1959-06-22

[Stage Direction]
Sixteenth and seventeenth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills -Mr. McCleave.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians have been shocked to learn of the disaster which occurred over the week end along the east coast of New Brunswick in the Miramichi area, when a sudden and violent siorm struck with ferocious intensity. While it is impossible to know exactly how many fishermen were at sea that night over the long coastline, reports indicate that probably 40 or 50 boats were involved carrying some 80 to 100 men. When the storm struck the R.C.A.F. search and rescue unit was immediately ordered into action and it is continuing to co-ordinate the search by boats and planes available from the R.C.A.F., the R.C.M.P. and the Department of Fisheries in that area.
The latest reports show that 13 bodies have been recovered, and it is feared that the death toll may well exceed 30. The search and rescue work will continue until all hope must be abandoned.
I know I speak for all members of the house when I ask them to join me in extending the deepest sympathy to all those who have been bereaved and have suffered loss in this terrible tragedy of the sea.


Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norfhumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to join the Prime Minister and all other members of the house in expressing the deepest and most heartfelt sympathy to the fishermen and their families of my constituency in the loss of many loved ones. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, it was a very great tragedy, one that has struck to the very core of the small fishing areas of Miramichi bay. At the same time I should like to pay tribute, as I know the house would, to the deeds of heroism performed by the fishermen who survived. May I also pay tribute to the search and rescue people who are playing a valiant role 66968-9-316
in trying to locate bodies, and also any fishermen who may still be alive. I express this sympathy and appreciation on behalf of the constituents whom I represent. Practically all the fishing gear and boats that have been lost were the property of fishermen of my constituency.
I should like to read a telegram I received this morning. It is addressed to me at the House of Commons and reads as follows:
Disaster Saturday at Escuminac must be treated as urgent. Immediate action for assistance for families of victims and to assist those fishermen who survived but lost all equipment is urgently required.
The telegram is signed by Mr. Graham Crocker, a man well qualified to assess the situation and who has been closely connected with the salmon fishermen throughout the years. On that note I should like to appeal to the Prime Minister and the cabinet to render every assistance possible as quickly as they can to relieve the suffering these people are undergoing. I suggest to the Prime Minister that possibly something could be done under the Canadian disaster relief fund to bring some relief to these stricken fishermen.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to join with the Prime Minister and the hon. member for North-umberland-Miramichi in expressing our great sympathy to the loved ones of those who have been lost, and to support the request of the hon. member for Northumberland-Mira-michi that everything be done that can be done to assist these unfortunate Canadian citizens.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by the hon. member for North-umberland-Miramichi naturally has a very strong appeal. I think it might be well if the minister representing New Brunswick had a word to say.


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I can add to the sentiments that have been expressed here this afternoon with regard to the very tragic loss which has been suffered by the fishermen of the province of New Brunswick. I know the area that the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi represents quite well. This is one of the greatest tragedies that has occurred to the fishermen of the Atlantic provinces in many years. Unfortunately there is nothing we

U.N. World Refugee Year can do to bring back to life those very brave men who had been obtaining a livelihood for themselves and families from the sea for many years.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi has expressed the hope that something will be done in a material way to help restore the equipment and gear lost by these courageous men and their families. I feel that on behalf of the government, following what the Prime Minister has just stated, that everything possible will be done to see that help is given these needy families in the way of restoring equipment and gear. I feel that I am expressing not only the feeling of the people of Miramichi and Northumberland, but also the hopes and wishes of the people of the province of New Brunswick.



UNITED NATIONS


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that the United Nations general assembly decided at its 13th session last autumn to establish a world refugee year. Canada was one of the 59 countries which voted in support of this resolution, which urged countries to co-operate in promoting world refugee year as a practical means for securing assistance for refugees throughout the world.
I am sure all hon. members will welcome, as does the government, the opening of world refugee year which will begin in Canada on Sunday, June 28. About 40 countries will be participating in the program of world refugee year.
Throughout the world, in the United Kingdom, the United States, France, New Zealand and elsewhere, national voluntary committees for world refugee year have been established, and a Canadian committee for world refugee year has also been formed with headquarters in Toronto. This committee, composed of distinguished individuals and representatives of interested organizations, I understand, has as its objective the raising of funds from the public for refugee causes. On behalf of the government I should like to take this opportunity to wish the committee every success in its humanitarian endeavour.
The Canadian government has participated regularly in all the United Nations relief programs, and recently it has increased some of its contributions in the hope of hastening solutions where they are possible. There is the program of the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, who has under his
IMr. Brooks.]

mandate 135,000 refugees in Europe who are still not settled 14 years after the close of world war II. Over 25,000 of these refugees are living in camps in conditions which render still more urgent their need for social and spiritual rehabilitation. As you know, this government has increased this year's contribution to the high commissioner to the level of $290,000 to facilitate closing these camps.
Today there are almost a million refugees in the Middle East and almost another million are crowded into the tiny area of Hong Kong. However difficult it may be to foresee an early solution to these problems, it is necessary that these refugees be fed and housed and, above all, that their hopes be kept alive. As far as possible, these refugees must be helped to become self-sufficient, if only so they may be self-respecting.
As you know, the United Nations relief and works agency has been established for Palestine refugees in the Near East. In addition to our regular cash contribution of $500,000 annually this government has, in response to urgent appeals from the agency, contributed a total of $3 million worth of Canadian wheat flour to this agency in the last two years. I would also remind members of the 8,000 European refugees in China, whose pilgrimage to a new home began after the Russian revolution of 1917. New homes abroad have already been promised to many of these refugees, and only the necessary funds are needed to complete their tragic odyssey around the world. This house will soon be asked to approve a contribution of $60,000 to this program.
All in all, this government has contributed $1,650,000 in cash to United Nations refugee programs over the last two years, and a further $3 million worth of food. In addition, large quantities of dried skim milk have been made available free of charge for distribution abroad by voluntary relief agencies. Finally, I need hardly refer again to the hundreds of thousands of refugees who have been accepted by Canada as new citizens.
The Canadian government has given continuous attention to refugee problems. It is, therefore, particularly happy to welcome world refugee year as a means whereby every Canadian can be encouraged to play his part in helping these unfortunate people. We must accept the opening of this year as a challenge; a challenge to the government, to voluntary agencies and to the general public.
The government is now considering the special contributions which it will make to the program of world refugee year. We are giving particular attention to the possibility of a scheme whereby a limited number of tubercular cases might be admitted to

Canada, together with their dependants, and given treatment in Canadian institutions. Assisting these tubercular cases to be cured and to re-establish themselves would be a valuable contribution to the solution of that most difficult and most tragic of all refugee problems, the residual or so-called hardcore cases of handicapped persons. Such a scheme will, of course, call for close consultation with the provinces, which are responsible for the institutions which would receive the cases.
We shall also take advantage of the summer recess to examine what further financial contributions might be made to the refugee effort. Members of this house can likewise play a useful role. I am sure they will join with me now in welcoming the inauguration of world refugee year. In particular we welcome the formation of the Canadian committee for world refugee year as a spontaneous public response to this important challenge.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the house welcome the general statement which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just made. As he has observed, Canada should support the action taken at the United Nations to mark this year as world refugee year, thereby calling the attention of its members and of the peoples of the world generally to this hard-core problem of refugees. It will be remembered that at the end of the war Canada took a very active part and a highly important initiative in the formation of the international refugee organization, so that from the beginning it could be said that this country has demonstrated its interest in a problem that touches humanity and all nations.
In marking this refugee year I think it also desirable that we should determine to liquidate this problem for all time. The minister has noted that a national voluntary committee has been set up with headquarters in the city of Toronto. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will not take it amiss if I say that it may be necessary, as indeed he himself in the concluding part of his observations has indicated, to do more than set up a national voluntary committee. That committee will likely require the active support of the government of Canada. As he has suggested, one of the ways by which this could effectively be done would be to permit the entry into Canada of some of these stateless and homeless people who have been the victims of the policies of certain governments in alienating them from their homes and confronting them with the misery which has been theirs now for such a long time.
66968-9-316J
U.N. World Refugee Year
The minister also mentioned the Palestine refugees, some 1 million in number, whose welfare has been provided for again by the United Nations through the United Nations works and relief agency, operating as it does in Jordan and in the Gaza strip, to mention two chief areas of their work, an organization which Canada has supported with great devotion and with a sense of responsibility. It is significant that the work of UNWRA comes to the end of its formal assignment in 1960. While the minister did not indicate it, I am sure the government of Canada will give consideration to the prolongation of this work if that agency is regarded at the time as the most effective instrument for dealing with this additional serious problem.
The minister indicated that one of the gestures and one of the constructive proposals to which the government is giving consideration in co-operation with the provinces, who have the primary responsibility in this matter, is allowing the entry of tubercular refugees. In view of the fact that the government of Canada does contribute very large sums of money by way of assistance in tuberculosis control the interest of the government in this matter is understandable. I think it would also be important to recognize that apart altogether from the admission of individuals suffering from tuberculosis, consideration might be given in the name of humanity itself to the admission of some of these refugees who do not have this particular disability. In that connection I am sure the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will give consideration to the fact that many of these people for many reasons could not qualify for admittance on the usual grounds now prescribed in the existing regulations and orders in council.
The government has said it will give consideration to helping financially to try to resolve this hard-core group of refugees. That, I think, is a consideration. More particularly it is a consideration which will be followed by an act that I am sure will meet with ready response on the part of the Canadian people, recognizing that in this way the people and the government of Canada are making their contributions to a problem that in the final analysis can only be resolved by collective effort.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, having had a long time interest in and concern for the refugee problem, the members of this group listened with great interest to the minister's statement, particularly to that sentence when he said, "This presents a challenge to the government of Canada and to the people of Canada." We in this group hope the government gives
4990	HOUSE OF
Polymer Strike Settlement a good lead to the people of Canada by accepting the challenge in full and by admitting not only some of these people who suffer from tuberculosis, but by permitting some of the aged and some who suffer from other diseases to come to this country and enjoy the advantages of life here.
The proclamation of world refugee year is in our opinion a most commendable step, as it will help to direct public attention throughout the world to the tragic plight of many millions of refugees in Europe and in Asia, refugees who have been living in camps since the end of the war, many of them sick, handicapped or aged, largely forgotten by the more fortunate people of the world. In our opinion, Mr. Speaker, this world proclamation will provide the basis for a renewal of hope in the hearts of these long suffering victims of war and they have been long suffering. They have suffered years of destitution and despair while we have enjoyed abundance, hope, health and happiness.
This common effort on the part of the government and people of Canada demonstrates our common humanity. It is an effort which should restore flagging spirits and rebuild weakened bodies and broken lives. This contribution by the government of Canada and by the people of Canada, if they meet their full responsibilities, should be considerable from our horn of plenty.



POLYMER CORPORATION


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, and in view of the interest shown by hon. members on both sides of the house, I am pleased to be able to announce that the dispute at the Polymer plant in Sarnia has now been settled.
Officials of the Department of Labour have informed me that the commissioner of inquiry, Mr. Eric Taylor, met with both parties until an early hour this morning, when all substantial matters in dispute were mutually resolved.



SEEDS ACT


Hon. George C. Nowlan (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-24 (from the Senate), respecting the testing, inspection and sale of seeds.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-26 (from the Senate), to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has any statement to make to the house on what we all hope is the temporary break-up of the foreign ministers' conference at Geneva.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members will have seen from the press that the foreign ministers' conference in Geneva has been adjourned until July 13. I point out that it has not broken up, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested. Since the proceedings have been fully reported in the press I shall not review the six weeks' conference in detail.
In my opinion, in assessing the position today the interval should not be regarded as a period of crisis but as an opportunity for re-examination of the position. As the foreign ministers of France, the United Kingdom and the United States pointed out in the statement they issued at the conclusion of the conference, this interval will give the Soviet government the opportunity of considering the western proposals further, and will give the western governments the opportunity to consider the position, particularly in relation to Mr. Khrushchev's Moscow speech of June 19. That pronouncement of the Soviet leader was not encouraging. He reiterated his demand for a peace treaty with the two parts of Germany, a procedure which would further hinder reunification, and he also proposed a time limit on efforts to achieve an agreed solution of the Berlin problem. In so doing he again stated that the Soviet union would sign a separate peace treaty with East Germany, with implied termination of western occupation rights, if agreement had not been reached on the Berlin problem at the end of that time.
At the time of recess the Soviet government had before it the offer of the western

powers to make certain modifications in the Berlin situation to meet the concerns expressed by the Soviet union. These included limitations on the strength and armament of the armed forces stationed there and the suggestion that reductions could be made; the formation of a four-power commission to settle disputes on rights of access; the possibility that without prejudice to existing responsibilities, procedures relating to access could be carried out by German personnel; and finally, measures to avoid in both parts of Berlin activities which might be disturbing to the other side.
The Canadian government commends the willingness the western powers have thus shown to accept adjustments in the existing arrangements while at the same time making clear their determination not to abandon western rights or forsake the people of West Berlin. Hon. members will have noticed in the press last week reports of the speech which the right hon. Prime Minister made in Princeton, in which he reiterated the view of the Canadian government that in this thermonuclear age differences between east and west must be resolved by negotiation. It has been with satisfaction that the Canadian government has watched the patient and determined efforts of the three western powers at Geneva to find some acceptable basis for continuing the negotiations, and it is gratifying that an early and fixed date has been selected for resumption of the foreign ministers' conference.
Whether on the resumption of the conference it will be found that there is a suitable foundation for a continuation of the negotiations will depend largely on the attitude of the Soviet union. As to the possibility of the heads of government meeting taking place, it is too soon to say whether it is likely that such a meeting will be held. The negotiations so far have served to demonstrate to the Soviet union that the western powers are serious, determined and united on the question of Berlin, but it is the view of this government that the search must be continued for a framework within which a settlement can be reached. We should not be turned aside from this search or deflected from our purpose and policy by provocative statements from the other side. It is possible that an intensive re-examination by the western powers of what the Soviet representative said during the conference, both in private sessions as well as in the plenary meetings, will reveal certain points that could be usefully pursued.
The Canadian government is therefore prepared during the period of recess to participate in the examination of what has taken
Inquiries of the Ministry place in Geneva which will be carried out within the NATO council. In so doing the Canadian position will be based on the principles enunciated by the right hon. Prime Minister in the house on April 7, 1959, when he stated that no agreement could be acceptable to the west which placed in jeopardy the security of Berlin, the freedom of its citizens, or which might have the effect of foreclosing the prospect of reunification of Germany.


ST, LAWRENCE SEAWAY WELLAND CANAL  STATEMENT ON LOCK DAMAGE CAUSING TIE-UP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, notice of which I have sent to him. Would the minister comment on the most recent tie-up of boat traffic in the Welland canal and the extent of damage to the canal lock causing the tie-up? Also, would he express an opinion as to when we might expect that both upbound and down-bound traffic will be resumed?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having sent me notice of his intention to ask this question. At about ten o'clock Saturday evening it was found that at lock 4 the lower west sill of the east lock was split and twisted, the assumption is, due to water pressure. The lock became inoperable. New timber and new concrete are being placed as rapidly as possible. It is expected that the work will be completed by nine o'clock tonight, but in order to give time for the setting of the new concrete, upbound traffic only will be run for the next 24 hours.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Has any consideration been given and has any progress been made in connection with the new facilities for the improved movement of ships through the Welland canal, which were mentioned during the consideration of the minister's estimates?


George Harris Hees: Yes. Those facilities are receiving very active consideration, but as the hon. member for Laurier well knows it will be impossible to put in those additional facilities until the end of this present shipping season.
4992	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):


ROYAL VISIT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Henri Courtemanche (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the hon. members for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) and for Hull (Mr. Caron) inquired as to who printed the program of the royal visit. We have been informed by the secretary of the program committee for the royal visit that both the English and the French versions of that program were printed by the queen's printer. Unfortunately, the queen's printer imprint was inadvertently omitted in the English version.
(Text):


COLUMBIA RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in order to satisfy my abounding curiosity. My question is based on a newspaper item in this morning's Gazette to the effect that the national planning association of the United States and the private planning association of Canada announced yesterday that a 60-member committee selected from the two associations is to study the division of power and flood control benefits and "principles which should govern the selection and timing of projects". The aim of the study is stated to be to indicate the nature of the benefits which can be derived from co-operative development of the Columbia river basin.
Can the minister give the house any information with respect to the status, purpose and personnel of this organization?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question this morning. I was able to discover that the private planning association of Canada and the national planning association of the United States formed a Canadian-American committee without official status about two years ago. Their purposes were to study various aspects of Canadian-United States relations. This group consists of approximately 60 members with equal representation from the two nations, and includes a broadly diversified group of leaders in business, labour, agriculture, education and so on. This is undoubtedly the
[Mr. Hees.l

60-member group to which the newspaper dispatch refers. I looked up one of my own documents and I find that this same group have published a pamphlet entitled, "Wheat Surpluses and Their Impact on Canada-United States Relations". On pages 51 and 52 a complete list of their members is given. If the hon. member has not a copy I will lend him my personal copy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question. Has this group made any representations to the government of Canada on any subject they have studied?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Charles Green: May I add to that answer that there have been no representations made to the Department of External Affairs.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions which I should like to address to the Minister of Transport, which he can take as notice and give a complete answer tomorrow. What specific meteorological service is provided to fishermen warning them of approaching storms? Was a specific warning given with regard to the sudden storm which hit the Northumberland strait area on Friday evening last and resulted in one of the worst disasters in the history of Canadian fisheries?
In asking these questions, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize the importance of improving, if possible, the weather forecasts made available to fishermen. In his answer tomorrow will the minister comment on the 5 p.m. forecast known as "The Fishermen's Broadcast", which to my own observation is a little late in the day to benefit what we call the inshore fishermen.


