force on some mission such as UNEF we have a stand-by battalion in readiness for such an eventuality.
With reference to our contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization the fourth Canadian infantry brigade is presently stationed in Germany as part of the shield forces of NATO. The nuclear concept of war postulates the possibility that our major ports and lines of communication could be severely damaged in the initial enemy attack. Hence there is some doubt as to whether or not formations on this continent could reach Europe during the early and critical phase of the war. Canada, however, remains committed to furnishing the balance of an infantry division to NATO in the event of hostilities, but the portion of these forces stationed in Canada is now regarded as a strategic reserve. In order to rotate our brigade in Europe and maintain forces for the defence of Canada we have three brigade groups located respectively in the western, central and eastern areas of Canada. Each of these groups contains troops especially equipped and trained for operations in northern Canada.

In the light of new weapons developments, some major re-equipping of our army cannot long be delayed. Intensive study is now being given as to the new weapons which should be procured.
Canada's first air division with its 12 squadrons of interceptor aircraft is also in position in Europe as part of our NATO commitment, and it provides an important component of the fourth allied tactical air force under SACEUR. In addition, the Royal Canadian Navy has a number of ships earmarked for the NATO supreme allied commander, Atlantic, in the event of an emergency.
I would like to emphasize the importance of the anti-submarine role of our navy. With the advent of nuclear power and the knowledge that missiles can be fired from submarines far from our shores, our seaward defences take on increasing significance. The latest destroyer escorts now coming into service are effective weapons against the modern submarine.
In view of this changed concept of modern war at sea, there is no longer a requirement for a cruiser component in the Royal Canadian Navy. H.M.C.S. Quebec has been taken out of commission and placed in reserve at Sydney, Nova Scotia. Our other cruiser, H.M.C.S. Ontario, has been carrying out the role of training ship to the fleet. It has been decided now to decommission the Ontario and declare her and the Quebec surplus to requirements. The training functions which have been carried out by the Ontario will be transferred to an operational frigate squadron. The training received in the ships of this group will be based on the requirements of the present fleet.
Some economies will result from these changes. These include the cruiser's annual running cost amounting to $1,600,000, and the not inconsiderable cost of maintaining these ships in reserve. The officers and men now serving in the Ontario are required to man the new destroyer escorts now being completed.
One recent acquisition to our anti-submarine forces has been the Argus, a long-range patrol aircraft now coming into operational service. This aircraft, capable of sustained flight for in excess of 20 hours and armed with the latest anti-submarine weapons, increases the effectiveness of our maritime defence.
In Canada we are also making a major contribution not only to the defence of the land mass of our continent but, through our radar lines, to the alerting of the retaliatory forces of the west. It has been obvious for some time that the defence of this

continent is the joint concern of both Canada and the United States. The establishment of the joint air defence command has already received the approval of parliament, and this agreement will undoubtedly strengthen the defence of this continent. The recent announcement, following the visit of President Eisenhower to Ottawa, of a joint ministerial committee on defence will also add to mutual co-operation.
I have already referred to the high cost of new weapons. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the air. Over the years we have built up on this continent, with our United States allies, radar warning systems. It should be made clear that these systems -the DEW, the mid-Canada and the Pine-tree lines-were constructed to give warning of manned bombers. They were not meant to deal with the intercontinental ballistic missile and are not capable of so doing, but they are effective against the known capabilities of the present day bomber. However, steps are being taken to improve the method of processing the information received through these radar lines. Automatic systems of control and of passing information must be introduced as aircraft with increased capabilities come into operation.
With the rapid advancement in weapon development the importance of carrying on research is obvious. In these estimates this committee is asked to approve the sum of $82,525,000 for the defence research board. To give members an idea of the functions of this board I might quote what I said to the standing committee on July 8 last, as follows:
The main tasks which have been assigned to the defence research board are: Defence against the ballistic missile, particularly in the field of radio propagation in high altitudes: submarine detection and anti-submarine defence systems: operational research studies of weapons systems with emphasis on the joint air defence of North America; studies of nuclear propulsion of ships: responsibility for a large part of the Canadian contribution to the international geophysical year; research in man's ability to survive in such environments as high altitudes, great speed and extreme cold; development of communications and navigational systems; improvement in conventional weapons; development of new rocket type weapons: research in the field of atomic, bacteriological and chemical warfare; research on data processing and the ever-widening use of electronics; research on propellants and explosives and scientific advice to civil defence authorities.
I might add that research into bacteriological warfare is conducted entirely as a defensive measure against the possibility of the use of bacteriological attack by hostile forces.
Before concluding I would like to say a word about the need for a high standard of
Supply-National Defence officer in our armed services. This requirement is being met in part by graduates of our service colleges. The recent decision to grant degrees at the Royal Military College at Kingston is an indication of the recognition of the high academic standards required.
In so far as the role of the reserve forces is concerned, this subject was covered in the committee. Suffice it to say that each service has an important part to play and that the members of our reserves, whose role has changed in the light of modern warfare, are adapting themselves to their new tasks with admirable spirit. The emphasis on the forces in being and the cost of equipping such forces with modern weapons has of necessity called for firm reappraisal of the allotment of available funds, but within the limitations imposed there is a continuing requirement for our reserve forces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the introduction of the minister's estimates gives members a chance to discuss, at least on this item and in a general way, defence considerations and strategic concepts, indeed the international situation which makes it necessary for the government to bring forward defence estimates of this magnitude in the year 1958. I propose to take advantage of this opportunity to make some observations of a general character based to a large extent on the work of the committee and on the contributions made by the minister in the committee, to our knowledge of defence matters, and in this respect I have particular reference to those of us who served on the committee. I also propose to comment upon one or two things the minister has said this morning.
The minister stressed, quite rightly, that we are entering into a new era of defence, that we are now facing new defence problems -new even in the sense that they were not with us two or three years ago-and that new methods and new steps are required to meet these new problems.
Before I deal with these more general subjects, however, I would like to join the minister in paying sincere tribute, not to the work of the committee because I sat on that committee and I therefore cannot do so, but to the contribution of the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Calgary South who presided over our work with efficiency and fairness. I think we are all most indebted to him for the way in which he conducted the work of the committee. I believe also it will be found by the house that the report of the committee will make a valuable contribution to the work of the Department of National Defence. As the minister has pointed out, the recommendations will be given careful consideration.

Supply-National Defence
As a member of the committee I was interested to note that the power given to the committee to call for persons and papers was not exercised, and that the proceedings before it were conducted, in so far as witnesses were concerned, very much in the same way as they were conducted in the defence committee two or three years ago. Various proposals were made which the minister has pointed out, in addition to many recommendations in connection with a variety of matters. Perhaps the best way in which we on this side of the house can proceed with respect to those recommendations, if we have any comments to make upon them, would be to bring forward those comments when the particular items concerned are under consideration.
One suggestion was made with which I most heartily agree, and that was that the Department of National Defence should return to the practice of previous years and produce an annual report and a white paper on defence. The minister did submit to the committee when he appeared, a very detailed, comprehensive and useful report on defence policy. Perhaps, however, it would have been more helpful to the committee and might even have made the work of the committee somewhat more effective if the kind of report which the minister produced for the benefit of the committee had been available earlier so we might have had a chance to study it in advance, in which case perhaps our questions would have been even more intelligent than they were.
We are being asked to vote a very large sum of money for defence. It is interesting to note that the minister has found, no doubt with the best will in the world, that the international situation is such that it is not possible-and I certainly do not quarrel with him on this score-to reduce our defence expenditure, and that the direction of his department and the conduct of affairs in that department and in the services has been such as to make it impossible to reduce the amounts required through the elimination of any waste or extravagance in the department itself.
The reason we are being asked to vote this amount-and it is a very large amount indeed, and a very high proportion of our total budget-is, of course, that the international situation is such that we have to pay a very high premium for defence insurance, a premium of well over a billion and a half dollars. This emphasizes once again, if emphasis is required, that when our foreign policy fails-perhaps I should say, rather, when it does not succeed, together with the foreign policies of other countries, in establishing security in the world-then our defence expenditure becomes more burdensome, 
and in that sense diplomacy is a very important part of defence. If diplomacy had succeeded better, perhaps we should not have to spend $1,600 million for this kind of defence.
We have before us at the present time a good example of the failure of diplomacy which in its turn will have its effect on the contribution which the Canadian people will have to continue to make toward defence. I am thinking now of the failure to bring about greater stability in the Middle East and solve some of the immediate and some of the more far-reaching problems there.
I think one could say in that regard that recent diplomatic developments in that area, which in turn will have their effect on defence policy and expenditures in Canada, leave one with a feeling of discouragement and almost, at times, of despair. When action was taken in Lebanon and Jordan a few weeks ago which was considered by those taking the action to be necessary, and which was taken only after invitations from the governments concerned, it seemed to some that not only would it be possible to bring that action to an end on terms which would be satisfactory to the countries concerned and remove any danger of conflict in that area, but it seemed also to some that we might be able to take advantage of this critical situation to seek the roots of the difficulty and do something about the problem which brought about this intervention in the first place. I have felt, and so I know have other hon. members, that an opportunity was given us in that regard.
To me it was a surprising opportunity when the head of the Russian state invited the United Kingdom, the United States, France, India and the secretary general of the United Nations to what he called a summit conference which he himself said would be under the auspices of the United Nations in the sense that it could report back to the security council of the United Nations. This was to be a summit conference which, from the western point of view, would have the kind of representation which could hardly be improved upon.
But we know what happened. That original invitation was not accepted in a form which would make possible the convening of this meeting, and diplomatic negotiations began which resulted in the conference becoming a public meeting of the security council. Those of us who have been at the United Nations know what such public meetings can be. When that proposal did not finally commend itself to the head of the Russian state another proposal was put forward for a special assembly of 81 nations, also to meet in public.

So instead of having a small, informal meeting which might have done something to provide a solution to these Middle East problems, and a meeting which could have reported back to the United Nations, we were left with the alternatives of a propaganda meeting of the 11 members of the security council held in public, or of an even more propagandist meeting of the 81 members of the assembly.
That is the situation we are facing now, and I suggest that the only way in which we in the west can really accomplish something in the face of the diplomatic manoeuvres that have been going on is by putting before this assembly some constructive proposals on economic and political planning in the Middle East of the kind that might possibly have been placed before a smaller meeting. Unless we can use the assembly for that purpose-and there is not going to be much time-this assembly will deteriorate into a propaganda jamboree with charges and countercharges of aggression, direct and indirect, and it will not make much of a contribution to the solution of this problem. And unless we do this we will probably find that next year our defence estimates will be just as large as, if not larger than, they were this year.
The minister pointed out in his statement and in his report to the committee that Canadian defence policy is based, as it has been for some years, on the acceptance of various obligations. The first obligation on defence policy is, of course, the defence of our own territory, but we have other obligations which also involve the defence of Canada by action outside Canada. The minister has mentioned as one of those, our obligations under the United Nations; and in dealing with these responsibilities he pointed out what Canada is doing at the present time to discharge those obligations through the Department of National Defence. He paid tribute to the work Canadian servicemen are doing in the United Nations emergency force and in other far places of the world in the interests of peace, a tribute in which I should like sincerely to join. Not only is the United Nations emergency force operating in the Middle East, but observation groups are playing a useful and indeed a valuable role in preventing trouble in various parts of the world. There are missions in Indo-China. There are Canadian observers in Pakistan, and there are now many in Lebanon. As the minister has indicated, this international activity is a concept which I think must affect Canada's defence policy in the years ahead.
What can we do on our part to make a contribution to international police activity, which if it can do nothing else might prevent
Supply-National Defence small conflicts developing into world destructive wars? There is one concept which governed our defence concept in the past which I suggest is now obsolete and should have little if anything to do with defence planning. That is the concept that we should make preparation in Canada for sending an expeditionary force overseas, as we have had to do twice in our lifetime. It does not seem to me to be realistic to contemplate that kind of contribution by which over the months and years we would be sending troops across the Atlantic to the battlefields of Europe.
Because it is an indication that the government does realize that this is pretty much out of date in the nuclear age I was glad to hear the minister say that even our NATO obligation to bring our brigade up to divisional strength in case of conflict overseas-and that is an obligation we have undertaken-is perhaps of less importance than it was, and of less importance than some of the other obligations which face us at this time. I was also very glad to hear him say that in the discharge of this new kind of obligation to contribute toward international forces-not to win a war but to prevent a war-the department had now a battalion well equipped and available on short notice as Canada's contribution to this kind of activity. I believe that is very important, especially in the light of the possibility that in the months ahead we may be asked to make that kind of contribution along with other countries.
I am inclined to repeat here what I have said in the house before and in committees of the house, that if this kind of contribution is to be made effective-the international police force and the international observer group idea-we have to make this kind of preparation for it in advance. We have to set up a kind of permanent defence organization at United Nations headquarters and the countries who are willing to make this kind of contribution, and Canada is one of them, should let the organization in New York know in advance what they will have available and ready for any particular emergency that may develop.
I believe Canada has played a highly imaginative and constructive part in this concept. Not only did we make forces available years ago at the time of the Korean crisis, but at that time we said the forces should be made available, a brigade, subject to parliamentary approval, for any United Nations action which might be required in the future, and I think that decision still holds.
I grow a little impatient when I hear the great powers say they do not want to do this kind or that of thing, or having done it, say: "We should like to get out of it; if

Supply-National Defence only the United Nations will move in and take over our responsibility we will withdraw". That is what they say in time of crisis or emergency. But when the emergency is past and we go down to the United Nations and make a proposal for the establishment of some kind of permanent machinery which might make it unnecessary for them to intervene in the future, they can find all kinds of reasons for hesitation and delay. This would be a good time, labouring as we are under the fear of this crisis, to press ahead with this kind of international force to which Canada is now pledged to make a contribution in the future along the lines of the contributions we have made in the past.
So much for our United Nations defence obligation. We have, of course, very important defence obligations-and the minister mentioned them here and in the committee- under NATO. It is not easy for someone who does not attend the NATO meetings to ascertain exactly what is NATO strategy at the present time in the face of the new developments about which the minister has told us. It was considered, and perhaps it is still basic NATO strategy, that there should be built up in Europe balanced collective forces under a NATO commander of a strength sufficient to hold the attack well away, if possible, from the Hhine and western Europe; forces that would be strong enough not only to hold the attack away but to hold it long enough to make it possible for massive retaliation, for the deterrent to go into operation.
I recall attending the NATO council meeting in Lisbon some years ago. The military chiefs at that time said that 95 divisions would be required for that basic NATO strategy. I remember, and I am sure the minister will remember, the government of that day was very strongly attacked by the C.C.F. party in connection with that report because they said we had sold out to the military, who had demanded an impossible total for defence purposes. Well, it is interesting to recall that in the space of a few years- because that Lisbon meeting was not very long ago

the objectives that are now considered required for this basic strategy have been reduced and reduced in terms of military contributions until

I do not know exactly what they are, but they have been reduced greatly. I do know that the NATO commander in chief-and I am not betraying any secret in saying this because he made a public statement about it-did request the NATO defence ministers at the last meeting to raise the number of divisions from 15 to 30 as the minimum which was required to carry out this basic concept.

But there is another concept of basic NATO defence, and I know these matters are now under consideration by NATO committees, though I do not know if the consideration is completed. The other aspect of NATO defence is that the main function and indeed the only defensive function of NATO land and air forces is to identify an aggressor. This is the trip-wire theory of defence about which the minister knows, and only a very small force is required for identification purposes. Once an enemy has been identified and the aggression as such has been identified, then the deterrent goes into operation at once and you have your massive retaliation to defend Europe by the strategic air command of the United States going into operation from its bases.
It seems to me that the weakness of this concept is that if it is assumed by the people in the NATO countries that our only defence against aggression is massive retaliation by the strategic air command of the United States with nuclear bombs, the people of those countries will not be too anxious to make the kind of sacrifice in terms of local defence which is required because they will leave it all to massive retaliation. Because of that fact-and there is some indication that this concept dominates public opinion in some European countries-and because of the consequent weakening of our conventional defence position in western Europe and elsewhere, the massive retaliation deterrent has to get stronger, and as it gets stronger and stronger you do less in a conventional way, so you get into a vicious circle which does not seem to me to be a very satisfactory basis for collective defence.
There is no doubt-and it is one of the things that is most frightening in the present situation-that we are relying now largely on the nuclear deterrent; that this deterrent is now nuclear power of which both sides- not only one side, as was the case six or seven years ago-have more than enough in the form of missiles and bombs to blow our planet to pieces, or at least to destroy those who are inhabiting it, and yet they keep on piling bombs on top of bombs. I have never been able to understand the military reasoning which requiries 100 hydrogen bombs if 50 on each side can destroy the world.
I am informed-and on good authority, because the information comes from a United States official source-that there is enough fissionable material being produced in the United States alone each year now to make 30,000 to 40,000 atom bombs of the old-fashioned type which killed 86,000 people in

Hiroshima in one explosion. I am also informed that if this fissionable material, which is still being produced, goes into the more modern, refined hydrogen bomb there is enough material for almost a million Hiroshimas. That is the foundation of power, unbelievable power, on which our nuclear deterrent rests. We rely now for peace primarily on that deterrent.
I was reading the other day a paper by a former admiral of the British navy, Admiral A. W. Buzzard. He was chief of naval intelligence; perhaps the minister knows him. He was making a very strong attack against this reliance for our security, this sole reliance, or at least reliance to too great an extent, on this policy of massive retaliation through the nuclear deterrent. He had this to say in this paper, and perhaps the committee will forgive me if I put it on record:
This policy of massive retaliation was adopted by NATO as an emergency measure eight years ago, at the time of Korea, when we suddenly realized that we were faced by an aggressive and heavily armed communist empire, and had nothing but America's atomic bomb with which to defend ourselves. It seemed an acceptable policy to most people at the time, because the atomic bomb was then virtually an American monopoly, the Russians having very few of them and no aircraft-let alone ballistic missiles-which could reach America in retaliation.
How that situation has changed.
But now that Russia, too, has an effective nuclear deterrent-grown to megaton proportions- and she can deliver it into the heart of America, the situation is very different. For whatever we may say, the communists must increasingly doubt-
I suggest that the present situation in the Middle East is a very good illustration of this worry.
-whether America would in fact commit suicide for a serious local threat in, say, northern Scandinavia, Greece, Yugoslavia, the Middle East, southeast Asia or Korea. Thus, our nuclear deterrent, greatly increased in its severity, has been greatly decreased in its certainty of application, and the "all or nothing'' school often forgets that a deterrent, to be effective, must be reasonably certain of being applied, as well as being severe in its consequences. Indeed, it is better for it to be only reasonably severe and certain to be applied, than for it to be disastrous in its severity and uncertain of being applied.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, that is a position which does not inspire a feeling of comfort or security in anyone who contemplates our defence strategy at the present time, when we are relying to such an extent on a nuclear deterrent of such power that we cannot be sure it will be applied because the consequences of the application, or which if applied to meet local and limited aggression, would convert a local limited aggression into world war III, which would end the world.
Supply-National Defence
Because of that dilemma-and it certainly is a dilemma-we may well now find that we are not facing this kind of aggression which is going to bring about this kind of retaliation. The potential enemy, knowing perhaps that an Anglo-Saxon power will hesitate before it drops a nuclear bomb which will convert a limited aggression into world war III, knowing our hesitation in that regard, may concentrate more on direct aggression in a limited way on the periphery of the Soviet empire, or in indirect aggression, economic and political, in a big way.
That means, if it means anything at all in our defence policy, that now not only do we have to maintain a nuclear deterrent, because we have to do that, but we in the western world also have to develop enough tactical defence strength to meet this kind of aggression in various parts of the world without relying on the kind of nuclear weapons I have been talking about. That makes the task of defence policy-defence policy, of course, for the big powers, but also defence policy for all powers-a dual task; to participate in the nuclear deterrent, as Canada is in one sense, and participate also in the building up of conventional collective forces of the kind which might be required because the nuclear deterrent cannot or will not be used.
That is the second concept of defence, Mr. Chairman, the NATO concept; and the third, the one which is of most direct importance to us, is the concept of continental defence, defence of our own territory and defence of our own air, the detection and the destruction of an attack on Canada, which attack would likely be only through the air, or more likely an attack on the United States over Canada. Here is something that the minister has pointed out on more than one occasion. Here is the situation in which Canada is vitally and directly concerned and with which we cannot deal except in the closest possible association with the United States of America. That association, the importance of it and the closeness of it, has been recognized in the formation of the North American defence organization, NORAD.
I only wish-that is all I am going to say about NORAD-that this continental defence organization could be even more closely associated with NATO than the minister said it was associated now, namely in a somewhat indirect and loose way. I suggest that in respect of this aspect of defence policy, the continental aspect, there have been some vitally important changes in the situation in the last two or three years, some very important changes since the decision was made just a few years ago to construct three radar

