1959-04-08

Mr. Speaker:: The retaking by the film board of the photograph of the House of Commons in session has been arranged for tomorrow immediately after prayers. I hope all hon. members will be in their places so that we shall have as complete and as good a photograph as possible.



THE BUDGET


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I table copies in English and in French of the white paper containing the budget papers in connection with the budget which I hope to present tomorrow evening. In accordance with the practice which has prevailed in recent years and for the convenience of hon. members I move:
That the budget papers be published as an appendix to today's Votes and Proceedings and also as an appendix to tomorrow's Hansard.
I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that I might as well anticipate now the inevitable burning question as to how large the deficit has been for the year which ended March 31. Mr. Speaker, it is not more than a billion dollars, as some prophesied. It is not the billion dollar deficit that some said it would be. It is not even the $700 million deficit that I estimated last session it would be. I am very happy to report to the house that we have held the deficit down to $617 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Fraser.
66968-9-148J

Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from Washington where I had the honour of heading the Canadian delegation at the spring ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic council. I think the house might be interested to receive a brief report regarding those meetings. First I should like to pass on to you, Mr. Speaker, and the other members of the house the many messages of sympathy which were expressed by his former colleagues, the various foreign secretaries of the NATO countries, with regard to the untimely death of Dr. Sidney Smith.
The meeting I attended was an important one in that the members of the alliance were confronted with a serious challenge as a result of the Soviet union's recent pronouncement concerning Berlin and Germany. It also assumed special significance because it marked the tenth anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which came into being on April 4, 1949. In this regard the opening ceremonies, which were attended by the President of the United States, were held in the same hall where the treaty had originally been signed.
At that first meeting, coinciding as it did with a tense international situation, a group of freedom-loving nations decided to join efforts against the danger of aggression. The prospect then of further encroachment on the free world seemed imminent. Those who drafted the treaty believed this danger could be averted only if it were made clear to the Soviet union that an attack on any of the members of the North Atlantic alliance would be regarded as an attack on all of them.
The events of the past ten years have proved the soundness of that policy. Had it not been for the North Atlantic treaty there might well have been further losses of people and territories to the Soviet empire. Indeed, the whole defensive position of the west might have been desperate. We should be grateful to the men of many nations who negotiated the treaty and secured its acceptance. Expressions of gratitude were given at the opening meeting of the sessions I have just attended.
2344	HOUSE OF
NATO-Report on Washington Meeting
We can take satisfaction from the way in which over the years NATO has gained strength. Mr. Spaak, the chairman and secretary general of the North Atlantic council, in his opening remarks had this to say:
Ten years ago the North Atlantic treaty gave practical expression to the union of twelve countries and to their common determination to resist any active aggression. Today this union and this determination appear to us so natural and so necessary that we can no longer conceive for our peoples a free and peaceful existence without them.
Modes of consultation have been developed in which all member nations can freely express their views on the common problems. They received the opportunity of expressing those views in the three-day meetings in Washington. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in his statement of April 7 has already given an account of the position taken by Canada on the principal questions discussed at the Washington meetings. These were primarily concerned with the German problems.
It is unnecessary for me to elaborate on what the Prime Minister has said, though I would call attention to the statement he made about the suggestion which was advanced by the Canadian delegation that in some manner the United Nations might be able to assist in the solution of the Berlin problem. In the House of Commons on March 19 the Prime Minister expressed the belief that the United Nations might play some significant role in the solution of the Berlin problem, and that this suggestion deserved further and more careful study.
Further study has been given to the possibility of the United Nations playing some part, and suggestions were made at the meeting as to how the United Nations might contribute something to the solution of the problem. I pointed out that we in Canada were anxious that consideration be given to ways by which the present arrangements over Berlin could be strengthened, either by supplementary or substitute arrangements. I pointed out that the Prime Minister had made his statement as of March 19, and then I went on to say that I would doubt if the United Nations could play a useful part unless a four-power agreement had first been reached. I suggested that a settlement involving the United Nations need not be weaker, and conceivably might be more stable, than the present position in which the powers are now in Berlin by right of conquest. Although the effective introduction of the United Nations into the Berlin situation could probably be accomplished only through the agreement of the four powers, it could


serve to engage the interest of other governments in the freedom and independence of Berlin in a way which no agreement reached solely among the occupying powers could do. Accordingly I suggested it would be worth while for the permanent council to study the possibilities of a role for the United Nations in the application of a solution to the Berlin problem, and an assurance was given that a full study would be made by the permanent council of the suggestions which were put forward.
The two main suggestions which I advanced were, first, that the basic role of the United Nations might be to verify that all parties were abiding by the terms of whatever agreement was reached; and, second, that an essential part of the agreement would be a Soviet pledge binding itself and its associates to permit full freedom of access to West Berlin and the acceptance of a United Nations presence on the lines of communication.
I think all hon. members will appreciate that at this very moment the western powers having special responsibility-the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany-after receiving the advice of the allies at the NATO conference, are now preparing for the negotiations which lie ahead, and that great restraint should be exercised and nothing said which might make those negotiations even more difficult. I am satisfied that the views presented by myself on behalf of the Canadian government will be given the most serious consideration by the experts in the series of consultations now scheduled to take place before the foreign ministers' meeting on May 11.
I can report to the house that the unity which marked the council's adoption of its declaration on Berlin last December also characterized the meetings in Washington last week. All 15 nations which were represented expressed their conviction that "the unity of action and policy which the alliance makes possible is the best guarantee of successful negotiations with the Soviet government and of any genuine resolution of differences between east and west".
In addition to the extensive discussion of the problems of Germany and Berlin, the council directed its attention to the political situation in other parts of the world where international communism continues to exert various forms of pressure on the free world. In the Canadian view it is a cause for gratification that during the last year or so there has been a marked increase in consultation among the governments of the alliance in respect of these problems which lie outside the area covered by the treaty. Because the

pressure exercised by the communist bloc is not limited to the countries of the alliance or confined to direct military aggression, the council is obliged to look beyond the territorial boundaries of the treaty in order to prevent encroachment on freedom in other parts of the world.
I am also convinced that in spite of difficulties it is possible to achieve a high degree of harmony in national policies within the present treaty commitments and, without giving ground for misunderstanding, in other areas of the free world.
There was also a useful discussion of the work of the alliance during the past year. The council endorsed the secretary general's report calling for a further impetus to be given to the work of the alliance and recognizing the need for increased collective action in regard not only to political consultation and the common defence effort, but also to certain aspects of economic, scientific and cultural matters.
Canada and the other countries have now had the opportunity to express their views on the problems of Berlin and Germany. The four powers who will be directly involved in the forthcoming negotiations with the Soviet union are fully aware of our views.
I am confident that those who are representing these powers will prove equal to the challenge of the tasks they have ahead.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement has proven to be an interesting and valuable supplement to that given yesterday by the Prime Minister on the work of the recent NATO council meeting in Washington. It is, I believe, all the more welcome because it is, if I may say so, more informative than the communique which was issued at the end of the council session. I believe that all hon. members of this house and indeed all Canadians as well as the great majority of citizens in all the Atlantic countries have real cause for satisfaction in the fact that NATO has been able to celebrate its 10th birthday.
The minister mentioned the origin of NATO and those who were responsible for its foundation. I am thinking in that connection especially of four men who did not take part in the ceremony in Washington. I am thinking of John Foster Dulles, who had so much to do with the development of the coalition and who was kept away because of illness. I am thinking, too, of Dean Acheson, who was one of the really effective founders of NATO. I am also thinking of Chancellor Adenauer, a great champion of freedom, who has decided to withdraw soon from active participation in
8,	1959	2345
NATO-Report on Washington Meeting domestic and international affairs. I am thinking also of the former prime minister of this country, Louis St. Laurent, who was one of the first leaders of an Atlantic government to give public expression to the desirability and indeed the necessity of building up an Atlantic community not merely for defence but for development.
We have been successful in these ten years in developing NATO into an effective organization for collective defence, though no doubt its strategy in that regard will have to be changed in the next ten years as it faces new problems in the field of defence. We have not been so successful, as we all know, in building up NATO as an effective agency for development. Perhaps in the years ahead the greatest tests that NATO will meet will be in the field of building up the Atlantic community for purposes other than military defence, to which the minister made reference this afternoon; in the field of co-ordinating foreign policy and economic policy. If NATO cannot make progress in that regard it will undoubtedly disappear as a coalition with the disappearance of the danger and the fear that gave rise to NATO in the first place. And so, as we look ahead to the next ten years, I think all in this house agree that it will be an important aspect of Canadian policy to do what can be done to build up NATO in this respect.
The minister mentioned one test that is immediately before NATO; that is the test which it faces in the settlement of the Berlin and German questions. I quite agree with him; and, as was indicated yesterday, if this problem, so important to the peace of Europe, is to be solved it is desirable to broaden the basis of responsibility for West Berlin from the four occupying powers to all the NATO powers, and to use the NATO council for that and other purposes as an effective agency for negotiation.
I was glad to hear the minister say that he thinks in the last year real progress has been made in that regard. In any steps the Canadian government can take to support that progress I assure the minister and I assure the government they will get full support from this side of the house.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we believe that NATO in the last 10 years has effectively served the interests of the peace of the world. We believe that NATO, with the emphasis that has been given to it, should be greatly changed at this time. NATO has been basically a defensive and a military organization. At a time when people agree that many nations in the world have weapons capable of bringing about world destruction there should be a re-examination of NATO

Starred Questions
itself, of the things that have been accomplished under NATO, and an examination to see how we can best proceed.
We are most happy with the emphasis that has been given to the desirability of the United Nations itself playing a greater role in Europe and in questions of peace vis-a-vis the United States, the Soviet union, the North Atlantic organization and the eastern bloc. For many years we have looked for greater emphasis on economic co-operation. The C.C.F. have been greatly disappointed in that so little emphasis has been given to clause II of the agreement. We hope that real emphasis will be placed on economic co-operation, and that the building up of the economies of the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will take place in the years ahead.
The whole question of Berlin is very much to the fore, and we are hopeful that arrangements will be made to maintain the freedom of West Berlin but at the same time to bring about a withdrawal of troops within central Europe and the strengthening of peaceful relations among the nations involved.
As the foreign ministers' conference approaches, and as the NATO nations are about to go into the consultations to which the minister referred, we feel that this lends emphasis to the need for Canada to be fully represented by the Prime Minister immediately appointing a person to occupy the position of Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr, Speaker:: Order. I want to remind the hon. member that the scope of comment on a statement is limited to the statement itself. It does not include comment on other subjects such as that on which the hon. member is now embarking.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on that point I was referring to the consultations that the minister said were about to take place amongst the NATO nations before the foreign ministers' meeting. I feel it is appropriate to comment on the question as to how Canada can be adequately and fully represented. We feel, Mr. Speaker, that the emphasis which is being given to the United Nations in this whole question is good. We look forward to some real action in the field of economic co-operation.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Did the Prime Minister receive a communication from the premier of Newfoundland inviting the government to set up a public inquiry into the

violations of the law in the labour dispute in Newfoundland?
2.	If so, what was the precise wording of the communication and the precise wording of the Prime Minister's reply to the premier of Newfoundland?