George Harris Hees: I will take these questions as notice and give an answer tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to supply any information

regarding the location and control of the icebreaker Alexander Henry, particularly as it affects the Georgian bay area?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The marine agency supply vessel and icebreaker Alexander Henry has been constructed for use in the upper great lakes, and will be based in the Parry Sound marine agency.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: On Thursday last the hon. member for St. Denis referred to the question of pilotage dues in the Montreal-Kingston pilotage district and asked why the pilotage dues had not been approved by the governor in council. I may say that I have signed an amendment to the by-laws of this pilotage district, and it was submitted to the governor in council and passed this morning.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport referred to the pilotage fees in the St. Lawrence-Kingston areas. Do the same fees apply to the Welland canal and the Detroit river areas?


George Harris Hees: No; these are separate areas.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: On Friday last the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) asked whether landing fees for tourist aircraft at Gander had been increased. I am advised that there has been no recent increase in landing fees for tourist or any aircraft. The last increase was on July 1, 1957, when landing fees were increased and a new category entitled "trans-border landing fees" was introduced.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he any statement to make to the house concerning the reported sale of surplus canned pork by the Canadian government to Czechoslovakia?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have been negotiating with several European countries for some time in an effort to dispose of some of the surplus pork which the stabilization board has held, and particularly from the point of view of attempting to get back into the European market, as far as pork and other agricultural products are concerned. Last week arrangements were made to sell about 2,200,000 pounds of pork to Czechoslovakia. This is to some extent in the nature of what you might call a trial shipment and we hope that as a result-we are quite sure the pork will be found satisfactory-we shall be able to sell in constantly increasing quantities pork and other agricultural products in the European market.


George James McIlraith: A supplementary question. In view of the lateness of the session and the inability to put written questions on the order paper concerning such sales, would the minister advise the house when these sales go through, as to the quantities and the prices.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it has ever been customary for the stabilization board or me, as minister in charge of that branch of the Department of Agriculture, to advise the house of every sale we make, because we are making sales daily, and it would just take up a great deal of the time of the house without any good purpose being served.
(Translation):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
(Page 4993)
Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Finance a question. I am informed that the directors of the industrial bank in Montreal are refusing to grant any leave to their employees on the occasion of Saint-Jean-Baptiste day, which is a legal holiday in the province of Quebec. Would the minister check if that information is accurate and, if so, give relevant instructions and inform the house?
(Text):


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the industrial development bank is a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada, and while it is responsible to parliament, it is not responsible to the government or to the Department of Finance. I can only make inquiries and obtain for the hon. gentleman the information which I am sure any hon. member could obtain.

Malton hand Expropriation ATOMIC ENERGY



CLARIFICATION OF REMARK IN DEBATE ON JUNE 19

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: May I make an explanation about the supplementary question of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Robinson) on Friday last about the possibility of locating the proposed atomic energy board plant in the Bruce peninsula. What I said may have been misinterpreted. I did not intend to imply that the hon. member did not have a serious interest in this matter, nor that there was any impropriety in pursuing the interests of his constituency. My concern was only with procedure.
(Translation):



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General a question?
I am informed that a letter postmarked New York June 10 did not reach the addressee in Montreal until June 15, five days later. The addressee was Mr. N. H. Hartogson, 4521a Hutchison, Montreal. Would the minister inquire into the cause of this delay, or does he feel that this five day delay constitutes improved postal service which can be credited to his administration?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I do not know the details concerning each of the 10 million letters which are delivered daily by the postal service, but I shall look into the matter and give the hon. member the particulars.


Azellus Denis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Were there not also 10 million letters being delivered daily when the hon. minister was in the opposition and was critical of the Postmaster General of the day?


William McLean Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there were, but I never asked the house any question calling for such particulars.
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of supply.



MALTON LAND EXPROPRIATION


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the house will not be surprised when I inform you, sir, that we

are proposing today an amendment to the motion to go into supply in order to deal with a subject matter which we attempted to put before the house earlier as a motion which we thought affected the privileges of the house.
On Friday last, Mr. Speaker, you stated, in the decision you gave at that time, that no barrier was being raised to the presentation of this matter on another occasion under different circumstances from those which governed the motion before you at that time. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you suggested that the subject matter could be brought before the house on the next motion to go into supply. Normally this is not the kind of subject matter that should take up one of the six supply motions to which we are permitted to move amendments; but in these special circumstances, though we might have wished to put forward another and more general subject for discussion, we feel that we must deal with this particular matter. If the motion before you last Friday, which you decided could not be treated as one affecting privilege and should go on the order paper in the normal way, could have been dealt with in that form then it would not have been necessary to deal with it on a supply day. The Prime Minister did not find it possible to arrange for a discussion of the motion in that form, but he had second thoughts and suggested that the business of the house might be rearranged in order to deal with this matter on a supply motion today.
The notice of motion which I placed on the order paper earlier embodied certain affirmations contained in a judgment of the president of the Exchequer Court of Canada. It concluded with a request that a committee be established, or the committee on privileges and elections be used, to examine certain actions of the hon. member of this house mentioned in that judgment and that this committee, having looked into the question, should report whether the conduct mentioned in these findings was in accordance with the dignity of parliament.
That notice of motion, Mr. Speaker, accurately reflected in its terms certain affirmations contained in the judgment. No member on the government side has alleged that the notice of motion which we put on the order paper had in the slightest particular departed from the statements made and the conclusions drawn in this judicial document. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in your statement last Friday you recommended the notice of motion to the house as a fair and equitable summary of this judicial document, and I believe that is a good indication of the fair manner in which we have proceeded in our efforts to discuss this matter.

The conclusions in your ruling last Friday, Mr. Speaker, confirm our own view that we were on solid ground in arguing that the conduct of a member could be investigated on the basis of statements made about that conduct without the necessity of a member of this house preferring a specific charge, and that as a ground for presenting such a motion there was no need of charges specifically made, as argued by spokesmen on the government side. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer the house to a question which I addressed to you last Wednesday as to whether a question of privilege could be raised on allegations direct or implied in a judgment of a court in some other way.
The answer to my question, of course, was in the affirmative. Any other answer to that question, in your words, Mr. Speaker, to quote from your decision of last Friday at page 4930 of Hansard, would be "to overlook precedents in which inquiries have been undertaken on the basis of charges implied from documents". That surely must dispose of the arguments advanced by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice on this matter. Later it is stated in your decision, Mr. Speaker, and I quote again from page 4930, lines 29 to 33:
On the authorities it appears to be open to an hon. member to confront the house with charges against another member implicit in documents in the possession of the house, but in my view the charge must be there.
In other words, according to your decision, they must be implicit in the document. I am sure that conclusion is correct, but I still believe that this particular part of the procedural problem has been finally resolved, because no argument adduced from any source in this house has disposed of the precedents established in the Foster and Garland cases in the Canadian House of Commons and the Boothby case in the British house when charges were neither specifically made nor documents referred to.
Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, you placed on record in the house a sentence which seems to me to be of very great importance. It had to do with your attempt to formulate from the affirmations in the motion a possible charge which in your mind it was your duty to try to find, whether in fact such a charge, direct or implied, did exist. Your sentence on that point was as follows, and I quote from page 4931 of Hansard, lines 16 to 25:
If these observations or "affirmations", as they are styled in the notice of motion, are taken as fact-
In other words if they are taken as fact; and the government insists, as I will point out 66968-9-317
Malton Land Expropriation later, that we must take them as facts if we are going to produce this kind of motion. You went on, Mr. Speaker:
-and the worst construction is put on them, it would appear that the hon. member for Peel on behalf of his constituents unsuccessfully attempted to get more generous compensation for them from public funds for the lands which the crown had expropriated than they were warranted in receiving.
That formulation, Mr. Speaker, drawn from the affirmations in the notice of motion-and I am certainly not complaining about it or questioning it in any way-goes further than any statement made by any hon. member on this side of the house.


Mr. Churchill:: Will the hon. member permit a question at this stage? Should the hon. member not read the next sentence, "This summary does not do justice either way"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think that has any bearing at all on what I have said. Earlier in your remarks, Mr. Speaker, you stated that no close precedent was cited and that you were unable to find any. Based on the construction that such conduct as was referred to in the judgment of the court which was mentioned in the notice of motion had not in the past been punished and that no close precedent was cited, you thereby ruled that a question of the privilege of the house was not prima facie involved. That is the ruling of the Chair and it has been confirmed by a decision of the house. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, all members are bound to accept it even though they may, not be convinced that it is warranted by precedents of by the evidence. A decision has been made, and the house is bound by it.
I suggest that a decision of far-reaching importance was made in the ruling given last Friday. It seems to me to involve the answers to this question:	Can a member,
without any breach of the privileges of parliament, seek for his constituents funds from the public treasury which in the circumstances they are not warranted in having? When we raised that as a question, Mr. Speaker, for discussion on the estimates of the Department of Transport, the Minister of Transport merely replied by indulging in, if he will permit to call it such, a political tirade.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is the kind of question which could be more profitably discussed in the committee on privileges and elections. If it is to be discussed on a supply motion, if the debate on this matter is now to take a new turn, that is of course the result of the refusal of the government to permit that particular committee to inquire into the matter in a way
4996	HOUSE OF
Malton Land Expropriation which would ensure that all the tacts were known as they concern the two members of parliament involved, the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Peel, and to examine into this matter so the right conclusions might be drawn from the facts discovered. Such a committee would not have been packed against the government and could have checked on certain statements and assertions included in a court finding, not an alleged finding, which certainly appeared to have reflected on members of parliament, some of which statements have been contradicted outside the court.
The Prime Minister dismisses this as of little significance unless on his own responsibility a member of parliament is willing to accept all these statements and assertions as true, which would mean that he would presumably have to accept the statements contradicting them outside the court as untrue.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a pretty thin
argument.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It may be a thin argument
to the Prime Minister, but it is a pretty impressive argument to anybody who approaches this matter in an objective manner.
Witnesses, such as the Minister of Transport, who did not appear before the court could have been called before such a committee. I submit parliament would not be acting as a court in such an inquiry, and 1 submit also there would have been no trial. There would have been an attempt, with witnesses called, to check certain statements made under oath in a court which reflected on the propriety, so we thought, of the conduct of a member of this house.
If one says that no member should have to submit to investigation or inquiry by the House of Commons or a committee of the house of statements into his conduct in a matter of public business until he has been charged with an offence, then I say that is disproven by many precedents. Furthermore, in this case the investigation would have been into statements made about a member in a court under oath, statements made in the evidence which the judge reported in his findings, some of which were denied or contradicted later outside the court. Is that not something which should be inquired into? I hope to produce enough evidence, Mr. Speaker, to convince members that the answer to that question must be yes.
Yet it has been said that unless in these findings there is an explicit charge with which a member is willing to identify himself by repeating it in this house, there can be no such parliamentary inquiry. The fact that


this argument is wrong and without any logical foundation is shown by the statement that if the member concerned or the Minister of Transport had moved a motion of inquiry into these assertions, it would have been accepted by the government without any argument. However, this procedure of inquiry by the committee on privileges and elections we thought was fair to everyone concerned. This procedure has, up to the present, been rejected by the Prime Minister, who has justified his rejection by accusing those of us who are proposing it of McCarthyism. This merely shows the weakness of the case, as all smokescreen diversions do, whether by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Transport.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, it becomes necessary not to see whether the privileges of parliament are involved, because you have decided they are not, but to look into the conduct of the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Peel and the government in the handling of this whole question of the Malton expropriations. The evidence we have in that matter is in the findings of the president of the Exchequer Court of Canada; in statements made by those concerned or some of those concerned outside of the house, and in the words of the Minister of Transport inside the house. We have had no word as yet from the hon. member for Peel inside the house, but some remarks have been made by him outside, at least as reported in the press. Surely, Mr. Speaker, today he will have something to say about this matter, even at this late date.
I must emphasize that the observations and statements about which I am talking, the statements that to us seem to reflect on somebody's conduct, are not made by me. They are made in the findings of a court judgment which I found it my duty to repeat as bearing on this problem. The Prime Minister, I repeat, takes the position that there can be no inquiry into these findings by a committee of this house concerned with parliamentary privileges unless a member takes the responsibility for accepting all those findings of the court as true, and therefore something on which a charge could and must be laid by a member of parliament. He argues that one must also accept responsibility for the comments on these statements made by others, including the member for Peel himself and the Minister of Transport, which contradict certain of these statements in the findings of the court.
Then he says that parliament should not investigate them, whether or not they appear to reflect on a member. Whatever statement
7 MAI 1959
is made outside the house, in a court of law or in some other place, which reflects on the conduct of a member-that has nothing to do with the privileges of the house unless you accept it as true and lay charges based on it. That is the government's position, and it is a very strange position indeed. I could think of some adjectives used by the Minister of Justice the other day which might be appropriate in describing it, but I will not do that. However, I will say this; that I consider the position a travesty of respect for parliamentary rights and privileges. Perhaps it is an effective method of avoiding any inquiry by the men who talk about McCarthyism because we will not condemn a person before such an inquiry is made to find out the facts.
The Prime Minister laughs; he finds this amusing.


John George Diefenbaker: I find such arguments or lack of arguments amusing.


George James McIlraith: After the arguments you advanced last week?


Lester Bowles Pearson: What are these statements in a finding of a court which reflect on a member and which should be examined in fairness to the member himself and corrected if they are wrong or misleading? If that is not done -and the government has certainly not made it possible yet-they remain on the record of the court and indeed, in view of the discussion we have had in this house, on the record of parliament.
Does the member concerned wish that to happen? Does the Prime Minister wish that to happen, namely that the court record go unchallenged and unexamined? Does the Minister of Transport, who is so directly concerned with all this, wish that to happen? No doubt he will be taking part in this debate. Perhaps I might be permitted to address a few questions to him. May I ask him first this question. Why did he not appear in order to clear these matters up when these statements were made before the court?
Mr Hees: May I answer that question right now. The answer is that I was never summoned or asked to appear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Naturally; I expected that would be the minister's reply.


George Harris Hees: It is true.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister knew that the business of his department was being considered by this court. The minister must have known of some of the statements that were being made in this case. He is the Minister of Transport. This was a case which concerned his department. In view of the 66968-9-317J
Malton Land Expropriation statements that were made, which were confusing, which were contradictory, and which affected him directly, did the minister not think-notwithstanding the fact that he had not been subpoenaed-it might have been a good thing to go to court and clear this matter up?


George Harris Hees: I have answered every one of those questions in this house posed by you.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister will have a chance. The minister said he had answered all the questions.


George Harris Hees: I have answered the questions you put to me.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let us see. What are these statements, these allegations, some of which remain unchallenged in the court findings and are now on the records of parliament? The minister will be glad to follow this because he will no doubt want to deal with some of them. All my statements are based on the document.
In the first place, it was stated under oath that the member for Peel sought to bind the treasury in advance to accept an increased valuation of certain properties which were being expropriated and which had already been valued, according to the minister, on approximately six other occasions by departmental and other valuators, and which were the outstanding claims after 180 others had been settled.
The member for Peel himself stated under oath that the department had in fact accepted his proposal for such an additional valuation by an appraiser to be recommended by him, which valuation would be binding on the owners and on the crown. There was considerable evidence on this point, which I now propose to put on the record.
The minister had written the member for Peel on July 19, 1957 that his department had thought the appraisals "fair and reasonable"-those were the words he used-after six earlier valuations. These are the appraisals of the eleven outstanding parcels of property in these Malton expropriations. He had thought that the appraisals, after six earlier valuations, were fair and reasonable. He stated that the Department of Veterans Affairs, which was concerned in these cases since some of the owners were veterans, concurred in that view. He pointed out that there was a test case, the Hatton case, before the exchequer court which would provide a basis for any further settlement, he thought. He has added that it would be well, in his opinion, to wait for this to be settled first; otherwise-and I quote from his communication-
4998	HOUSE OF
Mdlton Land Expropriation
-the department could be accused of being wasteful of the taxpayers' money by giving in to unreasonable demands.
In his letter of July 19 the minister went on to say this:
I would not like to commit myself at this stage to arbitration in the sense of appointing an independent appraiser acceptable to both the veterans and ourselves.
But he added-and I quote from his letter:
X would certainly be prepared to consider this possibility further if the veterans were prepared to agree by contract in advance that the report of such an independent appraiser was final and binding on them.
That is from the minister's letter. So the member for Peel, relying on this willingness to consider the matter further, began to act as he thought-and no doubt quite sincerely thought-in the interests of his constituents. On July 24, 1959 he wrote the minister that the owners, and I quote from that letter-
-have agreed to the matter being arbitrated by a single arbitrator to be agreed upon between yourself and themselves.
If words mean anything, they mean that the owners had agreed to an arbitrator whose decision would be binding on both parties. There is no doubt on that score, as I shall now try to point out from further communications. The member in this letter added that he would submit the name of such an arbitrator for the minister's consideration. The name recommended and accepted by the minister was Mr. Earl Clare.
The member for Peel then had a meeting with the owners some time in August, according to the evidence. Again from the evidence, on page 4, he told the owners of a talk with the minister and of the plan he had proposed to the minister for an independent valuator who-and I quote the words of the finding-"would be a reputable and reliable real estate man". The member asked the owners, according to the findings, to accept this proposal for an arbitrator whose decision would be binding-and again I quote from the finding-"on both the owners and the department". When the owners agreed, the member for Peel wrote to the assistant deputy minister of transport on August 27-and this appears on page 4 of the finding-confirmed that the owners would accept an arbitration by a new valuator- and I quote again-"whose finding shall be binding on both parties". There is no misunderstanding there. That language is perfectly clear. There is no room for misunderstanding as to what that language could possibly mean other than there should be an arbitration binding on both sides.


George Harris Hees: Would the hon. member mind my asking him a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No.


George Harris Hees: Who wrote that last letter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The member wrote it to the minister.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member for Peel wrote it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is right.