Supply-National Defence
It does raise the question whether Canada can afford this kind of participation in collective defence. This question becomes all the more urgent when we realize that when we do produce this kind of plane through the planning and designing of our own experts- it is a great credit to them and shows we have an aircraft industry in this country that can do this kind of thing as well as any industry in the world-there is practically no opportunity for operating on a continental but only on a Canadian basis.
The minister has been in Washington, and perhaps he has been trying to do something about this. I know also from my own experience in the past that when we tried to get the United States interested in the CF-100 some years ago, at a time when the CF-100 was admitted in Washington to be certainly the best all-weather fighter on this continent, we made no progress at all. The aircraft industry down there was not going to allow any interference with its own right to produce its own aircraft for its own government. I believe the minister will be having the same trouble with the CF-105.
If co-operation is to extend to the point where we integrate our air forces, then co-operation should also extend to the point where we integrate our resources. If Canadian industry can produce a weapon as good as or better than a United States weapon, then we should try to get the United States to recognize the importance of co-operation by encouraging this kind of development in Canada, not on a national but on a continental basis.
Then there is the other aspect of this question. If we are going to have the CF-105 in operation, if we are going to have the Bomarc in operation, how can we contemplate a situation where Canadian squadrons, armed if you like with the Bomarc missile-I am thinking now of the years ahead-and operating off the same air base with United States squadrons under the command of an integrated headquarters commanded by a United States commander with a Canadian deputy commander, when the Canadian squadrons would have missiles without nuclear warheads and the United States squadrons operating along with them would have nuclear warheads? It is taken for granted in the evidence I have read at congressional hearings that to be really effective to the maximum possible extent for defence purposes you should have the nuclear warheads on these particular missiles.
I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not advocating that there should be manufactured in Canada any kind of nuclear weapons, nor am I departing in any way from

the proposal I made the other day that those countries which are now manufacturing nuclear weapons for mass destruction should agree that they will not manufacture them in the future. However, that is something very different from having access to a country which does manufacture these weapons for defence purposes-I am now talking about tactical weapons-and with which we are co-operating in an integrated continental defence scheme. Under legislation passed by the United States congress these weapons cannot now be made available to a country with which it is working on continental defence. I suggest this is a situation which in the long run will not be considered tolerable in this country. I know there have been changes made in the United States atomic energy legislation during the last two or three months which deal with this matter, but it is not dealt with in a way which gives me very much satisfaction.
In these amendments the United States has singled out the United Kingdom for preferential treatment, on the ground that the United Kingdom is already in the atomic weapons business. Under the amendment to section 144 (c) of the atomic energy act, if a country can prove it has made progress in the field of manufacturing nuclear weapons it qualifies for this kind of assistance. So far as I can make out Canada does not get that kind of assistance unless it can make a separate agreement with the United States under another provision of this act.
I should like to ask the minister, when he replies in this general debate, exactly what the situation is in regard to this matter, and whether or not steps are being taken to bring about that kind of agreement which would put Canadian defence forces and United States defence forces, operating under the same command, in exactly the same position in regard to equipment.
The other day we heard from the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the Canadian government was not asking for this kind of agreement now. We heard him say also, and it was an important statement, that there is no question about storing nuclear warheads in Canada. Then he went on to explain that this perhaps was not necessary because a quick decision could be made in Washington-he added even perhaps too quick-which would make available these nuclear warheads in time of emergency.
If they are not stored in Canada, if we have no agreement which puts them under the control of Canadians before the emergency, and if the decision has to be taken in Washington which would result in them being moved to Canada in an emergency or moved from a United States squadron on Canadian soil

to a Canadian squadron, I suggest that is not good enough; because when an emergency of that kind occurs, if it ever does, there will not be time to make these arrangements. This question ought to be cleared up before the emergency occurs.
I come then, Mr. Chairman, to the final part of my statement. I have talked about our UN obligations, our NATO obligations and our new and more extensive obligations in regard to continental defence. The question inevitably presents itself to us, as it must present itself in an even more immediate form to the minister himself, how can Canada, with its resources and with what is needed for development in other fields in this country, do all the things in the future that may be required under these three sets of obligations? I would like to quote what the minister said before the committee on June 10:
No country, particularly a country of limited means-both financial and in manpower, can be expected to promote a balanced force of all the different services.
They can concentrate on the type of production, the type of arms . . . most adaptable to the conditions of the country.
I suggest that that is exactly the principle upon which we have to operate, and that it is the application of that principle which is going to cause the difficulty. A great p0wer-for instance, the United States of America-cannot afford to take a gamble of this kind. They have to concentrate on every possible form of defence, and there is no escaping that fact because they are a great power. They have to keep on developing and building new weapons, however quickly they may become obsolete; but surely there should be a limit to what a country like Canada does or is asked to do in this field of development for defence purposes. Surely our country should not have to keep up with every move-and these moves are being made very quickly today- in respect to methods of defence, strategic and defence planning and so on, which require the production of new types of weapons.
I am certainly not attempting to be dogmatic in this regard because I know how difficult it is to come to any conclusions, but perhaps in this kind of situation, with changes taking place so swiftly and devastating with respect to methods of attack and methods of defence, Canada may have to wait before, for instance, entering into the field of rocket and missile construction. Perhaps we will also have to adopt a system of priorities of a different kind from that which we have adopted in the past with regard to defence by confining our defence efforts, or at least devoting the major part
Supply-National Defence of our defence efforts, to matters particularly concerned with questions of immediate interest to us such as radar defence, integration of ground equipment and ground control, in order words the kind of activities which, if we do not undertake them, the United States of America will ask for permission to undertake on our behalf and on their own behalf on our territory.
It may indeed become more and more necessary for us to take over the maximum responsibility possible for defence activity and facilities on our own soil, even if that means-and this is a decision which naturally no one would make very quickly or easily -some reduction in our commitments abroad under NATO. Perhaps that would be a sound national policy without, I suggest, prejudicing in any way our obligations for international co-operation and defence.
It seems clear to me, and the minister may comment on this point when he replies, that soon the major, if not the sole, instrument of air attack will be the missile, and that this will require a complete revamping of defence strategy and defence policy. It seems to me, and I speak without any expert authority in this matter, that to counter this method of attack the manned jet interceptors will one day-perhaps a day not too far distant-be as obsolete as the old BE2C of the R.F.C. in which I learned to fly, and that these manned interceptors will be replaced, at least to a large extent, by the pilotless interceptors.
That poses a question directly to the government. Are we going to go into the production and planning of these new planes and missiles, or should we not leave the production of this kind of weapon under the concept of division of tasks in a balanced collective defence strategy to the United States and concentrate our efforts in Canada, not exclusively but mostly, to ground environmental control and early warning systems against missile attack? That will give Canada a major responsibility in continental defence; it will give her great responsibility for the construction, control and maintenance of facilities on her own soil.
These are important questions which I throw out to the minister, which he will perhaps be able to answer when he replies. I want to tell him that when I ask him these questions I know it is much easier to ask than to answer them. I also want to tell him that I appreciate the dilemma in which the government must be in relation to these questions with respect to developments in the realm of defence which may or may not take place in the future. It seems to me there are many difficulties in doing these new

Supply-National Defence tasks at the expense of the contribution to defence which has proved to be most effective from our point of view in past years and which, until these new developments take place, is still essential. I know this is a very serious dilemma and that it is inescapable.
My only suggestion is that which I have outlined; that in order to resolve this dilemma perhaps we could take a greater share of responsibility for those activities upon our own soil, even though it might mean a reduction to some extent-and I am not thinking of those United Nations, activities which are very minor in terms of expense-in some other activities outside this country. I suggest it is all the more important that we approach defence in this way, because if we do take responsibility for this kind of activity in Canada it will have very important civilian implications. It will help to develop our north country and prevent that development from being not taken over, but from falling too much into the responsibility of our friend and neighbour the United States of America. This point has been very well illustrated in a recent article by Mr. John Walker, special Washington correspondent for Southam Press, which appeared in the Hamilton Spectator under the heading, "U.S. May Soon Take Over Canadian Arctic Research and Patrol Work" and which reads as follows:
The United States government may soon be taking over a significant field of research and patrol work in the Canadian Arctic, unless the Canadian government takes a more active role in Arctic development.
The Americans will not be doing this by design, but the fact that Congress has approved a bill to authorize construction of a nuclear-powered icebreaker points up the prospects that within three years the U.S. may have such a craft in operation.
The article goes on to say that this craft will be used for Arctic work, and concludes with this paragraph:
If the Canadian government continues to keep the Labrador out of real Arctic action, and does not move actively on nuclear or other powered icebreakers, it is hard to see how Canadian military and scientific men can avoid calling upon the U.S. to do the chore, perhaps by 1961 in a brand new atomic icebreaker.
I hope, therefore, that the government will be able to reconcile these two things, the desirability of playing the right part in defence and the desirability also of playing a part which will help in our development in other fields than that of defence.
May I conclude by coming back to the point at which I began, namely that no defence policy and no defence expenditure, however massive, no weapon however modern, however powerful or however new, will really give us the kind of security we must have in this world unless we can build up alongside that policy the other kind of defence policy

which rests upon an imaginative, constructive, collective and powerful diplomacy. We may have in the western world more, more and more power; we are in fact building up more, more and more power, but so are those countries behind the iron curtain.
It is quite clear, however, that this policy alone will not save us, even though without it we may be lost. Power without wisdom will avail us little. Determination and imagination in diplomacy are as essential as what the Americans call a good defence posture. Canadian defence policy, then, and indeed defence policy for the whole western world must be based on both kinds of power-military power, and political and diplomatic power.


Mr. Peters:: In speaking on the defence
estimates I wish to join those who have congratulated the hon. member for Calgary South on the able manner in which he handled the estimates committee. Whether this was a new type of committee I do not know, but he did handle that committee in a very able manner and is to be commended on having done so. The Minister of National Defence is also to be complimented on the manner in which both he and the witnesses he presented were able to testify to the extent requested by the members of the committee.
One of the problems about discussing national defence is that of remaining within the necessary bounds of security while obtaining information which appears always to be available through many other sources, and bearing this in mind I think the committee which considered the estimates of this department did very good work in bringing to the attention of the general public some of the problems which confront the Department of National Defence and which face all Canada in its defence procedures. However, I believe the committee might have gone a little further than it did in advising the Canadian public that though we were not able to recommend any reduction in national defence expenditures, for the simple reason that each item, taken individually, has to be justified only with regard to that particular estimate, when the situation was examined more broadly it became immediately a matter of government policy and was, therefore, not completely open to question. Thus, although the items in the estimates were not related to each other they were, I think, well discussed individually, and in this respect the committee did a good job.
I believe that a number of the committee's recommendations are worth repeating and bear some relationship to what our new military policy must be. One of the recommendations which interested me concerned the question of integration. It seems that for

a long time there has been competition among the various services, though perhaps not to so great an extent as in some countries close by. But we have had competition among the various services, not only for recruits but with regard to the type of contribution each service could make. There has been a certain rivalry among the army, the navy and the air force; and while in some cases it has been good rivalry it has in others led to inefficiency. I understand that the recommendations of the committee with respect to this matter of integration are to receive consideration, particularly with regard to auxiliary services.
Another matter which in my opinion will bear a great deal more scrutiny than the committee was able to devote to it is the question of the relationship between the civil service on the one hand and military personnel on the other. It has been said that it takes two civil servants to keep every military man in the field. I am not sure that that relationship has been maintained or that it was a good one in the first place, and I question the statement that has been made on a number of occasions that it costs more to keep military personnel in the field than it does to support civilians.
This is open to question, but it was pointed out to the committee that military personnel were established on a quota basis, in other words that a certain fixed number of people were allotted to the army, the navy and the air force, a number which could not be exceeded. The tendency, therefore, would be to increase the number of civil servants whose establishment was not affected by such a restriction. I think further consideration should be given to this question, because I do not think it was proven to the committee that it is more advantageous to employ people who are in permanent positions as civil servants as against military personnel who can be retrained, reclassified and transferred if necessary in the interests of the nation.
Now this department is asking for $1,168 million, which is a very large sum of money; and when the committee-and it was a large and conscientious committee-examined each item of these estimates it was not able to recommend any reduction in this amount. I think the committee should have gone a little further than it did in considering policy and discussing how the various components which made up the estimates as a whole would fit into the over-all policy.
There has been a great change in our thinking as far as military defence is concerned. In the last few years we have discarded the old concept of using an army with auxiliary services classed as the navy 57071-3-201
Supply-National Defence and the air force. The advent of sputnik and the intercontinental missile have made necessary a complete change in our thinking on defence, and we are now faced in Canada with a great many problems with which we were not faced before.
I think it was for this reason that the committee did include in its report a statement that expenditure on defence was not likely to decrease, but rather that we could expect such expenditures to rise rapidly if the developments now contemplated are to take place within the next few years. I think this is borne out by many of the things the Leader of the Opposition said so capably today. If we are to change our concept of military defence and at the same time maintain some of our more traditional defence measures, there will be a need for a great deal more expenditure on defence.
Before I leave this subject I should like to mention that I personally, and I think the country as a whole, was very disappointed that General Simonds was not called before the committee; and while I agree that it would have meant discussing questions of government policy which might not have been within the purview of the committee, the Canadian people might well have realized some advantage from the knowledge and experience which General Simonds has acquired over the years.
Had General Simonds appeared he might well have been able to give the committee an insight into the developments which are likely to take place within the next few years, in the light of his experience and the information available to him. The other side of the argument could have been capably advanced by Air Marshal Collins and also our own Minister of National Defence. The result would not have been merely a rehashing of many ideas that have been newspaper copy for many months, but we would probably have arrived at a clearer picture of what steps must be taken with this type of consideration.
We in Canada are faced with the problem of a defence system that is now completely out of date. The radar chains are generally considered to be not sufficient for present day needs. We are developing and installing many new units that are going to be advantageous, but these are costing a great deal of money and are difficult for us to finance. The British scientists are developing a microwave amplifier called Naser which will track planes 1,000 miles away. According to my information this is a great deal superior to what we have at present. This is only one of many new developments

Supply-National Defence taking place which we will have to incorporate in our national defence system if we are going to be up to date.
When put into effect our radar chains perhaps were not sufficient for our needs but represented the best we had at the time and were considered adequate. They are no longer adequate and will have to be replaced. But even if we replace the radar chains with a radar device like Naser we will not be able to track things like intercontinental ballistic missiles. We shall have to enter that field which is more expensive than any we have previously contemplated.
The matter which has been discussed on a number of occasions, of integrating Canadian defence production with that of the United States, has caused a great deal of apprehension. Already official thinking suggests that integration of defence production and the United States and Canadian economies must shortly follow integration of air defences. The reasons are clearly apparent. Canada's air defence system based on the present radar screens and the subsonic CF-100 fighter is now admitted to be out of date. The present air defence system was designed some years ago to defend the country against the primary offensive weapon then available to the U.S.S.R. namely the non-jet TU-4 bombers. But much faster turbo-prop and jet planes such as the Bison, the Soviet's intercontinental jet bomber, as well as supersonic jet bombers now being developed, make this air defence system obsolescent.
This is one of the reasons why the United States government has been given permission to conduct the survey announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the House of Commons on May 21. It is almost a foregone conclusion that this survey will result in the decisions to introduce the United States semi-automatic ground environment weapon known as Sage into Canadian air defence. This system is being installed in the United States, and it has been felt for some time that the same would have to be done in Canada if successful air defence integration of the two countries is to be achieved. Sage, an electronic computer capable of making 9,600 mathematical calculations per second, will automatize ground control operations. An integral part of the Sage system is Bomarc, a ground to air guided missile capable of being fitted with an atomic warhead. With the co-ordination of Sage and Bomarc it is considered possible to employ mass interception against a mass raid by jet bombers.
Canada is faced with a twofold problem. The Sage-Bomarc system will impose a tremendous financial burden on this country

as well as make it even more dependent on the technological and production skills of the United States. On the other hand, this system provides no defence whatsoever against intercontinental ballistic missiles. Therefore in order to prepare against manned jet bombers and at the same time prepare against attack's from I.C.B.M.'s, both the Sage-Bomarc and some other as yet undeveloped antimissile system must be developed. Canada is incapable of developing either system by herself.
There is no question about Canada's ability to manufacture a Sage computer based on the United States design. However, the drawback is that according to defence experts the cost of production of a single computer in Canada would be about double the estimated cost of $25 million in the United States. Then there is the recently developed high powered, long range radar now in production in the United States. These sets will have to be installed along Canada's side of the Pinetree defence line. Again these are too costly to manufacture in Canada and will have to be bought in the United States.
The implications for the Canadian economy are becoming increasingly apparent. It is reported that defence officials have come to the conclusion that Canadian industry will have to manufacture component parts for United States assemblies. The future pattern is clear. Canadian industry, if it is to get any share at all in the production of the new and complex equipment needed in the air defence of Canada, will have to content itself with participating as subcontractors in large United States production programs.
Canada is continually being faced with the problem of raising money for defence, and certainly the present requirement of over $1J billion is not a small amount. But these units cost $50 million each, and large numbers are necessary. Canada finds itself subjected to participating in the program of defending the North American continent. That is one of the reasons why we in this group opposed the entry of Canada into the NORAD agreement.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before lunch we were drawing attention to the fact that the committee had stated that the expenditures had become increasingly large over a period of years, and the tendency appears

to be continuing. If we follow the same line of reasoning that we have followed in the past the economic burden is going to put us closely in the shadow of the United States. It is precisely because of this seemingly inevitable tie-up with the United States on the economic level that it is of great importance to avoid putting ourselves in a politically subordinate position to the United States.
While we cannot avoid becoming more and more dependent on the United States if we are to meet our air defence requirements, we can avoid making it bilateral. It is one thing to surrender sovereign rights in a multilateral treaty to such a body as NATO or the United Nations; it is an entirely different matter to surrender sovereignty to a single country in a bilateral agreement. In the case of Canada it is the latter which is accomplished in the exchange of notes affecting a form of integration of the air defences of North America. It would seem imperative from the point of view of the loss of Canada's political sovereignty to a single nation that ways and means be found to make the North American defence organization directly responsible and subordinate to the NATO command. This point of view has been ably set out in Le Devoir, which comments as follows:
Canada, as a member of NATO, shares In the defence of western Europe. Would It not be wiser and more logical to place the defence of our tremendous territory in the north in the framework of the Atlantic pact? The protection of our Arctic region is important not only for the United States but for the whole Atlantic coalition.
To instal radar posts in the north, we have negotiated directly and only with the United States. The D.E.W. line is already out of date, for its equipment cannot disclose ballistic projectiles travelling at a high altitude. Probably therefore this network will have to be amplified and improved which will accentuate the intervention and authority of Washington on Canadian soil.
For our air defence, we have negotiated an agreement which is already in force, it seems, and in this system installed at Colorado Springs there is an American commander who has authority over the air forces of the two countries. Are we in the same way going to negotiate directly with Washington a bilateral pact for bases of nuclear projectiles.
This is a reprint from the Ottawa Journal of May 26, 1958.
Because of our economic structure we are continually having to compete with and assist and in some cases supply the auxiliary services which are necessary not only for the defence of our own country but of the United States. It would appear that if this is continued over the years it will mean not only the economic bankruptcy of our country but also the loss of our sovereignty to the United States, if we continue to enter into bilateral agreements such as NORAD.
57071-3-204i
Supply-National Defence
If the defence of Canada is continued for the next few years at the same rate and in the various fields I have outlined, Canada is going to reach the position it has now reached, I would suggest, with the CF-105. The CF-105 was built not at the insistence of this government but at the insistence of the previous government. In my opinion, and I am only one of many, the CF-105 is a remarkable aircraft. It probably brings us into a position equal to that we reached by building the Mosquito bomber at the end of the last war.
Relatively speaking this plane compares favourably with, if it is not better than, any other plane of its type in the world; but I wonder whether the Canadian people can afford this type of luxury. While it is true we have developed the CF-105 at a cost of something over $200 million, the total program which is already blocked out will cost something over $1 billion. I am wondering whether the Canadian people are in the position of being able to enjoy the luxury that they appear to have effected for themselves in the building, the designing and the development of this particular type of aircraft.
I agree with the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition this morning when he said the committee also endorsed the idea that there should be no expansion program of this type ever undertaken by the Canadian people again without consultation with, and without getting orders from and the approval of, other countries interested in this particular field, and particularly the NATO countries. I think the CF-105 points out as well as anything does the position that Canada is going to find itself in if it looks at the situation in terms of our old line thinking on defence.
There have been suggestions made in other fields which I think are going to be endorsed, such as an investigation into civil defence. I think the committee was of the opinion that civil defence should be put back into this department under the Minister of National Defence. I am not sure that he wants it there, but I think that is where it belongs. Greater reliance must be put on the role of civil defence in the case of an atomic attack. In this field the militia can be very advantageous if they are fitted into it and do not become supernumerary to the authorities who will be controlling civil defence.
Over the years the C.C.F. have advocated a decrease in the expenditures on national defence. Today we are spending very close to one-third of our income to pay for defence which is inadequate, which cannot by any stretch of the imagination protect our major

Supply-National Defence cities from attack by an enemy agent. Therefore we should look very closely at those expenditures. We suggest that greater reliance must be put on other phases of defence. In the United Nations Canada, as a middle of the road power, should take the lead and speak for disarmament. While there are many obstacles-and we have heard them all- there are many advantages in disarmament on an international scale. We could better the lot of the Canadian people much more by spending a few million dollars on aid to other countries that need aid and helping the world to bring about disarmament in a reasonable manner so that we could, as we must, reduce our expenditure on defence, which is a wasted asset no matter how we look at it.
Finally, I suggest that the minister should give very careful consideration not only to participating in bringing about disarmament but to giving leadership to the world in that regard. In the past we gave a lead in setting up an international police force, and we have been quite successful in our approach in that field. I think Canada can accomplish a great deal more by helping the world find a way to permanent peace than by developing such programs as the CF-105. If we are going to spend, let us spend in a field that will produce peace rather than war.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, if there is no more discussion on general policy perhaps I should take a minute or two to answer some of the questions that have been raised. First of all may I, without any qualification at all, express my appreciation to the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member who has just spoken for the very helpful contributions they have made to the discussion of the general problem of national defence. I could not agree more heartily with anybody than with the Leader of the Opposition when he referred to the close link that exists between defence policy and foreign policy. The two go together, and until some complete and effective system of inspection and disarmament has been worked out amongst the nations of the world we have to maintain a reasonable defence. As soon as the powers get together and decide that wars will be no more then, as one who has taken part in two wars and seen something of the disturbed conditions since, that achievement will not be welcomed more heartily by anyone than by me.
To answer some of the definite questions asked and problems raised by the Leader of the Opposition, may I say that first of all he referred to a white paper and an annual report. As I pointed out this morning, we are really finishing up a program which had been under way since 1950, and as annual reports usually are rather out of date by the time

the estimates are discussed and as there is no statutory requirement obliging us to produce an annual report, I thought it was unnecessary to go to that expense this year. Next year we will have to start to get ready for this new era of defence, and I assure the committee that we will then prepare at least a white paper which will spell out our proposals in detail.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to the dilemma which exists. He pointed out the problems which have to be solved. I am not in a position today to put forward a solution to these problems. I am not quite certain on what horn of the dilemma I must rest. We have to collect more information before we make a decision which will affect the security of the country and mean the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars over many years. As I stated in the committee, before the end of the year a decision will have to be reached in respect to many of these very difficult problems. They are with me every day and pretty nearly 24 hours of every day. Solutions will be reached and will be presented to parliament in due course.
With regard to the change of emphasis in connection with the idea of expeditionary forces, as both I and the Leader of the Opposition have pointed out the situation has changed. We are not planning to send any large expeditionary forces overseas in the early days of a war. But we do believe, and I think the Leader of the Opposition agrees, in the necessity of retaining what are frequently referred to as conventional arms. I see a growing need for contributions to be made to United Nations organizations, whether on a permanent basis or whether on an ad hoc basis of sending such forces when the need arises. We have to be ready to make our contribution to the preservation of peace, perhaps in many far distant parts of the world. I have that very much in mind, and it will be mainly conventional arms which will make that contribution.
But we do not have to maintain all the conventional arms as of old and, as I indicated last year, we have discontinued divisional headquarters and many of what are termed the divisional troops of the last war are not being maintained by Canada. I indicated in my remarks this morning, and I think this shows how we are progressing and not trying to maintain old establishments, that we have decided to decommission two cruisers. In the past these cruisers played a very important role in the defence of Canada, but conditions have changed and we are now going to declare these two grand vessels, which rendered great service to Canada in the past, surplus to our modern requirements.

Mention was made of the Bomarc. I should like to point out that the Bomarc is not in operation yet. If we wanted to get a Bomarc today we could not get one. Hon. members will have noticed in yesterday's paper that reference was made to what I think is the first experiment linking the Bomarc with a firing by remote control of one of these missiles now in the course of development. We are watching the development of this missile with great interest.
The Leader of the Opposition asked some questions regarding expenditures made in connection with the CF-105. The correct figure is that some $220 million was expended in the research and development of this aircraft prior to this year. In these estimates we have allocated $175 million for the further development of this aircraft which, if it is proceeded with-and we have the right to discontinue it at any time-will carry on development until March 31 of next year.
Reference was made to the proposal for further integration between the logistic and administrative services of the armed forces. The committee recommended that there should be further unification between such services as the chaplain service, medical service and provost service. We are moving in that direction. We have within recent months authorized that all the definitive hospitals should become tri-service hospitals. We have meetings scheduled for the immediate future to see whether it will not be possible to make further progress in the integration of the medical services. Some aspects of the provost services have already been integrated. So far as the chaplain service is concerned, we are seeking authority to appoint a chaplain-general, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, who would supervise that service for all three services.
I must point out to the committee, however, that while there will be some economies effected and I think simpler administration, this integration cannot provide any very significant reduction in the over-all budget. But we are seeking every possible way of saving even small amounts of money.
I cannot agree with the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the C.C.F. group that our defences are completely out of date; that is not so. We have an adequate defence to meet the possible attack of today. We are trying to keep our defences up to date and improve all the time, so we will be able to cope with the means of attack in future years. It would be disturbing and quite incorrect to allow a statement like that to go across the country. It would shatter confidence throughout the land, and I am quite certain that is not correct.
Supply-National Defence
In so far as the cost-sharing of production is concerned, that is more in the realm of defence production than it is a question for the defence department. But I am inclined to agree that we should give very careful consideration, if ever again we go into the production of some complete weapons system, to this aspect of the matter. I do not believe the hon. member speaking for the C.C.F. party was very consistent, because at one point he referred to Canada possibly becoming a subcontractor for the United States in future developments, yet at the same time he agreed we could not go into the production of one complete system. I would hope that it might be possible at some future date, provided we can carry out the research which is necessary and get in on the ground floor, that we might as partners, not as subcontractors, work together in some future production program.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-
223. Civil Pensions, as detailed in the estimates, $2,457.
William Arnold Peters: Do these pensions apply to the armed services?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, this does not refer to the armed services.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
504. To authorize in the current and subsequent fiscal years, under such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council prescribes, a capital assistance loan to the Town of Oromocto, New Brunswick, to be covered by town debentures, for the purpose of assisting in the completion of the physical development of municipal works and the further development of the town's assets, $2,000,000.
William Arnold Peters: I do not know under what section it comes, but I should like to ask the minister if he has given any consideration to this matter of insurance for armed service personnel while they are not on duty? This matter has been discussed in the past, and I was wondering if any further consideration had been given to it. I refer to the possibility of a soldier in Germany, while on active service but on leave of absence or off duty at night, meeting with an accident or being killed.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, there are some very difficult cases which arise in that respect. It is sometimes quite difficult to draw a line between when a soldier is on duty and when he is off duty. This matter is receiving the consideration of departmental officials.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: This completes the estimates of the Department of National Defence.