R.C.M.P. REINFORCEMENTS, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Did the Prime Minister receive a communication from the premier of Newfoundland, regarding the refusal of the government to send Royal Canadian Mounted Police reinforcements to Newfoundland?
2.	If so, what were the precise contents of such communication?
3.	Did the Prime Minister make any reply to this communication, and if so, what was the precise nature of the reply?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer the two questions at one time. I do have to refer to question 47 as well. I shall answer it in view of the fact that I undertook to do so, although I do not wish the answer in any way to constitute a precedent, for I believe the question is in derogation of the rule set out in citation 171 (p), Beauchesne's fourth edition, which says:
No questions must be asked which might prejudice a pending trial in a court of law.
The pertinent words in the telegram from the premier of Newfoundland are as follows:
The attorney general of Newfoundland informs me that the Minister of Justice of Canada has cancelled temporarily the dispatch of 50 additional officers of the R.C.M.P. for duty in the present emergency in central Newfoundland. Newfoundland has a solemn contract with the Canadian government, identical with those signed by Canada with seven other provinces.
Then it says, after some intermediate words:
I now ask you to supply us with the additional R.C.M.P. men to enable us to maintain law and order in this emergency according to the contract that exists between us. If you cannot or will not do so will you undertake to have the government of Canada take over the task of maintaining law and order in central Newfoundland. If you will not give us the police to do it as the contract requires you to do then will you take on the responsibility yourselves of maintaining law and order in this emergency.
Then in the other telegram the pertinent parts are:
In the interest of the peace, order and good government of Canada and to protect the good name of the R.C.M.P. the government of Newfoundland invites the government of Canada to set up at once a public inquiry under a superior court judge from outside Newfoundland to investigate the acts of lawlessness and violence which have taken place in central Newfoundland since the strike of the loggers began on December 31 for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and assessing the responsibility.

Those are the pertinent words. There are, of course, additional ones. To both these telegrams I replied:
I find I have not replied formally for the record to your telegrams of March 12 and 13.
The pertinent words are these:
You will, of course, he aware that the government gave most serious and urgent consideration to the requests in your telegrams. In view of the widespread public interest in the matter it was necessary for us to make public our stand on this proposal in parliament just as quickly as the legislation was ready. I stated the position of the government in parliament on Monday March 16. I understand that you learned of this decision almost immediately when announced. X am sending you, for your records, a copy of the statement taken from the official record of our debates.
Then I concluded:
I feel it would be out of place for me to add anything to that statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to raise a point of order arising out of what the Prime Minister has just said. He has indicated that perhaps these particular questions are out of order, and as a matter of clarification I should like to ask Your Honour's advice as to whether in fact these questions are out of order, and if so on what grounds they can be considered out of order. The Prime Minister has stated that he does not want his answer to be considered a precedent for this kind of question in the future, and therefore I think this matter should be clarified immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the reservation which the Prime Minister made, but since he did not take objection to answering the questions there is no point that arises for decision now from the Chair. I would not like to deal with the question hypothetically.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the point I raise. I assume that if the questions are allowed by Your Honour, then that is an admission that they are in order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we will have no play on words like that. The statement was quite clear that this was not to be considered a precedent. I had given an undertaking and action was taken subsequent to that undertaking. I said that even though there might be a question as to whether or not these questions should in fact be answered, I would answer them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister has said there might be a question of propriety with regard to the questions which could be asked, and that is the point I wish to make. In our view there is no question of propriety with regard to these questions, and therefore the Prime Minister's observation that these answers should not be taken as a precedent has no meaning.
Starred Questions


John George Diefenbaker: I am just following the former prime minister, your leader.


Mr. Speaker:: If serious objection to the questions were taken, of course, I would have to deal with the point; that is, that a question should not be answered because of pending litigation. However, since the question has been answered without objection as a point of order it seems to me that with the reservation the Prime Minister has made, he is reserving the right so far as he can do so to object to similar questions in the future, and I am not called upon to make any decision now.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: I now raise a question of privilege affecting the privileges of every hon. member of the house. The questions the Prime Minister has just answered call for the precise wording of the communications. It happens, and it will not surprise the house to know, that I have copies giving the precise wording of the communications, which I obtained subsequent to putting these motions on the order paper. The Prime Minister has misled the house by failing to give the precise wording of the communications.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can understand my hon. friend's feelings. He, the other day, had occasion to give advice to the premier of Newfoundland which was accepted for a few minutes, and then the rug was pulled from under him. When my hon. friend speaks about misleading the house, I would remind him that I wanted to table these letters the other day but he did not want that. I am prepared to do that. I have been asked to give the precise words, and they would be the pertinent words. The trouble with the hon. member is that he does not know what he wants.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of privilege, it
seems to me, has not been borne out by what was said. I am sure the house will recall that the Prime Minister made it clear that he was not attempting to give the full text but only the relevant parts. I do not think any point of privilege arises such as the hon. member asserted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The question surely reads,
what was the precise wording of the communication. Surely the precise wording of the communication means the precise and complete wording of the communication.


An hon. Member:: Table it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What does precise mean?


Mr. Speaker:: If I may say so, that is a different point. That raises the question of the sufficiency of the answer, and it is not

Starred Questions
open to the members of the house to question the sufficiency of a reply. It is open to those who are subject to interrogation to give such reply as they see fit.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. Since the Prime Minister has referred to this communication or these communications, and has said that he is quite prepared to have them tabled, since parliament itself is involved in that certain excerpts have been made public, I feel that we in this chamber have a right to see the entire documents. I would suggest therefore that they should be tabled, since they have now been referred to.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank my hon. friend for the suggestion, because that is exactly what I offered to do. The documents are available.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the Prime Minister also comply with the request I made the other day when this matter first arose, and agree to ask to have them printed in Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to reserve his remarks for the period of oral questions when we finish starred questions.
lLater:l
On the orders of the day:


John Whitney Pickersgill: Following Your Honour's suggestion, I should now like to ask the Prime Minister if he would be willing, for the convenience of members of the house, to ask the permission of the house to have the communications referred to in starred questions Nos. 46 and 47 made an appendix to today's Hansard?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the general attitude of the hon. member, I think that would be making a "Lamontagne" out of a molehill.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Prime Minister should either refuse or accept the suggestion of my hon. friend. Now what has he done? He has countered merely with a calculated and jovial irrelevancy.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order may I ask? Is it within the right of any hon. member, including the Prime Minister, when the matter is one involving not just the Prime Minister but all members of this house, for the Prime Minister to say in a despotic way, "No, I will not have this done"?


Mr. Speaker:: I think on reflection the hon. member for Essex East will appreciate the answer, which is that it is by unanimous
(Mr. Speaker.]
consent that documents are printed in Hansard, and that if any hon. member objects, even the Prime Minister, the documents will not be printed. If the hon. member would like me to put his request to the house I shall do so, but I take it the Prime Minister has said no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, sir, I should merely like to thank the Prime Minister for his courtesy.


John George Diefenbaker: I will reciprocate in that, and say there is no need to do other than table the documents.


OIL AND GAS PERMIT RIGHTS, NORTHERN CANADA
Mr. Hardie: 1.	What are the names of the ten successful bidders for oil and gas permit rights in northern Canada?
2.	Which of these are United States corporations, Canadian corporations, Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies, British corporations, others?
3.	Of the total acreage under permit rights, how many acres have been assigned to each of these companies?
4.	Of the total acreage under permit rights, what percentage has been assigned to (*) Canadian corporations; (b) United States corporations and Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies; (c) British corporations; (d) others?
5.	In this connection, what is meant by "cash bonus bids"?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the length of the answer I would request that it be tabled and printed as part of Hansard at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to have incorporated in Hansard at this point the rather extensive answer which he has to this question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above follows]
1. Assuming that the information required is the one sale on March 9, the names of the ten successful bidders for oil and gas exploration rights in northern Canada are as follows:
Pan American Petroleum Corporation, Calgary, Alberta; Triad Oil Co. Ltd., Calgary, Alberta; Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Co. Ltd., Calgary, Alberta; Shell Oil Company of Canada Limited, Calgary, Alberta; Canada Southern Petroleum Limited, Calgary, Alberta; Dome Petroleum Limited, Calgary, Alberta; California Peace River Company, Calgary, Alberta; Alberta Bretorada Petroleum Corporation, Calgary, Alberta; Alberta Calgarada Petroleum Corporation, Calgary, Alberta; James Ross, Ottawa, Ontario.

2.	United States Corporations: Pan American Petroleum Corporation, Calgary, Alberta; California Peace River Company, Calgary, Alberta.
Canadian Corporations: Dome Petroleum Limited, Calgary, Alberta; James Ross, Ottawa, Ontario; Triad Oil Co. Ltd., Calgary, Alberta.
Canadian Subsidiaries: Canadian Southern Petroleum Limited, Calgary, Alberta; Shell Oil Company of Canada, Limited, Calgary, Alberta; Alberta Calgarada Petroleum Corporation, Calgary, Alberta; Alberta Bretorada Petroleum Corporation, Calgary, Alberta.
British, United States and Canadian: Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Co. Ltd., Calgary, Alberta.
3.	As a result of the March 9 sale, these ten companies received permit rights as
follows:
Acres
Pan American Petroleum
Corporation	 1,896,442
Triad Oil Co. Ltd	 63,212
Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas
Co. Ltd	 95,661
Shell Oil Company of Canada
Limited	 474,367
Canada Southern Petroleum
Limited	 63,854
Dome Petroleum Limited_______	31,445
California Peace River Company	 63,854
Alberta Bretorada Petroleum
Corporation	 150,102
Alberta Calgarada Petroleum
Corporation	 50,262
James Ross	 50,262
4.	The percentage acreage breakdown as between the Canadian, United States companies, etc., within the ten companies listed in 3 above is as follows: (a) Canadian corporations, 4 per cent; (b) United States corporations, 68 per cent, Canadian subsidiaries, 25 per cent.
(c)	British, United States, Canadian corporations 3 per cent.
(d)	Others.
5.	"Cash bonus bids" is the amount of cash over and above the permit fee and deposit a bidder is prepared to pay in a public competition for the privilege of obtaining an exploratory oil and gas permit.
Note:	The sale of March 9 covered
2,939,661 acres. This brings the total under permit in the Northwest Territories and Yukon to some 80,000,000 acres. Questions 3 and 4 have been interpreted as applying to the March 9 sale only. If they refer to the 80,000,000 acres, the work involved in producing the answers would be very great as the corporate structures of every company 66968-9-149
Motions for Papers
holding any permit would have to be examined to determine whether they were British, Canadian, United States, etc.


IMPORTS OP CANNED APPLES, JAPAN TO B.C.
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What is the quantity of canned solid pack apples imported into British Columbia from Japan since January 1, 1958?
2.	What is the value of those imports?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to parts 1 and 2 may I say that statistics are not available because data on canned solid pack apples are not separately recorded in Canadian import statistics.


Mr. Robichaud:: Why not?



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Mcllraiih: 1.	Did the Minister of National Defence or any member of the government receive an estimate last December from A. V. Roe Canada Limited on the cost per plane for the delivery of 100 operational Arrows (CF-105's)?
2.	If so, what was the cost estimate per plane?
3.	What would such cost estimate per plane amount to with a spare engine and missiles?


C.B.C.-CABINET REPRESENTATIONS
Mr. Deschatelets: 1.	Did the Solicitor General, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Secretary of State, the Minister of Defence Production and the Postmaster General make representations at any time since June, 1957 by letter, memorandum, telephone or conversation, to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation concerning any radio or television program broadcast or proposed to be broadcast over the facilities of the corporation?
2.	If so, what was the nature of such representations, when and how were they made, and to what program or programs was reference made?


LANDING STRIP, MINGAN, SAGUENAY COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Bourgel: 1.	Has the government built a landing strip at Mingan, in the county of Saguenay?
2.	If so, what was the construction cost of the said landing strip?
3.	Did the government dispose of the said strip by sale, lease or otherwise?
4.	If so, to whom, on what date and on what conditions?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 54-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports by inspectors, agreements, contracts, and other documents exchanged between the St. Lawrence seaway authority, the Department of Transport or any other government department.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
and any person or persons, since January 1, 1955, relating to any work to be done on the Mercier bridge at Montreal, Quebec.
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to passing this motion with the usual reservation with regard to the permission of the province.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the reservation stated by the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
ORDER IN council p.c. 1959-259
Motion No. 79-Mr. Dumas:
For a copy of order-in-council P.C. 1959-259, dated March 5, 1959.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 80-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all reports and memoranda prepared by or for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and which has been distributed beyond the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation administration, on any aspects of the Progressive Conservative convention of 1956, and the Liberal convention of 1958.
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, when this motion was called the other day I said I could not accept it in the wide terms in which it was drafted. I have since received from my hon. friend a letter in which he has defined the matters he wishes to have included in the return. I am prepared to accept it on the basis of the information I now have and the terms which have been agreed upon.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to accept the modification of the motion as suggested on the basis of a letter written?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
with st. John's corporation
Motion No. 84-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of the agreement or agreements made in 1956, between the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the one hand, and the St. John's housing corporation on the other.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this notice of motion does not describe accurately any documents which are in existence. However, in accordance with the undertaking I gave yesterday I am obtaining copies of all agreements dealing with dominion-provincial housing projects in St. John's and I shall be glad to table them.
[Mr. Argued


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion stand in the meantime?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It can be dropped as far as I am concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to have this motion dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion dropped.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO MEETING ON R.C.M.P. AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Justice whether he can explain to the house why the proposed dominion-provincial conference to discuss the Royal Canadian Mounted Police agreement which was to be held this month has been postponed, and whether he can say when such conference is likely to be held?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister I will take this question as notice, and he will give an answer at the proper time.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to table the letters which, on March 23, he said he was addressing to the provinces announcing the new policy on civil defence.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to do so but I have not them available today. I will see that they are tabled tomorrow.



