1959-03-24

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that at the commonwealth trade and economic conference in Montreal a decision was taken in principle to establish a new scheme of commonwealth scholarships and fellowships. The conference agreed that the exact scope and detailed arrangements for this scheme should be worked out at a further conference of the commonwealth countries to be held in the United Kingdom in 1959. It was also agreed that the mandate of this conference would include a review of existing arrangements for co-operation among commonwealth countries in the field of education to determine the need for any improvement or expansion of these arrangements.
All commonwealth governments including Canada have now accepted an invitation from the United Kingdom government to attend a conference on the lines agreed upon at Montreal, this conference to be held at Oxford, England, from July 15 to July 29. Lord Halifax, the chancellor of the university, has agreed to serve as president of the conference and Sir Philip Morris, the vice chancellor of Bristol University will serve as chairman. The composition of the Canadian delegation to the conference will be decided at a later date.
Meanwhile, the house will wish to know that a meeting is to be held in Ottawa shortly between government officials and representatives of Canadian universities to discuss the arrangements for Canadian participation in this commonwealth scholarship scheme.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I wish to state that we welcome the initiation of this scheme for commonwealth scholarships, and we are glad to note that the meeting for this purpose will be held this summer in a highly appropriate place, Oxford University.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the C.C.F. group may I
state that our sentiments are exactly the same as those expressed by the Leader of the Opposition.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the house I should like to report briefly on the present status of the municipal incentive program, and to make an announcement. As the house knows, this program was designed to assist in combating seasonal unemployment. As at March 20 I am pleased to report that the number of jobs provided under this program had reached a total of 32,000. That is a total of 32,000 jobs which would not otherwise have been provided.
Those who consulted the dominion bureau of statistics report yesterday will know from that report that this program has played a positive part in the present encouraging increase in employment and the reduction in unemployment which is now taking place. The house may be interested at this time in knowing that since this program was first announced we have received and processed 1,909 applications from municipalities across Canada. Of this number we have approved 1,838 applications or 96 per cent of the total, and a number are still pending. The aim has been, of course, to grant the maximum number of approvals in line with the objective of this program in order to put the maximum number of men to work. The estimated total cost of projects approved to date is $81,375,000.
The federal contribution necessary to launch projects of such magnitude has been slightly more than $9 million; to be exact, $9,279,000. This is the estimated federal share of payroll costs for the period in question from December 1, 1958 to April 30, 1959. The total payroll costs are estimated at $27,358,000. The cost of works to be completed during the period indicated is $52,739,000. Total payroll cost during the period is estimated at $18,706,000. Of this the federal share, as I have pointed out, is a little over $9 million. Thus the federal government's share of direct payroll costs for the period in question represented 17.6 per cent of the total cost of the works for that period.
2176	HOUSE OF
Report on Municipal Labour Program
I mention this, Mr. Speaker, in order to indicate for the benefit of hon. members the extent to which the provinces and the municipalities have co-operated in taking advantage of this program and in making possible works of the magnitude mentioned and, of course, in providing jobs both directly and indirectly to a great many Canadians.
As the house is aware, the success of the program to date has resulted in numerous requests that the period of time be extended. I should add that a number of such requests have come from provinces some of which are contributing to payroll costs in the amount of 25 per cent and 30 per cent, adding a further incentive to the municipalities.
The house will recall that a supplementary estimate was recently approved granting funds in the amount of $15 million for this program. In order that those municipalities which have taken advantage of this program to undertake during the winter months works and projects which they would not have otherwise undertaken, may be enabled to continue to receive this assistance for another full month, I am happy to announce that it is the intention of the government to grant an extension of this program until May 31.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will welcome even this information which has been given so generously by the Minister of Labour today. He mentioned that the winter work program has resulted in the placement of some 32,000 people. I regret to inform him that I made a mistake last night when speaking outside of this house. I said that the winter work program had put some 33,000 to work. I erred by a thousand in my tribute to the minister.


An hon. Member:: Wrong again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone says "wrong again"; but listen to those figures and see whether I am very wrong. The fact that the government has decided to extend this program to May 31 is an indication-


Mr. Monteith (Perth):: May 31.


Some hon. Members:: Wrong again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that the government regards this as a very serious matter. Indeed, it is so serious, as was pointed out yesterday by the minister when reporting on the latest figures on unemployment, that the unemployed of Canada represent 8.8 per cent of the working force. I am sure, however, he will not deny that in the maritime provinces the unemployed represent 12 per cent of the working force; in Newfoundland the unemployed represent 30 per cent of the working force; in Ontario the unemployed represent 6 per cent of the working force; in Quebec the


unemployed represent 12 per cent of the working force; on the prairies, 5 per cent, and in British Columbia 8.7 per cent. Let us compare this situation with the situation in Denmark, Belgium, the United States, Western Germany, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, which will indicate that the announcement today by the minister is not really going to correct our situation.


An hon. Member:: What about Windsor?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is very bad in Windsor, I regret to say. We in Canada have a higher level of unemployment than any of the countries of the western world that I have mentioned. In Canada 8.8 per cent of the working force is unemployed. In Denmark it is 8.3 per cent; in Belgium, it is 7.2 per cent; in the United States it is 6.1 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In Western Germany it is 5.6 per cent; in Sweden it is 4.3 per cent; in Norway it is 4 per cent. In the Netherlands it is 3.2 per cent; and in the United Kingdom, 2.5 per cent.


Mr. Fulton:: On a point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: -so that this government cannot take-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection and understanding that when ministers make statements it has been the practice of the house, although it is not provided for under the rules, to permit short comments on the statements in reply. Those comments are, by the practice, to be strictly relevant to the statement itself. What the hon. member is doing is taking us on a sort of world tour, which seems to be hardly relevant to the statement made by the Minister of Labour.
I suggest to you, sir, that the hon. gentleman should abide by the practice of the house. I well remember that when we were sitting over there we kept our comments short-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and if at any time we tended to stray from short comment we were reminded by my hon. friends who were sitting here at that time what the rule was. I do suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the rules of the house, which my hon. friends were so anxious to see obeyed when they were oyer here, should govern them in their conduct when they are over there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I can very well understand the concern and embarrassment of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understood the hon. member for Essex East to say he was speaking to the point of order.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I was just saying, Mr. Speaker, in making my answer to the point of order, that I can well understand the embarrassment of the government when one seeks to comment on the important statement made by the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Justice, I am sure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With all deference to the hon. member, his comments are not on the point of order. The point is how far he should go in his comment on the statement of the minister.


Peter Francis Martin: With great respect, I think I was just about to do that, but I have the right to comment upon statements made by the Minister of Justice that were not all on the point of order. The Minister of Labour quite properly made a statement outlining the government's amendment to its winter work program and giving statistics respecting the unemployment situation in Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In Canada.


Peter Francis Martin: I was commenting on those statistics by revealing that the situation in Canada is so severe that it does not compare favourably with the unemployment situation in other countries-


Michael Starr: On a point of order-


Peter Francis Martin: -in the western world, and I submit that I was completely in order.


Mr. Speaker:: There can only be one speaker at a time on the point of order.


Michael Starr: I rise on a question of privilege.


Peter Francis Martin: I was perfectly in order in commenting on the statement of the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Minister of Labour have something to say on the point of order? I wish to deal with it, because it is a rather important point in our practice and I think it is well that we keep on firm and proper lines in the practice at this stage of the proceedings of the house.


Michael Starr: I think the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East were irrelevant, in that he compared the situation in our
Report on Municipal Labour Program country with other countries that do not have the same climatic conditions and seasonal fluctuations that Canada has; and when he does so he speaks in a tone of disappointment because he predicted last year-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Kootenay West.


Peter Francis Martin: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I am hearing the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Peter Francis Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have not finished my statement.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has something further to say I will hear him again, but I am now recognizing the hon. member for Kootenay West on the point of order.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to trespass on the time of the house only for a moment or two to say that, strange as it may seem, I agree wholeheartedly with the contention of the Minister of Justice on this occasion. I do think that the member for Essex East is trespassing upon the good will of the house in making these lengthy statements, and I suggest that if he will follow the practice of his leader in replying to statements by the Prime Minister or other members of the government he will be even more in line with the rules as we understand them.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to deal further with the point of order?


Peter Francis Martin: No.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say this. The practice at this stage of the proceedings of the house is not capable of exact definition but as I understand it, is customary for a minister who wishes to make a statement to do so under the heading of motions on routine proceedings. It has been the practice of this house, for at least the last five or six years, for one speaker from each of the opposition parties to be allowed to comment briefly upon the statement.
It is clear, I think, to all of us that this does not open a question for debate. Of course it does not restrict the character of the comment, which may be favourable or it may be unfavourable. I think we have to depend upon the good sense and discretion of the members of the house in not going

Statement on Salt Fish Marketing too far. Certainly I would think that any comment that went beyond the length of the statement itself would be disproportionate and out of order. I feel the comment should be strictly relevant to the statement, and with that in mind I trust the hon. member will proceed to finish his statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I can only say that I regret that the hon. member for Kootenay West regards this as not the kind of question that deserves comprehensive consideration.


Mr. Argue:: That is an unfair statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Having dealt with the comparative situation, I want to conclude
what I have to say by reminding the minister of his stand in connection with the document which he gave to the country yesterday, and which shows that 537,000 are out of work, 1,000 less-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Here is a very important statement which the minister has not emphasized. Employment in the Atlantic region reached a low level during February, largely as a result of shutdowns in the Nova Scotia coal mines. Some 14,000 fewer people were working in February than in the previous month. This is the kind of statement, together with what I have already said, that justifies the government not only in doing what they have announced today but in taking much more formidable and comprehensive steps than this program for coping with unemployment.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we in the C.C.F. are disappointed in that when the minister announced the extension of the winter work program he extended it for only another month. This would have been acceptable had the minister coupled with that statement some assurance that the unemployment problem in Canada during the summer would be solved.
The announcement by the government means that all they have been able to accomplish, with the co-operation of the provinces and municipalities, has been to put to work on site a number of persons equal to about 6 per cent of the number of persons unemployed in this country. This shows that the government, in real fact, has thrown up its hands and is prepared to live with widespread unemployment. We feel that the statement that has been made this afternoon, welcome as it is, is but a gesture compared with what the government should be doing to cope with this major problem.



SALT FISH-STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON MARKETING

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on August 1, 1958 I announced the government's decision that the exclusive right to export processed salted fish from Newfoundland, held by the Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited, would not be extended beyond July 31, 1959.
By the act of union between Canada and Newfoundland, the exclusive licence to export salted fish, which had been granted to the Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited by the commission of government, was continued for a period of five years in order to allow the orderly development of alternative marketing arrangements during this period of transition.
At the expiration of the licence arrangement with NAFEL in 1954 it was again agreed to continue the exclusive licence for a further period of three years, with the qualification that interprovincial trade in salt bulk was freed from this restriction. Subsequently two extensions of one marketing year each were granted, the final one at the time of my statement on August 1 last. Thus the salt fish industry of Newfoundland has had a ten-year period in which to adopt marketing methods in conformity with the practice of this trade in other Atlantic provinces and Quebec.
Serious consideration was given to alternative methods of marketing salt fish in Newfoundland. An interdepartmental committee made an extensive and exhaustive survey of the situation. Exporters, processors, fishermen and government officials in the Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec were interviewed and given an opportunity to present their views.
After full consideration of all aspects of the trade, it was not found possible nor deemed in the best interests of the salt fish industry to adopt alternative methods of controlled marketing in the province of Newfoundland. Accordingly the export marketing of Atlantic coast salted fish after the 31st July, 1959, will be carried out on the basis of free competition.
The government will continue its present practice of supervising the inspection of Atlantic coast salted fish by the Department of Fisheries and will extend to exporters trade promotion assistance through the Department of Trade and Commerce in Canada and our trade commissioner service abroad.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his courtesy in giving this statement to the house so that it will be known

Inquiries of the Ministry
to those on the east coast in case any ques- published in the Globe and Mail of March tions may arise that anyone might like to 24, 1959, to the effect that an order had gone have put to the minister tomorrow. I shall through for the purchase of Grumman air-refrain from making any comment beyond craft from the United States? That news that.	item is reported to have come from Mr. Thompson, director of the aircraft branch of EXTERNAL AFFAIRS	the Department of Defence Production.



SUMMIT CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in respect of the invitation to the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom to hold the proposed summit conference meeting in Quebec, Canada, whether that invitation has also been extended to the governments of France and the Soviet union.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it got no further than I mentioned yesterday, although a formal invitation will be extended.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Can the minister confirm the announcement in today's press attributed to the director of the aircraft branch of his department that ten seaplanes are to be purchased from the United States for the R.C.A.F.?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, we must all admit that there is a need for such an aircraft. Also there has been press speculation in support of the SA-16 Grumman for the R.C.A.F. No contract has been awarded to the Grumman Engineering Corporation by the Department of Defence Production. A meeting was held yesterday between the air industries and transport association of Canada and the Department of Defence Production at which meeting officials of the department were advising the Canadian aircraft industry on the procedure for obtaining contracts under production sharing. Discussions are going on to see what equivalent work can be done in Canada. No contract has been signed. No press release has been made by any officials of my department. Discussions are continuing.
(Translation):


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Is the hon. minister not aware of an article or report


Mr. O'Hurley:: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the director of the aircraft branch of my department has made no statement nor issued any press release to that effect. As I said just now, discussions are going on and what equivalent work will result for Canadian aircraft industries, if agreement is reached, is not yet known.
(Text):
(Later:)


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. I should like to ask the minister if he would advise the house as to whether the statement attributed by the Toronto Globe and Mail of today's date to Mr. Thompson, director of the aircraft branch of the Department of Defence Production is true. The statement is to the effect-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member asking about the same statement to which reference was made earlier?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I am asking about a statement that is in the same press release but which was not covered by the earlier question.


John George Diefenbaker: The same press report, not release.