Supply-Defence Production



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
78. Departmental administration and payments to Canadian Commercial Corporation and other corporate agencies for services provided in connection with defence purchasing and production, $7,232,086.
Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister going to make a statement in connection with his estimates?


Mr. O'Hurley:: I rise today for the first time, Mr. Chairman, to present the estimates of the Department of Defence Production. I had not thought of making any lengthy statement. I made a detailed statement in committee which I distributed to the members of the committee. In rising I wish to extend, as the Minister of National Defence has done, my thanks to the members of the committee on estimates for the splendid work they have done. I should like also to extend my thanks and appreciation to the chairman of that committee for the preparation made and the manner in which discussions were conducted.
I should like, right at the beginning, to deal with the recommendations which were made by this committee on estimates. In dealing with these suggestions I should like to offer certain explanations which I think the members of this committee should have.
(Translation):
Hon. members of the committee, as this is the first time I am submitting the estimates of my department, I want first of all to ask the hon. members' indulgence. Also, I would like to comment, right at the beginning of my remarks, on the suggestion and advice given by the committee on estimates, where I appeared some time ago.
This is the first time I am presenting my estimates, and I hope to have the opportunity to submit many more in the years to come. This is just a wish I am expressing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: For three years.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I shall now explain in English the decisions taken by the committee on estimates and give the reasons for certain statements. You may be assured that my officials and I are most interested in studying any comments that were made and in making such changes and improvements as members of the committee saw fit to suggest.
(Text):
In dealing with the destroyer escort program the report of the standing committee on estimates raises three questions, as follows; first, the importance of establishing the final unit costs of an individual ship soon after its completion; second, the desirability of introducing in shipbuilding a target plus incentive type of contract; and third, the
[The Deputy Chairman.]
importance of giving the shipbuilding industry increasing opportunities to suggest ways of cost reductions.
These three points discussed in committee are well taken. I would, however, like to comment upon them and to offer the assurance to this house that the Department of Defence Production has taken action on each of them.
In determining the final cost of a ship in the destroyer escort program it must be recognized that we are dealing with a program of 14 identical ships under various stages of construction in seven different shipyards. The determination of final unit costs is influenced by the program characteristics of this construction rather than by the completion of any single ship.
Of the material going into the ships, about 95 per cent is procured centrally and not by the individual shipbuilder. This includes the main engines, boilers, gearing, armament, electronic gear, turbines and related equipment. The total production of these major components extends over the life of the program. Accordingly the determination of final unit costs for such components can be precisely established only after the entire requirement of 14 ship sets is complete. As a result it is possible that the material costs of an individual ship are not likely to be known until the production and cost of components for the entire program is complete.
It would be possible to determine the costs independently of each ship set of components as it is delivered. This, however, would distort the individual shipbuilder's costs. In other words, the first unit of production would bear all the pre-production expenses incurred to that time. For this reason the unit costs of material are averaged over the ships in the program, and can be defined with precision only after all such material costs are known. At the present time eight ships of the destroyer escort program have been accepted. It will not be before the end of 1959 that all the remaining ships in the 14-ship program will be finally accepted.
This delay in the determination of final costs will be reduced in future programs where the development expenses are not significant and material is procured on the basis of a firm price or a variation of the firm price. Although there are other factors which contribute to this delay, I shall not attempt to deal with them at this time. The basic contributing factor is that already discussed.
This department recognizes the difficulties inherent in the cost plus contract. As a result of such experience there was introduced in our last major shipbuilding program

for coastal minesweepers a target plus incentive type of contract. By this and related measures substantial savings were realized in ship construction. By way of illustration, the man hour expenditures on this minesweeper program of six ships were reduced on an average by 30 per cent of those for a previous program for corresponding minesweepers.
In the new destroyer escort program the planning and contractual techniques developed in the minesweeper program referred to will be applied. I am confident that the results will demonstrate substantial economies over our earlier experience.
On the question of improving the liaison with the Canadian shipbuilding industry to the end of achieving reductions in cost, I am in accord with the recommendation of the estimates committee in this connection. In recent years there has been maintained the closest and most intimate liaison with the shipbuilding industry. My department has at all times studied, with units of the shipbuilding industry, problems of scheduling, planning, procurement and production. This has been done not only with individual shipbuilders but also with the Canadian shipbuilding and ship repairing association, by means of committees, consultation, exchange of technical data and other measures. This has at all times had as its objective improved efficiency and lower costs. I would go so far as to say that in few if any branches of industry has there been a more effective exchange of ideas and liaison than the exchange which exists between the Department of Defence Production and the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
Considerable thought has been given to the question of accepting performance bonds and/or pay and performance bonds to secure Defence Construction (1951) Limited contracts. A decision to change to a system of accepting performance bonds has not been reached but is now under review. The considerations affecting the use of such bonds are, first, both the Department of Public Works and Defence Construction (1951) Limited are subject to the government contracts regulations under the Financial Administration Act, which call for security deposits in the form of a certified cheque or government bonds; second, the possibility that general introduction of surety bonds would increase the cost of construction to the crown; third, it is not clear that the use of performance bonds would have as desirable an effect on the satisfactory completion of the work-for example, the incentive to complete the work by a release of cash would be absent-fourth, fear of unwieldiness of
Supply-Defence Production this practice because of the introduction of a third party to contend with in the event of disputes and difficulties in the administration of the contract; fifth, inequality of tendering opportunity, the likely difficulty on the part of small contractors in remote areas in obtaining insurance coverage.
I shall make other comments on the crown assets corporation and other recommendations which have been made by the committee as time progresses.


Lionel Chevrier: I would like to ask the
minister one or two questions, if I may, but before I do so I am sure the house would want me to extend to him congratulations upon this, his first presentation of the estimates of the Department of Defence Production, and to extend to him best wishes in the performance of his duties in that department. He will be, or so I take it, presenting the estimates of the department for the remainder of this parliament, though I think he will allow me to dissent with his view that that situation should continue after this parliament.
The questions uppermost in my mind are these; first, what ships are entrusted to the minister's department for construction? While I heard him make a statement a moment ago, it was difficult to follow the nature of that statement as he made it and I am interested in knowing which ships now under construction by the government are entrusted for construction to the Department of Defence Production. A statement was made by the Minister of Transport at Kingston some time ago-in fact, to be more exact, during the election campaign-as to a number of ships allocated to various yards prompts me to put this question. Was this done through the Department of Defence Production or through the Department of Transport?
My second question is with respect to the allocation of these ships. How does the department proceed? Is it by way of tender? Does the contract go to the yard submitting the lowest tender, or how?
My third and last question is, are contracts of a fixed nature allocated by the minister's department? I have in mind contracts for a fixed price; are there some cases of a nature not contemplated in the ordinary course of construction in other departments which warrant the granting of a ship contract at a fixed price and, if so, would the minister be good enough to tell the house of any example or examples of which he may know of such case or cases?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: In reply to the hon. member for Laurier, I wish to first thank him for his good wishes, though he did not extend them in respect of future parliaments and

Supply-Defence Production in that, of course, I cannot concur. In reply to the first question, the Department of Defence Production generally builds only naval ships for the Department of National Defence. We do not do any building for the Department of Transport. We build the ships that come under national defence. The second question dealt with the allocation of ship contracts to the different shipyards. This is done on the recommendation of the maritime commission. With regard to the third question, contracts for the building of small naval vessels have been awarded on the basis of a fixed price, but the target plus procedure is followed with regard to larger vessels.


Lionel Chevrier: Do I understand that this commission recommends not only the yard but also the allocation of a fixed or contract price as well? Or is that done in the minister's department.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: No. The maritime commission recommends a shipyard. They make a report that a certain yard should have a certain contract at a certain time perhaps because it is out of work and has no contracts on hand. Other yards might be more suitable, but possibly they would have a number of contracts on hand.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a word to say about the recommendations of the estimate committee to which the minister has already referred. I take it from the minister's remarks that he has some doubt about the validity or value of recommendation 1(a) on the destroyer escort program, and that in so far as recommendation 1(b) is concerned he believes that the shipbuilding industry has in the past been given full opportunity to consult with the department in respect of ways and means of keeping the cost of ships to a minimum and, that therefore the recommendation in that particular paragraph has already been carried out. I also gather that with regard to the recommendation as to the desirability, which we all share, of making sure that the work for which the department is responsible should go wherever possible to Canadian industry, that the minister is not opposed to this recommendation, of course, but feels that along with the others it is already part of the policy of the department, and that it is in that sense only that he finds they are unacceptable.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: In reply to the Leader of the Opposition I would say I agree absolutely with his remarks. It is the policy which has been followed, and we are still following that practice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just have a brief question to put to the minister, and one comment to make. On June 30 of this year the

minister made a reply in answer to a question which I put to him previously in writing, question No. 101. The return is to be found at page 1791 of Hansard for June 30. My question was:
1.	Has the government, through the Department of Defence Production, recently awarded contracts for the purchase of trucks from the Ford Motor Company of Canada and from Mercedes-Benz Limited?
2.	If so, how many from each company, and what was the amount of the respective contracts?
The minister was kind enough to reply, and without going into the details of that reply I may say it showed that $592,976.14 was spent in purchases of trucks from a Canadian company, the Ford Motor Company of Canada, and an amount of $363,817.63 for trucks purchased from a foreign corporation manufacturing this product outside of the country and in the country of origin, the company being Mercedes-Benz of Canada Limited.
The minister will understand my concern about this return in the absence of satisfactory explanations. I have in the constituency which I represent, and in the community from which I come, two of the large automobile plants of Canada. It is a community in which, as the minister knows, there continues to be a high level of unemployment at the moment, and it is somewhat difficult in the absence of a satisfactory explanation to understand why there should be these purchases from abroad, particularly when the articles purchased are not intended to be used by Canadian citizens as such but by officials in the employ of the crown in the right of Canada.
I understand that the argument made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to whom a comment was directed some time ago on this subject when his estimates were under consideration, was to the effect that it was necessary to have some balance between what a country bought and what it sold, but it seems to me that at a time like this with so much unemployment it could confidently be argued that we ought to be careful about making purchases of this kind.
The minister will note that in the report of the committee a reference is made in a general way not to this particular matter but to the character of the problem involved. In recommendation 3(2) it is urged by the committee that the Department of Defence Production should distribute purchases as broadly as possible in Canada. Under the rules of the house it was not possible to frame a question in such a way-so I was informed at the time-as to elicit information of a general character which would show whether or not there had been other purchases of this character at that time or since.

I understand that the Department of Defence Production acts simply as a purchasing agent, and it is not a question now of allocating responsibility or blame. But as the minister made this reply I hope he will be in a position to explain to the committee why, at a time when there is so much unemployment, particularly in my area, it should have been found desirable and necessary to purchase trucks and other motor vehicles in the proportions indicated in the reply made to me.
It may be argued that since there are Canadian troops overseas there was more to be gained by purchasing products from a company operating in the area where Canadian troops are located, in the interests of economy, in the interests of saving time and for the sake of efficiency generally. But on examination of the items I find that some of the vehicles purchased from both the Ford Motor Company of Canada and the foreign corporation are of the same type. For instance, on January 24 some 120 3-ton dump trucks were purchased from the Ford Motor Company in the amount of $384,197. Then on April 22 five of the same kind of vehicles were purchased from a foreign corporation, and likewise on May 21 more trucks were purchased. I should be very grateful to the minister if he would give us an explanation of this situation, possibly informing the committee what the practice is going to be in the future.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: In reply to the hon. member for Essex East may I state that I know the recommendation made by the committee in this connection was that the department was to purchase as much as possible in Canada. After consulting my officials I am pleased to report to the members of this committee, first, that the vehicles bought during the past year in Europe were bought essentially for our troops overseas. One of the reasons for this given by the officials of my department concerns economy with respect to repairs to the vehicles and the obtaining of parts. If the vehicles are purchased there they can be readily serviced and parts are easily obtainable.
I am greatly in sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East. Together with my officials I shall study this question when I have an opportunity to examine matters of this kind. Our policy is to encourage all industry in Canada. I think perhaps there might be some change in this policy of procuring vehicles for our troops.
The statement I wish to make to the committee in answer to the question with respect to our purchasing in Canada is that it is clearly desirable on economic and strategic grounds that defence production purchases 57071-3-205
Supply-Defence Production be distributed as widely as possible throughout the country. I assure hon. members of the committee that we have considered and shall continue to consider this factor in awarding our contracts within the general context of distributing our purchases for defence production as widely as possible in obtaining supplies and services. I assure the hon. member that my officials and I will certainly study the question.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, there is only one point I should like to make, and that is with reference to the comments of the minister concerning performance bonds in defence construction contracts. This matter has given me some concern because of the rather frustrating and bitter experiences I had representing as a solicitor the suppliers of materials and subcontractors for defence projects, where perhaps a general contractor had gone bankrupt or had become involved in certain financial difficulties because of the fact that it is impossible under law to file and maintain a mechanics lien against this type of crown property. It leaves the contractor, the subcontractor and the supplier in a rather difficult position, and one which is much inferior to the position they enjoy when carrying out normal commercial construction.
It may be said this is a calculated risk the contractor or supplier takes; but I would put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that if a contractor or supplier is going to take a calculated risk on this sort of thing he is going to protect himself in some measure by a price increase. I am wondering if the effect of the practice is not to increase the cost to the crown of some of these defence projects by reason of the fact that there is no way through a pay and performance bond or even a straight performance bond of achieving protection.
I would prefer to see established a pay and performance bond. I have seen the effect of such bonds in construction in my own province, and the recommendation of the committee certainly has much to commend it. I have seen the experience of ordinary performance bonds in construction carried on by other departments of the federal government, notably the Department of Public Works. Recently in Edmonton there was a very unfortunate bankruptcy during the construction of a federal building, and if it had not been for a performance bond the Department of Public Works would have been in a most difficult situation and the building program would have been held up for some considerable time.
Fully appreciating the thoughts expressed by the minister as to the value of a cash deposit rather than a performance bond, I would point out that while either answer is

Supply-Defence Production neither totally correct nor totally wrong it does not represent a complete answer. In the case of a cash deposit the contractor must put up 10 per cent of the value of the tender. As we all know, some of the defence contracts are rather extensive and the large sum of money represented by the cash deposit is tied up for some considerable length of time. The contractor has to borrow that money and pay interest on it. The interest is charged to the crown through the tender price.
I am wondering whether the crown is getting as good a deal as it would if it adopted the policy of using pay and performance bonds or ordinary performance bonds. Admittedly the contractor will charge up the premium, but due to the fact that moneys are held on deposit for long periods of time interest must be paid during this time, and I feel an examination would suggest that there might be a greater element of cost to the crown as a result of the practice of requiring a cash deposit by the contractor. I recommend to the minister that most serious consideration be given to the alternatives rather than adhering to the policy of requiring a cash bond. I believe the committee has made a worth-while suggestion in this respect, and I would commend it to the minister.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: In reply to the hon. member for Edmonton West, as I said previously public works and Defence Construction Limited are subject to the Financial Administration Act. The comments made by the committee are very worth while. I am informed by my officials that it is not really the responsibility of defence production but it should be a recommendation to the treasury board. I am informed that they are studying the question of performance bonds at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Arsenals Limited-
83. Administration and operation, $1,800,000.
Mr. Mcllraiih:: I wonder if the minister would mind explaining what appears from the form of the estimates to be a new item, No. 83. I understand it is largely a matter of form, but I should appreciate having the minister explain it to the committee.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I shall be glad to do so, Mr. Chairman. In previous years, because much work was being done in the factories of Canadian Arsenals Limited, we did not require this item, vote No. 83. Since the beginning of this year production has constantly been going down, and we do not conceive of there being much amelioration in the months to come. That is the reason this vote is necessary.
Vote 83 is the one I singled out as showing a marked change from last year. These are

the comments I made in committee. I should explain that since its establishment in 1945 one of the responsibilities of Canadian Arsenals Limited has been the maintenance in serviceable condition of certain facilities which were developed under crown ownership during or prior to world war II and which the government wished to conserve.
In the company's early years costs related to this custodial responsibility were defrayed by parliamentary votes. Later, with the development of the defence program because of the Korean crisis, the volume of production work became adequate to meet expenses out of sales and thus a nominal figure of $1 a year was submitted to cover operating costs.
Based on studies during the past several years the company estimates that a minimum economic volume of about $40 million in sales is required each year to permit the company's functions to be carried out on a self-supporting basis. According to the orders currently on hand, a probable sales volume of only $30 million is expected in 1958-59, or 25 per cent less than the above mentioned economic volume. On this basis, the company anticipates a manufacturing loss of some $2,300,000, which is expected to be reduced by miscellaneous revenue of around $500,000, derived mainly from services and rentals, thus producing the net possible requirement for the current year of $1,800,000 as shown in the estimates.


George James McIlraith: Would the minister mind telling us what plants of Canadian Arsenals are inactive at the moment?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I am informed that none of our plants is out of operation. All of our plants are operating. We keep them all operating as much as possible but on a much lower schedule than before, but all of our plants are going to be kept in operation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
541. To provide capital assistance tor the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts, or by Crown Plants operated on a management-fee basis, or by Crown Companies under direction of the Minister of Defence Production, subject to approval of treasury board-further amount required, $1,200,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I have no questions to ask under this item, but since it is the last item of this department I think it should perhaps be put on the record that in the last hour or so we have passed estimates amounting to almost $1,750 million. The reason that we have been able to pass these estimates with such speed should be made clear on the record of Hansard. These estimates have been previously examined by a committee which has worked many hours going into them in detail; otherwise, I am

sure, Mr. Chairman, we would not have been able to get them so quickly. Perhaps that should be on Hansard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: This completes the estimates of the Department of Defence Production.
DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 383. Departmental administration, $282,666.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, last night at ten o'clock I had started to make some remarks with respect to the relationship between the employees of the federal government and their employer, namely the federal government, and was suggesting that those employees who, as I said, I would like to call public employees rather than the degrading name of civil servants, should be placed in substantially the same position as are employees of private industry, or as employees of any of the crown corporations particularly. They should have the right to organize into a union of their choice, which apparently they have and, following that, be allowed the same privileges, rights and responsibilities as are employees of crown corporations, in that the organization that they may join can apply for certification of bargaining authority under the federal labour act and be in a position to enter into negotiations with their employer, the federal government, in somewhat the same manner as do employees of crown corporations, such as the C.N.R. You might expect that the ultimate result of negotiations conducted in this fashion, if no satisfactory settlement is reached across the bargaining table, or with the assistance of a conciliation board, would be either a strike by or a lockout of our public employees. I am sure that many of them do not want to extend this type of relationship to the point of there being the possibility of a strike or a lockout.
There is a general understanding prevalent in the country at the moment, I think, that public employees and employees of the federal government do not have the right to walk out on strike. I would submit that that same impression was prevalent with respect to the British Columbia government employees up until last year when the organization of the British Columbia government employees, because of the difficulties they got into and because of their inability to get any satisfactory answer or solutions from the government of that province, decided that they would go out on strike. They did not reach the stage of ending up in a strike but nevertheless we now realize that in so far as the province of British
57071-3-205J
Supply-Secretary of State Columbia is concerned, the employees of the provincial government of that province do have the right to strike. I assume the same situation exists with respect to the federal government but I am not suggesting that the establishment of some sensible negotiating procedure for our public employees in the federal field should extend to that end, and I am sure that they would not want it to extend to that end, either.
We can look at the position of firefighters employed by municipalities. In effect those employees as firefighters are in no position different from that of the employees of the federal government except that their employer is a different person. Firefighters work for a municipality and are therefore in the public service. Federal government employees work for the federal government of Canada and they are in the public service. I might add that other municipal employees are likewise in the same position. They have had established for them a procedure somewhat similar to that which I am suggesting at the moment. There should be a change in our attitude toward public employees and we should give them the same rights, responsibilities and privileges or substantially the same rights, responsibilities and privileges, I should say, in labour-management relations as have employees working for crown corporations, municipalities or private employers.
I know that this approach has been advanced in years past just as it is being advanced now. I submit that there is just as much validity to the argument in favour of this type of arrangement as there has been in any of the years in the past, and I hope the minister will undertake to express an opinion in this regard and announce some policy that will allow employees in the public service of Canada the right to conduct their discussions relating to wages, working hours, dismissals and grievances and so on, in a fashion that will permit an amicable solution to be found.
I submit that generally speaking there is no channel for finding solutions for some of these problems. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that in recent days there was a discussion respecting the discharge of an employee in the Department of Agriculture working in the Montreal area. That is merely one case which has been discussed and it points up the necessity of providing some channel through which sensible discussion of these matters can take place. If there is failure after such discussion takes place then these matters should be placed in the hands of an outside tribunal to make a decision not only with

Supply-Secretary of State respect to grievances arising from discharge but with respect to other conditions of employment.


Hon. Henri Courlemanche (Secretary of State):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to thank hon. members who were kind enough to express to me their good wishes on the occasion of my birthday. I was indeed touched by their kind words in wishing a prompt recovery for my wife. I can assure my hon. friends that their gracious consideration and kind words are much appreciated.
I will make a statement to the hon. member for Skeena when we are discussing the civil service commission but I should like to answer the remarks that the hon. member for Ottawa East made yesterday. In the course of general remarks which the hon. member for Ottawa East made in the house on the seventh instant with respect to the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State, the civil service commission, the office of the chief electoral officer and the department of public printing and stationery, the hon. member inquired as to the progress of the work of the royal commission on patents, copyrights, trade-marks and industrial designs.
Hon. members will recall that on June 10, 1958, pursuant to an inquiry directed to me by the hon. member for Ottawa East, I tabled the commission's report on copyrights. I am now pleased to announce that the commission's report on industrial designs was submitted to and accepted by the governor in council on the seventh instant and will be deposited with the Clerk of the house today. As to the commission's next report, which will deal with patents of invention, it is not expected to be submitted before some time next year, in the spring, it is hoped.
It has already been explained many times in the house that the assignment of the royal commission was of considerable magnitude and complexity and that the members of the commission can devote only a part of their time to this assignment as they have to continue the discharge of their normal functions. I should perhaps add that inquiries of this sort in other countries, in the United Kingdom, for instance, have usually extended over a considerable period of time.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I should like to offer special thanks to the hon. members for Hull (Mr. Caron) and Ottawa West (Mr. Richard) for their kind words on the occasion of my birthday.
I also want to say how much I appreciated their courtesy in mentioning my wife who is

now in hospital, but who, I hope, will very soon be able to come home.
As my department groups four different branches, I shall gladly answer all questions asked as each division comes up for discussion.
(Text):


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: I am very happy that the report on industrial designs will be tabled today. Is the personnel of the commission the same or have any of the members resigned? I noticed that the minister did not indicate anything about trade-marks.