George Harris Hees: But so far, there is no agreement of any kind under which the department agreed to be bound in any way, shape or form.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall come to that matter in due course. On August 29 the assistant deputy minister of transport wrote to the member for Peel that after discussion with the officials of treasury board and the Department of Justice, I think it was, he felt that arbitration of the kind suggested in the member's letter was impracticable; that it was contrary to the intention of the Expropriation Act for the government to be bound in advance in the manner suggested by the member for Peel; that it would establish a precedent which could have-and I quote-"extremely serious and dangerous consequences for the future"; and that the court was better qualified than an arbitrator to come to a sound decision.
Then occurred a meeting between the minister and the member in the Hunter building on September 19. Mr. Booth, the assistant deputy minister of transport, was present for the first part of the meeting but was not present for the last part of it. On page 5 of the findings it is reported that the member for Peel again-and I quote from the findings on page 5-
-suggested that an independent appraiser should he appointed and that both the crown and the owners should be bound by his valuations.
On this occasion the assistant deputy minister pointed out that, as recommendations were subject to the approval of treasury board, the minister could not be bound in advance by any new valuation. I am glad to put that on record. The assistant deputy minister also stated that the department was satisfied with the valuations that had been made and that they were valid. There was further discussion between the minister and member after the assistant deputy minister left, and there is no record of any kind of that discussion, as far as I know, in the finding of the court or anywhere else. But after that discussion on October 1, 1957 the minister wrote to the member for Peel, and I quote from his letter of October 1:
My understanding of your proposal-
That is the proposal of the member.

-was that if new proposals were made by a valuator acceptable to you the owners in question would agree to be bound by his valuation.
That is the owners in question. That surely does not make any sense unless the arrangements bound the government as well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is quite simple to show that, and it is even easier to show that that was the impression in the hon. member's mind. I have lots of evidence to prove that.
The hon. member had every right to assume that the obligation was on both sides. How otherwise could he have got the owners to accept such an obligation? What could they possibly have gained by signing such a one sided agreement? I cannot believe that the hon. member after his talk with the minister would have put it forward to them in such one sided terms. There is evidence taken under oath to show that the understanding of the hon. member was perfectly clear on this matter, that there was no doubt in his mind as to what had happened. Let me quote from this letter of October 1. In it the minister asked for:
-the written undertakings of the owners to be bound by Mr. Clare's valuations. When these valuations are received I will proceed along the lines indicated to you-
That is, to the member. I continue:
-in our discussion.
Mr. Speaker, what were the lines under which they were to proceed and which were mentioned by the hon. member in the letter of October 1?


George Harris Hees: Would the hon. member like an answer to that question right now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have it from the documents.


George Harris Hees: Do you want an answer? You have asked a question and I am prepared to answer it right now. If you do not want the answer-and I do not think you do-I will not, of course, give it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to that question not from the intervention of the minister but from the documents in this matter-


George Harris Hees: You do not want me to answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I say there was a sharp conflict of evidence here. A couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister of course could not find any conflicts or contradictions in the evidence at all. I maintain that this is a sharp conflict of evidence. The findings of the court are very clear as to what the hon. member said in the court under oath. I will read what is
Malton Land Expropriation found at page 7 of the findings of the president of the Exchequer Court of Canada:
When Mr. Pallett was asked what lines had been indicated to him in the discussion, his answer was-
I quote from his answer taken from the findings:
-"whatever valuations were made by the independent valuator would be accepted by the Department of Transport".
What has the minister got to say about that?


George Harris Hees: Do you want me to answer that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I asked you a question and I will give you an opportunity to answer it.


George Harris Hees: I shall be very glad to do so. The agreement between the hon. member for Peel and myself, as I outlined to him in my office, was that we would be perfectly willing to appoint an independent valuator, Mr. Clare, and that when his valuations were received they would be submitted to the treasury board staff for examination. That was the agreement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the minister's answer, so I will read again what the hon. member for Peel said under oath before the court:
-whatever valuations were made by the independent valuator would be accepted by the Department of Transport.
Let us examine what the assistant deputy minister said about this when he was questioned on it. I quote again from the evidence. Mr. Booth said:
The minister did not say that.
The findings then add this:
Mr. Pallett said that he had convinced the minister and that he left the meeting with the understanding that the valuation made by Mr. Clare-would bind both the department and the owners and that it was his responsibility to get the owners' signatures on documents agreeing to his valuation.
Those words are found at page 7 of the findings. Mr. Booth intervened to try to correct the impression of the hon. member for Peel that he had a proposal accepted by the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Read the next portion. It is all part of the same thing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have some more to read from page 7.


John George Diefenbaker: Just read this to conclude that paragraph.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I will be very glad to read it:
There was thus a sharp difference between the evidence of Mr. Booth and of Mr. Pallett-

Malton Land Expropriation
I am reading from page 7 of the findings. I continue:
Mr. Pallett said that he had convinced the minister and that he left the meeting with the understanding that the valuation to be made by Mr. Clare, if he was found to be qualified-
I left that out because it did not seem to me to be pertinent. I continue:
-would bind both the department and the owners and that it was his responsibility to get the owners' signatures on documents agreeing to his valuation. But Mr. Booth was clear that the minister was most anxious to settle the matter and do everything possible short of binding the crown in advance of the proposed valuation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, short of binding the crown.


George Harris Hees: Carry on.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course that is the position the assistant deputy minister took. He said his minister was not bound by the valuation. But the hon. member for Peel, a member of this house, said he left the meeting with the understanding that it would bind both the government and the owners and that it was his responsibility to get the owners' signatures. If there was this misunderstanding between the hon. member for Peel and Mr. Booth on this matter-and there obviously was-why did the minister not clear up the misunderstanding and put the hon. member for Peel right?
On the basis of the documents I have read it seems to me that the position taken by the hon. member for Peel was perfectly reasonable. Why else would the hon. member try to secure the signatures? Why should he have been put in such a false position by the minister if the situation were otherwise? Why should he be asked to get signatures of the owners on the ground that they would accept the valuations of the independent appraiser if the government was not going to be bound by the valuations?


George Harris Hees: Do you want an answer to that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why would the minister ask these people through the hon. member for Peel, to accept a one sided valuation of that kind? I suggest that the hon. member had no intention of asking that at all, and that he was completely honest and sincere when he said that he believed these valuations would bind both the government and the owners. That is what he said before the court.


George Harris Hees: Would you like an answer to that question? I am prepared to answer that question if you wish. I do not believe you want any answer.


Mr. Pickersgill:: The minister is just trying to destroy the argument of the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already answered the questions the minister speaks of from the documents before me. The minister will have lots of opportunity to make reference to this. He can speak in this debate.


George Harris Hees: I asked you a question. You seem to be genuinely asking for information. Do you want an answer to your question? Do you wish me to reply to your question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have the answer.


George Harris Hees: No, you have not. You do not want the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister will know that the hon. member who has the floor wants an answer when he sits down and gives the minister an opportunity to speak.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is very interesting, in view of the minister's intervention. On October 3 the hon. member for Peel wrote the minister saying that he would send along the signed forms of the owners in the form of an agreement between the owners and the government. What kind of agreement would that have been which bound only the owners and had no binding effect whatever on the government? The minister replied on October 7, and I quote from his letter on that occasion:
I have been advised that barring unforeseen difficulties we shall be able to complete the formalities within this time limit and under the circumstances I agree to proceeding in the manner you have arranged.
There was a suggested time limit of two months. The minister on October 7 said he would agree to proceeding in the manner arranged by the hon. member for Peel. We know what the hon. member for Peel thought he was doing, because he said under oath in court what he thought he was doing. There was nothing in that letter of October 3, after these talks, to warn the hon. member that the valuation was not binding on the government but was binding only on the owners. There was nothing in that letter of October 7 to clear up any misunderstanding which obviously was in the hon. member's mind or he obviously would not have made the statements he did before the court.
The following is also an answer to the minister's interruption. On page 8 of the findings we find the following:
It was Mr. Pallett's opinion that what was meant was that the valuation would be acceptable to both parties.
That was three times in these findings that the hon. member's views of this matter had been set down in black and white as implying an arrangement, a proposal, an agreement -whatever you want to call it-which was binding both on the government and on the owners.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. member read again that paragraph, the next words on page 8?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to as the Prime Minister seems very curious. I should have read the whole document, Mr. Speaker. I am now reading from the evidence itself:
On October 7, 1957, the minister wrote to Mr. Pallett acknowledging receipt ol his letter of October 3, 1957, and referring to Mr. Booth's telephone conversation with Mr. Pallett commenting on the shortness of the two months' limit and concluding as follows:
"I have been advised that barring unforeseen difficulties we shall be able to complete the formalities within this time limit, and under the circumstances X agree to proceeding in the manner you have arranged."
There was controversy over the meaning of the last portion of this letter, "I agree to proceeding in the manner you have arranged." It was Mr. Pallett's opinion that what was meant was that Mr. Clare would do the valuation and that it would be acceptable to both parties. But Mr. Booth, who had prepared the letter for the Minister's signature, said the phrase "formalities" meant simply the formalities in the case of agreed settlement including submissions to the treasury board.
For the benefit of the Prime Minister I might say I was coming to that in my statement.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend always seems to be coming to it but never does.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister obviously wants it to be on the record twice and I will be glad to oblige. The Prime Minister is very anxious to show that a civil servant is really the determining influence in this matter and that the civil servant was instructing the member.
It is clear-and this is a very important part of the evidence-that Mr. Pallett knew the need for approval of the treasury board when he stated that the minister said that he would have to take the responsibility. He would take the responsibility of dealing with the treasury board. If as the assistant deputy minister argued-and the Prime Minister is so anxious to get the assistant deputy minister's argument on the record-"formalities" meant simply the formalities in the case of agreed settlements including submissions to the treasury board, why did the minister not make this clear to the member and later to the court? Why allow what he admits was a misunderstanding to persist? According to the hon. member for Peel the minister stated that he would take the responsibility in connection with the approval of treasury board. Is that an accurate statement? Are we to accept that statement as such, that the minister would take the responsibility of dealing with treasury board with regard to these evaluations? There is some evidence
Malton Land Expropriation to support that interpretation, Mr. Speaker; but why did not the minister-and I ask him again even though he was not subpoenaed-appear in the court and clear this whole matter up? Why leave the matter there in the way it was left in the hon. member's mind? There is no doubt what the hon. member thought was going on. Surely it is not a very fair way for the minister to treat the hon. member, to leave him under what he admits now to have been a very serious misapprehension, a misapprehension so clear that he the minister, refers to it in this house.
Mr. Speaker, let us just see what the minister had to say about this in parliament. On June 9, as reported on pages 4457 and 4458 of Hansard, he dealt with this matter in reply to some questions from the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). He said first of all that he would not comment on the findings of the court. I would ask the minister, and he can reply to this question when he gets up to speak, why would he not comment on the findings? Again on page 4530 he said it would be inappropriate for him to discuss the judgment and he would not do so. On page 4591 he merely accepts the decision of the court with regard to the payment to be made, and that is all. The minister would not comment on the findings of the court, but presumably he expects us to accept as true and accurate those findings; otherwise we would not have been asked to base a specific charge on them. The minister would not comment, but he said that we were to accept them all as true and accurate if we are going to base a charge and to request a committee to inquire into it.


George Harris Hees: When did I say that, Mr. Speaker?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The position of the government, goodness knows, is surely clear enough on this matter. The position of the government is that there can be no inquiry into this matter on a question of privilege unless some member on this side of the house takes the responsibility of identifying himself with all these findings and specific charges, and therefore assumes that they are accurate and true. Nothing could be much clearer than that from the position taken by the government.
Let us look at the treasury board aspect of the matter for a few moments. The minister also stated, as reported on page 4411 of Hansard for June 8:
I assured the hon. member that the appraisals made by Mr. Clare would be presented to treasury board for their examination.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister need not get up; I will go on and say what he said later about this because I want to be perfectly
5002	HOUSE OF
Malton Land Expropriation fair to the minister and quote everything he said, including his correction of that statement. Later on, on June 10, as reported on page 4529 of Hansard, he said:
I assured the hon. member that the result of this further valuation would be studied with the greatest care by the officials of the treasury board in order to ensure that it got the fullest possible consideration.
When this contradiction between the board, which is a cabinet committee and deals only with recommendations from a minister, and officials of the board who are civil servants and have no such power of recommendation, was pointed out, the minister said that he meant the treasury board staff only, and that he made no recommendation to the board itself and was under no obligation to do so.


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the minister's position. Well, was that the understanding in the mind of the hon. member for Peel when he secured the signatures to the agreement? Was that the understanding when he made this reference to the fact that the minister would take responsibility for dealing with treasury board?
Now let me ask a specific question, because it deals with this matter and appears in Hansard on page 4529. This a question I asked the minister:
Was there agreement that both parties would be bound by the Clare appraisal-
This was an appraisal which would have required a recommendation to the treasury board by the minister and acceptance of it by the board. When I asked the minister that question his reply was short and to the point: it was a categorical "No." Yet was the hon. member for Peel clear about that when he was going through this long and hard effort to get signatures from the owners, and when he told them that the minister would be responsible for treasury board, and when he told the minister two or three times that an agreement had been reached which would be binding on both sides?
Does the minister not think it would have been a wise thing for him to have cleared up this matter with the hon. member for Peel at that time? Perhaps the minister will now comment on that categorical statement, that categorical negative, and tell us whether there was no such agreement, no such undertaking, and no such understanding between himself and the member, or no proposal which would have required acceptance of the Clare valuations by the government or treasury board. He owes that to the hon. member concerned, and indeed the hon. member concerned owes it to himself. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that statement was made in


entire good faith, but he the member for Peel, owed it to himself to correct that statement, if it is wrong, made to the court under oath. I asked the minister on his estimates on June 11-and I am quoting from page 4583 of Hansard-how he reconciled his statement that there was no proposal for agreement or no clear understanding about compulsory arbitration with the hon. member's statement that there was. To that the minister replied:
I have no doubt that the hon. member had an idea that there was an agreement-
When did the minister decide that this idea had been removed from the hon. member's mind? When did he decide that this idea was in the hon. member's mind? After all the discussions, these talks, these letters, these communications, after all this correspondence to clear this matter up, then the minister came before the house last week and said, "I have no doubt that the hon. member had the idea that there was an agreement". So at the very best, Mr. Speaker, after all these talks, letters and correspondence between the two there was, on the basis of the minister's own statement, this complete confusion and misunderstanding on such an important matter. Perhaps both the minister and the member during the debate will explain how this confusion and misunderstanding-and I am putting it on that level at the present time-arose.
Now, let me deal with another matter in which there are contradictions and conflicting statements, even if the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) does not know of any such contradictions and conflicts in this matter. Page 16 of the findings has this to say about Mr. Clare, and this is the statement of the president of the Exchequer Court of Canada:
I do not believe that he was a free and independent valuator.
This is the statement of the judge. What has the hon. member and what has the minister to say about this statement? Nothing, according to the Prime Minister, until you lay a charge against the member, which makes it possible for that kind of statement to be looked into. In other words, let that statement go unchallenged until you lay a charge. But why did the judge make that statement? He had reason for doing it and he gives it in his findings, which can be found at the bottom of page 16 and the top of page 17. This is from the findings of the court:
He admitted-
"He" being the independent valuator, Mr. Clare.
-that Mr. Pallett, who had recommended his appointment, said that he wanted a good price and, on his cross-examination, after long hesitation, he admitted that Mr. Pallet had instructed him to put

as generous a valuation as possible on the properties and he told Mr. A. A. Speer, the Department of Transport's district land agent, that it was difficult for him to carry out his instructions.
The word used is not "suggested" or "proposed". The word used by this witness under oath is that he was instructed. 1 ask the minister, did he authorize or did he know of any such instructions? I ask him also, does he believe that there were such? Outside the court, Mr. Speaker, the member contradicted the statement which was made under oath by a witness in the court. According to the Canadian Press, in a dispatch published on June 5, he contradicted it and perhaps I had better read it. It is a press report. If the member feels it is not accurate he will no doubt deny it. The press dispatch reads:
Mr. Pallett denied today that he had instructed the appraiser to place a generous evaluation on the properties; the only instructions given him were "to straighten this mess out".
It seems to me it is only fair to the hon. member to put that on the record. If that statement is accurate, then the witness under oath, a free and independent valuator, wrongly stated that the hon. member had instructed him to do certain things which indeed the hon. member had no right to do, and which the hon. member has since denied in the press. Should that matter not be cleared up, Mr. Speaker, and was not this House of Commons the place to have it cleared up? No, said the Prime Minister, unless you accept this statement of Mr. Clare as true and accurate and base a charge on it. We do not accept it as true and accurate until the hon. member has had a chance to give his side of the case.
Then, I suggest, we are trying to be fair in this matter and give him a chance because if the statement is wrong-he said outside the court it is wrong-then he has been grossly injured inside the court by a statement of this kind.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is one other question that perhaps the minister will deal with when he talks. Why did a free and independent evaluator, which we were told Mr. Clare was, who was working for the department in this matter and appointed by the minister, send his report to the hon. member, not to the department which had employed him, which would be the normal practice, and why then did the hon. member send it direct to the minister's office and not through the usual channels? Did the minister know of that procedure? Did he sanction it?
Let me emphasize as I conclude that none of these statements, which surely does reflect on somebody, including the members of the House of Commons, whether they are true or
Malton Land Expropriation false; none of these statements which appear to reflect on the conduct of a member of the house is ours. They are in the findings of the court. We thought, Mr. Speaker, that these findings should have been examined by a committee of this house and that the Prime Minister would have been the first member of this house to insist that statements of this kind made in the findings of a court about one of his own members should have been looked into. Is the Prime Minister happy to leave these statements on the record unanswered? Will he still refuse what has been done so often in the past, namely to set up a committee to inquire into them in fairness to the member himself, or else submit them to the appropriate committee which is already in existence?
If the Prime Minister and the government do refuse this kind of inquiry and investigation, in the light of the evidence which I have put on the record, who then, Mr. Speaker, is being cowardly?
Perhaps I can quote from an editorial which has appeared on this matter. There are a number of editorials, but perhaps I can quote from an editorial in a paper which is a strong supporter of the government and therefore not likely to be unfair to the government in this matter. I am talking about the Calgary Herald and I am reading from its editorial of June 18. This editorial refers to the evidence given to the court and it says this:
This was evidence given in a court trial and duly released in the judgment of that court. It does not prove that Mr. Pallett has done anything illegal, but it certainly suggests a situation which is not desirable. Surely the taxpayers are entitled to expect that appraisals of land which is to be bought with their tax money should be appraisals completely free from any political influence. When a situation is uncovered which unquestionably suggests that some pressure, however innocent or mild, was placed on an appraiser who was apparently a political appointment, then parliament and the public have every right to expect that a full explanation will be given. It is not enough to say that the Prime Minister has investigated the matter and is satisfied. The Herald opposes government by caucus in Edmonton or in Ottawa, and regardless of party.
Lester Pearson, as Leader of the Opposition is quite justified in asking for an investigation. The government's suggestion that he lay a charge, which means in effect that if Mr. Pallett is exonerated of any crime then Mr. Pearson will have to resign, is totally ridiculous.
Hon. Davie Fulton, Minister of Justice, has jeered, sneered and challenged the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I question the propriety of reading an editorial which reflects on what goes on in this house. If it is expressing an opinion on a public issue, well and good; but when it gets to the point of criticizing the actions of the members in the house, I think it is quite out of order.