CANNED APPLES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As the minister could not answer my starred question in connection with solid pack apples imported into British Columbia from Japan since January 1, 1958, can he now inform the house whether any quantity of canned

apples has been imported from Japan since January 1, 1958; and if so, what quantity?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I gave an
answer to the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Winch:: Since when do you import apples into British Columbia?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If there are any more
questions before I continue with my reply, I am patiently waiting. Imports which are not of great significance are not listed separately in the returns; they appear under an item "not otherwise provided for"; and apples, if any, which have come from Japan are listed in the statistics of imports under that item. If in future canned apples from Japan become a matter of major importance, that fact will be noted and a separate item will be listed in our returns. But at the present time that is not the case.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house whether any quantity of canned apples has been imported into Canada from Japan?


An hon. Member:: He has answered.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, he has not.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister realize that even a small quantity of apples imported from Japan into British Columbia is a matter of major importance to the British Columbia fruit growers?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think it depends on the type of apple that is imported. If the hon. member is concerned with this matter I am surprised that he himself did not raise it, rather than leaving it to his friend opposite over there.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General which results from his announcement yesterday about the mailmobiles. Will there be consequential changes in the regulations to broaden suburban mail delivery owing to the introduction of this new Conservative vehicle?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the basic requirement for house to house delivery is that the houses must be separated by no more than 40 yards, and that
66968-9-1494
Inquiries of the Ministry will remain. However, not waiting for the introduction of the vehicle, last fall we revised our requirements for extending letter carrier service in the fringe areas of our major cities, and surveys are now taking place to determine where the new and relaxed requirements will enable us to further extend letter carrier service.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ALLOCATION OF BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question arises out of the continuing complaints and dissatisfaction over the distribution of box cars. Since the minister on January 21 said the Bracken royal commission report was in the hands of the printer, and this question was again referred to four weeks ago today, would the minister say whether the report has been lost? If so would the minister look into the matter and see if he can find the report and would he say when the report will be printed? Surely it should not take months to get this report printed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought the hon. member was going to add to his speech something about deficiency payments, but he did not quite get that far. The situation the hon. member mentions with regard to continuing complaints in connection with box cars must be only in his own office, from his own supporters. I have been receiving no complaints with regard to the distribution of box cars. Actually the situation with regard to the delivery of grain is excellent this year, and far ahead of what it was a year ago.
If I may come to the question the hon. member led up to very carefully and slowly, the printed report of the inquiry into box car allocation will be available just as soon as it is delivered to my hands from the printer. The printer has other work to do, I suppose, but he is pushing ahead as rapidly as possible with the printing of the report, and it will be placed in the hands of hon. members as soon as possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister. Is it the intention of the government to supply an edition in the French language at the same time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, that can be done. If so, of course, it will delay the publication of the report, and I understand from the hon. member's question that is what he would like to have done.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Chevrier: Why should it cause delay?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It frequently happens that the translation is a little later than the publication of the first report, and it imposes a delay which has to be accepted. It is unfortunate, that is all.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question.
Would the minister mind inquiring of the queen's printer when the report may be available and subsequently inform the house, there is great interest in this report?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will do everything possible, Mr. Speaker, to accommodate the hon. member. I will ask the queen's printer if it is possible to speed up the work.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether formal invitations to meet in Quebec have now been sent to the governments concerned who will be attending the summit meeting, and if so have any replies been received to those invitations?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about this earlier and suggested, as I recall it, that invitations be sent. Informal invitations have been sent. The formal ones will be presented, I understand, when the meeting of foreign ministers takes place.


WATER RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. J. Walker (Rosedale):: May I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister tell us the attitude of the Canadian government toward the legislation recently passed in the United States House of Representatives in regard to the diversion of water from the great lakes at Chicago?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will try to bring the house up to date on that matter. The bill has passed the House of Representatives and is now before the Senate or a Senate committee. The United States government is aware that the proposal to divert water from lake Michigan at Chicago is causing considerable and understandable concern in this country, and at the appropriate time further

official representations will be made. I think that is as far as I can go at this time, but we are paying the closest attention to this matter, at the same time not wishing to do anything that would in any way cause a situation to arise which might not be beneficial


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. In view of the discussion which took place in the house on at least two occasions with reference to this matter, has the government given consideration to referring the question of the diversion of water out of lake Michigan into the Chicago drainage canal to the international joint commission?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my answer offhand would be that no direct consideration has been given to that question, because of course the matter is now before the United States congress. I am just wondering whether this is an appropriate time for doing that which the hon. gentleman has suggested.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just add one point, which is this. The Prime Minister knows, of course, that the matter has already been referred to the international joint commission in so far as some technical aspects are concerned, and that is what prompted my question. I think it should be given some consideration.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, on March 25 the hon. member for Essex East asked if the R.C.A.F. were represented on the air defence system's integration division of the United States air force. The answer is yes.


POSTAL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like
to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that the Post Office Department has taken steps to facilitate letter carrier delivery in suburban areas, has the department any plans for making rural mail delivery more widely available?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, even before the steps to which the hon. member has referred were taken, we had reduced our rural mail delivery requirement from four houses per mile to

three houses per mile, which enables us to make a considerable number of extensions in this field.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister relating to the remarks he made in this house on March 16 with regard to Newfoundland, and his call for a cooling off period of two weeks. I should like to ask him whether he considers there has now been such a cooling off period and, if so, has he any announcement to make with regard to the matters which were then before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not at the Canadian club
today, so I do not know whether or not the cooling off period has been sufficient. As to the second portion of the question, that matter is still under consideration.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to
direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I was unable to give him notice, but I did not think he would require it. I wonder whether the minister will indicate to the house when we might expect the introduction of legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: My information is that the bill is now being printed. As soon as it comes off the press it will be introduced into this house.



INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF RADIO COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue how soon the government hopes to put a notice on the order paper for the setting up of the committee on radio which he promised at the beginning of the session.


George Clyde Nowlan: The notice can go on the order paper at almost any time, but I am advised by the officers of the house that at the moment there is congestion as far as rooms are concerned and also so far
8, 1959	2353
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries as stenographic services are concerned, and that it would not be practicable to set up a committee until some short time has elapsed. I hope to proceed with this just as soon as I am advised that it is possible to do so.



THE MINISTRY


John George Diefenbaker: the second reading of Bill No. C-37, to provide for the appointment of parliamentary secretaries to ministers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up much time at this moment on the discussion of this bill on second reading, other than to state that the matter was fully discussed and considered at the resolution stage.
A number of questions were asked during the discussion of the subject at that time, some of which were asked because of an inexhaustible desire for information; others were apparently designed to elicit information of a different kind. I will say no more than I said in introducing this matter at the resolution stage, namely that what is being asked for is the setting up of a system of parliamentary secretaries to ministers.
The terms are clearly set forth in the bill. A question was asked as to the numbers thereof, and hon. members will see that the number is restricted to 16. The salary will be $4,000 per annum and the duties, if I may paraphrase them, will consist of assistance to the ministers to whom the several parliamentary secretaries are allocated, in such manner as the ministers may direct.
I think I can add nothing more to what I said on the introduction of the resolution, and I trust that the same degree of unanimity which was apparent during that discussion will continue, and that it will be possible-and I merely express the hope that it will be possible-for us to conclude our deliberations before the debate on the budget begins.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to detain the house for any length of time on the second reading of this bill, because our position with regard to the principle involved was made quite clear when we were discussing the resolution upon which the bill is based. However, we shall have some suggestions to make in committee with regard to some of the detailed provisions of the bill which certainly do not commend themselves to us on this side of the house.
It may be recalled that when we were discussing this resolution the Prime Minister,
2354	HOUSE OF
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries in giving his historical account of the background of this matter, indicated that many years ago a bill of this kind was introduced in the House of Commons by the then prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King.


John George Diefenbaker: No; I am sure the hon. gentleman will not mind my pointing out that that is a mistake. Right Hon. Mackenzie King placed on the lips of the governor general the promise that a bill would be introduced, but it was not introduced.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that is quite right, Mr. Speaker; it was in the speech from the throne, but the government of the day did not proceed at that time to introduce legislation to implement that particular part of the speech. No doubt the Prime Minister, when he studied the history of that time, discovered in Hansard the reason which was given later by the prime minister of that day for his difficulty in regard to proceeding with the bill. He pointed out that the difficulty-the major difficulty-which was responsible for his not proceeding with the measure was that he himself, so he said, would not like to take responsibility for appointing a parliamentary assistant or a parliamentary secretary without consultation and agreement with the minister of the department concerned, and that he found the ministers of various departments were most reluctant to choose from among the members of parliament one who might become an assistant.


John George Diefenbaker: And he went further
than that; he mentioned deputy ministers.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, he went further than that and said they should be able to work well with deputy ministers.
I call to the attention of the Prime Minister that if this gave rise to a difficulty in those days, that difficulty has certainly been compounded by one clause of this bill, which would put the Prime Minister and the ministers in this difficult position every year. But I shall have more to say about this later, when we come to the committee stage.
Meanwhile I reaffirm what we said when we were discussing the resolution, namely that we shall support the principle of this bill, without prejudice to any observations we may wish to make or any changes we may wish to see introduced when we discuss the bill in committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: The purpose of this bill is to make provision for a maximum of some 16 parliamentary secretaries. This parliament during one whole session and for a substantial part of another session has operated in the absence of parliamentary secretaries, and I think those of us who


have had some experience in the House of Commons will agree that our experience without parliamentary secretaries has demonstrated the wisdom of this present bill. Many of the cabinet ministers are overworked. They have great burdens, and they need help. There may be a few of them-I can think of a couple-who perhaps are not fully employed, but we realize that many of the portfolios are very heavy and very trying. The provision of parliamentary secretaries would, we believe, be of help to the government, and consequently would lead to the more efficient dispatch of public business.
I am sure there are many ways in which parliamentary secretaries could be helpful to a minister. One such way would be in seeing that questions of which hon. members have given advance notice to a minister are taken to the proper authorities in the appropriate department and the answers obtained. In that way we would obtain greater efficiency in the answering of questions in this house. There have been in this session instances of questions being asked and the replies requiring many weeks before being prepared and presented.
I can think of other ways in which parliamentary secretaries would be of assistance. I think that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) is greatly in need of a parliamentary secretary. We realize that his portfolio is particularly heavy and that in the past ministers of this department have made great use of their parliamentary secretaries. As a matter of fact, this type of service has been a training ground in some instances for a person who subsequently became the minister of that portfolio. While I believe the major business of parliament should be conducted by the ministers themselves, I can appreciate that parliamentary secretaries may be able to give parliament more adequate answers on many important questions when the ministers are busy with other matters.
To cite another example, parliamentary secretaries would be useful when supplementary estimates are before the house. The secretary may be able to provide appropriate answers. This would depend on the individual himself and the extent to which he had been briefed with regard to questions that might be asked.
I believe that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) could do with a parliamentary secretary. He might, for instance, use him to open letters containing complaints. The minister said he has received no complaints about box car allocation, a comment I was interested in hearing. I would like to see a parliamentary secretary assigned to the Minister of Trade and Commerce who would keep him informed on these

questions and complaints. The minister today seemed not to have any great knowledge about the importation of canned apples. This perhaps illustrates his need of a parliamentary secretary.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) who is the government leader in the house is an efficient person and in my opinion handles his department extremely well but I feel he would benefit from the assistance of a parliamentary secretary to handle in this house the strategy as far as private members' days are concerned. The parliamentary secretary to the house leader might be able to bring about some arrangement that would give parliament an opportunity to deal in a more effective manner with the whole question of private members' motions and private members' bills. Perhaps we could discover an alternative to the usual course of talking out all of these motions.
In the field of policy it would appear to me that the minister of as important a department as the Department of Labour might make use of a parliamentary secretary to make inquiries into the grave unemployment problem confronting the nation to see what might be done about solving it.
I suggest that the Secretary of State (Mr. Courtemanche) should have a parliamentary secretary to keep track of royal commissions, how long they take to report and what they are doing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And to watch what happens to their reports.