Henri Courtemanche: We do not know yet if we will have anything on trade-marks but I would say to the hon. member that the members of the commission on industrial designs are the same. One man has resigned but has acted until the completion of the report.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I appreciate the comment of the minister that probably questions relating to public employees should be dealt with under the vote for the civil service commission. I had intended to deal with the matter under that vote except that it was raised last night and I thought it might be well to have a continuity of comment. I should like to suggest that the minister should consider one other matter with regard to the relationships between the federal government and its employees and perhaps he might comment on it on the civil service commission vote. I understand that so far as some of the employees of some of the crown corporations are concerned a system has been developed of establishing wage rates and relationships between wage rates which is commonly referred to as a job evaluation program or a co-operative wage study as it is known in other circles.
While I do not intend to give blanket en-dorsation to every type of job evaluation program that has been developed, most of them in private industry, nevertheless I feel that if a job evaluation program is developed by negotiation between employees and employer and is established on sound, scientific principles for determining wage rates and differences between categories it may be most beneficial both for the employees and the employer, in this case the federal government. I suggest that we should consider the establishment of a job evaluation program for federal government employees. I do not mean that it should be developed by the government and then imposed on the employees as a fait accompli. The government should not say, "Here is the plan that we have developed." I do not think that is a sensible way to develop such a program.

But if the federal government is desirous of entering into such a job evaluation program, and I commend the general idea very highly although not all types of such programs, then it should be done only by negotiation and discussion with the organizations representing the employees in the manner and spirit of collective bargaining so that the manual or base on which the program works will be agreed upon mutually first before it is put into effect. I would say also that such a program requires a fairly large degree of acceptance, probably 75 to 80 per cent of the employees affected, if the plan is to be of any great benefit. I reiterate that if the government is going to go into the field, and I suggest that it should, a plan should not be imposed upon the employees but that it should be negotiated with their representatives and, second, that there should be a pretty high percentage of acceptance by the employees themselves. This is one other facet of the question, in addition to that of the procedure of negotiation, with which I dealt earlier, upon which I hope the minister will comment when the civil service vote is under consideration.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have some specific questions I want to ask concerning the chief electoral officer and the civil service, but there was one general suggestion that I wished to make. I could make it to the Minister of Justice, the Minister of National Revenue, or the Secretary of State. I make it to the Secretary of State because he is the one who filed the answer to a question I asked about those books which, in the past year, had been banned from Canada because the people in the Department of National Revenue felt they were not up to the proper standard.
This whole question of the censorship of books, especially obscene literature, is one that is very much to the fore. It has been mentioned by quite a number of members. The suggestion I wanted to make to the Secretary of State was this. The list I received only covered the books that were banned within the last year. There is a much more extensive list, possibly covering 500 books. In the short list I received there were several books that I had read, some of which were out and out smut and had no business being in the country. Their literary merit was nil. This is my opinion, of course, and I expect it could be challenged by other people.
Since it is likely there will be legislation introduced next year concerning this question, I thought it might be a good idea for the Secretary of State to make arrangements to obtain copies of all of those books that
Supply-Secretary of State have been banned by our so-called censorship authorities, not for general reading at all, but so that members of parliament could look at what has been decided in the past as being improper or unfit for Canadians to read. We would, in this way, get a much better idea of how the system has worked in the past. There have been many complaints about the system; that it has been a hit or miss affair; that it has been applied by men without any literary judgment, and so on. It seems to me that by adopting this suggestion we would bring home to members of parliament just what has been considered dangerous or bad reading for Canadians. It would give us a chance to assess, quite frankly, some of the various degrees of pornography, some of which are interwoven with aspects of literature.
I believe the Secretary of State would be the minister to do this because he tends to interrelate the activities of a number of departments in an official way. I would not make any official recommendation as to what should be done with the books after legislation has been introduced and after members of parliament have read them. I am not making this suggestion that the books be acquired in order to get members of parliament to read them, although I am sure they will show considerable interest in the rather delightful batch or miscellany that will be produced.
The points I want to make in connection with the civil service are highly derivatory. There are some suggestions made by Dr. J. J. Deutsch in an article entitled "Some Thoughts on the Public Service", which appeared in February, 1957. There are several good suggestions in this article. This gentleman worked for the public service for over 20 years, and is at present engaged by the University of British Columbia. The point that appealed to me most was his feeling that one of the prime difficulties with the civil service was that really exceptional talent did not rise to the top quickly. In his article he says:
Alongside this problem of machinery there is the matter of selecting and bringing along outstanding talent. It is my impression that this is not being done early enough or fast enough. There is too much of what the Germans call Gleichschaltung- too much holding back to the pace of the average. It is the common complaint of those who consider the civil service for a career that advancement is too slow. There may not be much substance in this complaint in the general case, but in the case of exceptional ability it is very important.
I have noticed that the gentlemen who come into the civil service with a background of Rhodes' scholarship rise with remarkable speed to the top of the public service. I have no derogatory comments to make about

Supply-Secretary of State Rhodes scholars in any way or about their background. One of the points that I would make is that the reason they do advance so quickly lies not only in the talent that they have but through their prestige and status, given by these scholarships. There is a label on them when they go into the public service to the effect that these boys are good, so they get somewhere. I have the feeling that many people who go into the public service may have ability and talent, but because they have not that little prestige label they do not advance so quickly. I believe this particular point is worth some consideration by the civil service commission.
Mr. Deutsch goes on to give this expression of opinion:
On the other hand, I do not believe there is anywhere a more impersonal organization than the civil service. The individual cannot locate anywhere the heart and conscience of the organism. There is no proprietor or general manager in the usual sense. The employee has to fall back upon rules and regulations, and, in his collective capacity, upon the passage of resolutions directed to the governing authorities and the general public. For the general body of the service there are no employee unions in the sense in which they exist in private industry. Consequently it is necessary to develop special machinery. The establishment of the national joint council has been a very important step. It is vital that the work of this council should be successful.
Then the author goes on to suggest that within departments personnel officers be given a much higher status in order that they could begin to breathe a bit of heart and personality into the machine to give the people within the service, to whom it is exceptionally impersonal and mechanical, a feeling that human considerations are very much to the fore. I would imagine that if hon. members and the minister have not had an opportunity of glancing at this piece of writing it would be worth while if the Secretary of State were to look at these general suggestions, bearing in mind what the hon. member for Skeena did bring to his attention as well as to the attention of the civil service commission.


Henri Courtemanche: The hon. member's suggestion that certain books banned by the Department of National Revenue be acquired by the library of parliament is one for consideration of the joint committee on the parliamentary library.
So far as the civil service commission is concerned, I would deal with this matter when the estimates of the department are called.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am a member of the joint committee on the library of parliament and I was going to make the suggestion there, but I felt that if these books were acquired we would be leaving ourselves open to the appearance of suggesting that they become a

permanent part of the book stock of the library of parliament. Obviously, most of them should not be given house room in any library. However, I think the members of parliament should have an opportunity to judge these books, and that is why I made the suggestion to the minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to congratulate the minister on the way in which he has managed to slip out of becoming the custodian of pornographic literature as well as the custodian of enemy property.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I have just one remark to make in respect to the statement of the hon. member for Port Arthur in which he advanced the proposition that people in the public service should advance in accordance with their ability. The hon. member for Port Arthur some days ago had occasion to remark that the proposition I put to the house contained some pretty good socialism, and I would like to say to him, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the subject about which the hon. member has been speaking seems to me like pretty good free enterprise.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The indication of the remark of the hon. member who has just spoken is that he thinks that is the situation. That is self-explanatory.


An hon. Member:: It's a good thing he thinks -a lot of you fellows don't even think.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I would like to suggest very briefly to the minister that in the case of the civil servants in the Northwest Territories we find that the housing supplied to employees of most departments, with the exception of-


Henri Courtemanche: If the hon. member will pardon me, I will have the officers of the public service before me in a moment, at which time I will be able to answer this question. The officers before me at this time have to do only with the Secretary of State branch.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
384.	Companies division, $115,535.
Douglas Mason Fisher: I have two questions concerning straight information which I would like to ask of the minister on this item. With respect to the companies division, I would like to know how much income accrued to the minister's department in this financial year from the activities of the companies division?


Henri Courtemanche: 


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is a fair amount of income. I suppose it would be possible to determine just how much surplus is embodied in that figure, although I think it would be difficult to assess the costs of this division. In the

opportunity afforded to me by the minister to spend some time in this particular division I formed the impression that this branch could be more money-making or profitable to the government. I do not mean that there should be a deliberate effort to make a profit, but it does seem to me that the service extended is a very complete one in the light of the fees charged and I was wondering whether the change in procedure in notifying companies in default, which is now being introduced, and about which the minister has informed us, will require much more money in terms of staff and time than was previously the case. If so, has any consideration been given to a further charge being made?


Henri Courtemanche: The report was tabled in this house on May 22 and the member will find at page 7 that the expenditure for the companies division will be $107,285.98. In connection with the work in respect to companies in default a temporary staff of three typists only will be required for a period of a few months.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would like to make a suggestion to the minister in respect to the practice which has, I believe, been to put all records on microfilm after the passage of five years. I suggest that it might be even cheaper to use this microfilm process after one year. I am sure the minister is far more aware than I am of the lack of file space. Perhaps one year might be too short a time, but I think very shortly after the lapse of 12 months many of these records could be put on microfilm, which would increase the available space.


Henri Courtemanche: I am informed by my officers that the files are kept for five years because they are required for that length of time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
385.	Trade-Marks division, including a contribution of $3,800 to the international office for the protection of industrial property, $190,645.
Jean-Thomas Richard: My remarks on the trade-marks division will not be extensive because I realize that the minister on another occasion-perhaps next year

* will be able to answer more fully the type of comments I would make with respect to the law. I would say, however, that it has been the experience under the new trademarks law that delays, statutory and otherwise, are very long and that the average company requiring registration of a trademark finds that it takes a very long time before it can ascertain whether this application will be granted and before it can receive a certificate.
Supply-Secretary of State
I do not think of course that it is the time to raise the question as to whether the law should be changed, but I had hope that the royal commission would have taken another look at the Trade Marks Act. I realize that this is a fairly recent act but in the light of the operation over a few years I had hoped that there would have been an investigation in order to discover whether or not it was serving its purpose and whether the public at large and our commercial enterprises in particular were satisfied with the way in which the act is working.
More specifically, I understand that we have not at hand the report of the Secretary of State for the year ending March 31, 1958-


Henri Courtemanche: It is available. It was tabled on May 22.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Thank you. Then, would the minister advise for the record as to the net revenue of the trademarks office for 1957-58? That will suffice for the present moment.


Henri Courtemanche: Yes, the hon. member will find the figure at page 7. The revenue was $273,557.89.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Am I correct in saying that during the previous year the figure was $260,000?


Henri Courtemanche: That is right.


Jean-Thomas Richard: So that there is not much variation in the net income to that branch but it is a paying branch at the present time.


Henri Courtemanche: That is right.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The only comment I wish to make is that I hope the minister will impress upon the royal commission the desirability of making a report on the Trade Marks Act. I say this particularly because the commission spent a great deal of time in investigating the trade-marks office and I am anxious, as I am sure all those lawyers who attend before this office are anxious, to find out whether we have the proper type of act and also whether from an administration point of view the act is being well handled.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
386.	Bureau for translations, $1,462,120.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the strength of the bureau of translations has been increased by one, from 294 to 295, and that the number of translators within that bureau has been increased by the same number. I think we all are very conscious of the importance of this bureau and of the necessity to secure translations of official

Supply-Secretary of State documents with the minimum of delay. Sometimes when delay occurs, as it is bound to occur, the fault is not in the bureau but in the fact that there are not enough translators there to do the work which is required and to do it as quickly as we would like. I want to ask the minister if he thinks that the strength of the bureau, which has now been increased by one, is sufficient to deal with the work required and to deal with it at reasonable speed.


Henri Courtemanche: It has been increased in the supplementary estimates by 11 employees.


Lionel Chevrier: May I follow that up with another observation. It has been noticed in this house from time to time that there are some publications which are not translated into the French language and the question which occurs to me at the moment is why this should be the case. Further, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, there are instances where though the reports and publications are translated they are not translated concurrently with the English version, and I presume, although I do not know, that this is so because of the lack of translators. The Secretary of State has just said that in the supplementary estimates another 11 translators will be added. Does he think this number will be sufficient in view of the questions I have asked and in view, also, of another measure which is on the order paper, namely, the measure having to do with simultaneous translation? Is that a matter which will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State? Will he be charged with the responsibility for the specialized translators who will be required for this work, because I am sure that the Secretary of State has been at the United Nations and has seen the very highly specialized work that this entails. It is work of a difficult character, as he knows, and the question which arises in my mind at the moment is whether this will be his responsibility and, if this is the case, whether he is giving some consideration to this matter which all of us in this committee will agree is one of great moment.


Henri Courtemanche: I am informed that the translation bureau is a service of the house. The bureau translates only when it is asked to do so. It does not come under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. Each minister can ask for translations, and translations are made when the bureau is asked to make them.


Lionel Chevrier: What about the other questions I asked?


Henri Courtemanche: I am informed that eight interpreters are training at the present time and they will be ready pretty soon.


Lionel Chevrier: Is that eight out of the eleven?


Henri Courtemanche: Eight out of the eleven.


Lionel Chevrier: May I pursue this question a bit further? What are the qualifications which are going to be required of these translators-I say specialized translators but perhaps I should not use that expression, but I presume a great deal more will be required of them than of the others-over and above those required for the present translators in the department?


Henri Courtemanche: Their qualifications are a knowledge of English and French, a knowledge of the procedure of the house and of the terminology used.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it from what the minister has now said that the additional strength of the bureau of translation to deal with the work which has been normally done by this bureau in the past is four, because eight out of the eleven provided for in the supplementary estimates will be doing simultaneous translations in the house, I take it also from what the minister has said that he considers this number to be sufficient to deal with the requests which are made to the bureau for translation services, and we know how important that work is and how valuable it is. The eight who are being provided for the simultaneous translation service of the house will be covered, I take it, by the supplementary vote we are coming to. The total amount of that vote would indicate, however, that the average salary to be paid to these simultaneous translators would be somewhere around $5,000. This is very skilled and very difficult work to do accurately, as those of us who have been at the United Nations realize, it is a very important kind of work. I know, as perhaps the minister may know, that in New York they have not found it easy to get qualified simultaneous translators although the amount that is provided as salary down there is about double that provided for in the supplementary estimates. I mention this matter to the Secretary of State because it will be important that these men should be highly qualified. I hope this is being taken into consideration in training people for this work.


Henri Courtemanche: I am informed that the department has recommended having six more translators for the translation bureau. The amount provided in the supplementary estimates is only for nine months, and the rate of salary will be around $7,000.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask another question dealing with the matter I brought up earlier in connection with those publications or documents of the house which are not translated into the French language? The minister gave the formal reply which is that his department translate what they are asked to translate, and 1 have no fault to find with that. But does the minister not think that he should go a bit further, since he has the translators at his disposal in his department, and say that when it is brought to his attention, as is being done now, and as has been done from time to time in the house, that there are publications which are not being translated into French or publications that are not being translated simultaneously with the English version when it appears such, does he not think that he should bring this to the attention of his colleagues in an endeavour to see that the English and French documents are tabled simultaneously?


Henri Courtemanche: I will be very glad to deal with this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patent and copyright office-
387.	Administration division, $144,650.
Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Chairman, once again I speak about these reports. The minister said a while ago that the report had been tabled in May-


Henri Courtemanche: Yes.


Jean-Thomas Richard: For 1957-58. I wish I had a copy. In any event my first comment on patent administration is that I am aware of the fact that there is a royal commission investigating the Patent Act and I quite appreciate that it will take some time before we have a final report from the royal commission in this regard. I appreciate also that it will take some time before we have the final report of the royal commission in that regard.
One thing that very quickly strikes the eye of one who looks at these reports is the fact that generally speaking the number of applicants for patents who are Canadian citizens is very small compared with the total number of applications filed in any one year. In the period 1957-58 there were 22,257 applications for patents filed of which I believe 1,154 were Canadian. If my figures are correct they indicate that something in the nature of 5 per cent are applications from Canadians. One might say immediately that we in Canada are maintaining a patent system for people who reside outside of Canada, if one wanted to make that kind of statement. I have no real objection to the fact that
Supply-Secretary of State applications for patents are granted to citizens of other countries. That is the system that has always existed and unless for some good reason of which I am not aware at present the commissioners decide to recommend otherwise I suppose it will continue.
My point is this. I am interested in knowing what is the effect on Canadian trade of granting patents to so many people outside of Canada. That is why I put those questions to the Minister of Justice and once to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I will also ask the Secretary of State to ascertain whether within the royal commission itself there have been or will be any inquiries to find out in what manner the Patent Act affects trade in Canada. It is very evident that all important patents except perhaps those granted to the research council and the atomic energy commission and a few others in this country are granted to foreign citizens. The holding of patents can restrict trade and control prices. My main request of the minister is that he direct the attention of [DOT] the royal commission to this fact and insist upon a better study of the working sections of the Patent Act, that is those sections which require that a patent shall be worked in Canada. I am afraid that too few people realize the monopoly which is created in foreign hands by the use of our patent system. With these few remarks concerning that feature of the Patent Act I shall leave the subject.
I would point out to the committee, however, that over the past few years the department has shown a deficit in income which decreased from $95,000-odd in 1953-54 to $279,000-odd in 1956-57. I do not have the comparative figure for 1957-58 immediately at hand but in any event it also shows a larger decrease. The crux of the matter is this. The deficit is due to the expenditure incurred in the printing of patents. The department incurs a large deficit because it prints its patents and that expense will recur from year to year. I should like to have the comments of the minister as to whether in light of these facts he still considers that our system of printing these patents is in the public interest and of sufficient value to warrant the expenditure. There is very little income through the sale of copies of patents. The total income in 1956-57 through the sale of copies was $86,000-odd according to the figures I have and the net loss was about $650,000. It is a matter that bears some investigation. As far as the printing done by the printing bureau is concerned it is of an excellent quality and involves complicated technical work. The actual cost of the printing is comparable with the cost



Supply-Secretary of State of work done in outside firms and I am merely questioning the principle of whether we should continue having a loss charged to that department which, as I said, amounted to $650,000 in 1956-57.
I feel that my remarks should be brief but, of course, I should like some comment from the minister as to whether he feels the technical staff is sufficient for the administration of this act and as to whether he has received any suggestions from the commissioner of patents concerning improvements.
Before taking my seat I must not forget to deal with one of my main bones of contention and that is the fact that the patent office has been moved to No. 8 temporary building near the experimental farm. If any hon. members have had to deal with patents in the past I know they will agree with me that this was a great mistake initiated by the previous government, I hasten to admit, but confirmed by the present government. There is no reason why this office should be bandied about from one place to another. It is the only place of record of Canadian inventions in this country. It is an important office where the public deals with the government from day to day and there was no valid reason for moving it from the centre of the city. The minister is not responsible for this but I suggest he could make a name for himself in the future by insisting that one of the initial projects undertaken by the Department of Public Works be the construction somewhere in the centre of Ottawa of a building to house the patents, trade-marks and copyright office.


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the matter raised by the hon. member for Ottawa East about the deficit, I should like to say that a deficit is inevitable if the fee which is now $60 per patent is to remain the same. The high cost of printing and salaries are the principal reasons for the deficit in so far as expenditures are concerned.
Our deficit for 1957-58 is about one-third of our revenue whereas the deficit of the United States patent office for the year ending June 30, 1957 is more than 140 per cent. It may be of interest to state that in the United Kingdom where the fee is as high as $370 per patent including annual fees the deficit for 1956 is slightly less than 5 per cent of the income. In any event it is felt that no attempt should be made to eliminate or reduce our deficit through an increase of fees or through a decrease of our expenditures which would involve a radical change in our present system until the commission has submitted its recommendation. There are at present 11 vacant patent examiner positions three of which will be filled shortly, and since the

recruitment period is now over very few additional patent examiners will be recruited during the balance of the current financial year. These vacant positions are often used to meet needs that were unforeseen when the estimates were prepared before the start of the fiscal year. For instance, some of those vacant positions of patent examiners are presently being used for students hired as assistant patent examiners for the summer.
As far as the building is concerned, I am informed that in the near future we will have a new building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
621. Bureau for translations-further amount required, $58,800.
Lionel Chevrier: Are these the 11 translators the minister referred to earlier?


Henri Courtemanche: Yes.
(Translation):


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, before the discussion on this item is concluded, I would like to make a slight correction. Last night, I said that the food in the printing bureau's cafeteria was tasteless. I must say that the complaints that had been made to me went back to before May 1st. I have been told since that there has been a change of concessionnaire and that things are now much better. I therefore ask the hon. Secretary of State to ignore the complaints I brought to his attention last night. If I have any new ones, I shall submit them to him.


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) for his kindness.
Civil service commission-
77. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $3,434,161.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word at this stage about the civil service commission. I need not point out to the Secretary of State that he has jurisdiction over a very important group of employees of the government of Canada and that, apart from those who come directly under him, there are a very large number of federal employees who, while not coming under the minister's jurisdiction, nevertheless benefit from the provisions of the Civil Service Commission Act.
During the present session and even before, some of the Secretary of State's colleagues have been making very unkind remarks with respect to members of the civil service. Indeed they stated that certain civil servants were lazy and did not acquit themselves of their duties. They also made other statements which I do not

intend repeating here for fear of detaining the committee. I did feel at the time however-and I think that a large majority of the members of the House of Commons as well as the Secretary of State himself must have shared that feeling-that those statements were altogether unfair and should never have been made. Under the circumstances, it seems that the question which must be put is this. Aware as he is of the statements made, does the Secretary of State feel they are true? If so, what action has he taken to ascertain the truth, if any, of those remarks? If they are inaccurate, as I have every reason to believe, would the Secretary of State be so kind as to make a statement on the matter?