Malton Land Expropriation


Lester Bowles Pearson: Very well, Mr. Speaker. There are some others which substantiate the position we have taken and criticize the government in this matter. They represent, of course, a segment of public opinion which I think perhaps should be put on the record; but I think I have made a case from the evidence which is available to us, namely the findings of a court which quotes the statement of a member outside the house and the statement of a minister inside the house. It has been ruled by you, Mr. Speaker, that this matter cannot be considered by the committee on privileges and elections. It seems to us that that would have been a useful committee to have consider it but there are other ways in which it can be done. I think it has been abundantly shown now that if only in common justice to those concerned we should have these statements and these findings investigated and examined by this House of Commons in some form so that we can remove those contradictions and those conflicts and thereby find out what the truth is.
Surely that is fairness and justice to those who are mentioned in the evidence itself. I think any inquiry of this kind should examine into the discussions and negotiations between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) in connection with the valuation of these properties. Concerning them, I repeat, the hon. member for Peel swore before the exchequer court to the effect that the Minister of Transport had accepted a proposal made by him that the Department of Transport be bound by the result of an independent appraisal of such properties and concerning which the minister stated to the House of Commons that no agreement had been made between the hon. member and himself that the department would be so bound. That is one matter which surely should be looked into.
Another matter which surely should be inquired into is the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mr. Clare as an independent valuator, any influences under which he conducted his appraisal and the transmittal and final disposition of his report. Surely the government, having decided that this matter could not be examined by the committee on privileges and elections, is prepared now to have it examined in some other way. I will give the government the benefit of the doubt with respect to their refusal to have the matter examined by the committee on privileges and elections. I will make the assumption that the reason they would not do so was that that particular committee, by its very nature and by its terms of reference, deals with privileges and


it might look as if a member of the house was, if you like, being accused and charged before this committee. It cannot be done that way now but there are other ways in which it can be done. There are other ways in which this matter can be examined and the statements made inquired into as they should be. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laurier:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"In view of the reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Thorson in a case concerning the expropriation by the crown of property at Malton, Ontario, and contained in sessional paper 237, a select committee be appointed immediately to investigate and report on all matters connected with this expropriation."


Mr. John Palleii (Peel):: certain that this would result in a more realistic evaluation and some degree of compromise between the low figure of $9,200 and the high figure of $20,597. Subsequent events proved this assumption to be correct.
It has been said that I gave instructions to the new evaluator that I instructed him to be as generous as possible. I appreciate the fact that the use of the word "instruct" is unfortunate because the plain fact of the matter is that I was in no position to instruct Clare or anyone else. I had known Clare and had in fact recommended him for the position because he was a well known real estate agent in the area and was regarded as highly experienced in valuing property there. His qualifications were checked by officials of the Department of Transport. I most certainly did make representations to Clare that feeling was high in the district, that home owners were not being fairly treated, and that the reason for this was the general feeling that the prices offered by the department were out of all reason. I said that his was a public relations as well as a valuation problem, a viewpoint that is so widely recognized that the negotiators of land values in some large corporations are called public relations officers.
I never at any time instructed the valuator to place a generous valuation and to that I pledged my oath. My idea of a proper valuation was, and still is, one which would take into account the harsh fact of expropriation, the heavy costs of moving and relocating, the long wait and the uncertainties of the four year period and those other human factors which are so often ignored in cases of this sort. I suggest that any hon. member of this house would not quarrel with that conclusion. All the steps which were taken by me in making these representations on behalf of my constituents were taken while sitting as a private member, without fee or other charge, and before my appointment as chief government whip.
There is a responsibility on members, a responsibility which we in Peel county acknowledge. It has been well stated by one whose reputation and experience we all respect, a former prime minister of Ontario, a former provincial member for my own county of Peel, the late Colonel the Hon. Thomas L. Kennedy, who said:
Political patronage has never appealed to me. I mean that I never felt I was representing just the Conservatives in Peel and that I should do things only for them. A man represents a riding and in that riding are all kinds of people with different sorts of political views. They have a right to look to me for help.
I offer that as my text on this occasion because it represents a principle of public

service in and out of this house to which I give my full adherence. I shall continue in the future, as in the past, to work for and, if need be, to fight for the best interests of all the people of the great constituency of Peel as part of this wonderful country of ours.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with more interest, I think, to what has been said just now in the house by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) than we have to anything that has yet been said on this subject by any member on either side of the house. I must say that I should like to congratulate the hon. member on the tone of what he said. He showed respect for the house, for the traditions of the house and a proper sense of his own position which I think impressed us all-I know it impressed me.
However, I do not believe the hon. member has removed all the doubts that are in our minds. I propose to try, if I may be allowed, to consider the matter in the same tone, in the same temper as did the hon. gentleman. I want, first of all, to deal with the first point the hon. gentleman made. He said he thanks the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) for at last bringing this matter up in a fashion which has permitted him to speak in this house. It is with that statement that I must take issue at once.
It is open to any hon. member at any time that he feels there has been any reflection upon his reputation or upon his name as a member of the house to rise in the house at the first opportunity and make an explanation about it. That has been done countless times. It was done only last week by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) when a reflection was made upon him. As a matter of fact, it was something very close to a charge that was not withdrawn, and the hon. member who made it did not resign, I might add; but I do not want to get diverted into that matter. However, the hon. member for Laurier rose in his place at once and made an explanation. There was no hesitation about that. It seems to me that the only proper course for the hon. member for Peel to have taken-I said this in the house some days ago in reply to some of observations made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), I think on the estimates of the Minister of Transport, and I repeat it-as soon as the judgment of Mr. Justice Thorson was made public was to come and give to us an explanation of these statements.
These statements were not invented by my leader or by any member of the opposition. As my leader pointed out today, we have been most scrupulous not to repeat anything
Malton Land Expropriation about this case except what was in the judgment or what was said by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) in the house, or what was alleged to have been said by the hon. member for Peel outside the house. The only reflections or insinuations have been those that have been made by one or two hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and the Prime Minister. If the hon. member for Peel on the first day after the judgment was made public, had made the statement that he made to us today, while I do not say this matter would have been ended-there are certain features of it that I do not think can be ended even by his statement-I think the approach to the matter or the attitude of the house in respect of this matter would necessarily have been different. I intend to attempt to point out the respects in which I think we can now be said to be satisfied or, perhaps, I should speak only for myself; in fact, I have no right to speak for anyone but myself in this house. I should, perhaps, indicate the respects in which I feel satisfied and the respects in which I do not feel satisfied with the statement which the hon. gentleman has made.
I agree with him completely that a member of parliament has a duty to his constituents. I agree with him completely that a member should put the interests of his constituents before his own. I agree with him that no member can be too assiduous in the pursuit of the rightful claims of his constituents before the government. About those things I would hope no hon. member would quarrel. Despite claims that were made in the heat of debate the other day by the Minister of Transport, I do not think that many hon. members on either side of the house would claim that most of us do not take that attitude with respect to our constituents. I do not think the hon. member for Peel, who was very modest in his statement, was claiming to be unique in this regard.
I do not blame the hon. member for Peel for his impatience with the previous government for the long time it was taking in making these settlements. I do not mind saying that even hon. members who were members of the government were sometimes very impatient at the length of time that was taken in settling these expropriation cases. On the other hand, some of us who have had some experience with these expropriations-and my friend the hon. member for Laurier and I have had a good deal of it-know that very often there are two sides to the case and that in many cases where, on the surface, it appears to be a very easy and simple matter to settle, nevertheless when all the
5008	HOUSE OF
Malton Land Expropriation facts are known it is very far from easy or simple. Nevertheless, I quite agree that the hon. gentleman, as a member of parliament, had every reason to promote what he believed to be the honest interests of his constituents in getting a settlement, particularly when their homes were in question, as they were. I have no quarrel with the hon. gentleman, when he was a private member of parliament in the opposition for acting as solicitor for these people. I think that was a perfectly proper thing to do. I do not think there is anything wrong with it. If there had been anything wrong with it I think the law society would have dealt with it. There is certainly nothing that I can see that conflicts with his position as a member of the House of Commons.
I think that the hon. member showed considerable scruple in dissociating himself from this case at the time of the change of government when he became a private member supporting the government. I am not a lawyer but I do not think, unless he is a member of the government, that an hon. member supporting the government is precluded, any more than is an hon. member opposing the government, from acting against the crown. It does not seem to me that if one is not a member of the government this question arises at all; but I am not going to waste any time on that aspect. At any rate, the hon. gentleman, in a fashion which he considered to be proper and which certainly none of us would criticize, ceased to be a solicitor for the person in question. Again, with that procedure I have no criticism whatsoever, indeed, if anything, the reverse is the case.
Then we come to the next stage in the matter. I certainly do not blame the hon. member for going to the minister, who he no doubt felt would be more sympathetic to his representations than the previous minister, and asking him to try to speed this thing up. Obviously any hon. gentleman supporting this government would feel that they would do better than the former government and they would expect more results from the government. But when we reach that point I cannot any longer go along completely with the hon. gentleman. We are told this, and I am not going to attempt to quote from the documents unless I am asked to do so because the quotations have all been put in the record already this afternoon by my leader. I want merely to refer to them and I shall try to refer to them in summary form as accurately as possible. If I make any errors I shall be happy to be corrected.
The hon. member for Peel was told, according to the record, by the assistant deputy
[Mr. Pickerssill.l

minister and by the minister himself, before Mr. Clare was appointed to appraise this property-and that is shown in the judgement-that an arbitrator could not be appointed under the Expropriation Act. I do not think there is any quarrel about that. What function then was Mr. Clare to perform. Notwithstanding this opinion of the assistant deputy minister of transport, concurred in by Mr. McNeill of the treasury board staff, and the deputy minister of justice, the minister saw fit to appoint an independent appraiser. What was the appraiser supposed to do? The minister had been told that it would be contrary to the law to do what was originally suggested by the hon. member for Peel.
There was this meeting in the minister's office about which the minister told us something the other day on his estimates and about which the hon. member for Peel told us something today. There was a misunderstanding. Obviously there must have been a misunderstanding. But why was that misunderstanding allowed to continue and on the basis of that misunderstanding, why was this woman who had this property, believing there was a situation existing which did not exist, allowed to be put to the expense of taking the case into the exchequer court? Why, when this misunderstanding was discovered, was this lady not told that there had been a misunderstanding, and that this whole business did not represent any agreement at all? Why did the hon. member not tell her that he had been mistaken about what the minister had told him and that the minister had never agreed to send this valuation to treasury board with his recommendation?
What does the hon. gentleman have to say about the statement in the judgment, a statement repeated more than once, when he said under oath that he understood that these valuations would be accepted by the government? That has not been explained. I want to be absolutely and scrupulously fair in this matter. I will put that question again. What does the hon. member for Peel say about that?
The hon. member for Peel, under oath, said he believed that the crown as well as the owners were bound by these valuations, and it was on the basis of the hon. member's statement that the suppliant took her action and put herself to the expense she did. When did the hon. member discover that there was not such an understanding. Did this occur before he appeared in court or after? There is no evidence in the findings of the judge that the hon. member had in fact discovered his mistake. I have not got the whole

transcript of evidence and have only the findings of the judge but if the hon. member discovered this misunderstanding before the action was taken or before the case came to trial I would assume that, in the evidence he gave at the trial, he would have dealt with that point and, according to the record, he did not deal with it in the trial, and therefore presumably the hon. member for Peel never discovered this misunderstanding.
That raises another very big question. At this point I do want to quote from the findings. At page 10 the judge says:
There was, of course, the conflicting evidence of what took place in the minister's office on September 19, 1957, Mr. Pallett asserting that the minister had accepted his proposal that there should be a valuation by an appraiser approved by the department and acceptable to the owners and that both the owners and the minister acting for Her Majesty should be bound by such valuations and Mr. Booth stating that the minister had not agreed to be bound in advance by such a valuation.
That is what the judge says was stated in the court by the two principal witnesses. That is absolutely conflicting evidence. Are we to believe that when the minister declined or failed-and perhaps I should not use a verb at all-when the minister at any rate did not send this valuation forward to the treasury board then it is difficult for anyone to believe that the hon. member for Peel was not advised. It is difficult to believe that, at that stage, the hon. member would not have gone to the minister and asked why the valuation had not been sent to the treasury board.
It is very difficult to believe that, having been told what the reason was, the hon. member would not have gone to this lady and said, "This is the reason why this was not done." But no such evidence was given in the court. The hon. member gave the evidence that he believed this valuation was going to be accepted and he has not told us when he became disabused of this belief. That, it seems to me, is the nub of the whole matter.
Here we have a situation involving two hon. members of this house. The Minister of Transport has said one thing here in the house on his responsibility as a minister of the crown, and the hon. member for Peel has stated the precise opposite under oath in one of the high courts of the country. This has to do with something of real importance. This concerns the disbursement of money out of the treasury of the country. That is what is at issue, and it is not a trivial matter at all. I am not certain of the amount involved but I am told that the amount in all of these cases would probably be about $50,000. I must say that personally I do not regard $50,000 as a trivial sum at any time,
Malton Land Expropriation and although some hon. members of this house may view an amount of this nature in a different light, it is not the amount that is important but rather the principle that is involved.
This was a question of the protection of the treasury on the one hand, against the interests of a group of constituents on the other. It seems to me that the House of Commons, which has the duty of protecting the taxpayers' money above all its other duties, is entitled to have a conflict of this kind resolved in no uncertain fashion.
There is another problem that was not resolved because of the persistent refusal on the part of the Minister of Transport for the most trivial of reasons to discuss the findings of the court. The minister kept saying, "No one would expect me to discuss the judgment of the court." Of course, I am not a lawyer and neither is the minister, but Your Honour is and the Prime Minister is, and even the Prime Minister could not stomach this argument-if I may put it that way-of the Minister of Transport because at one stage- and I have the Hansard reference here-the Prime Minister suggested that the judgment was still sub judice and for that reason the minister should not discuss it. Actually, of course, the references to the hon. member for Peel and to the minister were not and could not be sub judice.
All that was sub judice, if indeed anything was,-and the hon. member for Laurier argued that nothing was-was the judgment, the amount of the award. Certainly the minister had a perfect right to controvert the statements which were made in that finding by the judge if they required to be controverted. I suggest he did not have just a right to do so, but he had a duty to do so, and he failed in that duty to this house. In my submission he failed to account adequately for his stewardship of his department by failing to answer those questions.
I also submit that the minister has never told us why he appointed this so-called independent appraiser and what he envisaged this man could do. Hon. members will recall that he had been advised by the advisers whose advice he seems to have taken throughout the whole case-his assistant deputy minister, Mr. MacNeill, of the treasury board and in one instance reference was made to the deputy minister of justice-that there could not be an arbitration under the Expropriation Act. The vast bulk of these cases having been settled on a certain basis, it is difficult to see what the minister could conceivably have thought this appraiser could accomplish except to make the same valuations as had been made five or six times before.

