1959-07-15

[Stage Direction]
Twenty-second report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.
Third report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. Stanton.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Caron: 1.	On what dates, since January 1, 1958, are there formal minutes reporting meetings of the investment committee of the unemployment insurance fund?
2.	Which members of the committee were recorded as present on the occasions of each of such meetings?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to these two questions is as follows; I will combine questions 1 and 2 in my answer. July 21, 1958, by letter signed by all three members. October 1, 1958; Mr. Coyne, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Cushing. January 9, 1959; Mr. Coyne, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Cushing. February 2, 1959; Mr. Coyne, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Cushing. March 18, 1959; Mr. Beattie, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Cushing. April 21, 1959; Mr. Coyne, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Cushing.



FUEL TENDERS, PUBLIC BUILDING, SHERBROOKE, N.S.

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Were tenders called within the past year for the supply of fuel to the public building at Sherbrooke, Guysborough county, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, how many bids were received, in what amounts and which person was the successful bidder?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Acting Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes; public tenders were called on April 24, 1959. The answer to the second question is that three bids were received, as follows: R. W. Anderson, $21.47 per ton; Albert E. Whidden, $21.90 per ton; Sears and McIntosh, $22 per ton. The contract was awarded to R. W. Anderson, of Sherbrooke, Nova Scotia, the lowest bidder, for 20 tons of Acadia oil treated lump coal.



FEDERAL BUILDING SITE, NEW GLASGOW, N.S.

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Were lands purchased by the Department of Public Works as a site for a federal building in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, were tenders called for this land?
3.	What bids were received?
4.	Who was the successful bidder?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is that the department has approved the acquisition of property in the end of the Town block, bounded by East River road, Donald and Temperance streets. Action is being taken by the Department of Justice toward completion of the transactions. The answer to the seond question is no, and questions 3 and 4 are answered by answer No. 2.



C.N.R. LAND SALES, TURCOT YARD, MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 115
Mr. Lessard:: 1.	Has any land belonging to the Canadian National Railways, in the Turcot yard, Montreal, been sold since January 1, 1957, to individuals, corporations or companies?
2.	If so, how many parcels have been sold and what are the names of the persons, corporations or companies acquiring same?
3.	What was the sale price in each case?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the management of the Canadian National Railways advise me that the answer to part 1 is no. Parts 2 and 3 are, of course, answered by the answer to part 1.



CARCINOGEN RESEARCH

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Can the Minister of National Health and Welfare inform the house whether research is being carried on regarding the presence of a cancer-producing agent known as carcinogen, reported to be found in wax milk cartons?
2.	If so. will the minister state what conclusions have been reached as a result of such research?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, research has been carried out in the United States on the chemical and biological aspects of a substance found in crude petroleum, the basic material employed in the manufacture of the wax used for milk cartons. This substance, known as dibenzanthracene, has been termed a carcinogen by scientists working on the experimental production of tumours in mice

Orders for Returns
2.	It has been reported that two out of 50 samples of waxes examined contain dibenzanthracene in amounts of the order of one part per million and one half part per billion of the wax. While the substance has produced tumours when administered to mice it has not been shown to produce cancer in men and the chemical has not been detected in milk held in wax milk cartons. I am advised that while the findings are not final, no indications of a health hazard have been found.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Argue: 1.	What was the annual budget for the national museum of Canada for each year since 1935?
2.	What amount of this money was spent for each year specified?
3.	What amount of this was spent each year on: (a) salaries of the senior officers, and salaries of the other staff; (b) exhibits; (c) publication of scientific studies; (d) scientific field work under contract; (e) scientific field work conducted by the permanent scientists of the museum; (f) purchase of specimens and collections; (g) public education?



NATIONAL MUSEUM


Mr. Argue: 1.	What specific research studies have each of the continuing members of the scientific staff of the national museum of Canada made for each year since January 1, 1945?
2.	Have any of these studies been completed?
3.	If so, which ones, what was the name of the person who did the research study, and on what approximate date was it completed?
4.	Have any of these completed studies been published?
5.	If so, which ones, what was the title under which it was published, the author listed, the name of the person who did the research, and by whom were they published?
6.	How many completed studies remain unpublished, who made the studies, when were they completed, what is the title of each, is it intended that any of these be published?




Mr. Argue: 1.	What scientific collections and specimens have been purchased by the national museum of Canada each year since 1945, and to which branch of the museum does each now belong?
2.	How much money was paid for each collection, from whom were they purchased, and who authorized each purchase?
3.	Which collections are presently on exhibit, which ones have ever been exhibited and of these what date were they last exhibited?
4.	Are any of these collections presently in storage?
5.	If so, (a) which ones; (b) how long have they been in storage; (c) in what buildings are they housed; (d) are these buildings fireproof; (e) who is in charge of the repair, maintenance and protection of each collection?
IMr. Monteith (Perth).]
6.	What proportion of the total collections and specimens owned by each branch of the museum are in storage?



FEDERAL COMMERCE NAVIGATION COMPANY LIMITED

Mr. Argue: 1.	Has any government department entered into a contract or agreement with Federal Commerce Navigation Company Limited at any time since its incorporaton?
2.	If so, (a) what were the dates of the contracts or agreements, and with what department were they made; (b) for what purpose; (c) what was the nature of each contract or agreement; (d) what were the terms?
3.	Were tenders called on each of these contracts?
4.	If so, who submitted tenders on each contract, and what was the tender price?
5.	On what date was this company incorporated?
6.	What were the names of the original members of the board of this company, and who were their successors in each year since its incorporation to date?



PRICE SPREADS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I wonder if the Prime Minister could now answer a question I addressed to him last week as to the date on which the report of the royal commission on price spreads is likely to be received?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I have not that information at the moment, but I will make inquiries of the chairman.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Laurier Regnier (St. Boniface):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the government given any consideration to the proposals of the board of broadcasting governors in connection with the St. Boniface television station?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: The short answer to that question would be no, but the fact is that when this recommendation was received from the board of broadcast governors certain technical questions were raised as to the availability of other channels in the province of Manitoba. I referred the matter to the Department of Transport, and the difficulty having been resolved I intend to bring the matter before the cabinet in the immediate future.



INQUIRY AS TO PROCLAMATION OP CUSTOMS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Knowing his avid affection for agriculture I want to ask the Minister of National Revenue a question. In view of the approach of the fruit harvesting season, would the minister inform the house when it is the government's intention to relieve the growing anxiety of fruit growers by proclaiming section 40A, subsection 7, clause (c) of the Customs Act?


George Clyde Nowlan: When a decision has been made on that point it will be announced in due course.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: On
behalf of my colleagues from Waterloo South and Wellington South I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister please advise what progress has been made in the proposed improvement of the Water loo-Wellington airport?


George Harris Hees: Yes. The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. This year's construction plans call for the installation of a lighting system on runway 07-25. Tenders for this work were recently opened, and I understand that a contract has now been let through our regional office in Toronto. Estimated cost for the work was $25,000, but the final tender figure has not yet been forwarded from Toronto to Ottawa.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY OLD WELLAND CANAL    STATEMENT AS TO CLEAN-UP AND RESTORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Welland asked me a question relating to the clean-up of the old Welland canal.
Tenders for the next major stage in this work have been received and opened within the last few days and are now being studied by the consulting engineers for this project, and by the St. Lawrence seaway authority, with a view to making a recommendation on acceptance of tender. This recommendation is expected within the next week and will immediately be submitted to treasury board for approval.
Inquiries of the Ministry



R. A. C. HENRY-INQUIRY AS TO PAYMENTS AS CONSULTANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport of which I have sent him notice. Does the minister consider there is anything anomalous or worthy of investigation in the information tabled in this house which shows that Mr. R. A. C. Henry, a vice president of Marine Industries Limited, was receiving some $40,000 from this government as consultant on the St. Lawrence seaway at the same time that his company was getting many millions of dollars in contracts on the seaway from the Department of Public Works?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The return to the order of the house shows that Mr. R. A. C. Henry was engaged as consulting engineer on the St. Lawrence seaway project from August 1, 1952 to September 30, 1954. The remuneration he received was paid through the Department of Transport.
I am advised that Mr. Henry was not engaged by nor received any remuneration from the St. Lawrence seaway authority. As the house knows, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act was proclaimed on July 1, 1954, and no contract was let by the seaway authority until some time after that date. The date of the first contract given by the St. Lawrence seaway authority to Marine Industries was March 23, 1955.
Regarding the hon. member's inquiry as to whether or not I should like to pass comment on this matter, as this is something that took place under the former government he is in just as good a position to comment on it as I am.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Essex East showed a great interest in the shipping arrangements we have been able to work out on the west coast following the strike of Northland Navigation Company. As I advised him yesterday, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Skeena both showed great interest in this matter from the very beginning and discussed it
6024	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry thoroughly with me. I kept them fully advised at all times, and thoroughly informed with regard to this matter. However, since the hon. member for Essex East shows the great interest he has, I am going to give him the information he asked for, Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Very good of you.


Mr. Pickersgill:: How condescending.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the following substitutional services are in effect to provide essential supplies to the communities left without service as a result of the suspension of the subsidized services of Northland Navigation Company due to the strike.
1.	Barkley Sound Transportation Company is instituting, on July 18, a temporary service from Port Alberni to the following ports formerly served by Northland Navigation Company. I might say to the Hansard reporter that although these names are somewhat difficult to understand I shall give him a list of them afterwards, so he need not worry too much about them. The list of ports is as follows: Ucluelet, Port Albion, Tofino, Clayoquot, Kakawis, Ahousat, Hot Springs Cove, Hesquiat, Nootka, Gold River, Mooyah Bay, Tahsis, Esperanza, Zeballos and Chamiss Bay (for Kyuquot).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Oh, we are just beginning, Mr. Speaker.
2.	Coast Ferries Limited is continuing to serve regularly the lower Johnstone strait ports and the islands and inlets on the route to and from Vancouver.
3.	Island Tug and Barge Limited is carrying out a barge service to the upper Johnstone strait ports including Beaver Cove, Alert Bay, Port McNeil, Port Hardy and Quatsino sound.
4.	The packers of the various fishing companies are serving the following ports where there are fish canneries or storage plants: Smith inlet, Rivers inlet, Skeena river, Namu, Bella Bella, Klemtu, and Butedale.
5.	B.C. Packers Steamship Company Limited is giving a regular call at Bella Coola.
6.	Vancouver Tug and Barge Company Limited is calling regularly at Ocean Falls.
7.	Straits Towing Limited is serving Prince Rupert and Kitimat and through the latter, Kemano; these ports also have road and rail connections.
8.	Straits Towing Limited is serving Mas-sett in the Queen Charlotte islands and from Massett there is road connection to Port Clements, Skidegate and Queen Charlotte city. Sandspit, the site of the Department of Transport airport, is situated opposite Skidegate on Skidegate inlet.


9.	At Cumshewa inlet there were ports of call at two large logging camps which are closed because of the woodworkers' strike; there is logging road connection from these ports to Sandspit.
10.	Up to this moment the Canadian maritime commission has not yet been successful in establishing a temporary service to Stewart, Kincolith, Alice Arm and Port Simpson in the Portland canal area; however, it is making every effort to organize such a temporary service out of Prince Rupert.
Mail for the coast communities is being forwarded either by air or by the services I have mentioned. Passengers will have to rely on the many air services available on the British Columbia coast, because there is no alternative steamship company with vessels available and capable of performing the required services.
The services I have described will not be as convenient as those normally given by Northland Navigation Company, but the communities served will receive the basic supplies necessary for their existence.
I hope the hon. member for Essex East has all the information that he requires to carry on, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In doing so, of course, I appreciate the friendly attitude the minister has taken toward me personally, but I rise not only on a point of order but on a question of privilege that affects this house.
The minister in giving his reply said he would be pleased to give an extended reply as a favour to the hon. member for Essex East who, along with two other hon. members, he said, had shown some interest in this matter. A minister's answer is not given to an hon. member as a matter of favour but as a matter of right. This is the House of Commons, and when questions are put to ministers of the crown, to those who sit on the treasury benches, answers made by them are not made out of their goodness and kindness of heart and friendship toward one member; they must be made under our constitutional practice as a matter of duty involving the recognition of the rights of parliament itself. While I appreciate the friendly attitude of the minister, I should remind him that he is a member of a government whose party and whose leader has insisted that the rights of parliament must at all times be observed.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not observing the rights of parliament to say that ministers shall answer questions only as a favour to other members in the House of Commons. I

know the Minister of Transport will realize his constitutional breach in this particular instance.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, at no time did I say I was giving this answer as a personal favour to the hon. member. I simply said he has shown great interest in it, and because of the great interest he had shown I was going to take great pains to give a full and complete answer. This, I take it, is hard to understand by the hon. member who was formerly a minister, because when he was asked questions when he was on this side of the house he never gave complete or informative answers.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to engage in any of the extraneous things I just listened to but I hope the minister and the maritime commission will apply themselves with great zeal to assure that a service will be given to the Portland canal area.


Some hon. Members:: Order.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arthabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On April 10 the minister announced that the floor price for hogs would be reduced to $23.65 from $25 per hundredweight and that "the change in the method of supporting that floor price will come into effect just as soon as we can get the machinery ready, which might be six weeks or two months. Will the minister make an announcement of this change before the end of this session?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know when I will be in a position to make that announcement. I shall certainly make it, as I indicated at that time, as soon as possible.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put another question to the Minister of Agriculture. On May 7 the minister announced in this house that the egg support program would be changed from an offer to purchase basis to that of a method based on deficiency payments. Will the minister be in position to announce his new policy before the end of this session?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have just answered that kind of question, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION



CONVENTION ON NATIONALITY OF MARRIED WOMEN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Hull asked me if I would have the convention on the nationality of married women translated into French. I promised him I would do so, but I find that it is not necessary because, first of all, when the convention was originally tabled it was tabled in both languages, and a more recent edition also appears in the French version of the Senate Hansard of March 19 this year, which I am sure he will have in his office. If not, it is very easily procured.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, what appears in the Senate Hansard does not affect us. I do not receive the Senate Hansard, and I should like to have it in the House of Commons Hansard.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure the distribution office will secure a copy for the hon. member.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance, and ask him if he has any intention of appointing a chairman of the tariff board?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



REPORT OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON INFLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great interest in this matter and the responsibility of the government and parliament with regard to it, the government will take steps to make available to the House of Commons the report in the other place on inflation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will give consideration to the suggestion, but I really do not know that there is any responsibility on this house to distribute the reports of the other place.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. In view of his great responsibility in this matter, has he been following the

Inquiries of the Ministry proceedings of that committee, and does he propose to live up to the promise that this government would give a lead in trying to curb government expenditures?


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is contrary to the practice of this house to refer to the proceedings taking place in either its own committees or in committees of the other house. When the report itself has been made I believe it is then appropriate to refer in debate to the proceedings of the other house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker may I say this. This is a matter of the greatest importance, and it is now referred to in the public press. Surely we are not going to be denied the right in this house to ask the Minister of Finance whether his attention has been called to an important study made elsewhere, involving evidence by leading economists, in a matter which this government and the minister has dodged throughout the session.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has chosen to smuggle one of his demagogic, tub-thumping speeches into a point of order. It also lacked nothing in pomposity. The hon. member would apparently ask me to override the rules of the house by making comment upon the proceedings of the other house. He has been here a long time. He has been here longer than practically all other members in this house, but apparently he has not yet become aware of the rule of this house that it is quite out of order to make reference to proceedings in the other place. Indeed, if I were to make any comment on the report of a committee of the other house under these circumstances I would be entirely out of order, and I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would be the first to call me to order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I therefore do not intend to accept the hon. member's invitation to transgress the rules of the house.
As to the responsibility of the government in this matter, let me say that the government will continue to discharge its responsibility to the Canadian people, and that it will not need any jogging from my hon. friend opposite or any of his tub-thumping speeches which are quite out of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it is out of order to make reference in this house to a report of the other place which has been completed and made public?


Mr. Speaker:: I shall have to take that
matter under consideration. I know it is in order, in the course of debate, to read extracts from the proceedings in the other place. However, 1 am not in a position to give an answer to that question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: By way of further supplementary questions to my hon. friend, may I say that I am sorry if I have in any way offended him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has only offended the rules of the house; that is all.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: May I ask the
minister this question. If he is so preoccupied that he cannot give this matter his own personal attention, would he direct that this matter be referred to the study committee or the seminar which he has set up in connection with dominion-provincial fiscal relations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have taken under consideration the idea of setting up a study group or seminar for the instruction of such members of the house as badly need it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister had better join us.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have due regard for the present need of my hon. friend. I think I am ready to give a decision on that point now and invite him to be the first of those who will be nominated for this tutorial assistance.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO CONTINUATION OF ACREAGE PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Pelers (Timiskaming):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the assertion by the government that the $1 an acre payment to western farmers had in effect established a true parity price for wheat, is the government now considering the continuation of this policy?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the preamble to the question is concerned, may I say that I know of no statement to that effect having been made. The statement that was made that the amount paid last year represented approximately the difference between the prices that were paid on the world market and those that would be paid in respect of that portion of the wheat which was utilized in Canada for domestic purposes.
As to the second part of the question, whenever any decision is made parliament will be made aware of it.

Inquiries of the Ministry
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT	FISHERIES



BATTLE OF PLAINS OF ABRAHAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Yesterday's newspapers announced a new stamp issue having to do with the battle of the plains of Abraham. Will the minister comment?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of saving the time of the house may I suggest that the hon. member might agree to wait until my estimates are up, perhaps later today or tomorrow, when we can explore this subject.


Azellus Denis: I am afraid the minister will have some other questions to answer on his estimates, and as we want to finish on Saturday or as soon as possible I should like to ask a supplementary question. What is the idea of reminding the people of Canada of old family quarrels by a stamp issue?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, it was not in my mind that by this stamp issue we were reminding anyone of any old quarrels, but rather that we were marking one of the great accomplishments in all history which has resulted from English and French co-operation in this country of ours.


Azellus Denis: Will the minister take into consideration before issuing the stamp other phases of progress in Canada; for instance, the Hull bridge, the Prince Albert bridge and so forth?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, it has been my experience over the last six months to sit here daily and examine one of the faces of Canada immediately opposite, that of the hon. member for St. Denis, and I find myself remarkably attracted by comparison to this new stamp.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General. Has the Postmaster General considered having a stamp issued to commemorate the extinction of term 29?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This does not seem to me to be the appropriate time in the proceedings of the house to try to design the postage stamps of Canada.


William McLean Hamilton: In
fairness, Mr. Speaker, since the question has been asked, may I say that we do not commemorate non-existing events.



NEW BRUNSWICK-LIFT PERIOD OF MIRAMICHI SALMON SEASON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norihumberland-Miramichi):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. I regret that I was not able to send him advance notice, but I just received a telegram from the Miramichi salmon drift net fishermen's association advising me that this association has made a further request to the minister for the elimination of the salmon drift net lift period for this season. Can the minister advise me whether he has reached a decision in this connection? If not, when does he expect a decision will be reached?


John Angus MacLean: I may say that I also received a similar telegram. No decision has been reached as yet on the request that the lift period be eliminated entirely this year. As a matter of fact I doubt that that request can be met, because the Department of Fisheries has an extremely important responsibility to make sure that the needs of conservation are met and that enough fish-salmon, in this case- are allowed to escape in order to reproduce the species for future years. I doubt very much that it would be really of any assistance or that we would be doing anything in the general interests of the salmon fishermen if the lift period were eliminated entirely. As the hon. member knows, we have already postponed it. In any case, I will be able to give him a more definite answer at a later date.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Prime Minister
whether it is still the intention of the Borden commission to hold hearings in the maritime provinces on coal?


John George Diefenbaker: I have no further information than that which was given on an earlier date in answer to a similar question.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Prime Minister a related question. On June 8 the Minister of

Grants to Newfoundland National Revenue indicated that the government was proposing to set up a royal commission of some kind to inquire into the coal situation in the maritime provinces. Has any progress been made in that matter?


John George Diefenbaker: As soon as the government is in a position to report on that situation, an answer will be given.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for the second reading of Bill No. C-72, to provide for the payment of additional grants to the province of Newfoundland.
Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Last evening Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at ten o'clock I had said that Bill No. C-72 was a complete and definite denial of the constitutional rights of Newfoundland. I had made some remarks in reference to the table placed on Hansard by the Minister of Finance and to be found at page 5901, and had suggested to him that similar information for other Atlantic provinces be provided during the committee stage; and that a table showing the amount of money collected from the province of Newfoundland be provided at that time also.
May I go along, Mr. Speaker, and say that while any statement with regard to the amount of money paid to the province of Newfoundland by the federal government and any statement with regard to the amount of money collected by the federal government from Newfoundland are extremely important, nevertheless there are other considerations. I am sure this house will not fail to appreciate the important advantages that were brought to Canada in 1949, the date of union. There was a territory of over 150,000 square miles added to Canada, with a population of over 400,000, to which must be added to the industrial potential of the province itself. Forest products is one of the major industries in Canada if not the major industry. Production in that industry was increased by 10 per cent with the union of Newfoundland with Canada. Added to these we have the production of our fisheries and our mines, and also the potential water power which exists at bay d'Espoir and at Grand Falls, Labrador. Certainly, too, we must not forget the improved defensive position which was created by the addition of Newfoundland to Canada.
Before confederation Newfoundland bought from the Canadian mainland approximately
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
$50 million worth of imports. Today imports to Newfoundland from the mainland of Canada are five times that amount. Here we have a province which, if it were not a province of Canada and still imported the same amount that it does now, would as far as imports are concerned be Canada's third best customer. Here we have a market where nearly everything that is produced has to be sold outside the confines of Canada, and nearly everything that is used is imported from the mainland of Canada.
I do not think there is any better statement I could make to describe this situation than that made by the Newfoundland board of trade to the Prime Minister under date of April 13, 1959. On page 2 of that letter, in the first paragraph, this statement is made:
Because the economy of Newfoundland depends so largely upon the primary industries of fishing, mining and forestry, and we are without secondary manufacturing industries, our income "leaks out" of the island directly and at once to the central manufacturing areas of Ontario and Quebec, from which we draw our supplies. In view of this, an expenditure in Newfoundland is almost as successful in stimulating the economy of Ontario and Quebec as is a direct expenditure in either of these provinces. Because of heavy purchases by Newfoundland from the rest of Canada, and since other parts of Canada purchase little from Newfoundland, there is a serious "balance of payments" problem between Newfoundland and the rest of Canada. The federal government alone can offset this income "leakage" by transfer payments of various kinds.
I would like to go further, Mr. Speaker, and say that I disagree completely with the way the government has handled this bill. First of all we had the report of the McNair commission upon which the Prime Minister made some statements, if my memory serves me correctly, last August, almost a year ago. This bill is brought in now, almost a year later, in the dying days of the session. It is my opinion that this bill deserves a more important place in the legislative program of this particular session.
The statement of the Prime Minister on March 25 certainly allayed no fears in the minds of the people of Newfoundland. Then the Minister of Justice went down to Newfoundland and made his speech on Thursday, May 14. There is no need to add any further comments about that, but I would refer to an editorial in the St. John's Daily News of Friday, May 15 with reference to the statements made by the Minister of Justice. The-editorial begins:
Mr. Fulton, the federal Minister of Justice, said; in his address to the Newfoundland board of trade that it was time to put the record straight in respect of Newfoundland's relations with the government of Canada. Mr. Fulton spoke for an hour. The record was still unstraightened after he had. finished.

He seemed to have two main objectives. One was to assure us of his government's good will and good intentions. The other was to convince us that the Prime Minister's decision on term 29 was good for Newfoundland. He has failed.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the editorial goes on:
He has copied Mr. Diefenbaker's attempt to convince us of Canada's generosity by setting out the allocations we have received from Ottawa as if they were special to this province-
He was plausible. He was pleasant. He was possibly good-intentioned. But he was completely unconvincing, completely unfamiliar with our case under the terms of union, and completely a failure as a peacemaker. We had hoped for better results from his visit.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that I regret that this matter has been handled in the way it has. I thought yesterday when the Prime Minister was speaking that this particular topic deserved a little more serious consideration than was given to it. When the Prime Minister defends an issue as he did yesterday he does so for one of two reasons. Either there is political kudos to be obtained, or there is something to be defended. I was interested, too, in the statement made by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne); and while he certainly obtained the applause of this house last evening I suggest to you that he would not obtain the applause of Newfoundlanders.
I have already made reference to the Atlantic grants, and I am not going to go further into them now. Neither am I going to outline, because it has been outlined by other hon. members, the real need for term 29. Let me finish by saying this. Newfoundlanders will ask the question, by virtue of what logic can a nebulous pledge be accepted by them when a firm contractual obligation under the British North America Act has not been honoured by this government?


Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay passage of this bill at this time, because I agree with the legislation under the circumstances. At the same time there is not too much that can be said about the bill or about the subject which has not been said already, either by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance or what was said so very meaningfully by the minister from Newfoundland last night. However, I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is very unfortunate that words of an unparliamentary nature have been brought into this debate.
This debate, as suggested by the Minister of Finance and by hon. members opposite, concerns what will probably be one of the important pieces of legislation as far as our constitution is concerned. We have heard words, as I said, sir, that are to my mind, as Your Honour ruled last night, unparliamentary; words which are not, I suggest,
Grants to Newfoundland befitting hon. members opposite. They are words which as far as I am concerned are only in keeping with the irresponsible and impetuous premier of Newfoundland, and should not be used by learned colleagues opposite.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member said something about words used by members from Newfoundland. I cannot recall any words used by members from Newfoundland being ruled out of order by the Chair.


James Aloysius McGrath: If the hon. member will
restrain himself, I will come to the words in a moment. I was not referring to hon. members from Newfoundland. As the hon. member well knows, I was referring to hon. gentlemen in the corner.


An hon. Member:: You said "opposite".


James Aloysius McGrath: However, I do say that hon. gentlemen opposite did use the word "betrayal".


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is that unparliamentary?


James Aloysius McGrath: In my opinion that is not
in keeping with the importance which hon. members have attached to this subject or to this debate. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, when confederation was being negotiated, was at that time, as I think he himself will admit, the grey eminence of Canadian politics. In Newfoundland he has been referred to on many occasions as the chief architect of the terms of union, this same hon. gentleman who mentioned betrayal. Let him look back in his conscience when he begins throwing around words such as "betrayal" and "constitutional rights". Let him think back on the way in which the constitutional rights of Newfoundland were ridden over roughshod in 1947 and 1948 when they were so anxious to consummate the act of union for their own political ends.
The words of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) are not worthy of comment. You ruled on them last night, Mr. Speaker. But I do feel I should refer to them because they are a reflection on hon. members of this house and more particularly on the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Browne) and upon myself.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and his colleagues opposite have tried to convey the impression during this debate that nobody in Newfoundland shares the views expressed by the minister from Newfoundland and myself in this house. He said, as reported at page 5999 of Hansard of July 14:
That is why every Newfoundlander, except one or two, recents bitterly the action taken by this government.
6030	HOUSE OF
Grants to Newfoundland
The hon. member also referred to the Leader of the Opposition in the Newfoundland legislature and, by implication, to those other people engaged in the public life of Newfoundland who share the same political philosophy as myself. I would just like to say, for the purpose of setting the record straight, that those responsible people in Newfoundland charged with providing an opposition to the government of Newfoundland do not take their responsibilities lightly. A statement issued yesterday by one of the members of the opposition-a statement which reflects the feeling of that opposition-reads as follows:
The Prime Minister of Canada has cut clean through the vagueness and uncertainty of term 29 and has spelled out in black and white that Newfoundland will have its special financial needs attended to over and beyond the 31 day of March 1962.
Later the statement goes on:
In my opinion Prime Minister Diefenbaker has, as was to be expected, offered the hand of friendship to Newfoundland and I, for one, intend to grasp it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is reading a comment on what was said in this house, and that is contrary to the practice of the house.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to a comment made in Newfoundland by a Newfoundlander in the public life of the province, which was apropos of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and his colleagues opposite. However, I will not refer to it if you do not wish me to do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order you raised, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman was really in order. This did not seem to be a comment on this debate, and I should not like to see the hon. member's right to quote abridged.


Mr. Speaker:: I raised the question of whether it was in order, because it was not clear. The statement was made yesterday, and I took it that it was a comment on the debate in this house, in which event it would be out of order. If it relates to statements of the Prime Minister made elsewhere, that is another matter. But I ask the hon. member to bear in mind that it is not correct to read anything which comments on the debate in the house or which reflects in any way on what is said here.


James Aloysius McGrath: To clarify the record, I was reading a press release of yesterday, and I am perfectly happy to make those words my own if that will put them in order.
There was also a quotation carried in yesterday's press in Newfoundland to the


effect that the Leader of the Opposition- I do not have the exact quotation, so I will paraphrase the words used-had said there was no question in anybody's mind but that Newfoundland needed help and would be assisted to reach the level of other provinces. I think if we look back in the record we will find that this is what the hon. gentleman said.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the most striking aspect of the line taken by hon. gentlemen opposite in connection with this discussion is their inability to agree on exactly what term 29 really is, and just precisely what it does imply. This is very clearly borne out by the record of July 13. When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking the Prime Minister interrupted him, as recorded at page 5909 of Hansard, and asked the following question:
Does the hon. gentleman Interpret the royal commission recommendation as requiring the payment In perpetuity of the amount in question, $8 million?
To which the Leader of the Opposition replied:
There is no other interpretation which can be given to a recommendation of the kind I have just read, which includes the words "thereafter, $8 million per annum".
Further on, in the record of the same day, when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate was speaking I interrupted him as recorded on page 5925 of Hansard, and asked a similar question:
Does the hon. gentleman advocate payment of a definite, statutory grant in perpetuity?
To which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate replied "No".
Clearly, then, it would seem advisable for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate and the Leader of the Opposition to get together on this question, to have a meeting of minds. Let them establish clearly just what line they want to take. I suggest that they would be unable to make up their minds, because they feel that here they have a hot political potato of which they do not intend to be deprived regardless of how acceptable the legislation may be to Newfoundland.
In other words, the importance of the question now under debate has been capably stated by hon. gentlemen opposite with their pious platitudes about the preservation of constitutional rights and the violation of the constitution, which statements are a disgrace to the honour and integrity of this nation and reveal that they are trying to make whatever political kudos they can from this controversial subject irrespective, as I said, of how acceptable the legislation might be.

I suggest that this is good legislation. It is the best legislation that could possibly come out of such a nebulous and meaningless clause as term 29 in the drafting of which no doubt my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had some hand. It is the best possible legislation that could be introduced. When the people of Newfoundland have had a chance to study the legislation and reflect upon it, hon. gentlemen opposite will discover that they have gone just a little too far out on a limb.
Reference was made yesterday by the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland to arguments advanced with respect to clauses in the preamble and other clauses which perhaps should be in the body of the bill. I believe that point was very well covered and I do not intend to go into it at this time. However, I do suggest that the special needs and considerations of Newfoundland are now more clearly defined and more explicitly spelled out than they ever were. What is more, they are spelled out in legislation in parliamentary form, as the Minister of Finance said.
I feel that this is good legislation, and as a responsible Newfoundlander who is aware of his responsibilities to Newfoundland, if not more so than the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I have no hesitation in supporting this legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I should like to make a correction of fact. The hon. gentleman suggested that I had something to do with drafting term 29. I had nothing whatever, at any time, to do with drafting it. The hon. gentleman also suggested that I was one of the principal architects of the terms of union. I should be very proud if that were true, but in all modesty I have to say that is not correct.


John George Diefenbaker: What modesty and
humility we see.


Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member who just resumed his seat stated, much has been said for and against this bill. While it is not my intention to make a lengthy speech or to rehash any of the remarks that have been made I feel I must add my personal observations to the debate.
We now have the bill and, having read it, it confirms our worst fears. Newfoundland has been let down. We feel that the terms of union have not been carried out, because there is nothing in the bill to give any indication that payments will be made to Newfoundland after March 31, 1962, to enable the provincial government to continue public services at the levels and standards reached 66968-9-382
Grants to Newfoundland subsequent to the date of union without resorting to taxation more burdensome, having regard to capacity to pay, than that obtaining generally in the region comprising the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
The reference in the preamble to a comprehensive study of dominion-provincial financial relations is no substitute for the constitutional rights of Newfoundland under term 29, even with the words "special circumstances" added. Therefore any hon. member who believes in upholding the constitution, in defending the rights of the provinces and in maintaining the good faith and good name of Canada has no choice but to vote against this bill.
We Newfoundlanders are unable to express the degree of our disappointment, sorrow and disapproval of the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). Much laughter was heard in this house yesterday afternoon and last evening, but for Newfoundland this bill is no joke. I wish to read the last paragraph of an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of July 14 entitled "Smallwood Charges Betrayal":
Thus, parliament is clearly invited to place itself on record in giving to Newfoundland an assurance which, we are led to understand, means much to Newfoundland and to which that province will, it is expected, attach no little importance.
Truer words were never written. No Newfoundlander ever thought he would receive such treatment. What Newfoundland will receive in the future will be the result of an act of grace instead of the fulfilment of an agreement. In my opinion the present government is unwilling to honour an obligation written into the British North America Act. The bill before the house has not changed the position of this government.
Reference has been made to the Atlantic grants. The maritime provinces can use these grants to improve their standards, but in Newfoundland much of the money received has had to be used to continue public services because the government has delayed for over 12 months the payment of the McNair grants as recommended by that commission. Our standards are still far below those of the rest of Canada, and it looks as though this government wants to maintain this situation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Shame. Shame on you.


James Roy Tucker: We in Newfoundland do not feel that we are a "have not" province. In 1948, as the hon. member for Humber-St George's said, Newfoundland was the third largest external market for Canada. We are now doing five times as much trade with

Grants to Newfoundland Canada as we did prior to confederation. As has already been stated, a fair estimate would be $250 million.
A recent issue of the Financial Post contained an article which reads in part as follows:
Newfoundland means much to Canada:
A market for mainland goods estimated at $250 million a year.
A strategic defence base in the north Atlantic.
Population of 435,000 expanding rapidly; an area of 152,000 square miles.
Billions of tons of undeveloped minerals, especially iron and copper.
More than 7 million horsepower of undeveloped hydro power, which may some day support big new industry, even supply power to other areas of eastern Canada.
And I might add, Mr. Speaker, an island whose waters are teeming with fish of many species representing untold wealth.
We are led to believe in Newfoundland that our entry into confederation was a one-way street. This we strongly object to. Our natural resources are adding vastly to the total wealth of Canada, but for many years to come we cannot hope to have taxable income comparable with that of other provinces, even the maritimes. This is why we are so insistent on full respect for our constitutional rights, including term 29, which in 1949 was regarded as the sheet anchor of security for Newfoundland. Without this, Mr. Speaker, I say without fear of contradiction that the terms of union never would have been signed and we never woud have been a province of this great dominion.
We listened to the Prime Minister, who dealt with the past, but unfortunately in Newfoundland we have to live for the future. Most of his remarks, or the observations he made, referred to water which had long since passed under the bridge, and some of it dirty water. The Prime Minister spoke for approximately 60 minutes, but what bearing had his speech on the bill now before the house? He spoke about all that had been done for Newfoundland, but I fail to see where Newfoundland has received any better treatment than that received by the other provinces, or treatment to which she was not justly entitled. However, the Prime Minister said yesterday that the Progressive Conservative party will live up to the spirit of confederation. We were glad to hear that statement, and we shall look forward with great anticipation and anxety to the fulfilment of his statement. Whether his statement is correct time alone will tell.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, to the members who told me that Newfoundland had lost their sympathies, I can only say that we do not want the sympathy of any member of this house. We just want reasonable understanding and our rights under the terms of union.
[Mr. Tucker.l


Mr. D. J. Walker (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Trinity-Conception on his statement of what Newfoundland wants and on his sympathy for Newfoundland. We, the 206 mainlanders on the government side of the house, want to assure the hon. member for Trinity-Conception and the other distinguished members from Newfoundland on the other side of the house that we share to a superlative degree his sympathy. We believe that Newfoundland is entitled to justice.
Apparently, owing to a misunderstanding on the other side of the house, fanned by a certain member on that side of the house, all the members from Newfoundland on that side have misconceived what is being done for them. In an effort to see that justice is understood may I outline what we on this side of the house believe is being done, and in doing so I shall not repeat what has already been said. There are certain facets that have not yet been viewed.
In the first place, I was amazed to hear that mainlander, the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech compare term 29 with the other terms of the British North America Act by which other provinces have been given grants. Newfoundland received its grants under the act of union under term 28, and my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has pointed that out. Term 29 is something entirely different. My old professor of history, the Leader of the Opposition, made this statement on the history of this matter at page 5906 of Hansard. He said:
I suggest that the refusal by any federal government to carry out that obligation would be of the same nature as a refusal by the federal government to carry out similar obligations made in respect of other provinces for financial assistance when they came into confederation.
The Leader of the Opposition should know better than that. He was a good history professor, although I do not recall that he taught constitutional history.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did.


Donald Methuen Fleming: English constitutional history.


David James Walker: I looked up the record last night to see whether what he said was correct, and I think I am safe in saying, Mr. Speaker, that with regard to the obligations to the provinces-and I know hon. members from Newfoundland will be interested in this-when the other provinces came into confederation, the terms under which they came in were not subject to review or inquiry or report by a royal commission, and the amounts they were to receive were definitely fixed. Furthermore, it is my opinion that term 29 is unique in Canadian history, very

unique. I believe it is safe to say that in no other part of the British North America Act is there anything that can be compared with term 29.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


David James Walker: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman not realize that term 29 is part of the British North America Acts?


David James Walker: Indeed I do. It is the misconception of the Leader of the Opposition in comparing term 29 with the other provisions of the British North America Act for the other provinces that I am taking exception to.
In the second place, Mr. Speaker, not only have we the statement of Mr. St. Laurent that there is no undertaking to implement any recommendation of the royal commission, but we have what is far more important than that, although his statement was made 10 years ago. We have the statement made at the hearings of the commission itself by the chairman of that commission, Chief Justice McNair, who was a great admirer of Newfoundland. He was sitting as the chairman of the commission, and this is what he said at page 1504 of the evidence before that royal commission:
It is a very difficult problem, and we will apply the best we have to it, and I will be concerned with the reaction to it-
He was referring to term 29 and their report in connection therewith. I continue:
-and I will be concerned with the reaction to it when the recommendations are made, because anything we do here will have no binding effect.
To the members from Newfoundland surely that is clear. The grants they were to receive under confederation-that is, the fixed amounts which they received when they came into confederation-are set out in term 28. Term 29 is something unique, and it must be clear now because even the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has admitted this. It only requires the government of the day to set up a royal commission to investigate the financial position of the province of Newfoundland. That has been done, and in doing that the obligation of the government as such under term 29 has been fulfilled.
The Leader of the Opposition, in an extraordinary statement, suggests that if there is not a legal obligation there is a moral obligation to fulfil to the letter all the recommendations of the report. This is something new. I have never heard this before, either in the law lectures from the professor or in this parliament. For instance, the Borden commission brought in its report. Does the Leader of 66968-9-382J
Grants to Newfoundland the Opposition or any member from Newfoundland say there is either a legal or a moral obligation to carry out the recommendations of that report? Take part of them, yes; reject part of them, yes. But when has there ever been a royal commission established by the government of Canada all of whose recommendations have been accepted? Take the Gordon report. What happened to the Gordon report? Has there been any obligation, either legal or moral, to implement its recommendations? Take the Rowell-Sirois report, and so we could go right back to confederation.
I may be wrong in this, but I suggest to the other professor over there, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, that never has a government of the Dominion of Canada felt called upon, either legally or morally, to accept all the recommendations of a royal commission report.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the hon. member has mentioned my name, will he permit a question?


David James Walker: Yes, indeed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question is this. Has the hon. member forgotten that the former leader of his party, when he was leader of the opposition, took the view that the government should be bound by the recommendations of this royal commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: So did the member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne).


David James Walker: I am interested in the views of the former leader of this party, but I am fascinated by the views of our Prime Minister, who has solved a most difficult problem, who has untied the Gordian knot and arrived at a solution of what was an impossible situation with respect to the recommendations of the report as to term 29. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that to do otherwise, to make it obligatory on the government to accept the findings of a royal commission-and he knows this quite well as my former professor-would be to transfer legislative power to a commission. That would be government by commission instead of by the elected representatives of the people.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate knows this very well, particularly since he is now a student at law. I understand he is articled to a barrister in Newfoundland. He is going to become a barrister without any schooling. He is going to become a barrister by remote control. While he sits in parliament his articles will run.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the hon. gentleman's prediction is right.

Grants to Newfoundland


David James Walker: I hope so, too. We would love to have him as a member of our bar. I would be glad to article him in my office in Toronto.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot reciprocate.


David James Walker: The hon. member made a very profound observation, such as he alone in the house is capable of making so often. As found at page 5923 of Hansard for July 13 he asked himself the profound question, "what is meant by 'thereafter' ". This has been tormenting me ever since I read the report of the royal commission, but with his experience in the law, with the training he is getting by remote control, this was his reply:
I am not going to argue that question because It seems to me to be very obvious that what is meant by "thereafter" is thereafter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Thereafter; and so would say any other honest person.


David James Walker: He was asked by the Prime Minister whether "thereafter" meant in perpetuity, and he said no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It means indefinitely.


David James Walker: He said definitely not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member quote what I did say, instead of paraphrasing it?


David James Walker: What you said is in Hansard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a typical lawyer's trick.


David James Walker: If the hon. member, instead of advertising himself, will keep his seat I will let him ask a question when he has a relevant one. In this debate my hon. friend has filled up the members from Newfoundland with all this Pickersgillian gobbledy-gook, and he would be better employed pursuing his course in the practice of law than dragging red herrings across our Canadian unity.
The government's solution is the only possible one. We have term 29 to deal with, and nobody knows exactly what was meant by "thereafter". But certainly there is no evidence, and my hon. friend at the bar will agree with me that when a royal commission brings in its report it is supposed to be based on evidence. My respectful submission, after perusing the 12 volumes of the lengthy proceedings of the royal commission, is that there is no evidence that would justify projecting the report into the future. Therefore, if for no other reason that that, it is the duty of the government of the day to reject a recommendation which is not based on conclusive facts.
You can imagine the problem that the Prime Minister and the government of the day had in coming to a solution of this


matter. They came to the only possible solution. What I am about to say I do not say in any sense of nagging or carping criticism but in the greatest effort to gain the good will of my distinguished friends from Newfoundland, whom I like very much, and that includes the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I say that since no one knows what "thereafter" means, since no one can support "thereafter" with evidence taken before the royal commission, since both the counsel for Newfoundland and the government of Newfoundland-is my friend coming over to this side of the house?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: We do not
want him.


David James Walker: -and since the commissioners themselves admitted-I do not like diversionary tactics.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What are you in that party for, then?


David James Walker: -since the commissioners themselves admitted the difficulty of penetrating the mists of the future, and since they themselves concede that their recommendations are only recommendations and need not of necessity be implemented, then I say the government solved the problem in the only way it could, by giving to the people of Newfoundland everything the commission recommended for the years up to 1962, $8 million a year less certain small grants.
As to what will happen in 1962, I suggest that the government has put forward a wonderful solution. I ask hon. members from Newfoundland to forget the influence and the pressure that has been brought on them by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I ask them, do they not agree that it is a magnificent solution to this vexed problem to consider in 1962 the problem of our brothers in Newfoundland and of the government of Newfoundland in relation to the government of Canada, not within the narrow scope or narrow field of term 29 only-my hon. friends will admit that is a limited field-but to consider the whole broad field of all the requirements of Newfoundland, including the field set out and promulgated in term 29?
That is far more than they could expect if all the recommendations of the report had been accepted by the government, because even then the premier of Newfoundland would not have been satisfied. He has put it on record that the report is a shameful disgrace and does not give Newfoundland enough.
These are all factors which must be taken into consideration. The people of Newfoundland have good cause to put their faith in

the government of Canada. According to the premier of Newfoundland they had no faith in the Liberal government at the time it was doing things for them, though that changed by the time the election came around. The people of Newfoundland have good cause to put their faith in the government of Canada to give them a square deal, because in 1962 the Prime Minister of Canada will do exactly what he has promised to do.


An hon. Member:: He will be a Liberal.


David James Walker: "Woe worth the chase, woe worth the day" that would cause that situation. It is true that my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has said extremely complimentary things about the premier of Newfoundland, and I do not intend in any way to engage in any controversy or to criticize in any way any of his utterances about that distinguished statesman. But let me say this. As the Prime Minister said, it is a Damon and Pythias relationship. That is something where emotion enters in rather than just plain, hard thinking. After all, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is under a tremendous obligation to the premier of Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, is it not against the rules of this house to impute motives or to ascribe motives?


David James Walker: By his remarks my hon. friend almost ascribes his own motives. Let me quote from a Canadian Press dispatch in the Ottawa Journal of July 3, 1953. This indicates the gratitude which my hon. friend opposite owes to the premier of Newfoundland:
Prime Minister St. Laurent last night gave the answer to a question that political Canada has been speculating about for weeks.
The question: How did John W. (Jack) Pickersgill, erudite, politically sharp, and clerk of the privy council in the civil service, come to be chosen as secretary of state and representative in the federal cabinet of Newfoundland?
The answer: He was picked by Premier Joseph Smallwood of Newfoundland.
The Prime Minister said at a meeting here Mr. Smallwood made the recommendation because of 47 year old Mr. Pickersgill's close interest in Newfoundland's affairs, particularly-
And I know he is famous for this.
-for his behind the scenes role in drafting the Canada-Newfoundland confederation pact of 1949.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David James Walker: My friend has denied doing something this morning, but does he deny having a part in drafting that ubiquitous term 29?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are discussing a particular bill-
Grants to Newfoundland


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker-


Murdo William Martin: Will the hon. member take his seat? We are discussing a particular bill, Mr. Speaker, and the honourable, distinguished and experienced parliamentarian from Toronto has now introduced circumstances that have to do with the appointment of a member of this house to the cabinet. I would submit to Your Honour that it is not in order for the hon. gentleman to discuss the circumstances involving the appointment of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to the cabinet. If the hon. gentleman has no sounder argument than that, I suggest that he might well take his seat.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Rosedale would indicate the relevance of what he is saying.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, because of the slavish adherence of my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to this defunct proposition and the stand he has taken about term 29, I simply want to indicate to the house the reasoning or the motive behind my hon. friend's actions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Motive?


David James Walker: I want, first, to indicate that he had a part in writing it, although Premier Smallwood has taken credit for it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am hearing the hon. member for Rosedale on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


David James Walker: Second, I think the members of this house should know and be fully cognizant of what makes the hon. member tick.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has said that he is trying to get at the motive of the hon. member and that, of course, is out of order. The hon. member is also dealing with the hon. member's relationship with the drafting of term 29. He has already denied in this house this morning that he had anything to do with it. For the hon. member for Rosedale to keep referring to that subject is just another indication of the bankruptcy of his argument.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That statement is out of order.


Mr. Speaker;: I think I should indicate that it is not always irregular to refer to motives. It is contrary to the rules of this house to impute improper motives to an hon. member. But anything which is an explanation of actions which are properly criticized would, I

Grants to Newfoundland think, be relevant. However, I think the hon. member for Rosedale was going rather far afield in the line he was following.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He has exhausted the subject.


David James Walker: I thought you were thoroughly
convinced by the argument. I am just now giving some reason for my hon. friend having made the sorry exhibition that he indulged in yesterday. The Globe and Mail of July 4, 1953 stated this:
Picture the benighted islanders waiting for their young Lochinvar. He appears, on a ship instead of a horse, and promises them justice. But the two odd features of the story are that Newfoundland never heard of Mr. Pickersgill until last month and that he speaks for the party that is in power.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Cheap.


David James Walker: The quotation continues:
What sort of deal has Newfoundland been getting up till now?
That is the Globe and Mail. You do not often say that is cheap. I continue with the quotation:
The compliments flew thick and fast at that three-cornered meeting. Mr. St. Laurent praised Messrs. Pickersgill and Smallwood. Mr. Smallwood praised Messrs. St. Laurent and Pickersgill. And Jack himself praised Messrs. St. Laurent, Smallwood and Pickersgill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David James Walker: If there has been any misunderstanding up to the present time among my hon. friends on the other side of the house who are following so slavishly the lead of the former mainlander, you can understand that he is obliged to say these things. He must do his best. Finally may I quote from the Toronto Telegram-an authoritative paper, of course-of August 11, 1953. In this we see the denouement of the whole business. This was after the election of August 10, when I was beaten and when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was elected. This is a British United Press dispatch:
Premier Joey Smallwood, elated at a Liberal sweep of Newfoundland's seven seats, predicted today that secretary of state Jack Pickersgill one day would be prime minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What call are you preaching for now?


David James Walker: It may be that the premier of that province, might not be infallible in his predicting, because he also said this:
Smallwood said the future of the Conservative party was now very doubtful.
"I wouldn't be surprised if a new party took its place," he said.
This was in 1953.
(Mr. Speaker.]


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon gentleman would permit a question?


David James Walker: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman himself preaching for a call at the moment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Another diversion.


David James Walker: My answer to that question is this. I think all 208 members of this house or all 207, I should say, have in the past two years been preaching for a call so they can best serve in their own way this Dominion of Canada through the instrumentality of the present government. May I say this to the hon. gentleman opposite. Just keep on. Your smart wisecracks are appreciated by none more than myself.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to address himself to the Chair.


David James Walker: Yes, indeed. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker; I owe great deference to the Chair.
Here are the reasons why the Newfoundlanders and their very sound members over there-yes, the members opposite, because I do not need to preach to the two on this side of the house-should have faith in the Conservative government. This is going to be very brief. My hon. friend will be glad to know this. The federal contributions as set out at page 5901 of Hansard indicate that Newfoundland during the fiscal year 1956-57, under the Liberal administration, received grants and payments from the federal government in the amount of $55,341,000. That is amazing, is it not? Then in 1958-59, under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, Newfoundland received not $55 million-this after a period of two years-but $100,284,000, almost twice as much.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Might I ask the hon.
gentleman what the total budget of Newfoundland is? The total budget is $71 million, so it is pretty hard to believe we received $100 million. The hon. member is making the same mistake made by the Minister of Justice.


An hon. Member:: You have made your speech.


David James Walker: He has made several speeches, and this is another of his interruptions. But let us not get off the track. I thought the population of Newfoundland-


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are the same phony figures the minister used in St. John's.


David James Walker: -was 400,000. My hon. friend from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) tells me that because the birth rate is so high we had better put the figure at 450,000. We have a $100 million grant made to 450,000 people. We

do not regret this, we are delighted. We take pride in it, and boast about it. A grant of $100 million is made to the province of Newfoundland, the population of which is approximately the same as that of metropolitan Hamilton. What does that mean? It means $225 for every man, woman, child and newborn babe in Newfoundland. That is not any mean figure.
Let us pause to realize what that really means. Is it not amazing that the government of Canada, when making the Atlantic provinces adjustment grant of $25 million a year, gave $7.5 million to Newfoundland? On a per capita basis, on the same basis, for instance, as Nova Scotia, Newfoundland would receive $4.5 million. On the same basis as New Brunswick, Newfoundland would get a little more than $5 million. So generosity exudes from all the acts of the dominion government in relation to Newfoundland, and we are proud of that and should boast about it, and we hope to continue to do so.
Then faced with the interpretation of the McNair report, the government of Canada has given every cent that the McNair report recommends up to the year 1962. After that date I have already gone into detail as to what is to be done. That is why you should have faith. You must have faith, because it is by the works of the Conservative party that we shall know them.
May I say in conclusion that we on this side of the house know that the people of Newfoundland, the government of Newfoundland-whatever that government is, whether it is Liberal or Conservative-can safely look forward to the same generous treatment they have received up to the present time.
I want to say in closing that for some reason or other, ever since I can remember I have been fascinated by this island and by the people of Newfoundland. I do not know why. It must be because they are men of character, inured as they have been to hardship, to danger, to privation, and to solid hard work over the centuries. But whatever it is, they have produced a fine race of people; there is no question about that.
Further, and this is very important, there are no people who uphold the British crown with greater vehemence and loyalty than the people of Newfoundland. When the Prime Minister on July 1 referred to Newfoundland's day of glory in battle I could not help but think of the traditions of the British navy, which for the very best, the very ablest of its able-bodied seamen has drawn for generations, yes, many generations, on the hardy, loyal folk of Newfoundland.
When we consider our obligation to this great province we should do so recalling that
Grants to Newfoundland when the Pilgrim fathers came over to America they stopped on their way and sent in for food and help to the people in Newfoundland, in St. John's. Mr. Speaker, we should, and this government does, consider this newest of our provinces as not a new province in the circle but as something special, something extra, because it can boast and proudly boast of being the oldest and most esteemed colony in the British empire.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, after the extended debate which has already taken place on second reading, I do not think in closing this debate on second reading I need do more than touch up and bring into sharp focus some of the essential points which have arisen in the course of the discussion.
The debate at the resolution stage began with an attempt to set the tone of the debate in conciliatory terms. I can only express regret that partisan considerations have entered into many of the speeches which opposition members have made in the course of the debate. It is significant, and I also think it is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that the speeches from the opposition in criticism of this measure have become much stronger since the premier of Newfoundland spoke his mind with reference to this bill yesterday morning. Apparently the lead has been accepted from the premier of Newfoundland in the rather bitter remarks which have been made by hon. members of the opposition on this measure.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask them to consider calmly what this bill contains. This bill contains two provisions that are of the essence of the proposed enactment. The first is the provision of sums of money under the operative provisions of the bill. The amount of $36.5 million will be provided by these clauses as a direct parliamentary enactment. Of that sum, on the enactment of this bill $17.2 million will be payable at once. Every cent of that sum was recommended by the royal commission, and in this proposal we are carrying out in full the recommendations of the royal commission for payments up to March 31, 1962.
We have been told, and told repeatedly, that Newfoundland asks for and needs this money; yet, to what I think must have been the amazement of the house and of the

Grants to Newfoundland people of Newfoundland, the opposition voted against the resolution paving the way for the introduction of this bill, and has announced its intention of voting against this bill.
Mr. Speaker, surely this is an amazing attitude for the opposition to take. It is an amazing attitude for hon. members in the opposition representing Newfoundland constituencies to take with reference to this proposed provision of money for the benefit of Newfoundland. I might comment that this attitude and the declared intention of the opposition to vote against this measure expose a crude partisanship in their approach to this problem, and I think the people of Newfoundland as well as the people of the other provinces of Canada will have their opportunity and will certainly impose their judgment upon the irresponsibility of the opposition in regard to this issue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Cheap trickery.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let the people of Newfoundland judge in the light of this opposition by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and others as to who are their friends in this house; those who are prepared to commit the parliament of Canada to the payment of $36,500,000 to Newfoundland in the space of the period up to March 31, 1962, as well as other benefits in this bill that I will mention later, or those who have in this house denounced this measure in the bitterest terms and done everything in their power to resist the effort that is being made to make this provision for Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question? Has the minister ever heard of Esau?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have heard of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, and that is enough for anybody to listen to.
I said I was going to turn, now, to the other leading provision of this bill. We have heard talk in the course of this debate about a cut-off date in 1962, and this kind of talk has been accompanied, if you please, by wild statements, frenzied statements, irresponsible statements in this house about a breach of faith, a breach of trust, betrayal-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Repudiation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The word "betrayal" was used, and I intend to deal with accusations of that kind and examine what substance there is in the wild and vitriolic language of the kind used by hon. members opposite apparently in an attempt to emulate an example which they are prepared to follow; that is, the voice which has been heard from St. John's, according to the press yesterday.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that those who find it necessary to indulge in vitriolic language of this kind and to impute betrayal or a breach of trust are attacking not just a few people sitting on the treasury benches here in this parliament, but whoever may be sitting in these places in 1962 and in years to come. Those who make charges of that kind against the Canadian parliament are making them against the people of Canada; and it will take more than the sophistry which permits these wild and vitriolic charges to be made to enable them to stand up in the face of examination.
Hon. members of this house who resort to vitriolic language of this kind have forfeited their right to be taken very seriously in this house. I do not ask them to have regard to Conservative statements. I simply ask them to have regard to what has been said by many Liberal newspapers in Canada. What has been said by the Ottawa Citizen on this very subject? When the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was indulging in this kind of bitter language this rebuke was administered to him by a newspaper in this city of Ottawa, a newspaper which makes no pretence of being a friend of the present government. Referring to this question, that newspaper said in an editorial on March 28:
No federal government of whatever party stripe is likely to seek by a deliberate act of bad faith to dismember that partnership.
And there are other Liberal newspapers in other parts of Canada which were striking the same note in editorials on this subject and rebuking hon. members like the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and others who spoke in a similar tone in making what was a calculated slur on the Canadian parliament and the Canadian people. If this on their part is an accusation that the Canadian people want to commit an act of bad faith, or would tolerate such an act, or that the Canadian parliament in the year 1962 or at any other date would be prepared to be a party to an act of bad faith, I may tell them that Canadians are not built that way and the Canadian parliament is, I am sure, never going to resort to base tactics of that kind.
The sooner the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and those associated with him learn that fact, the sooner they will be able to do justice to their responsibilities as members of the Canadian parliament. If Newfoundland has any case to present in this respect it is surely a case which ought to be capable of presentation in temperate terms appealing to the good sense as well as to the good will of the hon. members of this house.
What is the trust we are told we have broken? It must amaze hon. members who

have followed this debate that when Newfoundlanders are told they cannot trust what the Canadian parliament is prepared to say in a statutory enactment, somehow or other they were prepared to entrust their whole future to the vague and nebulous terms of article 29 which did not give them anything, expressly, except the right to have a royal commission appointed by the federal government, and which gave them nothing more, as Mr. St. Laurent plainly said in this house in 1949. How is it that the trust which apparently Newfoundland was prepared to vouchsafe in article 29 in 1949 may not, apparently, be vouchsafed today in an enactment of the Canadian parliament which is put before this house in plain terms?
It is quite obvious, I submit, why hon. members opposite are resorting to this frenzied talk about article 29 and breaches of faith. It is evident that some of the chickens are now coming home to roost. It is quite clear that those who oversold the people of Newfoundland on what the terms of article 29 really meant are being faced now with inescapable facts which they have withheld from the people of Newfoundland up to this time.
I remind the house of the words of Mr. St. Laurent, uttered in this chamber in February, 1949. Had those words been carried to the people of Newfoundland by hon. members opposite, or those associated with them; had those words been carried to that province in all frankness, much of the difficulty and bad feeling which members of the opposition have generated in Newfoundland since could never have been created by them.
I see it is one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The house will resume, then, at two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I was referring to the fact that it was quite evident that those who have been overselling the terms of article 29 in Newfoundland had not laid before the good people of Newfoundland the words of Mr. St. Laurent in his authoritative pronouncement in this house on February 7, 1949 upon the effect of the terms of article 29. Perhaps the attitude of a good many of those who have been purporting to speak for Newfoundland might have been very different today if that corrective and authoritative pronouncement of Mr. St. Laurent had been made known to the people of Newfoundland as effectively as some have evidently been 66968-9-383
Grants to Newfoundland applying their efforts to oversell the effect of the terms of article 29.
I was suggesting that perhaps in the rather frenzied approach to the present debate of some hon. members opposite we see now something of a situation in which the chickens are coming home to roost, and in which this overselling of the term of article 29 which has been carried on by some persons has now been subjected to exposure. We are accused by certain hon. members opposite of violating some obligation. I am going to examine that accusation, because the government does not intend to leave allegations of that kind unanswered. They are baseless, and I suggest that in the end they will not reflect credit upon those who have resorted to them.
What is the obligation that it is said the federal government was under and which it has not fulfilled? Here I propose to strip the sophistry off some of the remarks we have heard from hon. members opposite in the course of this debate. I tried as best I could to follow the Leader of the Opposition in what he was saying on this point. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I ask, does article 29 create an obligation? The obligation created by article 29 is very clearly an obligation placed upon the federal government to appoint a royal commission in accordance with its terms. And as to that, either Mr. St. Laurent was right or the Leader of the Opposition was right in his speech. They cannot both be right. If the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday was sound, if his speech had any merit, it could only have that merit on the basis of repudiating what Mr. St. Laurent said in this house on February 7, 1949, as reported at page 289 of Hansard of that date. The words of Mr. St. Laurent are crystal clear. Speaking of this very point he said:
There is no undertaking to implement any terms of recommendation that may be made by a royal commission.
What could be clearer than that? If there is any suggestion from hon. members opposite that article 29 created any obligation except an obligation to appoint a royal commission, then Mr. St. Laurent has completely removed any suggestion of any other obligation. If we are to heed what was said by hon. members opposite and by the Leader of the Opposition about some moral obligation in this respect, again I invite the attention of hon. members to what Mr. St. Laurent said on that point. Here are his concluding words in the passage to which I have made reference:
It was felt that If there was an investigation and a report by a commission, in which the public at that time would have confidence, the legislature of that day-

Grants to Newfoundland
Note those words, "the legislators ol that day". That means parliament; that means hon. members of this house and the other place. I continue:
-could well be trusted to do what would prove to be right in order to make this enlarged nation a united nation continuing on its path of progress toward its great destiny.
Mr. St. Laurent, as to the alleged moral obligation, was simply saying that this is a matter which must be left to the legislators when the report of the royal commission comes before the House of Commons. He said that, and he said not one word more than that about any obligation of the legislators in the Canadian parliament. He said the legislators in parliament can be trusted. That is what he said, and we are here discharging that duty; and if there is to be a contradiction between the views expressed by hon. members opposite now and by Mr. St. Laurent at that time, when it comes to a matter of the interpretation of a constitutional document, then with great respect to hon. members opposite I must say that having regard to the experience of Mr. St. Laurent, I do not think there is any doubt that it is the view of Mr. St. Laurent that hon. members will accept.
Therefore there is not to be found in article 29, as interpreted by Mr. St. Laurent, any continuing obligation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What a perversion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What of the next stage, Mr. Speaker? What about the recommendations? Is there an obligation created in respect of the recommendations of that royal commission? Here again we have had some extraordinary sophistry on the part of hon. members opposite. The royal commission has made its recommendations. What effect have these? What binding effect, if any, have they upon the Canadian parliament? Here I need do no more than cite the words of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday as recorded at page 5989 of Hansard of July 14. I put the following question to him:
Does the Leader of the Opposition contend that the recommendations of the royal commission are binding on the federal government?
His answer was:
Of course not. I said yesterday that no recommendation of a royal commission is legally binding on any government.
The Leader of the Opposition is quite correct. There was no binding effect so far as the recommendations of the royal commission are concerned. It is perfectly clear. It remained, then, in the light of the terms of article 29, in the light of this authoritative interpretation by Mr. St. Laurent, a matter for decision by parliament. There is nothing 

said there about further negociation. There is nothing said there about entering into a new agreement. No, not at all; article 29 simply leaves it to parliament, as Mr. St. Laurent has said, and it is not left with any suggestion of any binding effect that those recommendations might have upon parliament. There is no such binding effect so there is no obligation up to that point. These recommendations are not binding on the federal government nor are they binding on the federal parliament. We do not say they are binding on Newfoundland either.
Newfoundland through its premier is entitled to approve them or criticize them as he chooses. No one will deny him that right. Nor is there anything to prevent him asking for more, as he did when we met with him in January last. That is his right. But there is no right-and here I wish to be very clear and emphatic in regard to this alleged obligation-there is no right, contractual or constitutional, on the part of anyone in this country to the implementation of the recommendations of this royal commission in whole or in part.
Hon. members opposite in going on talking about an obligation are simply doing so in the face of clear and uncontestable facts. A fair test of the effect of this constitutional provision in article 29 is to test it under other circumstances for its meaning. Had circumstances been different, it is perfectly clear that under the terms of article 29 the royal commission might-as I say, had circumstances warranted it-have recommended larger or smaller payments, or no payments, or payments for a year, or six months, or two years, or for any period the royal commission might have chosen. It was a question of the circumstances found by the royal commission.
It is not a question of any obligation or absolute right, contractual or constitutional, on the part of the province of Newfoundland or anyone else, and hon. members opposite are completely mistaken in talking about unilateral action. The Canadian parliament has to take the responsibility in this matter, Mr. Speaker. Why? Because those who were responsible for the drafting of the terms of article 29 so provided. It was not left for further negotiation of a new agreement. Article 29 and the other terms of union were final in their terms, Mr. Speaker. What was required at that point, Mr. St. Laurent makes crystal clear, was a decision by the Canadian parliament. If hon. members opposite today do not like that procedure they can take the responsibility upon themselves, because it was they who drew article 29.
What has been the attitude of this government, Mr. Speaker, toward the recommendations of the royal commission?