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) for raising that point. Yesterday evening three other hon. members referred to the civil service commission and since their remarks were made in English, the hon. member for Laurier who is perfectly bilingual, will allow me to give my prepared statement with regard to the civil service commission in the same language.
(Text):
Before commenting on the observations on the civil service which were made last evening by the hon. members for Ottawa East, Hull and Skeena and this afternoon by the hon. member for Laurier, I feel I should say a few words in reference to the relationship of the government in general and the Secretary of State in particular to the civil service commission. Confusion on this subject continues to persist in many quarters.
Under the law, the civil service commission is responsible not to the ministry but to parliament. The Secretary of State in no sense administers either the civil service or the commission. He is simply the spokesman designated by the government to report to parliament on the commission's behalf and to act in the capacity in which I am now acting, namely to present to parliament the commission's annual estimates of expenditure and to recommend their approval on behalf of the government. This independence of the civil service commission is at the heart of the arrangements established by the Civil Service Act of 40 years ago. It is essential to the preservation of the merit principle on which the Canadian service is based and to which this government attaches the highest importance.
Both the hon. member for Ottawa East and the hon. member for Hull, and this afternoon the hon. member for Laurier, spoke of the high quality of the civil service of Canada. The present government is fully appreciative
Supply-Secretary of State of this fact and the Prime Minister and other colleagues of mine have had many occasions, in and out of this house, to pay tribute to the loyalty, devotion and efficiency of the great body of men and women who have made their careers in the direct service of the nation. This, however, is not to say that improvements cannot be made in our law and practice with respect to civil service matters and it is with this in view that the government asked the civil service commissioners to make their current thoroughgoing review of the present act, regulations and procedures. Incidentally, their report is expected to be in the government's hands by the end of the year.
The hon. member for Ottawa East made a number of suggestions in connection with this current review, such as a clearer definition of the commission's powers and duties, its relationship to the financial controls exercised by treasury board, improved procedures for selection and for appeals on promotions. He also spoke of the commission's role in regard to working conditions. I can assure my hon. friend that these questions are now under very active examination by the commissioners and that they will take seriously into account his observations on these and other topics in preparing their recommendations to the government.
With regard to salary and wage levels in the civil service, as hon. members will know the recommendations which under the law the commission is required to make to the government are made not through the Secretary of State but through the Minister of Finance.
The hon. member for Ottawa East made a reference to the value in a Canadian civil servant of a knowledge of our two national tongues. He felt that such knowledge should be taken into proper account in selecting men and women for appointment. As he cannot fail to know, I share warmly his views in this respect, and I am informed that the present commissioners have a lively appreciation of the value of bilingualism in the service.
The hon. member for Hull referred at some length to what he described, I think, as a "malaise" prevalent among certain civil servants. He seemed to imply that there was an impression abroad that under the present government civil servants were subject to unfair attack and had some sense of insecurity. He said a good deal about the duty of the minister to be the champion and defender of civil servants. Such fears, if they exist, are wholly without foundation. As I have already said, the present government respects and supports, and intends to

Supply-Secretary of State continue to respect and support the independent status of the civil service commission and a civil service selected and administered on the basis of quality and merit. There will be no change in these respects in any legislation that will be introduced into parliament by this administration.
In reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena concerning the extension to the public service of a greater voice-incidentally, I cannot share his distaste for the traditional and honourable term "civil servant" -I can do no better than to quote as I now do what the Prime Minister said on this subject in an address he delivered on May 1 of this year to the civil service association of Canada:
I believe that civil servants, through representatives of their organizations, should have a greater voice in the process of determining civil service salaries. There should be a more systematic method of bringing your views and your information to bear in the application of those principles of salary policy on which there is already a wide measure of agreement.
1 think this improvement can be achieved within the general framework of institutions and laws which we have already. What is needed is more opportunity and better arrangements for your representatives to sit down at a table with officials representing the government and with officers of the civil service commission, having the essential facts and figures before them, to discuss in detail the comparisons between civil service salaries in various classifications and the pay for similar work in private employment. From this I would hope a common understanding could emerge; and will provide for a better understanding.
Several of my colleagues are working now on this question, as is the civil service commission, and I hope that it will be possible to proceed with improvements along this line in the near future.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think the house will welcome the statement the Secretary of State has made. I am sure it will have the effect of relieving to a large extent many of those who have felt embarrassed by some of the incidents that have been taking place in the house within the last short while. I do not want to go back to those incidents and certainly I do not want to discuss any individual case at this stage, but I should like to go a step further and discuss the matter in a general way.
I think the minister was in the house the other day when there was put on Hansard the practice of the house down through the years with reference to political patronage and the dismissal of employees of the civil service, both the outside service and the inside service. That policy was outlined by former leaders of the House of Commons including the late Sir Robert Borden, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Mackenzie King, Lord Bennett and others. The practice which was established during those years was that a member of the civil service should not be dismissed from public office without a certificate of a member of

parliament, in other words, without a member of parliament stating that of his own personal knowledge he was aware that a member of the service had taken part in political activities.
While I put that on the record at the time I did not in any way condone it. On the contrary, I think my remarks indicated that I did not condone that kind of practice and I am wondering whether the minister has given any consideration to the changing, indeed, the modernization of that practice which has become obsolete and which in fact is so unfair, having regard to the circumstances under which we live today, as to demand immediate change. I believe there is no other way in which I can bring this up in the house than under the estimates of the Secretary of State, whose department is responsible for this group of employees.
I think that the time has come to give consideration to the changing of this policy, this old resolution, this tradition which has grown up over the years and to substitute in lieu thereof something more in keeping with our day and age, certainly to substitute in lieu thereof a public hearing or an inquiry by an impartial tribunal when charges of this kind are made. It seems to me to be entirely unconscionable that we should be dealing in 1958 with dismissals from the public service, be it the civil service of Canada or the outside service, of those who are prevailing rate employees, of those who are casual employees or who benefit from the advantages of superannuation, sick benefits according to this obsolete practice.
It would seem to me that the time has come when this outdated and outmoded practice should be brought to an end. The point I should like to make now is that if the minister has not given the matter consideration I believe he should, and I believe that it should be determined how in the future the services of any civil servant, any member of the public service of Canada who is accused of political activity or against whom any other accusation is made in the performance of his duties, might be dispensed with. I trust that the minister is not one of those who would condone conduct whereby an employee of the public service would lose his employment and thereby his livelihood without proper consideration being given to the circumstances of dismissal, without an impartial tribunal being charged with the responsibility of hearing the evidence pro and con so that a fair decision, having regard to all the circumstances, might be rendered.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I appreciate very much the comments of the Secretary of State, especially his quotation from the address by the Prime Minister which in a general way sounds very

good. But I should like to make some inquiries with respect to specific procedures. I would point out that submissions have been made by the civil service federation of Canada through the civil service commission regarding improvements in the act and the regulations. Incidentally, this material was just given to me and I find on looking through it very quickly that it coincides with the suggestions I made earlier regarding negotiation procedure.
I wonder whether we could not have a clearer indication of the attitude of the government because even though, as he says, the minister acts only in the capacity of reporting to parliament on the estimates of the civil service commission, the Civil Service Act comes under the authority of the cabinet which makes suggestions in so far as changes are concerned. I would appreciate, and I am sure the civil service federation and other federal government employee organizations would appreciate, knowing what the attitude of the government is with respect to their specific suggestion about negotiation procedures; their suggestions with respect to outside tribunals dealing with grievances for which no satisfactory settlement is reached. I think we should have a clearer understanding of the attitude of the government in this regard, rather than a reiteration of the general statement of the Prime Minister.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, following the remarks we made yesterday, the minister seems to have understood that we wanted him to intervene directly with the civil service commission. If we gave him that impression, we regret it. For my part, at least, I meant exactly the contrary. I am convinced that the civil service commission is independent and that it should remain so. What we requested was that the minister, who is responsible for the adoption of the estimates of the commission by this house, act also as the protector of the civil service commission and civil servants who depend on him when they are attacked unfairly.
Some hon. members-I am not talking about the minister personally, who has always been very tactful with civil servants-but some hon. members-especially one whose name I do not remember and whose constituency I would not dare mention, but who comes from the far west-attacked civil servants in an exceedingly violent fashion, so much so that at one point the Prime Minister had to step in. Other hon. members, without making direct remarks, indulged in interjections in some debates, by shouting and saying that it was true or false, according to the way they felt about it. That, I think, is
Supply-Secretary of State what creates a certain uneasiness, especially when a minister takes it upon himself to dismiss a civil servant and to accuse him in this house of being guilty of irregularities, if not of plain dishonesty, then refuses to produce evidence of the civil servant's guilt, all this without ordering an inquiry where the man could have had an opportunity to defend himself. This uneasiness is all the greater for having been created by a member of the cabinet. That is why I urge the Secretary of State to ask his cabinet colleagues to safeguard civil servants' rights to defend themselves when they are attacked.
As I said yesterday, if they are guilty, they should be dismissed. I am not in favour of keeping in the civil service people who do not deserve to hold a position in the public service, but it is necessary that they be granted a serious and impartial inquiry where they would have a chance to defend themselves, in order to find out whether or not they are really guilty.
I would have liked to deal with the matter of promotions. I know however that the commission is carrying out a very thorough study of this matter. In fact it is probable that early next session we might review the whole Civil Service Act. Any lengthy remarks in this regard would therefore be premature. We know that, at the present time, when an employee has applied for promotion, the rating given by the department involved might reverse the decision taken by the commission on the basis of the promotion competition. Needless to say, this can at times give rise to unfairness because of certain particular and personal considerations involved between certain applicants and the responsible official of the department concerned, and the civil service commission cannot interfere.
I will leave it at that. I bring up the matter so that when the legislation comes up for review, we will be able to deal with that aspect of the question.


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Chairman, when I said that certain hon. members seemed unaware of the fact that I am merely spokesman for the civil service commission, I did not have the hon. member for Hull in mind. He is too politically wise to be credited with such intentions. I made the statement, in a general way for the benefit of hon. members, especially the new ones, who had the impression that I was in charge of the civil service commission. I wanted to make it clear to them that I am merely spokesman for the commission.
As I have no wish to overstate the point, I will answer the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) in French. Though the hon.

Private Bills
gentleman did not refer to any specific case, as the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) had done, he did make certain remarks which enabled us to guess what he had in mind. Now I understand that the case familiar to everyone does not come under the civil service commission.
I am told that this particular employee did not come under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission which is governed by a very clear section as regards political activity by any of its employees.
Section 55 states that an employee of the civil service commission has no right to meddle in politics.
The hon. member for Laurier will understand that, after having administered and studied that department for two months, I am not yet familiar enough with the situation to carry on a long discussion, but I am informed that, in the case under discussion, when the minister-this has always been recognized- when the minister is in possession of an affidavit stating that this or that employee of this or that department has meddled in politics, he is empowered to dismiss him. Well, in this case, that individual had meddled in politics, and I would not like-
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: It being five o'clock, it is my duty pursuant to standing order 15 (3) to leave the chair in order to allow the house to proceed to the consideration of public and private bills.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: As there are a number of private bills standing for consideration in committee of the whole, is it agreed that they be referred to the committee in one motion?


George James McIlraith: Is that all of the private bills?


Mr. Speaker:: Items 42 to 107; they are all divorce bills except Bill No. S-6, respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, did I understand you to say item 107 also?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


George James McIlraith: Would it not be more agreeable to the house to deal with all the divorce bills in a group, and with the others separately?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreeable that all divorce bills be referred to the committee in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask that the bills be considered separately.



EILEEN ROSE BROWN PORTEOUS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-154, for the relief of Eileen Rose Brown Porteous-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: We in this group have for a number of years opposed the passing by this House of Commons of these bills as private members' bills. We feel that a great deal of responsibility is being placed on members of parliament and that in many cases when the cases are dealt with en bloc they are not given the scrutiny which I am sure this house would wish to give them. We do not agree that this House of Commons, in the first place, should have anything to do with the passing of these bills, but in view of the existing situation we feel that there must be some understanding of this matter before we are asked to pass these private bills. I am sure that the chairman of the committee which has examined these bills would be quite happy to answer certain questions and, in the particular case under discussion, I would like to ask if this is the proper section under which to ask whether the petition for the relief of Eileen Rose Brown Porteous was contested?


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, the petition was not contested.


William Arnold Peters: Was the evidence in this particular case obtained by private detectives?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The evidence was obtained from two private detectives named Messrs. Charron and Nelson, among other witnesses.


William Arnold Peters: Did the alleged adultery take place on commercial premises, that is to say in a hotel, motel or other public place?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The respondent in this case was caught in the apartment of a woman. I presume the answer is no.


William Arnold Peters: Was any photographic proof of adultery presented? We understand that some of the courts in some provinces accept photographic proof, and upon reading the evidence in this case we think it would be advantageous if there were more definite proof of adultery.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The answer once again is no. The only photographic evidence was a photograph of the respondent.


William Arnold Peters: In this case did the respondent appear before the Senate committee hearing the case?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The respondent was called but he did not appear.


William Arnold Peters: Was it established that the petitioner met the requirements of the residence clause?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I presume my hon. friend is referring to domicile, Mr. Chairman. I believe the evidence in this case is that the husband had lived in the city of Montreal. It would take but a moment to refer to the evidence if the house will give me that privilege. The only evidence in the case is that the couple were married in 1943 when the respondent was living in Montreal and that he has since lived in that city.


William Arnold Peters: When was the petitioner
married?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The parties were married on or about July 10, 1943.


William Arnold Peters: How long is it since the petitioner has lived with the respondent?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The parties separated six years ago, in 1952.


Mr. Chown:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think the house should know that the hon. member who is obviously speaking in an attempt to delay the passage of these bills-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Campbell Chown: -was a member of the committee concerned.


Charles Edward Rea: I will have to ask the hon. member to state his point of order.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The point of order I am raising is that the hon. member was a member of the committee which dealt with this matter. He assented to these bills in committee, where he could have asked any questions he wished about the case in question. I can read nothing else into his actions than a desire to delay the passage of these private bills when he uses the tactic of coming before this house to ask questions which he could have asked in committee.


Charles Edward Rea: I do not think that is a point of order. I do not see why any member who wishes to ask questions of the chairman of the committee in question may not do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, are there any children of this union?


Robert Jardine McCleave: There are no children.


William Arnold Peters: As a result of the passage of this bill, would the woman in question be destitute?
Private Bills-Divorce


Robert Jardine McCleave: I believe not, Mr. Chairman. The evidence is that they have been separated since 1952 and that the woman has worked steadily since the separation.


William Arnold Peters: Has the committee satisfied itself that there is or is not any possibility of reconciliation between the parties involved?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the answer to that probably involves the reasons the parties separated in the first place. The evidence of the wife was that the husband drank quite a bit and stayed out at nights and that they did not get along. She said they argued a lot and the point raised by the hon. member was important to the Senate committee when considering these matters. In this particular case, as in other cases, the gentlemen from the other place satisfy themselves by asking questions as to the possibility of reconciliation between the parties. The evidence in this case is that there was no such possibility.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time on division and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-155, for the relief of Anita Duguay Brais-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Murdo William Martin: It has been said by an hon. member that the hon. member for Timiskaming was a member of this divorce committee. I also was a member of that committee, but I think it is readily recognized that we are not only members of that committee but, fortunately or unfortunately, we are members of other committees which do meet at the same time. Owing to the rush of business during the current session the committees have also had to meet at various times when the house has been sitting, and as a result I for one have found it absolutely impossible to give to these divorce bills the necessary care and scrutiny we are honour bound to give to them.
I have noticed with respect to these bills that various matters arise which are of a general nature and I have endeavoured in the short time available to discover whether there is any clear-cut system of dealing with these bills. I must say that at least to date I have been unable to complete any kind of a survey of these matters that would lead to any answer as to the pattern, so that in future I think that possibly we should take these matters under consideration and take some of these bills and ask questions
3256	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce
to see how much study other people have given to them that we have not been able to give.


An hon. Member:: Who are you?


Murdo William Martin: I see the hon, member for Winnipeg South is up to his usual contribution to this committee. I should like to have a few answers with regard to this particular bill because I do not believe I was at the committee which dealt with it. Was this case contested?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no.


Murdo William Martin: Again, was the evidence obtained from private detectives, or from what have been referred to in some of the committees as professional witnesses, or was it by private witnesses in this case?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The answer is that it was not obtained by private detectives. One of the witnesses of adultery which occurred in the common residence was the wife, and another was a theatre manager.


Murdo William Martin: Was the evidence obtained in a hotel, or in what kind of establishment?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have just answered that question. The evidence was obtained in the parties' own home. The woman returned home unexpectedly.


Murdo William Martin: Are there any
children involved in this case?


Robert Jardine McCleave: There are no children involved.


Murdo William Martin: I have one more question. Has any provision been made for the woman in this case or is she going to be placed in an embarrassing financial position?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Ordinarily these are
matters which are outside the jurisdiction of parliament. The aggrieved party goes to the courts of the province of Quebec. I do not see in the evidence, nor have I in my study of the evidence noted, that there was any such agreement in this case, but it may possibly be there.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time on division and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-156, for the relief of Sydney Lesser- Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
[Mr. Martin (Timmins.) 1
[Stage Direction]
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Thank you for the applause. I feel rather let down because I did not get as much applause as some hon. members on the other side. Thank you. That is better.
I have no intention of reiterating the general comment which my hon. friend had to make, except to say that the more applause I get the more convinced I am that I am doing the wrong thing. I may say that any time the Conservative party begins to applaud me I am sure I am on the wrong track. There are some things here that should be dealt with in a serious vein, and the applause and desk thumping before this was not serious but facetiously entered into.


An hon. Member:: So were the questions.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Someone says "so were the questions". That shows how serious he is.


An hon. Member:: Read the evidence.


Charles Benjamin Howard: We have some questions to ask. We should like to know if the petition was protested.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The answer is no.


Charles Benjamin Howard: We are trying to establish a pattern to this, in order to bring it to the attention of the public, and I should like to determine whether the evidence in this instance was obtained from private detectives.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The evidence was obtained by two public detectives, Wiseman and Wiseman.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Was the scene of the alleged incident, the alleged adultery, on commercial premises, and, if so could the hon. gentleman describe generally what it might be?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The scene of the alleged adultery in this case was the Campus Hotel which I understand is in the downtown part of Montreal. The parties had been followed there.


Charles Benjamin Howard: In this instance was there any definite proof of adultery having taken place, or any admission of adultery or was it by implication that adultery was established?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I believe the fair answer was that it was by implication. I presume the question really means: was the adultery inferred from the situation in which the couple were found. The answer is that the adultery would be inferred.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Are there any children, and if there are, do you know in whose custody these children are to be left and what is the financial position with respect to them?


Robert Jardine McCleave: This is a somewhat unusual case. There was a child concerned, but not the child of the two people. The wife had custody of this particular child but they themselves did not have children.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time on division and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-157, for the relief of Stella Rachel Cater Harris- Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Regier:: This particular bill has one rather serious feature and that is that these people were married on October 8, 1955 and the lady is alleged to have left her husband less than one year later. Both parties are relatively young, and it seems regrettable that people who were married in 1955 and who were parted some eleven months later should now already be the subject of a bill before the parliament of Canada in which there is a request for a release from their marriage vows at least as far as the law is concerned.
I should like to point out that it is very often said that we grant divorces to these people in the parliament of Canada. We do no such thing. We do not recognize divorce. In taking these actions all we achieve in effect is to relieve the petitioners from being liable to a bigamy charge should he or she remarry.
We relieve them of their legal obligations. That is altogether different from the granting of a divorce although it may be recognized as such. In light of the fact that these people lived together only 11 months, may I ask the chairman of the committee if there is any possibility of a reconciliation and if he knows what efforts have been made toward obtaining a reconciliation?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, if the evidence in this case is properly reported in the report of the committee of the other place, we have here a marriage in which the woman -I was going to say was in her autumn years but it would be impolite to refer to a lady's age in that fashion-was in the late summer of life. In other words, these people were not youngsters when they married. The hon. member is perfectly right when he pointed out they did live together less than a year. In that time apparently they could not strike accord. The evidence was that the husband was drinking and on one occasion she entered the front door and he went out
Private Bills-Divorce
the back door with another woman. I suppose they established their incompatibility early. The standard question about reconciliation was asked in this case and what I perhaps could describe as the standard answer was given to the effect that she did not feel it would be possible to reconcile with him.
I do not know what efforts are made in these cases to effect a reconciliation. In this case the evidence does not say that a minister or friend of the family was called in to assist this couple to get together. That might have happened but it does not appear in the record.


Erhart Regier: Were there any detectives in this case? If so, how many detectives were there? Who were they?


Robert Jardine McCleave: There were detectives in this case; once again the firm of Wiseman and Wiseman.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks made by the sponsor of the bill. I realize something of the difficulty he has when as the sponsor of these bills he has to spend so much of his time reading all the information that comes to him in order to properly discharge his responsibility. The evidence contains the following question:
How long did you know your husband before you married him?
As recorded at page 10 of the evidence the reply was as follows:
I went out with him for about a year before we were married.
The hon. member is perfectly right when he says these people were no longer young. The woman is 40 so she must have been about 36 or 37 when she began going out with this man. She went out with him for a whole year and then she married him and almost immediately they found that married life was extremely difficult. I should like to call the hon. member's atention to page 11 of the evidence where Senator Thorvaldson asked the woman the following question:
You couldn't take what, his late nights, the fact of him coming home late?
The reply was as follows:
Carrying on with other women ... I couldn't live with a man who was going out with other women and carrying on.
This indicates a continuing process of misconduct on the husband's part. It is most unusual that this should be referred to as a continuing error or transgression. She had known him and gone out with him for a year before the marriage and less than a year after the marriage she referred to his behaviour in

Private Bills-Divorce
this fashion. Again she was asked the following questions and gave the following answers with respect to the possibility of a reconciliation as reported at page 11 of the evidence:
Q. Is there any chance of a reconciliation?
A. No.
Q. Would you forgive him?
A. No.
I wonder if the hon. member would care to comment on whether it is possible in his province and in most provinces of Canada to obtain a divorce when there has been little effort made toward reconciliation?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Before answering the question, Mr. Chairman, may I point out the danger of discussing these cases in this house, in doing so we are using people's names and placing them on the public record whereas if we dealt with these matters in committee it could be done behind closed doors where some of these problems could be threshed out.
In reply to the hon. member's question I have found that the cases are very much the same in provincial courts in my experience. The hon. member wants to know if there is any machinery requiring efforts at reconciliation. In these cases from time to time you will find a man or woman who has encountered marital difficulty because the other party has been unfaithful and yet in a decent desire to preserve the marriage the individual enlists the aid of a minister, social worker, close friend or sometimes a psychiatrist to attempt to get to the bottom of the problem and find out what is wrong but there is no compulsion on people to do so. If people want to disagree they cannot be compelled to agree and live out their lives fighting with each other.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported, read the third time on division and passed.



SAMUEL JACK GOLDBERG

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-158, for the relief of Samuel Jack Goldberg-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two brief questions on this bill. I appreciate that it may not be a good practice to place people's names and incidents on the public record but I am more particularly

concerned about the question of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances relating to the acceptance of these by the committees of the other house. My questions will follow the same pattern as before with respect to the acceptability of the evidence and the manner in which it was collected in an effort to ascertain if there appeared to be some organizations or individuals who make their entire livelihood out of appearing as professional witnesses in these cases. Was the evidence in this instance obtained by what we classify as private detectives and, if so, would you indicate who they were?


Robert Jardine McCleave: In this case there was one private detective named Etheridge who appears quite frequently in divorce cases before committees of the other place. There must always be corroborating evidence under the rules of the other house and in this instance the corroborating witness was the husband.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Was the scene of the alleged adultery on commercial premises and, if so, would the hon. member care to comment on this?


Robert Jardine McCleave: No, the scene in this particular case was the correspondent's apartment.


Charles Benjamin Howard: With respect to the evidence was it as a result of some one witnessing an incident or by reference from the circumstances surrounding it?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that is that the detective and the husband burst into the correspondent's apartment at a very early hour in the morning. I am a little reluctant to, but I will if I am compelled to, give some of the details. In this particular case, which was a contested case, and which was therefore very thoroughly before the Senate committee, what they found, as the hon. member will find in the evidence, is that the wife was caught in one of the rooms of the apartment in a state of undress.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I will not press any farther on that. Are there any children? If so, in whose custody do they remain? What are the financial circumstances so far as caring for the children is concerned?


Robert Jardine McCleave: There is one child who will now be approximately two years old. I would have to refer again to the evidence. I do not have it immediately at hand. There is some support given by the husband to the wife in which case I assume it is for the child's interest, although that is only an assumption.

I would have to go further into the evidence of this case to give the details.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time on division and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill SD-159, for the relief of Beatrice Claire Carmichael Glas -Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: In this case I notice that the Wisemans are again involved as private detectives. I also notice that there are some discrepancies in the evidence. Did the Senate give any consideration to this matter of private detectives and the value of their evidence? I think it is safe to say that if any collusion or agreement was arrived at before this divorce, obviously the House of Commons cannot pass this bill. It would at least cause suspicion to know that the Wiseman partners have been in three of the bills that we have been discussing in the last few minutes. It is also surprising, when you read their evidence, to find out how similar the circumstances are in each case. It would appear to me that evidence given in this manner by professional witnesses should be supported certainly and strongly in other respects than just the testimony of those detectives, because, as the witness says, this is the way he makes his living. The similarity is quite pronounced, Mr. Chairman, when the same detectives act in various cases. I should like to know whether consideration was given to this type of evidence in the Senate committee?