Malton Land Expropriation
I am told that appraisers do not work for free. I have not looked up the record to see precisely what this gentleman was paid but he certainly was paid some of the taxpayers' money and that, to us, obviously was wasted. It was wasted because these appraisals were of no value. Not only was it wasted but it had the effect of resulting in litigation of a character which may have cost the taxpayers even more.
But what I ask myself is, what did the minister think he was accomplishing by appointing this appraiser? What did he think this appraiser was going to do? Did the minister for one minute think that if these appraisals were higher than the other appraisals on which the department had already settled he could recommend that the department and the treasury board should accept and pay larger sums to these owners on a voluntary basis than had been paid to other people in similar circumstances? Did the minister really think that the government of Canada could treat citizens in that fashion? I suggest that it is almost preposterous to suggest such a thing. That these people could have gone into the courts and taken their chances and perhaps have got more than other people who settled voluntarily is one thing, but that the government of its own motion should make fish of one and fowl of another is surely a preposterous idea. It seems to me the house is entitled to know what was the purpose of appointing this appraiser, what it was expected to accomplish and what would be accomplished.
Now I come to the other question of whether or not the appraiser was instructed. On that of course, I do not intend to quarrel with the hon. member for Peel. The hon. member for Peel has said that the witness who gave evidence in the court gave evidence which was not true. The hon. member is a member of this house and he said that on his responsibility as a member of this house, and I accept it without question at all. But that does raise another question. The hon. member for Peel-and this has been admitted by him and by the Minister of Transport, and it is not a matter in dispute at all-took the responsibility of recommending this appraiser and the minister took the responsibility of appointing him. The minister says an investigation was conducted into this man's qualifications, and we have, of course, some recent evidence on this subject which I am not going to labour at all. However, I have a cutting here from the Regina Leader-Post of June 18, 1959, which quotes the executive director of the appraisal institute of Canada as follows:

-in Regina Thursday the land appraiser involved in the House of Commons hassle over land in the Toronto area is not a qualified appraiser.
Director W. N. Mulock said the Toronto appraiser J. E. S. Clare "is not a qualified member of the appraisal institute, nor has he ever belonged to the institute."
I am not going to make any more of that except to bring it before the house as another bit of uncontradicted evidence that the committee we are asking to have set up should resolve.
The other point I want to make, which seems to me to be perhaps the only other point I can usefully make, is this. The hon. member for Peel while he was a private member, as he himself has said, undertook to further what he conceived to be the legitimate interests of a group of his constituents. In doing so, because there was what he and the minister both called a misunderstanding between him and the minister, he led those constituents to believe-he did not deny this; in fact he admitted it quite openly-that he had on their behalf reached an agreement with the minister that the government as well as the owners would be bound by this appraisal. In other words, far from helping these constituents he in fact, if I may use a popular expression, led them down the garden path. I do not for a minute suggest that he intended to but that is what happened. These people, or at least one of them, were put-did the minister wish to ask a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the extra $2,000 by which the award was increased? It is not a negligible amount.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not forgotten about that at all. It seems to me that if the exchequer court was going to allow an extra $1,000-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Two thousand.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -$2,000; if these people were not satisfied to accept the same kind of settlement which had been arrived at with the other people, the exchequer court would probably have allowed that much in any event. But there were two actions here, I do not imagine that in the courts two actions come as cheap as one. It may be that there could have been a settlement without any action, and that was indicated before action was taken, as is shown in the judgment. The department felt that this $11,200 was open for acceptance before action was taken, and indeed it was the offer on which the learned judge based his judgment. Therefore, if this litigant had known for sure and been given an unqualified assurance of what the minister is telling us now, namely that there was a misunderstanding between the hon. member and the minister, it seems highly

improbable that any such action would have been taken, because this action was taken, as hon. members know, by a leading counsel in the city of Toronto, an eminent member of the bar who I have personal reason to know has been not unsuccessful in actions against the crown. It is very unlikely that a conscientious and able counsel would have advised his client to enter into an action if he had been advised in advance by the hon. member for Peel that there had been a misunderstanding and that no such agreement existed.
It seems to me that that comes right back to what I have said from the start is the nub of this case, that this litigant was allowed to go into court believing, and having every reason to believe, because she had been so assured by the hon. member for Peel-and we have no evidence that she was ever told the contrary-that an agreement had been made between the minister and the hon. member for Peel of the character that the hon. member for Peel said under oath existed. He said he believed it existed. Then we are told that it was a misunderstanding, and parliament has to be satisfied with that. I just do not think that when we are dealing with public money and the good faith of a minister of the crown that is good enough.
It seems to me that whether or not this matter be a question of privilege-and while we submit to Your Honour's ruling, it is very hard sometimes to submit-there can be no question of the impropriety in the first place of appointing an appraiser to perform no function that we have been told about that could be useful; to spend public money on this appraisal that could not possibly have the effect that those agreed in advance to be bound by it believed it would have.
There is also the contradiction between the statement of a minister of the crown, a member of this house, and another member of this house who today occupies the high and honourable position of chief government whip. I therefore submit, that the government-and the Prime Minister owes it to the house-should bring this matter before a committee and have it cleared up.
Before I resume my seat, if I have any more time, I should like to remind hon. members that in the year 1953, not long before I became a member of this house, another case arose in which the name of an hon. member sitting on the government side of the house was brought into question, not in the house at all, not in a judgment of a court, but by some articles in a Toronto newspaper. What happened in that case?


John George Diefenbaker: You had better give the facts.
Malton Land Expropriation


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister says I had better give the facts. I have given all the facts that I intend to give about that case. If the Prime Minister wants to supplement the facts he is perfectly welcome to do so because there were no other facts that I know about. There were insinuations in the article in the newspaper, and I am not going to repeat those insinuations at all. There were insinuations affecting the conduct of a member in his relations with someone who had a contract with the government, but not affecting his relations with the government; affecting his relations with a contractor who had one or several contracts with the government.
What happened in that case? The hon. member in question came into the house of his own motion. I searched Hansard quite diligently and I have not found any reference made by any other hon. member to that hon. member's connection with the matter until he came into the house, or indeed afterwards, so far as that goes. He came into the house of his own motion made a statement very similar to the statement made today by the hon. member for Peel, in which he stated on his honour that he had no kind of improper connections whatsoever that affected him as a member and he put his seat in jeopardy. That is what happened in that case.
I do not say for a minute that the hon. member for Peel should have put his seat in jeopardy; I am not making any such suggestion. But I am saying that what he should have done at the very beginning of this matter-and I come back to this again -is to have come into this house at once and explained to hon. members in the frank way he did today precisely what had happened. He did not need to ask for an investigation. There is no compulsion on him to do that. My hon. friend from Laurier did not ask for an investigation the other day. He simply got up and stated the facts, and that was the end of the matter.
There was another occasion, of course, in that parliament before I became a member of parliament-the Prime Minister will remember it very well-when the leader of the opposition made insinuations and charges and more about a very distinguished member of the government, and that member of the government on two different occasions took immediate advantage of the first possible opportunity to reply to those insinuations. There is nothing new about it. What is new about this is that the hon. member for Peel did nothing about it for all this long period of time. Why, it is hard to understand. It is very hard to understand why now. What is
5012	HOUSE OF
Malton Land Expropriation even harder to understand, what is even more difficult to reconcile with the proprieties, is that the Minister of Transport, having read in a judgment of a high court that a member of this house, the chief whip of his own party, had said under oath that he had made an agreement of a certain character with the minister, should not have undertaken action on his own and at once to explain what the real facts were. The minister still has not told us when he told the hon. member for Peel about this misunderstanding, nor when he told the other persons involved about the situation. There are still many unanswered questions about this matter and it is to resolve those questions which still affect the word given by a member under oath in a court, and the word given on his responsibility as a minister by a minister of the crown here in this house, that we believe this motion should pass.


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, the reason that prompted me to take part in this debate is more than anything else-and I wish to emphasize this fact -the extraordinary and, as a matter of fact, the very revealing attitude that the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) adopted in dealing with this matter ever since it has been brought into the house. Indeed, it is because of the attitude of the Prime Minister that the house and parliament are forced to make an investigation into a matter which should have been brought before a special committee which might have studied this question far more fully than can be done in this House of Commons.
I consider as unparliamentary, irresponsible and unwise the fact that the Prime Minister did not of his own free will institute an investigation into this matter and offer some clarification of statements which are to be found in a judgment of the exchequer court in the Drew case. I submit, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely contempt of parliament for the Prime Minister to refuse to institute a formal inquiry into the statements of the exchequer court which raises doubt not only as to the propriety of the role played by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) but which in fact imply that there may be some doubt as to how far the government, and particularly the Department of Transport, was committed and involved in negotiations or arrangements with persons concerned which, according to the judgment, were considered to be irregular.
I also submit that it was in a narrow and unjustifiable spirit that the Prime Minister attempted to place the opposition in the role of prosecutor and tried to force the opposition to make charges against the hon. member for Peel and to let us understand that


if we were not willing to make those charges then we should desist completely from trying to obtain some information or some clarification of this most dubious matter.
The opposition has, of course, cited many precedents where such inquiries as were asked for by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) were made without formal charges being laid, and yet the Prime Minister refuses to have an inquiry made on statements which throw confusion and doubt, not only on the hon. member for Peel but on the activities of parliament, in that it places members of parliament in an unfavourable light. As regretful as this fact may be, I am quite sure that no one in this house will deny that there is unfortunately a large number of people in Canada who feel that politics and politicians are not necessarily synonymous with objectivity and with honesty.
Leaving the records of the court in this particular case as they stand without some explanation will not to my mind help to dissipate the erroneous but nevertheless harmful opinion that many people have of politicians. I submit that no government and no party have the right to allow doubts reflected on the activities of a member of parliament in a transaction which involves the government, and contained in an official document as public as a court judgment, to remain on the records without taking every possible and conceivable means of clarifying all the doubts once and for all, and that not only in the interests of the hon. member for Peel but in the interests and to preserve the prestige and the dignity of parliament and parliamentarians.
I am rather surprised that the Prime Minister and the other members of the government have approached this matter from a rather narrow point of view and that they have so soon forgotten the wonderful speeches they made on how necessary it was to preserve the dignity and the rights of parliament. It appears to me that the true obligation and the true prestige of this house lie not so much in prosecuting or condemning an hon. member as in not allowing anything at all to impair the dignity and the prestige of parliament and that we should do all we can to safeguard and, indeed, to enhance and increase the confidence and the faith of Canadians in parliament and in parliamentarians.
I feel that the Prime Minister's attitude and decision with respect to this matter have all along been contrary to the best interests of parliament and, indeed, contrary to the best interests of the hon. member for Peel. From the moment the Leader of the Opposition questioned the Prime Minister on these important matters concerning the judgment of

the court the house has witnessed the full scope of the Prime Minister's parliamentary tactics, but we have not obtained one solitary piece of information concerning the point at issue. In answer to the Leader of the Opposition's first questions on the matter the Prime Minister replied with what I considered to be one of the finest examples of the Prime Minister's doubletalk in which, of course, he said nothing and meant much less.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What are you quoting from?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Then the Prime Minister tried soft soap-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would you permit a question, please? You spoke about the Prime Minister's doubletalk. Will you give the exact reference?


Lionel Chevrier: Are you asking a question or making a statement?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: If the minister will look at Hansard-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am asking for the page reference in Hansard.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I am not quoting anything, but if the minister is interested he will be able, if he can read doubletalk-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are not quoting anything. You are making a ridiculous statement.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Then, Mr. Speaker, when the doubletalk did not work the Prime Minister tried the soft soap method along with the cunning smile we know so well and the sly references. But even that did not work so he tried the old method of trying to divert the attention of the house from the main topic by attacking the opposition and by also introducing a procedural harangue. Finally, the Prime Minister resorted to the more natural characteristic of his government, that of utilizing an appalling amount of arrogance smothered in sanctimony. Incredible as it may seem, the government in the space of two short years has achieved a degree of domineering arrogance that the Liberals could not possibly have acquired in 100 years.


Mr. Ricard:: I think the hon. member does not understand the words he is saying.


Lionel Chevrier: He understands much better than you do.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Not only has the house not yet received any information or any clarification with respect to a transaction which from the judgment of the court itself one could consider as irregular but it is still the intention of the Prime Minister not to give
Malton Land Expropriation members of the house any information on this important and dubious question now before us.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not true.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The result is that a comparatively simple problem, which could have been cleared up long ago by an adequate statement from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) or even the hon. member for Peel, has turned into something much more important and much more serious-


Mr. Walker:: A witch hunt.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: -than the statement of the court with which we are now concerned. The question now is, what does parliament do with a government having an overwhelming majority which absolutely refuses to have a proper inquiry made into statements of a court of justice which imply irregularity on the part of a government member in a transaction in which the government is involved and which cries out for explanation and clarification? There is only one thing that can be done about this matter and I am sure that Canadians will not miss the opportunity of doing so at the next federal election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Grills:: That is what you are working for, eh?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: We are asking that justice be done.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Gimli airport.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: In spite of the statement made by the hon. member for Peel, for whom I have the greatest respect and, indeed, the greatest of friendship, I would feel that the reasons that he gave for not participating sooner in this debate were a little weak. I believe I am on far firmer ground when I say that, and I am far closer to the truth if I say that I think the hon. member for Peel received instructions not to take part in the debate prior to this time and to forgo the opportunity to speak on his own behalf.


An hon. Member:: Strictly supposition on your part.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Perhaps, but the supposition I am making now is certainly as strong as the statement the hon. member made a while ago. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that it seems strange to me that the hon. member would not take the opportunity of answering the doubts which, as other hon. members on this side of the house have stated, arise not from the Liberal opposition but from statements
5014	HOUSE OF
Malton Land Expropriation in a court of justice which I feel sure the hon. member owed it to himself and to the house to clarify.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What doubts?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Indeed, if the house is now faced with a motion of non-confidence it is because the opposition felt that the hon. member for Peel should have the opportunity of answering and clarifying these charges.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What charges?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The insinuations that are
contained-


Douglas Scott Harkness: The insinuations you made.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: -in the court judgment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What insinuations?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The insinuations you people over there are making.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: "Insinuation" is right.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not what the Speaker decided. You had better read the judgment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He used the right word when he said "insinuations".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who, the Speaker?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I also feel that action on the part of the government aimed at clarifying the situation was called for, not only by the ordinary elementary rules of decency and justice toward an hon. member of the house but by our unanimous dedication to preserve the dignity of parliament and the rights and privileges of its members.
What value can we now place on the many pages of Hansard which the Prime Minister has filled with resounding verbiage as to the necessity of preserving the prestige and rights of parliament, in the face of his decision not to allow an inquiry which would achieve that aim, and the absence of which is detrimental to the dignity of parliament?
Did the Prime Minister really believe that the judgment of the exchequer court, which we now have before us, was the type of document which would add prestige and dignity to parliament? Did the Prime Minister think that he was adding to the rights and privileges of hon. members in this house when by his decision and his attitude he effectively denied the right of a member of parliament to answer on his own behalf, to give his side of the story about the matter mentioned in the court judgment? After all, he was a witness in the case. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister has retreated, and not gracefully at that, from his responsibilities to the house and to parliament in connection with this whole matter ever since it has been brought before the house.

I must say I was quite surprised indeed to read an article in the Saturday Gazette by Mr. Blakely, the headline of which read, "Prime Minister Opens Way for Pallett Debate". One could possibly get the impression from that headline that the Prime Minister was quite anxious to have this particular debate in which we might be able to clarify so many questions which are now so unclear. To anyone who has been following what has been going on in this house in connection with this subject, nothing could be further from the truth. I would have thought that a headline which would have been more in keeping with the facts would have read something like this: "Prime Minister Shamed by Liberals into Opening Way for Pallett Debate". Even this, Mr. Speaker, would not be quite true because the Prime Minister did not open the way to the debating of this question. The way was already open to members of the opposition by the rules and regulations of this house to which Your Honour himself referred before the Prime Minister spoke on this matter. It was only after second thoughts, after realizing the opposition did have an opportunity of debating this question, that the Prime Minister thought he could be magnanimous about it and let the opposition debate the question, to which they had every right according to the rules.
"Prime Minister Opens Way for Pallett Debate". I only wish, Mr. Speaker, I could be so favourably understood and so well interpreted in statements by members of the press gallery as was the Prime Minister in this very difficult situation. There is no doubt but that Mr. Blakely must certainly have been working under a very serious handicap in order to be able to arrive at that particular conclusion. Of course we in the opposition are not so unrealistic as to expect to be interpreted by members of the press gallery on the basis of the very small print that may or may not exist; we of the opposition would be very happy indeed, and very content if they would just write down what we say. With all respect for Mr. Blakely's opinion, I am still convinced that the Prime Minister did not open the way to the Pallett debate.
As a matter of fact, there has been a marked reluctance on the part of the Prime Minister in connection with this matter, not in order to accuse or condemn or punish the hon. member for Peel but to take the necessary steps to clarify this matter by allowing the hon. member to speak on his own behalf to dispel, if possible, any doubt that might have been created by the judgment. Indeed, this procedure would have let the people of Canada know that parliament does have the power to investigate and to stop practices

that are not in the interests of parliament or the people. It is this reluctance, and the not too subtle use of the procedural technique by the Prime Minister to thwart the opposition in its attempt to clarify this matter which might easily lead us to believe that the government has something more serious to hide than what is contained in the court judgment.
Nor does it require much imagination to suspect that the hon. member for Peel might well be the victim of irregularities which stem far more from the partisan policies and practices of this government than they do from the hon. member himself. Has not the Prime Minister in his decision not to clarify this matter chosen to jeopardize, not only the dignity of parliament and the rights of parliamentarians but the reputation and career of one of his best members in order to save the face of the Conservative party?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not true, and you know it.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No matter how much hon. gentlemen opposite may protest, these questions are at the root of the problem that faces the house today. If the Prime Minister continues to refuse to clarify this matter, the answers to these questions will be in the affirmative. We will be justified in claiming that just as the government placed the interests of the Conservative party ahead of the economic stability of this country, as is exemplified by the huge deficit this year, so too they do not hesitate now to place the prestige of their political party before the prestige and dignity of parliament, before the rights and privileges of parliamentarians and even, Mr. Speaker, before the elementary principle of justice and decency toward a fellow Canadian, a colleague in this house, the hon. member for Peel, a living victim to the Conservative sacred cow.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the Minister of Transport going to enter this debate?


George Harris Hees: I think, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peel has cleaned up all the questions that remained to be answered. I do not believe there is anything else to be said.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, there is an amendment to the motion to go into supply now before the house. It was moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in these terms:
In view of the reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Thorson in a case concerning the expropriation by the crown of property at Malton, Ontario, and contained in sessional paper 237, a select committee be appointed immediately to investigate and report on all matters connected with this expropriation.
Malton Land Expropriation
Since the Leader of the Opposition has made his very excellent speech outlining in a fair manner all the aspects of this case as set out in the judgment of Mr. Justice Thorson, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) has risen to make a statement. As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) has said, it is unfortunate that the hon. member did not take advantage of the right which he had heretofore to make that statement. While he said that he was unable to speak and felt that he was in a difficult position because of an earlier debate, still we all know in this house that the hon. member could have risen and could have made a statement on a question of privilege or even in the earlier debate. However, he made a statement today and in so far as I am concerned as a member of this house I accept the statement which the hon. member has made. I do not think any member in the house, if he understands his rights, privileges and obligations-and I am sure all of us do- would for one moment not wish to accept the word of an hon. member who rises in his place and says, "Here are the facts as I see them".
None the less, Mr. Speaker, in view of the motion which is before us it is still open to hon. members on this side of the house to place before you and the house, in speaking to this amendment, some of the difficulties which still lie in the way. I propose to do that and I hope that in the course of the intervention which I shall make I shall say nothing which will in the slightest degree be unjust or unfair to the hon. member. However, I want at once to indicate to you, Mr. Speaker and to the house, the entirely different attitude taken by the other side of the house in this debate from that taken in the earlier debate. I want to point out that at least in this debate we were listened to with attention and with care and were followed in the interventions which we attempted to make. That was not the situation on the earlier occasion.
On the earlier occasion we were attacked for lacking courage, being guilty of McCarthyism, being guilty of making innuendos and insinuations and the like. What has been the reason for the change in the attitude of hon. members opposite? Is it because of statements contained in the press? Is it because the government has begun to realize that there was something in the attitude of the opposition which asked for an explanation of the contradictions which existed? Be that as it may, I note with a great deal of satisfaction the change in the attitude in this debate compared with that in the earlier debate.