Grants to Newfoundland


John Whitney Pickersgill: What did Mr. Drew say? Mr. Pearson: What does it mean?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Drew did not say anything at variance with what I am saying now, but hon. members opposite in argument for the last two days have been saying things directly repudiating the statement of Mr. St. Laurent. We prefer the statement of Mr. Laurent in his authoritative pronouncement.
What has been the attitude of the government toward the recommendations of the royal commission? We have recognized the eminence, the competence of the three members who constituted that commission. We do not attack the personnel of that commission, whether or not we like their recommendations. We have examined the report. I have indicated that we think there are weaknesses in the report, that the recommendations in some respects are not well founded; but on balance and in the hope of arriving at happier relationships we have asked this house to proceed in the manner indicated in the present bill; to provide immediately, by immediate decision of parliament, for the payment of those sums of money in the period up to March 31, 1962, the end of the current period.
As to the word "thereafter" upon which hon. members opposite have staked their case we say, Mr. Speaker, that had the royal commission, men of the quality and training of those who constituted the royal commission, intended to make a recommendation for a payment in perpetuity it might be safe to conclude that they would have said so, and said so in express terms. Parliamentarians, when perpetual obligations are created, do not leave matters of that kind to strained inference. When obligations of that nature are being created they are spelled out, Mr. Speaker, in plain terms. The men who constituted this royal commission were well aware-


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We shall be in committee shortly. I will be glad to answer questions there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can understand why the minister does not want to answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Those members who constituted the royal commission were not the kind of men who, in matters of such high importance, were likely to leave their thoughts in vague terms, had they intended to propose a recommendation effective in perpetuity. Sir, to say that "thereafter" means in perpetuity is, I submit, to put a proposition to this house, as hon. members opposite have done, that simply flies in the teeth of reason.
66968-9-383i


John Whitney Pickersgill: What does the word "thereafter" mean?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If hon. members will just wait, I am going to develop that point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read it from the
dictionary.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will read it
where I choose; I do not take my orders from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why not?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I come back and ask, Mr. Speaker, what was the purpose of article 29? It was never in the contemplation of anyone in drafting the terms of article 29 that there should be a situation in perpetuity that would require payments from the federal treasury. Newfoundland is a province with great resources. It was a period of limited duration that was in contemplation by those who drew article 29. It would be an insult to Newfoundland to say that it was to be contemplated that forever and ever conditions of the province of Newfoundland in relation to services were always to be at a lower level than those in the three maritime provinces. No; the whole tenor of discussion has always been that what article 29 was dealing with was a situation of limited duration. It was not something that was going to run on forever and ever. I say that for hon. members opposite to assume that Newfoundland was going to stand still and that its services were always going to be at a lower level than those in the other three Atlantic provinces is an insult to Newfoundland.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It certainly is the case.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And that is exactly what hon. members opposite use as the basis of their argument, if their argument has any meaning at all.
The other answer to them, Mr. Speaker, in exposure of the curious sophistry to which they have resorted in their speeches, is this; that those who spoke for the province of Newfoundland before the royal commission put their case on the basis of a request for payments for a limited period, not for the indefinite future.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What limited period?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I read yesterday the statement of Mr. Carl Goldenberg, the extremely competent counsel who represented Newfoundland before the royal commission.
6042	HOUSE OF
Grants to Newfoundland Here is what he said, which is to be found at pages 627 and 628 of the proceedings of the royal commission:
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that this additional financial assistance will be required by Newfoundland indefinitely.
What can be clearer than that, Mr. Speaker? There is the counsel chosen by the province of Newfoundland, a very competent counsel. I am sure no one in this house is going to say that he has a greater right to speak for Newfoundland than Mr. Carl Goldenberg, selected by the government of the province for the purpose. I read his next sentence:
As Newfoundland's public services improve and its economy expands, the differentials in income and in tax burdens as compared with other provinces will narrow: with the narrowing of the gap, the dependence on grants from the government of Canada will decline.
It is precisely what we have said, Mr. Speaker, and it is directly the opposite to what hon. members in the opposition have been saying on this subject. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have said and proposed to the house in this bill that the sensible thing to do, the sensible course to follow, is to have a review at the conclusion of this period for which the payments are being expressly provided. This is a sensible course. It is the course that was sought by Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. Let me remind the house of what Mr. Goldenberg said on this subject in his submission to the royal commission:
Accordingly, while Newfoundland is now entitled, under the provisions of term 29 of the terms of union, to receive additional annual financial assistance of the order of $17 million, provision should be made for a further review-
Note these words, sir:
-a further review of its financial and economic position within a reasonable period of time.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the government of Newfoundland I submit that the government of Newfoundland is entitled to claim from the government of Canada an annual grant of $17 million subject to the adjustments which we have discussed over and above all other federal grants as the additional financial assistance required under the explicit provisions of term 29. 1 recommend further that the said grant should be paid annually to the province of Newfoundland, commencing in the fiscal year 1957-58. I recommend that the amount of the said annual grant should thereafter-
Where did the word "thereafter" come from in the report? Here is the word "thereafter" in the closing submission of the counsel for the province of Newfoundland:
I recommend that the amount of the said annual grant should thereafter be subject to periodic review.
What can be plainer than that? That was his concluding submission. This is what the spokesman for Newfoundland said, not those voices opposite that parrot the views f.Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).]

of one outside the house. That was the authentic voice of the spokesman chosen by the province of Newfoundland to present its case to the royal commission. I remind the house that in our meetings with him in January last Mr. Smallwood was still asking for a review, and proposed that there should be a review in 1965. He would have liked reviews at periodic intervals.
I do not wish to labour this point further, Mr. Speaker, but I was taken to task yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition for saying I was quite certain that if the royal commission had thought they had the power under the terms of article 29 to recommend a periodic review they would have done so. The Leader of the Opposition challenged that statement. I refer now to the proceedings of the royal commission, pages 1511 and 1512. There was a question about a review and Chief Justice Walsh said:
I am concerned about our authority to write down there shall be a review at a certain time. Have we that authority?
Then Mr. Goldenberg replied:
I see, do you think you have the authority to make your recommendation subject-
Commissioner Walsh: I feel we would be going beyond our terms of reference to provide for a review.
And further, on page 1514 these are the words of the chairman, Chief Justice McNair:
The point I think you were advancing that our recommendation could contain a suggestion for further review. I am doubtful whether that is within our province. These financial settlements between governments never prove final, as you know.
Does that sound like any thought that there was going to be a proposal for payments in perpetuity as a final settlement? Here is the chairman of the commission saying that "these financial settlements between governments never prove final, as you know".
Then sir, here is the submission of the other counsel for the province of Newfoundland to the royal commission. Mr. Lewis had this to say, as found at page 1598 of the proceedings:
We are, X am sure, all fully convinced this is the last time that Newfoundland can come before any tribunal such as this to plead her cause as of right. When the signatures are affixed to the report of this commission the final act in the consummation of confederation will have been performed. From that day forward no man shall have the contractual right to demand that Newfoundland's position as a partner of Canada should be reviewed or reassessed.
We have to listen in the house, Mr. Speaker, to hon. members asserting that there are still surviving contractual or constitutional rights that have not been acknowledged or honoured by the government of Canada in the manner in which they have been

honoured both in the appointment of the royal commission and in the terms of the present bill. These hon. members are repudiating the stand that Newfoundland took before the royal commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought you said a while ago that we were parrotting it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are repudiating the stand that was effectively taken before that commission by those who were qualified to speak for the province of Newfoundland.
This is my concluding word, Mr. Speaker. The terms of article 29, for which hon. members opposite were the responsible draftsmen and with respect to which they are the irresponsible spokesmen today, were vague and nebulous. They presented the royal commission with a virtually impossible task. We are taking out of that report of the royal commission whatever is definite, and we are asking the house in the interests of good relations, in the spirit that Mr. St. Laurent was confident when speaking in 1949 that Canadian legislators in the Canadian parliament would demonstrate when this matter came before them in due course, to join with us in making definite provisions to be translated into an obligation created by parliament in the plain terms of a statutory enactment of the Canadian parliament. We are proposing that the Canadian parliament place itself on record in a way it has not done in relation to Newfoundland before; not in any vague, nebulous terms but in clear, definite terms.
In this bill we are spelling out the undertaking that in the wide review of dominion-provincial fiscal and financial relations that is to take place as of the period that will follow March 31, 1962, Newfoundland may not only put forward her position with all the other provinces of Canada but in her case, where there are any special circumstances affecting her, she will have full opportunity to put them forward, and in this review of dominion-provincial fiscal relations those special circumstances put forward by Newfoundland shall be taken into consideration.
That is the effect of the bill. That is the way in which the government, if parliament approves, proposes to undertake to meet a difficult situation; to meet it in terms of good will, to meet it on the basis of mutual trust, and to meet it in a way which we believe will bring honour and, in the end, satisfaction to the good people of Newfoundland.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not propose to say very much on clause 1. I shall reserve most of my comments until we reach clause 2, which deals with some of the more detailed provisions of the bill. But the words to which we have just listened-and there were a lot of them uttered by the Minister of Finance- certainly were such as to provoke a few observations from this side of the house. We will have occasion during the very comprehensive consideration which we propose to give to the terms of this bill-and this will take some time-to deal with some of the more detailed aspects of the minister's argument.
Perhaps I can say at once that the violence of the minister's language does not conceal the hollowness of his argument, as we will endeavour to point out. We on this side of the house, especially those from Newfoundland, have strong views with regard to this legislation. This being the case the minister, in immoderate and extravagant language, challenges our right to express those views in strong language. The hon. gentleman's complaint is, of course, that we do not now agree with the view he takes at this time in regard to this matter. It was not always his view, as we shall be able to point out.


Mr, Fleming (Eglinton):: Oh, yes; it was always his view.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister on this occasion -and he has done it many times before in this house-spoke with a self assurance which verged on arrogance and a complete certainty of his own infallibility which more -than verged on self righteousness. He carried that characteristic a little too far, however, when he identified himself at the beginning of his remarks not only with the government-

perhaps he is entitled to do that-but with parliament, and indeed with the people of Canada, in respect to this particular bill which in the words of the Prime Minister is a final and irrevocable settlement of the obligations contracted by the federal government with Newfoundland at the time of union.
In respect of the position taken by the minister, he had the effrontery a short while ago to say that he was speaking for parliament and for the people of Canada. Nothing quite so ridiculous as that has been heard since the three tailors of Tooley street took unto themselves the people of England. All the hon. gentleman's talk and all the identification of himself with the people of Canada cannot conceal the fact that the obligation under term 29 is far more than an obligation to set up a royal commission, as any fair minded person must realize.


Mr. Montgomery:: No, it is not. You cannot say that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. member has anything to say in addition to his babbling interruptions, why does he not get up and say it when we get into committee?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are in committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I was saying before I was interrupted from the end of the chamber by an hon. member who has done nothing in this debate except interrupt, who spoke not a word on second reading and perhaps will not say a word at this stage, and who I suggest might well stop interrupting, all the talk of the minister and all the ferocity of the minister's language-and goodness knows, he is a past master in that-does not conceal the fact that the obligation under term 29-and there is an obligation in addition to the appointment of a royal commission, as any fair minded person would agree-which has now been repudiated, and the people of Newfoundland and the government of Newfoundland have to rely in future for the implementation of this particular term of the act of union on the good will of the federal government of Canada.


An hon. Member:: That is -all Mr. St. Laurent said-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Nothing Mr. St. Laurent said denies that fact, and we shall have ample occasion to demonstrate that, too. Perhaps that is all I need say on clause 1. When we get to clause 2 I shall have a good deal more to say about that part of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have not spoken at all during this debate, but I have listened with a great deal of interest to what

at times I considered somewhat unnecesary vehemence on both sides of the argument. I want to explain our position briefly. I must say, first of all, that we think the Prime Minister was entirely wrong when he said on March 25, as reported at page 2216 of Hansard:
The proposed payments will be unconditional and will be in final and irrevocable settlement of the provisions of article 29 and the contractual obligations of the union consummated in 1949.
We think he was wrong because in saying that he was, in our view, departing from the recommendation of the royal commission. Then again, we think this statement was unnecessary. Personally I was very surprised that one so politically astute as the Prime Minister could have made such an unnecessary statement at this time. That statement has without a doubt caused misunderstanding in Newfoundland, and great disappointment. I have no hesitation in repeating what my leader said yesterday, namely that this is something of a tempest in a teacup. We recognize that, but we voted against the resolution and today against the bill to show our sympathy with the representatives from Newfoundland because of the Prime Minister's statement which, as I say, we think was so unnecessary.
Before sitting down, I want to say this. We have no fear whatever as far as this group is concerned that the people of Newfoundland will fail to get fair treatment in the years ahead. I am quite sure that the parliament and the people of Canada want to see all our people treated on an equal basis. When it comes to legislation of this kind, we have no fear that when 1962 comes the people of Newfoundland will receive the same treatment as far as dominion-provincial relations are concerned as all other provinces, because that is the Canadian way to deal with these questions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot, of course, agree with the hon. member's last sentence, because it seems to me it does repeat what we have complained about from the beginning, the suggestion on the part of the government that Newfoundland has a right as an ordinary province of Canada to be treated on the same basis as any other province. That is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is something that was agreed to as a part of the union, and something which this government by this bill is seeking to take away from Newfoundland. That is the whole basis of our argument.
The Minister of Finance made a rather successful effort the other day. I listened this morning to a program that is very dear to the heart of the Prime Minister, the program
Grants to Newfoundland called "Preview Commentary" and the word "perpetuity" was used there. The Minister of Finance seems to think parliament either has to put a definite term on something or legislate in perpetuity. That, of course, is absolute nonsense, to use the hon. gentleman's favourite word. I believe that 99 per cent of all the legislation we pass in this house is for neither of those terms. It is indefinite until parliament takes some other course. That is what this legislation should have been. That is what the royal commission said it should have been. That is what "thereafter" means. It does not mean thereafter to eternity, but thereafter without a specific term, because there was no specific term recommended by the commission.
On Monday the Minister of Finance made a statement which I know he made believing it to be true, but he ought to have known that it was not true. He said-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Page?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am reading from page 5903 of Hansard of July 13, at the very top of the first column, after the expression "black and white" is used, which is another of the minister's favourite expressions, and I must say a very characteristic expression because the minister has no greys. Perhaps that is why he cannot see any intermediate term between March 31, 1962, and perpetuity. Everything is either black or white to the minister. However, this is something the minister said in black and white which happens, historically, to be untrue:
Mav I remind hon. members that apart from the constitutional subsidies, no other province-not one of the other nine province-has anything in black and white beyond March 31, 1962, to define its financial relations with the dominion-
I have in my hand, Mr. Chairman, the report of the royal commission on financial arrangements between the dominion and the maritime provinces set up by the Bennett government under the late Sir Thomas White, which commission made its report in 1935. The purpose of this commission was to consider, under the recommendation of the Duncan commission which was set up some years earlier, the financial relations between the three maritime provinces and the federal government. At page 20 of the report it is stated:
An assessment in detail of each claim is not possible as the claims are for the most part based upon broad and general considerations of fairness and equity having regard to the treatment enjoyed by other provinces under the same headings and to the economic disadvantages to which the maritime provinces are peculiarly subject owing to their isolated geographic position in relation to the central and western parts of Canada toward which the trend of Canadian development has continuously and increasingly set ever since the establishment of the dominion. Such claims are by their nature not susceptible of detailed appraisal by any process of mathematical calculation as the

Grants to Newfoundland
basis for accurate comparison is wanting on account of the diversity of conditions and circumstances of development of the several provinces.
It was then stated:
As an assessment in detail of each of the claims presented before us is, for the reasons given, manifestly impracticable, we adopt the only course available to us, viz., to consider equitably the claims in the aggregate assigning to each its due weight according to our best judgment and making our recommendation in the form of special additional annual subsidies to the maritime provinces respectively as a final equitable settlement of the claims brought before us for adjudication. These additional annual subsidies so recommended are to be in substitution for the interim annual subsidies recommended by the Duncan commission. They should commence in the fiscal year 1935-6 and the interim annual subsidies recommended by the Duncan commission should cease at the end of the fiscal year 1934-5.
I draw hon. members' attention to the marked similarity with the present case. There you have interim payments under the Duncan commission, and here in this case you have transitional payments made under term 28.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Those are subsidies. They are referred to as subsidies.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not constitutional subsidies; that is the word the minister used. This commission was not set up pursuant to the constitution, as was the McNair commission, but was set up simply in the wisdom of the government of the day. It was a wise thing to do, but it was not a constitutional obligation. The minister by his intervention has very much weakened what little case he had. This was something that was done by the federal government in its wisdom in order to be equitable to the maritime provinces. It was not required under the constitution at all. I repeat:
They should commence in the fiscal year 1935-6 and the interim annual subsidies recommended by the Duncan commission should cease at the end of the fiscal year 1934-5.
The additional annual subsidies which we recommend are as follows:
To Nova Scotia, $1,300,000.
To New Brunswick, $900,000.
To Prince Edward Island, $250,000.
Now, what disposition was made of that? Sir George Perley was asked a question by Mr. McClure, who was at that time a member of this house representing a Prince Edward Island constituency, and Sir George Perley said that this recommendation would be dealt with either by a bill or by an item in the estimates. It appears in the Appropriation Act for one year only, for the fiscal year 1935-36. I have not examined the statutes for every year, but I am advised that it was dealt with in the same way every year until 1942, when it was embodied in a statute, chapter 14, entitled "An act to provide


for the payment of additional subsidies to the maritime provinces". It sets out these subsidies recommended by this report, and there is no time limit whatever put on them.
I do not think and I am not arguing that that is legislation in perpetuity. It is still on the statute books. They are still being paid in that form, and I take it they will go on being paid indefinitely. I would be very surprised if any government would ever reduce them, but circumstances might arise in the future when they would be increased. The minister was manifestly incorrect concerning a very important matter in his department with which he should have been better acquainted after two years at 18 hours a day.
If the government of Mr. Mackenzie King in 1942 could carry out what obviously was intended by the government of Mr. Bennett in 1935 in accepting the recommendation of the White commission and providing for additional subsidies to these three provinces and no others for an indefinite period, surely there is no reason on earth why the same action should not be taken in this bill except that this government wanted to punish Newfoundland, and for no other reason.
There could be no other reason except one. The year 1962 may be the end of the mandate of this parliament, and it may be that hon. gentlemen thought that by putting in that date it would give them an opportunity to make some more of those promises of which we had so many in 1957. There is no other explanation whatsoever that is credible to any dispassionate, objective person.
I suggest, sir, that hon. gentlemen-I will not ascribe motives-can take whichever explanation they like.
But this is not the only case. This morning I took a look at the Provincial Subsidies Act. These are not the constitutional subsidies of 1867; I understand those subsidies are provided under the Financial Administration Act at the present time. I looked into this matter. It is not very easy to trace the evolution of these statutes but these subsidies in the Provincial Subsidies Act are not the original constitutional subsidies; they are various other payments.
First of all there is one to New Brunswick, which is indefinite in time and is made on account of the repeal of duties on the export of lumber. It is not a very large amount, but it has been paid for a long time. It is $150,000 annually; there is no term on it; it does not end in 1962; it goes right on. It is not one of the constitutional subsidies at all; it is a payment that is made indefinitely, as this should have been.
There are at least eight or nine of those. Some of them are paid to Manitoba, several

to British Columbia and some to Prince Edward Island for various reasons, and they are being paid indefinitely. It does not necessarily mean that they are going to be paid forever, but they are being paid quite indefinitely. In other words the minister was completely and utterly wrong in his facts when he said that, apart from the constitutional subsidies, not one of the other nine provinces has anything anywhere that goes beyond March 31, 1962. It seems to me that this completely destroys any argument the minister might have had for putting this arbitrary date upon what was obviously intended to go on thereafter.
Now, for the benefit of the hon. and erudite member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker), I thought I would give him the definition of "thereafter" which can be found in the Concise Oxford dictionary. It means after that; in other words after March 31, 1962. This is the first definition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, not 1962; the last previous date referred to is March 31, 1961.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the recommendations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister say "thereafter" meant for one year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Don't run away.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister mean to say that "thereafter" is for one year? Nothing more ridiculous-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Don't run away.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let me read the other
definition of "thereafter". "According to that rule". Now, do you have a rule for a single case, Mr. Chairman? Has anyone ever heard of having a rule for a single case? I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that in spite of the quibbling of the hon. member for Rosedale, ordinary, plain people, speaking plain English, have no trouble in understanding that "thereafter" means thereafter.
Now, sir, the minister made a lot of what Mr. St. Laurent, according to him, meant; and yesterday the Prime Minister raised that old question that his party tried very unsuccessfully to create prejudice about in the 1949 election, namely Mr. St. Laurent's statement about the right to use the French language.


John George Diefenbaker: No such statement was ever made by me about prejudicing the people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not suggest that; I said the Prime Minister's party, and I could quote-
Grants to Newfoundland


John George Diefenbaker: I thought you said the Prime Minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -a statement by Mr. Hackett and those of a good many other members. I saw their speeches. I took a good deal of interest in speeches in those days.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You were just writing them in those days. Did you write that one?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Hackett's? No, he never asked me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did you write Mr. St. Laurent's speech?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which one of Mr. St. Laurent's?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The one you are
referring to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I recollect it, Mr. St. Laurent was replying to a question in the house one evening. I think it was one evening; I was not even here. I read it in Hansard, and I remember very well the rest of what Mr. St. Laurent said. It applies so precisely to this case, and it is so like the words he always used. Mr. St. Laurent took the view- I am afraid that perhaps some of us here are not so charitable-that we would always in this parliament be dealing with honourable people acting in an honourable fashion, and it never occurred to him that anyone at any time would have the effrontery to suggest that all that was required by term 29 was to appoint a royal commission to engage in an academic exercise. Just to state that proposition is surely to show how fantastically absurd it is.
The purpose of the royal commission, as I said on Monday and I repeat for the benefit of the Minister of Finance, was to find a mechanism, a relatively independent and objective mechanism. For my part I accept that it was a relatively objective commission, and I have never myself made any criticism whatsoever of its recommendations.


John George Diefenbaker: Do you agree with Mr. Smallwood's expression of view?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will choose my own time to express my agreement or disagreement with Mr. Smallwood or anyone else. I have never felt I was under any compulsion at any time in my life to agree with anyone. I have a fairly good record, I think, of making up my own mind and reaching my own conclusions, which I think some hon. members would perhaps be willing to concede.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.
6048	HOUSE OF
Grants to Newfoundland


Donald Methuen Fleming: When he speaks about his view of the report of the royal commission and not having criticized it apart from the period, the length of time the payments were to run, is he satisfied with the recommendation of the $8 million per annum as against Mr. Smallwood's request first for $17 million per annum and later for $15 million per annum?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, my answer to this question is very simple. This recommendation was made by the royal commission which was given that responsibility under the constitution; I was not given it. I will say this for the government. It seems to me that it would have been very difficult for any federal government to deviate from the award made by that commission, whatever their views might have been.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member disagrees with Mr. Smallwood.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not agreeing or disagreeing with Mr. Smallwood. This was not my business. This was why the royal commission was appointed. I think Mr. Smallwood was understandably disappointed.
I said that the other day. If the hon. gentleman thinks he is going to get some satisfaction out of getting me to say that I disagree with Mr. Smallwood, well, he can get what satisfaction he likes. I have disagreed with Mr. Smallwood about a good many things and I expect to disagree with him about a good many more; but about this matter, Mr. Smallwood is the premier of Newfoundland and I am a member of this parliament, and I am taking my responsibility as a member of this parliament.
I have been very categorical about this and I will be so again. My view-and it is precisely the same view as the Leader of the Opposition has-is that if the government had carried out literally the recommendations of this royal commission they would have discharged the obligation under term 29, and they could not be criticized on the grounds of a breach or repudiation of the constitution at all.
I said the other day and I say again, like the Leader of the Opposition and like the premier of Newfoundland, that I think it would be much better to provide after a period for a review; and I think, like the Leader of the Opposition, that review should be a review agreed upon between the two parties to the original contract. But I say that this contractual obligation is very plain. It is to provide-I want to use the exact words-to provide the additional financial


assistance, if any, that may be required by the government of the province of Newfoundland to enable it to continue public services at the levels and standards reached subsequent to the date of union, without resorting to taxation more burdensome- perhaps I can just say more burdensome than the maritime average and save quoting the rather more precise words.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: To recommend, not to provide.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I am not talking about what obligation was on the commission. I am talking about what constitutional obligation is on this parliament. That is what the Newfoundlanders believed they were getting when they signed the terms of union, and that is what Mr. St. Laurent believed they were getting, too. That is perfectly plain if anyone will take the trouble to read Mr. St. Laurent's words a little earlier on in the same passage that has been read so many times before. He said, as found at page 289 of Hansard of February 7, 1949:
We on our side wanted to provide financial terms which would make it reasonably probable, if not certain, that the addition of Newfoundland to the economy of Canada would ultimately prove to be beneficial to both partners, to the older Canadians and to the newer arrivals. It was found, after more precise and careful study of the administrative problems that would be faced by the government of the province of Newfoundland, that the terms suggested in the offer submitted in October, 1947

Those were the terms referred to by the hon. member for St. John's West last night.
-would not be sufficient at the start to enable the provincial government to provide for its people on a basis comparable to that which is provided by the other Canadian provinces. It was felt there had to be quite substantial provisional grants, extending over a period of 12 years on a diminishing scale, to bridge the transition from the present economy of the island to the kind of economy which would make it possible for the provincial government to provide the people of Newfoundland with substantially the services that are provided for the rest of the Canadian people by their provincial governments, without resorting to a burden of taxation heavier, having regard to capacity to pay, than that which bears upon the people of the maritime region.
There is no doubt that is what Mr. St. Laurent indicated was the obligation, as between term 28 and term 29, that had been assumed in the terms of union. I am going to do something I do not do very often in the house, and I hope I will not do it very often in the future. I made a speech outside of the house the other day to the Canadian club in Winnipeg in which I said something about this very point. I am going to inflict it on

the committee because I think it is put more briefly here than I could put it if I ad libbed.
But the great snag in the negotiations was provincial finance.
I was talking about the negotiations with which, I will admit quite frankly to the hon. member for Rosedale, I was very closely associated although I was not a member of the negotiating team. I was in very close touch with them, as was natural because of the position I held at that time, in the prime minister's office.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is not what you said earlier.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said I had nothing to do with the drafting of term 29, and it so happens I had nothing to do with it. I would not have been ashamed of it, if I had, but the truth happens to be that I did not. Since the question was raised I thought it might be just as well to dispose of it. That does not mean to say I did not have a good deal to do with these negotiations. I have never said I did not. I have never been ashamed of it. Indeed, there is nothing I am prouder of than any little part I had in helping to complete confederation.
But the great snag in the negotiations was provincial finance. How could enough revenue be ensured to the new provincial government to carry on the provincial administration on Canadian standards, without making provision for Newfoundland from the federal treasury on a scale which would seem unjust to all the other provinces?
That was the question; that was the problem.
I can well remember one evening when Mr. St. Laurent told me he was afraid that problem just could not be solved.


John George Diefenbaker: Where was that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was in a private conversation I had with him at the end of one of the sessions of the two negotiating committees, when he was very discouraged indeed about the prospect of meeting this problem, which I admit at once is a very, very difficult problem indeed; as the royal commission showed, because of the great disparity between the development of the rest of Canada and the development that was possible in Newfoundland on account of some of the sad events to which the hon. member for St. John's West referred last night and with some of which he was rather intimately associated.
That problem was finally met by the recognition of a principle. In simple language that principle was that the new province should have eight years to build up its public services, and at the end of those eight years the province should be provided whatever additional financial assistance was needed to continue the public services of the province
Grants to Newfoundland without a higher level of provincial taxes in Newfoundland than in the maritime provinces. That principle was written into the Canadian constitution in term 29 of the terms of union. That is an obligation that the people of Newfoundland expect, and have a right to expect, the people of Canada to live up to.
That is the position I take. If I may say so, it is the position I have always taken on the matter, and as far as any overselling of it is concerned, I have never done anything except to point out, sometimes to people who did believe that it meant more, that all it meant was a guarantee of maintenance of the services as in 1957.
The hon. member for St. John's West tried to make a lot of that last night. He tried to make a lot of his statement that the Liberal opposition was trying to put services back to 1957. We are not trying to do anything of the kind. We are trying to get this right to which Newfoundland is entitled under the constitution, so that the money we get under the Atlantic provinces grants or anything else the government provides can be used in Newfoundland as in all other provinces to improve services. But the hon. member for St. John's West seems to want to force Newfoundland after 1962, because of the loss of these rights, to use money that other provinces can use for improvements for the purpose of continuing existing services. As precisely as I can put it, that is the difference between us.
While I am on my feet there is one other thing I should like to say, if I have not exceeded my time. Last night the Minister without Portfolio referred to the surpluses in Newfoundland and compared them with the colossal deficits of the Minister of Finance, I thought rather unkindly and rather to the minister's discomfort. The fact of the matter is, of course, that while Newfoundland has had a surplus on current account the hon. gentleman, as a former member of the house of assembly, knows very well that there is a very substantial deficit on capital account. He knows, I am sure, that because this government failed to act last September, when we pleaded with them to act, it has cost the government of Newfoundland over half a million dollars in interest payments, which money could have been used to much better advantage in that province if action, even the kind of limited, attenuated action being taken now, had been taken then.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why do you hold
this up?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not holding it up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why do you oppose it then?

Grants to Newfoundland


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked the minister when he was making his speech if he had ever heard of Esau. What the minister is doing, what the Prime Minister is doing, what the Minister of Justice went to Newfoundland to do, is to say, if I may put it in this way, "Now we are showering so many blessings upon you, give up your rights and trust us." That is what you are saying.


John George Diefenbaker: You had better stay out of the field of scriptural interpretation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the Prime Minister needs any reminder of what Esau did, he sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Here the minister is not even offering a mess of pottage. What the minister is doing here is saying "You can have your rights until 1962, and you must hurry up and take them or maybe we will change our minds. After that you have no rights at all, but trust us who have extinguished your rights".


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, we have been listening for the last two days to this debate, which has reached bombastic proportions at times. I must frankly admit that when the debate started I was not too familiar with the circumstances surrounding this bill. At the conclusion of two days of debate on it I must admit that I am still confused on various points.
However, from sitting back and listening to both sides of this debate, I have reached a couple of conclusions. The first is that this is not by any yardstick the worst bill this government has brought into this house. In fact, as submitted by the Minister without Portfolio, there may even be the possibility that this bill will be a better one, or will bring more benefit to the province of Newfoundland than what it is enjoying at the present time.
I think the highly important factor here is that what they had before was something they had by right of confederation and that what they will have in the future, if we adopt this bill, is something they will have by right of the Conservative government. I wonder why this government should think Newfoundland or any other province should be beholden to them even though they do not want to be so beholden. It reminded me of a cartoon I saw in a newspaper not so long ago. I do not know what newspaper it was, and I do not know just what the subject was. However, it certainly was very appropriate at the time. It showed a baby sitting in a high chair with a very firm nurse, and there was no mistaking the features of the nurse. They were those of our Prime Minister. He held a bottle of medicine and a spoon and the caption was, "So you don't

like it; so it is good for you", I believe this bill would fit that particular cartoon very well.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate listed a couple of reasons which he believed were the only possible reason for this measure. However, I think he left out one possible reason, though I think he touched on it in his later remarks. I think that reason can be found if hon. members would look at page 1033 of Hansard for this session dealing with another matter, and that is the creeping paternalism of both the Prime Minister and the government he heads. In fact this bill says in as many words to the people of Newfoundland, "Never mind confederation. We can look after you better than anybody else, in fact better than you can look after yourselves".