George James McIlraith: I stand corrected by the Prime Minister; it is indeed a press report. The statement attributed to the director is to the effect that the United States navy will not permit Canadian manufacturers to tender bids on naval defence contracts unless they are already producing items for the Canadian government. I should like to ask the minister if that is a correct statement of the position.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Mr. Speaker, do I gather that the hon. member for Ottawa West would like information as to whether or not this statement was made by Mr. Thompson?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker; I would like the minister to advise the house whether or not that is a correct statement of the position on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George James McIlraith: This is a matter of policy affecting the minister's department, and it is clearly in order.
2180	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I said that no official of my department made a press statement. Negotiations on this matter are continuing. This question relates to government policy. I have outlined the policy at various times during the session, and I shall certainly refer to this again when my estimates are once more before the house.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY LACHINE CANAL-REPORTED LAY-OFF OF WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pratt (Jacques Carlier-Lasalle):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister care to comment on a report in the newspapers that 38 long-term employees have been laid off from work in connection with the Lachine canal by the St. Lawrence seaway authority, in favour of new men.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Every possible effort has been made by the Department of Transport, the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the civil service commission to find jobs for these men as soon as possible.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
a supplementary question. The minister will remember that I myself referred to this matter some time ago. Did the minister not make a statement recently that the Lachine canal would be operated as before? The question now is, why are these men being laid off?


George Harris Hees: The operation of the Lachine canal as a water through-way will be quite limited compared with its operations in the past, and fewer personnel will be required. We will retain just as many men as are required to do the work, and attempt to find employment for the others as quickly as we can.


Lionel Chevrier: But is it necessary to lay off some 40 men?


George Harris Hees: We are not laying off one more man than is absolutely necessary. We like to keep men working, and we do not let them off unless it is absolutely necessary.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Is it a fact that the minister has requested the Bank of Canada to use coal for heating the new Bank of
[Mr. Mcllraith.l

Canada building in Halifax, but that the bank is insisting on using oil for heating purposes?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that question I must say that this department has no authority to tell the Bank of Canada to use coal instead of oil. The Bank of Canada is an independent concern.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question. Would the minister advise the house if he has approached the Bank of Canada and asked them to use coal?


Paul Comtois: Yes, I can answer that. I can say that representations have been made to the Bank of Canada suggesting that coal might be used instead of oil, if it could be used, and the answer from the bank was to the effect that it was not economical, and to a large extent, to use coal instead of oil in that new building in Halifax.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assomplion-Monfcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture a question on behalf of the members of the Ayrshire Society of Quebec and the riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. For what reason has the Department of Agriculture not placed a larger number of herds under the record of performance tests?
(Text):


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: There are approximately 3,600 herds now on test, of which 126 have been accepted since November 1, 1958. Applications have been received for an additional 60 herds. These will be accepted as soon as arrangements can be made to provide inspection without reducing service below minimum standards to herds now under test. Discussions are now in progress with breed associations for the purpose of revising the policy in such a way as to make it possible to accept promptly new applications which meet the requirements for inspection.
In short, this program has proved so popular that it has been difficult to keep up with all the demands for this type of service.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON EXPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   Mr. G. J. Mcllraith@Ottawa West: wish to direct a question to the Minister of

Trade and Commerce. In view of the concern caused by the announcement by the dominion bureau of statistics as reported in this morning's Montreal Gazette that in the first half of the current crop year wheat exports from Canada were 4.5 per cent lower than last year, and that for the same period the combined exports from Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Argentina increased by 3.2 per cent, United States exports alone having increased in the same period by 11.2 per cent, has the minister any statement to make on future export prospects for Canadian wheat?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. There is no need for any alarm with regard to the wheat situation. Although our exports for the first six months are down by 4.3 per cent, that is by between six and seven million bushels, nevertheless the prospect for this year is that we shall reach an export total of 300 million bushels of wheat. Last year we set a record total of 316 million bushels. Even with the slight decline I have mentioned, our export total should amount to 300 million bushels.
We are in a world situation where exportable surpluses are greater than they were a year ago. At the same time it is expected that world trade in wheat will be higher than it was a year ago, which offsets to some extent the exportable surplus which is being held largely by the United States, Australia and Russia. However, Canada's position in the commercial markets of the world is still as good as it was a year ago. Some of the extra exports from the United States are very likely due to that country's surplus disposal program. In general, Canada's export position with regard to wheat is holding up very well and we shall experience another record year.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Taking into account Canada's current export of wheat, can the minister say whether it is a fact that at the present time Canada's net surplus of wheat is less than at the same date a year ago; also is there likely to be a reduction in the carry over at July 31, 1959?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the crop year 1957-58 the surplus, which was set at over 700 million bushels in July, 1957 was reduced by over 100 million bushels, and the same amount of reduction is to take place in this crop year, 1958-59. Another 100 million bushels of that surplus will go into the world market for disposal.
0G968-9-138
Inquiries of the Ministry



WHEAT-CONFERENCE OF WESTERN EXPORTING COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say whether the United States secretary of agriculture, Ezra Benson, is arranging in Washington within the next few weeks a conference of the major non-communist wheat exporting countries in order to discuss a joint export program and co-operation in the export field?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, there have been some items in the press forecasting arrangements of this order. I expect to receive official word with regard to this soon. This is in line with the proposals frequently put forward here by the Prime Minister himself with regard to a world food bank and suggestions of that nature, and the general disposal of surplus food products.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do I take it from the minister's answer that Canada would welcome the opportunity of participating in such an important conference?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to participate in any conference of this nature that would be of assistance to countries that are in need of food.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that with only two judges in the supreme court of Newfoundland it is virtually impossible for the court to function as a court of appeal, and justice is thereby being denied to the people of Newfoundland, could the Prime Minister indicate whether it will be possible for him to recommend without further delay the appointment to fill the vacancy on the court which has existed for three months, and which on February 12 he expressed the hope of making at the earliest possible date?


John George Diefenbaker: It is generally agreed that an effective court of appeal requires three members, so that when an appeal comes before the court, if there is any division of opinion the appeal will not be dismissed on an equal division of the court.
In the province of Newfoundland over the years the number of supreme court judges has been limited to three. The result has been

Inquiries of the Ministry that the court of appeal has operated on a basis which, as I am sure the hon. gentleman win agree, was not beneficial to the administration of justice. This must have been recognized in 1957 when the legislature of Newfoundland provided for a further judge being appointed to the supreme court, that law to become effective on its proclamation by the attorney general of Newfoundland. For some reason that proclamation has never been brought about, and knowing the influence that the hon. gentleman has in Newfoundland I would suggest to him in the interest of that high standard of justice which all of us desire to achieve, he suggest the proclamation of that law which would expedite the setting up of a court of appeal which would have none of the weaknesses which would still be present even if the appointment in question had been made. I await the hon. gentleman's co-operation, knowing the power he possesses.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I shall be more than delighted to extend to the Prime Minister the co-operation he has asked for, but I suggest to him that the Newfoundland government would be more likely to proclaim this legislation if three months had not elapsed since the time the existing vacancy occurred. The fact is that there are only two judges, and for three months the Prime Minister has made no recommendation with respect to filling the existing vacancy.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. H. Phillips (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to indicate the plans of his department for improved ferry service on the Pert Borden-Cape Tormentine run?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. As a result of representations made by all four of the hon. members from Prince Edward Island, the matter of the adequacy of the present ferry service has been made the subject of a special study which was launched last autumn and is expected to be completed shortly. It will be recognized that this problem cannot be treated entirely separately from the question of a causeway, in the long run, but apart from this the interim situation is receiving our urgent attention.
Hon. members from the island have also suggested that consideration be given to

acquiring the passenger-vehicle ferry Vaca-tionland or one of the other ferries formerly in use on the straits of Mackinac run, prior to the opening of the Mackinac straits bridge. This suggestion is being looked into.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question on the basis that when there was consideration of the supplementary estimates the other day the minister was absent and I asked this very question. Now the minister arises and states he answers the question because of inquiries from the four island members. The supplementary question I now ask is this. When were the studies started in connection with the causeway between the mainland and Prince Edward Island?


George Harris Hees: Several months ago, Mr. Speaker. I feel compelled to state that if I had known the hon. member intended to ask me a question the other day, naturally I would have made a point of being in the house.



BEAUCE, QUE.-REQUEST FOR BLASTING IN CHAUDIERE RIVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Beauce, who has been prevented from returning to Ottawa because of a heavy storm in his district, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that several well-informed people in Beauce district foresee that floods this year will be even worse than those which took place in recent years, will the minister consider the possibility-without necessarily having received a request to that effect from the provincial government-of blasting the major ice jams in the Chaudiere river to lessen to that extent the danger of flooding which threatens local property owners?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I have checked into the situation, and it appears that there is no responsibility on the federal government for blasting these ice jams in the Chaudiere river. This is entirely within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MANITOBA  FEDERAL AID IN PROVINCIAL DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
ask the Minister of Finance whether he or

any member of the government has received a request from the government of Manitoba for financial assistance to pay for part, at least, of the cost of the program of provincial development announced by the premier of that province a few days ago, in which announcement he said the federal authorities would be paying part of the cost.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I have received no such communication, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer the question the Leader of the Opposition directed to the Minister of Finance. The premier of Manitoba did communicate with me relative to a plan for flood control on the Red river. The supporting material was received just a few days ago, and is now under discussion.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Port Arthur asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question dealing with subsidized United States shipping in the great lakes, and as this matter comes under the jurisdiction of my department I shall attempt to answer the question.
I assume the service to which reference was made is that from United States great lakes ports to the Caribbean including calls at certain intermediate Canadian great lakes ports. This service is of course international in nature, and the ships in the service being United States flag ships will not be able to engage in the coasting trade of Canada, that is the carriage of goods from one Canadian port to another. They will, however, be able to pick up cargo in Canada for a foreign destination, or pick up cargo in a foreign port for a Canadian destination.
This situation is being followed closely by interested departments of government.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: 
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this question should more properly be directed to the Minister of Finance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I tried to ask a related question of the Minister of Finance the other day and he thought it was a question to be answered later. May I ask him now whether he can give a reply to this very important question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, certainly no question resembling this one was directed to me the other day. Let me tell my hon. friend that the information he is seeking is just the kind of information that traders in the market would very much like to have, and it never has been the practice at any time to give that information to the public.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the Minister of Finance not aware of the dangerous state of the fund at the present time and of the implications of such an act on the fund? I ask him that question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Finance has indicated that he does not think he should answer this question, and it seems to me it should be pursued at another time.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that unemployment insurance benefits have been denied since December 31, 1958 to the loggers who would otherwise qualify for insurance, if their last employment was not with the A. N. D. Company, regardless of whether or not they are members of the I.W.A.?


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was good enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question, Mr. Speaker. In the short interval I have been able to get the following information. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that any persons laid off before the strike, if qualified in the ordinary course of events, were getting their insurance. Those laid off on account of the strike, of course, could not draw, under the section of the act which stipulates that loss of work owing to a

Inquiries of the Ministry labour dispute does not qualify a person for benefit. Those laid off prior to the strike but who are continuing out of employment on account of the fact that a strike is in progress come under the same regulations as those who are now out of work purely on account of the strike.
As to the actual situation in Newfoundland, it is as follows. Any disqualifications imposed on unemployed loggers as a result of the strike were lifted as of March 15. The reason for this was that officials of the unemployment insurance commission were informed that as of March 15 production at Anglo-Newfoundland Development was back to normal. Therefore the situation now is that any loggers still out of work after that date are entitled to ordinary benefits, or whatever benefits they would normally qualify for. In other words there is now no disqualification as a result of the strike now in effect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Do I understand the answer to mean that in the opinion of the unemployment insurance commission the strike against the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company is over?
(Translation):



SECRETARY OF STATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: May I ask
a question of the hon. Secretary of state? Last year, I complained that the civil service commission had decided to return to applicants the forms they had sent to the commission, with the reply that no competition was being held.
Could the hon. Secretary of State tell us whether, in the meantime, the situation has changed, or whether any change is contemplated for the future?


Hon. Henri Couriemanche (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite get the question asked by the hon. member for St. Denis, but I understand the good suggestion he made last year has been acted upon.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the hon. Secretary of State? I did not quite get the meaning of his reply. Does he mean that applications sent to the civil service commission are kept for a year, in case vacancies should occur in the meantime, as was done in the past when those applications were indeed kept for a year, either in the Post Office Department, or in
[Mr. Starr.l
the income tax division or elsewhere, and then, when a competition was to be held, applicants were notified of the date? Could the hon. minister make his reply as clear as my question?


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Speaker, to reply as clearly as the question was put to me, I say yes.
(Text):



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES-PASSES FOR MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It has relevance because of the fact that so many of us are about to head home. What consideration has been given to the petition placed before him some time ago and signed by almost all members of parliament from Ontario and Quebec, offering to waive their own rights if the government would consider the introduction of a limited number of air passes or vouchers each session for members of parliament from the other provinces of Canada?


George Harris Hees: A great deal of consideration, Mr
Speaker.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. Has the minister brought the question before his colleagues in the cabinet?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and apologize for not having given him notice of it. Is the minister able to give the house any information regarding the C.N.R. derailment near Hazelton, British Columbia, in which one C.N.R. employee lost his life?


George Harris Hees: I am still awaiting a full report, Mr. Speaker.