Hazen Robert Argue: A former parliamentary assistant tells me that there is no man made who could accomplish such a task. One royal commission that could be inquired into with respect to the progress it is making is the royal commission on patents and copyrights. This commission has been sitting for many years and parliament would be interested in knowing when a report may be expected.
There is no question about it, the growing complexity of the role of the Canadian government in our economy requires a strengthening of administration from time to time.
I am certain that an investment of this relatively small amount of money for this purpose is a good investment for the nation.
Although you may rule that the comment I am about to make is somewhat extraneous to the measure before us, Mr. Speaker, I should like to see the Prime Minister and the government give consideration to the whole question of research assistance not only for the cabinet but for members of the opposition. I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the research problem confronting opposition members and I am certain it is a problem he faced for many years.
8, 1959	2355
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's apprehension is quite correct. He is straying away from the subject under discussion.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was encouraged to continue, Mr. Speaker, by what I thought was the general assent of the Prime Minister with respect to the difficulties that opposition members face in terms of research. I am hopeful that hon. members on all sides of the house in supporting this measure will consider other appropriate ways whereby the democratic administration of Canada may be strengthened.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very brief notwithstanding the unusual interest and attendance that I see in the government benches with respect to this item of legislation. My sole point would be to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) if he is overly enamoured of the term "parliamentary secretary". There are some competent and able people sitting behind him who over years of long association with me would probably speak more frankly with me than with him about the desirability of that phrase. My impression is that many think "parliamentary assistant" is a good phrase.
I know that the Prime Minister and his party are usually inclined to adopt the British system and in the United Kingdom people who occupy these positions are referred to as secretaries. If the Prime Minister has not heard about it I should like to tell him that among those whom I think are eminently qualified for his recommendation for positions of this kind some would prefer the title "parliamentary assistant".
This is something about which there is no political quarrel. I believe we have to lay down somewhat more rigid rules concerning duties and responsibilities and I know that the Prime Minister with his great attention to parliamentary practice has given this a great deal of careful consideration. I think he will be greatly benefited by having this second string contingent of people who feel that even during the recess they have to give assiduous attention to the political and administrative functions of government to assist the ministers who are today coping with such large and fantastically high responsibilities.
If the Prime Minister does not know it, I think he will find that some of those to be appointed will really think that the title of parliamentary assistant as we have had it in the past is a little more appropriate to the Canadian concept than perhaps the British style of parliamentary secretary. I just raise this point.
2356	HOUSE OF
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the passage of this bill, but I feel there are certain very pertinent questions which should be mentioned at this stage of the proceedings. First of all, I wish to say I found it rather strange and even quite interesting while reading the Prime Minister's speech on the resolution stage of the bill to notice that although he had not yet been attacked he felt it absolutely necessary to defend his repeated delays in introducing this legislation by making what I am sure he considered very sly and devastating references to the fact that Mr. Mackenzie King was also guilty of procrastination. This very interesting habit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) of attacking a government which is no longer in power in a vain effort and attempt to justify his own maladministration is not only a futile but indeed a very infantile exercise which can in no way change the subject under discussion in this house at this time. Of course what Mackenzie King did in 1943 was extremely important to the people who were sitting in the house in 1943, and no doubt at that time the discussions were germane to the subjects which were immediately before that house.
What particularly concerns us now is what this Prime Minister and what this government intend to accomplish with the particular legislation which we have before us, and any other consideration that the Prime Minister may wish to introduce into the discussion can only be considered as a camouflage or as a proverbial blue herring.


Mr. Pallell:: Red.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: A blue one. Mr. Speaker, it has been quite evident in the past several months that there has been a very distinct reluctance in the mind of the Prime Minister concerning the appointment of parliamentary secretaries. This great day has indeed been postponed for days and weeks and months. As a matter of fact, only recently this resolution which appeared on the order paper was postponed on several occasions.


John George Diefenbaker: Cancelled?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I am quite sure that the Prime Minister must have had good reason for postponing this legislation; but as one reads the bill he immediately realizes that the Prime Minister is actually increasing the number of parliamentary secretaries from 14 to 16 and that he is making his appointments for a period not exceeding one year. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but recall the very nasty rumours and stories that were circulated around parliament hill some time ago to the effect that there were


some 180 hungry and eager parliamentarians who were very anxious to get away from the rank and file of the Conservative party and that the Prime Minister had a bit of a problem in trying to fit 180 members into the 14 available positions. As a matter of fact, he was seriously considering appointing the parliamentary secretaries on an annual rotation basis so that he might, of course, satisfy as many of his political colleagues as possible. Now that the bill has been brought down and we see its provisions we also realize that the rumours that we have heard were not entirely without foundation. At this time we should have a very definite look at the consequences of this particular legislation and not let ourselves be sidetracked into considerations of Mr. King's procrastinations in this matter.
I think I should make it clear, Mr. Speaker, right from the start that I am not opposed to the appointment of parliamentary secretaries. On the contrary, I feel that at a time when most of the government departments have expanded to an unprecedented level and where the ministers are literally overburdened with departmental administration, policies and detail; when they must look after not only the affairs in this house but must also study the problems that may come before the cabinet; when they are called upon to represent the government not only from coast to coast in this country but also abroad, there is absolute need for the appointment of knowledgeable parliamentary assistants, and it would be in the greatest interest of parliament if the parliamentary assistants were to be named because of their capacity rather than for any other criteria.
Since 1943, when the parliamentary assist-antships were set up on a more definite and more permanent basis, than had been the case heretofore, I believe they have rendered valuable service to the house and to parliament. I am sure the experiment has been a considerable success. It has been proven to be a good training ground for members of parliament and indeed has been a stepping stone to the cabinet. However, I believe the time has now come when parliamentary assistants should be given a new status in the hierarchy of the departments. They should be given more definite and specific responsibilities in the departments to which they are attached and in the performance of their duties in this house in order to lessen as effectively as possible the burden which is now on the shoulders of the ministers alone.
There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that there are innumerable members on the government side who would make exceedingly fine parliamentary assistants provided, of

course, that they were chosen for their capacity, their training and their adaptability and provided that they are not chosen in an effort to make content as many of the government members as possible. I think indeed it would be a very gross disregard of the rights of parliament as well as of the rights of the Canadian taxpayers to use parliamentary secretaries as a means of recompensing the supporters of the government.
At this stage of our political evolution, there is an absolute need in parliament and in the departments for good parliamentary secretaries. These responsibilities should fall on the shoulders of the most qualified men. I shall even go farther, Mr. Speaker: If the parliamentary secretaries are to play the role that is required in this house and in the departments then I submit respectfully that these should be full-time jobs. If that is so, then I believe serious consideration should be given to increasing the amount of the emolument that is now provided for in this bill.
I do not believe $4,000 is sufficient for a full-time job. We should not expect capable men, who no doubt have family obligations, to neglect or completely abandon for a period of two or three years whatever business they have without assuring them of an adequate return for the services they render. On the other hand, if parliamentary assistants are to be named on a yearly rotation basis, then I submit that this type of political pie-cutting is out of keeping with the very purpose for which parliamentary secretaries were instituted in the first place. I am quite sure all hon. members will agree that it would take a considerably longer period than six or seven months or a year for a person to be fully acquainted with and knowledgable of the details of his department. It would take a considerably longer period than that, and by changing and rotating parliamentary secretaries from year to year you would place the parliamentary secretary in a position where he could be of no possible use to the department, to the minister or to the house. As a matter of fact, that type of parliamentary secretary would be occupying a purely honorary position. I believe that the moneys that would be expended in payment for that type of parliamentary secretary would be wasted. As a matter of fact, what you would be asking the Canadian people to do would be to pay the government's debt of gratitude to some members of the Conservative party.
In addition I feel that although this legislation may call for the appointment of 16 parliamentary secretaries the Prime Minister would not be justified in filling these 16 positions in order to satisfy as many of his colleagues as possible. I do not think it would be reasonable or even logical, for instance, to
8, 1959	2357
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries name a parliamentary assistant to the attorney general or to the ministers without portfolio or to any of the departments in which the work involved does not justify the naming of a parliamentary assistant. In my opinion, there is a need for good parliamentary assistants, and they should be placed in those departments in which it is well known the minister is overburdened; where there is a quantity of important detail which the minister has not the time to handle and which could be well handled by a good parliamentary secretary.
It would be, I am sure, in the interests of the departments, of the ministers and of this house to place the best available men in these key positions. This is the only basis upon which we can support, and even heartily endorse, the appointment of parliamentary secretaries. This is the only basis upon which the Prime Minister could justify the appointment of parlamentary secretaries if he desires, as he said, to preserve the rights and dignity of parliament and to improve our parliamentary procedures. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that the appointment of parliamentary secretaries on an annual rotation basis would, in fact, destroy the effectiveness of parliamentary assistants, and although that procedure may be of some definite political advantage to the Conservative party, I submit such a course would be contrary to the best interests of this parliament.


William Moore Benidickson: Will the Prime Minister make any reply?


John George Diefenbaker: In committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought that the few general remarks I would want to make on this measure should be made on this particular section. The Prime Minister, at the outset today, stated that he hoped it would be possible to provide passage of this bill before the end of the day so that there would be no further delay, in the light of the fact we are soon going to be discussing the budget. I am sure all members of the house will endeavour to co-operate, consistent with their concept of duty, with the request of the Prime Minister. But he would be the first to deny any hon. member the opportunity of expressing views which an hon. member thought he should express with regard to any measure.
The Prime Minister, of course, understandably asks us to give quick passage, subject
2358	HOUSE OF
Provision jor Parliamentary Secretaries to discussion, but he is hardly in a very good position, in one sense, to make this request.