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 1
carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I deal with three points that were raised in course of the discussion of this clause. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate raised a question about the maritime provinces subsidies. I should like to remind him that those subsidies have for all practical purposes been assimilated with the subsidies provided under the British North America Act. They are bulked together. They are not separated in the estimates. They are together in the estimates and they have been, as all hon. members are aware, assimilated together for all practical purposes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just as this should be.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My statement
should be read by the hon. gentleman in the light of that fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But it is not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The second point is this. When hon. members wrench one sentence out of the announcement made in this house by the Prime Minister on March 25, they are not being fair. They treat it as though it were the whole speech. I would ask them in future, in fairness, to read the next following sentence. It follows directly on the heels of the words which they have been quoting. It reads as follows:
On conclusion of the payments as of March 31. 1962, which corresponds with the conclusion of the present five-year fiscal arrangement between Canada and the provinces. Newfoundland's position can be considered in the light of the general methods of providing financial assistance to the provinces which may be in effect at that time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Big brother.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is quite clear that the Prime Minister at that time was indicating that there would be the review for which this bill makes explicit provision.

Finally, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I think will be glad to correct himself. I sought to do it when he was speaking about the word "thereafter" appearing in the concluding paragraph of the report of the royal commission. He said the report stated that it was after March 31, 1962. I sought to bring to his attention at the time-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree with the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that it was after the conclusion of the fiscal year that begins April 1, 1960.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point I should like to say that I agreed with the minister at the time. I had made an error and I admit that fact right away. It was March 31, 1961. I think I made it plain that I was conceding the minister's point, because I said to him right away, did he think that "thereafter $8 million per annum" means for one year only, because he has provided $8 million for one year only. Surely the commissioners would have been explicit, and they would have said $8 million in the same form as they give all the others if they had meant it to end at March 31, 1962. The very fact that they did not do that surely indicates that they accepted the simple, reasonable, ordinary dictionary meaning of "thereafter" which is "according to the rule", and the rule was to be $8 million per annum.
The minister said these White subsidies had been "assimilated", which was his word, to the constitutional subsidies. I am glad they have been assimilated. I think they should have been. I think that was the intention of Mr. Mackenzie King's government when Mr. Ilsley introduced the legislation in 1942. But they were not provided for in the constitution. These subsidies are provided in the constitution. They are in the British North America Act now. What the government is trying to do, instead of assimilating them, is to tear them out of the British North America Act and terminate them in 1962.


David James Walker: In reply may I say this. My friend does not seem to be convinced. He speaks of the rule. It is a Pickersgillian rule. Nobody speaks as he did. Let me read from Hon. Mr. Lewis of the Newfoundland government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the hon. member reading from?


David James Walker: I am reading from the royal commission on Newfoundland finances:
Because of the peculiar position resulting from the implementation of term 29, there is included in the recommendations one to the effect that a further periodic review should be made within a limited number of years in order that the fiscal
Grants to Newfoundland position of the province vis-a-vis Canada may be reassessed so that payments may not be continued which may not be required, or alternatively, that payments might be increased in order that Newfoundland may be able to continue her services at the levels and standards reached.
That is what the Newfoundland government wanted. That is what they recommended.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But that is not what the McNair commission recommends, and that is what we are talking about.


David James Walker: At page 1504, this morning, I read to the house how Chief Justice McNair felt about it. He stated that when the recommendations were made there would be nothing binding about them and they would have no binding effect. There are some who cannot be convinced because they do not wish to be. At page 1510A the distinguished counsel for the province of Newfoundland, Mr. Goldenberg said:
When I submitted this recommendation for a review with a reasonable period of time, it was submitted in the best interests of both Canada and Newfoundland. I agree that there is nothing in term 29 requiring this commission to recommend further review, but I also submit that there is nothing in term 29 to preclude such a recommendation by this commission if it sees fit to make it. For example, if this commission attempts to consider whether the gap which has been discussed will close, and feels that the estimate it arrives at of the period is not something that can be fixed, the commission might suggest a further review.
And again at the bottom of the page he goes on to advocate that:
-our recommendation be further reviewed, not necessarily by a royal commission but perhaps by the two governments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: By the two governments.


David James Walker: Exactly. Are you suggesting that in 1962 the government of Canada is going to take unilateral action when the federal-provincial meeting takes place and Newfoundland's case is considered? In spite of the eloquence of my hon. friend, no one else thinks as he does. The senior counsel for the province of Newfoundland and the chairman of the royal commission both felt as the Prime Minister has stated and as this legislation will implement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I reply very briefly to that?


David James Walker: Just a minute. I love to hear my hon. friend but I have to do a duty.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Do your duty.


David James Walker: At page 1512 Mr. Goldenberg said:
I do not want my learned friend to think it is only he who wants to make your task easy, if you suggested that a further review might be advisable.
6052	HOUSE OF
Grants to Newfoundland
But I do agree with you, I do not think you could make your final recommendation subject unconditionally to a further review.
Then the chairman intervened again, the chief justice of New Brunswick-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member say what he was reading before? I did not catch what he read before the chief justice.


David James Walker: Mr. Goldenberg, the senior counsel for your adopted province. The chairman of the royal commission answered in this way:
A number of questions arise in my mind on this point, Mr. Goldenberg. Our recommendation alone- that is the recommendation of the commission-will create nothing binding.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate says it does.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege-


David James Walker: Just sit down and I will finish.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of privilege. My question of privilege is that the hon. gentleman has stated that I said the recommendation of the royal commission was binding. I never said any such thing at any time.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Morton):: The
hon. member is not stating a question of privilege but making a correction.


David James Walker: Then Mr. Goldenberg, when told by the chief commissioner that the recommendations of the commission would create nothing binding, said in the presence of Premier Smallwood who was there on that occasion, as indicated in the remarks on page 1521 of the transcript, that he agreed with the chief commissioner. Then on page 1513 the chairman again stated:
I am thinking there of the pattern laid down in connection with the tax rental agreements, but our recommendation alone has no effect.
Then Mr. Goldenberg answered:
It is only a recommendation to the government of Canada.
At page 1514 the chairman again said:
I am doubtful whether that is within our province. These financial settlements between governments never prove final, as you know.


Mr.   Goldenberg@: As we all know, Mr. Chairman.
As we all know, Mr. Chairman. Surely my hon. friend, who purports to want to get through here by Saturday night, should drop this innocuous, fatuous, whimsical point of his and take some cognizance of what real lawyers have said, knowing as they do, all the circumstances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman for his patronizing observation, but I would like to point out that what he said


had nothing whatever to do with any argument I used at any time. Any member of this parliament who does not know that a royal commission's recommendations have no legal effect really should not be a member of this parliament, so why waste time arguing about that? Everyone knows that, and everyone knows that I have never quarrelled with that statement by Mr. St. Laurent. What I said was that it has to be read with the next sentence, which is to the effect that if the report of the royal commission was the kind of report, and the royal commission was the kind of royal commission, that people would have confidence in, a government with any sense of honour would act upon that report.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What Mr. St. Laurent said was that you could trust the legislators of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In that Mr. St. Laurent was wrong, unfortunately.


David James Walker: How blind are they who will not see.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The wicked flee and no man pursueth.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a few minutes to reply to some of the statements made by the government members from Newfoundland last night. The hon. member for St. John's East said that this was a good bill.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is right.


Chesley William Carter: The hon. member says that is right. I ask hon. members, how can a bill be good if it creates division? How can it be a good bill if it creates bitterness and resentment and a sense of injustice in the hearts of nearly half a million people, sentiments which will last perhaps for a generation? How can a bill be good that does these things?


James Aloysius McGrath: Why is there a division?


Chesley William Carter: What is the compulsion for taking away a right, a constitutional right, contained in the terms of our union? How can a bill be good that destroys a constitutional right? What compulsion was there upon the government to impose a final and irrevocable settlement under term 29, as this bill does? The Minister of Finance laid stress this afternoon upon what the bill contains, and as usual he tried to make up with sound and fury what he lacked in argument. Judging from the noise and vehemence which he exhibited this afternoon we can conclude that he was conscious of the fact that his argument was very, very weak indeed.

The Minister of Finance and hon. members on the government side have based their arguments solely upon what the bill contains. They say that all that matters is money. They ask, "As long as you get your money, what does it matter whether you get it under term 29 or whether you get it under some of the other grants?" They say to us, "We have been so generous in the past two years and we are going to be so much more generous in the future that you will never need to make any claims under term 29 anyway." That weakens their argument still further, because if they are going to make term 29 inoperative through their generosity, what need is there to extinguish it from the constitution?
The Minister of Finance and the Minister without Portfolio have said that it makes no difference as long as we get the money. Well, it makes a great deal of difference whether we get the money as a mater of constitutional right or whether we get it by the grace and favour of the government that happens to be in power at the time. The minister over and over again has emphasized the point that Newfoundland is going to get half the total amount immediately, and he has emphasized that fact to create the impression that this is a wonderful favour they are doing Newfoundland. No one word has been uttered by the Minister of Finance or the Minister without Portfolio about the fact that part of this money is a year overdue and the rest of it is two years overdue. The words "at once" are being used as though they are really putting themselves out to help Newfoundland.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it was not put
forward with that implication, I can assure my hon. friend. It expressed surprise at the opposition to the bill.


Chesley William Carter: The minister emphasized the words "at once" two or three times. What point was there in using these words and emphasizing them if it was not just to create the impression that here is something they are doing as a special favour?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. The point is, you are holding it up and Newfoundland needs it.


Chesley William Carter: I am going to hold it up a few minutes more and inform the public that this money should have been paid long ago; the government is already one year and in some cases two years late in meeting its obligation. We are not interested only in what the bill contains. We are interested in what the bill does and what it neglects to do. Money is not the only issue involved.
Grants to Newfoundland
The main issue in this debate is the question of a constitutional right. I am prepared to admit that the legal obligation of the government is vague, but there is no doubt about the moral obligation; because even if there were no legal contract at all the fact remains that Newfoundland came into confederation only because she understood that she had a safeguard in term 29, a guarantee under that provision that if times go bad, and if the worst came to the worst, her level of public services would never be permitted to fall below the level they had reached in 1957.
I ask the Minister without Portfolio and the hon. member for St. John's East this question in all sincerity. Can they conscientiously state in this house that Newfoundland would have agreed to enter confederation had it been known that the rights under term 29 would be extinguished in 1962? I am willing to yield the floor to either or both those hon. members if they are ready to get up and state that they honestly believe that.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: What were the rights under term 29? Mr. St. Laurent said the obligation there was to appoint a royal commission to make an investigation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was not the only obligation.


William Joseph Browne: That is the only reference I can find in all the debates and discussions that took place. Not only that, but Mr. J. Harvey Perry, a great friend of the premier of Newfoundland, has written two books since 1949, and he had a chapter in each of them dealing with the terms of union. He never even mentioned term 29, though he is the financial adviser to the Newfoundland government.


Chesley William Carter: I just asked for a simple answer, yes or no.


An hon. Member:: You got it.


Chesley William Carter: The minister did not give a simple answer.


William Joseph Browne: You did not
ask a simple question.


Chesley William Carter: I asked the minister whether he conscientiously believed that Newfoundland would have entered into union with Canada had the officials and everyone concerned with the negotiation of the terms of union not believed that the people of Newfoundland had a guarantee under term 29 that the level of public services would not be permitted to fall below the level of 1957. That is what they thought they were getting, and that is the reason they came into federation. And I asked

Grants to Newfoundland the minister it he really thinks they would have come into federation had that not been the understanding.


William Joseph Browne: But the fact is that the standard of public services in Newfoundland today is well above what it was in 1957-


Chesley William Carter: That doesn't cut any ice. Answer the question straight; say yes or no.


William Joseph Browne: You took about five minutes to ask the question. It is not a simple question.


Chesley William Carter: It is easy to say yes or no if you honestly believe a thing-


James Aloysius McGrath: The question was put to me, also, and may I say that it is the type of question to which one cannot answer yes or no, and the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo knows that perfectly well. The hon. member is also fully aware of the fact that in 1949, when these terms should have been properly discussed, the legislature was not constituted. The question of legislation could not be studied and dealt with in the proper manner under those circumstances.


Chesley William Carter: The hon. member knows that the people who agreed to the terms of union agreed to it on that basis.


James Aloysius McGrath: What experience did they have, those people who negotiated this article in these terms and accepted the nebulous terms of article 29?


Chesley William Carter: It does not matter what experience they had; it is what understanding they had. I should like to read what the Minister without Portfolio said on March 9, 1950, as reported on page 624 of Hansard:
The terms of union contain a provision, section 29, which I should like to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), who had something to do with drafting them.
And then he went on to quote term 29, as follows:
29. In view of the difficulty of predicting with sufficient accuracy the financial consequences to Newfoundland of becoming a province of Canada, the government of Canada will appoint a royal commission within eight years from the date of union to review the financial position of the province of Newfoundland and to recommend the form and scale of additional financial assistance, if any, that may be required by the government of the province Newfoundland to enable it to continue public services at the levels and standards reached subsequent to the date of union, without resorting to taxation more burdensome, having regard to capacity to pay, than that obtaining generally in the region comprising the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island.
Then the Minister without Portfolio, as he now is, went on to say:

I consider that the presence of this section in the terms of union is evidence of the good will of the government of Canada, and shows a recognition of the problem that has now come to the forefront.
So the minister himself recognized that term 29 had some significance in the act of union, that it was some sort of a guarantee.


Mr. Lennard:: Oh.


Chesley William Carter: You can laugh. I know this is a funny business for some of you people. The performance that we witnessed here last night is very great evidence of the seriousness that hon. gentlemen opposite attach to this matter.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will read Hansard he will find what we were laughing at last night.


Chesley William Carter: This is not a laughing
matter for us nor for the people of Newfoundland. Term 29 was put in because it was impossible at that time to draw up with any accuracy the financial terms of union. Last night the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland referred to the transitional grants and asked the following question as reported at page 6004 of Hansard:
It must be remembered that these transitional grants were on a declining scale. Nobody on the other side of the chamber has yet asked this question: why is it that those transitional grants were on a declining scale?
That is a simple question. The transitional grants were worked out by federal experts. That was their appraisal of the situation. It was only a guess and could be nothing else. They contained errors as large as 300 per cent. It was to correct these large errors and to tidy up the thing in the light of experience that term 29 was inserted so that whatever injustice might have been experienced under the transitional grants would be corrected under term 29. Therefore, even if there is no legal obligation on the government to implement the recommendations of the royal commission, surely there is a moral obligation upon it to carry out the agreement under which Newfoundland became a part of Canada.
These transitional grants and these financial arrangements were so unsatisfactory at the time that one of the members, Mr. Chesley Crosbie, refused to sign because he said they were inadequate and unsatisfactory. They were not satisfactory to him or to the other members, but the other people signed this document making Newfoundland a part of Canada because they honestly believed that term 29 would take care of any errors or inadequacies contained in these grants.
Before I leave this subject I want to make one more point concerning a remark made by

the Minister without Portfolio last evening. I am quoting now from the same paragraph to which I referred earlier, a little further down the page. The minister said:
I refer to the grant of $6.5 million of 1949-50. Do they know how much that grant had declined by 1956-57? Can they tell me? Let me tell them that it had declined to $2,250,000. That is all that Newfoundland was receiving in 1956-57, namely $2.25 million.
He tried to use that argument to prove that Newfoundland was getting along very well on that reduced grant. What he neglected to tell us was that to make up for the decline in these transitional grants Newfoundland had to borrow against the $10 million of her surplus on deposit with the federal government.


Mr. McCleave:: That was the Liberal government's fault, was it not?


Chesley William Carter: Yes, but the hon. gentleman told only part of the truth and created a wrong impression which I want to correct at this time. The hon. member for Timmins said that he was confused-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Oh, he is always confused.


Chesley William Carter: -and it is small wonder that he is. I will tell hon. gentlemen opposite that the people of Canada are confused on this issue and the blame rests with the Minister of Finance and his colleagues in the government who have been endeavouring to confuse this issue. They have raised the question of perpetuity and their propaganda machine and press agents have gone about attempting to create in the minds of the people of Canada the impression that we Newfoundlanders in this chamber are demanding that the federal government pay $8 million or some other amount in perpetuity. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have never asked for that at any time and term 29 does not require it.
All that term 29 says is that these grants would be paid if it should happen that Newfoundland could not continue her services at the 1957 level without resorting to a heavier burden of taxation than that of the maritime provinces generally. If the government is going to be as generous as it says it will be and as I hope it will be then perhaps Newfoundland will be able to continue her services without having a taxation burden heavier than that of the maritime provinces. If Newfoundland prospers, as we hope she will, and if her resources are developed, her own revenues will enable her to take care of her public services at that level without resorting to taxation more burdensome than what obtains in the maritime provinces.
Grants to Newfoundland
As long as these conditions continue Newfoundland will have no claim for payments under term 29. Nobody has ever pretended that she did have. Term 29 comes into effect only when and if it should happen that sometime in the future Newfoundland should unfortunately find herself unable to continue her services at the 1957 level without imposing heavy burdens of taxation. This business of trying to create the impression that we are asking for grants to be paid year after year in perpetuity is absolute nonsense and completely misleading. I hope the propaganda machine of the government will correct the confusion that has gone out and spread among the Canadian people.
The Minister without Portfolio last night made the statement that the Liberal members from Newfoundland wanted to return to the 1957 levels. I ask the minister the following question as reported at page 6014:
The Minister without Portfolio asked, did we want to go back to the levels of 1957? Who said anything about going back to the levels of 1957?
A that point the minister interjected:
You did.
The minister is now in his seat and I invite him to rise and read from Hansard the passage where I or any other hon. member said we wanted to go back to the 1957 levels.


John Ferguson Browne: You just
said it now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all.


Mr. Fraser:: He does not know what he wants.


Chesley William Carter: The Minister without Portfolio is a Rhodes scholar. I do not know how anyone could be a Rhodes scholar and yet be so stupid as not to be able to understand that simple statement.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Murray Douglas Morton: I ask
the hon. member to moderate his language.


Chesley William Carter: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If these jackasses will modify their braying, I will modify my language.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, that remark should be withdrawn.


Murray Douglas Morton: I think the hon. member should withdraw that word "jackasses".


John Whitney Pickersgill: And substitute "trained seals".


Murray Douglas Morton: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
6056	HOUSE OF
Grants to Newfoundland


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Chairman, clause 2 is not carried.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a terrible thing. What are hon. members reducing parliament to?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that we are on clause 2?


Mr.   Morion@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Yes, clause 2.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister a little while ago reproached us for holding up this bill. It is not necessary to rush it through on this basis:	clause 1 carried, clause 2 carried,
clause 3 carried. If the bill has been delayed, who is responsible for it? Was it a member of the opposition or was it the Prime Minister who on March 25 last as reported at page 2216 of Hansard said:
It Is proposed, therefore, to ask parliament to authorize payments as recommended by the royal commission-*
Those are the words of the Prime Minister. He then went on to say:
A resolution will shortly be placed on the order paper asking leave to introduce a bill to carry into effect these provisions pertaining to the terms of union.
That was March 25. When did we start discussing this resolution? Was it shortly after the Prime Minister made this statement? We have been asking for it every week since, and the minister now tries to stop us talking on this important measure because he says we are holding up a bill which the Prime Minister promised on March 25 to bring forward shortly. Perhaps the minister will explain the delay in this matter; but it has now been brought in and we are having a debate and we propose to continue it, Mr. Chairman. We are now on section 2, which is the important operative section of the bill; in fact, the only operative section of the bill. Anything else the minister and his colleagues have been talking about is in the preamble which, of course is not an operative part of the bill at all.
It is very surprising that some of the important things in the preamble, so important to the minister and the government, have not been put in the operative part of the bill, and we shall have something to say about this a little later. But here we have section 2 which says:
There shall be paid to the province of Newfoundland out of the consolidated revenue fund in respect of the fiscal years set forth in this section, additional grants as follows:
There follow in this section details of the grants for the five years. This particular section, Mr. Chairman, is put in the bill,
[The Acting Chairman (Mr. Morton).]

according to the preamble, pursuant to the recommendations made by the royal commission. In other words, we are asked to believe that this section carries out the recommendations made by the royal commission. Of course, it does nothing of the sort. It is a rejection of the recommendations of the royal commission; it is a rejection of a most important part of those recommendations. The minister shakes his head. It is not difficult to prove that.
The hon. member for Rosedale spent a lot of time on this argument whether the royal commission's recommendations have to be accepted or rejected. There is no argument about that. The government is perfectly within its rights in rejecting this part of the recommendations of the royal commission, which I submit they do in this particular section. They can do that if they so desire. Quite apart from the moral obligation they may have to carry it out, they have no legal obligation to do so, and they do not do so in this particular section. In other words, it is a deviation from the recommendations in one respect, though the minister challenged us a few moments ago as to whether we would agree to a deviation in any other respect; that is, in respect of the amounts of the recommendations, as to that my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate said he felt that the government would have been discharging the obligation that it had under the royal commission if it accepted the figures in that report. These figures are here but the last particular line of this section says: "fiscal year 1961-62, $8,000,000."
Mr. Chairman, that is no recommendation of any royal commission because the same section of the royal commission recommendation, section (e), on page 40 of their report, does not read "$8,000,000 for the fiscal year 1961-62", it says: "thereafter $8,000,000 per annum". But the way this appears in this particular section does indeed carry out the Prime Minister's wrong and misleading interpretation of these recommendations which he gave-and I have put this on the record already-at Saskatoon, and he has never denied it; he has never even tried to explain this remark which was so misleading. It was carried by the press all over Canada. He said that the recommendation to end in 1962 special payments to Newfoundland under article 29 of the agreement was made by a royal commission. It was made by no royal commission but it is certainly made in this particular bill. Perhaps that is why this section appears in this form. Perhaps it is because of the statement made by the Prime Minister at that time, and which he made in the House of Commons in substantially the same terms on March 25, and which

has already been quoted, and I think fairly, to the Prime Minister. The minister himself added another sentence or two but I think they were on the record earlier as well.
A great effort has been made-and it seems to me to be one of the most meaningless operations that could be performed in the House of Commons-to explain away the meaning of the word "thereafter". I do not propose to spend very much time on that. According to hon. gentlemen opposite "thereafter" has no meaning. It got into the report of the royal commission perhaps by a typist's error. It has no meaning at all; it has no significance because the only alternative to putting in the word "thereafter" was presumably perpetuity. That argument is so fallacious and so absurd and has been so completely dealt with that perhaps we need not waste any more time on it. The idea that the members of a royal commission as experienced, intelligent and qualified as these were, would put that word in without any understanding of its meaning at all is just too nonsensical to labour. The meaning is clear.
In their view it meant after that until a change was made by agreement $8 million a year should be paid to the government of Newfoundland. That constituted a floor, a security for Newfoundland in respect of this matter which was enshrined not only within the royal commission's recommendations but in term 29 because-and this is the core of the argument-there is an obligation in term 29 not merely to appoint a royal commission but there is an obligation on the federal government, on the federal parliament, to pay the amount which is required to ensure that the level of services do not fall below a certain point. That is the obligation.
When the royal commission put in these words "thereafter $8,000,000 a year" they were discharging an obligation to ensure that that amount at least would be allocated to Newfoundland until a change was made by agreement between Newfoundland and the federal government. By the removal of that word and by the removal of that concept they have removed the security that the people of Newfoundland felt they were getting under term 29. Perhaps the government in the future, perhaps parliament in the future will, as a result of a review, make available to Newfoundland far more money than $8 million a year, but there is no assurance. It has been taken out of a constitutional guarantee and it has been turned over to the good will of the federal government.
Perhaps in 1962 the good will of the federal government will be great, and perhaps it will make generous provision for Newfoundland in respect of services. I do not know;
Grants to Newfoundland but now the government and the people of Newfoundland have to depend on that good will which would be expressed presumably as a result of the review which will be undertaken. There is no incompatibility in the position that we have been taking on this side in regard to this matter, and the idea of a review. The two things are not incompatible. Of course, there can always be a review at any time, a review called by one party or the other. But pending that review and pending any decision made from any review, Newfoundland could, if the terms of the royal commission recommendations had been carried out, always count on this floor to ensure that the obligation of term 29 would be carried out, namely a level for its services.
That concept, that security, that floor, has been completely changed by this particular section of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I need hardly say, after what we have been saying in the committee and in the house, that this section is not, we think, satisfactory in any way, shape or form. In essence it means this. Without any provision for the future, after 1962, the people of Newfoundland are merely being told that big brother will look after them. Trust big brother and everything will be all right and do not worry about term 29. We may want to have another look at this and perhaps even submit an amendment in due course which will, if the government is sincere in its avowed intention of living up to the provisions of term 29 in every respect, alter this clause in such a way as to make that quite clear in its terms.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is just one very brief word I should like to say about this cut-off business. I am wondering whether this is a carryover ten years later of the niggardly attitude taken by the hon. member for Eglinton in the debate on the union. On February 9, 1949, as found at page 409 of Hansard, he pressed Mr. Abbott Very hard to find out what the net cost to the treasury of taking Newfoundland into confederation was going to be.


Mr. Bigg:: What is niggardly about that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was that not information that the house was entitled to?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was certainly information that the house was entitled to. I think perhaps it suggests the attitude of mind of the Minister of Finance, coming as he does from the place he does, toward the poorer relations in other parts of Canada. From the outset his idea was that if there was more money expended in a province than was taken in from that province it was apparently a loss to confederation. I am

Grants to Newfoundland. wondering whether that is why he is trying to cut Newfoundland off with as little as possible.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I believe I have listened to almost every speech made in the debate on second reading and in committee, and up till now I have not said a word. I am going to make only two very brief comments because I feel I have a responsibility. I know that we are in committee, Mr. Chairman, but having heard everything that has been said in the past two or three days I want to say that the matter is very confusing. Nevertheless I still feel that Newfoundland has never had it so good as it has since it came into confederation with Canada. It has never had it so good even though its standards of security and income are still the lowest in Canada.
I cannot conceive of any government formed by any party in Canada not carrying on assistance to Newfoundland in order to see that eventually that province at least reaches the average standard of all Canada. Any government would see to that. But had it not been for Newfoundland entering confederation and receiving old age pension and family allowance benefits average income in that province today would be considerably lower than it is. Every province entered confederation under an agreement, and for the life of me I cannot understand the statements made here that Canada is betraying our tenth and wonderful province of Newfoundland. I say that by way of introduction.
We are now in committee dealing with Bill No. C-72 and at the present time are only discussing one clause, not article 29 of the terms of union. We are discussing clause 2 of Bill No. C-72, which is very short and reads as follows:
There shall be paid to the province of Newfoundland out of the consolidated revenue fund in respect of the fiscal years set forth in this section, additional grants as follows-
Then the grants are set out for the fiscal years running from 1957-58 to 1961-62 and the total of these additional grants is $36,500,000. I cannot understand anyone in the house opposing clause 2. We are not discussing what has happened in the past. We are only discussing clause 2 which says that in addition to everything else Newfoundland shall be granted from 1957-58 through 196162 an additional $36,500,000. My position is clear. I support Newfoundland receiving additional grants amounting to $36,500,000 under clause 2.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to make any extended remarks.
I have been listening patiently to the various speeches on this matter during the course of the last two days and, if I may say so, I have 

listened to what the Minister of Finance has said with very great care. Not only have I listened to what he has said but I have read most of what he has said in the house on this matter. I would not want to say I have read everything the hon. gentleman has said because that would be a task away beyond the ability of the most industrious member of the house. I have before me Hansard for September 4, 1958, and speaking on this particular problem the Minister of Finance is reported as having said on that occasion, as found on page 4624:
I have indicated that this is not a matter for one year but one that is going to be of continuing effect in the years to come.
The hon. gentleman has insisted in this discussion that one must give the interpretation to words which the words suggest. Surely there is only one interpretation possible from these words, and I repeat them:
I have indicated that this is not a matter for one year but one that is going to be of continuing effect in the years to come.
I do not believe that these words, whatever else the hon. gentleman may have said, are open to any other construction than that placed on this whole matter by those who have spoken from this side of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are only two brief comments I wish to make on the observations made by hon. gentlemen opposite on this clause of the bill. Concerning the final and perhaps somewhat gratuitous comment of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I will say that I take some satisfaction from having been the minister who had the honour of introducing the proposal for Atlantic adjustment grants in the house under which Newfoundland will receive $30 million and in addition the benefit of her share of the additional 3 per cent allocated to the provinces out of the yield from the three standard direct taxes under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Agreements Act. I think that will dispose of the not very pleasant innuendo he tried to leave on the record as a result of his misinterpretation of a question which I asked in 1949.
Concerning the observation just made by the hon. member for Essex East, may I say first that I wondered whether we would go through the full length of this debate without having the benefit of some comment from the hon. member. However, I am afraid he is wrenching the words that I used on the occasion in question quite out of the meaning that they fairly bear. We were asked last year by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate if we would not bring in legislation immediately to pay for one year or two years the amounts proposed by the royal

commission-in other words, on an interim basis. It was in reply to that proposal for interim payments, on the basis of legislation to be immediately introduced, that I pointed out that we were not dealing with one year but were dealing with future relations between Newfoundland and Canada.
What we are doing in this bill, in keeping with that view, is to provide fixed payments fully defined in this present clause of the bill, for the five years that are enumerated in this bill; and beyond that we are proposing the review that is contemplated by the recital which has already been mentioned. There has been no change in the view taken in this case.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the minister explain what was meant in the sentence following that which the hon. member for Essex East has just quoted? The sentence quoted was this:
I have indicated that this is not a matter for one year but one that is going to be of continuing effect in the years to come.
Then the minister went on to say this:
The royal commission has not set any particular period on the time within which the proposed annual payments of $8 million less transitional grants are to run.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no secret about that. The royal commission did not set the particular time. They left it indefinite-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -as to what was to follow the fiscal year 1960-61. We have proposed to deal with that indefinite feature in a sensible way by the method proposed in this bill of naming the definite amount for the fiscal year 1961-62 and then having a review of the whole matter because that is-for reasons that have already been discussed and repeated-a very good time for a review of this question, in keeping with the large review of dominion-provincial fiscal relations.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Time of payment.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Earlier I made a brief reference to the effect of the failure of the government to carry out the recommendation or the suggestion which the minister flatteringly said was mine last year but which, in fact, was a solemn resolution adopted unanimously by the assembly of Newfoundland, moved by the premier and seconded by the leader of the opposition who is the leader of the hon. gentleman's party in that province but which I urged the minister here in parliament to carry out.
Grants to Newfoundland


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a correction in the observation just made by the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman would like to make a speech, he can do it after I have finished.


James Aloysius McGrath: I just want to make a correction. There is no constituted leader of the Conservative party. He is house leader.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are having more repudiations. I thought it was understood that Mr. Hollett was the leader of the Conservative party. But apparently Mr. Hollett has displeased the junior member for St. John's in this house. He has therefore been removed from that position and is now only house leader.