THE MINISTRY


John George Diefenbaker: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the appointment of parliamentary

secretaries to ministers, to provide for the payment of salaries to them at the rate of $4,000 per annum out of the consolidated revenue fund and to authorize the re-imbursement to them of reasonable expenses incurred by them in the discharge of their duties.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is the Prime Minister not going to make a statement?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, in moving the motion I shall say but little; I shall refer in general only to the history and then ask the support of the house for this measure because I have noticed, Mr. Chairman, a very considerable interest in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: May I say, sir, the interest has been shown in questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition and others surrounding him, the reasons for which are not completely apparent at the moment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will explain.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall deal for a moment with the general history connected with the establishment of the system of parliamentary assistants, the beginnings of which go back to a recommendation contained in a report made on the organization of the public service of Canada in 1912 by Sir George Murray, who was given the responsibility by the then prime minister of Canada, Right Hon. Robert L. Borden. At page 10 the following appears:
Under present conditions there is only one political officer in each department, namely, the minister in charge of it. As a cabinet minister he has work of the highest importance to perform outside his department: and even if the relief which I have above indicated could be afforded to him within his department-
Which consisted of suggestions as to changes that might be made in order to improve the administration of the various departments.
-his parliamentary and other duties would still be a heavy tax on his time, especially in the case of those ministers who are in charge of the more important departments.
Then there was a further reference to the same matter by a special senate committee on the machinery of government in 1919, the chairman of which was the late Senator J. S. McLennan. At page 11 of the report it is stated:
We propose that time be made for these duties-
The reference is to the responsibilities of a minister and his duty to shape policy.
-by the employment of parliamentary undersecretaries as assistants to the ministers. We conceive that their highest usefulness will be found by not circumscribing their duties to occasional replies to a question in parliament, but by
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries making them active and indispensable forces in the working of the departments.
It goes on to set forth the views of that committee, which at the moment I want to make very clear are not necessarily adopted or accepted by the present government. Then you will recall, sir, that in 1936, following the change of government and the return of Right Hon. Mr. King as prime minister, the speech from the throne in that year contained the promise that at the session of 1936 parliamentary secretaryships would be provided.
Well, my hon. friends opposite had a moment of jollity as I commenced. I point out that seven long years passed by before there was any further reference to that subject by the then prime minister or his government. It was not until 1943 that anything further was done in that connection.
It is a matter of interest that there were members supporting the government of that day who were in favour of the establishment of the system. That very distinguished lawyer, A. G. Slaght, who was a member of this house, dealt with the question in 1936, believing that the speech from the throne did indeed reveal the expectation of a hope to be attained. Then on February 12, 1942, as found at page 539 of Hansard, Mr. Slaght put forward in the house a number of names of members of parliament from the government side who would be suitable to act as parliamentary secretaries. As a member of the opposition then I remember the surprise of the present Minister of Public Works and myself at being referred to by Mr. Slaght as potentially qualified parliamentary secretaries. That was in 1942. That was just a step in the direction, according to Mr. Slaght at that time. He said that parliamentary secretaryships or assist-antships constituted a training, as I remember, that ultimately led to the attainment of cabinet rank.
Various other references have been made to the subject, and textbook writers have dealt with it at great length. I simply point out where hon. gentlemen may secure the fullest references. There is the late Mr. Dawson's work, "The Government of Canada." He referred to the subject at length at page 265 and following. I am going to content myself with merely giving one reference, in which he says:
The case for parliamentary assistants is overwhelming. They make possible, through a greater consolidation of departments, a desirable reduction in the number of members in the cabinet; they allow the prime minister to give more equitable and wider representation to various provinces; and they furnish the finest training for young promising members who aspire to cabinet positions.
2186	HOUSE OF
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries
Then he refers to the words of Mr. King at the time he introduced the expenditure provided by the estimates with respect to this matter. Without being facetious in any way I must say that I am looking forward to hearing Mr. King's Boswell, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, give us that knowledge which is peculiarly his respecting this organization and the manner in which it functioned.
Appointments were made, the earliest being made in 1916. The government of Sir Robert Borden made provision for such appointments first under an order in council passed pursuant to the powers contained in the War Measures Act and later by act of parliament. It is interesting to know that among the first named in July, 1916 was Colonel Hugh Clarke, member of parliament for Bruce, who is still alive today and is an outstanding publicist and public spirited man whose devotion to Canada is recognized by all of us without regard to party. Mr. McCurdy was appointed parliamentary secretary for the department of militia and defence, later on resigning and being succeeded by Colonel Clarke who in turn was replaced by F. H. Keefer, M.P.
I am not going to place the orders in council on the record. It was provided, however, that the appointments would be limited to the continuance of the then war, and that appointments might be made from either house of parliament. I think I can do no better than refer to the remarks of Mr. Mackenzie King on this subject. He dealt at very great length with the establishment of the system of parliamentary assistants, and the debates in that connection are to be found in Hansard for April 20 and 21, 1943. The general purpose of the establishment of a system of parliamentary secretaries is to make parliament more effective, to make provision for assistance in many of the phases of a minister's life and thereby lighten the load of responsibility which rests on those who occupy the treasury benches.
Indeed, as one reads the remarks of Mr. Mackenzie King one is impressed by the experience he had as it is revealed in the course of his speech, as well as the speech made by the late Viscount Bennett when the subject came up in the house in 1936, concerning the responsibility that rests on those who are charged with office under our system of democracy.
Our purpose is at all times to improve and strengthen parliament as an institution; to make possible an opportunity for members in various parts of the country to learn of the operations of the departments and to participate in a specialized manner in doing
IMr. Diefenbaker.l

those things which are allotted the departments under statute and as particularly interpreted and applied by the ministers. After all, the major question is to keep parliament in a position of not being unchanged and unchangeable.
I believe in this regard I have the approval of a very profound student of this subject, and I say that with respect, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. We maintain ancient traditions; we change to meet those changes that come about through the complexities of modem government. We change some of the forms, but maintain the mandate. We alter, to meet altering conditions, the techniques of parliament. We do not change the great and abiding things that have remained with us as our legacy from the generations past.
Some years ago changes were made when the rules committee was set up. I viewed those changes in the rules with some doubt before they were presented. After they were presented they represented a step forward and had the unanimous support of members from all sides of the house. I feel there are many other changes we might make, but I do not want to divert in that connection. As I visit other democratic institutions I find, for instance, that in the recording of the vote in India, in the representative parliament of that country, it takes less than a minute and a half whereas in this house it takes from 15 to 25 minutes. After all, I believe those changes are changes of the type that could be considered. They derogate nothing from the dignity of parliament, but they do bring about that saving of time which is necessary so that other matters of greater consequence may receive the fullest consideration.
Now, sir, one of the outstanding works on the subject of the relationship between ministers and parliamentary secretaries is that of the outstanding leader of the Labour party in the United Kingdom, Right Hon. Herbert Morrison. In his book "Government and Parliament", he sets forth on pages 59 and following something of the condition of affairs in the United Kingdom parliament. He says:
Each departmental minister usually has a parliamentary secretary to assist him, but in some of the larger departments there may be two. Mostly, they are members of the House of Commons, or if not, then of the House of Lords. They must not, of course, be confused with the permanent secretary who is the senior civil servant in the department. Nowadays, they are selected by the prime minister in consultation with the minister concerned.
In the United Kingdom, while they are not appointed by the sovereign, the sovereign in every case is entitled to be informed of

the proposed appointment although constitutionally he has no powers. The reason for the system of parliamentary secretaries, as viewed by Mr. Morrison, is that in the main they constitute a help to the ministers and also enable that training to be received that, in some cases, does bring about the attainment of further advance. Assistance is given thereby to the answering of questions and familiarization with public administration.
Those were some of the points mentioned by Mr. King when in 1943 he introduced the measure. He said that one of their purposes is to assist, in general, in any capacity in which the minister may deem advisable; to keep in touch with other members. But, he pointed out, appointment did not mean attachment for all time.
In 1943 Mr. King was asked why it was that a period of time had passed by, a period of seven years. He said he did not know why the appointments were not proceeded with, and he followed that by dealing in general with the difficulties which he, as prime minister, was experiencing, and which prime ministers in general experience. I think in general we are now carrying out what Mr. King had in mind in 1943 when he first introduced the system. A question was asked as to why he proceeded by an item in the estimates rather than a bill, and he gave his answer on April 20, 1943, as reported at page 2380, which was as follows:
That causes me to say a word as to why I am asking the house to vote the necessary supply by an item in the estimates rather than to support a bill setting out more or less in detail the duties and functions of those who are to fill these positions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister from what page he is reading?


John George Diefenbaker: That is page 2380.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the unrevised.


John George Diefenbaker: Unrevised.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the Prime Minister intended no reflection by that observation.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I am surprised there would be any such suggestion, though I am referring to the unrevised issue. My friend should not read into the use of the word "unrevised" any meaning like that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was reading the faces of hon. gentlemen opposite.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to tell my friend that he is able to read a lot, but he is not very good with physiognomy. Before this interlude I was reading what Mr. King said:
I believe the experience of the past, particularly that at the time Sir Robert Borden made an
24, 1959	2187
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries effort to establish under-secretaryships, has shown that it is preferable in time of war, and for the year immediately following war, to regard these as more or less temporary positions. Undoubtedly the house will In the interval become accustomed to the practice of having parliamentary assistants to ministers. We will see the advantages and disadvantages of the practice, and I should hope that, as soon after the war is over as possible, a bill might be passed which would serve to perpetuate the system, and which would be so drafted as to make quite clear the functions and duties of those appointed to this office.
I see no reason why I should not say that, in doing what we are now about to do 14 years after the end of the war, we are doing that which Mr. King suggested would be done after the war.
As I see it, the system is one that will bring about a degree of apprenticeship for members who are chosen to occupy this high and important position, and will enable ministers to delegate some of the functions which my hon. friends opposite realize must necessarily be performed under the responsibility of ministers but actually under their direction can be delegated to others.
I am going to say no more than this. With the fortification of the experience of the past, with the determination expressed by Mr. King through the lips of the Governor General in 1936 that the legislation for a system of parliamentary secretaryships would be proceeded with at that session, with the confirmance of that determination somewhat abbreviated in the intervening years in 1943, which resulted in the translation of the determination into parliamentary assistantships, I hope the house will give support to this resolution and make possible the attainment of that further step in the evolution of the House of Commons which has been found to be effective in the mother of parliaments and also in this parliament.
Because of the fact that the system is to be embodied in statute form, there will be removed any suggestion that the acceptance of a position as parliamentary assistant is in any way a contravention of the Senate and House of Commons Act, and I hope that general support will be given to it. Indeed, my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate inferentially dealt with this fact when, in the last session, he referred to his feelings as to the result that might flow from appointments of members in the House of Commons to positions of emolument under the crown except through statutes. All of that fear and all the arguments he then advanced will be removed if parliament passes this bill which legalizes the appointment of parliamentary secretaries, thereby making a further advance in the assurance of the maintenance of the mandate which rests on parliament as a whole.
2188	HOUSE OF
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister permit me to say that I did not call into question in any way the complete legality of the item with respect to parliamentary assistants.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I do not desire to detain the committee for any length of time, because this is a resolution which we propose to support. Indeed, it would be strange if we did not support it, because it merely restores the practice which was introduced by a government representing our party and which operated with reasonable success over some years while we were in office. When an item was put in the speech from the throne on this matter after there was a change of government, that item dealt not with the initiation of a practice but with the continuance of a practice which had been in existence for some years.


John George Diefenbaker: To what item is the hon.
gentleman referring?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I mean when, in the speech from the throne, it was stated that parliamentary assistants would be appointed. As hon. members of the committee will recall, last year there was an item in the estimates. That apparently was the way in which the matter was to be dealt with at that time. That item was discussed at or near the end of the session, and no action was taken with regard to it. In that sense it was a useless vote, and we naturally wondered why the government did not proceed to implement the authority which had been given to it. Does the Prime Minister not understand "the sickening pangs of hope deferred"?


John George Diefenbaker: I had that for only six months.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Or, as the scripture puts it, hope deferred maketh the heart sick. But perhaps his delay on this occasion was due to his realization that gratitude is only a lively sense of anticipation of favours to come. In any event, Mr. Chairman, another move has been made, this time not by an item in the estimates as was done last year but by legislation.
The Prime Minister had indicated why he thinks legislation is preferable as a procedure in this regard. If this resolution carries and if a bill is introduced which also carries, perhaps we on this side of the chamber

and the Prime Minister has already made reference to that matter, particularly with reference to myself-will be relieved of requests from hon. members opposite to keep on asking questions. Perhaps also the House of Commons will be relieved of some of the extravagantly laudatory speeches made on occasion by hon. members opposite who have been preaching for a call.


The Prime Minister anticipated, as he so often does, the point I would be likely to make about delay, by pointing out that there had been far longer delay in the past.
The Prime Minister mentioned that the history of this question of the appointment of assistants to ministers goes back, I think he said, to 1912. I have not gone back as far as that in my own researches but, of course, I do recall that during the first war there was a parliamentary assistant, though he was not called that, to Sir Robert Borden, and that Mr. King made an appointment of that character when he became Prime Minister in 1921. Then, in 1936, as the Prime Minister reminded us, there was a reference in the speech from the throne to legislation for the appointment of parliamentary secretaries, and the Prime Minister has already indicated that there was a long delay in carrying out that promise.
If the Prime Minister had read the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne in 1936-perhaps he did read it- he might have discovered the reason for this delay, because Mr. R. B. Bennett, as he then was, took exception to this proposal. He said he was in favour of the principle but that he was sure it would not work out well in practice and was obliged to conclude, reluctantly, that such appointments would not be wise. And perhaps the Prime Minister of that day, showing a consideration for the views of the leader of the opposition which is not always shown, might have decided not to proceed with the matter as long as Mr. Bennett was in the house.
In any event, no action was taken in 1936, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, but the question was reintroduced, as the hon. gentleman said, in 1943, during the war. At that time the spokesman for the official opposition Mr. MacNicol-I think he was the member for Toronto Davenport-expressed himself as wholly opposed to the idea of such appointments and to the item inserted in the estimates to enable the idea to be carried out. Indeed, he moved an amendment, seconded by our friend from Toronto Broadview, Mr. Church, whom some of us will always remember, to reduce the amount in the estimates to $1. Led at that time by Mr. Gordon Graydon, also a very good friend of many of us, the opposition voted in favour of reducing the item to $1.


John George Diefenbaker: Where does the hon. gentleman see in the record that Mr. Graydon voted against it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It says that the amendment was moved by Mr. MacNicol and seconded by Mr. Church. These were two distinguished members of the opposition, so I assume that

the party all voted together. There is nothing in the record which says they voted against it, but I am inferring that the opposition voted against the item which was carried only on division; I have no evidence to prove that all of them did.
Mr. MacNicol, in moving his amendment at that time, in his statement which appears on pages 2346 and 2347 of Hansard of 1943 may have given some indication of the difficulties which had delayed the prime minister of that day in putting this proposal into practice. In expressing surprise at the delay which had occurred Mr. MacNicol said that the prime minister had no doubt been "besieged and importuned by an enormous majority of some 67, a wholly unnecessary majority, and he went on to say, as reported on the next page:
The late Sir Robert Borden had the same difficulty-
The difficulty of selection.
-when he was prime minister. He had a majority of forty-six. Such a large majority puts too much pressure on the prime minister. With a smaller majority the prime minister and his ministers would be able to do better work. At the present time they must be constantly harassed by those asking for political appointments or political preferment. That is the trouble with too great a majority.
That is what Mr. MacNicol said in attempting to explain what he thought must have been Mr. King's difficulties at that time. It was an explanation which had a bearing on the delay which took place in implementing the promise of 1936.
Well, the question was settled for the time being. Parliamentary assistants were appointed, but there was a good deal of discussion in the house from 1950 onward, as the Prime Minister will recall, as to the role, functions and value or otherwise of these parliamentary assistants as they were called at that time. On February 12, 1951, the present Minister of Justice worried about the role of the parliamentary assistant in the House of Commons and complained about the growing practice of parliamentary assistants speaking for the government.