John George Diefenbaker: I immediately -withdraw it.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: He has, for reasons best known to himself, delayed this decision up until now. There were parliamentary assistants after the election of June, 1957, and some of them are in the house today. I am sure those who are now in the house are anxiously awaiting the passage of this bill to ascertain whether or not they will be reappointed. For my part, I wish it were possible for the Prime Minister to appoint every member of his party as a parliamentary secretary, so well disposed do I feel toward every hon. member who sits on the Speaker's right.
Notwithstanding that, the situation is that there were parliamentary assistants appointed after the election of June, 1957. They functioned, I think one may say, with competence and with distinction, and served their ministers and their country well. During the period of their appointment the Prime Minister, however, decided, according to his prerogative as the Queen's first minister, by his request for dissolution, to bring to an end the tenure of the parliamentary assistants who were associated with his government. This long delay since January, 1958 has not been explained properly by the Prime Minister. If there is justification, as I believe there is, for the appointment of parliamentary assistants, or as the bill calls them, secretaries, at this time, there certainly was justification for the Prime Minister taking this step shortly after his return to office on March 31, 1958.
What the reasons for the delay were, of course, I do not know. I have not yet reached that point of efficiency as to be able to satisfactorily and confidently detect what is in the mind of the right hon. gentleman. However, one suspects, as in the case of most prime ministers, that there was real difficulty, difficulty that arises out of dissatisfaction on the part of some hon. gentlemen who were not previously appointed, and possibly some dissatisfaction-but I am sure that could not have existed in many cases-with the record of achievement of parliamentary assistants previously designated, although, as I say, I do not know of anyone who was a parliamentary assistant after June of 1957 who could not qualify under the highest standards.
It may be that the Prime Minister has since found that certain political obligations have now confronted him which he is obliged to take into consideration. It would be


regrettable if now, in the appointment of new candidates, he would do what the hon. member who has just spoken said he should not do, namely make appointments on the basis of trying to extricate himself from particular inevitable political embarrassments that attend the head of any government. One would hope that the Prime Minister could find some other method of dealing with these political embarrassments or these potential dissatisfactions and that he would appoint as parliamentary secretaries only those men in his party who sit behind him in whom he has the fullest confidence and whom he regards as most competent for the particular assignments.
The hon. member for Assiniboia points out that I am now discriminating by failing to mention not only those sitting behind the Prime Minister but as well those members of his party who sit opposite. Because I have carefully observed an attitude of complete neutrality on these appointments I would want to include all hon. members sitting on this side of the house who support the right hon. gentleman. I am sure that our propinquity with these hon. members over the period of the last few months has given us a special opportunity of recognizing their high qualifications for these junior ministerial positions. Of course, as the Leader of the Opposition quietly observes, in their propinquity with us they have had an opportunity of adding to their standards, competence and qualifications.
I hope the Prime Minister will take into account another factor that is extremely important in this matter and it is this. While there has been in this country a tradition about trying to give cabinet representation to all sections of the country, and particularly to the divisions within a province, and while I recognize that that is a rule to be observed by the Prime Minister in accordance with his own prerogative and his own concepts of the kind of government he wants, the Prime Minister now has, in the particular appointments which will be open to him once this bill is passed, the opportunity of rectifying some of the weaknesses that attend the present ministry.
For instance, in the province of Ontario the Prime Minister has a group of respectably competent gentlemen who sit on the ministerial benches, including the distinguished lady member from Hamilton. I have no observations to make against any one of those particular ministers and I would not want them to think that I was in any way engaged in a campaign to have them withdrawn by attrition, compulsion or persuasion from the right hon. gentleman's government. But for

some time I am sure the Prime Minister himself has been concerned about the fact that the great city of Toronto in Ontario has had more than adequate representation in the cabinet.


John George Diefenbaker: Something it did not have under the last government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says "Something it did not have under the last administration". He is quite correct. For most of the period of the government of the last prime minister that was the case. But we rectified the situation by the appointment of the brilliant present hon. member for Trinity, whose appointment possibly took care of that situation which I think admittedly was a mistake.


John George Diefenbaker: It was rectified on April 27, 1957.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The right hon. gentleman has now erred the other way. The Minister of Transport, the Minister of Finance and the Minister without Portfolio who represents the constituency of Greenwood all come from Toronto. Then the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration comes from a place not far from Toronto. While the citizens of Hamilton are not always anxious to be identified with Toronto, the fact is that she lives close to Toronto, in what at least might be called the Toronto-Hamilton district. Then the Minister of Labour lives in Oshawa, some 40 miles from Toronto. Hence we have all of the ministers from Toronto who come from the same district or the same area in Ontario. Then of course while the late Secretary of State for External Affairs represented a riding that was not in Toronto but was close to Oshawa, nevertheless he himself came from Toronto. As the Leader of the Opposition now observes again in his effective coaching method, they are all in the same television area.
But the great regret is that as a result of the concentration of my right hon. friend's ministers from Ontario in the Toronto-Hamil-ton-Oshawa district, the fact is that central Ontario, southwestern Ontario, eastern Ontario and northern Ontario are all unrepresented in the cabinet of my right hon. friend. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, who lives in Stratford which is some 60 miles from London and some 225 miles from Ontario's leading city of Windsor, is the only one in the cabinet who can properly be said not to come from the heavily concentrated area of Hamilton-Toronto-Oshawa. The Prime Minister now will have the opportunity, not of making changes in the cabinet-I am sure that is not possible-but at least of
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries rectifying the situation somewhat by appointing parliamentary secretaries taking into account the geographical areas of Ontario that are not now represented in his cabinet.
Then of course, he will be confronted in other provinces with certain dilemmas. I refer to those provinces where, for instance, there is more than one minister and where the population is not comparable with that of some of the larger ones. For instance, in one province where there are now three ministers, the Prime Minister will have to ask himself this question: Should I appoint any parliamentary secretary at all? If I do so, can I appoint more than one? Certainly if he appoints any in the province to which I have just referred he will be confronted with a great difficulty.
There are a number of objections to this bill; but surely the one that will stand out clearly is the reference in a subsequent section which we shall discuss when we come to it namely that these parliamentary secretaries are to be appointed for a period of only 12 months. The result will be that during the term of my hon. friend's tenure in office before the next election there will have been no less than 64 parliamentary secretaries appointed by the right hon. gentleman. In the discretion that is his my right hon. friend will have to consider whether or not that is the proper way in which to provide the kind of training required for future ministers in his government or in any government that is represented by the Conservative party.
Surely the purpose behind the appointments of parliamentary secretaries is not only to assist ministers in the proper discharge of their functions but to train the most promising members and to give them the kind of training which will serve for the future. I recollect that the right hon. gentleman himself, speaking on this question in the house, some time ago, referred to the post of parliamentary assistant as an extremely useful training ground. I ask the Prime Minister this question. Does he think that he will be carrying out the desired objectives in appointing parliamentary secretaries for a period of only 12 months?
I look at some hon. members-I am tempted to refer to them by their constituencies, but I will not-who I know would make very good parliamentary secretaries. They should be given an opportunity of serving for more than 12 months. Can they collect any kind of useful experience in as short a period as 12 months? That, I think, is very doubtful. In any event, it does not conform at least to the traditional standards which have applied in the United Kingdom parliament and here. So I would hope when

Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries we come to that section that the Prime Minister will want to reconsider it and possibly change it to provide for a longer tenure.
The fact that now we do not have, unfortunately, a Secretary of State for External Affairs points to the necessity of having someone in that department who at least will have access to the Prime Minister from the membership of this house, particularly at this time. If there had not been any delay in this matter it would have been possible for the Prime Minister to have available the services of a parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs long before this, and the delay which has taken place indicates that what is now being done should have been done 14 months ago.
I only hope the Prime Minister will have good fortune at his side when he comes to make these appointments. I hope they will be made on the basis of competence. In that regard, as I said when I spoke in this house on this subject a year ago, when he comes to the county of Essex he will certainly have two very able gentlemen, and I tell him that I will offer no criticism whatever if he appoints both the hon. member for Essex West and the hon. member for Essex South as parliamentary assistants. That will add to the qualities of his government, but I hope it will not ensure its success.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise briefly to express the support of this group for this measure because we believe that under present conditions parliamentary secretaries are necessary and can render a service to parliament and a service to the public. Before going on with my few remarks, I do want to deal with the obvious inconsistencies between various members of the Liberal party who have spoken in this debate. We had the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River pleading with the Prime Minister not to adopt the British practice and call them parliamentary secretaries. Then we had the hon. member for Essex East who has just taken his seat criticizing another section of the bill and wondering why the Prime Minister did not adopt the British practice in this respect. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we in this group are quite willing, when it comes to the procedures and operations of the parliamentary system, to receive our instruction from the mother of parliaments in Great Britain. They have had long experience and their practices have been proven worth while throughout the years.
We do hope that the Prime Minister will give consideration to competence, not to geographical regions and things of that sort. Secondly, we hope he will give consideration to youth. While possibly out of a spirit of humanitarianism it may be necessary to

consider a few gray heads, we would not object to that so long as the number was not more than four out of sixteen. We do think that young men should get the opportunity to serve in these positions. I think, generally speaking, that parliamentary secretaryships are looked upon as training grounds for cabinet positions at a later date, and I think the young men should have their opportunity to show their competence in this respect.
There are a few questions which I trust the Prime Minister will answer when he replies to the criticism on section 1. We in this group would like to know what rank these parliamentary secretaries will hold. In Great Britain they are treated as junior ministers, and there is a provision in their table of precedence for parliamentary secretaries. There is no such provision in our table of precedence, and I would like to know whether there will be consideration given to that. What are their duties? While the bill particularly mentions that they shall assist the minister in such manner as the minister directs, we in this group would like to know more specifically what is expected of them with respect to assisting the minister and with respect to their duties in the house, and just what opposition members can expect from them by way of assistance. I know that parliamentary secretaries can be of great assistance to a minister and save a lot of his time by providing an opportunity for members to take up their questions with them outside the house and on other occasions. We would like a more detailed explanation of their duties.
In addition, will they be required to resign any directorships, the same as a minister? That is the practice in Great Britain, and seeing that the Prime Minister has followed fairly well the practice which prevails in Great Britain in the drafting of this bill, surely he will insist on that. We in this group are glad that the bill provides for appointments for only one year. We are all human beings and it gives persons appointed as parliamentary secretaries some opportunity for initiative. They are not just appointed and then go on till the end of the parliament. They have to demonstrate their ability not only to the Prime Minister but to the rest of the house, and we think that is an excellent provision. It provides an opportunity for the Prime Minister to drop any duds, not that I am suggesting that he will appoint duds, but it is the sort of thing which could possibly happen.
That is all I have to say at this stage. I hope the Prime Minister will give some fuller explanation of the questions other hon. members and I have asked.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the discussion has been most helpful and beneficial, because we have had the advantage of listening to those who have occupied these positions in the past. One of them, the hon. member for Essex East, ultimately became a minister within a year, ten months after he showed his peculiar capacity. Then there was the hon. member for Laurier, who too became a minister. Then I was going to mention the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, but he came up another way. Then there is also the hon. gentleman for Kenora-Rainy River.
I must say he spoke with the experience of one who discharged his responsibilities in a way that sometimes we do not mention; but I must say, as I listened to him in the days he was parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance, that I could not but think he had devoted himself very diligently to a very difficult job.
The general attitude, of course, has been one of appreciation of the need. There was an expression of doubt that seemed to characterize the remarks of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. He was a parliamentary assistant and discharged his responsibility in a manner that could not have been characterized as infantile, which is an expression which came to his lips as he discussed this matter. I do not even want to think of that term, because I know how seriously he deported himself, and how when he was in New York as parliamentary assistant to the then secretary of state for external affairs I listened to him with that attention which his presence and remarks demanded, and I say that in all sincerity.
What are the difficulties here? Listening to the hon. member for Essex East I must say I was impressed by the tenor of his remarks and by the fact that he seemed to be concerned about political embarrassments. I can understand that. He referred to them, of course, in a different sense to the sense I have in mind, but he did refer to them, and I could not pass the opportunity of saying that I can understand his feelings in this regard.
Questions were raised as to the reasons for the delay. One hon. gentleman referred to the fact that I had made a reference to Mr. Mackenzie King. I frequently do refer to him, for I sat over yonder and watched him for years and saw him operating. Sometimes as I look over at the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I seem to detect an unseen person there behind him, and the manner in which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate speaks on occasion reminds me that his former chief must at one time or another
8, 1959	2381
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries have exercised that influence which some of us believe he always exercised in the background.
I mentioned Mr. King. In 1935, in the course of the speech from the throne of that year, Mr. King was shocked by the fact that it was the adoption of a British principle when he promised he would provide legislation for the setting up of parliamentary secretaries. Approximately eight years later when he did introduce, not legislation, but simply an estimate which was effective from year to year, he endeavoured to explain why it was that he had not continued in his early adherence to the expression "parliamentary secretaries" and why he had come to the conclusion that the term "parliamentary assistants" was best. The major argument appeared to be that the appointment is from year to year. It has always been that.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: The estimates which
were introduced each year from 1943 on to 1957 read as follows:
To provide hereby, notwithstanding anything contained in the Financial Administration Act or the provisions of the Senate and the House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to each member of the House of Commons appointed by the governor in council to be a parliamentary assistant (which appointment shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) to assist a minister of the crown in such manner and to such an extent as the minister may determine-
I emphasize those words; they are almost identical with those contained in clause 3 of the bill.
-and to represent his department in the House of Commons in the absence of the minister therefrom, a salary of $4,000 per annum and pro rata for any period less than one year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to continue. In so far as the actual appointments were concerned, they were not revolving in any way, but at the end of each year they terminated because of the fact that though not requiring a further order in council there was no further vote within the estimates to cover any appointment for another year. Thus, in fact, it was an appointment from year to year. The simple fact is that we are following in effect what was done in the past, and in no way is there a suggestion that it means that there will be wholesale alterations or changes. This simply allows for the assurance that each year each one who is appointed will realize that his
2362	HOUSE OF
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries appointment is one which continues only tor the period of the year for which he is appointed.
The question was asked: why the expression "parliamentary secretary"? I adopted the view of Mr. King, and this was his first thought on the subject in 1935. Then I read the British practice, and I was particularly impressed with the book written by the Right Hon. Mr. Herbert Morrison on the British parliament and the general system, and it was on that basis that the alteration was made.
The hon. member for Kootenay West asked whether the parliamentary secretaries are to be given the status of junior ministers, and without any qualification in this regard I say that they are not. We have today a different system from that which exists in the United Kingdom. There, in effect, the ministry consists of two grades-those in the cabinet and those outside the cabinet. Originally, in 1917 or 1918 when Sir Robert Borden introduced this system into the House of Commons here, he did have in mind that parliamentary secretaries-which, incidentally, was the name then given to those hon. members, few in number as they were, who were appointed to those positions-might on occasion sit in the cabinet. At the moment my colleagues and I have no favourable views in that regard.
In so far as tables of precedence are concerned, may I say to the hon. member for Kootenay West that tables of precedence are one thing that have never been of particular concern for me. As a matter of fact I do not know how they are determined; perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, having occupied the various positions that he has in the civil service and having, also, been secretary of state, would be able to enlighten hon. members on this point. All I know is that it is in the red book. Who determines it, I do not know. I can say that as far as parliamentary secretaries are concerned, there is no suggestion of precedence other than that during the course of the discharge of their responsibilities in the House of Commons and outside they will on appropriate occasions as the minister directs perform those duties which are in essence comprehended by the expression "parliamentary secretary".
A question was raised by one hon. member-I think it was the hon. member for Kootenay West-as to whether parliamentary secretaries would be required to divest themselves of directorships in companies. I have always been a strong believer in the necessity of members of a cabinet being divested of any interest in any corporation, by which I mean, not the interest of a shareholder in the various companies in which one