Malton Land Expropriation
I say that the object of this amendment is to revive a matter which we tried unsuccessfully to bring before the house on a matter of privilege. We tried unsuccessfully to do it in a motion which was placed on the order paper by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and on which you, Mr. Speaker, ruled in a fairly lengthy judgment. I have no fault to find with that judgment. Indeed, I submit to the ruling of the Chair which is also, because of the appeal to the house, the decision of the house. But none the less I am quite at liberty to state that in the earlier debate we were prevented from bringing certain matters to the attention of the house for various reasons.
It seems to me that a supply motion is neither the time nor the place to discuss a matter of this kind. In my opinion a supply motion is the time to deal with matters concerning the non-confidence which the opposition has in the government. To my mind a matter of this kind should be discussed on another occasion and that is by way of investigation. I want to say here that this occasion provides me with an opportunity to make some comments in connection with the rights of the opposition in this house concerning the use of supply days. On more than one occasion it has been indicated in this house by the government that we should use supply days for certain debates.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is your choice, not ours.


Lionel Chevrier: Just a minute. The opposition is entitled to six supply days. They are set aside in the standing orders in order to permit the opposition, on motions to go into supply, to move amendments of non-confidence against the government. Surely, Mr. Speaker, what the opposition does on these motions, what subjects it chooses to debate, are prerogatives of the opposition, not of the government, and should be protected. There has been in this house when we move the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance an increasing practice to suggest "Oh, the matter is not important enough; we will give you the opportunity of discussing it on a supply motion on Monday". On two occasions when, from this side, we moved the adjournment of the house in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) rose-and I believe also the leader of the house-to say that this was a matter which need not be debated now but which should be debated on a supply motion, and immediately he said "I make that opportunity available". As Your Honour knows full well, the rule sets out clearly what are the reasons for the adjournment of the house on a matter of urgent public


importance. The fact that there is going to be a supply motion is not one of those reasons. I therefore deprecate the attitude which is being adopted by the government and on the other side of the house in attempting to curtail the rights of discussion of the opposition by saying to them from time to time, "Oh, you are going to have a supply motion on Monday; raise the matter on that occasion". That procedure I say is an infringement upon the rights of the opposition and places an unfair limitation upon our freedom of action in moving supply amendments.
I should like now to pass on to another consideration in this matter. Why do we find ourselves today discussing this matter? Why do we find ourselves in effect discussing a matter of privilege on a want of confidence motion?


An hon. Member:: That is the $64 question.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend says: "That is the $64 question". If there had been an explanation of the contradictions found in the judgment of Mr. Justice Thorson it would not have been necessary to raise the matter as one of privilege at all. But owing to the fact that there was no explanation of those contradictions the opposition now finds itself in its present position. Then one of the reasons why we find ourselves in this position is as a result of the refusal of the government to allow the matter to go to a committee for investigation, as sought by the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. It is because of that fact that we find ourselves moving an amendment to the motion to go into supply. But there are other reasons. Another one is the fact that the government took the position that the matter had to be dealt with by way of a charge, a contention which has now been clearly proven to be totally unfounded. If ever there was a straw-man put up by the government it was when it was stated, both by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) that a substantive charge must be laid by an hon. member of this house before a matter of this nature could be referred to a committee for investigation. You, sir, I believe clearly disposed of this fetish when in your judgment to be found at page 4930 of Hansard of June 19, 1959 you stated:
On the authorities it appears to he open to an hon. member to confront the house with charges against another member implicit in documents in the possession of the house, but in my view the charge must be there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: The point we are making is that in the judgment there are by implication statements and formulations in the effect and

in the nature of a charge. In fact, there are several precedents which Your Honour referred to and which I will not go into again, namely the Schell and the Daoust cases. But there is also the Boothby case which is quite clear in its implication, where no charge was made and where Mr. Churchill himself said that no charge was made.
There is also the case in our own parliament, namely the Foster case, also known as the Garland case, to which I would like to refer in greater detail, not because a general mention has not been made of it already but because 1 feel that this is a clear precedent on the question of whether or not a charge should or should not be laid. A motion was made by Mr. A. K. Maclean on March 12, 1915-


Mr. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but it appears to me that he is now debating the point which Your Honour decided upon on Friday of last week.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) speak to that point?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that point of order is well taken. 1 say that in the course of this motion and this amendment I have the right to discuss the whole case and the judgment and thereby the reasons why a charge should not be made but a formulation be charged by way of implication such as set out in this case. Otherwise, if I am not authorized to do this, then surely I am not authorized either to put on the record the Boothby case which was discussed on an earlier occasion and certain aspects of which I wish to place on the record having regard to what has already been said in the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The decision which I made on the point of order was simply to the effect that it was merely a procedural decision and that that motion could not proceed as involving a prima facie question of privilege of the house. If the hon. member wants to refer to those precedents in connection with an amendment before the house I see no reason why he should not do so, but if he is debating the matters which were necessarily involved in my decision I would consider that he would be repeating and would be out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: Could 1 just say to Your Honour that my intention is not to challenge in anyway the judgment. On the contrary, I am supporting the judgment by anything which I have said already, as Your Honour has probably noticed.
Malton Land Expropriation


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I have not made myself clear on this. The motion is that a select committee should be appointed. If the hon. member wishes to use the precedents of the appointment of committees I see no reason why he should not do so.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Your Honour. What I wanted to do was to cite a motion which was made by Mr. A. K. Maclean on March 12, 1915 as reported at page 946 of Hansard as follows:
That sessional papers numbered 122 of the present session of parliament, and all other papers in relation thereto, being copies of correspondence between the Auditor General and the Department of Militia and other departments of government, laid upon the table of the house, in respect to expenditures under the War Expropriations Act, be referred to the committee on public accounts, with power to investigate the matters therein referred to, and to report thereon from time to time.
That is to a large extent the wording of the amendment which is now before Your Honour. If I may proceed I would go on to say that it was recognized during the course of that case that that investigation would imply an inquiry into the conduct of hon. members as indicated in the statement of Mr. Garland uttered in his defence which is to be found at page 947 of Hansard of March 12, 1915. Here I quote again from that Hansard:
First of all, since I have become a member of parliament, I have not been in any way whatever interested in contracts with the dominion government, and have never been and am not now, directly or indirectly, by understanding, secret or otherwise, or in any other way whatever, interested in the dealings which Mr. Powell had with the militia department, or with any department.
Sir Robert Borden speaking on the motion realized clearly the same implications of the motion when he said:
I am also the more inclined to accede to the motion of the hon. member for Halifax for the reason that a member of this house, the hon. member for Carleton, Ontario (Mr. Garland), came to me some time ago and asked that matters in this correspondence that have been commented upon especially in the press of this country as touching his own position in the house should be fully investigated at the earliest possible moment. When the hon. member for Halifax intimated across the floor of the house some time ago that he desired to make a motion for the purpose of referring this correspondence to the committee on public accounts, with the view to investigating the matter referred to therein, the hon member for Carleton at once came to me and asked that, so far as he was concerned, no objection should be made to that motion, and that the fullest opportunity of investigation should be afforded in the public accounts committee.
It would have seemed to me that had the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) or even the hon. member for Peel made a motion or suggested that the document which is Mr. Justice Thorson's judgment No. 122, be

Malton Land Expropriation referred to the committee, that would have disposed of the matter and that certainly would have been in conformity with the precedent with which I was dealing.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned at six o'clock I was discussing the so-called Foster case, and I had put on record certain of the statements made by Sir Robert Borden. I think I can summarize the whole thing very quickly, and I am sure Your Honour will not be displeased at my decision so to do, by simply stating that in his summation of the report in connection with Foster, Sir Robert Borden at no point said that Mr. Foster had acted for his private gain or had been guilty of moral wrongdoing. Then Sir Robert went on to say:
I am not concerned about Mr. Garland; I am concerned about Mr. Foster. He Is not shown to have profited in any way by the transaction. He is a very young man, altogether inexperienced in business. What he tried to do was to try to get more money for the horses of his constituents.
The parallel I want to draw here is that what the hon. member for Peel tried to do was to get more money for the land of his constituents than the president of the exchequer court thought it was worth. So that there is a parallel to be drawn between these two cases. In the case of Mr. Foster, the so-called Foster-Garland case, there was no hesitation on the part of Sir Robert Borden in suggesting that the matter be sent to a committee notwithstanding that it was found therein that there was no moral wrongdoing in the case. I thought I should bring that to your attention.
The hon. member for Peel put on record what had been said by Mr. Burke in connection with the duties and responsibilities of a member of parliament, and I would like to put on the record also what one finds concerning that matter in Beauchesne's third edition, citation 20, page 11, which reads as follows:
Every member as soon as he is chosen becomes a representative of the whole body of the Commons, without any distinction of the place from whence he is sent to parliament. . . . that every member is equally a representative of the whole has been the constant notion and language of parliament. Every member, though chosen by one particular district, when elected and returned, serves for the whole realm.
So in view of this citation, in view of the statement of the hon. member for Peel, and in


view of the refusal of the Minister of Transport to make a statement, which I am sure the house would welcome, in order to clear up some of the contradictions, I should like to ask the Prime Minister who is now in his seat these questions. Does a member who unsuccessfully attempts to get funds from the public treasury for his constituents, which they do not deserve, serve in the public interest? Has parliament now decided that a member can with propriety and without any breach of the privileges of parliament go out and seek for his constituents funds from the public treasury which in the circumstances they are not warranted in having? Does a member who seeks to bind the crown by the imposition of valuations which were not in accordance with the actual and true market value of the land serve in the public interest? Has parliament now decided that a member can with propriety and without any breach of the privileges of parliament seek unduly to increase the actual or fair market value of land? Does a member who himself obtains from the valuator the valuations themselves contrary to the practice of the Department of Transport and then turns them over to the minister's executive assistant serve in the public interest? Has parliament now decided that a member can with propriety and without any breach of the privileges of the house act in this manner? Those, it seems to me, without in any way prejudging in any way what has been said by anyone who has taken part in the debate, are some of the questions which in the light of what has taken place in this and the other debate demand clarification on the part of the government.
Now may I turn to another matter which is also germane to the issue and it is this. It is amazing to me that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) has seen fit not to take part in this discussion. Here is a motion of non-confidence. It is a motion of nonconfidence in the government affecting the Department of Transport, affecting the officers of the Department of Transport, affecting a member of parliament in so far as his relations are concerned with the Department of Transport, and the minister has seen fit not to say anything. He chooses to say nothing in this debate. He says that he cannot be expected to discuss the judgment. The judgment is not in appeal; the judgment is not sub judice. There are many of us who have discussed the judgment: the Leader of the Opposition at great length; the member for Bonavista-Twillingate; the member for Essex East (Mr. Martin); the member himself who is concerned made certain statements in connection with it; the Prime Minister; and also, I believe, the Minister of Justice. All of them

saw fit to discuss the judgment, and still the Minister of Transport whose department is most vitally interested and certainly closely concerned has seen fit not to rise and take part in this discussion.
Why did the minister appoint the valuator Clare who turned out to be anything but an independent valuator? I think the minister owes it to this house to explain some of the contradictions that are to be found in the judgment. The hon. member for Peel in his explanation earlier in the day said there was a simple misunderstanding between himself and the minister. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon the minister to rise and clear up this misunderstanding. When did the minister tell the hon. member for Peel that he was mistaken? He said that he did not go to court because he was not subpoenaed. Everybody knows that that is no reason for not going to court. One has not necessarily to be subpoenaed in order to go to court. There were a number of contradictions affecting the minister, affecting a member of parliament and affecting officers of the Department of Transport, and still the minister saw fit not to clear up those contradictions. He might well have done so by going voluntarily to court.


Mr. McPhillips:: I wonder if the hon. members would permit a question. He says it is not necessary to be subpoenaed. Would the hon. member suggest that a person could take the witness box by force?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not suggested that, and the hon. member has no reason for asking that kind of question because it is not prompted by the statement which I have made. The point that is being made is that the reason given for the minister not going to court was that he was not subpoenaed. Many people go to court without being subpoenaed; many people come forward and give evidence to clear up certain misunderstandings. In this case it seemed to us that there were a number of misunderstandings and contradictions arising out of the judgment and the order of the court which should have been cleared up. It seems to me that the public would have thought better of the minister if he had cleared up those misunderstandings. Does the minister realize that in effect this case was against him? Does he realize-


Edmund Davie Fulton: What case are you talking about, the case you are making tonight?


Lionel Chevrier: I am talking about the suppliant's case, which in effect was a case against the crown in so far as the Department of Transport was concerned, and in that respect since the minister's department was called into question and is at issue, it 66968-9-318
Malton Land Expropriation would seem that he should have cleared up many of the misunderstandings that had taken place. Therefore, I say it is inexcusable, and it is difficult for me to understand why in a matter of this kind the Minister of Transport has not seen fit to take part in this debate. For this and other reasons, and also because of the precedents in the Foster case and the Boothby case which have been discussed already, it seems to me that there is a clear-cut case for the reference of this matter to a committee for investigation. Because of that, I am glad to support the motion made by the Leader of the Opposition.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the official opposition asked that a special committee of this house be set up to set the record straight on what can only be described as an extraordinary affair, an affair which involves the rights of individuals against the state as well as the handling of public funds. The evidence is contradictory and should be reconciled. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that some individuals agreed to accept for their homes a new and binding evaluation. They believed that when they agreed to be bound the government likewise was agreeing that it too would be similarly bound under this proposed method of settlement. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) told the court under oath that he had a commitment from the Minister of Transport. He told the Canadian Press the same thing after the trial. In addition, he had staked his reputation on his acceptance of the minister's commitment. It must have been so, because no one otherwise would have turned over to another party documents binding the party on whose behalf he was making representations. He must have had in his own mind a clear understanding that the commitment was in fact to be honoured.
The hon. member for Peel has stated categorically that he had a commitment from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees). The Minister of Transport has stated equally categorically that there was no such commitment. Here is an obvious clash of testimony. As the evidence unfolds, it becomes increasingly certain that the Minister of Transport should rise in his place in this house and clear the record for the sake of the hon. member for Peel.
The other day he indicated in this house his considerable concern for the little people who were involved in this transaction. He indicated that he was in fact the champion of their rights. I have additional testimony from

Malton Land Expropriation one of these little people which I should like to read for the benefit of the house. It reads:
Dominion of Canada 1 In the matter of the Province of Ontario	>
expropriated area at
county of York	I Malton
To wit:
I,	Gilbert George White, of the township of Toronto, in the county of Peel,
Do solemnly declare:
1.	That my wife and I, prior to its expropriation by the dominion government, were the owners of part of lot 5, concession 7, county of Peel;
2.	During the month of October, 1957, on the suggestion of Mr. John Pallett, we entered into an agreement purporting to be with Her Majesty the Queen in the right of Canada, a copy of which is hereto annexed and marked as exhibit "A" to this declaration;
3.	The matter not having been satisfactorily settled, I telephoned the Hon. George Hees, Minister of Transport, at his Dunvegan avenue home in the city of Toronto, from a telephone booth in the Cloverdale shopping centre, Dundas street and No. 27 highway, township of Etobicoke.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this the original the hon. member is reading from?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a true copy.


John George Diefenbaker: The original declaration?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Don't be so particular,
dictator.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker,-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a point of order. This purports to be a statutory declaration. The original must be produced and no alleged copy should be put on the records of the house, or what purports to be a copy.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not a copy.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Trinity would indicate what he is reading from-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is an affidavit duly signed by Mr. Gilbert G. White before a commissioner of oaths for the province of Ontario.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that the original?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I continue:
4.	My wife and Mrs. Aileen Drew, the owner of adjoining property, were present at the time.
5.	I asked Mr. Hees what had happened to our signed agreements. He said he had signed the agreements and passed them on to the treasury board, and we would have our money in a week or two;
6.	Approximately one month later, our compensation not having been received, I again telephoned Mr. Hees at his Toronto home. I asked him if the agreement had been turned down and he said yes. I told him I understood that it was an agreement we had signed with the government. He replied there was nothing he could do about it;
7.	Further, that on or about September 15, 1958, I attended a meeting in the office of Mr. C. S. Booth, assistant deputy minister of transport, Ottawa,

and that Mr. Pallett, Mr. Speers, land agent of the department in Toronto, were present. We discussed the agreement and the evaluation of our property, and I had a copy of the agreement and Mr. Booth had a copy of the agreement present.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath, and by virtue of the "Canada Evidence Act."
Declared before me in the township of Toronto, in the county of Peel, this 20th day of June, A.D., 1959.
Signed by Mr. Gilbert G. White
The oath was taken by Mr. A. B. Whitelaw commissioner, etc.


Mr. Fulion:: Mr. Speaker,-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Sit down.


James Ross Fulton: I am merely asking the hon. member for Trinity whether he is prepared at once to make available the original of the document he is reading from?


Mr. Speaker:: In this instance I think the hon. member for Trinity is reading a signed, statutory declaration. Is that correct?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


James Ross Fulton: May I ask whether the hon. member is prepared to table the document?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am certainly prepared to
table it with the consent of the house.


Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: And the covering
letter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Surely, Mr. Speaker, this alone is sufficient to justify a full and comprehensive examination by a committee as proposed by the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to table the statutory declaration which he has read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Come on, transport, get up and speak now.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, dealing first of all with what the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) has just said, I have this to say. I have no recollection of any conversation regarding the Malton valuations with a Mr. White. The conversation he describes did not take place between me and anyone else at any time. It would have been impossible for me to make the statements attributed to me by Mr. White for the following reasons: First, there never was any agreement that the valuations made by Mr. Clare would be accepted by the department and therefore it would have been impossible for me to refer

to any agreements. Second, I signed no valuations for submission to treasury board and no other documents, purposed by Mr. White to be agreements, for submission to the treasury board. Third, there never was any intention or indication of intention to have these valuations submitted to treasury board for consideration before they had been examined by the treasury board staff. This staff has had great experience in examining real estate values.
Had the treasury board staff been able to show that the new valuations were correct I would have submitted them to treasury board in place of the valuations previously submitted by the department. This, however, did not happen. Fourth, it is impossible for any minister of the crown to give assurance that payments will be made until those payments have first been authorized by treasury board. If Mr. White really believes the statement he has made it seems strange indeed that he did not arrange to be called as a witness before the exchequer court when the Drew case was being heard as I believe he has been closely associated with this case for some time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Maybe he was not subpoenaed.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the house, in my dealings with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) on the question of these valuations it was clear to me that he felt strongly that the previous valuations of these properties were too low and therefore were unfair to his constituents. I am convinced that his interest in this whole matter was to make sure that a fair valuation was placed on these properties. That, I feel, is the duty of every member of parliament in serving those he represents.
I agreed completely with the hon. member for Peel in believing that the misunderstanding regarding acceptance of the Clare valuations by the department may have arisen in the following way. I assured the hon. member for Peel that Mr. Clare's valuations would be submitted to the treasury board staff for examination. He may have understood, and he has said that he did, that the submission was to be to the treasury board itself in which case valuations would have gone forward over my signature indicating acceptance of them by the department. As he has indicated this afternoon, this misunderstanding occurred very naturally over the terms "treasury board" and "treasury board staff".
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) asked me three questions this afternoon which he did not give me a chance to answer and I am very glad to answer them now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You have a chance now.
66968-9-318J
Malton Land Expropriation


George Harris Hees: First of all, I was asked why an independent evaluator was named. The hon. member for Peel came to me shortly after we formed the government in June of 1957. He told me that for several years he had been working on behalf of a group of people in the Malton district who felt that the valuations which had been put on their properties by the Department of Transport were too low and therefore were unfair; that he had brought this matter to the attention of the former government and had got nowhere at all with them and that he felt very strongly about the matter. He asked me to help him to find out whether or not these valuations were fair, and he believed very strongly that they were not. So, because this government is interested in helping the little people, the small people, the people who are normally pushed around by bureaucrats and who were pushed around by the former autocratic government which had been in power a great length of time and obviously cared nothing for the welfare of little people-


John Whitney Pickersgill: How about Mr. White?


George Harris Hees: -and because this government believes it should go to every practical and possible length to make sure that the little people of this country-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That the little people are fooled.


George Harris Hees: -receive a square deal and do not get pushed around, for that reason I agreed to the appointment of an independent valuator.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Knowing you would not take his valuation.


Azellus Denis: A Tory organizer.


George Harris Hees: I did so to find out if there was anything he could bring to light which would indicate clearly that the previous valuations had been too low and were unfair, and I agreed that I would submit these valuations for scrutiny by an independent group experienced in examining real estate valuations because they examine a great many during a year submitted to them by all departments, that independent group being the treasury board staff.
The independent valuator, Mr. Clare, was appointed after the department satisfied itself that his qualifications were satisfactory and I enunciated those qualifications in the House of Commons when I was speaking on my estimates a week ago last Thursday. When Mr. Clare turned in his valuations for these properties they were submitted to the treasury board staff for examination and the result of that examination was that they believed that the valuations were too high, were not correct

Malton Land Expropriation and could not be supported, and for that reason they were not submitted by me to treasury board for their approval. The matter then went to the exchequer court, which is the correct procedure when there is a dispute that cannot be settled in this way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That should have been done in the first place.


George Harris Hees: That deals with the first question, why was an independent evaluator appointed. Second, the Leader of the Opposition asked me why we attempted to bind the property owners only. The answer is that six valuations had been made by evaluators working for the Department of Transport and none of those evaluations had been accepted by the small group of home owners in question, even though a very large number of home owners in the area had accepted those evaluations. The department wanted to make sure that if the study by the treasury board staff indicated that these evaluations were correct, the evaluations submitted by Mr. Clare were correct and should be submitted to the treasury board for approval, and if the treasury board passed these evaluations, then this long drawn out matter could be virtually concluded.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition asked why we did not attempt to bind both the government and the property owners. The answer is obvious. It is impossible to bind the government in a matter of this kind, and he knows it quite well. But in an attempt to bring an end to this matter which had been started by the government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member and which had dragged out for some years, and since there had been five or six evaluations previously which had not been accepted, it was thought this was the best way to bring the matter to a culmination.
Then, third, he has asked me, why did I not correct the misunderstanding in the mind of the hon. member for Peel? The answer is that I believed that he understood the basis upon which we were working while these evaluations were made, and of course when the evaluations were turned down by treasury board staff, then the whole matter was well known. I believe that concludes the questions which the Leader of the Opposition and others have asked me, including the hon. member for Trinity. I assume that disposes of the matter they have tried to raise.
In conclusion, I simply want to say this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a question?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does he want to make any comment on the questions which I asked him?


George Harris Hees: What were they?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The most important question was, why he did not inform these people, the little people, before they went to the court that there had been a misunderstanding? Why did he allow them to go into the court? Why did he let the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) take this case into court with this misunderstanding?


George Harris Hees: In answer to the hon. member's question, the people knew quite well that these evaluations had been reviewed by the treasury board staff and had not been accepted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When were they advised?


George Harris Hees: I have no idea, but it was well known before this matter went to the court, otherwise the matter would never have gone to the court. The hon. member knows that quite well. I should like to ask him why he thinks the matter was taken to court if there had been an agreement between the department and the property owners?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will answer that right away. The answer is right in the judgment itself, if the minister had ever taken the trouble to read it. The matter was taken to court because the suppliant argued that there was an agreement and that was what the suppliant took to the court. If the minister took the trouble to read the document he would know.


George Harris Hees: The answer to that silly statement is that there was never the slightest evidence to these people, except through a misunderstanding between myself and the hon. member for Peel, that there had been any agreement whatever.
Now, Mr. Speaker-


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister forgot one of my questions. I asked him this, were the statements of the judge on page 7 of the judgment accurate, namely:
It is clear, of course, that Mr. Pallett knew the need for approval of the treasury board, but he stated that the minister said that he would take the responsibility.


George Harris Hees: The responsibility I took was to submit these evaluations to the treasury board staff, and the hon. member knows that quite well. This has been made very clear indeed.
Now, in conclusion, I simply want to say this. The hon. member for Peel acted in every way as a good member of parliament should act. He felt these evaluations were too low. He felt the people in his riding were

not getting a square deal, and he did everything possible to see that they got a square deal; no more and no less, and that is the duty of every good member of parliament. As I have stated earlier, that is something that the members of the party of which the Leader of the Opposition is a member find it very difficult to understand.
Then, the department of which I have the honour to be in charge, the Department of Transport, in every degree acted correctly in this matter from start to finish, and the Leader of the Opposition and every member knows it quite well.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The department did, that is right.


George Harris Hees: My whole purpose in having a further evaluation made was to see if, in the past, there was anything to indicate the valuators had erred or done an injustice to the small people of Canada, the people in the hon. member for Peel's riding, the people who needed to have somebody stand up and fight their battles for them, something the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to understand. It was in that vein I tried in every way to find out if an injustice had been done. The advice I received from the experts indicated that it had not been done and therefore I did not recommend these evaluations to treasury board. I believe that, Mr. Speaker, sums up this whole question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one other question.


George Harris Hees: Just a minute; sit down, I have the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I asked-


George Harris Hees: Sit down, I said.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking the minister a question. He said he would answer any questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member who has the floor does not yield, the member cannot ask a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to ask the minister a question, but if he is afraid to listen to it-


George Harris Hees: Go on; let us have it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question is this. Did the hon. member for Peel know before he testified in court that there was a misunderstanding because the judge said that Mr. Pallett asserted that the minister had accepted the proposal. The judge said that Mr. Pallett asserted this under oath. I am asking the
Division
minister, did the hon. member for Peel know of this misunderstanding before he went into court?


George Harris Hees: That, Mr. Speaker, is obviously something that even the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate should know he must ask from the hon. member for Peel and not from me. He is asking me did somebody else know something, and obviously he should ask the person to whom he is referring.
I say that the reason this whole thing has been brought up is because the opposition cannot understand a first class member of parliament like the hon. member for Peel doing what any honest, hard-working, conscientious member of parliament would do, doing what every Conservative member of parliament does, and doing what members of the party of the Leader of the Opposition do not do. If they had done so, they might have been over on this side still. One o.' the reasons they are sitting over there is tha1 in 22 years they forgot there were people like the small people, the little people, the ordinary people of Canada. That is why you are going to stay exactly where you are a long time until you move a little further down the aisle, until you move to Mr. Speaker's immediate left; and when you start your speeches, you will start off by saying, "Mr. Speaker, we in this group". Some day you and your party will remember that there are little people-ordinary people, the finest people in the world, the average citizen of Canada-to stand up for and fight for and that they should not be ignored as they were by the government of which you had the privilege to be members. On that day you may have some chance of coming back over here; but I would say that would not be for a generation or so.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I put the question, may I say that I interpret the motion as a declaratory one rather than one that would in itself constitute a committee. There is here a procedural problem in that rule 41 requires that 48 hours' notice be given for the setting up of a committee. I therefore read the motion as though it read "a select committee should be appointed immediately to investigate". The question is on the amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
The Speaker of the Senate-
174. Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
238. Departmental administration, $1,601,785.

[Stage Direction]
294. Departmental administration, including Canada's share of the upkeep of the international bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $1,915,483.
Progress reported.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: that the house go into committee on Bill C-50, to amend the Veterans' Land Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, in the resolution introducing Bill No. C-50 presented to the house I gave a detailed outline of the nature and purposes of the proposed amendments to the Veterans' Land Act, and I do not think it is necessary at this stage to make a lengthy statement in regard to these same explanations. We are about to consider the bill clause by clause and I will be glad to comment on each one if necessary and answer any questions which hon. members may ask.
Thomas
Thompson
Villeneuve
Vivian
Walker
Webster
Weichel
White
Winkler
W ooliams-138.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the bill was referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs and it gave it its usual careful and conscientious attention. In its report to the house the committee made certain recommendations, two of which were of a specific nature and involve amendments to this bill. These amendments are related to section 36 of the act, and section 76 as it appears in clause 20 of the bill. I am pleased to inform you, Mr. Chairman, that the government has given favourable consideration to these recommendations and my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, will move the necessary amendments accordingly.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, we do not want, of course, to anticipate another resolution on the order paper. On the other hand the Minister of Veterans Affairs will recall that when his estimates were before the committee on veterans affairs it became evident that we have here under his administration an exceptional group that were experienced in appraising, particularly agricultural land. I wonder if the minister would indicate whether or not this force is likely to be utilized in connection with any extension of agricultural loans in other fields?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, this hardly
comes under the first clause of this bill, and I assume the hon. member is speaking in general on the bill. The appraisers and supervisors to which he has called attention, of course, will still be continued under the Veterans' Land Act. The other bill to which he refers has not been before the house, and I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that I could give the information which is contained in the bill of the Minister of Agriculture until such time as that bill is before the house.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I can well understand the reticence of the minister, but on the other hand it became very clear, not when we were in committee on this bill but when we were in the veterans affairs committee on the estimates of the minister that $5,480,000 odd is required to administer the Veterans' Land Act, and it was clear that this was in the nature of a subsidy. The actual effective rate, I think, for veterans loans was 3J per cent. I am not going to refer to the current interest rate that is prevailing even on a short term basis, but everybody in this house is aware of it and it is much beyond the 3 2 per cent effective rate for Veterans' Land Act loans.
There was evidence when the minister's estimates were before us, as I recall it, that the gross value of loans outstanding was, shall I say, $100 million. The minister will verify that figure for me. But in any event
Veterans' Land Act
it was said by the officials that the amount of applications were not as important in the current year as they had been in past years and were likely to be less important in quantity in future years. It was also said that this fairly skilled staff of appraisers could not be reduced in proportion to the smaller amount of applications and the smaller amount of loans that would come forward henceforth under the Veterans' Land Act legislation.
It appeared to me at the time that I was a member of this committee that this highly trained body of appraisers should be utilized. In fact the director of the Veterans' Land Act said there was nowhere in Canada the equivalent either in quantity in talent or in ability, that is now available intact under the administration of the Veterans' Land Act for appraising and for advising on and supervising loans which might be made to agricultural borrowers. Surely the minister, knowing that this load of responsibility is going down not only in quantum dollar value of borrowings but in the number of applications, and since he knows that his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, is introducing a new element for farm borrowing, can tell us whether they got together to decide whether or not the state can save money by the utilization of this trained personnel for supervised loans to farmers.
The resolution in the name of the Minister of Agriculture indicates that for the first time some supervised loans might be developed. Is there going to be economy; is there going to be some kind of co-ordination, because I am satisfied that the same number of civil servants-and they are very capable -that we now have in the Department of Veterans Affairs supervising Veterans' Land Act loans of about $90 million to $100 million could take on an additional $100 million without any increase in over-all civil service staff. I wonder whether the minister has given this some thought?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is asking me to state what will be in the bill which will be brought down by the Minister of Agriculture.


William Moore Benidickson: No; I am asking whether there has been some co-ordination, some discussion with your colleague about this?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I will go this far and say that, since I realize the good judgment of the Minister of Agriculture and his department, I am quite satisfied that he and his department will use this splendid body of trained men. I agree entirely with my hon. friend that there is no body of men in Canada who understand better the situation as far as the supervision of agricultural work is concerned, whether it be the Veterans' Land Act

Veterans' Land Act
or any other act, than these same supervisors who are part of the staff of the Veterans' Land Act. I might say that in discussion with the Minister of Agriculture and also in discussion with the Minister of Finance on the loans act, I understand it is their intention-[DOT] and I think it is hardly fair to ask me to state what is in the bills which are to come down later-to utilize this splendid body of men for the supervision, not only of the Veterans' Land Act but also the loans act under the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Finance. Farther than that, Mr. Chairman, I do not think I should be asked to go.


William Moore Benidickson: I appreciate that. I think every member of the committee realizes that the load of loans in dollar volume do not justify the present staff under the Veterans' Land Act administration. I was satisfied as one member of that committee that the volume of agricultural loans could be supervised and handled and appraised by the same staff that is already in the civil service. When we listen to the proposals in the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, I hope we will learn that some coordination has developed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in view of the discussion we had on second reading and the very thorough discussion of this bill and the consideration that was given it by the committee on veterans affairs, I do not think there is any necessity to speak on the first clause. I think I shall deal with the suggestions we have to make when we reach the various clauses in question. However, I do want to say, Mr. Chairman, that the members of the committee, after examining the administration officials of the Veterans' Land Act and other witnesses, were more than ever impressed with the excellent work being done by this administration and particularly with the, shall I say, supervised credit aspects of the administration which, in the opinion of the committee as a whole, regardless of party membership, sets a model for other agriculture credit legislation. Not only did the committee report unanimously, but so did also the representatives of the Canadian Legion. I just want to quote briefly from their submission to the committee as presented by Mr. D. M. Thompson, director of the service bureau, in respect of this bill. In this brief I read:
The Canadian Legion welcomes this opportunity to appear before the committee concerning Bill C-50.
We would, first of all, like to commend the introduction of this bill. We believe that the benefits of the Veterans' Land Act have been invaluable to those veterans established under this legislation, but this bill will make it even more valuable and will

encourage many more to participate. We also want to express our appreciation to the director, and his staff for the excellent work that they have done down through the years to ensure that the full spirit of the Veterans' Land Act legislation has been met. They deserve a great deal of credit for the success of veteran farmers.
I might say that when this portion of the brief was read it was received with applause from all members of the committee.
The Legion did make a few suggestions with respect to amendments to this bill. They suggested that clause 15, which sets a ceiling of $10,000 on loans, should perhaps be increased to $10,500 to provide what they termed a slight cushion for increases which would probably occur between now and the next amending of the act. The committee discussed this matter and realized the Legion's intention in this respect, but did not see fit at the time to recommend this increase in the amount in clause 15.
Then, with respect to clause 20, they made further representations to increase the amount from $20,000 to $25,000. The committee discussed this recommendation quite thoroughly and with sympathy and I think it is fair to say that generally they came to the conclusion that, in view of the amount being raised to $25,000, they would be making a good step in that direction and possibly the experience of the years ahead would give us further ground for asking for the increase the Legion asked for in this section.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say . at this time except in conclusion to say that, like other members of the committee-and I think this was generally expressed in the committee-we all hope that the new agricultural credit legislation to be introduced by the government will be patterned to quite an extent on the Veterans' Land Act legislation and that it will make provision for supervised credit. I want to say frankly, Mr. Chairman, it is the opinion of this group that with respect to the supervision of agricultural credit for other than farmer veterans we could not do better than utilize the trained personnel of the Veterans' Land Act administration.


Mr. Forgie:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks regarding this legislation. In the first place, may I say that since I came to the House of Commons I have never seen a more efficient brief presented to a committee than that presented by the director of the Veterans' Land Act administration. I am disappointed that the legislation regarding extended mortgage credit to farmers has not been introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. If that legislation had been brought down before continuing consideration of this legislation I think we would

have been in a position to discuss the matter much more intelligently than we are at the present time because we are in the dark as to what the legislation to be brought forward by the Minister of Agriculture really contains. For that reason I am more or less at a loss because I would have liked to be able to discuss this legislation on the basis of knowledge of what the other contains. As the director stated in his very excellent brief:
By far the most important amendment proposed in this bill is the one providing for a very substantial increase in the part III loans available to veterans certified to be qualified as full-time farmers, and who are now, or who may be in the future, settled under part I of the act.
The definition of a family farm unit given by the director was accepted by the committee. He said that a family farm unit is an organized assembly of farm lands, farm buildings, livestock and equipment which can be managed and operated by the owner and his family and which, under his management, will produce enough net income to pay three-quarters of its cost with interest amortized over a period of 30 years, pay the cost of good maintenance, and leave enough to supply the farmer and his immediate family with a typical Canadian standard of living. The members of the committee agreed that the original loan ceiling of $6,000 to a full-time veteran farmer was entirely inadequate, and I do not think any member of the committee would disagree with that statement. Many of us were prepared to raise the ceiling to $25,000 but the amount agreed upon ultimately was $20,000 which I believe will be sufficient in the majority of cases. I expect that the new legislation to be brought forward by the Minister of Agriculture will have a ceiling of $20,000 as well.
The experience of the government with the Soldier Settlement Act was a very unhappy one, as we all know, and probably that is why we made haste slowly in the development of a satisfactory ceiling under the Veterans' Land Act. The Veterans' Land Act is terminable legislation. The Canadian farm loan board is self-sustaining and has been since its inception.