John George Diefenbaker: On what page is that to be found?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the Prime Minister will look at page 267 of the Hansard of February 12, 1951 he will find it. I am paraphrasing, but fairly I think, what the worries of the present Minister of Justice were at that time. Those worries stemmed from what the Prime Minister thought-and I am not disagreeing with him-was the chief value of these appointments, namely that they allowed ministers to delegate some of their duties and authority.
66968-9-139
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries


John George Diefenbaker: Not their authority, their responsibility.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Their responsibility and their duties. Ministers cannot, of course, as privy councillors delegate their authority to anyone, The present Minister of Justice was worried also lest parliamentary assistants be tempted, as he thought they were being tempted, to make statements, particularly outside the house, which might infringe the principle of cabinet solidarity by which they were not bound, not being privy councillors, but by which they might appear to be bound in some sense since they were parliamentary assistants.
Furthermore, on later occasions, particularly in 1956, as will be found on page 3522 of Hansard of that year, Mr. George Drew objected, and objected strongly, as perhaps the Prime Minister may recall, to the growing practice of parliamentary assistants making statements in the House of Commons on behalf of the government. He felt that statements of any importance should be made in the house by ministers and not by parliamentary assistants. On one notable occasion he had, if I may put it this way, quite a run in with the then minister of agriculture with regard to this matter. Indeed, the Minister of Public Works, as he now is, also took up this very point on June 7, 1954 when he argued that parliamentary assistants should not try to take the place of ministers in piloting bills or resolutions through the House of Commons.
Thus, there has been a good deal of discussion on this matter over the years, and while, having had some experience in the operation of the practice of appointing parliamentary assistants, from my own experience, I think they can be a useful and valuable adjunct to the machinery of government, no doubt there is some substance to the misgivings which hon. members have from time to time raised in the House of Commons with regard to their position in the constitutional scheme of things being misunderstood.
I note that the government has decided to proceed by way of legislation rather than by way of placing an item in the estimates. There is something to be said for this method, which is one that has been followed in the past. It has also been departed from in the past. There is this disadvantage however, about procedure by way of legislation-it is more inflexible than the procedure of placing an item in the estimates. In the bill which will be submitted in due course a specific number of parliamentary secretaries is mentioned, and if the government in the future desires to alter or add to that number it could only do so by way of amendment to existing legislation. Also whereas when we were in office we referred to this group as parliamentary assistants the
2190	HOUSE OF
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries government has now decided to change the title to parliamentary secretaries. Possibly this is not a matter of any great importance but it is a change and perhaps in due course we will be told why that change was made.
In conclusion I need only say that when the bill is before us we will examine it and have something more to say about it. At the present time I can state on behalf of the members of this party that we support the resolution. We agree that the appointment of parliamentary assistants-parliamentary secretaries, sorry-will take some of the burden from the shoulders of ministers. Some of us over here have reason to appreciate how very heavy that burden is. If they can be relieved in a proper way of some share of that burden by the appointment of parliamentary secretaries that should add to the efficiency of government. In this house on whatever side we may sit, we are all interested in the efficiency of government and all are anxious to do what we can to increase it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, when I view some of the anxious looking faces on the other side I am reminded of that ancient line, "To live by the will of one man is the cause of all our misery." Members of the C.C.F. group support the principle and purpose of this legislation. We, like the Leader of the Opposition, recognize the heavy burden imposed on senior members of the cabinet by their responsibilities under modern conditions and the need for the help of qualified persons to lighten that load, particularly while parliament is in session.
Before proceeding further I wish to thank the Prime Minister for his historical review of the situation from 1912 until this monumental day. I also enjoyed the summary of the history of parliamentary assistants and parliamentary secretaries to which we were treated by the Leader of the Opposition.
In my opinion when the bill is introduced, to be correctly named it should be entitled, "A bill for the relief of the suspense of certain Progressive Conservative members who have been waiting in the wings for over a year;" short title: "An act for the appointment of parliamentary secretaries."
We also endorse the government's decision to provide for the appointment of parliamentary secretaries by an act of parliament rather than continuing the former unsatisfactory, somewhat questionable and piecemeal procedure. When this legislation is passed parliamentary secretaries will be able to accept their remuneration in good conscience and without any fear of criticism in so far as the propriety of the remuneration is concerned inside the house or out.
This apparently unpretentious legislation is of far greater significance than its simple


language would suggest. First of all I must say rarely does a prime minister have occasion to introduce legislation with such interesting implications as this. This must be important legislation because the Prime Minister is piloting it and he attends only to the more important things that happen in this parliament.
This legislation will receive the unanimous approval of all parties in this house and the whole-hearted and fervent support of the Prime Minister's followers although this will be followed later, when the legislation is proclaimed, by the keen disappointment and heart rending of a certain number of the Prime Minister's disciples. I witness the air of expectancy on the government benches, the shining eyes all fixed on the Prime Minister in adoration, supplication and in anticipation. I might say, not only shining eyes but in two cases, dewy eyes.
Soon the Prime Minister, the director of the nation's greatest stage, will have to choose the preferment from the many aspirants among his followers those who are to play supporting roles in the cast of that great drama, the Canadian vision, playing continuously to interested audiences since June 10, 1957.
I cannot resist commenting that with one lightning, legislative stroke the Prime Minister-not understood as yet by hon. members of this house or by the people of Canada, but they will see through it in the future-* has clearly separated the ranks of those who believe in free enterprise into Progressive Conservatives and Liberals. With this measure the Prime Minister casts out the word "assistant" with its plebeian origin, history and meaning. Not for him to be surrounded by persons recognized as underlings and underworkers or known as assistants after the fashion of the smaller retail trades. Instead, the hon. gentleman introduced the word "secretary", derived from the Latin and of ancient usage, meaning according to the dictionary, "a scribe with learning, a confidential officer"; a word replete with Tory, Disraelian, and foreign office tradition and meaning.
In this bill the Prime Minister indicates his disapproval of the language and words used by the former prime minister, Mackenzie King, and his regard for the principles and practice of Disraeli, Balfour and Baldwin. This legislative bow to the great Conservatives, this renunciation of Liberal practice, will cause doubting Tory chests, far and wide, high and low, to breathe a sigh of relief knowing that in the use of the word "secretary" the party has returned to first principles and represents a brand of free enterprise distinct from the wavering and plebeian

course ol Liberalism. This measure demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt the deep and unbridgeable gulf between the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberal party.
I shall now turn from a philosophical approach to a microscopical appraisal of this legislation. Parliamentary secretaries can play an important part in parliament. According to my reading on the subject-and I have done a little reading on these questions over the years-they are required to be persons of intelligence, initiative and industry; to be sedate, sedulous and sagacious; to be pleasant, plausible and pleonastic. Their duties and responsibilities have been defined as a result of long experience in the parliament at Westminster.
Although I was a bit flustered at first when I thought the Prime Minister was going to steal my quotes, I confess I was pleased when I saw him refer to that very excellent volume, "Government in Parliament", written by the Right Hon. Herbert Morrison. I congratulate the Prime Minister for going to Labour Party authorities for his material. I wish to quote briefly from this volume because I trust that after the parliamentary secretaries have received their appointments and their anxiety is relieved, to that extent they will use the Hansard of this day as the Canadian encyclopedia for parliamentary secretaries. At page 66 of this book I find the following:
Life of a Parliamentary Secretary
The life of the parliamentary secretary can be interesting and fairly full, or, on the other hand, uninteresting and rather empty according to the attitude of the minister and, to some extent, the higher civil servants. If, departmentally, he is left out in the cold or given little or nothing to do it is, I think, cruel, foolish, and unfair.
We saw some of that in the session of 1957. I continue:
It is cruel because it will develop unhappiness and bitterness in the heart of the parliamentary secretary; it is foolish because the parliamentary secretary of today is a possible minister of the future and it is desirable for him to learn all he can, including the taking of responsibility: it is unfair because, apart from creating a feeling of frustration, it makes a fool of the parliamentary secretary when he hears through other channels of things he ought already to have known about, and is driven to tell inquiring M.P.'s that he is sorry but he knows nothing about it. Nor should it be forgotten that he has important duties to discharge with and for the minister from the treasury bench. Moreover, there is the important consideration that the proper employment of the parliamentary secretary can lighten the burden of the minister.
And we all agree with that. I think that has been mentioned by the Prime Minister
66968-9-139$
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries and by the Leader of the Opposition. I have one more short quotation which is found at page 69, as follows:
There is another possible injustice to parliamentary secretaries, namely, leaving them out of office consultations and conferences. Obviously it is not always right or convenient to have them present, but systematically to leave them out means that they do not know the background of policy decisions. Moreover, even listening to their chief handling such meetings is an experience and an education which may help them if and when they come to shoulder bigger responsibilities. It was my general rule, therefore, to give instructions that the appropriate parliamentary secretary or secretaries should be present at such gatherings, and I would see to it that they had an opportunity of contributing their views, even though they were by no means always accepted. This not only assisted our deliberations and brought them into the inside of things, but helped them to learn the delicate art of the ministerial handling of civil servants. In the end I would give a decision, but, even though it was a decision that some did not want, everybody would go away happier for having had a share in the deliberations.
I think there is a lot of wisdom in that paragraph as written by the Right Hon. Herbert Morrison.
Another thing, Mr. Chairman, in Great Britain parliamentary secretaries are extremely polite to members of the opposition. In that connection and to illustrate the competence of parliamentary secretaries in Great Britain I would quote a model of lucidity, detail and good diction from a question and answer, a question asked of the parliamentary secretary to the minister of works, which is equivalent to our Minister of Public Works in Canada. The question was:
Mr. Hector Hughes asked the parliamentary secretary to the ministry of works, as representing the lord president of the council, if he will instruct the department of scientific and industrial research to collate, with a view to publication, all scientific information obtained by Her Majesty's government from the recent flights round the earth of the Russian satellite and its appendage.
I do this for the benefit of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton because I suspect he has been practising. The parliamentary secretary replied in this style, and I offer it to the members as a model:
In consultation with the Royal Society a "World Data Centre" has, following on the international geophysical year, already been established at the radio research station of the department of scientific and industrial research. One of the functions of the centre will be to maintain a bibliography of scientific publications relating to observations on the Russian satellites and associated rockets. This is within the executive function of the research council of the D.S.I.R.
I offer this as a model for budding parliamentary secretaries to study. I notice there has been press gallery comment with respect to parliamentary assistants, and on a number of occasions throughout the years I have seen comments made. Apparently they were not
2192	HOUSE OF
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries held In the greatest esteem by some members of the press gallery. I am going to quote one member, that very well-known member of the press gallery, John Bird, who writes about the birds:
The parliamentary assistant among the birds of parliament hill, is the little red-capped chipping sparrow. Every year you may see him proclaiming his territory from the top of a light standard above the terrace. His song is a monotonous, unmusical trill, like an insect's. This he repeats over and over, with "damnable iteration", but small conviction. Like those other assistants, inside the "Big House", he tells his story by rote, with little hope of persuading anybody, since he so obviously lacks authority.
I quote this because I trust that the parliamentary secretaries to be appointed by this legislation will be a more valuable species, playing a more melodious and satisfactory tune.
I am getting along with my few brief remarks, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to say that we in this group want the answers to a number of questions about parliamentary secretaries. I trust the Prime Minister will give us the answers before the debate is concluded.
Will the parliamentary secretaries be given the status of junior ministers, as they are in Great Britain? What will be their standing in the order of precedence for which there is no provision at this time in Canada? I know that one of the presently budding parliamentary secretaries is rather a stickler for etiquette in the form of dress and precedence. Will they be required to wear a top hat and tails on important occasions?
I also want to know whether there is to be some definition of the duties and responsibilities of parliamentary secretaries. In that respect, I mean that members in the opposition are anxious to know clearly what are the duties and responsibilities of parliamentary secretaries and how far they are justified in trespassing on their time, and so on. Then, we want to know whether the appointments are made for a fixed period of time, for a session or for a parliament or in view of the Prime Minister's reference to the constitutional aspects of the question, are they appointed during good behaviour or at pleasure?
The Parliamentary Guide indicates that a number of potential parliamentary secretaries hold directorships. Three are directors of lumber companies; one is a director of an insurance company; one is a director of a telephone company; another is a director of a coal and coke company; another was national director of the Progressive-Conservative party in 1943-1949; and another rising star was president of the young Conservatives of Canada in 1956-1958.
We in this group, Mr. Chairman, insist on the British practice being followed when they
[Mr. Herridge.l

receive their appointments. They must divest themselves of directorships in companies.
I notice also in the ranks of the potential parliamentary secretaries there are a good number of members of the legal profession who are also members of legal firms or partners in legal firms. These gentlemen are in a rather unusual position. They will be making some sacrifice in accepting the appointment-not all but some of them-as parliamentary secretaries, because we all know that no member of the Progressive Conservative party who is a parliamentary secretary would for one moment think of allowing any particular firm of which he is a member to accept any government business. We want to make our position perfectly clear in that respect, and what we expect.
I now come to another matter. As I understand it, strangely enough the parliamentary secretary will properly receive a larger remuneration than a minister without portfolio. How is that matter going to be adjusted in fairness to everyone concerned, and to comply with the procedure in this legislation.
I want to mention one other thing to which we in this group have given some thought. The Prime Minister has not followed the practice of the former government in appointing the government leader in the senate to the cabinet. We consider that that practice had considerable merit. I think I know the Prime Minister fairly well. He is a person who usually takes the middle course. I know that whenever I see him oscillating between two points of view he will stop at six o'clock. We have a recommendation to make in this respect. In view of the new policy of appointing parliamentary secretaries, would it be possible for him to take a middle course and appoint the government leader in the senate as a parliamentary secretary? In fact, he could be the chief parliamentary secretary, a sort of mother hen, as it were, for the newly hatched brood of parliamentary secretaries in the House of Commons. I just throw that out as a suggestion.
I have dealt with some matters that concern us with respect to these appointments and I trust the Prime Minister will be able to give answers to my questions before the debate concludes. However, on behalf of those parliamentary secretaries to come, those unknown faces opposite that will be known to us after the Easter recess, I presume, I wish to quote the comforting words used by the late Right Hon. Ellen Wilkinson who was a member of the labour cabinet in Great Britain, a very fine woman who unfortunately passed away in 1947. She had