An hon. Member:: You are wrong again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In any event, I do not know that he has actually been read out of the Conservative party yet, although he has been demoted by the hon. gentleman. He is leader of the opposition in the assembly and he has three followers in the assembly who are still-although I believe some of them are finding it rather hard-nominal members of the hon. gentleman's party. They all voted for that resolution that was moved by the premier and seconded by the leader of the opposition. They voted for it. Why? Because there was an abnormally high level of unemployment in Newfoundland last year which this government so belatedly recognized that we were going to have a very serious winter and recognized that by producing late in October a very inadequate winter works program.
They were urged by the assembly-by a unanimous vote of the assembly-to give Newfoundland what the McNair commission had recommended for the fiscal year 1957-58 and the fiscal year 1958-59. The minister made the lame excuse in this house that, because they were getting the Atlantic provinces grant, which was for an entirely different purpose, they were not entitled to get these payments and parliament was too busy and the government was anxious to end the session and therefore it would not be done. That was what happened. The consequence of the failure to act was a report dated May 31, 1958-a report which was certainly in the hands of the government not later than the very beginning of July, because that is on the record; the dates are all in those debates-and which the government held up from public view until a French translation could be made, although many documents of much more interest to our French speaking citizens are not held up.
B060	HOUSE OF
Grants to Newfoundland
There can be no doubt that the government showed a callous indifference last year to this very desperate need there was in Newfoundland of this money. The consequence was that the government of Newfoundland was obliged to borrow from the banks an amount approximately equal to the amount they were entitled to at that time. The last time I heard the figures, the interest which they had had to pay-and may I say, the unnecessary interest-because of the dereliction of its clear duty by the present government was over half a million dollars. That was over a month ago. Of course, this bill makes no provision for that. It does not even make provision for paying the interest on this money since March 31, although the minister in a most extraordinary and unprecedented action printed it in his budget paper as though this act had already been passed and the money had already been voted.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then the Minister of Justice was sent down to Newfoundland and he included it among the payments as though they had been received, as did the Prime Minister in that television performance of his-$13.6 million which has not yet been voted and it is in last year's accounts, perverting those accounts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true. The hon. member ought to know that. He
should not be making these irresponsible statements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have the floor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Stick to the truth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister can correct me when I am finished.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Stick to the truth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If he will look at Hansard where my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter he will find that there is a reference in those accounts to the Newfoundland additional grants act; that the amount of $13.6 million is included as having been paid already, and that we had to have these documents reprinted and corrected by a special order of the house because of the careless way in which the minister administers his department.
I have always felt that if this sort of thing had happened when hon. gentlemen opposite were over here on this side of the chamber we would have debated it for about a week because that was the kind of thing which they particularly gloried in when they were in opposition. Actually, of course, one knows that some clerk in the Department of Finance took the Prime Minister at his word, took


the word "shortly" to mean shortly, the word that was used on March 25 and expected this bill to be passed early in April, probably before the budget, and put it in as though it had been done. But the Prime Minister's "shortly" apparently had another meaning. We know what "immediately" means when he uses the word. "Shortly" apparently is longer than "immediately". Actually we received the resolution in the middle of July, having been promised it shortly on March 25. In the meantime a great deal of legislation of much less import had been brought in.
As I say, this caused a very serious financial loss to an extremely poor province. I know that it would be fruitless to suggest that the government should-as it ought to do in equity and as it ought to do morally -assume that interest and repay it to the government of the province of Newfoundland. But knowing the Minister of Finance as I do, I feel that it would be quite useless to make that suggestion. However, I am going to suggest to him that there is one way in which, in some small measure, this loss-this delay, this procrastination-might be made up. That could be done if the minister would change subsection 2 of section 3 to provide that the payments for the year 1959-60 and the subsequent years would be made on July 1 instead of half on July 1 and half on January 1. In view of the budgetary problems existing in Newfoundland, it would be at least a small accommodation to the treasury of the province and would, at any rate, be some small compensation for this loss of money which could very well have been used for works projects last winter which the government of Newfoundland did not have enough money in its treasury to carry out.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 3
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall the preamble carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you call the preamble, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that a clause be inserted after clause 3. Before I move this amendment I would like to give a word of explanation. Perhaps I should read the clause I am proposing to move, then give a word of explanation, and then, Mr. Chairman, you can put it to the house. This is the proposed clause, and it is in the operative part of the bill:
There shall be held a review of the financial position of the province of Newfoundland before the 31st day of March, 1962, for the purpose of determining what additional financial assistance might still be required after the 31st day of March, 1962,

to enable the government of Newfoundland to continue public services at the levels and standards reached In 1957 without resorting to taxation more burdensome, having regard to capacity to pay, than that obtaining generally in the region comprising the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island; and until such review is completed and the consequent legislation enacted the scale of assistance recommended by the royal commission shall be continued; and the form of any such review shall be agreed upon with the government of the province of Newfoundland.
Mr. Chairman, this expresses precisely the view which the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members of this party have taken of the proper constitutional obligation which there is upon the government under term 29. It expresses it in very precise language, and it provides that until that review is completed and action taken by this parliament the McNair awards should continue to be paid. It would make it quite possible under the government scheme and under the scheme suggested in the preamble to have this study made before March 31, 1962 so that the legislation could be enacted before that time and replace it at that time.
The Prime Minister told us yesterday- if I am paraphrasing him incorrectly I know he will correct me-that these special circumstances which would be taken into account under the terms of the preamble would include those which were provided for in term 29. So this is something which the Prime Minister said Newfoundland could be assured of anyway, and it seems to me that if this were done this legislation would be in conformity with our constitutional obligation. It also seems to me that if the government were prepared to accept this amendment we could take no further exception to the legislation. I should now like to move the following amendment;
There shall be held a review of the financial position of the province of Newfoundland before the 31st day of March, 1962, for the purpose of determining what additional financial assistance might still be required after the 31st day of March, 1962, to enable the government of Newfoundland to continue public services at the levels and standards reached in 1957 without resorting to taxation more burdensome, having regard to capacity to pay, than that obtaining generally in the region comprising the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and until such review is completed and the consequent legislation enacted the scale of assistance recommended by the royal commission shall be continued; and the form of any such review shall be agreed upon with the government of the province of Newfoundland.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I think it is quite clear that this amendment is out of order, and I strongly suspect that the hon, member who introduced it was well aware of that fact when he introduced it. These remarks come
Grants to Newfoundland strangely from the mouth of an hon. member who has taken the stand which he has taken throughout on this measure and voted against it twice.
It is quite clear that the first part of the amendment is redundant, having regard to the other provisions of the bill, and in the second place it is equally clear that this clause seeks to impose a burden on the crown, a financial burden, which it is not within the right of any private member of this house to introduce.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I submit that this amendment is clearly out of order. The hon. member is seeking, on his interpretation of what the royal commission said, to commit the treasury beyond the date fixed in clause two of this bill to these payments of $8 million per annum. That is the whole effect of the second part of this amendment in relation to what is to happen pending any review and the outcome of the review, and no private member of this house, may introduce, of course, such an amendment to legislation. This is a government measure preceded by a royal commission recommendation and no private member can introduce an amendment the effect of which is to impose a charge upon the crown.	.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on the point raised by the minister, of course I considered the point which he has raised and I did feel, as I admit quite freely, that there was some doubt about the point. But it seemed to me that if the government was sincere in its protestation, and intended its study group and its special consideration to mean anything, they would do what has been done invariably in the past in relation to these fiscal matters and make the new legislative provision well before March 31, 1962, in which case there would be no such charge. It seemed to me that the contingency of there being such a charge, if we were to take the protestation of the government at its face value, was so slight that it could hardly be said to constitute a charge.


Charles Edward Rea: In reading the resolution its says that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment of additional grants to the province of Newfoundland. The explanatory note on the bill which is in front of all hon. members is as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to authorize the payment of additional annual grants to the province of Newfoundland in accordance with the scale contained in the report of the royal commission on Newfoundland finances that was appointed as required by term 29 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada.

Grants to Newfoundland
According to Beauchesne, article 406 says:
Amendments are out of order if they are
(a) irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope-
As I feel this amendment comes under that category, I therefore rule that this amendment is out of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, you have ruled this amendment out of order, presumably on the grounds advanced by the Minister of Finance. That being the case, perhaps the government, because of the essential reasonableness of this additional clause, might like to consider adding it to the bill themselves. The government has said that their main objection to the recommendations of the royal commission-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, surely the Leader of the Opposition is quite out of order in raising this matter again now. An attempt has been made to introduce an amendment to the bill and introduce something that is not contained in the bill. The amendment has been submitted and you have ruled it out of order. Now the Leader of the Opposition is undertaking to discuss the same matter.


Murdo William Martin: Not at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He is asking the government to do that which is contained in the amendment which you have ruled out of order. With respect, Mr. Chairman, that is clearly outside the confines of debate on this bill, and it is surely not proper to go ahead and proceed now as the Leader of the Opposition is to discuss the matter contained in an amendment which has been ruled by the Chair to be out of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that point, I understand that the amendment was ruled out of order on the grounds advanced by the Minister of Finance, and that the opposition would be out of order in moving an amendment which involves an extra charge on the treasury. But that argument, surely, would not apply to action taken in this regard in respect of this bill by the government itself. All I am doing is to make a suggestion to the government that they do this, and I am trying to explain why it would be reasonable for them to do this.
The Depuly Chairman: I think I ought to say that in ruling this amendment out of order I did not deal with the financial structure of the amendment at all. However, while technically the Leader of the Opposition might be out of order we have allowed quite a wide scope of discussion on the bill, and I think the Chair would like to hear what the Leader of the Oppositon has to say.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Lester Bowles Pearson: All I was going to say was this. I was going to ask the government if they would consider amending the bill in this way, because they have objected to the terms of the royal commission's report on the ground that they extend indefinitely into the future an obligation to make payments to Newfoundland of $8 million a year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not accept that statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister might accept it or he might not. He made the argument several times that the interpretation which we placed upon the word "thereafter"-the interpretation which, we think, is the only reasonable way in which it can be interpreted -was not acceptable to the government because it extended payments in perpetuity, as he put it. This would meet that point.
The minister has also said-and the bill mentions it-that there will be a review, when all these special circumstances as far as Newfoundland is concerned will be taken into consideration. We are asking that this should be written into the bill so that it may be made perfectly clear that the situation which will be taken into consideration shall include term 29 which will be spelled out as one of the things to which regard must be paid and whose obligations are accepted.
For these two reasons, perhaps the government will consider amending the bill accordingly, so as to make it acceptable, I am sure, to all members of the house.
On the preamble.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The preamble contains a
good many words, as has already been pointed out and there is one paragraph-the second paragraph on page 2, which reads:
Whereas in the course of such a review any special circumstances relating to the financial position of the province of Newfoundland after the 31st day of March, 1962, would be taken into consideration.
I intend to move, seconded by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Picker sgill):
That the preamble be amended by striking out the word "and" in line 9 on page 2 and inserting the following paragraph:
Whereas the form of any such review should be agreed upon with the government of the province of Newfoundland for the purpose of determining what additional financial assistance might still be required to enable the government of Newfoundland to continue public services at the levels and standards reached in 1957 without resorting to taxation, more burdensome, having regard to capacity to pay, than that obtaining generally in the region comprising the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island: and until such review is completed and the consequent legislation enacted the scale of assistance recommended by the royal commission should be continued; and-

Then we go to the next paragraph.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this is just the reintroduction of the amendment which you ruled out of order five minutes ago. The Leader of the Opposition is simply seeking to introduce it now into the preamble of the bill, whereas previously the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate sought to introduce it into the operative portion of the bill. I think the same rule which rendered the amendment out of order the first time clearly renders it out of order this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that an entirely different situation arises in respect to the preamble. There is no doubt that had the amendment which I moved been acceptable to the committee, or had the minister been willing to move it and had it become part of the law it would have placed an obligation on the government. But this amendment is drafted in a form which, like the rest of the preamble, is merely an expression of intent which imposes no legal obligation. There cannot, therefore, be any question of there being any charge imposed. Moreover, it merely embodies in express language what the Prime Minister told us yesterday regarding the intention of the government and it seems to me, therefore, that while this amendment would be much less acceptable to us than the amendment first proposed, this amendment would at least give the people of Newfoundland the satisfaction of knowing that what they thought was an iron clad guarantee under term 29 was not being scrapped altogether.


Charles Edward Rea: Once again we have to make a decision, and I should like to refer to May's sixteenth edition, page 564, under the heading "Preamble":
When all the clauses and schedules have been agreed to and any new clauses or schedules added, the preamble is considered and amendments may be moved thereto if rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill, and the chairman puts the question-
If there are no changes in the clauses, then the preamble is a recitation of the effect, not of the bill but of the act. Therefore, as there were no changes in the clauses, no amendments to the preamble can be accepted. This example deals with an amendment offered on April 11, 1932, to the preamble of the army and air force annual bill to leave out the words "or stir up sedition". The chairman stated that the preamble was a recitation of the effect, not of the bill but of the Army Act. The citation concludes:
As no amendment had been made to the section of the Army Act dealing with mutiny, etc. the proposed amendment to the preamble, which could only be consequential on such an amendment having been made, was out of order.
66968-9-384
Grants to Newfoundland
Therefore, while I regret very much having to do this twice in succession, I must say in my opinion the amendment is out of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, we accept your ruling in this matter, Mr. Chairman, but in discussing the preamble might I express disappointment that in this preamble as it is at present there is no reference of any kind to the fact that the review which is referred to in the preamble should be agreed upon with the government of Newfoundland. There is no assurance, even in the preamble, that in any such review consideration will be given to term 29, and there is no indication, even in the preamble, that pending such a review, and a decision coming from such a review, the scale of assistance to Newfoundland will be that recommended by the royal commission. We regret very much indeed that these assurances are not included even in the preamble and, while not challenging your ruling, Mr. Chairman, we regret that you are unable because of the reasons you have stated to accept an amendment which would have corrected this position.


Chesley William Carter: The Minister of Finance referred over and over again to the vague language of term 29. I should like to ask a question about the words "special circumstances". These words are included in the second paragraph of the preamble, but who is to determine these special circumstances, or whether the circumstances are special or not? Will the fact that term 29 has been terminated be regarded as a special circumstance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: A comprehensive study of all dominion-provincial fiscal and financial relations has already been agreed upon and has been launched. As to the question asked by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, we are not attempting to put any narrow limits on the words "special circumstances". Anything that any province wants to bring forward for discussion in the context of dominion-provincial fiscal relations will, or can be brought forward in the present comprehensive study which has been approved by all the governments in Canada.
In the case of Newfoundland, no one is suggesting that there is going to be any narrow limitation put upon these words. Anything that the province of Newfoundland thinks is special in its case can certainly be brought forward and fully discussed and considered there. There are some aspects of dominion-provincial fiscal relations that are common to all the provinces. I do not need to recount them. In the case of Newfoundland here is a special provision that takes account of the possibility of special

Grants to Newfoundland. circumstances and explicitly leaves the door open to Newfoundland to introduce those into the discussions.
I do not need to remind the hon. member that the field of dominion-provincial fiscal relations is an area in which agreement is sought, indeed in which agreement must be sought, and it is our intention to seek agreement. That is why we have inaugurated these comprehensive studies, and well in advance of March 31, 1962. We are seeking to lay the basis for understandings and accords between the dominion and the provincial governments. I think that view has commended itself as a constructive approach to this problem.
If we look back at what has happened on some previous occasions where the federal government, our predecessors, were not able to come to terms with some provincial government or were unwilling to, they stated their terms and asked the house for legislative sanction of them and entered into agreement with the provinces that were prepared to meet those terms and left others to levy their own taxes and carry on their own normal constitutional functions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister has now made it perfectly clear that because of the existence of term 29 which is part of our constitution and part of the act of union; that merely because of that circumstance no special consideration is being given to Newfoundland in this preamble. No special consideration of any kind is being given notwithstanding the existence of term 29. The minister has made it perfectly clear that the special circumstances which might be brought forward apply to any province. Any province in this review may bring forward any special circumstance and no special consideration in this measure dealing with Newfoundland is being given to Newfoundland in that review arising out of term 29. The special circumstances which may be brought forward are those that obviously could be brought forward by any province and would be brought forward whether or not this preamble were incorporated-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is quite mistaken.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister just said that in this review any province can bring forward any circumstance bearing on the problem of dominion-provincial fiscal relations. Of course they can. The minister is now saying that any province may bring forward any problem affecting their circumstances. Of course they can. Newfoundland is in exactly the same position in that respect as any other province, no better and no worse.

And therefore the special circumstance arising out of term 29 has no special meaning as far as this preamble or the bill are concerned. That is why we are trying to give it a meaning in the amendment we propose.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition was never more wrong in his life than in the statement he just made. He was certainly not quoting any words of mine. If he was attempting to restate my submission to the committee in my last remarks he has wrenched my remarks beyond all recognition. What the hon. gentleman has just now said is the very opposite to what I said. In addressing myself to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo in reply to his question I pointed out that there are some questions that are common to all of the provinces and those are matters that will certainly be reviewed. That is what is in the contemplation of everyone. But in addition to that we point out here in a special paragraph of the preamble that in the case of Newfoundland- and Newfoundland is singled out above all the other provinces in Canada in that respect -if Newfoundland has any special circumstance at all to bring forward in relation to federal-provincial fiscal relations, then Newfoundland may bring that circumstance forward in the course of the review and that is not to be confounded, as the Leader of the Opposition has confused it, with the general review of matters common to all the provinces.
We have here set out in a special paragraph the fact that in the course of the review to which reference has been made any special circumstance relating to Newfoundland after March 31, 1962 would be taken into consideration. The Leader of the Opposition was completely wrong in saying this is just the same thing as every other province has. That kind of submission on the part of the Leader of the Opposition just does not tally with the facts or with the language that the committee is asked to approve in this paragraph.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I regret having to refer to this matter again. The minister has now said that Newfoundland in the course of this review, because of this preamble, can bring forward any special circumstance relating to her financial position. Of course, Newfoundland can do that. It would be an absurd situation indeed in a review of the financial positon of a province vis-a-vis the federal government if that province could not bring forward any special circumstance. Does the minister attempt to argue that if there were a similar review in respect of any other province that that province could not bring forward any special circumstance affecting its position? Does he take that position? If he does not, then Newfoundland is exactly on

the same basis as every other province. Bringing forward special circumstances in the case of Newfoundland might mean bringing forward term 29 whereas in the case of another province it might mean something else.
If the minister wishes to be specific in this matter and show that Newfoundland's special position was being given special consideration, why has he refused to make specific in the preamble term 29 or the obligations of that term, the obligations concerning consulting Newfoundland about the review so that it will be an agreed review, and the obligation on the part of the federal government to continue payments as recommended by the royal commission pending decisions made by that review?
My submission-and the minister has done nothing to weaken it-is that Newfoundland in this preamble is in exactly the same position as any province would be in respect of a review of its relations with the federal government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, that statement of the Leader of the Opposition just is not true. It does not tally with the facts concerning this special consideration in the case of Newfoundland. Surely he must realize that by now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister this question. If the government agrees there should be a review concerning federal-provincial financial relations between the federal government and the government say, of the province of Nova Scotia, could the province of Nova Scotia not bring forward in that review any special circumstances affecting that province? The answer is obvious.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat, not quite verbatim, but almost verbatim, the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I am going to change it just a little bit, however. The preamble reads:
Whereas since the report of the royal commission was made the government of Canada has proposed a comprehensive study-
It is a comprehensive study for all the provinces. The minister has told us about this study group many times, on some occasions rather unwillingly. I continue:
-of dominion-provincial financial relations in cooperation with the provinces, and all the provinces have agreed to participate therein-
And then it says:
Whereas in the course of such a review-
That is a review for all the provinces: "such a review". It is hard to say any more what plain language means in this chamber when the minister cannot understand what "thereafter" means but surely the minister would 66968-9-384*
Grants to Newfoundland agree that "such a review" referred to in the second paragraph is the review referred to in the first paragraph. I ask the minister this question. Do the words "in the course of such a review" refer to the review mentioned in the first paragraph?


John George Diefenbaker: Where is "review" referred to in the first paragraph?


John Whitney Pickersgill: All right, "study" then; and then in the second paragraph "such a review". Is the Prime Minister getting ready for another quibble two or three years from now? Either "such a review" implies that there would be a review somewhere in the preceding part of the preamble or it implies nothing. I take it that the words "study" and "review" were meant to be the same thing. If they are not and if this review is something else, I should like to be told what it is. Perhaps the minister would like to clear up that point before I proceed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The review mentioned in line 6 on page 2 of the bill obviously refers to the comprehensive study mentioned in the preceding paragraph.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the minister for that. In the course of that comprehensive study, if the government of the province of Prince Edward Island asks to have any special circumstance relating to its financial position considered will the government refuse?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, any special circumstance that the hon. member is asking about is hypothetical and not the kind of special circumstances that are in contemplation in the case of Newfoundland in the second paragraph of the preamble on page 2, because here we are thinking of something that is special in Newfoundland. I have made that clear, and we are just going over the ground again and again.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have a special definition of "special" now, if we have no definition of "thereafter". "Thereafter" means nothing and "special" does not mean special; it means something special, according to the minister. This is the most absurd situation, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out. Here we have the minister saying that this is something special for Newfoundland; and yet when I put a plain question to him, if Prince Edward Island wants to bring up its special circumstances, as it has at every federal-provincial conference that I have been at, and I have been at a good many, are they going to be denied that right? If they are not, what are you doing for Newfoundland that is not already done for Prince

Grants to Newfoundland Edward Island? You are doing absolutely nothing. This paragraph in its present form is totally meaningless.


Harold Edward Winch: I think it is time that someone told the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate something. Since when did any province in Canada require to have a special consideration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that a question?


Harold Edward Winch: They are provinces of Canada, and under the terms of confederation they are covered. By the terms of confederation and by special acts of parliament, by agreements of parliament, any province that has a special problem will be given consideration. And, Mr. Chairman, a special problem is a special problem of any province. No province under confederation has the right to demand a special special consideration; otherwise, you would break down the entire terms of confederation. If that is to be the basis of the argument, then each province can say that it has a special special consideration. Surely, the meaning of confederation is that the terms on which each province or territory that comes into confederation are laid down. Under the terms at the present time special consideration will be given to special problems of any province of Canada. What more can any province from Newfoundland to British Columbia ask beyond that the special problems of a province will be considered when the time comes to appoint a royal commission or new agreements or arrangements are made? I say once again I am getting a little bit fed up, quite honestly.


An hon. Member:: Are you?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, with all of this talk. We have our problems in British Columbia. They have problems in Newfoundland; there is absolutely no question about that at all and special consideration will be given to them. I think it has been ignored by some of the members from Newfoundland that when Newfoundland entered into confederation, according to some of their own members, they were from 25 to 80 years behind the rest of Canada; but in 10 years they have increased their per capita income from $472 in 1949-God help them, how they lived 1 do not know-to $802 in 1958, which is still too far below the rest of Canada, but it has at least doubled in that 10 years; it has gone up 100 per cent since. As I think of the moneys which have been paid in old age pensions, in family allowances, in subsidies and in special grants in the last 10 years, with an additional $36,500,000 in the next five, and when I think that Newfoundland shall have the same right as any other

province to special consideration, why it has taken us three days to get this bill through I do not know. No province of Canada, including Newfoundland, wants special special consideration. All it wants is a square deal. In view of the increases and the betterments that have taken place in Newfoundland, if it needs more help I do not know of any government in Canada that will not give them that additional help when the time comes to negotiate a new agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member agrees with me completely in the point I was making. I certainly thoroughly agree with the last statement he made. I believe that Newfoundland does not want special consideration; it does want a square deal; it does want its constitutional rights, and that is precisely the difference between us and the government. We are asking for the constitutional rights of Newfoundland and the government is giving to Newfoundland "special consideration" which has nothing special about it.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now, by leave.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten):
That the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of considering the advisability of adding the words "and for each year thereafter" immediately after the words "fiscal year 1961-62" in line 28 of clause 2.


Mr. Speaker:: The question that arises on this amendment is whether it goes beyond the scope of the bill. An amendment on third reading, as has been well settled must, as the bill has been through committee of the whole, be limited to amending the contents of the bill as it has come from committee of the whole and must not introduce new matter. Of course, the relevant words are, "and for each year thereafter immediately after the words 'fiscal year 1961-62' ". Perhaps the hon. member who moved the amendment would like to support the view that it does come within the contents of the bill because I have doubts that it does.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would it be all right if I said a word? I draw Your Honour's attention to the explanatory note which reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to authorize the payment of additional annual grants to the province of Newfoundland in accordance with the scale contained in the report of the royal commission on Newfoundland finances that was appointed as required by term 29 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada.
The suggestion for reconsideration made in the amendment is in precise conformity with the scale contained in that report.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the proposed amendment is clearly out of order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has sought to bring the subject matter of the amendment somehow or other within the scope of the bill by saying that the report of the royal commission had something to say about a later year. I cannot agree with him on that, but surely that is the weakest possible kind of argument for trying to make it appear that the subject matter of the amendment comes within the scope of the subject matter of the bill.
The operative and essential clause of the bill, which is the one sought to be amended by the amendment, clause 2, sets out specific amounts for five fiscal years, the last of them being the fiscal year 1961-62. The effect of the amendment, if it were given to the house as proposed here, would be to introduce provision for the payment of $8 million per year virtually in perpetuity thereafter, going into an entirely different period. We have a measure here that deals with fixed payments for a five year period. This amendment is something completely outside the scope of that operative provision of the bill. There are other reasons why the amendment is out of order, but I am sure I do not need to mention them.


Mr. Speaker:: May I refer the house to Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 418, which reads in part as follows:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill. .
I would have thought that an amendment to alter some provision of the bill, for example, to reduce the amount of payment for the fiscal year 1961-62, which is the last line of clause 2, would have been in order if the bill were to be referred back for that purpose, but this amendment asks that the bill be referred back to consider the addition of payments for years subsequent to 1961-62, something which is not in the bill at all now and which would add additional provisions which are not contained in the
Humane Slaughter of Food Animals bill. Therefore it is clear to me that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill and is not in order at this stage. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed on division.



LIVESTOCK


Douglas Scott Harkness: the second reading of Bill C-71, to provide for the humane slaughter of food animals.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, the matter of humane slaughter of food animals was the subject of quite exhaustive investigation during this session of parliament by the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. I am sure that all members of the house would wish to join with me in expressing appreciation to that committee and to the organizations and individuals who presented evidence to it.
The committee, in its report tabled on June 16th, recommended that parliament require the humane slaughter of meat animals in plants covered by the jurisdiction of the Meat Inspection Act. This bill gives effect to that recommendation. It will ensure that humane slaughter practices are followed in plants that are within the jurisdiction of parliament and come under federal meat inspection. These account for some 80 per cent of the total slaughter of meat animals.
The committee had recommended that this objective be achieved through an amendment to the Meat Inspection Act. On reflection, it was considered preferable to provide for it by a separate statute rather than as an amendment to the Meat Inspection Act. Hon. members will note, however, that the bill is tied closely to the Meat Inspection Act. It requires meat slaughtering establishments registered under that act to conform with the requirements of the regulations under this act. The act will be administered by officers now engaged in the administration of the Meat Inspection Act, and the bill clothes inspectors with the same powers as they possess under the Meat Inspection Act.
The committee report recommended that certain practices in association with the slaughter of meat animals be considered to be inhumane, and that certain other practices be considered to be humane. It will be noted that the bill does not list acceptable or unacceptable practices specifically, but provides for them to be established by regulation. This will permit the approval of slaughter methods and devices which have now

Humane Slaughter of Food Animals been determined to be humane and will provide the necessary flexibility to recognize others which may subsequently be developed.
The committee recommended that the operation of the proposed law be postponed for a reasonable time to enable all persons affected by it to take the necessary steps to comply with the law when it becomes effective. This will be dealt with by regulation, as the amount of time needed to enable the persons concerned to comply with humane slaughter requirements will vary with different classes of livestock. The packing industry has already adopted the use of mechanical stunners for cattle, as recommended by the committee, and there need be no delay in this respect.
Considerable study and experimentation has gone into the development of humane slaughter methods for hogs and other small livestock, and this has progressed to the point where adequate alternative methods for the humane slaughter of these animals should soon be available. While a reasonable period will have to be provided for the installation of the necessary facilities, I should like to assure the house that the minimum time possible will be allowed. I would certainly envisage that the regulations would be completely in force within a year.
As the house knows, the committee on agriculture and colonization considered whether the objective of humane slaughter should be achieved by way of an amendment to the Criminal Code or by a statute limiting its direct jurisdiction to establishments operating under federal meat inspection. As I noted at the outset, it recommended the latter procedure. The Criminal Code has, of course, for many years contained a provision requiring the humane treatment of animals. This will continue to apply.
There has been lacking, however, any special provision prescribing in detail the practices that may or may not be employed in the slaughter of meat animals. The bill now before the house and the regulations under it will establish those procedures in meat slaughter operations coming within the jurisdiction of parliament.


Mr. L. D. Creslohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement was quite comprehensive but I wish that its substance had formed part of the bill. In looking at the measure it seems quite a simple bill but I should like to say that a measure of this kind can have far-reaching and serious effects. In fact, as hon. members know, anything that at any time may touch upon religious beliefs or religious practices is an extremely delicate matter. I should therefore like to ask for the patient and considerate indulgence of the house while I deal


with this matter because the bill itself could seriously affect the religious beliefs and practices of an important sector of Canadians.
I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that certainly the principle of the bill is universally accepted and it is indeed a very laudable bill. But we must be careful that in doing one good thing we do not inadvertently do another thing that might destroy or interfere with other universally accepted principles. In this instance, Mr. Speaker, in legislating on methods for the humane slaughter of food animals, the house should be careful that we do not destroy or invade the freedom of religious practices of Canadians. I suggest that the house should seek a synthesis so that both principles can be preserved. It is to this objective that I want to address myself for a few moments.
Lest anything I might say should be interpreted as meaning that I do not support a measure of this kind, let me say at once- and make it as clear as language will permit -that I support any measure that will ensure humane treatment of animals. I do this not only out of personal conviction, but even more so because of the ethical and religious teachings which we receive from earliest childhood. The theory of kind treatment of animals is as old as the Jewish religion itself. It is first mentioned in the Ten Commandments. In the fourth commandment we are directed not to labour our animals on the Sabbath. It also directs that our animals be treated with the same kindness and the same consideration in that regard as even our own sons and daughters. That is indeed a far-reaching lesson on kindness to animals.
There are many other effective lessons on this point and I should like briefly to mention but a few. I do so, because I feel that the subject matter touching upon religious beliefs and practices is an extremely delicate one, as I said a moment ago. I should like to support that statement by saying that if a method is being used in the slaughter of animals for food purposes for people of the Jewish religion, it is not without careful consideration to kindness to animals.
For example, do hon. members know that no one practising my faith is permitted to sit down to a meal unless he first makes certain that his animals have been watered and fed? It is also forbidden to yoke a strong animal with a weaker one, lest there be suffering by the weaker animal. It is also forbidden to muzzle an ox when he treadeth the corn-and this is almost a verbatim quotation-because the ox should not suffer undue anguish from not being able to partake of the plenty around him. If he is muzzled he is not able to do so.