Robert Jardine McCleave: First, I never thought that in the House of Commons I would be defending private detectives, but I think there is probably a simple explanation why the name is brought in, in cases which come so close together. This was probably Wiseman day in the subcommittee of the other place that heard those cases. As hon. members know, they do not appear in an unusual number of cases, although they do appear in a fair number of them. However, I believe it is the practice, since the transporting of detectives from Montreal to Ottawa must be one of the expenses borne by the parties, to bring those cases on at the same time. We do know that they have other expenses as well. They probably arrange to bring up several cases in the subcommittees of the other place involving those particular firms of detectives. I think you will find that pattern. You will get
Private Bills-Divorce
a few cases in which another firm of detectives plays a prominent role.
The hon. member has referred to what he calls discrepancies in their evidence and then he says that their evidence is very much of a pattern. In reviewing the case I did notice that there were some minor variations in the evidence of the two detectives, which I think would normally be expected in the circumstances. This happens to be a motel case. They were not in the motel for any great length of time.


William Arnold Peters: When I mentioned discrepancies this is what I had in mind. First he said that it was at the Royal motel in Montreal. Then, he went on to say that they proceeded to cabin No. 12, and then a little later he said something about a hotel room.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That may be the geographical layout of this particular motel.


William Arnold Peters: In this particular case, may I ask what was the evidence that would constitute adultery? As I read the evidence, it talks about certain stages of undress, and there is the insinuation that the bed had been slept in and two pillows had been rumpled up. In your opinion, Mr. Chairman, does that constitute adultery, or is further proof necessary?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether my own particular opinion would be very helpful to the committee but I can give you the methods that the courts use to determine whether adultery has been committed, and, of course, the committee of the other place has tended to adopt the practice as laid down in the standard divorce practice of the courts in provinces which have divorce jurisdiction. In the 250 cases that I have read this session and in some 150 that I read last session it was very rare that the couple were caught in the actual act of adultery. Of some 350 to 400 cases, the evidence of which I personally read, I cannot recall at the moment more than five in which the couple was caught flagrante delicto. The committee, I think, take the position that if all the circumstances of the case can be read one way, on the balance of probability that it is more probable that the couple committed adultery than that they did not, then that is their finding. They do not require that the evidence adduced in those cases go as far as the same burden of proof that is required in criminal cases; that is, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It must be not overwhelming evidence; it must be strong evidence that points more to the probability they committed adultery than that they did not.

Private Bills-Divorce


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in this particular case was there any request for further proof, or was the burden of proof satisfied?


Robert Jardine McCleave: No. The evidence, Mr. Chairman, outside of the two detectives, was the evidence of the woman herself, which, of course, could not go to establish adultery. It simply went to establish what kind of life they were having together-I am not going to say enjoying together; this was certainly not the case in this particular action. For example, the husband stayed out week ends and over night and when asked his whereabouts he told her to mind her own business and tend to her affairs as a mother and he would look after his own business. He was very brutal. He hit her and struck her and even went so far apparently as to hit a child with a steel poker, and he tore her hair. That was some of the evidence of the disgruntled wife about conditions with her husband.


William Arnold Peters: In all these cases there has been a similarity, particularly where professional investigators are employed. In no case are they ever asked for a search warrant or are they ever denied right of entry. Surprisingly enough, in every case they are allowed to enter the room without much objection. Has it not come to the attention of the members of the other place that this is not normal procedure to follow in a case of this nature, particularly where there is a chain on the door or something of that nature? Is it not surprising that no warrants are ever used or needed in cases where private detectives are employed? It appears to me that in a number of these cases there is collusion. I think it is very significant that in no case has a search warrant been used.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I will answer the point
about search warrants first. It is extremely difficult to track down adultery and you seize upon evidence if you are lucky enough to get it. In such circumstances it would be extremely difficult to obtain a search warrant if you suspected something was going on at a certain place. By the time you went through the legal procedure of obtaining a search warrant the motel would have been readied for another customer.
With respect to the second point about collusion, I am going to be frank about the matter. I know that any judge in a provincial court dealing with these matters goes through a great deal of mind searching and I am sure the same is true of hon. members of the other place. You are bothered all the time by these things. That is not true of all cases but in a fair proportion your suspicion is aroused. If you could only take one case and pin the thing down so you could say that you knew

it was wrong that would be one thing but you do not get quite that far. You can say that you have looked at a case and you think there must be something wrong but the difficulty is that you are not sure.
There is another rule of thumb which is followed although probably it should not be. Those who consider these matters look into the circumstances of the case and if the wife has been badly abused by the husband and it is better that the divorce be granted for that reason they perhaps do not inquire too much further. They are satisfied to accept the motel or hotel formula and give the woman the relief she is asking for.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall I report the bill?


Charles Benjamin Howard: On division.
Bill reported, read the third time, on division and passed.



FRANCIS ALLAN QUINN

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-160, for the relief of Francis Allan Quinn-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Charles Benjamin Howard: I should like to know with respect to this bill whether the corroboration was provided by private detectives and who they were.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The answer is no. In this case the wife had lived with another man for nine years and evidence of neighbours was brought in to support the application.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Was the same evidence-I would not call it proof-of adultery given as in the other cases dealt with so far, namely, that it was a matter of implication from the facts? I take it that in this case the lady had lived with the gentleman for some period of years and that you would normally expect adultery to have taken place under those circumstances.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have marked this case down as one of the simplest types. The lady leaves her husband and lives with another person. While no direct evidence of adultery is usually given in such cases, there is little reason to doubt it when they have lived together as man and wife for nine years, and the situation was so regarded in this particular case.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Are there any children in this instance?


Robert Jardine McCleave: No issue of this marriage.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There are a couple of specific questions I wish to ask.


An hon. Member:: Twelve minutes to go.


Gordon Campbell Chown: An insincere filibuster.


Mr. Bigg:: Friends of the people.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his remark relating to insincerity.


Charles Edward Rea: I do not think that is a parliamentary term and I will have to ask the hon. member to withdraw that remark.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am very glad to do so. I was referring not to an individual but to the group.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Would you like me to withdraw my remark? I said you were friends of the people.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think the gentleman in question has quite merited in the house the nickname I understand he has in his own particular area. In connection with this bill I should like to ask the chairman of the standing committee if the suggestion was made in the other place that there has been a change in the arrangements in Quebec whereby the wife is now permitted to obtain what I believe amounts to a separation certificate when adultery is a factor in the same way that a husband can. Would this open the way for people from the two provinces involved to present such certificates and thus enable divorces to be granted through parliament without the necessity of evidence being presented to the other place or this house?


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I will have to ask the hon. member to come back to this particular bill.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am coming to it now. In connection with this bill or any other bills in this group was such a certificate presented or has such a certificate been presented in the past?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I believe that has happened in a few cases although not in this one. Actually I believe it is the separation agreement itself which is presented but unless parliament or the subcommittees of the other place decide to change their modus operandi such certificate could not properly be received in evidence as proof of adultery.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I gather from examining the records of the other place in connection with divorce bills that it has not been the custom of members of the other place who are practicing Roman Catholics to take any part in the activities of these committees. In connection with this bill and the other bills
Private Bills-Divorce
has the chairman of the standing committee noticed this same situation or have members of the committee taken part in its activities regardless of their religion?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have made it a point never to inquire into a person's religion, so I cannot answer that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time on division and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-161, for the relief of James Ross MacLaren Paul- Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: I believe that the chairman of the committee who has had these divorce bills in charge has demonstrated his knowledge of these bills, so I think we are quite prepared to allow the remainder of the bills to be reported, with the exception of the Klasman case, which we would ask to stand.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Since that case is a contentious one, I admit, I have no objection if it stands.


Charles Edward Rea: Is it the unanimous consent of the committee that the balance of the bills be considered together, with the exception of Bill No. SD-129, which shall be allowed to stand?


Mr. Drysdale:: Mr. Chairman, before the bill carries I wonder if the hon. member for Timiskaming would permit a question?


Charles Edward Rea: Does the question relate to the bills?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member for Timiskaming says no.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I am very surprised. I thought they were always ready to answer any question.


Mr. Broome:: I think the house owes a debt to the C.C.F. party for having gone rather thoroughly-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I shall ask the hon. member to please resume his seat. We are on clause 1 of the divorce bill.


Ernest James Broome: I have a few questions to ask on this group of bills. I should like the chairman to tell me whether in any of the group there are any children involved, and in which cases there are children involved. I shall have further questions to ask.

Private Bills-Divorce


Charles Edward Rea: The committee
agreed to take these bills all together. I think it would be impossible for any person to give an answer on all these bills.


Ernest James Broome: On a point of order-


Charles Edward Rea: If the committee did not wish to take them together, they did not have to agree to it.


Ernest James Broome: The committee agreed to take them all together, but that does not prohibit a member from asking questions with regard to the bills, simply because they are considered en bloc.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member should say as to what bill he is asking the question.


Ernest James Broome: I have. I am asking if there are any children involved in any of these bills in this bloc before the committee.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The answer to that is yes.


Ernest James Broome: In which cases?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Next year, Mr. Chairman, if I am invested with this responsibility, when I appear before this committee I am going to bring a chart which will be subdivided into these 14 or 15 points on which members seem to be interested. If the committee wanted, I could go through them all and point out those cases in which children are involved, and I would find that out by looking at the evidence which, of course, anyone else is at liberty to do.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The hon. member for Timis-kaming refused to answer a question, so I should like to ask it of the chairman of the divorce committee. Reference was made to the fact that photographic evidence was permitted in certain provinces. I wonder if the chairman could advise me as to what provinces photographic evidence is permitted, and what is the nature of the photographic evidence?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the short answer to that is that the hon. member who raised the question should consult one of the standard authorities on divorce, such as Mr. Kent Power. I am not a divorce expert. I do not know the evidentiary laws of the provinces in Canada. When I practised at the bar of Nova Scotia, it was sometimes difficult to find out the particular evidentiary laws of that province.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Does the chairman know whether or not photographic evidence is permissible, because the hon. member for Timis-kaming referred to the fact that there were several provinces which permitted photographic evidence in divorce cases. I was

wondering if the chairman was apprised of any province that permitted this particular type of evidence?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I must raise a point of order on this question concerning the practice in provincial divorce courts. I do not think that is something I should answer.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I think it has a great deal of importance because the hon. member for Timiskaming put on the public record the statement that certain provinces allow this type of evidence.


Charles Edward Rea: I should like to remind the hon. member that the divorce cases which come before this committee come from only two provinces, and have nothing to do with the other provinces in Canada.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: In that case, I think there should be some clarification as to whether or not these two provinces permit this type of evidence. An implication has been left by the hon. member that insufficient evidence is being adduced to justify these divorces. If, of course, photographs are not permitted, and I do not think they are, then I think there is an unjustified implication that the members of the divorce committee are being too lax in allowing these particular divorce bills through. I think that point should be clarified on the record, since hon. members to your left seem to be quite anxious to get these matters on the record.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps I could answer that. I thought that the hon. members had asked me a particular question with reference to a couple of cases to find out if there had been any photographic evidence in those cases. There has been none produced in these cases of which I am aware, except pictures of the erring wife or husband. I cannot recall any particular case in which there was an attempt to produce other photographic evidence which was discussed by the committee of the other place.


Mr. Creaghan:: I wonder if the chairman of the committee would indicate to me how many of these bills originate in the province of Newfoundland?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the answer is about four or five. There were two at the last session, and I think there are four of five at this session.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.

Civil service commission-
77. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $3,434,161.


Charles Edward Rea: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a few words in connection with the civil service and its relationship to members of parliament.
During recent weeks there have been a number of misunderstandings between the civil service and members of parliament, which 1 feel is a great shame because we are dependent on each other to a very great extent, perhaps more than most people realize. I think perhaps the people in the government service do not realize the influence they have on the life of a member of parliament. So far as the public is concerned, every action taken by a member of the government service, every letter written and every decision made, is laid right on the doorstep of the member. A curt letter written on a hot summer day, poor judgment exercised by an official or an inspector, long delays in answering inquiries, an impatient or perhaps supercilious manner of treatment of a member of the public who has a complaint, all fall back on the member concerned who has to take the brunt of any of these indiscretions and the difficulties which may arise as a result thereof.
Members of the government service may not at times realize the importance of their actions to the members concerned. To the public the government is one being; it does not matter whether a cabinet minister, deputy minister, inspector, secretary in the office or a member of parliament is concerned; everything done on behalf of the government is done by one body. That is why I feel that an efficient government service is so very necessary to members of this house.
I would like to carry this thought one step further. Every minister of the crown is responsible for every person in his department; he must be able to rely upon everything done by such people and he must, I believe, feel that those in his department are loyal to him and to the people who have elected him.
I would like to say a word about the criticisms that civil servants have been loafing on the job. Examples of such people can
Supply-Secretary of State no doubt be found in any large organization including the government service-that is inevitable. But in all fairness, I wonder how many of these people who have nothing to do are in this position because they have not been given anything to do. This may be because their immediate superior is away and perhaps much of this mushrooming in the government service over the war years has probably resulted from similar conditions. Until such time as the service gets back to normal 1 have no doubt that there will be many people who have nothing to do but who are nevertheless willing to work.
With respect to the effort made in past years to prevent government servants from becoming politically influenced, this has created an artificial barrier between members of parliament and the government service and I think it has gone too far. It has created too many difficulties and something should be done to remedy this situation. I think it is fair to say that at the moment a good many government employees-and this probably applies in the civil service commission-feel that members of parliament are meddlers who are trying to find positions in the government service for people whom they wish to help for political reasons. In many cases the member of parliament is actually the only person who knows those involved, but this problem has reached the stage where many members of the government service are afraid to be seen talking to a member of parliament unless he happens to be on official government business.
I feel that this whole situation is not political, it is not a question of a member of parliament belonging to one party or another, but it is rather a case of an organizational difficulty brought about by a desire to prevent undue political influence. This method of handling the situation has actually created an even greater difficulty. I think in cases where government employees have occasion to deal with individual members they find us to be fair and reasonable people and on the other hand members have found individual public servants to be sincere and anxious to do a good job. As groups, however, we do find a barrier between us, whereas we should be working together for the good of Canada.
It is, of course, true that the civil service is in a difficult position. Generally speaking, people employed in the government service are professional men and women. They are employees of the crown and they must be loyal to the department by which they are employed and they often find it very difficult to go outside of that department for assistance with respect to their difficulties. It is for this reason that I think it is important that civil
3264	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State service organizations and associations should present their difficulties and problems to the government in the very strongest way.
In closing, I would like to read a quotation from the national defence employees' association news letter of July, 1958, which contains the following statement on this problem: However, federation president F. W. Whitehouse indicated the willingness of federation representatives at all times to meet with members of parliament or a select committee to assist in maintaining the efficiency of the public service.
I think this is the spirit in which we should attempt to iron out the difficulties which have arisen. There is no doubt that there is justification for the things which have been said, but at the same time there are reasons for those things having been said. I would urge the government to give consideration to the problems and suggestions I have outlined.


Norman Platt Lambert: I have a few remarks to make on the qualifications required by the civil service. In this connection I have received a number of representations before and since I have been a member of parliament concerning the difficulties experienced by a number of men in this country with respect to qualifying for the civil service because of what is felt to be a rather narrow restriction under the veterans statutory preference.
Now there is no denial that the men in the armed services who have come back from war should have every opportunity to rehabilitate themselves, and undoubtedly the principle of rehabilitation must be given very serious consideration when we are selecting candidates for the public service of this country. However, one realizes that during this past war there were hundreds and thousands of men who because of no fault of their own since they were instructors or because they were retained for one reason or another did not go beyond the confines of this country. If I am correct in my interpretation of the statutory preference they are in a second category and cannot qualify.
I feel that perhaps the commission in reviewing the civil service framework might now consider enlarging the scope of the statutory preference to include these men, who have a lot of skills which they could offer to the public service of this country. After all, we do not find this restriction imposed by most-I cannot say by all because I may not have all the information-of the provincial and municipal governments. The effort of the men who served in this country was in many instances just as efficacious in prosecuting a victorious campaign during the last war as that of the men who proceeded overseas and I feel they should have an opportunity to serve the public of Canada in the federal civil service. Why there should


be any differentiation between the federal civil service and any provincial civil service I have yet to discover. I offer this as a suggestion. There may be arguments which would indicate that the present policy is the correct one, but I offer this for serious consideration.
In addition, for the past number of years there has been a large number of immigrants to this country, people who have come from the British Isles and other allied countries and who, in many cases, have served along with our service men. Many are professional people of various kinds; they have many skills, and I believe they would be eminently qualified in many cases to serve in the public service of this country but, again, they are excluded, although they are accepted in the civil services of the provinces and of the large municipal governments. I would again suggest that these men who come to this country should have the opportunity to qualify for the federal civil service, and I commend this proposal especially to the commission when considering its recruiting policy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to say a few words on this question of the civil service before the vote is carried. I begin by referring to some of the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Edmonton West in his suggestion to the minister and to the civil service commission that perhaps the question of veterans preference should be carefully examined in the light of the conditions that have developed since the end of the war.
I recognize, as I am sure do all hon. members, that he has raised a problem which is of some importance. This question of veterans preference with regard to the civil service is, of course, a diminishing one because so many of the positions have age limits attached to them and veterans are getting older. But I certainly hope that in any consideration given to this problem the legitimate interest of veterans and especially of disabled veterans, who certainly deserve every kind of preference they can get, will not be interfered with. Of course, I do not suggest for a moment that the hon. member had such a thing in mind when he spoke.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka had some interesting things to say about the civil service generally. If I venture to follow him and speak on this matter it is not only because of my position in the house but because I had the honour of working in the civil service for 20 years, from 1928 to 1948, in which year I left the civil service, not for the reason indicated by the Prime Minister the other night but for the very opposite reason.

Speaking, then, as a former civil servant I think I can say that the civil service of Canada has gained a reputation second to none among the civil services of any free country in the world for integrity, efficiency and loyalty. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said that if there is loafing -I think that was the word he used-in the civil service it was due to the fact that insufficient work was being passed on to those particular civil servants affected by this disease. It certainly does not affect any of us in the House of Commons this year. In my own experience of 20 years in the government department over which I later had the honour to preside, we did not suffer at all from the disease of loafing, indeed if there was anything which was wrong with that department it was that the officials were more often overworked than they were underworked.
The hon. member also mentioned the fact that a barrier sometimes develops between members of the public service and members of parliament. That may well be true, and it is not surprising, I think, that there should be a feeling of that kind in the minds of some members of parliament because officials, if they are loyal to their obligations, have to be careful in their relationship toward members of the political service. My own experience in the department over which I once presided-and I think it is an experience which has been shared by other ministers- was that members of the public service must be very careful to help members of parliament in any way they can, irrespective of the party to which those members belong, in respect to the giving of factual information, but there is always a difficulty developing when a member of the public service is asked to express opinions, even privately, or to give information which may go a little beyond the factual. Perhaps I am not the person who should emphasize that possible danger because it should not be one which could cause any harm to any member of parliament on the opposition side. But there is that possibility and because of that I think there always will be a species of official barrier between the civil servant and-if I may call him that-the political servant.
Mr. Chairman, in 1950 I had the honour of speaking to the professional institute of the civil service of Canada and if I may I should like to place on Hansard some of the words I used at that time because they describe exactly the way I feel now. In addressing them I said:
In selecting persons for employment in the service of the Canadian government we have sought-
And I am sure the same situation prevails now-
57071-3-206
Supply-Secretary of State
to secure not only the highest standards of efficiency and competence but also the highest standards of integrity. Because we have, with surprisingly few exceptions, found for our service people who possess this quality of integrity, we are confident that they are capable of withstanding the temptations to which people in positions of official trust are peculiarly subject.
I proceeded to say:
But however efficient the civil servant may be, however industrious, however underpaid,-	'
In relation perhaps to the salary he could command if he were not in the civil service____
-I do not suppose you will ever be able to erase completely from the limited minds of some people the distorted picture of the "bureaucrat" as an indolent person, conceived in influence and born in politics, who fattens at the public trough: and works a couple of hours a day winding and unwinding red tape.
I concluded with these words:
I have, of course, had some experience with the strangling effect of a literal and cautious observance of all the fussy niceties and formalities of official procedures. But I have also learned that, at times, there is one thing far more delaying and destructive than red tape; that is misguided and premature efforts to cut across wise and well established administrative rules. You can, I suppose, get more toothpaste more quickly by' squeezing the top of the tube. The result is messy and wasteful.
I said then, and I feel the same now:
I do not, therefore take seriously the recurring joke about the complexities and delays of public administration, and I know that we have every reason in Canada to be proud of our public service.
One reason for which we can show pride in our public service is the loyalty of its members to the government of the day which is the very basis of the existence of a nonpartisan civil service, its obligation of loyalty to the government of the day whatever government may be in power. That means not being loyal to one political party or to a group of persons who may come and go but to the state itself as represented by the government of the day. I am quite sure that Canadian civil servants will recognize that obligation in the future as they have in the past.
The civil service has obligations under the Civil Service Act but it also has rights under that legislation. One of the rights it possesses under that act is the right of independence from political pressure. One of the obligations it has under the act is to give loyal and devoted service to the government in power. It also has the right under the act,
1 believe, to hope for promotion in accordance with merit.
One of my hon. friends to my right raised some questions this afternoon about the promotion policy inside the civil service. I recognize that that is a very important matter in connection with morale which in turn
3266	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State is important in terms of efficiency. The hon. gentleman was basing his remarks in part on the observations of Professor John Deutsch who himself was a distinguished civil servant for many years. He thought perhaps promotions were not quick enough for those who were young and gifted and that this might in a sense militate against the hope that all civil servants have for a successful career. In pursuing that argument the hon. member made some remarks about the advantages Rhodes scholars seem to have in the civil service. I shall say nothing about that for I am quite sure that the Rhodes scholars will be defended efficiently and vigorously in this house by the two hon. members of the cabinet who, if I am not wrong, were once Rhodes scholars themselves. However, I do agree that unless there can be established and preserved the feeling and hope in the civil service that promotion is open to all based on merit and one that will not be held back by any consideration except that of efficiency, it will be bad for morale inside the service. I can only close this portion of my remarks on this subject by expressing the general hope that the civil service will operate in the future as in the past and I can say nothing better about it than that.
Before taking my seat I should like to ask the minister a question. I understand that a rather comprehensive reorganization of the civil service commission is being undertaken at the present time by the chief of the civil service commission who, if I may say so, I am very glad to see on the floor of the house tonight in his third capacity in recent years. I should like to ask the minister if he could give the house some information as to how that reorganization which will be an extremely important one indeed is proceeding and in particular I wish to know whether in that examination consideration is being given to the possibility of separating the foreign service in some respects from the civil service and bringing it under a foreign service act.
When I say that consideration might be given to this I am not thinking, of course, of taking the foreign service out of the civil service in the sense that it should not be maintained as a professional service outside politics. I do not want anything like that to happen to it. Whatever may be its control I think it must remain as non-partisan as is the civil service. However, I happen to know from experience that conditions which govern the operations of the foreign service, especially of those members of it who have to work abroad, are so very different from the conditions which govern work and service in Canada that very often the regulations which are right for a civil servant working at home are not applicable in any


reasonable way to a civil servant working abroad. Therefore this matter which I know has been brought up once or twice in the past is an important one. The question is whether or not we should have a foreign service act governing the operations of the foreign service based on the same principles as the Civil Service Act. Perhaps the minister might have something to say about that when he replies. Meanwhile I shall simply repeat what I said a moment ago that I am very privileged to be on my feet this evening paying my humble tribute to the work of the Canadian civil servant.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss a question which has been a problem in the Department of the Secretary of State for a number of years but before embarking on that I should, in view of the rather curious remarks that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that the government of this country represents the state, point out that I have always believed the constitutional position to be that the crown represented the state.
In regard to the hon. member for Edmonton West I may state that I know from my personal experience he has maintained a continuing interest in the welfare of veterans. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that his remarks this evening were fully in keeping with this traditional keen interest in the welfare of the veterans of this country.
The point I wish to raise is one that has been drawn to my attention by labour union officials in my constituency concerning a situation which causes them grave concern particularly in the winter months. They have advised me that some of the civil service personnel and armed forces personnel in Saskatoon have been taking employment in their spare time as painters, carpenters and work in other fields with the result that the regular employees in these trades have lost job opportunities. The union officials have also pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that this practice tends to depress wage rates in the trades affected; they say it has enabled some unscrupulous employers to undercut regular rates of wages and contracts.
These moon-lighters can and do work at less than regular rates of pay. They can do this because they already have jobs for which they are paid out of the public treasury. In some instances, no employer is involved because in some cases the contract is taken up directly by the civil service personnel or the armed forces personnel with the householders to do painting, carpentry work, and so on. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this matter should be looked into in order that ways and means may be found to prevent

regular workers being placed at this disadvantage. In this connection I hope that the experience that the department has had in other years with this problem will not prevent them from taking a new and realistic look at this particular problem that is being raised here.
I certainly agree, Mr. Chairman, that there is a problem of conflict in that it is thought that the government of Canada should not interfere with the private lives of individuals it employs and it is a difficult problem to reconcile those opposing points of view. It is my hope that the Secretary of State will inquire into this matter to see what can be done and also to bring it to the attention of the Minister of National Defence in order that some sort of satisfactory solution can be worked out so that regular employees in those trades will not suffer the disadvantage I have mentioned.
(Translation):