a great wealth of common sense, understanding of human nature and a great appreciation of parliamentary practice. When she was dealing on one occasion with the duties, responsibilities, hopes, aspirations and disappointments that follow in the wake of those who become known as parliamentary secretaries, Ellen Wilkinson suggested these beautiful lines from "Indian Love Lyrics" as a dirge for unhappy parliamentary secretaries:
Less than the dust, beneath thy chariot wheel,
Less than the rust, that never stained thy sword,
Less than the trust thou hast in me, my lord,
Even so, am I.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, after the very thorough review we have had of all the possibilities, philosophies and theoretical difficulties in connection with parliamentary secretaries I do not know that I have anything to contribute beyond what I originally intended to say and that is something which has not been covered by the previous two speakers. In effect I wish to offer the Prime Minister what one might call a short list of good prospects from an outside point of view. He will be aware that no member of parliament can make cutting, nasty or slighting references to other members of parliament so this means that all my remarks have to be on the right side of the borderline toward the good, the favourable and the sweet.
I should explain the origin of my making such suggestions by way of a contribution to the debate. When the house met for the first time last year and there were approximately 180 new members, many of them young, eager and full of the vision, 1 think all of us were aware that the whole house seemed to throb with energy and ambition. One of the great features of the House of Commons is that we are not confined within separate party channels. Fortunately we do mix and have our conversations in very many places. All of us get a finger on the pulse of what is going on in the other parties and since there are some 208 people in the government party we have some idea of what is going through their minds and what are the ambitions and feelings of these people.
I know that we are all peers here but as an ordinary member for parliament naturally I am not in touch with the ministers. Nonetheless perhaps I can bring something to this debate for the benefit of the Prime Minister. I do not feel I have the antenna that the Prime Minister perhaps had in getting the feelings of people throughout the country but I suggest that my antenna has been in operation feeling the moods and aspirations
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries and in some sense getting a cross-section of the ability of the potential parliamentary secretaries.
Picking parliamentary secretaries or parliamentary assistants as they were called is all part of what has been going on for a long time in Canada, the organization and selection of the cabinet. The Prime Minister quoted Mr. Dawson who has written the standard work on the government of Canada. Normally a prime minister has to consider when forming a cabinet the factors of geography, region and province. They are very important. You cannot slight one part of the country. He has to look at religious considerations and to a certain extent, I suppose, at ethnic considerations so far as the other major group is concerned. Then, of course, there are always the political considerations. There are such things as shaky seats that perhaps a little bit of a push will help. All these factors come into play.
One of the things I most admired about the Prime Minister when he formed his cabinet was that he did not restrict himself to what many political scientists considered had become the pattern, namely that Quebec had to have five members of the cabinet, four of whom had to be French Canadian Catholics and one an English speaking Protestant; that Ontario had to have a certain number, and that the ministers of public works and justice had to come from Quebec. He more or less threw such considerations aside and left the field fairly wide open. I think anyone who will look at the cabinet as it was first appointed and as it is now will agree that is so. Traditionally, even in the days of the great mentor, Mackenzie King, parliamentary assistants also were usually appointed with these geographical factors in mind but the present Prime Minister again gave us an indication of his range of view and the fact that he would step outside standard procedures.
I have a list here of the 13 parliamentary assistants appointed two years ago and it is very interesting and flattering to me as a member from Ontario that eight of them were from the province of Ontario, true recognition in my opinion of high educational standards and a great amount of ability. There was one from Quebec, one from Alberta, one from New Brunswick, one from Nova Scotia, one from Manitoba, none from Prince Edward Island, none from British Columbia and none from Newfoundland. This seems to me to be an indication that the Prime Minister is going to pick his parliamentary secretaries to quite an extent on the basis of their ability and flair rather than on the basis of strict geographical considerations or other such factors.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to another point that arises with regard to
2194	HOUSE OF
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries parliamentary secretaries, a point about which the Minister of Justice spoke a few years ago, the question of cabinet solidarity. In choosing these parliamentary secretaries the Prime Minister and his colleagues will want to pick people who they feel will fit into cabinet solidarity.
There is also the question referred to by Mr. Morrison, Mr. Dawson, Mr. King and other authorities, the jealousy or fear that may develop when there is an incompetent or relatively incompetent minister and a young, thrusting, ambitious parliamentary secretary. These things indicate that there are hardly any rules that can be laid down as to the relationship between a minister and his parliamentary secretary but there is a need to have parliamentary secretaries who will be affable and who will to a certain extent know their places.
Another factor that is involved is one that the Prime Minister has already mentioned, and that is this question of "young". In parliamentary terms, just what is young? I checked the age of the parliamentary assistants who were appointed two years ago, and while I do not want to go into detail by going through the roster, there are two names on the list whom I have a hard time thinking of as young. I know they are young in spirit, but beyond that one has a hard time thinking of them as young. I know that the legislation will not likely set an age ceiling, but that is one of the factors that have to be considered. In my short list of suggestions, I have tended to concentrate on what I call young people.
One of the other factors, of course, that has not been mentioned at all in the selection of parliamentary secretaries, is that of introducing a woman into these points. Again, the Prime Minister has a very limited choice. He has taken the first step by introducing the first lady into the cabinet, and now he has an opportunity of establishing another first for his government by introducing the first lady parliamentary secretary. Of course, as I said, his choice is limited because there are only two. I would that he had more, but this is a factor that has to be considered.
The hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned another factor and that is parliamentary secretaries for the Senate, that is making some hon. member of that house a parliamentary secretary. I was interested in finding that this topic has already been up for discussion in the other place this session. It was introduced by a member of the opposition and the thought there should be several parliamentary secretaries in that place. However, that is something else.


There is another definite problem in connection with parliamentary secretaries. Last year I was rather shocked when the Prime Minister said he hoped the day would never come when being a member of parliament was a full-time job. A lot of us took that to mean that if we are finding being a member of parliament a full-time job, then there is something wrong with us. I would introduce the question, are these parliamentary secretaries to be full-time jobs or are they just to be sessional? Then, there is the point raised by the Hon. George Drew when he was leader of the opposition, and this is something about which we need information. He raised the point in connection with the rules of the house whether parliamentary assistants have the right to close debates on bills or whether they have the authority to speak for the minister on estimates. This is a point that should be settled.
One of the other aspects of this matter in which we are interested is the number of parliamentary secretaries to be appointed. I have heard a figure of 20 mentioned. If we get the figure up as high as 20, and add to that the number we now have in the cabinet, then you have a type of patronage in the hands of the Prime Minister which could be very powerful. I wonder whether or not that many parliamentary secretaries are necessary? There is a little book written by an independent member of parliament in Great Britain, W. J. Brown, entitled "Guide to Parliament". He said:
In the second place, the scope of government patronage has widely increased of recent years. We have now to deal not only with the eighty paid posts of a ministerial kind, but a large additional number of governmental or quasi-governmental posts which are within the gift of government, which, in filling them, acts largely on the advice of the whips.
He goes on to say that this whole tendency of the ministry, and what attaches to it, is growing and is very dangerous to the point of view of the freedom of the individual member voting as he pleases in certain cases. We are very much aware of the fact that in this particular house very few of us always vote according to our whims, but we tend to follow the party line. There are considerations. For example, the hon. member for York-Scar-borough has a bill coming up upon which I hope we will have a free vote, and that is the bill in connection with capital and corporal punishment. Are parliamentary assistants going to be tied to whatever happens to be the view of their minister or the view of the government? I would suggest that this might be one reason for keeping these appointments to a minimum.

One of the great arguments that Dawson makes in connection with parliamentary assistants is that they will be of assistance to some cabinet ministers. I do not think the Prime Minister touched on this. I quote:
The greater use of members of the house as parliamentary assistants to certain ministers would do much to relieve the work of their seniors, and it would incidentally also make it easier to reduce the number of those in the cabinet proper.
Dawson goes on to make the point that really fisheries does not merit a ministry. I stand corrected, he does not say that fisheries does not merit a ministry but he says fisheries does not merit a post in the cabinet. He says the same thing of the Department of National Revenue and the Post Office Department. We do not know whether or not this is a part of the plan of the Prime Minister in introducing parliamentary secretaries, that is to reduce the size of the cabinet. However, we may suggest that is always an ideal, if it is possible, to keep the executive as small and tightly knit as possible. If this could be done through the introduction of more parliamentary assistants, that would be all to the good.
In the past, in so far as the ministry of fisheries has been concerned, if the minister came from the east coast then the parliamentary assistant came from the west coast. Personally, I wonder whether, with a department of that scope and size, it is necessary to have a parliamentary assistant. On the other hand, when I look at the ministry of transport, which has grown so large and has spread over so many fields, and is going to continue to grow, I wonder whether it would not be possible to have two or three parliamentary assistants for that department, one for air, one for sea and one for land communications. There are a number of departments which, I feel, fall into that category. For example, the Minister of Finance, according to one of the members of the press gallery, hired a young man at $10,000 a year in order to humanize the face the Minister of Finance presents to the public. We would suggest more parliamentary assistants-and again they will be on my short list here- could do a great deal to take some of the pressure off the Minister of Finance in this particular regard.
There is one other point we need to mention in connection with parliamentary assistants, especially when I look at some of them sitting over there, and that is that it is not always certain that you go on from parliamentary assistant to bigger things. We have one gentleman sitting in the house now, the hon. member for Ottawa West, who gave many years of service as a parliamentary assistant and who never achieved any higher post. I know the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries was looked upon, when he became a parliamentary assistant, as a young man in a hurry. Unfortunately, the year 1957 came along and he had nowhere to go.
One of the great things that I envisage may come out of the appointment of these parliamentary secretaries is something that may be more clearly understood if I were to read some remarks by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill. This is what Mr. Churchill said in 1939:
What is the use of sending members to the House of Commons who say just the popular thing of the moment and merely endeavour to give satisfaction to the government whips by cheering loudly every ministerial platitude, and by walking through the lobbies oblivious of the criticisms they hear. People talk about our parliamentary institutions and parliamentary democracy, but if these are to survive it will not be because the constituencies return tame, docile, subservient members, and try to stamp out every form of independent judgment.
The relevance of this particular extract to my remarks is this. I feel that any time you get 208 members together, even though they shelter under the banner of a leader that they revere and under a party of the same name, there is bound to be a breaking out of what one might call rump groups. I think we have looked forward to that in this particular house, the development of a rump group or a ginger group but we have not seen much ginger this session. The point I want to make at this particular time is this. Once these parliamentary secretaries are appointed, I think there will be the development of such a ginger group; that is one of the reasons why we should like to see this legislation pushed through immediately so that out of the bitter need for recognition, some of the disillusioned and disappointed and heartbroken will move to be that rump.


An hon. Member:: Dreamer.


Douglas Mason Fisher: One hon. member says
"dreamer". I do not believe that for a minute. I know that in caucus these members speak out. I always remember one of my encounters as a listener in previous election campaigns with the Prime Minister who was in opposition at that time. He gave a magnificent performance on the trained seals that flipped on the Liberal backbenches. He said, "They tell us they speak in caucus, but we speak in the House of Commons of Canada where the people of Canada can hear us." I just want to go on from there to one of my members on the short list. I refer to the hon. member for Winnipeg South. During the last campaign in Springfield he was quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press as saying that the Liberals and the C.C.F.'s talk too much in the House of Commons, especially the C.C.F.'s,
2198	HOUSE OF
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries and that the Conservative members did their talking in caucus. This raises in my mind a picture of the Wednesday morning caucus being always open to the hon. member for Winnipeg South. I suggest that one of the consequences of appointing him a parliamentary secretary would be that he would be much diminished in the caucus so that there would be opportunities for some of the other hon. members to state their case at that particular time.
One of the parliamentary committees in England a number of years ago looked into this question of parliamentary secretaries and parliamentary private secretaries. I quote from the Journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Empire Parliaments:
The parliamentary private secretary has no recognized official position: he acts as the confidential friend and assistant of his minister and necessarily enjoys in very large measure the confidence not only of the minister personally, but of the minister's department and the officials in it. Thus he must necessarily be to some extent imbued with the "team spirit" which is part of the life blood of the ministry; thus, too, his independence as a member of the house must be liable to be impaired to a somewhat greater degree than that of an ordinary member of the party supporting the government in office for the time being, although it would be a great mistake to regard his relations with the government as being as close or intimate as in the case of even the least important under-secretary in the government.
In Great Britain these hybrid personal secretaries are different from the kind contemplated by the legislation the Prime Minister has brought in today. But the comparison that it brings up at the end indicates that the under-secretary, which is the British comparison, has an important position and is definitely related to the ministry. We have no indication of that matter in this particular legislation.
One of the things that Dawson comments on, relating to the former prime minister, Mackenzie King, is this and at page 268 he says:
Yet in the same debate he made the astounding statement that an assistant would have to be persona grata not only to the minister (who is responsible for his actions) but also to the deputy minister (a civil servant), a pronouncement which seemed to justify the unflattering description by one member of the house that the assistants would be nothing more than "official coat-tail bearers" for the ministers.
That brings up the question of whether these parliamentary secretaries are going to have to be persona grata with the deputy ministers according to Mr. King's interpretation. From the minister's remarks I did not catch that he touched on that matter at all. I personally would suggest-and I am sure every other member of the house would go along with me in this regard-that he must be persona grata with the deputy ministers.