William Moore Benidickson: It even pays income tax.


James Moffat Forgie: The Veterans' Land Act is definitely subsidized legislation but the statement of the Canadian farm loan board showed a profit of $210,000 last year, I believe.


William Moore Benidickson: And it pays income tax on its profit.


James Moffat Forgie: Veterans' Land Act
which will afford the farmer and his family a good living and at the same time maintain and pay for itself. We have the word of the director that such credit men are very hard to come by.
Out of 76,000 veterans settled under part I of the act, that is, full-time farmers, only 182 have had to be put off their properties for one reason or another. Although collections amount to over $20 million a year, under $12,000 remains due and owing over three years. This is a remarkable achievement. Full-time farmers under the Veterans' Land Act are being well served. As I said, loans under the act are showing a steady decline as is to be expected and before too long the Veterans' Land Act appraisers and supervisers will be compelled to seek other employment unless jobs are found for them. It has been shown that the important people in the Veterans' Land Act organization are the people on the ground, that is, the appraisers, supervisers and credit men.
The director stated that his men are well trained and experienced in assisting farmers to prepare plans for the organization and operation of their units. He pointed out that much of their time is spent on this and in going with the farmer to visit successful and well organized operations. In the final analysis, the director said, the plan must be the farmer's own and completely acceptable to him because he is the man who has to make it work.
If these highly trained officials were not available the administration of the Veterans' Land Act would be seriously handicapped. So, Mr. Chairman, the administration now has a staff of highly trained men who can not only handle the additional work brought about by the extra farm credit set forth in the amendment of the Veterans' Land Act but can, I believe, take over the appraisal and field work required in the administration of the new legislation about to be enacted and also in connection with the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The director of the Veterans' Land Act administration assured the committee that he not only had a highly qualified administrative staff but a very capable group of appraisers and credit advisers. He further stated, and this is significant, that without this efficient organization he would not be prepared to recommend the type of credit legislation introduced by this amendment which raises the permissible amount of the loan for a full-time farmer to $20,000. In speaking at Edmonton last year the Minister of Veterans Affairs said:
Undoubtedly a good deal of the credit for this fine record belongs to the Veterans' Land Act field supervisors who have become experts in advising the settlers on how to use their resources to the best advantage in order to neutralize, to some
[Mr. Forgie.l
extent at least, any unfavourable prices for farm products. The Veterans Land Act officials are presently engaged in a survey to determine what is needed to improve the incomes of our full-time farmers. So far they have analysed reports on the farm business of over 3,000 settlers and have found that the key to the problem for most of them is more capital. The survey is continuing, and we are studying the possibility of making more supervised capital available to these farmers.
I believe that is the statement the minister made. The survey has now been completed on 5,000 farms and a report made to the minister. The present amendments, I am quite satisfied, stem from the reports on these 5,000 farms.
As we know, it is the intention of the administration to repeal the Canadian Farm Loan Act and introduce other legislation. The Canadian farm loan board is short of qualified appraisers and credit advisers such as those possessed by the Veterans' Land Act administration. It was pointed out by the chairman of the Canadian farm loan board that 25 per cent of the loans they have made have been for consolidation of debts, and it may be that there has been a significant increase in loans for this purpose. Many farmers, apart from veteran farmers, really cannot make a go of it because their acreage is too small, the amount of livestock inadequate to operate economically, or they lack farm machinery.
The amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act in 1958 did not result in any improvement in conditions prior to the amendments, other than to provide additional funds which will be increased when the Minister of Agriculture introduces his long awaited farm policy and presents legislation necessary to carry into effect the proposed measure for long term mortgage credit. The opinion expressed by the two largest agricultural organizations in Canada is to the effect that, with its present administrative set-up, the Canadian farm loan board cannot base its lending decisions on the intimate knowledge of farming conditions and appraisal of the personal capacities of the borrower which are necessary to a flexible and helpful lending policy. These organizations recommend the setting up of regional advisory committees which could work with the loan board officials. Mortgage and insurance companies can find more lucrative and less risky loans than farm loans, and so the government must find a practical source of credit for our farmers, especially long term credit with reasonable interest rates. At the present time the ceiling for loans under the Canadian Farm Loan Act is $15,000. As we all know, it is expected and I am quite sure it will happen when the new legislation is introduced

that this ceiling will be increased to $20,000 to conform to the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act.


Mr. Brunsden:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is the hon. gentleman confused between the Veterans' Land Act and the Canadian farm loan board? They are two entirely different matters. The question we have before us is the amendments to the Veterans' Land Act and the hon. member is discussing the Canadian farm loan board which may or may not come up later.


James Moffat Forgie: I quite appreciate that, but what I am leading up to is that legislation will be introduced which will eventually lead to the repeal of the Canadian Farm Loan Act, the introduction of farm improvement loans as well as these amendments to the Veterans' Land Act. It is a question of economy of operation, and that is the point to which I was coming, if the hon. member will let me do so.
As 1 was saying, mortgage and insurance companies can find more lucrative and less risky loans than farm loans, so the government must find a practical source of credit for our farmers, especially long term credit with reasonable interest rates. At the present time the ceiling for loans under the Canadian Farm Loan Act is $15,000. This ceiling will be undoubtedly increased to $20,000 to conform to the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act. There is no central body responsible for coordination of the farm credit service. This is a deficiency that could be remedied by the creation of a farm bank, and that is the policy we on this side of the house will enunciate when the legislation is introduced by the Minister of Agriculture.
I think that is about all I have to say at the present time except that, as my colleague the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has stated, we all hope that these experienced men with the Veterans' Land Act administration will be afforded the opportunity to continue in their useful service which they have been performing for the past four years.


Mr. Carier:: Mr. Chairman, in his opening remarks the minister referred to two amendments which resulted, I think, from an examination of sections 36 and 76 of the act. I believe these two amendments were recommended by the committee. However, there was a discussion of another possible amendment in the committee which revolved around the position of those veterans who have been considered as already established under this act.
These veterans fall into two classes, those who have received their title and those who have continued to leave their title with the Department of Veterans Affairs. It appears
66968-9-3191
Veterans' Land Act
that those who have left their titles with the department, although they are established, are eligible to receive further loans under this act, while those who have accepted their titles are not. A considerable amount of time was given over to the discussion of this point in the committee. Some members felt that when a veteran was established, he was established once and for all and there was no further obligation or commitment to do anything else for him. There were some members who contended that it would be introducing a new principle to establish a veteran twice if he were to receive loans under this act.
There were others, and I was included amongst this second group, who felt that although a veteran had been established it would be the wish of parliament and I am sure of the department that he should remain established. We are all aware of the changing conditions which are taking place so rapidly that a person's income can be affected overnight. If a veteran needed more money to enlarge his operation or to get more modern equipment in order to remain an economic unit we felt he should be entitled to receive it under this act. Since those who had elected to leave their titles with the department appeared to be eligible for this we saw no reason why those who had accepted their titles should be excluded.
There was no definite decision on this matter in the committee, but it was something we hoped the minister and his colleagues would consider favourably in the case of veterans who might need additional assistance, even though they might have been considered to be established. In my opinion it is unfortunate, as other members have pointed out, that this legislation is being dealt with before the new legislation or the new amendments to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Board Act are brought in by the Minister of Agriculture. We do not know what terms will be available to farmers under that piece of legislation. We are all anxious that under this legislation the veteran should at least be treated as generously as the non-veteran under the Canadian Farm Loan Board Act. In the case of the veteran who has already been established, we feel that he would like to remain under the Veterans' Land Act, and we hope that the treatment he will receive under this legislation will at least be the same as that which he would receive under the Canadian Farm Loan Board Act.
There was just one question I should like to ask before I sit down, Mr. Chairman and it is not one to which I think we obtained a definite, clear cut answer in committee.
5C30

Veterans' Land Act
The question is this. How much actual mortgage debt is outstanding now under this act? How much in loans is still outstanding under the present act?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I do not believe I could give the exact amount. I will give the answer on my estimates. As far as the loans are concerned and as far as payments are concerned, I might say that I think there is less than one per cent owing by the veterans to the department. As far as their loans are concerned, they are almost 100 per cent complete. The other information I will have for the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo on the estimate.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Mr. Monleith (Perth) moved:: That Bill No. C-50, an act to amend the Veterans' Land Act, be amended as follows:
(a) by adding thereto, immediately after clause
9	thereof, the following clause:
"10. (1) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 36 of the said act are repealed.
(2) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 36 of the said act are repealed".


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Jay Waldo Monteith: That Bill No. C-50, an act to amend the Veterans' Land Act be amended by renumbering clauses 10 to 20 thereof as clauses 11 to 21 respectively.


Charles Edward Rea: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall new clause
10	carry?
Clause 10 (new) agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 20 inclusive (old clauses 10 to 19 inclusive) agreed to.
On new clause 21 (old clause 20):


Charles Edward Rea: There is an amendment with respect to section 76 under part III with regard to farm improvement assistance.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That Bill No. C-50, an act to amend the Veterans' Land Act be amended by striking out lines 4 to 8 on page 12 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"76. Notwithstanding anything in this part, no loan shall be made under this part
(a)	except with the approval of the minister, to a veteran who is in default under a part I contract, or
(b)	to a veteran who is indebted in respect of any loan made pursuant to the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: There is another amendment adding a clause to the bill.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That Bill No. C- 50, an act to amend the Veterans Land Act be amended by adding thereto the following clause:
22. The schedule to the said act is repealed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Kon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence) moved the second reading of Bill No. C-62 respecting the superannuation of members of the Canadian forces.
Mr. Roberge:: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Speaker, I made a complete statement when this bill was in the resolution stage. All I can say now is to repeat the statement I made then, namely that the bill is to simplify the administration of the act and to bring the pension scheme for the armed forces in line with the Public Service Superannuation Act and the act we introduced to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. I think it will appeal to all members of the house in that it provides superannuation benefits for the dependents of service men other than officers and it also removes the provision that previously made it possible for extremely young service men to receive a pension.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, at the resolution stage my colleague the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) expressed the opinion of the opposition with regard to this proposed bill. We do not have anything more to add at this time but we shall have some questions to put to the minister when we reach the committee stage.


William Moore Benidickson: Before the minister closes the debate, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. We all know that at one time in his distinguished career he was a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Does he know whether or not the provisions in this bill with respect to retiring allowances are similar to what will be provided for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


George Randolph Pearkes: Almost identical.


[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.
Lionel Chevrier: Has the minister got copies of the bill for distribution?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, the bill has been distributed, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell us why the title was changed from the Defence Services Pension Act to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. Also, does the minister not consider that it is going to be very confusing for this act to refer in many places to the Defence Services Pension Act which will no longer exist?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, the old title which was the Defence Services Pension Act was not legally and technically correct because the forces-the army, navy and air force-according to the National Defence Act are referred to as the forces, the armed forces. That was the reason for changing it. This brings it into line with the Civil Service Superannuation Act and will hereafter be referred to as the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. I do not think there will be any confusion arising out of the title.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I can see that the Minister of Justice is now in his seat. I regret that I have not in front of me the notes I should have here. However, my information is that in the matter of leave at the end of service the bill before us is not likely to contain provisions similar to those contained in the bill to be piloted by the Minister of Justice with respect to retiring members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Are the two ministers acquainted with this difference?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am of course not able to answer for the Minister of National Defence, but as I understand it the provisions of the two bills are going to be the same in general principle. There are some modifications that have to be made in the bill with respect to the superannuation of the R.C.M.P. but not in the particular my hon. friend mentions.


William Moore Benidickson: The bill of the Minister of Justice will come up later and we will discuss it then. I am quite satisfied with that.


George Randolph Pearkes: There are some slight differences. In the armed forces we have women's divisions and there are no women employed in the R.C.M.P.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Defence Services Pension Act
On clause 2-Definitions.
Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the minister may we take this clause by subclauses?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, certainly.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall we discuss clause 2, subclause (1)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On subclause 1-Contributor.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, would the minister indicate if there is a difference between this bill and the old act with respect to the definition of "contributor"?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, it is similar to the definition in the former act.


Gabriel Roberge: In section 49 (c) of the former act I notice a medical certificate was required from three medical officers. That provision does not appear in this definition. Is there a reason for that?


George Randolph Pearkes: I believe that will be provided for under the regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Subclause agreed to.
On subclause (2)-Meaning of ''child''.
Gabriel Roberge: With respect to subclause (2), would the minister explain the inclusion of illegitimate children?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, illegitimate children will now be included as being pensionable.


Gabriel Roberge: May I know the reason for that?


George Randolph Pearkes: It appeared to the government that it was sensible to provide for illegitimate children where a soldier, sailor or airman has been taking care of an illegitimate child who has been recognized and who was born of a woman who is his common law wife.


William Moore Benidickson: Has the government any estimate as to the annual cost in this connection?


George Randolph Pearkes: In so far as illegitimate children are concerned I am glad to say there is not a large number of them.


[Stage Direction]
Subclause agreed to.
On subclause 3-References to R.C.M.P. Superannuation Act.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister tell us if the Minister of Justice wrote this new definition?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, it was written within our own department.

Business of the House
Subclause 3 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Persons required to contribute.
Charles Edward Rea: Would hon. members like clause 4 broken up?


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I see that it is almost ten o'clock, and as I may have a number of questions, may I now call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the acting house leader what the business is for tomorrow and the days that follow?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue consideration in committee of Bill No. C-62 which we have just been discussing followed by the second reading of Bill No. C-61, an act to authorize the provision of money to meet certain capital expenditures of the C.N.R.; then take second reading of Bill No. C-63, an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act; then take second reading of Bill No. C-60, an act respecting the adjustment of certain public service pensions; then take item No. 10 on today's order paper, the second reading of Bill No.
C-57, an act respecting the superannuation of members of the R.C.M.P.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Items Nos. 10 and 3 will be reversed; No. 3 will come before No. 10.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is correct. Arrangements have been made for item No. 3 to be taken before item No. 10. Item No. 3 on today's order paper relates to committee consideration of Bill No. C-34, an act respecting the R.C.M.P.


Lionel Chevrier: What shall we do on Wednesday and Thursday?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If we get through with all these bills tomorrow, on Wednesday we will go on with-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Criminal Code?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: -the estimates of the Department of Justice to be followed by those of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


William Moore Benidickson: Just a moment. Is that right? The Minister of Justice said we would take the Criminal Code amendment. Which is correct?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The acting house leader is announcing the business.


Lionel Chevrier: One would not think so from your interruptions.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are trying to give him the business.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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


Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the Prime Minister received representations protesting against the most recent order in council limiting immigration in Canada?
2.	If so, what reply has been made to these representations by the Prime Minister?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker
(Prime Minister):
1.	Yes. Three communications were received.
2.	The representations were carefully noted and they were sent to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.



COLOMBO PLAN


Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Did the Indian government request a Canadian expert to produce visual aids needed for Colombo plan projects to assist in the development of Indian villages?
2.	If so, when was this request made of the Canadian government?
3.	Has the request been met? If so, when?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
1.	The government of India requested Canada to provide the services of a technical expert in film making to advise the reserve bank of India on the production of cooperative training films to be produced in India and distributed through the various co-operative training centres in the country. The services of the expert were requested in conjunction with another request for film raw stock with which to make the training films.
2.	This request was made by the Indian government at the end of August 1958, and received in Ottawa in mid-September 1958.
3.	Some film equipment will be provided when the present negotiations with the Indian government on these matters are completed. Names and qualifications of experts are now under consideration for the production of the films on co-operatives and the training of native staff in their use.
22, 1959	S033
Questions



EAST PETPESWICK, N.S.  DREDGING

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Was dredging authorized for East Petpeswick, Nova Scotia, during the past 12 months?
2.	If authorized and completed, was the work performed found satisfactory by the department and by the fishermen who operate boats making use of this port?
3.	Was the work performed under contract or by government equipment and crew?
4.	If by government equipment, how many days work by the dredge and crew were required to complete this work?
5.	Was there any lost time when the dredge was inoperative during the period of operations? If so, how many days?
6.	What were the following costs (a) total costs; (b) wages; (c) towing; (d) operation of dredge; (e) charges against lost time; (f) costs of feeding and housing crew?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister
of Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, in so far as the department is aware.
3.	By government equipment and crew.
4.	41 calendar days.
5.	(a) Yes; (b) 26 days. (11 days-Saturdays, Sundays and statutory holidays, 10 days due to bad weather and 5 days for miscellaneous causes.)
6.	(a) Estimated cost, $5,230; (b) wages $3,230; (c) towing, $100; (d) operation of dredge, $735, (not including wages and subsistence); (e) charge against lost time, $725, (not including wages, subsistence and fuel); (f) cost of feeding crew, $440, (accommodation supplied on dredge).



HEALTH INSURANCE


Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has an agreement been signed between the federal government and the government of the province of New Brunswick, in connection with the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act?
2.	If not, what is the cause for the delay?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monleiih (Minister
of National Health and Welfare):
An agreement under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act has not as yet been signed with the province of New Brunswick. However, discussions preparatory to signing an agreement are proceeding and it is anticipated that an agreement will be signed in the very near future.





Tuesday, June 23, 1959



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Sixteenth and seventeenth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills -Mr. McCleave.