Another interesting point I should like to make is this. No animal may be slaughtered within the sight of another animal lest it be caused unnecessary anguish. Hunting, for example, is forbidden lest undue suffering be inflicted by wounding; and in order to discourage hunting, no animal killed at the hunt can be consumed by those who observe the tenets of their religion.
I want to make one or two more observations along the same line. It is expressly forbidden to ship over long distances or to keep in market places unweaned calves or kids lest they be deprived of food in that way and therefore suffer unduly. Judging from these humane religious teachings I venture to point out that I could be speaking for the oldest humane society in the world.
It may also be interesting for hon. members to know that according to a standard medieval ethical work-and I now refer to the Book of the Saints-we are told that a man will be called to account before the Judge of judges for any pain he has caused to an animal. But to bring this ancient record of kindness up to date may I say this. It is a fact that the founder of the royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals was of the Jewish faith. Mr. Lewis Gompertz who was its first honorary secretary and, I believe the first president of the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals in the United States, was also of the same faith.
May I just touch on another point of interest. In the Jewish religion the taking of the life of an animal is not treated lightly. The slaying of animals for food is considered to be a religious rite and is accompanied by a prayer as a sacrifice. The act is performed by a religious functionary who must be a person of approved high moral character, specially trained and possessing a thorough knowledge of the precise rules and regulations to slaughter an animal without pain. He must be steady of hand, qualified by examination, certified and subjected to reexamination at frequent intervals by ecclesiastical authorities who alone can license a person to exercise the calling of slaying animals for food consumption by Jews.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to some degree the high regard which the people of our faith are taught to have for all animals and the particular attention given to animals slaughtered for food purposes. This matter is independently commented upon in an editorial of the Calgary Herald of December 26, 1956. I should now like to read this editorial to hon. members. It concerned a dispute in Calgary involving the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals and some threats which were presumed to have
Humane Slaughter of Food Animals been made to institute prosecutions for the slaughter of animals in what was considered to be an inhumane way. The heading of the article is "The S.P.C.A. Corrects a Bad Mistake" and it reads as follows:
The Calgary society for the prevention of cruelty to animals has reversed the stand taken by its president a few days ago against what he termed the "inhumane" methods of slaughtering cattle under the Jewish kosher rites.
While the details behind its decision to reverse itself are as yet unknown to the public, the society has been well advised in retracting its earlier threat to lay a charge under the Criminal Code of Canada against the Jewish slaughterhouses here.
Making its retraction, it has, we hope, nipped a particularly nasty and prejudiced publicity campaign against a community whose regard for the lives and the proper treatment of animals dates back to a point where it is almost lost in antiquity. Never, in the long history of the world, has any group of civilized people had a finer record of kindness to animals-a principle which forms an integral part of their ancient religious laws- than the Jews.
Any slaughtering of animals for human consumption is bound to be a revolting sight to the majority of people who, happily, have been able to divorce the slab of steak, or other animal foods, on their dinner plates from the actual process of slaughtering. And every method of slaughtering must necessarily involve some pain and suffering to the animal whether it is b,y a blow on the skull with a heavy sledgehammer, a slaughtering "gun" which fires a steel spike into the animal's brain, or under the age-old Jewish rites. The chief aim, then, must be handling the slaughtering in a way which will cause the least suffering to the animal, and there is in existence even when compared with the so-called modern methods an abundance of medical and other evidence that the Jewish procedure is as humane as any other, and perhaps less open to error or careless and faulty handling. Furthermore, it has long been a recognized fact that for the animal the cruellest part of the slaughtering is from the time it is first driven into the slaughtering house premises where it immediately senses what is in store for it from the smell of blood and other odours unavoidably associated with slaughtering.
The ancient laws of Judaism were expressly designed to avoid unnecessary cruelty to the animals, under the pain of the lash and other severe penalties. And investigations from time to time-the latest having been by a commission of the British House of Lords within the last ten years have failed to uncover any evidence that the immediate and guaranteed method of completely severing an animal's jugular vein is not an acceptable means of ensuring a quick and merciful death.
By launching such a prejudiced campaign against the Jewish race and religion the SPCA has done a serious disservice to the Jewish people and to its own cause.
Unfortunately, however, Mr. Speaker, in spite of this long record, historic and religious, where we were taught to prevent unkindness or cruelty to animals, which I have just recited and which has just been confirmed by a quite independent non-Jewish authority, I would like to say that there is a sorrowful history revealed behind similar legislation in other countries which has affected the right of Jews to slaughter their

Humane Slaughter of Food Animals food animals according to their religious ritual. Most hon. members may not be familiar with this type of innocuous-sounding legislation.
During my own lifetime I have had occasion to be saddened by legislation which sprang from and followed from so-called humane slaughtering regulations. I do not in the slightest, Mr. Speaker, impute any such motives to the sponsor of this bill. I attribute to him only the loftiest consideration based purely on the humaneness of the procedure of slaughtering food animals. Unwittingly and unknowingly, however, many of these benevolent activities have in the past covered ulterior and malevolent desires. Humane slaughter legislation has been used as a springboard for devious antireligious campaigns, and in some countries ritual slaughter has been completely banned. The histories of those countries stand out as a blot on the escutcheon of modern civilization.
I would like to read a paragraph from the Toronto Globe and Mail for July 14 last, headed "Humane Killing Religious Threat, Rabbi Warns". The article says:
Approval of a measure requiring the humane slaughter of livestock in New Jersey could be the first step in depriving Jews of their religious freedom, a Rabbi warned today.
Rabbi Pichas Teitz, leader of the orthodox Jewish community of Elizabeth, made this assertion during a public hearing on a bill directing meat packers to use humane methods in killing livestock.
He said a study of Jewish history shows Jewish sufferings began with approval of humane slaughter laws. He said Adolph Hitler prefaced his killings of Jews in Poland with a humane slaughter act.
I am sure that hon. members can, therefore, readily understand and appreciate the very genuine and deep-rooted concern, and even suspicion, which the 250,000 Jews living in Canada have about legislation of this kind. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his government inadvertently and very innocently may be made the victims of people with ulterior motives. I therefore feel it is my duty to call on them to exercise the greatest caution to make certain that if there are any diabolic or unrecognizable objectives which a measure of this kind may be loaded with, they should do nothing that may to the slightest degree invade the religious observances of our Jewish fellow Canadians, and do everything possible to adopt this legislation and also to safeguard their religious rights.
I repeat again, let no one think for a moment that I oppose any measure that outlaws inhumane treatment of animals. What I do say is that in the process of adopting this legislation we should not invade or minimize the freedom of religion


in Canada. We should seek that synthesis that will safeguard both and that certainly will solve this problem as it has been solved in the United Kingdom, in Scotland, in Ireland and in a great many other countries, and as it is now being dealt with in the United States itself.
I know that to find that synthesis is the objective of every hon. member of this house, and it is to this that I would now like to speak with respect to the bill itself. I have the fullest confidence that every hon. member who sat on the committee, as well as every hon. member in the house, has all the sympathy in the world and will do everything possible not to invade the religious rights of a large sector of Canadians. We find that the bill is entitled "An Act to Provide for the Humane Slaughter of Food Animals". But sadly enough, nowhere in the bill is humane slaughter of food animals defined. I think it is a mistake not to have in the bill a full and comprehensive definition of what is a humane method of slaughter and what is not a humane method of slaughter. The bill is so simple that to me it forebodes some danger. The most significant clause in the bill is the power that is given to the governor in council. I think parliament should know what is a humane method and what is not a humane method. We should define it and not leave it to the governor in council to decide.
Parliament appointed a committee and the minister referred very clearly to that committee. The committee made recommendations to parliament, and may I point out to the minister that when the Prime Minister introduced this measure for first reading on Friday -and he did this somewhat hastily, because he had to ask the unanimous consent of the house before doing so-he stated, and I quote:
This matter is one that has received the consideration of a committee, and the bill to be submitted I believe embodies the general recommendations made as a result of the deliberations of that committee.
Peculiarly enough, there is not a single word in the bill to justify that statement by the Prime Minister that the general recommendations of the committee were embodied in the bill. There is not a word. Not a single recommendation of that committee is embodied in this bill. To prove my contention, let me read a section of the report of the committee. I draw the attention of the minister especially to paragraph 7, which reads:
Your committee, after careful deliberation, submits the following recommendations for incorporation into legislation to provide for tile humane slaughter of food animals-
And the recommendations were, as this shows, expected to be incorporated into the legislation, because during its discussions the committee expressed some apprehension as to

whether or not this matter should be left to the governor in council or to officials no matter how able or how knowledgeable they might be, namely to decide for the committee, for parliament and for the country what is and what is not a humane method of slaughter. We expressly said that we wanted parliament to be able to decide that question, and we wanted it in the legislation. But, alas, not a single one of these recommendations is in this bill. For the benefit of any hon. members who are not familar with them, the recommendations were as follows:
(a)	That inadequate holding pens and/or unsafe ramps, inclines and floor surfaces over which animals must move in packing plants or slaughterhouses shall be considered inhumane.
(b)	That the combination of shackling and hoisting of a food animal before rendering it unconscious shall be considered inhumane;
(c)	Humane methods of slaughter shall be deemed to include
(i)	shooting,
(ii)	schechita (the Hebrew term for slaughter) as practised in compliance with Hebrew religious requirements;
(d)	Humane methods of pre-slaughter shall be deemed to include
(i)	stunning with a mechanical stunner,
(ii)	certain electrical stunning methods,
(iii)	the use of anaesthetising agents.
These recommendations are quite clear and we asked that they should be included in this bill so that we might be able to debate this subject adequately. We may now suspect that there may be other definitions made by order in council, and, unfortunately, we will not have an opportunity of debating them. I say, therefore, that I have the feeling that the Prime Minister possibly did not see the report of the committee, or that if he did see the report of the committee he apparently did not see the bill which, as I said, was rushed into the house last Friday for first reading. Being the busy man that he is, he probably took it for granted that the bill would follow the recommendations of the committee and my opinion is confirmed, apparently, by the right hon. gentleman's use of the words "I believe" in the course of his statement. If he had seen the bill the Prime Minister would not have used those words, because he would have been sure. I can readily understand that he might not have seen it because it might well have been handed to him hastily before he presented it for first reading. No criticism can be levelled at the Prime Minister for that, but I do address myself to the minister who is presenting this bill and I point out that the recommendations of the committee contained, as I said, a request that they be included in the legislation.
I hope the Prime Minister was shocked when he saw the contents of this rather controversial bill. Certainly I was shocked 66968-9-385
Humane Slaughter of Food Animals and no doubt other members of the committee who were responsible for the wording of the report as to the recommendations being included in the legislation were disappointed when they saw the bill. I would suggest to the minister that he should include in the bill itself what are considered to be humane methods of slaughter of animals for human food. That is the very purpose of this bill, and yet no single word is mentioned about it. If this were done, and if humane methods of slaughter were defined in the bill, it would certainly confirm by an act of parliament the recommendations made by the committee that humane methods of slaughter shall be deemed to include schechita, the Hebrew term for slaughter as practised in compliance with Hebrew religious requirements. If that were in the legislation it would be an attempt to synthesize the two good things we are attempting to do by this enactment, but having omitted to do that we have no such security.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker;: Perhaps before I leave the chair I should remind the house that by a special order passed yesterday we shall resume this sitting at 7 p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 7 p.m.
Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, at the adjournment I was attempting to impress on the minister my submission that the bill should clearly contain provisions which set forth what humane slaughter is and what it is not. I mentioned the desirability of achieving a synthesis of two principles, the principle of outlawing inhumane slaughter of animals and the principle of not disturbing religious rights and freedoms in this country. In my submission it would contribute substantially to this desirable synthesis if the bill were to contain language like the following: that nothing in this bill shall be deemed to interfere with the religious rites and practices of anyone in Canada. This wording or language similar to it is contained in the legislation of other countries that were desirous of ensuring that legislation dealing with the humane slaughter of animals would not interfere in the religious rites of anyone. When this bill was before the committee to which it was referred for study I moved such an amendment in the following terms:
That paragraph 6 of the committee's report be amended by adding thereto the words:
"having due regard for the religious practices and observances of all people in Canada".

Humane Slaughter of Food Animals
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. gentleman who has the floor is referring to proceedings in a committee and I believe such references should not be made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Were the proceedings tabled in the house?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
Mr. Pallet!: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.


Leon David Crestohl: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not understand the point of order or the ruling on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The hon. member for Peel thought the proceedings of the committee had not been tabled in the house.


Leon David Crestohl: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment which I have just read was rejected by the government majority in the committee. I cannot understand why an amendment in those terms should have been rejected. Most surely it embodies a principle of which the entire house approves. Instead of leaving any doubt in the minds of the people of Canada that this measure might interfere with the religious rites or practices of anyone or might in any way invade those rights to the slightest degree I believe an amendment of this nature should have been adopted and incorporated in the legislation. Perhaps the minister will explain why such an amendment should not have won unanimous support. It merely states a principle which the house constantly approves. I know that the Prime Minister and members of the government acknowledge the freedom of religion and support and uphold that principle. Why, then, should the majority of the Prime Minister's party in the committee have rejected an amendment like that? I trust that the minister will explain because I feel that an explanation is owing.
In a further attempt to build up the synthesis about which I was speaking I introduced another amendment in the committee which I should now like to place on the record. I moved:
That the report be amended by adding thereto the following paragraph to be known as paragraph 8:
Your committee also notes that food animals killed in accordance with Hebrew religious requirements must not first be maimed or rendered unconscious by stunning or other means. We, therefore, further recommend that, before legislation dealing with this method is promulgated, further study be made of alternate procedures by which the animal can be delivered by humane means for the actual "shechita" cut. To this end your committee recommends that the government consult with leading Canadian packers and abattoirs with a view to the installation and use of casting pens or other procedures approved by government authorities, so as


to preserve for the people of the Hebrew and Mohammedan faiths the freedom of their respective religions and practices in Canada.
The purpose of that amendment was merely to ensure that we do not legislate in a way that would actually prevent the carrying out of the method of slaughter that is part of a religious rite. That, too, was rejected by the government majority in the committee which also puzzled me. The amendment simply sought to make certain that there would be no interference in the practice of the religious rites of any group through the fixing of a time limit.
As I examine the bill it appears to me to be designed to accomplish but one thing. It seeks to transfer to the governor in council the authority to declare what is and what is not a humane method of slaughter of animals. That, I believe, is what the committee sought to determine. The committee laboured for weeks, heard evidence, debated the matter in camera at several meetings and finally drew conclusions and reached decisions on the basis of the evidence presented to it. It determined what is and what is not humane slaughter. Are we to say now that the time of the committee was wasted? None of the findings of the committee are incorporated in this piece of legislation. We are removing from parliament the right of determination in this regard and placing it with the governor in council. This to me is the most poignant illustration of government by order in council.
But when parliament is in session, when parliament has appointed a committee to study a problem and the committee has sat and studied the problem and presented a report, the minister, or whoever it was that drafted this bill, is by no stretch of the imagination justified in ignoring that report completely and not bringing its recommendations before parliament. To say that these things will be decided by the governor in council is a derogation of power and authority. It is the business of parliament to decide these things. By the very nature of the bill parliament has not been asked to do that; parliament is deprived of that opportunity.
I presented that second amendment because I hoped that by that amendment the government might call in the abattoirs and the packers in Canada and consult with them. There was an area of a delicate problem there. While in principle we established that the Hebrew method, the Jewish method, of slaughter is humane, we might run into the danger that in the administration and in the regulations that will be laid down that lofty principle, that right which the committee has established, might be frustrated. There was the possibility of that being done.

Let me explain this to the house. While the schechita is declared humane, the committee found that the method by which the abattoir delivered the animals for the schechita cut was not considered humane. That is the section which speaks about shackling and hoisting being considered inhumane. Having outlawed the method of delivering the animal for the ritual cuts and stating legislatively that it is a humane method, and not making it possible really, as I said, could frustrate the intention of the legislation, I introduced that amendment and said: "Let the bill not come into force, let it not be promulgated until after consultation with the abattoirs, and until another more humane method of delivering the animal for the cut has been established". That, too, was rejected.
I say that the bold and the cruel effect of rejecting this amendment is a painful one because although the traditional Jewish method of slaughter may be declared humane, administratively it may be impossible to perform. I therefore respectfully say-and I repeat-that most certainly the measure requires the careful and conscientious consideration of the house. Because there might be frustration in the carrying out of the slaughtering in a way that will invade religious rights, religious freedoms, I urge respectfully on the Prime Minister who is a man, I know, of deep religious principles, who will not permit anything to be done that will invade the religious right of any ethnic group in Canada, since that certainly would be inconsistent with one of the principal principles urged in his bill of rights, to use his good offices to set out in this bill in language that the whole country may see and recognize as a law which safeguards the religious freedom of all people in Canada.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it should also be made clear by setting out these recommendations in the bill that this is not a measure which will remove from parliament the right of seeing and debating the real issues instead of delegating them outside of parliament.
The making of Canada's laws is the responsibility of parliament alone. Mr. Speaker, in order to bring before parliament the basic issues in this bill, I want to move an amendment, but I say to the minister at once that if he will declare that appropriate amendments along the lines suggested, or along the lines indicated and recommended by the committee, will be favourably considered by him I will withdraw my amendment. It may even be the wiser course, perhaps, to reconsider the bill altogether. Therefore, I would like to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith):
66968-9-385^
15, 1959
Humane Slaughter of Food Animals That because the bill fails to define humane slaughter or otherwise indicate what are and what are not humane methods of slaughter and because such definition is inherent in the title, purpose, and very nature of the bill, and further because the bill fails to preserve the freedom of certain religious rights and practices now enjoyed by Canadians, that the bill be not now read a second time; but that the motion be amended by deleting the word "now" and adding in its place the words "this day six months hence".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. In looking over this amendment I find there are really two parts to it. A condition is part of the amendment and, of course, on second reading you cannot add a condition to a bill. However, if the mover was to move that the bill be not now read a second time, and carry on from there the amendment would be acceptable to the Chair.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, perhaps, in order to obtain the best attention on the points I have raised it might be wiser for me to withdraw this amendment, if I can have unanimous permission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: It has not
been accepted by the Chair. I have not read it. Would the hon. member like to withdraw it?


Leon David Crestohl: I would like to. I certainly will accept the principle of the bill. Perhaps we can discuss this thing further in committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order which is involved here-


Harold Edward Winch: There is no point of order now; the amendment is withdrawn.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Speaker had already ruled that the amendment was out of order. Therefore, having ruled that it is out of order, I think that disposes of it. The hon. member has no right to withdraw something which has disappeared.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, for two years now we have laboured over the question of humane slaughter. Originally it was the intention to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code but it was thought that such an amendment would be too harsh under all the circumstances. So the standing committee on agriculture met over a period of six weeks during this session and after ten long meetings brought in a report which was tabled in the house. Before arriving at this report the committee on agriculture, under the able chairmanship of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stanton), heard evidence from all interested parties. Anyone who wanted to say anything was invited to say it. Free scope was given to all. We had three very distinguished members from the Canadian Jewish congress and

Humane Slaughter of Food Animals we benefited greatly from their evidence. We had representatives from the meat packers' council, the humane society and the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals. We had representatives from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture as well as experts and veterinarians who were authorities on the subject of humane killing.
I am very pleased that we now have before the house Bill No. C-71, an act to provide for the humane slaughter of animals. It is quite true that the bill is enabling legislation so that regulations can be promulgated by the Department of Agriculture, regulations which will be enforced by the inspectors under the Meat Inspection Act, regulations which will be drafted within the recommendations of the committee's report. I might also add, lest anyone feel that there is any usurpation of the powers of parliament, that these regulations must be advertised in the Canada Gazette and must be available to the house. If any hon. member should feel, once the regulations are tabled in the house, that they are not within the purview of the report or in any way infringe what he feels to be the rights of any such party, such honourable member can criticize any of the regulations in the house and has ample opportunity to do so either in the debate on the speech from the throne or when the minister's estimates are brought before the house.
The bill is short, simple and very much to the point. I want to thank the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) for agreeing with the principle of the bill which he states is universally accepted. I might point out to hon. members that the bill does exactly what the committee has recommended in paragraph six of its report, which paragraph reads as follows:
Your committee recommends, after due deliberation. that legislation amending the Meat Inspection Act be introduced to provide for humane handling and slaughter regulations.
That is exactly what the bill purports to do. There is nothing here that cannot be interpreted simply. Clause 4 of the bill states:
The governor in council may, for the purpose of ensuring humane slaughter of food animals in an establishment, make regulations respecting the manner of, and methods and devices to be employed in, the slaughter of food animals in an establishment.
I should like to point out that the report of the committee, which is very succinct, definite and to the point, is an excellent guide to the Department of Agriculture in drafting regulations. One might say, as I believe the hon. member who last spoke suggested, why should the regulations not be


incorporated in the bill itself? That might create a sorry plight, Mr. Speaker, in the event that any of the regulations turned out to be unjust or unworkable. It would then be necessary to wait until the next session of parliament to amend the regulations. After all, the regulations are subject to change from time to time but the one important thing is that they should be in keeping with and within the purview of the recommendations made by the standing committee on agriculture. So Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting Bill No. C-71.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, during the present session I had the opportunity of making a rather prolonged speech on the matter of the humane slaughter of animals and, if my memory is correct, that was the third time I had done so in the past three years. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the C.C.F. group supports the principle of this bill to provide for the humane slaughter of animals. Because we support that in principle it naturally follows that we support Bill No. C-71. But I should like to add that we are somewhat disappointed that the bill is not as definite as we had hoped it might be and also that it only deals with the slaughter of animals which will be sold on an interprovincial or international basis. I presume that is because of the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and his department have decided that it is not possible for the federal government to introduce legislation dealing with the slaughter of animals for consumption strictly within a province.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but actually this legislation will cover the great proportion of the meat consumed within a particular province, something over 80 per cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I am sorry but I cannot allow the minister to speak because if he does other than ask a question he will close the debate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry. I did not want an incorrect impression to be conveyed by what the hon. member had just said.


Harold Edward Winch: I appreciate very much the information that has been given although it rather strikes me as not quite understandable that in a province like Alberta or British Columbia over 80 per cent of the animals killed will be covered but will not be consumed within British Columbia or Alberta. However, if the minister says that I must accept it. I am glad he has said that 80 per cent of all animals killed-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will explain it when I close the debate.


Mr, Winch:: That is fine. I only wish we could make it 100 per cent instead of 80 per cent. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that it has not been possible for the minister to bring in something more definite in the legislation as to the methods to be used which the government maintains will bring about the humane slaughter of food animals.
Quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather regrettable that in Canada we should be one of the last of the countries of the world that still-as it has in the past-to some extent uses outdated methods of slaughtering animals for food consumption. In the course of years as an elected member I have been through slaughter-houses in Canada. On the visits I made in order to try to become a better member by understanding how things were done it always disturbed me to see hogs hoisted up by a logging chain, have their throats slit and perhaps not be dead before they went into the boiling vat. I myself have seen a calf hoisted up by one leg by a logging chain, when the logging chain slipped and the calf came down on its head.
Because of those things which I have seen personally on inspections of slaughter-houses and because of other things I have been told by members of the packinghouse union who work in slaughter-houses, I am very grateful that at long last something is going to be done. But in view of the experiences in European countries where for a number of years different methods have been used and conclusions have been arrived at I should like to know why it is not possible to outline in legislation that a humane method of slaughter of animals for food consumption can be done by captive bolt, by the concussion stunner or by anaesthetic.
If they have proved successful in other countries, are they not now acceptable here or has any study been made of their use in view of the fact that in Scandinavian countries in particular these methods have been used for years and, as far as I know, have been declared to be a humane method. I should like to know why they are not named as methods in the act with a proviso that by order in council a different method could be put into effect if something new, different and better were discovered and found applicable.
I must admit that I was very much interested in and somewhat disturbed by the remarks made by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl). There is no one in this house or in this country who will take any action to interfere with anyone's religious beliefs or rituals. The hon. member for Cartier really disturbed me when he made mention of a reported statement of a rabbi from the United States to the effect that the introduction of
Humane Slaughter of Food Animals legislation in the United States or in Canada was the first move toward a dictatorship lead ing to anti-Semitism.


Leon David Crestohl: Could be.


Harold Edward Winch: I read the same article. I say, Mr. Speaker, that I regret, with all the respect that I have for him, that the hon. member for Cartier should quote a rabbi from the United States-and a similar statement has been made in Canada-that the introduction of legislation for the humane slaughter of animals is the first attack on Jewish nationals. That is an approach that I hoped never to hear in this House of Commons.


Leon David Crestohl: Could be.


Harold Edward Winch: I know exactly what the hon. member had in mind. It may be that that was the first approach that was made by Hitler. Therefore, on the basis of the speech made only two days ago, I think it was, we in the United States and Canada should not consider legislation on the humane slaughter of animals because it might be the same approach which was used by Hitler and which led to the unfortunate incidents which happened in that country.
In this country every person's religion is his own. That is one of the great things of our country. Every person's beliefs are his own. But I hope the time will never come when we in this House of Commons are going to be governed in our decisions on the treatment of animals on the basis of whether the introduction of legislation on humane slaughter might mean something that happened under Hitler. We can deal with matters in our own democracy in our own way.
As I said, I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Cartier speak as he did. I thought the hon. member for Cartier had more trust in the Canadian parliament and in the Canadian people than to use that as an argument in opposition to this bill or in asking that some changes be made in it. May I say this, Mr. Speaker, because I always believe in being blunt and honest. This bill is described as an act to provide for the humane slaughter of animals. Being plain and being honest, may I say that I cannot understand any religion or any belief that has in connection with the killing of animals a ritual which is not humane.
The hon. member for Cartier maintained, not only by quoting records but by the fourth commandment which he quoted, that their ritual is humane. If so, they are covered under this act. The act makes it clear, although I am not satisfied as to how far it goes. The fact is that details are not set forth. However, it does make it clear that regulations
6076	HOUSE OF
Humane Slaughter oj Food Animals shall be established by order in council under certain authority as to methods of killing. Therefore if the hon. member for Cartier is sincere-as I know he is-and if he is correct -and that I do not know because I have never seen a Jewish ritual killing-then he is covered under this bill because it says that under regulation, if it is humane, it shall be allowable.
I think the hon. member for Cartier is covered on that score and is covered on his own statement. But if there are those in our country who have a ritual which says an animal shall not be killed humanely, I have no hesitation in saying that perhaps they should be governed by legislation. But the bill does not cover the hon. member nor his people, in view of what he himself has said.
In principle we support the bill. We have always fought and talked for this bill. It does not go as far as we should like it to go, but it is a start and a start is always welcome. We will without any hesitation support this bill and we look forward to the regulations being introduced as soon as possible so as to enable the industry to comply with humane slaughter. I know, Mr. Speaker, that irrespective of race or religion no regulations will ever be introduced that will in any way interfere with one's religion as long as his religion is humanity to animals as well as to human beings.


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks in support of the principle of this bill will be most brief indeed. I was inclined, as a matter of fact, before you mentioned my constituency to take my seat in favour of the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken). It is about her and other hon. members in this house and the vast numbers of people across this country that I would like to speak for a moment at this stage in the debate.
There are fewer bills or fewer measures which have come before this house in my experience which have attracted wider comment and interest from among virtually all sections and levels of our society. I have received some thousands of letters through 1957 and 1958, as I know have many other hon. members in this house. As I mentioned, I am going to speak for the hon. member for York-Humber, and also the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Kucherepa), the hon. member for Oarleton (Mr. Bell), the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) and of course our friend the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker), who has just resumed his seat. The amount of work which has gone into research and study in connection with this bill on the part of the hon. members I have just mentioned, and many


other hon. members in other parties in the house, is unique in my experience.
Again, I would simply like to add my words to those who are speaking in support of the principle of this bill, and in particular to the many thousands of citizens across this country who have given so freely of their time and efforts to resolve this most difficult situation, the solution to which is most long, long overdue, I would add my congratulations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) has said that we on this side will support the principle of this bill. Because it deals with humane slaughter, I do not see how anyone could oppose such a principle; certainly not myself, who once had the privilege of working in a packinghouse in Chicago, during which I think perhaps I suffered as much as the animals did. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) has said that this bill is succinct, definite and to the point. It is certainly succinct and it is certainly definite. Whether it is to the point or not I am not so sure. He also said it was an excellent guide to the government, but I fail to see where the government in its wisdom in the promulgation of its orders will get very much guidance from it.
What this bill does, of course, is to give the government the authority under legislation to pass orders in council for the purpose of ensuring humane slaughter of food animals in an establishment, and make regulations respecting the manner of and methods and devices to be employed in the slaughter of food animals in an establishment. In other words, for this particular purpose it authorizes government to act by order in council. Some of us on this side, who in days past used to hear such violent talk of government by order in council, are naturally surprised that the government in a matter of this importance should have adopted this course.
The hon. member for Rosedale said, of course, "Well, the orders in council and the regulations will be tabled. The members can talk about them and complain about them in the speech from the throne debate and on the estimates, if they so desire." But that certainly does not meet the point, Mr. Speaker. So this bill provides government by order in council in this matter, and it is all the more surprising because, as the hon. member for Rosedale said, the committee laboured, and I am sure it did labour, for two years in dealing with this subject. That committee did not produce anything which

would justify this kind of limited bill. That committee reported as follows:
-after careful deliberation, submits the following recommendations for incorporation into legislation to provide for the humane slaughter of food animals,-
Not one of those recommendations is incorporated in this bill. So where is the guidance that is to be given to the government in this bill in the promulgation of its regulations? I am at a loss to understand why, if the committee laboured so long and so widely on this matter and produced recommendations, which were adopted, the government did not see fit at least to consider including some of those recommendations in the bill. If they decided that that was not desirable, surely, when parliament is giving the government power by order in council to act in this way to deal with humane slaughter, there should have been a definition of humane slaughter in the bill. The government is being given power by order in council to deal with humane slaughter when humane slaughter is not even defined in the bill.
Therefore, this bill is, we think, inadequate to accomplish the purpose which we all have in mind. While, of course, we support the principle of the bill, when we go into committee we will do our best to add to this bill provisions which will make it far more effective for that purpose than it is certainly at the present time.


Miss Margaret  Ailken@York-Humber: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word or two on this bill. First of all, I would like to commend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) and the agriculture committee for finding a way of legislating on this very difficult subject of humane slaughter of food animals. Ever since coming to the house, and I consider myself a veteran now, I have concerned myself over this very complicated subject. I have concerned myself first because it was something that I believed in personally, and also because I have had literally hundreds of letters from my constituents asking me to speak for them in the House of Commons on this subject.
The same request was put to the previous government, and I think actually it was my first question in the House of Commons. I asked the then minister of justice if he was going to bring in any legislation on this subject. This criticism by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) rather surprises me. He does not think that the bill spells things out enough, yet the previous government sidestepped it every time it was brought up to them because they said it was impossible to bring in such legislation.
Humane Slaughter of Food Animals
As the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) has said, when the present government took office a group of us, mostly from Toronto but some from Vancouver, formed ourselves into a self-appointed committee to study the various ways of humane slaughter and bring suggestions before the Minister of Justice. We discovered, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) had already discovered, that the drawing up of this legislation is a very difficult process. We discovered that some slaughtering devices did harm to meat, while others are so costly as to be almost prohibitive of purchase by the small packing firms. There were other difficulties. One was to find a practical and forceful way of legislating with regard to small slaughtering houses. As the Minister of Justice has said, it is just not good sense to enact legislation which cannot be enforced or which will not receive general public approval.
By the time I came into parliament, public opinion in connection with this matter was definitely aroused and in this regard I should like to pay tribute to the Toronto humane society and also to the Vancouver humane slaughter association. The Toronto humane society took up this question as early as 1948 and they claimed at that time that their main obstacle was the apathy, indifference and even the hostility of the general public. Due, I think, to the crusade conducted by the society, that apathy has now disappeared; it is a thing of the past. As a people we have a great regard for animals and I know this applied to many of our forefathers in Britain, and I think that when the situation was brought to the attention of Canadians they did feel aroused. A letter from the humane slaughter association of British Columbia pointed out that with the passage of legislation in the United States Canada became one of the very few civilized countries which had failed to provide protection for animals slaughtered for food.
There is wide unanimity that such protection is needed and that legislation of this kind had to be brought in. The problem which faced the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture was not whether or not to bring in this legislation but how to enforce it and how to prepare it in such a way that it was enforceable. Canadian packinghouses were agreeable to the legislation. In fact, one of them, Canada Packers in Toronto, has already put carbon dioxide equipment into all its plants at a cost of almost $250,000. The packinghouse workers union was also in full agreement, and gave its full support to humane slaughter and, certainly, I feel the general public will welcome this legislation and the enactment of Bill No. C-71.
6078	HOUSE OF
Humane Slaughter of Food Animals


Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park):: I should like to say a few words on this subject. First of all, of course, I support the principle of the bill. I have, perhaps, the rare distinction of having been interested in this problem at two levels of government and in looking over my files during the supper hour I noticed, in an extract from the minutes of the local board of health of the city of Toronto, an entry relating to a meeting on April 2, 1957 as follows:
On a motion by Alderman Kucherepa the board also decided to recommend to the city council that the federal government authorities be requested to consider the endorsation of the principle of humane slaughter as contained in the report of the special humane slaughter committee and to pass as soon as possible the necessary legislation to implement the principle of humane slaughter.
As the previous speaker has pointed out, the former government found the problem insurmountable. It was unable to come up with any kind of answer. When I came to this house in the twenty-third parliament, on the first occasion I spoke, on November 12, 1957, I referred to this problem of humane slaughter of food animals. I pointed out at that time, as the previous speaker has just done, that Canada was one of the few countries left in the civilized world which had not produced some type of legislation to deal with this matter.
There is, I believe, unanimity of opinion with regard to the necessity of legislating for humane slaughter of food animals, and without going into details at this stage, may I say I think this legislation will be one more of those progressive steps that this parliament has taken, and I believe that in the end it will work out to everybody's satisfaction.