might buy shares but an interest as a director of any corporation. I think that has been generally accepted, although some years ago when there was a discussion of this question in the house the then prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, as I recall, while he himself had divested himself of all interest in this regard and felt, personally, that such a course should be followed, acknowledged that one minister or another did hold certain directorships.
I am speaking from recollection but I believe Mr. St. Laurent said it was a question for the individual to determine. I believe those occupying positions in the cabinet should, without question, divest themselves of that kind of interest. That is the view I hold. In so far as parliamentary secretaries are concerned the line is much finer but I believe that in the general interests of the preservation of the parliamentary system in its entirety, and the assurance that no consideration other than the determination of the responsibilities of the member shall enter into the equation, parliamentary secretaries should follow a similar course.
The Leader of the Opposition dealt in general with the matter and I thank him for his remarks and for the general support that has been expressed. There may be some questions that will arise later on as the various clauses come up for consideration.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres thought there should be an increase in the amount of $4,000 to be paid as remuneration. I know that those appointed as parliamentary secretaries really could not express any determined adversity to such a suggestion but as for myself I cannot accept that proposal as appropriate having regard to all the circumstances. The hon. gentleman said that good men should be chosen on the basis of a full-time job. The hon. gentleman served in the capacity of parliamentary assistant and I think he would modestly allow himself to come within the ambit of the descriptive words "good men". He served for that amount and at no time in those days did I ever hear him suggest that an additional amount should be paid. I cannot believe that the hon. gentleman was too serious in that suggestion. I believe he was advancing a general argument as to the remuneration that goes to those in public life and not endeavouring seriously to advocate that at this time there should be such an increase.
In that connection may I say that those who serve in public life and who accept such responsibilities do so in the largest possible degree on the basis of the service they can render. I know of no one who enters public life in return for the compensation which appertains to the holding of public position.

Indeed, I have often said of hon. members of the House of Commons-and I am looking now at the hon. gentleman directly opposite .-how many of them, had they chosen to stay in private life, would find themselves today much better off monetarily speaking than is the case. It is true that if we cannot recruit through the public service the best men, even though the remuneration is not that which could be expected in private life, to serve with the same devotion they would bring to their private activities, then public life would indeed be the poorer as the result.
There is no suggestion of there being any hidden purpose in this legislation. The question of handling it in this fashion rather than doing what is done through the medium of an estimate answers itself.
I listened to the arguments of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on another subject and with that convincing power he exhibits on some occasions he was able to convince me that there were no sound reasons why the appointments in question should not be by legislative enactment directly rather than through the backdoor method of an estimate voted annually. In so far as the term is concerned, may I again say there is no question of the kind of representation that has been suggested here.
As for the hon. member for Essex East, I was glad to see the degree to which he showed an interest in the assurance that all important parts of Ontario shall be represented. At the expense of reiteration may I say I used to wonder as he sat over here, with that sense of fairness with which he always clothed his words, how badly he must have felt when for a period of-perhaps it was 22 years-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no: 6J or 7
years; but they were not 7 lean years.


John George Diefenbaker: -there were always a number of Liberal members from Toronto on this side of the house from time to time throughout that period and yet that great city remained under what appeared to be a ban that must have shocked the finer sensibilities of those hon. members appointed similarly to the hon. member for Essex East.
The suggestions made by the hon. member for Essex East and the suggestions other hon. members have made as to representation for all parts of the country lacked one important reference and that is the necessity of appropriate representation among those of the other major race. All of those things will be taken into the fullest consideration when the appointments are made. I thank hon. gentlemen in all parts of the house and in both opposition parties for their contributions and suggestions.
8, 1959	2363
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rose to ask the Prime Minister a question and at his request did not ask it. I shall now make the point I was going to make in the form of a question. I intend to resist the Prime Minister's very appealing invitation to give a dissertation on the table of precedence. I believe I will save that for another occasion when we are not so anxious to get the session over.


John George Diefenbaker: But could you really not help? Do not pass up an opportunity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, if the right hon. gentleman would like to have a private conference with me I could give him a great deal of information that perhaps it would be inadvisable for either of us to have appear on Hansard with regard to that particular subject.
Before I come to the point I originally rose to make, I wish to say a word about what the Prime Minister said about the backdoor method of appointments. I did not in the last session criticize the legislation respecting parliamentary assistants. If the Prime Minister will look up the record he will find that I did say I thought this had gone on long enough and no longer needed to be regarded as an experiment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I did not suggest that the backdoor method ever came into the mind of the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, as a matter of fact it did. We know the Prime Minister used the term and I objected to this method but not with respect to parliamentary assistants. It seems to me that the really objectionable thing in our present situation is that the government chooses to appoint ministers of the crown by what the Prime Minister sees fit to refer to as the backdoor method. To that I take the same exception as I did a year ago. I think it is highly objectionable that ministers of the crown should be remunerated by an item in the estimates, but I never shared the views of Mr. Knowles when he was here that an appropriation act was not just as good legislation as any other kind. Perhaps it is not as convenient for lawyers to refer to but it is just as good legislation.
It seems to me, so far as parliamentary secretaries are concerned who do not share in the collective responsibility of the government and are not members of the government, that if the government chooses to legislate for their remuneration in the estimates through the appropriation act or chooses to do it this way, is a matter of relative indifference. I think on balance it is slightly better to do it this way. But I do think-and I would not have introduced the
2364	HOUSE OF
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries matter if the Prime Minister had not-it is very objectionable indeed to have ministers of the crown remunerated through the estimates and I do hope that before the session is over, if the Prime Minister continues to have ministers without portfolio whose utility some of us have some doubt about, it would be desirable to provide proper legislation for the purpose.
But what I rose to say-and it is very presumptuous of me to take issue with the Prime Minister in this-is that I think the Prime Minister was wrong when he said that parliamentary assistants in the past were appointed for a year at a time. The Prime Minister read the estimate. It is true that the remuneration was provided one year at a time but it is my understanding-and I saw many of the orders in council, though not all of them-that there was no term ever put in the orders in council. It would be my opinion-and I give this opinion without asking a fee because I am only a law student and not a lawyer-


John George Diefenbaker: Because what?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am only a law student and not a lawyer. It is my opinion-


John George Diefenbaker: You cannot charge for that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -that so long as the order in council subsisted and so long as the hon. gentleman remained a member of parliament he was a parliamentary assistant, though he might not wish to assist very much if his remuneration stopped; but I do not think that would prevent him from going on being a parliamentary assistant so long as the order in council remained in force. Therefore, I think the Prime Minister was wrong in law and in fact in saying that the appointments were made for one year at a time. They were made in fact for an indefinite period, the way in which we on this side of the house feel that the provision should be made under term 29, that no time limit should be put upon it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I really do not want to get into term 29 because that is something that we should not discuss on this occasion although the hon. gentleman, on every occasion that he discusses something, brings in some matter connected with term 29. As far as the hon. gentleman's views are concerned, I give them the weight which I always give to expressions of his views. We are in disagreement on this matter but it is a disagreement and I am sure a sincere disagreement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the practice has now been established in the consideration of this bill in committee of dealing with 

clauses 1 and 2 together, therefore, I propose to follow that course because I have something to say not only on clause 1 but more particularly on clause 2 with which the Prime Minister and others have already dealt.
So far as the Prime Minister's argument about the nature of the previous appointments being for one year and one year only is concerned, I think he was wrong. As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has pointed out, the impression created by this legislation is that the appointments are to be made for one year only though, of course, they may be renewed. The Prime Minister pointed out that that is not the intention of the bill. Then he brought forward the analogies to prove that he was right in his own interpretation. Yet I would point out to him that members of the government are appointed under I believe a statute but their salaries have to be voted each year in the estimates. If those salaries were not voted each year it would not affect their positions as ministers of the crown in any way, shape or form. I believe that would be the case in connection with this legislation, as my hon. friend has pointed out, unless the order in council specifies to the contrary, it would be of an indefinite character or for one year, whichever was expressed in the order in council. In our day when we appointed parliamentary assistants there certainly was no suggestion that the appointments should be made for one year only and I would be very surprised indeed if it were found that the orders in council passed at that time had that effect.
Certainly this legislation on the face of it seems to provide for a contrary practice and we on this side think that that is bad. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself, when he was speaking a few moments ago used these words, and I took them down as he said them, that the procedure in this bill was adopted so that each one-and by "each one" he meant each parliamentary secretary-will realize that he is appointed for the year. That is what we think is wrong in this legislation. Of course, there are other features of the legislation, in clause 2, particularly, which might be criticized. We are proceeding not by estimate but by legislation and though an item in the estimates-as my hon. friend who has just spoken has pointed out-is in a sense, I think, proceeding by legislation, nevertheless it is a more flexible form of legislation. When we pass a special bill for the appointment of parliamentary secretaries, as we are proposing to do now, it means that if at any time, for instance, the government