The deputy minister has no choice in the matter. However, that is just a question.
If we look at this list of parliamentary assistants for two sessions ago we find that one of the names can be struck out unfortunately because of ill health. I refer to Mr. Angus R. MacDonald. The bearer of one of the positions has gone forward to become Minister of Defence Production, indicating that this is a worth-while channel after all, despite my previous strictures. We are left with these other names, as I said in my interpretation with the exception of two, of young, thrusting, ambitious fellows and, I would think, from looking at the names, men of real ability. What is going to happen to them if they are not appointed parliamentary secretaries this session? I think the inference throughout the whole country will be that they have failed.
Unfortunately we do not know whether or not they have failed. Perhaps it was not their failure at all but rather the minister's failure. I would therefore make a strong plea here to the Prime Minister that he consider on his short list the former parliamentary assistants. I should like to mention especially the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and the hon. member for Carleton. I have had it said to me dozens of times by Conservative members in this house that the hon. member for Carleton deserves to be a cabinet minister. We know that he is kept extremely busy at the present time on the Ottawa scene in his relationship with the government. Perhaps a parliamentary secretaryship would be all that he could handle in lieu of those responsibilities. Perhaps that was the reason that the former parliamentary assistants-


The Chairman:: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, to leave the chair in order to permit the house to consider private and public bills.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: the second reading of Bill S-12 to incorporate Paramount Life Insurance Company.
He said: As indicated, this is an act to incorporate Paramount Life Insurance Company. I hope that at this stage, Mr. Speaker, it will not be necessary to deal with the bill clause by clause. If the matter can be referred to a committee I can assure hon. members that I will have someone from Vancouver attend-one of the officers or officials of the company-in order to give

detailed information about this bill. May I add that since the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba prohibit a life insurance company from doing business unless it holds a dominion licence, it therefore became essential that British Pacific Insurance Company, the provincial company, make application for dominion registration and dominion licence. This procedure entails the formation of a new company.
May I also add that the board of directors of the proposed company will include Mr. Harry J. Seed, Mr. J. M. Burnett, Mr. C. T. Ruddell and Mr. Esmond Lando, all Canadians and all of Vancouver. The new company's home office will be in Vancouver, and this is the first time that the home office of a dominion chartered and licensed life insurance company will be located in British Columbia. The owners have indicated their intention of maintaining a substantial investment in the province. Several hundred British Columbia people will find employment with the company as agents and office workers. This is, of course, in line with the present trend of business and gives heart to the statement: "Go West, young man, go west". With a head office in Vancouver, better service can be given to policy holders from that area and it is hoped that other life insurance companies will also construct buildings in the west in order to give similar service.
As I have indicated, if the matter can be referred to a committee for further consideration, I can assure all hon. members that an officer of the company will be present in Ottawa to give any further information required.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Mr. Speaker:: As there are a number of divorce bills down for second reading, is it the pleasure of the house to take them in one motion?
Seme hon. Members: Agreed.
Bill SD-135, for the relief of Jan Roberti.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-136, for the relief of Mary Athanas Copis.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-137, for the relief of Marie Marguerite Louise Leclerc	Andrews.-
Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-138, for the relief of Lorlotte Juliane Selma Wilhelmine Gude Hirtreiter.- Mr. McCleave.
Private Bills
Bill SD-139, for the relief of Mary Alice Hadley Hutchison.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-140, for the relief of Flore Crevier Plamondon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-141, for the relief of Karl Efraim Hill.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-142, for the relief of Ina Charlotte Charleson Hyde.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-143, for the relief of Gisela Antonie Anita Popp Sainitzer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-144, for the relief of Alfred Laliberte.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-145, for the relief of Lawrence Crites.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-146, for the relief of Marie Jeanne Madeleine Saint-Pierre Pare.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-147, for the relief of Marie Louise Marguerite Therese Bernaquez Aubin.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-148, for the relief of Jean Scott Bain Kunst.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-149, for the relief of Josef Libich.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-150, for the relief of Roger Desjardins.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-151, for the relief of James Alfred Keelty.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-152, for the relief of Agnes Forget Haymond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-153, for the relief of Maurice William Bell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-154, for the relief of Robert William Stamp.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-155, for the relief of Tanya Burstein Yerzy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-156, for the relief of Yvonne
Catherine Marie Vrancken Bruggemans.____
Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-157, for the relief of Mary Friedman Nussenbaum.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-158, for the relief of Paul Rewoski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-159, for the relief of Tibor Kadar. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-160, for the relief of Daniel Myer Glovinsky.-Mr. McCleave.
Motion agreed to on division, bills read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-9, respecting the printing of negotiable instruments in the English and the French languages.
[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code
(Translation):
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like, if possible, to deal with this bill.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is under the same disability as he was under last week or, at least, the last time this order was called, namely that the bill which he wishes to move is identical in purpose with another bill now standing on the order paper for resumed debate, and therefore I am not able to allow the hon. member to proceed with his motion.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-18 to amend the Criminal Code (Capital punishment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying last August when I was interrupted by six o'clock, I am sponsoring this bill this session. I must say a word about the activities of other hon. members in this party and in other parties who have spoken in support of this or of a similar bill in the past. I should like to commend them for fighting the good fight over the years on behalf of this proposition. I should like further to make some reference to the many individual citizens groups, civic councils, church and other organizations who have sponsored resolutions and made representations to me and to other members of this and former parliaments on the subject.
Last year in the course of my remarks on this bill I was dealing with the legal system as it exists today and the possibility of tendencies within that system which might prejudice the accused. I dealt with tendencies which might exist in the minds of judges and, at some length, with the tendencies which I knew by personal experience to exist in the minds of certain jurors. I dealt also at that time with the relative abilities of the crown prosecutor versus those of the defence counsel, pointing out that in many cases and, indeed in most cases, the crown prosecutor was a man far more experienced and able in his task than his counterpart engaged in the defence; also that first rate experienced murder defence lawyers did not normally, in spite of the very worthy activities of the legal aid societies, defend most of the murder cases before the courts of this country.
I dealt, further, with the facilities available to the crown and to the crown prosecutor to gather, assemble and document evidence against the accused with virtually
unlimited funds and personnel at their disposal, and compared with this the dilemma of the defence lawyer, particularly when a poor man or a man of modest or no means was accused. How much can a defence lawyer afford to spend out of his own money in these circumstances, with a most unlikely prospect of a fee, if there is to be any at all.
I had meant to refer to some aspects of the present system, particularly with regard to the legal defence of insanity-a defence based on the M'Naghten rule, a precedent for determining insanity in law which has its origin in the year 1843. Several things may be said about this.
The first is that it seems to me that since 1843 few branches of medical science have made such progress as that of psychiatry. When we are dealing with the mind and diseases of the mind surely we must recognize that giant strides have been made since that time although unfortunately these strides are not reflected in the courts and their benefits are not available to juries.
The second difficulty with the law concerning insanity is the position that twelve good men find themselves in when dealing with medical evidence of a psychiatric nature. I wish to quote a statement from a review of a book entitled, "Star Wormwood", by Judge Curtis Bok, of the United States, in which he dealt at some length with this subject. The review states:
Juries should not be required or expected to choose between contesting alienists attempting to apply the prevailing artificial and archaic legal test of insanity. The function of a trial is to find facts, or as Judge Bok puts it, "deeds", or what happened.
I was a member of two juries in which we were concerned with the M'Naghten rule, in both cases hearing eminent psychiatrists supporting different contentions. I confess that all of us were hard put to follow the thread of their arguments and the meanings of the continually changing terms which they applied to support their arguments. These are some of the things that make one wonder if our present processes of law can come to a sufficiently certain conclusion to justify the taking of a man's life.
I should like to quote another reason dealt with in the Canadian Bar Review of May, 1954, in which is contained the record of a symposium dealing with a motion concerning the abolition of capital punishment moved at that time in the name of the hon. member for Parkdale. This reference is from the remarks of one of the participants, Reverend John Kelly, then professor of philosophy at St. Michael's college, University of Toronto.
[Mr. Speaker.!

Concerning one of the aspects of the question I mentioned earlier this afternoon, he had this to say:
The common good also demands that there should be no discrimination against one section of the population. Yet, if the former warden of Sing Sing, Lewis E. Lawes, is to be believed-and I see no reason to doubt his credibility-and if the condition he describes is general-and so far as I can discover there is no reason to suppose that it is not-the death penalty is predominantly and disproportionately imposed upon the poor and upon males. He escorted 150 people to their deaths- 149 were men; 150 were poor. Since the enforcement of the death penalty seems incorrigibly selective, it seems to me that it is working against the common good.
I should like to make reference to the report of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the other place which dealt with capital punishment and reported in 1956 before I proceed to discuss the specific reasons why I am moving this bill. One of the recommendations of that joint committee was as follows:
While the committee considered that capital punishment should be subjected to periodic review by parliament, it recommends that the death penalty should be retained as the mandatory punishment for the crime of murder.
It is in the spirit of that recommendation that I hope we will have a full and comprehensive discussion on this subject at this time representing, if possible, the feelings of all political parties here represented.
The basic arguments for the abolition of capital punishment are several in number and I should like to deal with them in turn, treating some of them rather more extensively than others.
The first suggestion is that it is not actually an effective deterrent. As I mentioned last year there are statistics that can be cited in support of both sides of this question. In the symposium statistics were referred to by Mr. G. Arthur Martin, Q.C., well-known defence counsel of the city of Toronto. With respect to the subject of the death penalty as a deterrent he had this to say:
The state of Michigan, which abolished the death penalty about a hundred years ago, consistently has had a smaller number of murders for each hundred thousand population than its neighbouring states of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, where it might safely be assumed that conditions of life were comparable. Michigan, however, has a slightly higher incidence of murder than, for instance, Massachusetts or Connecticut, which have retained the death penalty; perhaps the difference is due to cultural conditions, the nature of the population, and so on. On the other hand, Rhode Island, which has abolished the dealth penalty, has a lower incidence of murder than either of its neighbours, Connecticut or Massachusetts, where capital punishment is retained.
When one examines reports, recommendations and discussions on this question over the years one must come to the conclusion
Criminal Code
that a case has not been made that the death penalty is in fact a deterrent to murder.
The second major reason advanced for the abolition of capital punishment is that it is morally wrong. I should like to quote briefly from the report of the joint committee in this regard and leave it at that. At page 12 of the report we find the following:
It was contended that it is morally wrong for the state, as well as an individual, to take human life. The punishment was said to be at variance not only with the principles of Christianity but also with the humanitarian and social developments which characterize the modern world. It was alleged to be an obsolete, barbarous punishment which has been successfully dispensed with in most civilized countries and that it is out of step with modern morality and thought. It was also claimed that the public is revolted by the barbarous nature of the punishment.
I now move on to what has always to my mind seemed the key aspect in the great debate that has ranged on the subject over the years. It is that capital punishment is essentially based on the motive and feeling of revenge. One of the most powerful and compelling statements on this subject appeared in the symposium to which I have made reference. The statement was made by Rabbi Fineberg of the city of Toronto who with respect to his reaction had this to say:
Is any human being exempt from the desire to be appeased by a criminal's contorted agony? I remember the gratification I derived from the hanging of the Nazi war criminals. They had steeped their hands in the blood of six million Jews, the evil they visited on mankind was beyond reckoning-yet I recall my feelings with shame, as unworthy, and as more excusable only in degree than the cries of the mob milling about the gallows at Cornwall prison recently.
My submission is that the motive of revenge is reflected in the fact that capital punishment is not something of which we as Canadians can be very proud. Surely, if motivations for laws exist, in this instance we should be motivated by a desire to protect the public in the determination of our penalties rather than the indulgence of revenge.
On this point, Mr. Speaker, whenever the subject is raised in almost any group, ultimately those who are opposed to the abolition of capital punishment say, "Yes, but what do you mean? What would you do if you caught a man murdering your wife or raping and murdering your child?" My reply to this question, has been as honest as I could make it. It has been that I do not think I or any other man would be held responsible for what he might do when faced with that situation. It is interesting to note that if a man comes across somebody murdering his wife and takes action to prevent that person from murdering his wife I doubt whether the records of the trials in this country or in any

Criminal Code
other country will show many if any convictions under such a set of circumstances. This kind of question, Mr. Speaker, I submit proves the point. I concede freely that I am in no condition to govern my actions, emotionally or in any other way, in such a position and yet those same people want to reflect my feelings at that time in the laws of our land concerning capital punishment.
I recall a conversation which is pretty typical of most people's thinking on this matter, a conversation in which we discussed the academic aspects of the arguments pro and con concerning capital punishment. My friend was in large measure in agreement with me. It happened that on that particular day and at a particular point during our conversation we turned on the news. The shocking news of the rape and murder of a small child was given on the television screen. It was one of those coincidences that seemed to bring into focus our argument. At that time the young daughter of this friend of mine, about the same age as the child who had been murdered, came into the room and my friend who moments before had conceded, on the basis of the rational and calm appraisal of the situation, my argument, changed his mind completely on the basis of association of ideas, I suggest. I have not discussed the matter with him since. I hope he is allowing his calm and serene judgment to govern in this matter, as I think we should with respect to all our laws and certainly with one as important as this.
There is another argument advanced with respect to the abolition of capital punishment and it has to do with the question of morbidity, if there is such a word; that capital punishment has its morbid aspects. I quote from the report in this regard:
It was contended that capital punishment is not only unjust to the murderer and ineffective as a deterrent, but is brutalizing in that it has a bad effect, not only upon prisoners and staff of the institutions where it takes place, but on society at large. It was said that the disproportionate publicity which surrounds a murder trial and an execution reflects the morbid instincts aroused by the death penalty. The shocking scenes which have accompanied some executions were cited in proof of these assertions as to the degenerative influence of capital punishment.
There is a reference in the symposium on this very point, in this connection again by Mr. G. Arthur Martin, Q.C. He had this to say:
I suggest to you, if we are honest with ourselves, that we, as individuals, are in fact ashamed of the retention of capital punishment as part of our penal system. If this is not so, why is the identity of the executioner concealed? Why should his name have to be kept secret so that he will not be shunned by his neighbours? Why is the execution of the death penalty shrouded in secrecy, if it is a deterrent even when secretly carried out?

Actually, if it is such an effective deterrent as its proponents would have us believe, everybody should be encouraged to witness executions-perhaps they should be compelled to witness them-so that they will see to what ends their crimes will lead them if they do not restrain their impulses.
Let me move on to the next and perhaps the most obvious factor in this whole argument, namely the risk of error. The risk of error I submit on the basis of what I have said earlier in this discussion can create the doubts on those lines raised in the public mind by the recent revelations, later denied, in connection with the Coffin case. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that two members of the Conservative party in this house were on opposite sides of the legal battle which took place in the Coffin case. Something that has always disturbed me about the Coffin case is the fact that at one point the accused had escaped. He was as free a man as one can be when one is a fugitive from justice; but at least he was not in jail. The submission of the defence in that trial, if I recall it correctly, was that when he was approached and found in fact by the lawyer he, in the process of being convinced to return to trial was influenced, I am sure, by the fact that if he was innocent, as he knew in his heart he was, under our system of justice he simply would not be found guilty. I do not know what force in law and in the courts this argument might have; obviously, it was not too powerful an argument.
That left very serious doubts in my mind and in the minds of many of my fellow Canadians. There are other examples. One sent to me by one of the many people who wrote to me following the introduction of this bill earlier this year concerned a prisoner in the United States named James Foster who was under sentence of death for murder. His execution was stayed twice and then convict Charles Rothschild confessed to the killing. I have found myself wondering over the years how many James Fosters in Canada, the United States and other countries have had their time run out on them and how many Charles Rothschilds did not come forward.
I submit that we should remove every possible doubt of the consequences of an error in the trial, that we owe it to society to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment that really means life imprisonment so that in the case of new facts coming to light after the trial has taken place the convicted individual will still be around to be reprieved. I submit that the substitution of life imprisonment that really means life imprisonment for the mandatory sentence of hanging would accomplish the protection of society, as mentioned earlier, and also the protection of the accused.