Mr. Hayden Stanton (Leeds):: When the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) referred this subject of humane slaughter to the committee on agriculture and colonization he asked me to take all the time that was necessary to procure whatever information and evidence that could be procured concerning the humane slaughter of animals. This the committee did, and the report which has been presented to the house makes it clear that dozens of witnesses were brought in from across Canada to give evidence before the committee.
These witnesses were called and, as the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) has stated, as soon as the people of this country were aware of the fact that the subject of humane slaughter had been placed before the agriculture committee hundreds of letters flowed in from organizations, municipal councillors and individuals across Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This illustrates the degree of interest which was taken in the subject.


After listening to the evidence which was presented, it was the considered opinion of the committee that schechita, or the Hebrew method of slaughter, was perfectly humane. Not only that, but it was considered it should come under the jurisdiction of the meat inspection branch and not under the Criminal Code, because members of the committee realized that if it were to come under the Criminal Code it could not be supervised effectively and the act could not be implemented as efficiently as it could if the responsibility were given to the meat inspection branch.
I might add that from the evidence given by the packinghouses and others it appeared that 80 per cent of the slaughtering across Canada would come under the jurisdiction of the meat inspection branch and that the other 20 per cent would come under the Criminal Code. Members of the humane societies are taking the responsibility of seeing to it that as far as possible any slaughtering which does not come under the meat inspection branch will be carried on in as humane a manner as possible.
I believe this bill is one that interests every individual across this country. I also believe the bill will meet the requests of those who have sponsored the cause of more humane slaughter of animals. It is my opinion that had some of the recommendations contained in the report of the committee presented to the house been spelled out specifically in this measure it would not have served a good cause. This bill is something new. We have not had legislation like it before. It may have been that had we spelled out a method of humane slaughter of animals in this measure, six months from now another way would have been discovered that would be far superior and with it spelled out specifically in the bill it would have been necessary to carry on the former way of slaughter until the next session of parliament when the legislation could be amended.
I think perhaps the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) is a little too suspicious. As I sat here this evening and listened to his remarks I concluded that he was taking the same position as had been taken by many hon. members on the opposition side from Newfoundland during the discussion of the bill concerning Newfoundland grants. They were suspicious of the government and it occurred to me that the hon. member for Cartier is also suspicious of the government and the Department of Agriculture. I assure the hon. gentleman that this government has the confidence of the people. I believe it was last Friday that the

Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that the regulations would conform with recommendations of the committee as presented to this house. I can say to the hon. member for Cartier that I am satisfied that those regulations will conform to the recommendations of the committee.
My remarks are few because it has always been my considered opinion that one should not spend 35 minutes building up to what he could have said within the space of five minutes. That has been the way hon. members of this house, especially those on the opposition side, have conducted themselves during this session of parliament in that they have spent many hours of time in needless discussion. A great saving in time could have been made if they had come down to brass tacks and said right off the bat what they intended to say.
This bill will serve a good purpose. It is something for which the people have been asking for many years. This government is to be congratulated for having brought this bill before the house in this session.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I promise the house I will not answer the general remarks of the last speaker about the conduct of the opposition during this session of parliament. I do not know that this subject is germane to the bill now before us but in any event I can assure him a very effective answer could be given on that subject. I do not want the hon. gentleman to assume from my silence that I do not think such an answer could be given.
It has been assumed by hon. members who have been speaking on second reading that the principle of this bill is to provide for the humane slaughter of food animals. The bill is entitled "An Act to Provide for the Humane Slaughter of Food Animals" and the first clause of the bill reads:
This act may be cited as the Humane Slaughter of Food Aniqaals Act.
It is quite obvious that the purpose of the bill is to provide for the humane slaughter of food animals but it is interesting that when you seek to find the principle of the bill by the ordinary method of reading it you find nothing at all about the humane slaughter of food animals. Clause 1 gives the name of the bill. Clause 2 gives a number of definitions. Clause 3 provides for the prohibition on people exporting meat out of a province or out of Canada unless slaughtered in certain plants. Clause 4 gives arbitrary power to the governor in council to make regulations. Clause 5 deals with some penalties for people who break those regulations. Clause 6 deals with some powers of inspectors. The principle of
Humane Slaughter of Food Animals the measure is not discernible from a reading of the bill. However, I assume that the principle is to provide for the humane slaughter of food animals and on that assumption I welcome and support the bill as I believe do hon. members in all quarters of the house.
The first problem the committee had to deal with was what method of legislating should be adopted. There were two methods possible. One was by further amending the Criminal Code which already contains one clause somewhat related to the subject. The other method was by legislating so as to control the operation within the slaughtering establishments over which the federal parliament has jurisdiction. It has to be borne in mind that ordinarily the slaughtering of animals would be a matter of provincial jurisdiction and the only method by which the federal parliament has jurisdiction is by controlling the establishments in which the slaughtering of animals which go into trade between the provinces or out of the country is carried out.
It was quite clear in the committee that such establishments handle something over 80 per cent of all food animals slaughtered in Canada. There are several reasons why I believe that the appropriate method to adopt was by dealing with this subject outside of the Criminal Code. I do not think I need elaborate on that point and I believe the committee was unanimous on it.
The best method is by controlling these establishments. I believe that we should not interfere with matters which are within the jurisdiction of the provinces. While I regret that it is not possible to provide proper legislation that would cover 100 per cent of the animals slaughtered, I believe the same results will in the end be accomplished by providing legislation governing the methods of slaughter used in the plants under federal regulation. I think the committee's recommendation on that point has been accepted. While it is true that technically we are not legislating by way of amendment to the Meat Inspection Act, certainly this bill is so closely related to it that no one could take objection on that point. It is so integrated with the Meat Inspection Act there could be no objection whatever on that point.
I believe the method of approaching the problem by a means other than amending the Criminal Code is the correct method in all the circumstances and I hope that as time goes on the provinces will bring forward appropriate legislation governing the plants that operate under their jurisdiction.
I am very much concerned with two main points in this legislation. Perhaps, in order

Humane Slaughter oj Food Animals to make myself clear on these two points, I should deal with the committee report which was presented to this house and which appeared in Votes and Proceedings of June 16. The first paragraph of the report deals with the reference; the second paragraph deals with the list of witnesses heard and it is indeed a very imposing list. The third paragraph deals merely with the evidence that the committee heard. The fourth paragraph deals with the submissions of suggestions made with respect to the methods of dealing with legislation on this subject. The fifth paragraph of the report notes that federal legislation under the Meat Inspection Act covers government inspected plants which perform approximately 80 per cent of the slaughtering of food animals in Canada. The sixth paragraph recommends this method of legislation on the subject. I want to draw the attention of the house to the seventh paragraph. It goes on to say:
Your committee, after careful deliberation submits the following recommendations for incorporation into legislation to provide for the humane slaughter of food animals.
Then follows several subparagraphs to that seventh paragraph: (a) dealing with certain conditions in the plants; (b) with certain practices in handling the animals immediate to preslaughter; (c) dealing with certain things that should be considered humane methods of slaughter and included in that, incidentally, is the finding that the schechita, or the Hebrew method of slaughter, is humane. Then (d) deals with humane methods of preslaughter. Paragraph 8 suggests that the operation of the proposed law be postponed to give the persons affected the opportunity to equip themselves to carry out the legislation. I think the minister dealt with this last point in his opening remarks.
The points I wish to make are these. First of all, I regret very much that the bill does not define humane slaughter. We are supposed to be legislating to provide for humane slaughter of food animals, but in the bill we say nothing at all about what humane slaughter is or is not. There are two or three ways of defining humane slaughter. One is by a list including methods of slaughtering that are humane and excluding other methods that are not. There is no declaration or definition in the bill of what constitutes humane slaughter at all and in my judgment that is a defect in the bill. Indeed, on that point, the house is asked to turn over to the governor in council, if the purpose of the act is to be accomplished at all, the right to determine what is humane slaughter.
It is perfectly obvious that there must be regulations to provide what devices shall be used and shall not be used, and certain details


of handling and equipment; but surely parliament ought in the legislation to declare or provide what is humane slaughter. Reference was made by the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) to the legislation that was passed by the United States last year. I am very much interested to know that in the second section of that bill this very point is dealt with. In the first section there is a somewhat general reference, something analogous to what we would call a preamble, and the very first matter of substance dealt with is the point as to what is humane and what is not humane, the very thing that this legislation does not do. I am very critical of the government on this point because our legislation is defective in that it fails to do that. Then, there is the other objection to the failure to do that. We are turning over to the governor in council the right to do that, something that surely is the responsibility of parliament and properly belongs to parliament.
Finally, without extending the argument, I was most disappointed to hear my colleague, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker), use the argument he did about arbitrary powers by regulation. Surely that is not an answer to the point at all. Surely on matters of principle parliament should be the one to legislate. It is not good enough merely to say that an hon. member can mention the subject at some time in subsequent years in a general debate. That is not a good enough answer. This giving of arbitrary power is a wrong principle; it is quite unnecessary here in this aspect of this legislation and it is not to be defended.
I wish the minister would deal with the point because, so far as I am aware, all other legislation on the subject has dealt with that point. I could be wrong on that. Undoubtedly the minister has studied more extensively the subject than I have but certainly the United States does provide for it in the bill itself, and certainly it ought to be provided for here. I am aware of no practical reason why it is not provided for in this bill and indeed, particularly in view of the fact that the committee which I think I can can say fairly was remarkably objective in its work-I think that is a proper reference to my colleagues of the committee-did try to work out something that would be satisfactory and did definitely recommend for incorporation in the legislation certain matters that involved definition of humane slaughter.
I am a little mystified as to why the minister and the government did not follow the recommendations of the committee. I am rather of the impression that the government as a whole is of the opinion that in this

legislation it followed the recommendations of the committee. I am reinforced in that view by the remark made by the house leader when he was indicating the legislation the other night when he said so in so many words, and by a reference made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) when the bill was given first reading. I think they indicated quite clearly that the government was of the opinion that the bill did follow the recommendations of the committee. I regret very much that it does not.
The second point I want to make reference to with respect to this bill is that Canadians generally, and I think properly so, have taken pride in the fact that Canadians as a whole have attained and preserved in this country a very high degree of religious freedom. I think all Canadians, and all members of parliament on both sides of the house, hold that view. The slaughter of food animals is a religious ritual with certain religious groups. In this bill now before us we have not put in any provision to protect that principle that I think all hon. members of the house assert. It just is not in the bill but instead the bill as submitted authorizes the governor in council to make regulations which could-and I do not for a minute suggest that the governor in council would do it-and are capable of taking away the religous freedom of religious groups in our country.
That is something that I do not think hon. members wish to do. I am somewhat at a loss to understand why that principle was not protected in the bill submitted to the house. I take the strongest possible objection to the omission from the bill of these two very important matters if the bill is to have any purpose or meaning at all. The first is the failure to define humane slaughter by some method, and there are two or three methods that can be used. The second is the fact that the bill provides in its present form for the governor in council to make regulations which might take away the religious freedom of whole religious groups. There is no protection for them at all in the bill. I do not see why that was done, particularly in view of the finding in the committee report that schechita is humane.
In view of that finding in the report, and I believe the committee was unanimous on the point, it is my view that the government may be stumbling into doing something they did not intend to do by reason of their failure to adopt any definition of humane slaughter. They may have inadvertently stumbled into doing something that I really think they did not intend to do at all in the drafting of this legislation. I should like to ask the minister to consider these two points and
Humane Slaughter of Food Animals to insert into the bill at the committee stage provisions that will cover them because I feel they are very important.
I will give the government credit. I very often hit them hard but I will give them credit for not having improper motives. I think their motives were probably of the very best and that it is a matter of inadvertence in the drafting. There may be some other reason but I am inclined to think that it was a case of inadvertence in the drafting and not appreciating these points. At least I am charitable enough to hope that was the case and to hope that they will be taken care of at the committee stage. If I interpret the principle of the bill correctly, as being to provide for the humane slaughter of food animals, I am certainly in accord with its purpose.
(Translation):


Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take two minutes of hon. members' time to say a few words in connection with this bill.
First of all, I must tell you that I know what slaughter means, in my own language, but I was not aware that one could slaughter humanely. I find I think it is a rather interesting title to give this legislation: "A humane way to slaughter animals". Of course, I agree with the principle of the bill if we want to introduce, in our methods of slaughtering animals, some form of euthanasia which would enable them to leave this world without too much suffering. However, what I find harder to agree with, Mr. Speaker, is the means of administering the legislation's aims as conceived by the government when introducing this bill.
I unconditionally support the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) when he says that it is unfortunate that the government did not have the intelligence to specify what is meant by the humane slaughter of animals.
We have been accustomed to hearing criticism from the former members of the opposition who, today, are cabinet ministers. We have become accustomed to their habit of including, in the various measures they bring down, quite arbitrary powers conferred upon the ministers. They were very critical of this sort of thing when we were in power, but now that they sit on the government benches, this principle does not seem in the least objectionable to them.
I don't know what methods the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) will decide upon in applying this legislation called "an act to provide for the humane slaughter

Humane Slaughter of Food Animals of food animals" but I warn him of the heavy risk of doing much harm to small slaughter-houses and small industries.
Something which amused me-perhaps I should not say it amused me, because it has been going on since 1857-is that the committee of agriculture and colonization, before which all kinds of experts have appeared, had among its members my colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Brassard). Mr. Brassard owns a slaughter-house in Chicoutimi and the thought never occurred to anyone to invite him to give evidence before the committee in order to ask him to express his opinion about this bill. But, after all, he is but a member of parliament. Why should he have been called as a witness?


An hon. Member:: He is not a Liberal.


Augustin Brassard: No, he is not a
Liberal, but strange as it may seem he is a man with common sense.
Mr. Speaker, another provision which surprises me, is the six months' to a year's imprisonment provided for those who fail to comply with the law. There again, that surprises me enormously. I fully understand that a fine of $500 or $2,000 may be imposed on a man who breaks the regulations, but I hardly understand why a human being should be imprisoned for having broken regulations governing the slaughter of animals.
However, Mr. Speaker, the main point which I should like to emphasize before I resume my seat, is the possibility of harming the small industry in our province. I am not speaking on behalf of the other provinces- I don't know what conditions prevail there- but I would imagine they are largely the same as in our province. I am sure that if the government is not careful in drawing up its regulations-in keeping with its arbitrary way of doing things-it will cause great harm to our small industry. If the Minister of Agriculture has any idea of the regulations he is about to enact, I would ask him to tell me what he thinks about that danger.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I must advise the house that if the Minister of Agriculture speaks now he will close the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Be brief.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think most members of the house will agree-certainly I have never had any other idea in my mind-that the bill is a thoroughly non-partisan measure. As a


matter of fact, the speeches which have been made from both sides of the house have indicated agreement with the principle of the bill and with the idea that there should be some legislation respecting humane slaughter. Therefore I think that demonstrates the fact that the bill is not a party matter in any way. It is a government bill because it is the responsibility of the government to deal with matters of this kind. Therefore I was somewhat sorry, shall I say, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and other members of the Liberal party should introduce a partisan attitude in connection with the bill and start making accusations that the government was taking arbitrary power, that the government was attempting to rule by order in council under the provisions of the bill, and things of that sort.
As I see the bill, I have always considered it-and I think most other people have done the same-as an entirely non-partisan matter. Certainly there is no idea in any way to take arbitrary powers or to attempt to rule by order in council through this bill. The only criticisms there seem to be over the bill are two in number. One is that the bill should be in a somewhat different form from that in which it is. The Leader of the Opposition, 1 think it was, said that this is government by order in council and the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) said that this was arbitrary power being exercised and so on. As a matter of fact, I think everybody who has ever had anything to do with the matter of providing legislation to deal with humane slaughter recognizes the fact that it is an extremely difficult matter to deal with. I imagine that the reason that the previous government never got around to introducing a bill to deal with this matter was the very fact of the difficulties that it presented, including difficulties of definition, difficulties as to the way in which to do it, and in fact difficulties of all kinds.
We have been attempting to bring in a bill providing for humane slaughter since we first came into power some two years ago. Hon. members will perhaps recall that we introduced a bill in the first session in 1957. When it was introduced it was stated that it was introduced so that it could be studied and so that people concerned with and interested in the matter could make representations as to whether they thought it was a reasonable bill and a proper way in which to deal with the matter. The same bill was reintroduced in the next session which was the session prior to this one. Then all kinds of objections came about it. That bill was in the form of an amendment to the

Criminal Code. It became quite apparent that there was no means at all of getting any sort of agreement on that particular bill or a bill like it. As a result of that discovery we sent this whole matter for study to the committee on agriculture and colonization. That committee studied the matter, as has been indicated, over a long period of time and with great care and they brought in certain recommendations. This bill is intended to carry into effect and it will carry into effect the recommendations of that committee.
The statement has been made many times today that it is not carrying into effect the recommendations of the committee. Everybody in this house knows that every bill dealing with matters that require any sort of detailed regulations have a provision that regulations may be made covering various points or covering the matter dealt with. Every bill has a provision of that sort. This particular bill provides that regulations may be made for the purpose of ensuring humane slaughtering of animals in establishments, regulations respecting the manner of slaughter and the methods and the devices to be employed in slaughtering food animals in establishments. I can assure the house now that the recommendations of the committee in connection with that matter and the opinions expressed in the committee will be followed out in as complete detail as possible in drawing up these regulations and ensuring that the findings of the committee or the opinions expressed by the committee are carried into effect.
The complaint was made by the hon. member for Ottawa West, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl), and I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), although I am not sure of that, that in this act there is not a definition of humane slaughter. I have never yet seen a satisfactory definition of humane slaughter. Every definition which has been proposed has certainly met with considerable objection. It is a practical impossibility to give a definition of humane slaughter which you can put into legislative form in an act. The only practical way of dealing with that matter is to have a long list spelling out in detail the things which can be done and which are accepted as humane and the things which cannot be done and which are held to be inhumane. Things of that sort are things which can be covered in regulations. Those are things which regulations are meant to cover. They are not the sort of things which should fill up page after page of a bill of this kind. That is the reason why the bill is in this form.
Humane Slaughter of Food Animals
In addition to that, I am given to understand that the committee paid some attention to a sort of model bill or draft bill to deal with this matter; and the type of bill which I believe the committee looked at, which they considered to be satisfactory, is exactly this type of bill. The whole purpose is, as I say, to carry into effect the recommendations of the committee and that is going to be done.
There is only one other point that I think I should mention. The hon. member for Cartier and I think the hon. member-


George James McIlraith: Will the minister permit a question before he leaves the subject of the draft bill before the committee?


Douglas Scott Harkness: All right.


George James McIlraith: Would he give us some
reference showing where that was dealt with? I want to get that point clarified. Would he not agree that no draft bill was dealt with by the committee, that one was submitted when his colleague was dealing with the type of legislation, that is whether by Criminal Code or by the control of slaughtering establishments under federal jurisdiction, and that bill was withdrawn from the consideration of the committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was not in the committee. I do not know exactly what went on in the committee. However, my understanding was that a bill very similar to this one was considered in the committee and that the committee was favourable to a bill of that kind. In any event the only practical type of bill which we found could be introduced is the type of bill that has been introduced.
As I have said, this is a matter on which there have been discussions for years; and up to the present time it has not been possible to find any type of legislation which it was thought would be practical and workable and which would deal with the matter. We think that this type of legislation will meet all those requirements and will ensure that humane slaughtering methods do prevail in this country.
The hon. member for Cartier and the hon. member for Ottawa West raised the question as to whether there might be some infringement of religious rights as far as this bill is concerned. Nothing is further from the minds of the government or anybody on this side of the house or, I would think, anybody in this chamber. I can see no way in which any religious rights will be infringed by this bill. As I have indicated, the regulations which will be drawn up will be in accordance with the recommendations made by the committee on agriculture and

Humane Slaughter of Food Animals all rights as tar as ritual slaughter is concerned will be preserved in accordance with the recommandations made, number 7 of which states:
Humane methods of slaughter shall be deemed to include-
(ii) schechita (the Hebrew term for slaughter) as practised in compliance with Hebrew religious requirements;
As I say, why any question should be raised on this matter is something I do not understand. There is absolutely no reason why any question along that line should be raised on this matter is something I do not is any question whatsoever that anybody's religious rights, liberties or anything else along that line are in danger in any way whatever by this bill.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) raised the question really as to how it could be that 80 per cent of the animals slaughtered will be covered by this bill. In any particular province that might not be 80 per cent. It might be more than 80 per cent in one province and in another province it might be less than 80 per cent. But in Canada as a whole at least 80 per cent of the animals slaughtered will be covered by this bill for the reason that all slaughtering establishments which come under the Meat Inspection Act-which takes in establishments which cover over 80 per cent of the animals slaughtered-will be covered by this legislation.
If one of these establishments does not meet the regulations laid down as provided in clause 3, that institution will not be eligible for meat inspection, and so forth, and therefore they will not be able to ship their products out, and will not be able to have them branded and certified for health purposes. As a matter of fact, that would mean they could not carry on operations, because every one of these plants ships meat to various places all over and has to have this meat inspection in order to stay in business. Therefore the only slaughter not covered by this is slaughtering done on farms by farmers themselves, and in small slaughter-houses where they have just a local trade, and things along that line, and some which have a trade over a small area within a province and therefore do not come under the Meat Inspection Act. But practically all institutions of any size whatever come under the Meat Inspection Act and will, therefore, be covered by this act.
The hon. member for Vancouver East also asked a question. He asked why the methods which have been used successfully in European countries cannot be introduced into this act. There is a considerable amount of argument over whether some of the methods used

in European countries are humane and should be authorized or not. There was a committee jointly sponsored by the meat packers' council and the Canadian humane society-I am not sure whether it was the Canadian humane society, but it was some society for the prevention of cruelty to animals-which included one of the veterinarians from the Department of Agriculture, and that committee went over to Europe and visited all these various slaughtering plants, examined these devices and so forth, and their report on some of the methods was not too favourable. That is one of the reasons why we thought some of the methods used over there should not be specified.
As a matter of fact, although there are various methods which we do think are thoroughly humane at the present time, there is no doubt that many more will be added later. It may be that some of these might be considered, at some future time, not as humane as some others which develop. Therefore, in order to carry into effect and keep in effect a thoroughly humane system of slaughtering in this country, it is better not to have something bound down too firmly in the act. We can deal with the matter by regulation by which you are allowed a certain amount of flexibility to deal with new methods as they come along.
Mr. Speaker, there is just one other point which I thought perhaps I should mention. The hon. member for Ottawa West mentioned the United States bill. I would just like to point out to him, although I think perhaps he already knows it, that that bill has no comparison with this bill whatever because it deals only with meat purchased by government agencies.


George James McIlraith: That is because it is the only jurisdiction they have.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is not a bill of general application like this at all; it is a bill which deals only with the meat purchased by the government itself, and therefore there is no comparison between it and this bill. The example which the hon. member for Cartier gave with regard to that bill does not enter into it.


George James McIlraith: It is dealt with in clause 2.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But for practical purposes it does not enter into it.


George James McIlraith: Will the hon. minister permit a question?
Mr Harkness: All right, go ahead.


George James McIlraith: Would he not agree that the United States bill dealt with all slaughtering done over which the federal authority

there has jurisdiction, just as our bill here deals with that slaughtering done over which this federal authority has jurisdiction.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know about that. What I do know is that it deals with a very, very small proportion of the slaughtering done in the United States, whereas this bill deals with 80 per cent or more of the slaughtering done in Canada. Therefore the two bills, as I say, do not bear much comparison with one another.
Mr. Speaker, I think they are really all the points which were brought forward, and I would hope that we might go on and get this bill brought into effect without, shall I say, controversy over minor points, rather than the main thing which I think everybody has in mind, and that is to get into effect a practical means of humane slaughter.


Augustin Brassard: I wonder if the minister would permit a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I am sorry; when the minister spoke he closed the debate, but we are going into committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
(Translation):
Mr. Ratelle:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if it would not have been much better to include in the bill a definition of the word "cruelty", because in fact whenever a food animal is bled or slaughtered, some form of cruelty is inflicted. I would therefore like to know, because just about anybody could be doing this and thus lay himself open to prosecution. That, in my view, is why the bill should define what is understood by "cruelty" or "inhumane slaughter".
(Text):
Mr. Her ridge: Mr. Chairman, just a word or two; I was delayed on personal business. I am very pleased to see this legislation come before the house because it has been requested by numbers of organizations and individuals throughout the years. I remember bringing it up in 1956 when the then minister of justice insisted that it was a matter which came within provincial jurisdiction. I want to congratulate the humane societies across Canada for their persistence in seeking this legislation before this parliament, and for their representations before the agriculture and colonization committee. I also want to congratulate the committee. I have read their report and I thought it was a very succinct and purposeful report.
I am very pleased at this legislation. I have been interested in this subject through-
Humane Slaughter of Food Animals out the years, and I am sure it will ensure the more humane slaughtering of animals in Canada than at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, this bill refers only to certain species of animals, such as cattle, swine, sheep, goats or horses. I must frankly admit I have not attended every meeting of the committee which dealt with the matter of the humane slaughter of animals; as a matter of fact, perhaps I should say that I was not too interested, because I do not believe that at the present time, animals are slaughtered by such inhumane methods.
I worked four years in slaughter-houses as a meat grader, and I am not prepared to say there was any cruelty in the slaughtering methods.
If it is claimed that such inhumane methods are used in the slaughtering of animals, particularly swine, why are not chickens, as well as dogs and cats, mentioned in the bill' (Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are not many people who I know of living in this country who make a practice of eating cats and dogs. They are not included because they are not looked upon as food animals.


Samuel Boulanger: I asked the minister about chickens and turkeys.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Chickens come under the category of birds rather than food animals and this bill was meant to deal specifically with the ordinary food animals-cattle, sheep, hogs and so forth, not with poultry.


George James McIlraith: Since this clause defines the word "establishment" it gives me the opportunity to say something which has not yet been said so far in this discussion and which, I think, ought to be said. It would be quite wrong to have the impression go out that the practices generally used in these establishments with which we are concerned are inhumane. There was considerable evidence that many of the plants and packing firms had a real concern about the subject and were trying to do everything possible to make their practices humane. I wanted to say that because persons reading this debate might otherwise assume that the committee. found inhumane practices virtually universal in the plants. I think the minister would agree it is proper to say that.
Now I want to ask the minister one or two, questions. First, in connection with the point I raised on second reading, there are two or three methods of dealing with it but one of them would be to define the term "humane

Humane Slaughter of Food Animals slaughter" in this clause of the bill. Would the minister not consider including a definition in this clause? Does the hon. gentleman know of any other legislation in any jurisdiction in the western world where humane slaughter is not dealt within the legislation either by way of definition or in a special clause?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly as far as we in Canada are concerned I know of no definition of humane slaughter which is satisfactory to everybody concerned with this matter, and therefore I do not know of any definition which I could introduce into this bill.


George James McIlraith: But surely there are two ways of bringing in a definition. There is the exclusive method and there is the other method of determining certain practices which are deemed to be humane and others which are not. This is a non-exclusive definition but it has a great deal of virtue about it because it is a practical method of approaching the problem and accomplishing the purpose desired. I would point out to the minister that all the legislation I have seen on this subject in the western world provides in the enactment something which is a guide to what is considered by the legislative body as being humane slaughter. Having said that, I want to ask the minister why in the absence of anything better he did not use what the committee of which he has spoken so highly specifically recommended to this house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The committee did not
recommend that any definition of humane slaughter should be written into the bill.


Mr. Small:: Following on those lines, may I remind the committee that when this bill was first introduced it was placed on the order paper by the Minister of Justice in ample time for the sole purpose of enabling everyone interested in it to make representations and complaints or objections. One of the difficulties encountered by the committee was that the representatives of the humane societies, the packinghouses and others who appeared before us found it very hard to agree on precisely what did constitute humane methods of slaughter. Then we found that some of the larger packing stations did have effective machinery but its high price put it beyond the reach of the smaller concerns. In all the circumstances, we found it was almost impossible to define what humane slaughter is.
Nevertheless, the humane societies have been anxious for this legislation to be enacted, they have been demanding it for a long time and, finally, we have something we believe


will be effective. If it is proven to be unsatisfactory, we can correct shortcomings as we go on. 1 would remind hon. members that this is not a partisan proposition. This is an effort to solve a problem which many people regard as extremely important and, as I say, amendments can always be made to improve the act in the light of experience gained.


George James McIlraith: I think the minister has completely missed the point of discussion on humane slaughter. We are not dealing with the question of devices because that obviously has to be handled by regulation. No one is suggesting otherwise, that I know of. The point which has been under consideration is that no guidance whatever on the principle of this bill is given by parliament, and everything is to be determined by the governor in council. That is wholly the wrong way to proceed and, as I have pointed out already, all the legislation I have seen on this subject-including, incidentally, the Criminal Code amendment which was put forward as a proposed amendment to section 387 of the Criminal Code by the government itself, and which was very specific in containing a partial definition-did attempt to make its purpose clear in the legislation itself. I admit that the definition cannot be exclusive, but surely one could be provided. Of course, there must be regulations in the act dealing with devices and so on. But there is this big gap to be filled. The subject of this legislation is mentioned in the name of the act; thereafter it is not dealt with in the legislation, but merely turned over to the governor in council. It is a thoroughly wrong principle and proceeding. The governor in council should be given power only to make regulations for the carrying out of the act, but the act should define what parliament was seeking to do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In response to these allegations that this is government by order in council I can only say that this bill is really on all fours with the Meat Inspection Act and numerous others dealing with agricultural matters passed by the former government which are very brief acts and which have appended to them a thick volume of regulations. These are complex matters that have to be gone into in great detail and the only practical way of dealing with these questions is by means of regulations.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I believe we should look at this bill as legislators at this point. We are legislating law. We admit we are legislating a law that is only 80 per cent applicable. I believe most lawyers would agree that as a theory in law that is bad. You cannot legislate for a section,

portion or a certain classification of the community. The law is for everybody. I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that the bill leaves 20 per cent of the people free to slaughter by inhumane methods. They cannot be prosecuted under the terms of this bill for slaughtering inhumanely. I believe that is a bad philosophy and theory.
We can state in the regulations that slaughtering animals by certain inhumane methods is a contravention of the law but it is only a contravention for some and not for others. I would ask the minister to consider the matter carefully in an attempt to find a way of making the law applicable to everybody in Canada. I realize the difficulty and we discussed it in the committee but as lawmakers I believe we are in error when we try to legislate for 80 per cent of the people only.
I was looking at the offences outlined in the bill. It is an odd thing but a man can commit an offence as defined here and will not be prosecuted if the offence is not committed in an establishment as defined in the act. We debated that in committee, too. I urged the minister to attempt to devise legislation in some form that will be applicable to all Canadians.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I can only say that this great principle of law which the hon. member for Cartier has been trying to expound as being highly desirable has been noticeably absent in most of the legislation brought forward by the former government during its 22 years in office, the government of which he was a supporter. This is true of practically all agricultural acts. For example, the Meat Inspection Act to which we have just referred applies only to meat slaughtered in certain establishments taking in about 80 per cent of the total. The labour laws as far as the Canadian government is concerned apply only to those people working on railways, elevators and things of that sort which come under federal jurisdiction. As a matter of fact the Railway Act does not apply to the P.G.E. railway which is entirely within the province of British Columbia. The principle the hon. member is trying to establish applies to very few laws that are passed. The only law I know of to which it really applies is the Criminal Code.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am always surprised to hear the minister refer to the conduct of the former administration as justification for the action taken by his government. I may point out to him that his government was elected to change everything that was done in the last
Humane Slaughter of Food Animals 22 years but his government has not done so yet. There is not even a definition in the bill.
Before I proceed I wish to state I do not believe there is any real danger to the religious beliefs of anyone arising out of the bill as presently framed and we should rest at ease on that point but I feel it should be amended so it would be clearer and satisfy those who have reasonable grounds for suspicion on the subject.
The following paragraphs are taken from the report of the committee which dealt with this bill:
Humane methods of slaughter shall be deemed to include
(1)	shooting.
(ii) schechita (the Hebrew term for slaughter) as practised in compliance with Hebrew religious requirements:
Humane methods of pre-slaughter shall be deemed to include
(i)	stunning with a mechanical stunner,
(ii)	certain electrical stunning methods,
(iii)	the use of anaesthetizing agents.
If this were included in the bill as a definition it would satisfy the fears of the people who are presently concerned about the matter. Both the Jewish and Mohammedan peoples have special methods of killing animals that are somewhat similar. The Mohammedans open the main artery in the throat and consider this to be a very good method of killing animals. The hon. member for Ottawa West asked if it was the intention to introduce an amendment to this effect and the minister did not seem prepared to propose such an amendment. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West:
That clause 2 be amended by adding thereto another subsection (d) to read as follows:
Humane methods of slaughter shall be deemed to include:
(1)	shooting
(2)	schechita (the Hebrew term for slaughter) as practised in compliance with Hebrew religious requirements.
Humane methods of pre-slaughter shall be deemed to include:
(1)	stunning with a mechanical stunner,
(2)	certain electrical stunning methods,
(3)	the use of anaesthetizing agents.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 19; nays, 57.