of the day wished to add one more parliamentary secretary to the 16, or two more or three more, that could only be done by an act of parliament.
As we see it-I do not see how there can be any other interpretation-this bill does provide for the principle of rotation in the appointment of parliamentary secretaries, and it is that to which we take exception.
If rotation is good as a principle in connection with the appointment of parliamentary secretaries, surely, Mr. Chairman, it might be argued that it is equally good as a principle to apply even to cabinet ministers, because some of the advantages of rotation which my right hon. friend has mentioned, not on this occasion but on a previous occasion, surely would attach to other appointments; but I do not think it is good. I think it would be a bad practice to appoint parliamentary secretaries for one year only. The clause states:
A parliamentary secretary shall he appointed to hold office for a period not exceeding 12 months-
As the Prime Minister indicated the other day, the main purpose behind the appointment of parliamentary secretaries-and it is a good purpose-is to relieve ministers of some of the burdens they are carrying. I have had, of course, some experience in office and I have had some experience-and a very happy experience it has been-in working with parliamentary secretaries. My last parliamentary secretary, my colleague sitting just behind me, has spoken on this matter and perhaps I should interpolate at this point to say that when my hon. friend from Richelieu-Vercheres talked about the possible desirability of increasing the salaries of parliamentary secretaries he was making the argument that if those positions are to be full time, not for one year only but for full time; if they are to be of that character, then perhaps $4,000 a year was not enough; that is, to pay a parliamentary secretary who was doing full-time work for his minister, which was not the situation in previous times.
He went on to say that if, however, the position of parliamentary secretary was not that kind of position, and if it became the kind of position we have in mind it may be under this legislation which provides for a one-year appointment only, then perhaps $4,000 a year might be too much. Perhaps it would be too much. If a parliamentary secretary is appointed for one year only, how can he really learn the work of his department during a period so short as that? I know from my own experience, and I am sure my hon. friends on this side who have been parliamentary assistants will agree with me, that it takes a parliamentary assistant
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries at least six months to become familiar with the work of his department to the point where he can really carry part of the ministerial burden. If he knows he is only going to be in office as a parliamentary secretary for one year, I do not think you can assume he is going to be able to do that part of the work which the minister would want him to do. This is our main criticism of this part of the legislation.
I suggest that perhaps an appointment of this kind, and there might be 16 appointed so that in four years there would be 64 of them, would be a kind of political scholarship to be awarded by the Prime Minister to some of his more deserving colleagues. I suggest that political scholarships might more properly be awarded by the Canada Council which has been set up for the purpose of awarding scholarships. If the Prime Minister replies to this argument by saying, well, there is no objection to reappointment and perhaps we should assume that they will be reappointed, my answer to that would be that this legislation says the appointment shall be for a period not exceeding 12 months. Surely, that is the assumption in the legislation, and if the parliamentary secretary feels that the only chance he has of continuing in his job is to become valuable in his job, that will not give him a sense of security and achievement in his work which he will need to have if he is going to do the job which the government no doubt had in mind in appointing him in the first place.
Now there is another objection and it is, I think, quite a strong one to the appointment for one year only. I touched on this a few moments ago. A parliamentary assistant not only has to assist the minister in the house and out of the house, but he must also become familiar with the official work of the department. This means he has to establish a close, and I would hope constructive relationship with the deputy minister and the senior officials. It is not going to be any encouragement, though perhaps encouragement is not the right word, to the senior officials of the department to work as closely with the parliamentary assistant as they should, and it is not going to be much encouragement for the parliamentary assistant to work closely with the senior officials if he should feel that by the end of the year his scholarship will be over and someone else will be taking over from him. We think, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that this particular provision of the legislation is not designed to enable the government to fulfil the functions which they had in mind, so we were told, in introducing this legislation in the first place.
This will, of course, relieve the Prime Minister of one difficulty. He will now have
2366	HOUSE OF
Provision jor Parliamentary Secretaries 40, 50 or 60 men whom he can appoint during the course o 1 this parliament instead of 16. This has already been pointed out. I can understand that this is a very real difficulty for the Prime Minister and the members of his government. He is not in the happy position Mr. King must have been in 1943 when he was making appointments as parliamentary assistants. He had, in the list of those who might be considered, my hon. friends who are sitting on my right and on my left, and in that he should have been under no compulsion to act as the Prime Minister must be with his wealth of resources.


John George Diefenbaker: I seem to recollect that some of the appointments did not meet with the favour of some of the other members.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister knows far more about the hidden political history than I do because he was in the opposition at that time and that is where you find out what goes on in government circles. This present bill will serve this purpose which I have just mentioned, that it will make possible the appointment of a great many members opposite as parliamentary assistants. It has been said that such are the vicissitudes of political life in France that 70 or 80 per cent of the distinguished gentlemen who go into public life in France, after a period of 15 or 20 years are able to put on their visiting cards the words, "ancien President du Conseil". If this legislation is passed it will have that result. There will be many hon. members who will be able to put on their visiting card, "Sometime Parliamentary Secretary". While we appreciate the advantages of this provision, we are also conscious of its disadvantages and it is those we are pointing out at this time. So when we come to clause 2, I am going to have one of my colleagues move an amendment.


Mr. Crestohl:: For the purpose of clarification, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. It has not been established as yet whether these appointments are going to be for 12 months or will these people serve only during the sitting of parliament? If they are to serve beyond the sitting of parliament, will the parliamentary assistant be required to reside in Ottawa so that he may be close to his department for the entire period of 12 months? If that should be the case, does the Prime Minister not think that the $4,000 additional would not be sufficient to take care of the burdens which may be imposed upon the parliamentary secretary if he is to properly discharge his duties?


John George Diefenbaker: In answer to that I may say that clause 5 says:


The governor in council may make regulations providing for the payment to a parliamentary secretary of reasonable travelling and other expenses
(a)	incurred by him in the discharge of his duties during a session of parliament while away from Ottawa, or
(b)	incurred by him in the discharge of his duties while away from his ordinary place of residence during a period when parliament is not in session.
I do not think it was at any time ever the expectation that the parliamentary secretary should remain in Ottawa during the entire year. The appointment would be for a period of a year, or in the words of the estimate to which I referred earlier, there would be a salary of $4,000 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year. At no time did parliamentary assistants reside in Ottawa during the entire year. There were times when they returned, and the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres will corroborate this, to Ottawa after the session. This was only in respect of particular matters that brought them back to Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Appointment of parliamentary secretaries.
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to move an amendment to clause 2 following upon the remarks by the Leader of the Opposition. I move:
That clause 2, subsection (3), be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
A parliamentary secretary shall hold office at the discretion of the governor in council and shall cease to hold office when he ceases to be a member of the House of Commons.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On behalf of this group, Mr. Chairman, may I say that we are opposed to the amendment because we think the principle of subclause 3 is sound. The appointment for one year in effect has been the practice. I think the Frime Minister explained that throughout the years that has been in effect the practice. While it is not necessary that the parliamentary secretary will be replaced each year, we in this group think it is good practice and leaves scope for initiative and devotion to duty to which, of course, we pay great devotion.


George James McIlraith: I think there is one matter that should be drawn to the attention of the committee. It arises out of the Prime Minister's remarks earlier this afternoon and has to do with the former method of appointment of parliamentary assistants under authority of an item contained in the estimates. His argument was that those appointments were for one year only because the estimate was only for the duration of one year. The fact is that great numbers of appointments are

Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries
made by government for a term of years but the provision for payment is made through an annual estimate. That is the method used in almost all circumstances by the government in providing money for the payment of persons appointed to various types of positions. Hence the argument is not quite valid in its entirety. I want to point that out to the Prime Minister. When he examines his argument tomorrow I think he will find that he went further than the facts warranted in arguing the point he was seeking to make. From hearing the hon. member for Kootenay West it is obvious that is so, at least in so far as the hon. member is concerned. The practice with regard to the previous appointments was to have them in fact continue for a longer period of time, usually during the life of the particular parliament in which the persons were appointed and until that parliament was dissolved. I want to draw that point to the attention of the committee before they vote on this amendment.
There is one other matter on which the Prime Minister I think may have innocently misled the committee and it is this. He made the remark that in no circumstances were parliamentary assistants ever here during the time when parliament was not in session or in very rare circumstances-


John George Diefenbaker: No. I said they were ever here. I know they were.


George James McIlraith: -during the period of time when the house was not in session. That is not wholly accurate. In one particular case with which I am familiar a great deal of work was done between sessions; and during the whole of the time between some sessions. In some between sessions periods much more active and difficult work was done than that done while the house was in session.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. gentleman tell me to what parliamentary assistant he refers?


George James McIlraith: I thought it was obvious; I was referring to myself. In the period of time when the defence production department was being set up and also at the end of the great war when the department of reconstruction and supply was being reduced and terminating its war work, there was no doubt at all about the fact that in those periods between sessions of parliament continuous work was being done by that particular parliamentary assistant, and it was extremely heavy work. I just wanted to correct the record on those two points because I thought it was not appropriate to have the record left as it was.


Leon David Crestohl: I support this amendment because the Prime Minister's explanation did
not quite satisfy me about this question of expenses. It is quite conceivable that while the house is not in session ministers who have business to attend to abroad will want their parliamentary assistants handy, and the deputy minister would want the parliamentary assistant handy when the minister is absent for a month or so. Would it then be necessary for the parliamentary assistant to be in Ottawa-if, for example, his residence is in Vancouver-under subclause (b) of clause 5? Will his residence in Ottawa during that time, if he is participating, so to speak, in the routine of the department, be a necessary expense which he can charge and which will be payable to him under the heading of these expenses? On the other hand if he is appointed on the basis of it being a full-time job it may be that his residence should be close to his offices here and therefore the salary perhaps may not be sufficient.


The Chairman:: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Chevrier) negatived: yeas, 16; nays, 103.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Duties.
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Prime Minister this question. Does he intend to appoint parliamentary assistants at the end of 12 months? What we are trying to ascertain is whether or not the argument put forward from this side has any validity. Is it the Prime Minister's intention that parliamentary assistants should be appointed only for 12 months and that a new one will then be appointed?


John George Diefenbaker: I thought I made it clear that there is no question of rotation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Travelling and other expenses.
Leon David Crestohl: On clause 5, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Prime Minister can give some indication what he has in mind when he speaks of "other expenses". I can understand that a parliamentary secretary will receive reasonable travelling expenses, but with regard to "other expenses", the word "other" has no limit, of course. I think it should be limited in some form.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I thought the meaning of this clause was quite clear. It says:
-reasonable travelling and other expenses
2368	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Provision for Parliamentary Secretaries
(a) incurred by him in the discharge of his duties during a session of parliament while away from Ottawa-
In other words, if he is sent away in discharge of his responsibilities while the session is on, naturally his hotel subsistence will be paid. Then if he is called away from his ordinary place of residence during the period when parliament is not in session, his expenses which are necessarily incurred, his hotel and travelling expenses, will be paid. That is what I had in mind, that he should not be out of pocket. I do not want "other expenses" interpreted in the sense that it would imply a large amount over and above what is ordinarily payable for hotel expenses.
I mean by "other expenses" simply what I have stated and nothing more.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, if I understood the Prime Minister correctly a few moments ago, he indicated there would really be no duties for a parliamentary secretary while parliament was not in session. The Prime Minister was taking exception, if that is the appropriate word, to the argument we were using that it should be a full-time appointment. If it is not a full-time appointment but merely a parliamentary sessional appointment, what duties could a parliamentary secretary have between sessions which would require expenses of this kind?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres would be an example. There were certainly occasions between sessions when as parliamentary assistant to the Leader of the Opposition in his then capacity as secretary of state for external affairs he would have incurred expenses while he was in New York in connection with his official business.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but those expenses were incurred in the circumstances mentioned by my hon. friend by a parliamentary assistant appointed to a Canadian delegation to an international meeting, and he would have incurred the same expenses exactly if he had been a member of parliament and not a parliamentary assistant. My hon. friend who was a parliamentary assistant in those days will recall more than one occasion when I asked him to come to Ottawa and talk to me about various matters which did not involve representing Canada abroad, and in those days, in the department over which I presided, he would not have been entitled even to his travelling expenses to Ottawa.


John George Diefenbaker: It has been well pointed out by different members that such expenses should be allowed. As the Leader of the Opposition says, something to correct that situation should be done, and those who were

his followers agreed some action should be taken in that regard, and indeed the larger salary provided would give support to this.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the Prime
Minister, of course, has drawn more from my remarks than they would warrant, which is something he has done occasionally in the past. If that is true and the parliamentary assistant can charge expenses in the same way presumably that a minister can, then apparently he is going to be on duty 12 months of the year and it is in a sense a fulltime appointment. Is not that a reasonable conclusion to draw from the Prime Minister's argument?