To continue with the committee report, there is the question of the adverse effect upon the administration of justice, but in this regard there is a reverse effect in the sense that many jurors who have difficulty in coming to grips with the facts in the case and with a quite natural repugnance to being a party to a hanging will reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter. I think any fair person examining the trial records in this country will agree that there have been such cases. As I have submitted, we should be concerned with the protection of society but certainly in this case the result is the reverse in that the charge is reduced in the case of murderers who should be put away for the protection of society and to prevent any future recurrence because of the qualms or squeamishness of jurors, and the sentences of these people are also reduced when they are convicted of manslaughter.
Another reason advanced by the committee has to do with prison administration, and in this regard I should like to quote the report. At page 12 there is the following:
Opponents of the death penalty alleged that the incarceration of all convicted murderers will pose no special problems for prison administration and argued that, as a class, murderers have a superior record to other types of prisoners. Some also urged that, even if the housing of all convicted murderers presented difficulties, it would be improper to permit mere administrative considerations to stand in the way of abolition which was justified on broad grounds of public policy.
These are the conventional reasons advanced on which I and a growing number of Canadians who favour the abolition of the death penalty base our case. My specific purpose in introducing this bill is to change the Criminal Code in such a way that both the protection of society and protection of the accused are preserved.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I know that one should not direct a question to the Speaker but, sir, have you ever seen a man hanged? I have. I saw a young man hanged about 20 years ago because the attorney general of British Columbia told me I did not know anything about abolition or non-abolition of capital punishment unless I had seen a man put to death. It is because of that experience that I say that anyone who has seen the state put a person to death could not help but make a full and comprehensive study of all matters pertaining to the retention or abolition of the death sentence. I have tried to do that over the years, and as a member of the joint committee of the senate and House of Commons on capital and corporal punishment I obtained a great deal of information.
I fully realize that the report of the joint committee contained a recommendation that
Criminal Code
capital punishment be retained but I would draw to the attention of members of the house the fact that so far as the decision of the committee was concerned there was only a difference of three in the vote for retention or abolition, that it was the almost unanimous view of the committee that eventually the death penalty would be abolished and for that reason the committee recommended a review every few years by the house or a committee. It was generally agreed that the only reason why some voted for retention was that they did not think the people of the country were ready yet for abolition.
The evidence is clear, Mr. Speaker. I say it is clear not only from other sources but from the two million words of evidence submitted to the joint committee over a period of three years. You can examine the records of all the countries of the world and the states of the United States and you will find that there is no broad or general differentiation in the rate of homicide between abolitionist or non-abolitionist states or countries.
To those who say that there is protection for police forces in having capital punishment I would point out that prior to 1954 no study had been made of that question whatsoever. The first study ever undertaken in the world so far as we know was undertaken in 1954 by Professor Sellin, one of the world's outstanding penologists. In that year letters were sent to the chiefs of police in all cities of the United States with a population of more than 10,000 asking for information with regard to murders of policemen since the year 1919. When the reports were received they were analysed very carefully and Professor Sellin advised the committee by letter that an analysis of all replies showed there was no justification for the statement that capital punishment was a deterrent to the murder of law enforcement officers.
So, both from the angle of a deterrent and protection, I say that from all the studies of the question I have made there can be no basis for the retention of capital punishment, unless it is admitted that it is retained strictly on the basis of retribution or revenge.
I know that because my name is closely linked with the stand I take in connection with the abolition of capital punishment. Every time there is a vicious, brutal murder, especially a sex murder, anywhere in Canada, I receive some letters. Sometimes I get quite a few. Almost every one of them says exactly what was pointed out by the mover of this bill, suppose it had been your wife or your mother or your daughter? The point is that the very position these people take is conclusive evidence of the failure of their own argument because the murder took place. We

Criminal Code
have capital punishment, and we have always had capital punishment in Canada.
The records are clear that in most instances when a person kills he does so from an emotion, from a fear, from an attempt to escape from passions; that is something that having capital punishment on the books is not going to deter. I am going to conclude my remarks because my views on this subject are very well known. I did want to say these few words and to add my hope that the endeavours that have been made in the past, together with this new endeavour by the mover of this bill, will have some effect and we will get what start we can upon this modern approach to this very important phase of penology. I hope the day is not too far away when this country will join the majority of other countries in the western world in which this ancient system of revenge has been abolished and where society is protected through the medium of a prison and not through the exercise by the state of a right which the state says is illegal and immoral if followed by the individual.


Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resligouche-Madawaska):: It is indeed a pleasure to speak in support of the position taken by the two hon. members who have preceded me in connection with the deterrent value of capital punishment. A little over a hundred years ago capital punishment was the penalty for some 280 offences in England. When it was sought to abolish this penalty there was great agitation amongst the people who feared that might lead to an increase in crime and petty thievery because, at that time, hanging was the punishment for stealing even a sheep. Since that time England has taken the lead and capital punishment has been completely abolished there. I feel it is high time we followed that example.
There is one other point I should like to mention this afternoon. Having had the experience of defending people accused of murder, as I know many hon. members have had the same experience, I can truthfully say that I believe too much depends upon the ability of the lawyer as to whether or not the man is going to be hanged. The life of a man is placed on too precarious a pedestal because so much depends on the feelings of the jury. I feel it is high time that this government took the initiative by following the course advocated in this bill. I am sure that the abolition of capital punishment has the approval of every hon. member in this house.
Certainly the points brought out by both hon. members concerning the immorality of capital punishment should give each and every one of us food for thought. I am often reminded, Mr. Speaker, of the words of

Marshall Hall who made it very clear that, according to the principles of British justice, it is better for a thousand guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be hanged. How often have we had occasion to think about the Coffin case to which reference was made this afternoon? How often do we think that at times there must be mistakes? It is impossible for lawyers and juries to go on in an infallible manner. I can recall sitting in this house in the opposition on the night that Coffin was to hang. I wanted to rise and ask the cabinet of that day to reconsider the matter because they only had about three hours in which to do so. However, the rules of the house prevented that.
I can recall the feelings I had at that time, and thinking that here was an example of a man who was probably going to the gallows for a crime he did not commit. I can recall thinking that the only means of removing this fear from the minds of Canadians was to abolish capital punishment, once and for all. I think it has been clearly demonstrated here his afternoon that as a deterrent to crime capital punishment does not serve a useful purpose. Recent judicial decisions in the United States are bringing out very clearly the mental aspects that surround these crimes of homicide. The old rule in the M'Naghten case no longer applies in the courts in some states of the United States. They are taking into account the various aspects of mental illness, aspects which have only become known in recent years.
There is one more reason why capital punishment should be abolished, and I feel I would be very grateful indeed if this government were to take the initiative by introducing the necessary measure into this house to abolish capital punishment.


Miss Margaret  Aiilcen@York-Humber: Mr. Speaker, mention has been made in this debate of the joint committee which was formed in 1953 to study the whole problem of capital punishment. I was a member of that committee for a short time toward the end of the sittings. The committee sat for almost three years and they heard witnesses from all spheres of life, lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, police officers and prison officials. All the arguments were put forward. I think, within my experience, it was one of the most soul-searching committees I have ever seen functioning. Everybody was so anxious to form an honest opinion on the subject.
There were some hon. members on the committee who argued that the retention of capital punishment was a deterrent and that it was a just punishment for murder; that it indicated society's revulsion to the greatest

of all crimes, the taking of life. There was also a basic belief that public opinion was substantially in favour of capital punishment. I think, to a certain extent, that was true. Actually, public opinion is changing a great deal and perhaps the committee had something to do with that change. Gallup polls have been taken on this subject since 1943. In 1943, 73 per cent of the people polled believed that capital punishment should be retained; in 1953 that figure had only dropped to 71 per cent. Seventy-one per cent said it should be retained and 22 per cent said it should be abolished and seven per cent were undecided. But by 1958 there had been a change in public opinion. Fifty-two per cent were for the retention of capital punishment; 33 per cent were for its abolition; and 15 per cent were undecided. As a member of that committee, I think the one factor that influenced my thinking was the claim made by responsible and authoritative people that it was a deterrent to murder. In the final report brought out by the committee on the retention or abolition of capital punishment this statement was made:
The committee was impressed by the virtually unanimous support of the death penalty by provincial attorneys and other provincial law officers and provincial police officers who had responsibility for and firsthand experience in law enforcement in Canadian provinces. These officials without exception testified that capital punishment was an effective deterrent to murder. They considered that it was particularly effective in deterring the professional criminals from carrying weapons and committing crimes of violence. They contended in addition that abolition of capital punishment would endanger police because a criminal seeking to avoid arrest would have much less fear of the consequences of the use of firearms or violence if capital punishment were abolished.
On the basis of this summary and after much soul searching on my part, I was one of those on the committee who voted for the retention of capital punishment. But my soul searching did not stop there. Since 1956 I have done a great deal of studying on the subject. I have read the opinions of people who are far more qualified than am I to form opinions and I have interviewed many experts including judges, lawyers, prison authorities, social and welfare workers and police reporters, and I must confess that I have changed my mind with regard to capital punishment. Although I still believe that it is a deterrent, I no longer feel that that fact overrides more important factors against capital punishment. In listing some of these factors, may I mention the following.
First there is the fact that a considerable portion of murders are undoubtedly committed in sudden and uncontrollable passions and I do not believe that the thought of death in any way would stop those murders.
Criminal Code
I believe the most effective deterrent would be, as the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) said, life-long imprisonment, really life imprisonment; and even more important, the sure knowledge that they will be detected and apprehended and that they face life imprisonment which to me seems to be a much more severe punishment than the painless form of death.
There is no doubt about the fact that many murderers must be mentally ill and emotionally irresponsible. I do not believe that any normal, sane, law-abiding people should be obliged to assume the responsibility of meting out death to such people. I have had many judges tell me that murder juries are hesitating to acknowledge that the crime is murder and the result is that although the evidence is patently against the accused, juries with the slightest shadow of doubt will bend over backwards and in many cases guilty persons go absolutely free. I think this is another argument against capital punishment.
The one strongest argument undoubtedly is that it is morally wrong for a man to take the life of another man, or for the state to take the life of a man. Like most hon. members in this house I am sure that I have received hundreds of briefs and representations from all kinds of organizations-including church organizations and welfare organizations-and individuals pointing out that capital punishment is not only an obsolete and barbarous punishment but that it is un-Christian and out of step with modern morality. One brief from the Quakers asserted that the wide publicity given to murders tends to make the thought of murder familiar and, to morbid minds, even attractive.
Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the basic facts which have influenced my thinking with regard to capital punishment. The strongest argument for its retention is that it may be a deterrent to further murders. But I believe the arguments for its abolition are even stronger; and the strongest of all, to my mind, is that undoubtedly it is morally wrong to take a life that God has created.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps on this occasion I can complete a ten-second speech before Your Honour looks at the clock and finds that is now six o'clock. Like the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), I had occasion to see a hanging carried out in a Canadian penitentiary a good many years ago. Despite the grisly solemnity of that ceremony-for it is difficult to take human life under any circumstances in anything that can be called a proper setting- it still does not change my opinion that capital

Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries punishment is a necessary ingredient in our make-up of law and order.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Diefenbaker-Mr. Rea in the chair.
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the appointment of parliamentary secretaries to ministers, to provide for the payment of salaries to them at the rate of $4,000 per annum out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to authorize the re-imbursement to them of reasonable expenses incurred by them in the discharge of their duties.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few minutes left, and one of the points I wanted to make in connection with this subject is occasioned by the fact that the Prime Minister has made remarks in this house to the effect that he does not care for lobbies, and I would ask him to ignore the lobby in the form of the telegram he received on the night of the last election from a certain member who was a parliamentary assistant, some of whose followers I understand comported a lobby in the form of a telegram to the Prime Minister. I hope he will ignore their indiscretion.
I must apologize for failing to mention accurately the former parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Victoria. We would hesitate to make any short list in connection with anyone in the province of Quebec, but I do feel that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, who played such a powerful role in the settlement of the C.B.C. dispute, must certainly be considered and, from the great respect which Liberal members of this house seem to have for the hon. member for Bellechasse, I imagine that he, too, would be worth considering.
One of the points one finds so intriguing is in connection with Prince Edward Island. I, as a teacher, would like to see a fellow teacher, the hon. member from Queens given an opportunity, but we are up against the fact that this is a small province. In so far as

the province of Ontario is concerned, the Prime Minister has two former provincial cabinet ministers available for selection. They foresook the provincial field for higher things in order to support the party, and one would imagine that they will receive serious consideration.
As one moves west, one encounters the hon. member for Athabasca who, as a former police officer, would make a real contribution as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice. The former member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was retired from the R.C.M.P. under treasury board minute 527514 dated February 6, 1958 which authorized his retirement from the service under section 97, paragraph (d) subsection 2, which states that one may be compulsorily retired from the force in order "to promote economy and efficiency". We feel he would undoubtedly do well in this new position which would require the very same things.
I should hate to finish without mentioning how pleased we are to see the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska back with us after his illness. He certainly, because of his very forthright nature should be one of those to be considered. The final point I want to make in connection with personnel touches on two members who, from the back benches, have given touching demonstrations of feeling and devotion for members of the cabinet and other leading Conservatives. I refer especially to the hon. member for Victoria, who in this house on more than one occasion has expressed an emotion for his chief which I think deserves a higher calling. The other hon. member I would refer to is the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who must surely deserve something because of the devotion he holds for you, Mr. Chairman, hon. member for Longueil.
Some few of my remarks are undoubtedly not going to be taken seriously but I would suggest that in them there are points which are worthy of consideration. Certainly we in this group are prepared to push this thing through tonight so that the government need no longer be delayed after the Easter recess. There is only one other point, and this was brought to my attention by a couple of Conservative members during the recess for the evening meal. This was to the following effect: how could they possibly vote for the present resolution since they were, perhaps, involved self-interestedly in a matter concerning the expenditure of public money. I should just like to assure them that if they feel they cannot vote for this resolution they have an undertaking both from the official opposition and from this group that we will put it through.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to yield to the Prime Minister's invitation to scoop my own book by saying anything about what I may know about what Mr. King thought, because I hope that every hon. member some two or three years hence will buy the book.