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I heard the Secretary of State (Mr. Courte-manche) say that he was not responsible for the civil service commission but that he was the spokesman of the house to the civil service commission. I take note of his statement and, if it is true that he is the spokesman of the house to the civil service commission, I am sure that he will ask the officials of this body to kindly take under careful consideration the suggestions made by hon. members.
For years, the Conservative party, as well as the Liberal party, have had nothing but commendation for the civil service commission, its higher as well as its minor officials.
I believe that everyone recognizes that the civil service commission is well administered and that civil servants behave as they should. As it is, by some strange coincidence, no sooner did the Conservative government come into power that certain decisions of the civil service commission were no longer quite in accord with past decisions. In fact, some time ago, I put a question to the Secretary of State concerning applications for employment. The Secretary of State knows about it since I have discussed the matter with him on several occasions. I feel keenly about this problem and I am anxious to see it solved for I feel that this new decision will prevent hundreds, if not thousands of people who would like to work for the civil service commission to put in an application and to take the required examinations, thereby losing a chance to get a job with the civil service commission.
57071-3-206i
Supply-Secretary of State
That situation is all the more important as it affects more particularly the electors of the Secretary of State since, according to the reasons he has given for the implementation of that new policy, people living in far away and isolated localities could suffer the most from that change of policy on the part of the civil service commission.
This has to do, as everyone knows, with the applications made for a competition which may be held in 5, 6 or 8 months. The Secretary of State has told us that such applications are returned to candidates who are informed that they are no longer accepted unless a competition is open and that they may learn about the date of the next examination by reading the newspapers or looking up the advertisements posted in public buildings.
Thus, if six or twelve months go by before an examination is held, that means the poor candidate has to buy the newspaper- La Presse, or whatever other newspapers interest him particularly-just to make sure that he does not miss the advertisement when it appears. The hon. Secretary of State surely knows that the civil service examinations are not advertised in the weeklies of Labelle constituency-unless the Secretary of State's influence has penetrated that far. It is only rarely that such advertisements appear in the Echo de la Lievre or the other weeklies so well known to the Secretary of State.
The hon. Secretary of State replied that they stopped publication because there were too many applications, 40 per day; yet, on the other hand, he claims that he wants to improve the standard of the commission's work, and thus to make the personnel more productive. Well, I can hardly think of a more important service to the public than giving them this information, and making it easier for them to compete in all these examinations.
The hon. Secretary of State extricated himself in a vague way by saying that the applications are often of a general nature. But it is not these that are involved- rather it is a question of applications of a specific nature, such as when a candidate applies for work as a postman in the Post Office Department. What is the cost to the civil service commission in terms of work, or services, or literature, or correspondence to file the application and reply to the applicant: "Dear Sir, I have received your application, and you will be notified when the examination is to be held". The civil service commission is well aware that there are slips, all made up in advance which

Supply-Secretary of State are sent to the applicant, and when the examination is held, the candidate receives a notice and has only to report for examination at the place and time mentioned in the notice.
I am wondering therefore why this public service has been eliminated. If it is true that 40 people apply for jobs every day and that those applications are returned, it means that by the end of the year a total of 14,600 will have unsuccessfully applied for a position with the civil service commission, and I say this is an insult and an injustice to these people. What will happen is that when competitions are held, there will not be enough candidates, and it will indeed be difficult to fill all the vacancies because you must not forget that, for the Post Office Department alone, when a competition was held, out of 400 people approximately applying during the year, only about 200 of them succeeded. These people were put on an eligible list; the ones on top of the list were hired first and then the others in order, until the list was exhausted. What is easier, fairer and more logical for the applicants? You take it from me that the next time the Post Office Department holds an examination, there will not be 40 applicants. Indeed, nobody will be aware that a position of clerk is open at the Post Office, and you will have to hold examinations monthly to obtain an adequately sized staff to give the efficient service the public is asking for, the kind of service it is entitled to get from the Civil Service Commission and the Post Office Department.
We are told this is done in order to save the salaries of one or two grade I clerks at $2,000 each or a total of $4,000. But these two employees still cannot be dispensed with, as they will now be busy answering applicants whose requests cannot be accepted. Therefore this will not reduce the expenditures of this department. As a matter of fact these $4,000 will help in all fairness the
14,000	persons who apply for work at the civil service commission; besides, a period of unemployment is hardly the time to reduce the staff.
Has the hon. Secretary of State, like his colleague the hon. Postmaster General, the intention to replace labour by electronic machines? The Secretary of State should not expect two mail deliveries a day, as promised by the Postmaster General when he was in the opposition. You will have only one delivery a day, as in the past, because

the election is also a thing of the past. Moreover, as the riding of Labelle is somewhat far away, the announcement of a competition will arrive one or two days late, because there will be no second mail delivery, whatever the hon. Secretary of State may say.
As to the notices posted in public buildings you hardly imagine, Mr. Chairman, that a would-be applicant living in Ste. Anne du Lac would walk 32 miles every two or three days to the Labelle post-office, in order to see whether there will be a competition, so that he may file his application. With all due respect, I submit that such conditions are nonsensical; this is cheese-paring economy. I will even go further and say that it is not an economy, since you will keep the same personnel. In fact, the number of employees has increased. This is no time to cut down staff, especially to deprive the public of one of the most useful services.
I suggest that any Canadian has a right to seek employment in the civil service, and if an applicant must rely solely on ads published in the newspapers or notices posted in public buildings, it makes no sense. That decision taken by the civil service commission is bad; it is mere cheese-paring economy
What will be the result of such a policy? The hon. Secretary of State will get hundreds of letters from people who want a job in the civil service, and he himself will have to establish files for all those people who wish to become civil servants.


Mr. Ricard:: There won't be any lack of candidates, in such a case.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the spokesman for the civil service commission has heard the hon. member for St. Denis speak clearly enough for the commission to know that nobody likes such changes and that a year from now, or with the least possible delay, the commissioners will correct this unfair practice with regard to some fifteen thousand Canadian citizens who want to apply for work at the civil service commission.
(Text) :


Mr. Chambers:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few brief words on the subject of age. In this country today, as in most other western countries, we are facing a real social problem in the employment of what might be called middle aged citizens. It is ironic that in an effort to provide greater security at the end of life pensions plans brought into

industry have made it very difficult for persons over 40 to secure employment. I just want to express the hope that when the commission investigates plans for reorganization of employment they will take into account the very serious question of making employment available to more older persons who may have come on the labour market through no reason of inefficiency and the possibility of their applying for employment in the civil service. One applicant came to me who had been turned down on account of age. The employer, he said, wanted someone with a master's degree, 20 years of experience and not over 23 years of age. That is an exaggeration, of course, but the problem does exist. I hope that the commission will take it into account in their planning.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Before the minister answers the hon. member for St. Denis I should like to raise a question having to do with the reply that the minister made to the hon. member on July 2, as found at page 1832 of Hansard. I was particularly interested in the English translation of the last remark made that day by the minister when dealing with the question of the hon. member. The Secretary of State is credited with saying:
It is a commission which was instituted by the former government, and I have to suffer the consequences.
I discovered this a short time ago and it does not seem to jibe with the statement made by the minister this afternoon which I looked at in the Hansard office. I wonder whether he would explain the change which seems to have taken place from the statement of July 2 to the one he made this afternoon.


Henri Courtemanche: No, I did not change my mind. I should like to say that if the hon. member for St. Denis has some difficulty I have the same difficulty, but I am not responsible for the difficulty he has. The civil service commission is carrying out its own job and if we have some difficulty I am not responsible and neither is the hon. member for St. Denis. That is the explanation I gave on that date.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: May I ask the Secretary of State who is responsible for that situation? He tells us that he is the spokesman for the civil service commission. If he is the spokesman for the civil service commission, and if there is nothing he can do, he should not take it upon himself to present and explain the
Supply-Secretary of State estimates of the civil service commission. Moreover, he says that the civil service commission was instituted by the former government. I believe the Secretary of State makes a slight mistake. The civil service commission was created more than 22 years ago. If the Secretary of State remembers weil, the civil service commission exercised its authority throughout the country when the Conservative government was in power. The answer of the Secretary of State, besides being inaccurate, is far from being gratifying. After all, he says that as it is the work of the former government, we must suffer the consequences. If, for instance, the number of unemployed people has doubled, are we to suffer the consequences? You made the whole election campaign by promising that you would improve the situation. Well, improve it.


Henri Courtemanche: The hon. member for St. Denis says 22 years. I shall go further and I tell him that the civil service commission was set up in 1918.


Azellus Denis: Yes, for Ottawa but not for the nine provinces.


Henri Courtemanche: I have never suggested anything else. It was formed in 1918 and the two governments have always respected the authority of the civil service commission. It was purposely made free from political interference and if the day should come when this situation no longer obtains, this to my mind, would be most unfortunate.


Mr. Deschalelels:: Could the Secretary of State obtain from the two officials sitting in front of him the exact date when the commission changed its policy with regard to those examinations? I would also like to know if, before adopting this new attitude, the civil service commission had communicated with the then secretary of state?


Henri Courtemanche: I am informed that the commission changed its method of receiving applications about three months ago. Now, if that new procedure proves inefficient, the commissioners will come back to the former method. I am told that the civil service commission receives more than 13,000 applications per month. As a general rule, such applications are classified so as to be kept for later reference. If a competition is open, it is easy for the commission to notify the applicants.


Azellus Denis: So as to clarify that matter, may I add this: I am not talking about a

Supply-Secretary of State person sending a general application but about a person applying for a particular position in a given department, a position for which that person would be called upon to compete if there was an examination. The Secretary of State has been a private member of parliament and he knows that the Post Office Department hires about a hundred persons in a year. If a competition is advertised for three or four days only in the newspapers, not enough candidates will apply. What will happen is that, instead of having four hundred candidates, you will have about 40 and out of these perhaps as many as 20 or 25 will fail. This means that for the Postmaster General there would be only fifteen qualified applicants and that, in a month's time, new notices would have to be sent out and new examinations held. This is very dangerous in a different way. In fact, when an examination is about to be announced by the commission, civil servants themselves and their relatives are the first to know about it. If this new policy is kept up, in twenty years' time the civil service will be solely a huge family affair, made up of so and so's cousins and his sisters and his aunts, for those would be the only ones to know that a job is open and an examination is to be held.
In my opinion, it would be in the general interest that this decision be reconsidered. The Secretary of State said that he is only spokesman for the commission; consequently, he can admit with me that this decision is a mistake. It is human to make a mistake. It could be that all this was only an experiment. In that case, I think the experiment has already lasted long enough.
I have here seven applications that were returned. I am sure that when a further competition is held those applicants will not be notified or, if the competition is advertised, they will forget to read the papers. You cannot ask these people to scan the newspaper for months on end, so as not to miss their chance to compete for some job. This applies to all hon. members. Everyone of us receives applications that we have to put on file. If we have to do the work of the civil service commission so as to save work for two clerks who, in any case, have to answer the would-be competitors that their applications are declined, it is hardly worth the trouble. In fact, the commission is not saving a cent. Not only does it fail to serve the public, but it is doing an injustice to thousands of people.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: A few moments ago, the Secretary of State did not answer the second

part of my question. Did the civil service commission communicate with the Secretary of State before introducing the new procedure?


Henri Courtemanche: The answer is no. I can
however tell my hon. friend from St. Denis, after consulting my officials, that they are willing to reconsider the case he mentions and that they will see to the matter.


Mr. Gour:: I congratulate my good friend the hon. member for St. Denis on having raised this matter. In the constituency I have the honour to represent, there are about 12,000 civil servants. In my opinion, this decision of the commission is contrary to its usual good administration. Prior to that, the civil service commission was beyond reproach. I think the increase in the number of applications is mainly due to the great number of unemployed now in Canada. I congratulate the Secretary of State on having consulted his officials and I believe their decision to reconsider this question goes to prove that they are intelligent and willing to try again after having realized they made a mistake.
I admire the Secretary of State who had the courage a moment ago to reaffirm that he will brook no political interference in the civil service. At present, as far as I am concerned and as far as I know-and I believe that I know much about it-we do not, in my opinion, give enough political freedom to civil servants. I am not in favour of having
150,000	employees in the civil service, either in the Department of Public Works or elsewhere, who are all intelligent men or women, and who cannot tell whether they are Conservatives, C.C.F'ers, Liberals or anything else. We live in a democratic country and if we want true democracy, it is not reasonable to prevent our civil servants from freely expressing their political opinions.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to give you an example. I have waged five electoral campaigns. Each time, at least 400 or 500 civil servants, from the Department of Public Works or from crown corporations, have spoken against me, against the party and even did organization work for my opponent. I have never denounced any one of them. There was even a civil servant who ran against me on behalf of another political party. He was a very likeable young man and the only thing I told him during the campaign was that, after the election, if he needed my assistance to get his job back, I would be glad to help him.

He came again to me and I made him the same offer.
The sister of one of the candidates, a woman who held a job as clerk grade III at the experimental farm-and a very competent one-campaigned against me for two months. She was holding down her job in the civil service and, in her spare time, she travelled around campaigning on behalf of her brother. After the election, several of my supporters came to me and requested that I report those people so they would lose their jobs. What did I say? I asked them if they themselves would like to lose their farm, their store or their job. They replied that they wouldn't like it. Well, I was surely not going to make them lose their job.
Civil service employees are entitled to their opinions. Naturally, I would not wish a civil servant to cry out on the roofs that he worked for such and such a department and that certain things go on in that department which he could unmask; his audience might believe these statements, even though he might be lying. I admit that civil servants have no right to go that far in politics; but, outside that, I have never caused anybody to lose his job. I have always said that if those were their ideas, they were free to come out in favour of one party or another.
What happened? All those people which my hon. friends wanted me to get discharged voted for me at the next election. I could tell new members that if they think they can make a civil servant lose his job because he did not work for them during the election campaign, they would be doing an injustice to that man. And if they make him lose his job they will lose a hundred votes or more at the next election.
I would therefore advise the ministers not to pay too much attention to the new members. As far as the new members are concerned, may I tell them not to pay too much attention to their organizers who could very easily make them commit very serious mistakes in this regard. Even though I have succeeded in business, I have been active in politics for several years and I will admit that there are some intelligent people among the Conservatives.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They are all intelligent.


Joseph-Omer Gour: If you are among those who are intelligent, that means you are a Liberal.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If they are not bright, we do not keep them.
Supply-Secretary of State


Joseph-Omer Gour: I will not go on any longer, convinced as I am that you will reach an understanding with the civil service commission so that it may continue, as it has in the past, to announce competitions in the newspapers and to accept applications for employment.
Mr. Chairman, may I say to the Secretary of State that, in his constituency, just as in my own, farmers no longer get their mail at the post office. People in villages no longer go to the post office. They hand the postal box key to one of their children or to someone else who goes and fetches the mail. As people in towns no longer go to the post office, they are not in a position to see the advertisements except in the newspapers. Or they will go to the post office for a couple of months and then they will forget about it and the time limit for the competition will pass, which will cost money and will not give satisfaction.
Now then, I am sure the civil service commission which is made up of as honest and intelligent people as we can wish will see to it that justice is given to everybody.
We live in a democracy and civil servants have the right to believe that they would be better off under the Conservatives than under the Liberals or under the C.C.F. than under the Conservatives or the other way around. And it would be a great injustice to try to prevent one or all civil servants who are just as intelligent as the members of the House of Commons, from expressing their opinion. They should have freedom of thought except in cases of extravagance or in cases where these employees would not do their job in a satisfactory way. In such a case their immediate superiors are capable of dealing with the matter.
I am sure the Secretary of State will take these few remarks in good spirit and that he will be careful not to rely too much on the recommendations of new members, also that those new members will not be too enthusiastic in having those who may have worked against them in the elections dismissed. If too many civil servants are dismissed, Conservatives will all be swept off at the next election.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the remarks just made by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Gour) and also with regard to the question I asked the Secretary of State before six o'clock, I must say that

Supply-Secretary of State I am not at all satisfied with the answer he gave me. I am not satisfied because his answer was based on an individual case, the one which was discussed in this house. I was not referring to that case at the time, but to political interference in general, and particularly to a resolution passed in this house at one time. I am simply asking the Secretary of State if he thinks that this resolution and this practice, tradition, or custom is not rather obsolete nowadays. That was all I asked him to do. I will also appreciate his opinion as to how we should deal now with people guilty of political interference.


Henri Courtemanche: To reply to the question of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), I must confess that this is more a matter of internal policy of the government, and that it would be very much out of order for me, as a minister representing a department, to outline a policy which should be entirely a governmental one. It is for this reason that I shall venture no further in telling him what my policy would be. I steadfastly maintain that it is a matter of internal policy of the government, a policy which must be outlined only by the leader of the house or by the Prime Minister.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Chairman, I know that the Secretary of State will understand my begging to differ. Far from being a matter of internal policy, it is a matter which was approved by both parties and which was put into effect, to a large extent by the person who was responsible for the civil service commission-namely, the Secretary of State.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that in this case, since it is almost 50 years ago that this outdated policy was established, the hon. Secretary of State should give serious consideration to the advisability of changing the policy in this respect.	I think
that the day has passed when you could dismiss a federal civil servant merely because a member of the house certifies that he has been guilty of interference in politics or of some political activity. I therefore ask him whether it might not be in order to consider the matter very seriously with a view to incorporating the requisite changes in that policy which has been followed for at least fifty years.


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). I quite understand that we must change with the times. I do not contend that the present policy is the

best, but I can tell the hon. member that I have no objection to taking the required steps nor to discussing with my colleagues the changes that could be made in that direction.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make another remark. I do not know whether or not the matter has already been raised by other hon. members, but if so, the hon. Secretary of State can tell me, and I will resume my seat. Many times, especially during the last election campaign, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) gave the impression that Canadian government employees would receive a salary increase. Is the government now considering the matter? Have they decided to increase the salary of federal civil servants?


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Chairman, I will not go as far as to say that the government has, or has not, made a decision on the matter, but in a statement I made this afternoon I said that this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Finance. I said that when his estimates come up for consideration, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) will then be able to answer this question more accurately.


Alexis Pierre Caron: In this way we can reserve our questions about salary increase for federal civil servants till we come to the estimates of the Department of Finance. I hope that we will not then be told that we should have put our questions to the hon. Secretary of State who is responsible for that matter. I wish to be sure about that, for it happened that we were told: "You should have asked that question at such and such a time". I am glad that the statement of the Secretary of State to the effect that this question comes directly under the Department of Finance has been set in the record so that we may, when the time comes, bring it to the attention of the Minister of Finance, should he tell us that the question should have been put to the hon. Secretary of State.


Henri Courtemanche: The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) can be assured that when he asks the question of the Minister of Finance, he will not be told to put it to the Secretary of State because I have been careful to consult my colleague before giving that answer.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask another question. With regard to competition notices published in the newspapers, it was said a moment ago-I refrained from asking any question at the time-that about
13,000	applications for jobs had been received

monthly. In view of this new policy having been established three months ago, has the number of applications decreased?


Henri Courtemanche: Not to the knowledge of the civil service commissioners.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, since the only reply given to the candidates is to read the papers, which has not diminished the work of the employees of the civil service commission, in my opinion, it would be quite reasonable to revert to the former policy which was agreeable to everybody. As the hon. Secretary of State says, I think the civil service commission would be well advised to revert to the former policy since the administration costs are in no way less than they were before.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: Several weeks ago there was a certain amount of discussion in the house arising out of statements made by Mr. Stewart Bates of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It was taken by the hon. member for Ottawa West and others that Mr. Bates' statement raised questions as to the efficiency of the civil service since it appeared that he was able to slash the strength of this particular agency while at the same time providing a service which was at least as good as it was before and, perhaps, even to extend that service.
We know that the government has this particular question under active consideration; at least we were given that assurance in the house. What I should like to know from the Secretary of State is what interest the civil service commission is taking in this issue and whether it is making any study of the developments in the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to see whether there are some advantages in the organization of this corporation that could apply to other branches of the civil service.


Henri Courtemanche: The commission is
aware of the facts in this case and they are following the progress which is being made and are ready to conduct themselves according to the situation that developed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder whether the civil
service commission has noted a column by the defeated Conservative candidate in Ottawa West which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of August 6. There was one particular paragraph which, I think, might be interesting to the commission since it seems to imply that there has been very little change in the conditions which this particular defeated candidate thought quite unsatisfactory.
57071-3-207
Supply-Secretary of State Patronage dead! Well, it it is, there's a prevailing wind with an awful hang-over from past years, and, as far as my experience goes, it's almost impossible to get a door open and let in a breath of fresh air.	.
I wonder if the minister is able to comment on that particular remark.


Henri Courtemanche: I do not think I can make any statement myself, but I can tell the hon. member that the doors of the commission are always wide open.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I think the Secretary of State realizes that in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon and in other areas of northern Canada civil servants working for various departments are not being treated in the same way, particularly with respect to housing. In the case of the Department of Transport, the department supplies the house, the furniture, cutlery and so on. In the case of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources a house and furniture are supplied, while I believe the Department of Fisheries follows the same practice as the ' department of northern affairs. In the case of the Department of Fisheries it was only last year that employees of that department in the Northwest Territories were provided with housing, and last year, also, Post Office Department employees were finally brought under this scheme, two houses being provided in the Northwest Territories for two postmasters, one at Fort Smith and the other at Yellowknife. I asked the Postmaster General a question on July 26 concerning this discrimination between the treatment accorded employees of the Post Office Department as compared with the treatment of employees of other departments, and he told me at that time that an investigation was being carried on by the government with regard to employees of the civil service in the north. I wonder if the Secretary of State can tell me how this investigation is progressing. As a matter of fact the investigation began a couple of years ago, and it is about time some conclusion was reached. I hope the minister will take the case of these post office employees into consideration and ensure that they are treated in the same way as people working in other departments of government are treated.


Henri Courtemanche: This matter is the responsibility of each department concerned, but I am informed that the civil service commission is interested in the matter and reviewing the facts which have been put forward.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Oh yes, but the civil service commission was very interested in the matter in 1956 when I spoke on it. It is now 1958, and I am wondering if we are going to get any results.
3274	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State


Henri Courtemanche: The civil service commission has no authority.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: No authority to look alter the interests of the people who work lor them, the civil servants ol the public service in Canada?