Charles Edward Rea: I declare the amendment lost.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I was misunderstood or if I did not explain myself clearly when I mentioned poultry. What puzzles me is that this bill proposes to establish humane slaughtering methods for hogs, cattle, sheep, goats or horses, and does not cover poultry.

Humane Slaughter of Food Animals I suggest that it particular humane methods are to be employed in slaughtering animals, all of them should be covered.
Moreover, in considering the bill as a whole, we find that it makes no sense, practically speaking, for slaughter-houses in general.
As I said a moment ago, I am a little familiar with slaughtering methods because I have worked in many slaughtering-houses where I was an inspector, and I never felt that animals were being slaughtered inhumanely. Instead of taking up so much time as was done by the committee of agriculture and colonization in considering that question, consideration should have been given to ways of preventing animals from devouring humans.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, all I can say to that is that the committee which considered this matter did not recommend that poultry should be included because, as I understand it, they felt that the present methods, as far as poultry are concerned, are satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Compliance with regulations prescribing manner of slaughter. (Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, section 3 reads:
No person shall export out of Canada, or send or convey from one province to another, any meat product prepared in an establishment unless
(a) the food animal from which the meat product was derived was slaughtered in the manner prescribed by the regulations-
Of course, Mr. Chairman, we do not know the regulations yet, and I think we are still far from being informed about them, for the good reason that nobody seems to know what they will be like. Reference has been made to new methods of slaughter but none has been suggested. I wonder if small local slaughter-houses, which have a capital of $25,000, $50,000 or $75,000 will be able to pay for the cost of new facilities when the new regulations are enforced. The hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) mentioned some facilities in Toronto which had cost $250,000. If owners of small packing plants are forced to set up new devices for the slaughtering of animals, I am afraid the cost will be too high and their business will no longer pay.
Mr. Chairman, as we are considering the various sections of the bill, I find that there is no sense to it. I believe the minister should consider putting off the passing of this legislation until the next session, so that we may study and suggest appropriate methods for packing plants including the small local slaughter-houses.


Mr. Flynn:: You could have voted against the bill on second reading.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska has just indicated he is against the legislation. He says it should not be passed; it should be held over. He has recited all the arguments which were made for years as to why it was impossible to bring in a humane slaughter bill. I think the time has passed for that. On second reading he had an opportunity to give the reasons why he was against the general principle of the bill. He did not do it on second reading. I do not think he should go on now to make the various arguments against the principle of the bill.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I have a feeling that the minister has not understood me. I did say at the beginning of my remarks that I was not opposed to the bill. I am not opposed to the principle of the bill, but to the lack of explanations with regard to the methods that will be applied.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Regulations.
George James McIlraith: I have just one matter here. I think the minister would not want to leave a wrong impression. He said a moment ago the reason that the committee did not deal with the slaughter of poultry was that they found the present methods humane. That is not quite accurate. The reason they did not deal with that subject was that the reference to the committee dealt only with food animals and poultry are not animals; therefore the committee did not deal with the subject at all. I think I am stating that as a fact and I think the minister's remarks should be corrected for the record.
I want to point out as briefly as I can on clause 4 that what parliament is doing here is giving the governor in council power that would enable it to interfere with and take away certain religious freedoms practised in this country. I find that to be a repugnant thing to do. The reason that that can be done under this clause is that the minister has failed to delineate what is humane slaughter, or even to adopt the amendment which did provide that certain religious practices were found to be humane. I am not for a minute suggesting the government would take away religious freedom; far from it. But I am pointing out that this committee is giving the governor in council power

to do that very thing and I am quite sure that that is repugnant to all members on all sides of the house who think about the subject.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that on this matter of regulations I am not particularly worried that governor in council will be making them. I am very interested not only in humane slaughtering of animals but in other matters.
I think one of the major accomplishments of the committee in the work that it did was in bringing out some of the problems that were connected with packing plants. This was in relation to the fact that platforms are improper, ramps are not suitably built for the animals they are slaughtering. The matter of hoisting received a great deal of attention from the committee and the fact that the shackles being used on animals were probably more inhumane than the most brutal method of killing. They were more inhumane than some of the methods of handling these animals. I would have liked the minister to give more consideration to including some of these other factors as part and parcel of this bill and that would be against all the regulations.
If we leave it to interpretation, as usually happens with regulations, then the full wishes of the committee will not be realized because of the fact that these things will not be spelled out. There are many considerations which would make it difficult for some packing plants to put in the type of equipment required and they involve religious rites and all that sort of thing. From the evidence received from departmental officials I would say that the method of handling was more inhumane in most cases than the methods being used generally throughout the country with regard to slaughter.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I really do not like to see this kind of provision so far as the governor in council is concerned. Clause 4 reads:
The governor in council may, for the purpose of ensuring humane slaughter of food animals in an establishment, make regulations respecting the manner of, and methods and devices to be employed in, the slaughter of food animals in an establishment.
I would rather see a provision like that in the slaughter of animals act of England, 1958, clause 9, where it is provided as follows:
Any power to make regulations under this act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either house of parliament.
I think this would really protect the rights of parliament to decide upon the regulations which are to be made. There would be greater control over these regulations and I believe
Humane Slaughter of Food Animals the minister should present an amendment to this effect before we decide about the bill. Everybody is in favour of the bill. Everybody knows that we have to do something about the inhumane slaughtering of animals, but I think that in preparing the bill thought should have been given to the fact that parliament should always be in control of everything that is decided on behalf of the people of this country. I would ask the minister to try to express this in a clearer way so that parliament may have something to say about it.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, the slaughter of animals act of England clearly gives the governor in council the authority to make regulations much as this bill does but the United Kingdom legislation controls the nature of the regulations that can be made. For example, section 1, subsection 2 reads as follows:
Regulations under this section may make such incidental or consequential provision as may appear to the minister to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the regulations-
They must be consequential provisions and they must be incidental to the measure itself. Section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (b) reads as follows:
-by such other means as may, by regulations made by the minister after consultation with such organizations as appear to him to represent the interests concerned-
I simply point out that blanket authority is not given for legislation by order in council. It is an authority that allows these regulations to be made by order in council-


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member does not mind I should like to point out that the provision gives authority to the minister to go ahead and do these things rather than to the governor in council.


Leon David Crestohl: But it is controlled authority and, as the hon. member for Hull pointed out, it is always subject to annulment. I realize that the House of Commons cannot detail all the regulations as to how large a certain pen should be, how many cattle should be kept in a certain room or as to the incline of a certain ramp. These are details which can be worked out by the officials and put in the form of regulations but regulations which have to do with the very essence of the matter, which say what is a humane method, are the concern of parliament. We have gone over that a number of times already. I think the regulations should be restricted to the matter itself but unfortunately the minister has not given parliament any meat in this bill. Yes, that is a pun on the word "meat". I actually

Humane Slaughter oj Food Animals meant that. The minister has not taken anything into the bill that the committee has recommended after so many weeks of labour. If we had a basis in the bill indicating what humane slaughter is intended to be then we could give authority to make regulations with respect to that which was in the bill but since there is nothing in the bill then any type of legislation can be made, whether or not it is germane to the matter.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, toward the end of my remarks on second reading I asked the minister if he would be kind enough to indicate if he thought there was any danger of doing any harm to the small abattoirs or slaughter-houses as a result of regulations made by the governor in council in this connection. I am sure that the minister must know at this time what the main regulations are but if he does not know surely his officials should know something about it. I should like to have an assurance from the minister that these regulations will not endanger small industries.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, they will not Mr. Chairman. This is one of the things on which the committee heard a good deal of evidence, as I understood the matter. In fact, the only time I was there officials of the farm union and the federation of agriculture were giving evidence on this point. The idea is to draw up regulations which it will be possible for the smaller institutions to meet financially. There are now in existence humane methods of slaughter in the form of a new type of electrical stunner which is quite cheap to install and will probably be satisfactory. It has not received final approval but it probably will be satisfactory. I have no doubt that a type of humane killing which will be within the financial means of the smaller abattoirs will be laid down.	,


William Arnold Peters: Does the minister have in mind giving consideration to the other matters I mentioned to which the committee gave a good deal of consideration?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. As I have stated several times, all the recommendations of the committee will be given full consideration and as far as possible made effective by means of the regulations which are drawn up.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Offences.
Leon David Crestohl: Subclause 2 deals with the nature of evidence. I speak of this matter because it concerns me not only as a member of the house but also as a lawyer. I

should like to ask the minister to explain this subclause which states as follows:
(2) In a prosecution for a violation of this act, it is sufficient proof of the offence to establish that it was committed by an employee or agent of the accused whether or not the employee or agent is identified or has been prosecuted for the offence.
I am concerned with the possibility of prosecuting someone and not identifying the person who committed the offence as being the agent of the man being prosecuted. Anyone can do something which is an offence under the act. It can be a passerby, a trespasser or a stranger who may commit an offence. It is found that an offence has been committed and then you proceed to prosecution. I think it is unfair to say that the man who committed the offence should not necessarily be identified as the agent of the accused. I think it is a fallacy in criminal law or criminal procedure not to be able to identify the man who committed the offence as being the agent of him whom you prosecute. I think that the theory of criminal law would certainly be exploded if that were made possible by any legislation of parliament.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is the ordinary provision really, that the employer is responsible for the actions of his agent or employee in matters of this kind. You have the same sort of thing in the Seeds Act which we amended here a little while ago. The same question was raised in connection with the Seeds Act. The only difference here is whether or not the employee or agent is identified. That is the only difference here at all. The reason that is so is this, as these animals go along on the rail there may be two or three people at fault and it may be impossible to identify exactly which one was at fault. The fault may be shared among four or five. For example, an animal might not have been sufficiently stunned. The interval between the time it was stunned and the time it was bled and thus finally completely dead might be too long. Who is responsible? It is impossible to determine whether it was the man who did the stunning who was responsible or whether it was the man who was supposed to do the next operation; he let too long go by and so on. You might have a series of three or four things along that line and it is impossible to say that A, B, C or D was the one who was responsible. This provision is to make it possible to prosecute when you have what is definitely a contravention of the act without having to say, "John Jones was the man who was responsible for the contravention".


Leon David Crestohl: I am glad the minister gave us that explanation. But did I understand the

minister to say that in any event you would have to identify the individual as an employee? That would be a point of identification. That is some explanation but certainly not a satisfactory one from the criminal law point of view.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6

Inspectors.
George James McIlraith: I just want to draw the attention of the minister to one thing. I invite him to consider further, before dealing with it in the other place, whether or not this clause does what it was intended to do.
I take it that what he is seeking to do is to provide the inspectors operating under this act with sufficient power to carry out the provisions of the act and in order to do that is seeking to give them powers which are given inspectors under the Meat Inspection Act. I invite his further technical consideration to the clause in order to see whether it does what he intends it to do and ask that it be looked at.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should be glad to have it looked at. The fact is, of course, that a large number of these inspectors will be the same men. We are not going to set up a duplicate set of inspectors. The inspectors under the Meat Inspection Act will also be inspectors under this act.


George James McIlraith: My point was really technical as to the reading of the clause. It does not seem to give the inspectors the power to carry out their duties under this act.


Leon David Crestohl: Certainly the committee is satisfied-and certainly I have the utmost confidence in the statement of the minister-that the safeguards will be provided for the preservation of religious freedom in the country. But at the same time I think that an assurance of that kind is far safer when it is made the law. Since this is legislation which might in some way, as the discussion has clearly disclosed,	interfere with
or invade or deprive	certain people
of rights which they now enjoy, I should like to see incorporated in the bill a clause to read as follows, and I move it as an amendment which is seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West.


The Chairman:: Before the hon. member reads it, may we pass clause 6?


Leon David Crestohl: Certainly.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 6
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member for Cartier may continue.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Leon David Crestohl: I shall simply proceed from where I left off. I was about to read the proposed amendment. It reads as follows:
That the act be amended by adding thereto section 7 to read as follows:
"Nothing in this act shall invade or otherwise interfere with any religious rights and practices presently enjoyed by anyone in Canada."
I think that the minister, in taking the generous view that he took and in wanting to assure the country that these rights will be preserved, should accept this amendment. It certainly would give reassurance. The minister is here today. He may be in another office next year or two or three years from now. Yet we will not have the provision in the law. As I said, this amendment clearly safeguards those principles which I said during my address on second reading we do not want to disturb by legislating another worth-while principle.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with this
amendment I would just say that one of the difficulties with it is that it is in such general terms. Owing to the fact that there is in the act no definition of religious rights and practices, I would be doubtful that this is good legislation.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 18; nays, 64.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General Administration-
380. Departmental administration, including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $2,636,084.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Chairman, when we were considering this item on June 25 I agreed to answer those who had spoken when we next were on the estimates, and I think perhaps I might do that right now. We had a useful contribution to the debate on the opening item by hon. members on the other side of the house, and they raised some questions which are worthy of comment.
The Leader of the Opposition dealt chiefly with recent trade developments with the proposed Atlantic free trade community, and he mentioned trade with Japan and discussed the subject of uranium. I pointed out in my earlier remarks that the annual report of the department had been enlarged on this occasion in its earlier part in order to deal somewhat more comprehensively with general
6092	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce trade policy and trade activities, and some of the problems that were raised have been covered fairly fully in the annual report. But in answer to the Leader of the Opposition I would say that we are following very carefully developments in Europe. We have a clear appreciation of their significance, not only for our exports but for world trade generally. In the sessions of GATT in 1957 and 1958, when I was present at the meetings, we made the point that we hoped the development of the common market in Europe would not be restrictive in its nature and that barriers would not be raised against trade. It is important to recall that the members of the six nations who comprise that common market in Europe are all members of GATT and have obligations under that international arrangement.
The Leader of the Opposition drew attention this year, as he did last year and on other occasions, to the need, as he put it, to work out some special form of North American association with the European economic grouping in order-I think this is what was in his mind-to avoid having the world get into the position where trading blocs are established with barriers raised among them, whereas the policy pursued by Canada over the years has been to promote multilateral trade. That policy is being pursued at the present time and our trade is extensive throughout the world with most countries of the world.
His suggestion, however, is certainly worthy of consideration because the closer are the economic ties between the North American continent and western Europe the better for us all because of our other arrangements with those countries within NATO. When Dr. Hallstein, the president of the European economic commission, was in Ottawa two or three weeks ago the Canadian point of view was presented to him and he showed his appreciation of that point of view, namely that barriers should not be raised against trade between our country and the countries of the common market.
On the subject of Japan, the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly stressed the importance of our trade with that country. It is a trade which has been developing over the years and we share his view completely. In the forum of GATT we have expressed our interest in giving Japan the full arrangements which are available under GATT and have urged that other countries do the same as we are doing. It is important that the economy of Japan be strengthened and we are co-operating closely with Japan toward that end. It is one of the major trading countries of the world today.


It is a country with whom we are developing quite a substantial trade, and we find that Japan is either second or third best customer for our Canadian wheat. The difficulties that we have been experiencing with Japan with some of her imports are being cleared away. Very useful discussions have been held with the Japanese looking toward a modification of their exports to this country, particularly in the field of textiles. Those conversations with the Japanese representatives have been, as I say, very useful, and I think results are being achieved.
I cannot deal at as great length as I might with all the matters raised in discussion with hon. members opposite, but I would like to discuss some of the problems raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West who has over the years been very much interested in Canada's trade. He asked several questions with regard to our trade with the West Indies, and of course last year in the house he raised this problem on another occasion when there was a rather extensive debate. The West Indies is an important area for Canadian trade and has been so for generations. We are attempting to maintain and strengthen our trade relations with the West Indies and from the experience I had there just over a year ago, visiting the West Indies, I received the impression that they were equally interested in enlarging their trade with Canada. It is an important market for us. In 1957, Canada provided about 10 per cent of the total imports of the West Indies and a much higher proportion of their purchases of certain individual products such as flour, potatoes, salt cod and pickled meats.
There has been some change in the pattern of trade with the West Indies of recent years. We have not increased our sale of fish and flour to the extent that we would like, but these products do not now represent as large a proportion of the import market as they did in the past. In machinery and equipment there has been a marked increase in the requirements of the West Indies. We find that our exports are generally competitive in the West Indies. In some products we have increased our share of the West Indian market and I mention specifically bacon and ham, leather, motor cars and clothing. The West Indies represents an important market for manufactured goods from Canada and there is scope for an expansion of Canadian sales in this field. Hon. members realize that there have been restrictions on West Indian trade because of balance of payments reasons but these restrictions are being relaxed and new opportunities are being opened up for Canadian exporters.

We had a visit last year from the minister of trade for Jamaica and I recall his remarks to Canadian businessmen urging them to be more active in visiting the West Indies and attempting to arrange business there. Last winter a strong contingent of Canadian businessmen did visit the West Indies and they explored the market for themselves. At the same time, under the auspices of the Canadian government, a Canadian trade fair was in operation, first at Kingston, Jamaica and subsequently at Port of Spain, Trinidad.
The West Indies is, of course, a competitive market and competition is felt from Britain, the United States and other countries. The hon. member for Ottawa West raised the question of our trade with the West Indies in its currency aspect. Last year at the commonwealth conference we had a discussion with the United Kingdom and the West Indian representatives on that very matter, and it was agreed, and I quote from the report of that conference:
That joint consideration be given to all matters designed to improve and strengthen existing trade ties and ensure the closest possible trading relationship between the West Indies and Canada.
The removal of restrictions which has been taking place in the United Kingdom and in various countries of the commonwealth has also been taking place in the West Indies, and there is a relaxation of the restriction of imports from dollar countries.
With regard to the trade agreement with the West Indies which the hon. member for Ottawa West also mentioned we recognize -and it was recognized by the conference at Montreal-that a revision of the existing trade agreeement of 1926 between Canada and the West Indies would be necessary but it is dependent upon the establishment of a customs union in the West Indies Federation. The preparatory work for that has been under way for some time, and if it is advanced sufficiently by the latter part of this year we expect to hold trade discussions then with representatives of the West Indies to consider whether or not the trade agreement of 1926 might be extended.
The hon. member also raised the question of capital development in the West Indies and wondered whether or not Canada is playing her part in that. Canadian investment in the West Indies at the end of 1957 amounted to $130 million, exclusive of banks and insurance companies. That is a marked increase as compared with the figure for 1951 when Canadian investments stood at only $25 million. So there has been a five-fold increase in that period. That compares with the United States investment in the West Indies of $235 million at the end of 1956, the latest figure I have available. Canadian
Supply-Trade and Commerce banks and insurance companies have been very active in the West Indies for years. Four Canadian banks have branches there and ten Canadian insurance companies are established. In addition, various Canadian companies are operating in the West Indies. Without making the list complete, I mention light and power companies, companies manufacturing food products, optical supplies and woollen textiles. There is also, of course, the activities of Aluminium Limited which has developed bauxite products and produces refined alumina for shipment to Canada. There are also stores, machine shops, coastal and river steamers and ships carrying the trade between Canada and the West Indies.
The hon. member for Ottawa West also dealt with our trade with Japan and indicated some concern about a drop in our export sales to Japan last year compared with 1957. There was a drop in our exports of barley but an increase in our wheat and flour exports which went up from $68.5 million in 1957 to $71 million in 1958. The drop in barley exports was due to the fact that there was a bumper rice crop in Japan, and barley in that country is a substitute food for rice, so the requirement was not as great. In the first five months of 1959, taking this as the period for which the latest figures are available, exports to Japan amounted to $44.9 million compared with $40.3 million for the same period in 1958. I have already mentioned our intention to develop as far as we can our trade with Japan.
There was some discussion with regard to our general trade, contributed to by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Ottawa West. They were dealing with one month whereas I had been dealing with the figures in my possession for the period of five months.
Of the first five months of the present year, only in January were Canada's exports to the United States lower than in the corresponding month of 1958. In each of the four succeeding months, that is, February, March, April and May, they were higher and in the five month period as a whole amounted to $1,186 million compared with $1,135 million in the same period of 1958, an increase of 4J per cent.
There was some criticism of my remark to the effect that the increase in Canada's imports had been shared by all the major trading areas and some questions were raised in regard to that. My reference to imports was based, not upon particular selected months but upon all months in the year to date for which figures were available; that is, January to April inclusive. The totals for this period show an increase in imports

Supply-Trade and Commerce from the United Kingdom, the commonwealth countries, the United States and all other countries considered together. Comparing imports for the first five months of 1959 with the corresponding period two years ago shows purchases from the United Kingdom up by 6 per cent and purchases from the United States down by 12 per cent. These figures indicate that the position of British relative to United States goods in the Canadian market remains substantially better than in the early part of 1957.
The hon. member for Ottawa West raised a number of questions concerning the exports of surplus farm products. This, if course, overlaps with the Department of Agriculture. I believe the hon. member was concerned as to whether the sale of some of these agricultural products abroad would interfere with our general trade picture. My understanding is that in all these sales care is taken so that there will be no interference with our trade in general and so there will be no accusation of practising anything in the way of an unfair method in trade. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, of course, could give a more specific answer in this regard.
In selling our surpluses in export markets every effort is made to ensure that these sales will not give rise to repercussions in our international trade relations with other countries. Before a surplus product is released for export at a subsidized price the country of destination is carefully screened to make certain that we are not causing undue hardship to other suppliers to that market. With this careful screening of exports and through consultation with other governments concerned we have, in the main, been able to export these products without creating serious problems in our commercial relations with other countries.
The hon. member for Ottawa West raised a question with regard to our trade with Italy. It is important to note that a year ago Italy was greatly affected by the world recession. Industrial production levelled off and total imports declined by about 14 per cent. Imports of agricultural products also ran at a lower rate due to substantial improvements in local production. This year developments are more encouraging. Italy's foreign exchange reserves are now at a record level and with the introduction of external convertibility the country is in a position to remove many restrictions on dollar goods. There are also signs of a definite upswing in the Italian economy. We are expecting an improvement in our export sales to Italy as the year progresses.
The hon. member for Fort William asked a question or two with regard to whether

or not we were making a study of international trade and what trips or trade missions were in contemplation by the department. We make a continuing and close study of international trade. Our trade commissioners are continually reporting to the home office. We have a very efficient trade commissioner service and we have an international branch which keeps closely in touch with all the aspects of international trade. We have an efficient service in so far as gaining information with regard to trade abroad is concerned and in passing that information on to our exporters here at home so that business opportunities are brought to the attention of Canadian businessmen. With regard to trade missions, I have nothing to announce at the moment. I believe the hon. member wanted to know about my own activities. I hope to visit some countries during the autumn months if it is at all possible but I am not in a position to indicate at the moment what visits I might undertake.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention to the fact that it is after ten o'clock.


Thomas Miller Bell: Where did you come from?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if under the circumstances the committee would be prepared to sit for a few moments longer. I can bring to a conclusion my comments on the remarks that were made by hon. members on the first item of this department. Hon. members will recall that although we had an opportunity of passing this item on June 25 I agreed that it should stay open for the next period until it came again before the committee. I believe I could complete my comments within five minutes and then if we could pass this item it would speed us on our way quite a bit.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would agree that under the circumstances the minister should be given an opportunity to finish his statement although I am not at all sure that would mean the passing of the first item. We would be quite agreeable to going on after the minister finished his statement until, let us say, eleven o'clock.


Frank Howard: I appreciate that I am in an unpopular position.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is true.


Frank Howard: Within the last few days it has been the tenor of the house to proceed beyond ten o'clock to some indefinite period. If an individual for a valid reason objects to the proceedings going beyond ten o'clock he puts himself in an unfavourable position. If the house wishes to sit beyond ten o'clock

I submit the government on its own initiative should follow the proper procedure of introducing a motion to extend the hours to which the house could conform. I am not prepared to accept the minister's suggestion that we would pass this item but I would not object to giving him five minutes to finish his remarks. I would not go as far as the Leader of the Opposition and agree to sitting until eleven o'clock, unless the government wants to introduce a motion.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is evident that you do not want to co-operate.


Frank Howard: We want to co-operate to the fullest possible extent.


Mr. Ricard:: That is not very far.


Mr. Hellyer:: Typical socialist flexibility.


Frank Howard: If for a valid reason an hon. member objects to an extension of the proceedings beyond ten o'clock everyone is opposed to him. That is the position in which one is put who for a valid reason may object to an extension of the sittings.


Mr. Aiken:: What is your reason?


Frank Howard: Ten o'clock is the hour of closing under the rules. I submit it is most unfair to display an attitude of resentment to one who objects to an extension for a valid reason.


Thomas Miller Bell: And you just love it.


Frank Howard: I am in an unfavourable position in taking this approach.


Murray Douglas Morton: Is it fair for one member to hold up the entire house?


Mr. Palleli:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has suggested that the government should take the initiative in introducing a motion to extend the hours of sitting. I should point out to the hon. gentleman and the house that a general agreement was made by the whips of the parties that we would deal day by day with the extension of the sittings past ten o'clock. I felt that this should be placed on the record. I believe the whip of the Liberal party will confirm my statement as will the hon. member for Kootenay West who sat in on the discussion.


William Arnold Peters: This matter was discussed last night and the record will show what decision was reached. The minister was present when the suggestion was made at that time. We agreed to extend the hours, but we did not make any suggestion that the hours be extended beyond ten o'clock. Hon. members will notice that on today's order paper it says:
Hours of sitting this day: 7.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.
It does not say "7.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m."
66968-9-386
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I can read exactly what Hansard does say. At page 6019 of Hansard the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
The arrangement being that on Wednesday, and on subsequent days, the house assemble in the afternoon at 2.00 rather than 2.30 and assemble again at 7.00 o'clock rather than 8.00, and in addition continue on Wednesday evening from 7.00 to 10.00 or whatever time the house determines.
The suggestion has been made that the house should now determine to sit to 11.00 o'clock and I think my hon. friend does not agree with that.


Frank Howard: No, I am afraid not.
The Depuiy Chairman: Do I understand the suggestion is that the committee will give the Minister of Trade and Commerce unanimous consent to finish his short remarks which he says will take about five minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition has just said, as I heard him read, that we sit until ten o'clock or until such a time as the house will agree to. I see no reason why the house should not agree to sit to a later hour. I do not think it requires unanimous consent.
The Depuiy Chairman: I am sorry, but it does require unanimous consent to do that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: However, Mr. Chairman, I am thankful for the privilege of continuing and I shall restrict these remarks. I hope I do justice to those who raised the questions.
The hon. member for Vancouver East discussed the problem of the alleged control of United States firms over their subsidiaries in this country, and alleged restrictions in the trade of those subsidiaries. He wanted to know whether the department had any knowledge of the companies in Canada which are restricted in their exports by foreign companies abroad which control them. In the ordinary course of its trade activities the department has a continuing interest in knowing what are the export policies of the Canadian companies which seek assistance and where control of those policies lies. This information is requested in the questionnaire which must be completed before a company can be included in the department's confidential exporters' directory. Before we undertake assistance in promoting exports for the subsidiary of a foreign manufacturing company we have to seek an understanding, and readily obtain as a rule any needed assurance that the assistance which we extend will not be diverted to the benefit of production and employment in some other country, but only used for the benefit of Canadian industry.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
This is a problem which is constantly under review, and by means such as I have suggested, and by the process of education and persuasion we are finding that more and more companies are moving in the right direction. That was the burden of two addresses which I made in the United States to United States businessmen in New York and in Chicago last year. I drew attention to the feeling that we have in Canada that there should be freedom for subsidiaries operating in this country and entering into export trade.
The hon. member for Port Arthur and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River raised questions with regard to small businesses which I think might more properly be answered when we come to the section later on in the general estimates.
The hon. member for Port Arthur dealt at some length with testimony which had been given to one of the committees concerning foreign trade and the lack of export credit assistance; but in the interval parliament has passed an amendment to the Export Credits Insurance Act which I think meets that objection.
He drew attention to the fact that our forest industries were having some difficulty, but I note that exports to the United States for the first five months of 1959 show a decided upward trend. Our lumber exports are $29 million above those of the corresponding period last year. Wood pulp exports for the same period are up by $11 million. Newsprint exports so far have not yet equalled the previous year's level but an increase is expected by the time the returns are in for the six months' period.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are the main matters which were raised by hon. members who spoke. There was a contribution made by the hon. member for Saskatoon who drew attention to the need for increased facilities at the port of Churchill. The hon. member for Vancouver South indicated and drew attention to an order which had been received by John Inglis company for a very substantial piece of work in the United States.
These, Mr. Chairman, I think are the comments that I would make at this stage, and as we consider other items in the estimates I will be prepared to answer further questions.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would it be convenient to pass this item, in view of the earlier remarks I made, or does the committee wish to discuss item 1 again?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are some general
observations we would like to make. Perhaps it will not take very long tomorrow morning, but I would prefer to hold them over.


Thomas Miller Bell: Let us go on.


Mr. Eudes:: The C.C.F. will not consent.


Murray Douglas Morton: Stopped by C.C.F. obstruction.


Murdo William Martin: If you want C.C.F. obstruction you can get it.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman who is leading the house confirm the order of business for tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the estimates of trade and commerce and those are to be followed immediately, of course, by the estimates of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the national research council for which I am responsible to the house. Then, the estimates of mines and technical surveys, fisheries, post office, northern affairs, secretary of state, privy council, national revenue and the C.B.C., legislation, health and welfare and finance.
I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the three days which are ahead of us, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, operating on the hours that we have agreed to, there are available almost the equivalent of five days of normal hours. Therefore, although the program may appear to be fairly large, the time available to the house is close to being that of a normal five days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman what is proposed by the government about the legislative items sent over from the Senate and announced tonight? Then, there is the bill of the Minister of Justice, and some amendments to another bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it depends on the progress that we make with estimates. What I have announced here will carry over definitely for Thursday and Friday. If by tomorrow night we have made considerable progress and if by Friday we appear to be quite close to the end, then we will be able to determine when the legislation will be fitted in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We can be sure that there will be no legislation tomorrow or Friday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right, for Thursday and Friday no legislation.


[Stage Direction]
It being 22 minutes past ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Question

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Peters: Thursday, July 16, 1959



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Twenty-second report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.
Third report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. Stanton.