John George Diefenbaker: How long do we have to wait?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It depends on how competently the business of this parliament is done, and how much leisure I can get to work on the book. There is really only one observation I want to make about this resolution and it is one which ought to receive consideration from two angles. One is, of course, the protection of the public purse. The other-and this is a more important angle still-is the protection of the independence of parliament.
All hon. members will recall that the first United Kingdom prime minister who was known by the title of prime minister- which was at that time considered to be not a title of honour but a term of opprobrium-said, or is supposed to have said, that every man has his price. I would be the last to hold any such view, and my experience in Ottawa goes back over 20 years. I believe that if the generality of the population had the same high standards of conduct as most public men have, the public would not be the poorer for it. There is, none the less, a danger. We are all human. We are all fallible and we are all subject to many temptations. It may be that very often the temptation of place is more important than the temptation of remuneration, but it is a very healthy rule that no member of parliament and certainly no member of this place should accept any emolument of any kind under the crown unless parliament itself has so decided.
There has, I think, been a regrettable, indeed, a deplorable tendency in some other legislatures-I will not go beyond that-to proliferate offices under the crown in some cases almost to the point where almost half the membership is in receipt of something more than the indemnity of a member. I think that is a very unhealthy situation. I am a practical politician-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -or at least I think I am, and I am no great believer in that kind of independent member who gets up and tries to make a good fellow of himself in the eyes of his constituents by a display of independence of his party simply for the sake of getting his name in the newspapers. There have not been very many men of this sort in our public life and I think, myself, that if we are going to have a party
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries system and relatively stable government and some resistance to pressures of every kind that come upon every parliament, that in the main the place where the hon. member for Winnipeg South is supposed to have said that independence should be shown is the most effective place to show it.
What I do think is very important is that no matter who is in office and no matter what the government may be there should be in the ranks of the supporters of that government enough people who are both genuinely independent and capable of remaining independent. It seems to me that independence and party loyalty are not in the least incompatible and that it is very important to preserve both.
The Prime Minister will recall that Sir John A. Macdonald is supposed to have said that he had no use for parliamentary supporters who were willing to support him only when he was right. The men he liked were those who would support him when he was wrong. I suspect that the Prime Minister will be as much in need of that kind of support as any other leader we have had. The point I am trying to make is that there should not be slavish support nor the kind that comes from any hopes or expectations of profit, advantage or place. For that reason I sincerely hope that the highly salutary provision that was put in the estimates in 1943 will be included in the bill; that is to say that there should be an upper limit to the number of parliamentary secretaries who may be appointed.
I recognize that there is quite a strong argument that may be advanced to the effect that the government may not know from time to time how many of these secretaries it is desirable to have. However, I suggest that recent experiences in this parliament in this very session illustrate what a salutary thing it is for a government to have to come back to parliament and ask for any additional expenditures. I believe hon. members will understand to what I am referring without my elaborating further.
It seems to me the government should take the responsibility for deciding that any reasonable number of these parliamentary secretaries should be appointed and no more, and I believe 14 would be quite enough. I do not know what the Prime Minister's views are about whether any of these could be appointed in the other place. I do not know if the legislation envisages that. That is, of course, the practice in the United Kingdom. I confess that my own feeling is they are needed more in this house.
There are certain portfolios that are very onerous. All ministers are equal, we recognize,
2206	HOUSE OF
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries but some are more equal than others. Some of those who are perhaps a little less equal than others I believe scarcely need the support of a parliamentary secretary. That is really the only point I wanted to make about this proposed legislation. I sincerely hope this parliament will not pass legislation that does not place an upper limit on the number of parliamentary secretaries that may be appointed.
So that I will not be tempted to inflict any more observations on the house when we reach second reading of the bill, perhaps I should add that there is one member of the government-or rather one portfolio; I should not say one member because I would not like to reflect in any way upon the hon. lady- where I can say from personal experience a parliamentary secretary is badly needed because of the nature of the work in that department, and that is the one I occupied when I left the government. Equally, I would say with all due respect to the hon. member for Labelle, that in the portfolio which he holds and which is the one I held when I first went into the government, I would think a parliamentary secretary would be redundant.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I recall when almost a year ago the estimates were taken up in this chamber and we were asked to vote a certain supply of money to pay for parliamentary secretaries a number of us did a little mathematical calculation and came to the realization that the amount asked for was over and above the sum that could reasonably be expected to be expended on the part of the government because as I recall it a number of months of the year had already elapsed at that time. We moved an amendment on that occasion to reduce the estimate for parliamentary secretaries so that payments could be made only for the remaining months of the fiscal year. However, the Conservative backbenchers were more loyal to their political party than to their own logic and they helped to defeat the amendment. The fiscal year will have run out on March 31 and none of this money will have been expended. This illustrates that on some occasions the backbenchers of the government are ridiculous in their loyalty to their party which loyalty exceeds even their loyalty to their own sense of logic.
The question before us at this time is whether or not ministers need parliamentary secretaries. Looking at the condition in which our country finds itself we have to admit that they surely need help. They are all in difficulty. The government has mismanaged affairs and members of the cabinet are so incapable that members of the opposition are unable to say anything but that the cabinet ministers who now occupy the front -benches of the government do indeed need assistance.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l

Agriculture is in a mess and it is obvious that the Minister of Agriculture needs some help. I should like to recommend some agriculturists from British Columbia to be his assistants. We have a few of them from that province on the government side of the house. There is the hon. member for Cariboo, a lifelong farmer and a good one at that. There is also the hon. member for Fraser Valley, a former superintendent of experimental farms who certainly ought to know agriculture. I regret that the Prime Minister this afternoon referred to these secretaries as new blood and young blood and therefore the hon. members for Cariboo and Fraser Valley obviously cannot be considered.
I was interested in a comment made by the hon. member for Port Arthur who indicated that not one parliamentary assistant in the previous group appointed by this administration was from the province of British Columbia. I feel the mere fact that hon. members from British Columbia regardless of political affiliation have shown that they have more on the ball than hon. members from other provinces should not be held against that province in the appointment of these officials. The fact that we now have three members from that province in the government should not preclude British Columbia having a fair share of the proposed parliamentary secretaries.
There is on the government side of the house an hon. member from British Columbia who has abilities that are unique and that probably exceed those of most hon. members in the government. I am referring, of course, to the hon. member for Vancouver South. It is rather an unlucky accident for him that the Prime Minister chose to select as members of the government that obviously able gentleman, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra; his party leadership opponent, the able hon. member for Kamloops; and the equally able lifelong friend of the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. However, we feel that the hon. member for Vancouver South ought not to be discriminated against simply because British Columbia already has three members in the government. We hope that the honesty, forthrightness, experience and intelligence of the hon. member for Vancouver South is going to be recognized.
The hon. member for Kootenay West raised the problem of a parliamentary secretary receiving more in income than a minister without portfolio. I would like to recommend one thing. I realize that these parliamentary secretaries are not going to be appointed, or I do not think they will be appointed, until there has been a shake-up in the ranks of the government. If this is a

problem, I would like to suggest that the hon. member for Greenwood, the Minister without Portfolio, could without any warning whatsoever move over and occupy almost any one of the portfolios of the government and operate it with much greater efficiency than it is being operated at the present time. I know the hon. member for Greenwood does not want a so-called promotion to the other place and we in our group, having observed his actions over a period of many long years, have come to admire some of his abilities and we rather regret to see him sitting on the sidelines as an adviser to a lot of young fry who, I am sure, do not want any advice and who are unwilling to accept his advice. We know he is a Tory of the old school and, I would rather have a Tory of the old school than any of those wishy-washy young, neither fish nor fowl to my left. I would highly recommend that the hon. member for Greenwood, at the time of the reshuffle of the government and at the time of the appointment of the parliamentary secretaries be given the honour, the respect and the acknowledgment that he deserves in a Conservative government.
The opposition members in this house are very concerned as to who is going to be appointed as parliamentary secretaries. We iiave had some experience in the past, in the Says of the parliamentary assistants, and we rather liked it lately when we did not have to have a second-rate minister offering us explanations on anything that we might ask i department. We had direct contact with the minister. We hope that the new partiamentary secretaries who are to be appointed are not going to be simply a buffer igent on behalf of the minister. We hope that :hey will give us the same courteous service is we have received in recent months whenever we have had occasion to call upon any ministers of the government.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Diefenbaker thereupon moved to in-;roduce Bill C-37, to provide for the appointment of parliamentary secretaries to minsters.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first ime.



FREIGHT RATES


George Harris Hees: that the house go into :ommittee to consider the following esolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to lirect the board of transport commissioners to
Freight Rates
require by order the reduction of class and commodity freight rates (other than competitive rates) charged by carriers subject to the order of the board dated November 17th, 1958, and to authorize payments to reimburse carriers for the resulting reduction of their revenues up to an aggregate amount of twenty million dollars.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, by its decision dated November 17 last the board of transport commissioners, pursuant to the application of the railway association of Canada and certain of the member companies, authorized a general increase of 17 per cent in the class and commodity rates which are noncompetitive, including rates by joint rail-water routes which are differentially related to the rail rates, accessorial services, and specific increases of 22 cents per ton on coal and coke. No increases were authorized for statutory rates on grain and grain products, import and export related rates, and international rates between the United States and Canada; nor did the board authorize increases in competitive rates, in as much as the making of such rates is within the discretion of the railways, and is governed by the exigencies of competition.
The decision of the board was appealed by eight provinces to the governor in council, and while the governor in council recognized the need of the railways for the additional revenues which would thereby be obtained, and did not disallow the increase, it was the view of the government that a means of granting some relief from the increase should be devised.
As an interim measure designed to alleviate the burden of the authorized increase in rates, the proposed legislation provides for a subsidy of $20 million over a 12-month period, to be paid to the companies that are subject to the board's order No. 96300 as reimbursement for such reductions in rates as they may be directed to make pursuant to this legislation. The companies that are subject to order No. 96300, and thereby come within the scope of this legislation, are principally the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and its leased lines, and a number of smaller railway companies which are member lines of the railway association of Canada; and the water carriers who participate in joint water-rail, and rail-water-rail routes, that is the Canadian Steamship Lines, Northwest Steamship Company and Canadian Pacific Great Lakes Steamships.
The government has decided that the most effective relief is to be afforded by confining the subsidy to a reduction in the noncompetitive class and commodity rates, including the joint rail-water rates which are

Freight Rates
differentially related to the rail rates. These rates are generally known as "normal" rates, and are the ones which have taken the full percentage increases authorized by the board over many years.
This manner of alleviation concentrates the benefits on the long haul traffic where rates have not been kept down by competition. The subsidy will not apply toward a reduction in the other rate categories which I have referred to, whether or not they were authorized to be increased under the board's order.
The legislation provides that the board shall require the companies to reduce their class and commodity rates by such amounts as to effect a reduction in their revenues obtained from this traffic by $20 million during a 12-month period. The exact reduction in rates which will thereby result is a matter which will depend upon traffic volume and not one which the government, by legislation, could fix in advance. I may say, however, that on the basis of the present volume and pattern of traffic it has been estimated that the application of the $20 million subsidy on the basis which I have outlined will permit a reduction of some seven percentage points, thereby making the authorized increase approximately 10 per cent in lieu of 17 per cent.
As hon. members know, the government has indicated its intention of proceeding with a comprehensive inquiry into matters affecting the railways. The proposed legislation therefore limits the assistance to a 12-month period, when it is hoped a report will be available to the government. Consideration will then be given to means of further relieving the unfair discriminatory burden of the freight rate structure.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the minister at this point? Because of the noise in the house I could not follow the last sentence. He referred to a comprehensive inquiry affecting railway matters. Did he go any further and say anything about a royal commission?


George Harris Hees: Not yet.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry I interrupted.


George Harris Hees: Consideration will then be given to means of further relieving the unfair discriminatory burden of the freight rate structure. In the meantime the government does not propose to permit any further general increases in railway freight rates. At the conclusion of second reading I intend to move that the bill go to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and may I say for the information of hon. members that I am advised by the chairman of the

committee that, provided the bill is given second reading in time, the committee will commence sitting on Tuesday, April 7, at 9.30 a.m.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the committee will have listened with interest to the statement the minister has made on the very important and very complicated question of freight rates. I was unable to follow all the implications of the statement although I tried to listen as carefully as I could to what was said. When I interrupted the minister I gathered from him that it would follow in due course that a statement would be made about the appointment of a royal commission. I did not hear that statement made but I take it that in the course of the debate at a later stage it is the intention of the minister to make that kind of announcement and to state also the terms of reference of the royal commission.


George Harris Hees: I might answer the hon. member for Laurier on that point now, Mr. Chairman. A much larger, long term inquiry is under very active consideration by the government at the present time and I expect that in the very near future to Prime Minister will be making the kind of announcement to which the hon. member has referred.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for that reply. I take it that the long term inquiry he has in mind is one which will cover the whole matter of railway policy as well as the railway freight rate structure. While I do not wish to anticipate what the form of that announcement will be I take it from what the minister has said that it will be a commission of some sort. I am not particularly concerned at the moment whether it be a royal commission or another type of investigation but I am very much concerned with the fact that according to the statement the minister has made there will be a complete investigation into the railway policy of Canada as well as the inequalities, inequities or discriminations which may exist and have existed for some time in the freight rate structure. I wanted to get that assurance from the minister because I intend to come back to that point at a later time.
The matter under discussion this evening is a resolution moved by the Minister oi Transport which divides itself into two parts, The first part is expressed in these words:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to direct the board of transport commissioners to require by order the reduction of class and commodity freight rates (other than competitive rates) charged by carriers subject to the order of the board dated November 17, 1958-

That is the judgment referred to by the minister earlier. The second part is expressed in these words:
-and to authorize payments to reimburse carriers for the resulting reduction of their revenues up to an aggregate amount of $20 million.
The terms of this resolution give rise to a number of questions and it seems advisable to consider these as one proceeds to discuss the statement the minister has made as well as the order of the board. I should like to deal first of all with the judgment and order of the board of transport commissioners which is dated November 17, 1958. The decision, in its recital of the facts on pages 5 to 7, indicates, particularly at page 6, what the railways had in mind.
Mr. Chairman, I am shocked at this moment. I have to interrupt my remarks to convey to the committee the information which has
Freight Rates
this moment been given me that the hon. member for Russell has just passed away.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is shocking news and I suggest that we adjourn. I move that we adjourn.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: In view of the tragic news of which the house has been informed the chair agrees that we should adjourn. I will therefore rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the Minister of Agriculture to move the adjournment of the house?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I so move.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 8.42 p.m.

Questions