Henri Courtemanche: It has no authority to settle questions about housing or anything like that. The authority is only a co-ordinating one, no more than that.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Could the minister tell me il there is any difference in what is provided by the Department ol Transport lor their employees in the Northwest Territories as compared with what is provided by the department ol northern affairs, or by the Post Office Department lor its employees with regard to housing, lurnishings, services, including luel, oil, electric light and the rest ol it? Is there any variation in the amount that is deducted Irom the remuneration ol employees ol each ol these branches ol the service?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, in order to hurry this item along I would be prepared to give the hon. member lor Mackenzie River the information he wants on my estimates.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: For post office, fisheries and transport?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. There is an interdepartmental committee which, as the hon. member knows, has been holding meetings lor two years. There is some evidence that they are getting closer to agreement. I will give the hon. member the most recent information that is available on my estimates.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: You will give me the information I asked lor just a lew moments ago in regard to what services are being provided lor persons working for the Post Office Department as opposed to those working lor the Department ol Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Department ol Transport, et cetera. Can you give me that information?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I will try. I believe I have it all. I have seen the minutes ol the interdepartmental committee and I think I can get it.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I would hope the minister would provide me with that information at the time his estimates are before the house now that he has had notice ol these questions.


Office of the Chief Electoral Officer-
57. Salaries and expenses of office, $77,705.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I have a number ol questions to ask on this item and I wonder il we could wait until the minister has his officials before him.
The first question I want to put before the minister is this. I think he will recognize that his role in relation to the office we are now concerned with is more immediate to himself than is his role in relation to the civil service commission. In a sense he is much more responsible lor these activities. He must be aware that his party in previous sessions of the house took a very strong position in connection with the constitutional regard toward the whole question ol redistribution. The then leader ol the opposition who is now the high commissioner in England was particularly vocal in this regard. When we had before us this session a bill that would have effected redistribution two hon. members on the government side of the house from the province of Quebec spoke on this matter. I want to ask the minister what are his views.
The Tremblay report, lor example, sets out to some degree the views ol Quebec on constitutional matters and insists that on questions of redistribution each of the provinces should be consulted in any readjustment of boundaries. That has not been observed, particularly in the last two or three redistributions. I want to ask the minister what are his views and what is the viewpoint ol his government in that regard in the light of statements by the former leader of that party and statements by hon. members on the government side of the house from Quebec who within the last two or three months in this house expressed the opinion that the whole question ol redistribution, when it comes to boundaries and drawing up constituencies, should be taken to the provincial authorities for consultation. That is my first question. Would the minister care to comment?


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad to refer the hon. member for Port Arthur to the answer I gave to him on June 25 in respect of this question as reported at page 1610 of Hansard of that date:
In view of the very heavy program of legislation on the agenda for this session I can only say at this time that the government has given consideration to this problem, and intends to refer the study of the Canada Elections Act to the committee at a later date.


Lionel Chevrier: What committee is that?


Henri Courtemanche: The standing committee on elections.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, this has nothing to do with the Canada Elections Act. It is a

constitutional question relating to the interpretation of the British North America Act. Although it is something that may be discussed by the committee on elections it must be decided at a much higher policy level and in consultation with the provincial authorities. I asked about it in order to get an idea as to the pre-thinking of the minister on this subject.


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Chairman, that is a question concerning government policy. I can say nothing more than what I have said because the government, and not the minister, must decide this question.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I am right in my interpretation of that part of the discussion. It is not a matter of consulting provincial governments, but the constitution provides simply for an electoral redistribution based on the number of seats ascribed to the province of Quebec. At first, the province of Quebec had 65 seats and the other provinces a proportionate number of constituencies, according to their population. Then, the government changed the pattern by increasing the number of constituencies in the province of Quebec while keeping the same proportion in the other provinces. Is that correct?


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Chairman, I will simply point out that the law was amended, if I remember correctly, during the years 1950-51-


Alexis Pierre Caron: 1951.


Henri Courtemanche: -1951, yes, and instead of taking 65 seats as a basis, as was done formerly, a certain proportion of the population was taken into account. Now, that change cannot be made before a census has been taken to assess the increase in population. The last census having been made in 1950, I do not believe that there can be any redistribution before 1960.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, without making any electoral redistribution, if some changes do occur in a riding, is it necessary to wait for a redistribution to add territory to a constituency? I will give an example. The area of the city of Hull has been extended. To add that part of the city of Hull which was formerly in the federal riding of Gatineau and the provincial riding of Hull to the federal riding of Hull, do we have to wait
57071-3-207i
Supply-Secretary of State for a redistribution, or can it be done in the meantime?


Henri Courtemanche: We should wait for a further redistribution of all federal ridings.


Alexis Pierre Caron: But this will change the limits of only two ridings. It will in no way affect the number of ridings in the province of Quebec. I am sure that if we modify the number of ridings there, redistribution is necessary throughout the country, but in the case we are dealing with, it is only a question of changing the limits of two ridings, as a result of expansion of one municipality.


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Chairman, there can be expansion in one part of the province, and contraction in another. You have to restore the balance and, if I remember rightly,-unfortunately Mr. Castonguay is not here with me tonight-


Lionel Chevrier: You have Mr. Anglin, who is very able.


Henri Courtemanche: Yes. I had the opportunity of talking to Mr. Castonguay, but at the last moment another official was sent to assist me. I am told that if we had a general election now, Ontario would have two more members, and Quebec would lose one.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a short question with reference to the period of elections? I have heard it said in the house repeatedly over the years, and I have heard it said by members on both sides of the house, that the time between the issue of the writ and the election itself is too long. I am wondering whether, under the present method of registering voters, it is possible to shorten the time of the election?
Has the minister or his officers given any consideration to this period which of necessity must elapse after the issue of the writ and what, if anything, has been done to shorten that period? These are the two questions on which I would like some enlightenment.


Henri Courtemanche: I am informed that it cannot be done with the present form of enumeration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What would be required in the way of changing the present form of enumeration to make a reduction of this period possible?

Supply-Secretary of State


Henri Courtemanche: A permanent list.


Lionel Chevrier: Will it require legislation?


Henri Courtemanche: Absolutely, yes. (Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, did I understand the Secretary of State to say a while ago that there would be a redistribution next year, that there would be a committee formed for that purpose?


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Chairman, the committee will be set up to study the matter of redistribution and the various items of legislation which have been introduced during this present session suggesting amendments to the Canada Elections Act. However, with regard to the redistribution of seats, this can only be done after a census, and this cannot take place before 1960.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, unless I am mistaken, the census will take place in 1961.


Henri Courtemanche: I must say to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) that this is not a matter coming within my jurisdiction. This is special legislation entitled the Representation Act 1952, and it does not come under my department.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Still, we must ask the Secretary of State for information in this regard, since he is responsible for this matter before the house. This means that redistribution will be carried out after the 1961 census, so that this cannot take place before 1962 since we must have the census figures before providing for redistribution.
A moment ago the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) stated that the Tremblay Commission report had suggested that the provinces or certain provinces be consulted before any changes are made. To my mind this suggestion is altogether opposed to the very principles of the constitution. As long as we retain the same formula, based on the number of electors per Quebec constituency, I feel that we remain faithful to the spirit of the constitution.


Henri Courtemanche: I will answer that
question by asking the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) if he has had occasion to read the Tremblay report? Personally, I did not have the opportunity.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, while we are examining the Canada Elections Act, might not the Secretary of State ask the Chief

Electoral Officer to clarify the section of the Act which deals with the employment of persons permitted to work for candidates? As I understand it, a section of the act stipulates that a candidate may not employ- or, rather, pay-more than one person for every 500 electors. While I appreciate that there are such posts as clerical assistants, clerks and so on, there is nothing in the act about representatives in the polls.
The hon. Secretary of State knows that the various candidates are allowed two representatives per poll on election day. But the law does not tell us if they are allowed to pay these people. As I see it, it is important that the Chief Electoral Officer should clarify this matter, so that we may know whether or not we are entitled to pay these representatives, for if we maintain the limit of one paid person for every 500 electors, then we cannot retain the services of a representative and pay him; otherwise, first he loses his voting right, and secondly we are not allowed to pay him.


Henri Courtemanche: I am informed that to provide for that the law should be amended. However, a candidate is authorized to spend $500 for various representatives.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Will the committee to be entrusted with a study of the Canada Elections Act next year have to deal with all those matters?


Henri Courtemanche: Certainly, yes.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: There has been discussion in a language which I unfortunately do not understand very well on what I brought up, namely redistribution. I just wish to ask the minister what he had to say about the Tremblay report? I know he said something.


Henri Courtemanche: I answered the question that I have not read the Tremblay report and I told the hon. member that he was lucky to have read it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have another question in connection with redistribution. In view of the fact that this parliament, not at this session, will have to face this problem, what steps has the chief electoral officer taken, or what steps is he taking, or does he plan to take steps to advise parliament on this particular task?


Henri Courtemanche: The chief electoral
officer has nothing to do with redistribution; it is up to parliament.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That may be true in the technical sense but I think the minister is aware that in effect he has a chief adviser on that particular matter who spends a great deal of time and takes a great interest in this particular topic. He has a considerable file of material on the whole question of redistribution. I was just wondering how far he was going in his lining up of information, especially in relation to the size of constituencies, the population of constituencies and calculations projected ahead as to the number of seats provinces were going to gain or lose.


Henri Courtemanche: I have nothing to do with that. The government will deal with that at the proper time. Even if the department of the chief electoral officer comes under his jurisdiction, the Secretary of State has nothing to do with that and neither has the chief electoral officer. Parliament will decide.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask just one question following what the hon. member for Port Arthur has said. I understand from what the member for Port Arthur has said that he is under the impression that there will be redistribution before the next election. I understood the minister to say a moment ago, unless I misunderstood him, that there would not be. Now, which is it?


Douglas Mason Fisher: That depends upon the Prime Minister, but there has to be a redistribution in 1962.


Henri Courtemanche: The next census will take place in 1962 and nothing will be done before that.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: In referring to the statement of the Secretary of State about the amendment to the election act in connection with representatives, I take it that the act allows a candidate to spend $500 to this end. For those who have 300 polls in their riding and who wish to employ two representatives in each poll, you have 600 people. If we vote a total appropriation of $500, this leaves us with a sum of about $1 per representative. You might just as well leave the act unchanged as to try to hire people for $1 a day, not to mention the fact that they must, in addition, pay for their own meals. I believe that the sum of $500 mentioned by the Secretary of State is far from adequate. This is 1958, and the cost of living and of labour have gone up by more than $1 a day.


Henri Courtemanche: Which goes to show that it is necessary to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Azellus Denis: The Secretary of State mentioned $500 for each riding. I feel that falls far short of the mark.
Supply-Secretary of State
(Text):


Mr. Garland:: Can the minister say how
many returning officers have been appointed throughout Canada in the last 12 months?


Henri Courtemanche: I cannot answer. We
do not have the figures here.


John Richard Garland: How many such appointments are currently pending?


Henri Courtemanche: From recollection, only two.


John Richard Garland: In view of the fact that the minister has not got the information, would he undertake to give it to me at the earliest possible date?


Henri Courtemanche: I will get the figures
and I will be ready to answer the hon. member.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In the same vein, how does
the chief electoral officer arrive at the choice of the returning officer?


Henri Courtemanche: The chief electoral
officer has nothing to do with that matter. They are appointed by order in council.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Does the minister mean that
the chief electoral officer gives no advice as to appointments?


Henri Courtemanche: Yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Perhaps the minister could
explain what channel it is that determines these matters.


Henri Courtemanche: The law is that if a
man is over 65 years of age or sick the Secretary of State is advised and an order in council is passed.


Lionel Chevrier: Under 65.


Henri Courtemanche: Over 65.


Douglas Mason Fisher: How many charges were laid
in the courts following the last two elections as the result of action by the chief electoral officer in carrying out the provisions of the Canada Elections Act? What were the charges and what results did they have?


Henri Courtemanche: We will have this information later and I will be able to answer the hon. member.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Maybe I can ask this question. Has the minister final cost figures on the
1957	and 1958 elections?


Henri Courtemanche: The cost of the 1957
election was $7,351,789 and the cost of the
1958	election was $9,051,300.
3278	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is any study under way or
is it known now what it would cost per poll to extend advance polls in a more general way?


Henri Courtemanche: I am told that the question is a little too broad to answer.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Let us put it this way. Is any study under way to check on the cost? I raise the question because when one advances the idea of more advance polls or advance polls open to a broader classification of voters or for more days the point is always made that it would increase the cost so much but it is very difficult for us to discuss the matter unless we can be presented with some idea of the cost. The province of Ontario has gone ahead and extended its advance poll provisions in a certain way and I was wondering whether the chief electoral officer had gathered any cost information from the province. There would be quite a similarity.


Henri Courtemanche: I am informed that it is pretty hard to answer this question because it is too broad a one. They do not have any figures.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Is the cost of an advance poll lower or higher according to the section of the country where it is held?


Henri Courtemanche: The answer is yes. We have some variation.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Could we get an average figure of the cost of such polls. I do not want an exact figure, just an average.


Henri Courtemanche: The only answer is that normally the cost is less in rural districts than in urban ones.


Alexis Pierre Caron: But as between two cities, say Toronto and Montreal, is there a difference in the cost?


Henri Courtemanche: No.


Alexis Pierre Caron: What is the approximate cost in Montreal?


Henri Courtemanche: It depends on the
number on the list because the tariff is the same everywhere.


Alexis Pierre Caron: What is the tariff?
(Translation):
Could the Secretary of State tell me what tariff he is talking about?


Henri Courtemanche: The tariff fixing the cost of the poll, the rental of the premises and the salaries of the returning officers.
(Text):
Deputy returning officer, for all services, $18; poll clerks, $12, and rent, $20.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Is there not usually a constable?


Henri Courtemanche: That depends. If you have a constable you will pay for him.


Alexis Pierre Caron: What would be the cost for a constable, $7 or $8.


Henri Courtemanche: Ten dollars. (Translation):


Mr. Dupuis:: I should like to ask the
Secretary of State if in the province of Quebec the provincial police seen around polls on election day are paid by the department?


Henri Courtemanche: I will not attempt to discuss this matter with the hon. member this evening.


Yvon Dupuis: Is this practice encouraged by the department?
(Text):


Henri Courtemanche: I should like to correct something for the record. In rural districts a constable is paid $6 but in urban districts a constable receives $10 a day.


Mr. Kindt:: I should like to ask the minister a question on the subject of disability. How many civil servants have been forced to leave the government service during the past ten years because of disability?


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member would mind sitting down. We passed the civil service item. We are on item 57, office of the chief electoral officer.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to come back to the question of the cost of advance polls. I realize that the question is perhaps too broad. I regret that Mr. Castonguay is not here at the present time to indicate whether he has been working in this field.
I understood that he had been, and I wondered if the minister would advise the chief electoral officer that information on this particular point would be useful. We should have a concrete idea how much it would cost to extend advance poll privileges.
I think there has been fairly general agreement amongst the members of the house that we would like to see advance poll privileges extended, but one of the stumbling blocks to getting definite action is this question of cost. I understand that the experience in Ontario has not been a happy one. There has not been a resultant increase in the vote following an extension of the advance poll which, according to many people, would compensate for this extension. We need to know the answer to this sort of thing before we go ahead. Perhaps we will not be able to raise this question until the minister's estimates are considered next year, but I do hope he will

advise the chief electoral officer to put some work on this particular feature.


Henri Courtemanche: I thank the hon.
member, and as soon as the chief electoral officer returns I will give the question consideration and be ready to answer.
Mr. Hardier I wonder if the minister can tell the committee why it is that although we have people in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon who would qualify for voting at advance polls, there is no such thing as an advance poll in these areas?


Henri Courtemanche: The answer is that it has never been asked for before.
Mr. Hardier The minister had better go back and look at Hansard. I asked for it two or three years ago.
May I refer to a problem which we encountered during the last election campaign. On the evening of the election the Edmonton radio station in Alberta was giving the results of the Alberta polls, as well as the various polls across the country east of Alberta, and in one portion of my riding it was six o'clock so the result could not interfere with the bandwagon jumpers-as it happened there were not too many of them-but in the other half of my riding they were an hour behind. The same situation would hold good in the Yukon, where they have Yukon time, and they are still another hour behind. Although they get very poor radio reception in the north, there are times when as a result of freak reception the people in the Yukon could get the results of the polling from Newfoundland to Alberta two hours before the polls closed.


Henri Courtemanche: Could the hon. member tell me how many votes were cast in that advance poll?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I am not speaking about the advance poll. I am speaking of the announcement by radio stations of the returns as they are received from the provinces. As I said, in the last election the radio station in Edmonton was booming out the results of the polls from Newfoundland to Alberta an hour before the polls in my riding closed, and two hours before they closed in the Yukon.


Mr.   Prall@: It happens everywhere.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: It does?


Mr.   Prall@: Yes.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Oh, that is why the bandwagon jumpers were jumping this last trip.
(Translation):


Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct only one remark to the Secretary of State (Mr. Courtemanche). I
Supply-Secretary of State should like to draw to his attention a situation which is always embarrassing for outgoing members and for the government. It is that election papers outside the province of Quebec and some constituencies in Manitoba are, according to law, printed in only one language. In the past, outgoing members have been blamed because the act is not very clear on this point and, to prevent such criticism in the future, I would suggest to the Secretary of State that he request his officials to prepare an amendment which would provide for the publication and printing of election papers in both official languages of this country for bilingual constituencies.


Henri Courtemanche: I will certainly draw this matter to the attention of the responsible officials.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary to discuss this matter at any length because all federal documents are supposed to be bilingual just as postal stamps and currency must be bilingual.


Henri Courtemanche: I am informed that the election act will have to be amended because it was not provided that outside the province of Quebec and certain provinces such as Manitoba, these election papers be printed otherwise than in English. I will certainly make the required recommendations.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have one complaint in connection with the operations of the election act during the last election. I raised the question in the house in connection with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but was not able to obtain the information I needed. The situation is this. The election act forbids any sort of radio or television performance in support of the parties or dealing with the election for the period from Friday midnight until the polls close on Monday evening.
On the Sunday before the election a number of radio stations across Canada carried a broadcast sponsored by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce which featured Mr. Grant McConachie, the president of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines. The burden of the message was an exhortation to the people to get out and vote, but the part to which I particularly objected was one of his concluding remarks to the effect that if you do not get out and vote you are likely to have a socialist government or that is how socialists get in power. I want to make the point that we happen to be a socialist party, and we are recognized as such. I feel this was a breach of the elections act. Unfortunately we are not in a position to get hold of the tape, since the C.B.C. requirements seem to have lapsed in

Business of the House
this particular regard. I am not going to ask the minister to investigate the matter now, . but I should like him to advise the chief electoral officer that in future elections he should be more watchful of this particular type of action. I do not believe political broadcasts should be taking place during this period.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what the business *will be for tomorrow, and when the house leader is dealing with that I wonder if he could tell us what will take place on Monday?


Mr. Green:: We shall continue with the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State tomorrow; then, the estimates of legislation, northern affairs, labour, mines and technical surveys, and post office.
On Monday we will commence with item No. 18 on today's order paper, which has to do with the , simultaneous - translation system for the chamber; then the resolution concerning the federal district commission, which is item No. 21. Then we will take item No. 1, the house in committee on the act to incorporate the lakehead harbour commissioners; item No. 7, consideration of Senate amendments to an act to amend the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1921; item No. 9, second reading of an act to amend the Indian Act; item No. 8, an act to amend the Penitentiary Act; item No. 12, second reading of an act to amend the Criminal Code; item No. 17, the resolution concerning the national parole board, and item No. 20, the resolution concerning the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
On Tuesday we intend to take the various items standing in the name of the Minister of Finance, commencing with item No. 3 on today's order paper, an act respecting the taxation of estates, and then to go on to the Customs Tariff resolution, which is item No. 22 on today's order paper; and then item No. 5, which is an act to amend the Excise Tax Act. The other finance measures will be considered after that.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on July 14.

[The following items were issued in Committee of Supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Defence services-
220.	To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including costs incurred in the participation of the Canadian forces in the United Nations emergency force and contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $130,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $3,158,845,866 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,350,597,670 will come due for payment in future years), $1,630,377,196.
General services-
221.	Grants to military associations, institutes and others, as detailed in the estimates, $259,175.
222.	To authorize, subject to the approval of the treasury board, grants to the town of Oromocto for municipal services including the maintenance and operation of schools and to promote the development pf the town, $570,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
223.	Civil Pensions, as detailed in the estimates, $2,457.
224.	To authorize in respect of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force on leave without pay and serving as instructors with civilian training organizations operating under the British Commonwealth air training plan who were killed, payment to their dependents of amounts equal to the amounts such dependents would have received under the Pension Act, as amended, had such service as instructors been military service in the armed forces of Canada, less the value of any benefits received by such dependents under insurance contracts which were effected on the lives of such members of the Royal Canadian Air Force by or at the expense of the civilian organizations, $4,310.
Defence Services Pension Act-
225.	Government contribution to the permanent services pension account, $49,504,051.
504.	To authorize in the current and subsequent fiscal years, under such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, a capital assistance loan to the town of Oromocto, New Brunswick, to be covered by town debentures, for the purpose of assisting in the completion of the physical development of municipal works and the further development of the town's assets, $2,000,000.
505.	To authorize in the current and subsequent fiscal years, under such terms and conditions as the governor in council may prescribe, loans to the town of Oromocto, New Brunswick, or its agent, for housing projects in Oromocto, $2,500,000.
General services-
578. To authorize, subject to the approval of the treasury board, grants to the town of Oromocto for municipal services including the maintenance

and operation of schools and to promote the development of the town-further amount required, $390,500.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION A-Department-
78.	Departmental administration and payments to Canadian commercial corporation and other corporate agencies for services provided in connection with defence purchasing and production, $7,232,086.
79.	Care, maintenance and custody of standby defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling, $450,000.
80.	To provide capital assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts, or by crown plants operated on a management-fee basis, or by crown companies under direction of the Minister of Defence Production, subject to approval of treasury board, $900,000.
81.	To provide for payment of grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on crown-owned defence plants operated by private contractors, $95,000.
B-Crown companies-
82.	To provide for expenses incurred by Defence Construction (1951) Limited in procuring the construction of defence projects on behalf of the Department of National Defence and procuring the construction of such other projects as are approved by treasury board, $3,009,666.
Canadian Arsenals Limited-
83.	Administration and operation, $1,800,000.
84.	Construction, improvements and equipment, $1,354,820.
A-Department-
541. To provide capital assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of
Supply-Items Passed capital equipment or works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts, or by Crown Plants operated on a management-fee basis, or by Crown Companies under direction of the Minister of Defence Production, subject to approval of treasury board-further amount required, $1,200,000.

[Stage Direction]
383.	Departmental administration, $282,666.
384.	Companies division, $115,535.
385.	Trade Marks division, including a contribution of $3,800 to the international office for the protection of industrial property, $190,645.
386.	Bureau for translations, $1,462,120.
Patent and Copyright office-
387.	Administration division, $144,650.
388.	Patent division, $1,822,450.
389.	Copyright and industrial designs division, including a contribution of $3,300 to the union office for the protection of literary and artistic works, $30,785.
Special-
390.	To provide for special expenditure in connection with a commission under the Inquiries Act to inquire into the working of the Patent Act, and Copyright Act, the Industrial Designs Act, and other related legislation, $15,300.

[Stage Direction]
77. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $3,434,161.
540. Salaries and contingencies of the commission -further amount required, $87,610.
621. Bureau for translations-further amount required, $58,800.

[Stage Direction]
57. Salaries and expenses of office, $77,705.﻿3283
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, August 9. 1958