John George Diefenbaker: No, because apparently the Leader of the Opposition has not read clause 3, which says:
The parliamentary secretary to a minister shall assist the minister in such manner as the minister directs.
Parliamentary assistants are required, if the minister feels that a matter requires attention such as referred to by the hon. member for Ottawa West. The hon. member said he worked very hard, and I know that he was living here in Ottawa. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition could tell me whether other parliamentary assistants received their expenses. If they did not, I am convinced by the argument that they should have, even though I do not accept the argument that the amount of $4,000 a year is insufficient.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.


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


Some hon. Members:: Tomorrow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: At the next sitting of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, at the next sitting of the house.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hees for the second reading of Bill S-3, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last evening I was discussing second reading of this bill, and I would like to continue my remarks.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the floor for a moment because I intend, with the hon. members' permission, to ask for the adjournment of debate on this bill for the following reason. Last evening the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) suggested that there should be a firm and general basis of agreement with the United States regarding pilotage on the great lakes before the Canadian legislation dealing with this matter is finally made effective. In fact there have been extensive consultations with the United States authorities on this matter already and numerous meetings have been held. Of the two most important points involved, we have already reached agreement with the United States on one; that is, the reciprocal recognition of pilotage certificates or licences which might be issued by the authorities of either country. However, there has not been firm agreement as yet as to the basis upon which pilotage requirements should apply in the waters of the great lakes and the areas which should be involved. The reason for this is, I understand, largely because the United States has not yet reached an internal decision on this matter, although we in Canada have reached a tentative decision as to the solution we favour.
While the legislation proposed in this bill is sufficiently general to permit this matter to be worked out satisfactorily within its terms, I am quite prepared to see another attempt made to reach agreement with the United States authorities on this additional point, and indeed will make arrangements myself at the earliest opportunity to visit Washington for discussion of this subject. I would therefore ask the hon. member for Laurier who has the floor if he would be good enough to move the adjournment of the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, before I do that there are one or two matters I would like to bring to your attention. In the first place, I welcome the suggestion which the hon. minister has made. I think it is all to the good and I commend him and congratulate him for the decision which he has taken. I also think that it will be an excellent idea if the hon. minister does go to Washington to see if some new agreement cannot be made with the United States authorities before the matter is brought back to the house again. However, my hope last evening was, and still is, that a committee from Canada and the United States be established and that an agreement be worked out so that such agreement can come back to the house.
Canada Shipping Act
I have not finished my speech, sir. I still have a considerable amount of material dealing with the very contentious clause No. 8. I wanted to spend some time in bringing to the attention of the minister how important and how serious this clause is. I do not wish to begin any consideration of this subject matter now, other than say that I do not think it is affected by the agreement which the minister hopes he will be able to make. I do hope the minister will find it possible to withdraw this clause, because it is going to affect adversely the pilots in the province of Quebec, particularly in the Montreal and Quebec districts and in the Kingston districts. It is going to affect an industry which has been in existence in the province of Quebec for over 200 years, and it will do away with that industry. I hope that when the matter comes back to the house the minister will find it possible to withdraw this clause from the bill. I want to reserve my rights when this legislation comes back before us again and to this end I point out that I have not completed my remarks and that I should like an opportunity to complete them, though now, at the request and at the suggestion of the minister, I propose to move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member moves the adjournment of the debate, may I remind him that by making such a motion he would lose his right to speak. It should therefore be understood that he has not forfeited his right to speak further when this matter is discussed on another occasion, and the consent of the house should be obtained. Does the house so order?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I might also say that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) would like two minutes before the hon. member moves his motion in order to express the view of his group. This is largely a matter to be brought about by arrangement. Would the hon. member for Laurier and the house permit?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I
wish to thank hon. members of the house for having given me unanimous consent to my saying a word or so in relation to this somewhat unusual procedure. We support the proposal made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) for the adjournment of this debate because we think it is essential to protect Canadian sovereign rights in this very important matter, as mentioned by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) during what we considered to be his excellent speech last evening on this bill. We

Freight Rates
are in agreement with the hon. gentleman in this case, and I trust that the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) will be pleased. We believe that it is most unwise to proceed in this matter along unilateral lines, and we repeat the suggestion made by the hon. member for Laurier that there should be consultation and co-operation between Canada and the United States before decisions are reached.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like on behalf of this group to compliment the minister on what we consider to be a very wise response to representations from the opposition and on his willingness to have further consideration given to this matter since the debate last night. We trust that after the procedure suggested by the hon. member for Laurier has been carried out this measure will come back to us in a form which will fully protect the rights of the people of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) to move the adjournment of the debate so that I may be allowed, with the consent of the house, to resume the discussion when the matter comes before us again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On the motion of Mr. Bourget the debate was adjourned.



FREIGHT RATES


George Harris Hees: the second reading of Bill C-38, to make provision for the reduction of certain class and commodity rates on freight traffic.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker when the house was discussing this matter last evening at another stage, namely the resolution stage, I indicated that I should like to make some additional remarks on second reading of the bill. I am prepared to make those remarks now, not with the intention of delaying this legislation but because of comments which were made earlier on the subject by others.
Before I come to that, may I say that this measure, Bill C-38, an act to make provision for the reduction of certain class and commodity rates on freight traffic, is, on the face of it, simple enough. The pertinent and governing clause is, of course, clause 3 and it can be divided under several heads. By virtue of clause 3, the board:
1.	Shall make an order.
2.	Shall revise class and commodity rates other than competitive rates of railway companies.

3.	Shall revise them downward as they were increased by the judgment-the 17 per cent case-so that in the opinion of the board the estimated aggregate gross revenues of the companies will be reduced by $20 million.
That is the effective clause. Clause 4 provides for the payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund. Clauses 5 and 6 I do not think are in the slightest degree contentious, and clause 7 is inserted in the bill so there shall be no conflict between the Railway Act and this act. Under clause 7 the board may allow a reduction in the select territory or in the rates subject to the Maritime Freight Rates Act only to meet reductions in the cost of operations. It is now stated that a payment to a railway company under the new statute shall be deemed to be a reduction in the case of the railway operations. But I shall go back to clause 3, which, in my opinion, is the only one that can in any way be considered to be contentious, and I ask the house and the minister to consider the words in line 18 of clause 3, "increased by 17 per cent". The clause reads:
Forthwith upon the coming into force of this act, the board shall by order require the companies to revise such of their class rates and commodity rates (other than competitive rates) in effect at the commencement of this act as were, pursuant to order No. 96300, increased by 17 per cent.
The point I am making is this: supposing the railways were unable to increase their rates by 17 per cent, and there was evidence of this placed before the board. Suppose the railways were able to increase their rates by only 10 per cent or by only 3 per cent, because that is all the traffic would bear? I point out that there are a number of cases, as was stated in the evidence given before the board of transport commissioners, in which the 17 per cent increase could not be wholly put into effect. What happens then? Does it mean that in these rates there would be a consequent reduction of 7 per cent?
I think we are entitled to clarification. In other words, will this rate or these rates, where the full effect of the 17 per cent has not been felt because of the conditions I have mentioned, enjoy the full effect of the subsidy? I leave that to go to another equally contentious point in my opinion.
The minister has said that the government does not propose to permit any further general increase in freight rates pending the decision or the study made by the royal commission. I do not think I am incorrectly quoting the minister but if he feels I am I will quote from the statement he made. The minister having said that, I ask him this question. Is he or the house familiar with section 328 (5) of the Railway Act?

I ask the house to listen to these words. That section reads as follows:
-the powers given to the board under this act to fix, determine and enforce just and reasonable rates, and to change and alter rates as changing conditions or cost of transportation may from time to time require, are not limited or in any manner affected by the provisions of any act of the parliament of Canada-
This means that when an application is before the board of transport commissioners for determination it is their duty and responsibility to hear the case. There is no other act of parliament which can prevent the board from doing that. A fortiori, there is therefore no statement that may be made by the minister, the government or the Prime Minister which can stop the board of transport commissioners from hearing the case.


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: Having said that, where does that lead the board of transport commissioners? How can the board in any way be affected by the statement the minister has made. Unfortunately I cannot locate the statement at the moment.


George Harris Hees: May I answer the hon. member at this time?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows only too well the government has no right at all to interfere with the board of transport commissioners either hearing the case or bringing down a judgment. The government has no intention of doing either of those things. However, when a freight rate award is appealed to the governor in council, the governor in council has the option of either allowing of disallowing the increase that has been made by the board.


Lionel Chevrier: I was coming to that point, Mr. Speaker. That is not what the minister said.


George Harris Hees: That is what the minister meant.


Lionel Chevrier: But what the minister said and what he meant are two different things. If the board of transport commissioners are going to be allowed to hear the case-and having made a determination an appeal may be made under section 53 (1) of the Railway Act-that is one matter. The minister I am sure gave careful consideration to the statement he made because if my recollection is right he put it on Hansard on more than one occasion. What I am complaining about now is that, by inference, that statement is a direction to the board or perhaps, it is a direction to the Canadian National Railways not to proceed with the application which is now before the board.
Freight Rates


George Harris Hees: It is intended to be neither, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: Of course, the minister did not make that clear. On the contrary what was said was not at all in accordance either with what I am saying now or with what the minister has said within the last few moments. In order to make the thing quite clear what the minister should have said was this: "We are not going to interfere with the application now before the board but when the order is appealed by the provinces or by any other group we will hear that application under section 53 (1) of the act and decide against it." The minister has closed the door, however, by saying there is going to be no further increase. If it is found that within the period of a year the wages of the railway workers have increased and it becomes necessary because of changing conditions in Canada to increase these wages, then the minister and the government are stopped from giving to those workers a further increase because of the statement which has been made.
Turning now to another matter, the bill, as I said, by means of clause 3 directs the board to make an order in accordance with the manner I have outlined earlier. This is the measure promised by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) when speaking as the acting prime minister in November, 1958 he said this was the measure designed to relieve against the discrimination which existed in freight rates and to relieve against inequalities including any that may be aggravated by the present increase in the amount of 17 per cent. The other measure is a royal commission the terms of which we have not yet got although the Prime Minister did indicate yesterday that its appointment would come before third reading.
We in this group and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) tried to get a further commitment from the Prime Minister to the effect that we might be able to discuss the terms of reference when the announcement was made. We were not successful in doing this notwithstanding the fact that when he made his statement in November, 1958 the then acting prime minister made it quite clear that the other measure he had in mind- whether it related to a royal commission or another inquiry was not made clear at the time-would result in the consideration of railway problems and railway policy. He indicated that the inquiry would consider not only a comprehensive statement of railway freight rates including the situation of the long haul provinces in the west and in the Atlantic region but also specific problems which require solution if Canada's railways are to serve the national interest without prejudicing particular industries and areas.

Freight Rates
The intention of the government at that time was quite clear. First, there would be an interim measure to deal with an immediate problem and, second, a royal commission to deal with the long term problem. What we have before us now is the long awaited measure to relieve against the freight rate increase. The intention of the government is to provide immediate alleviation by means of this measure. I would like to know what this bill means and to what extent it provides immediate alleviation.
The bill clearly excludes from the operation of the subsidy the whole field of competitive rates and, while it is not stated, it also excludes the following items, since the board of transport commissioners in their judgment excepted these from its operation in the 17 per cent case: agreed charges, international rates, import and export rates, grain and grain products in western Canada, and grain and grain products from prairie points to Vancouver, Prince Rupert and other parts of British Columbia. It excludes those new piggy-back rates which are now important, and I presume that other rates are also excluded. Hence the bill applies to a very limited field in the freight rate structure.
In his statement earlier the minister indicated that the reduction would be one in the neighbourhood of seven per cent, in that the subsidy would be applied in such a way that rates generally, as applied in the judgment, would be reduced from 17 per cent to 10 per cent. But a question which arises and which I think is of importance is this: What freight revenues of the carriers will be affected by this measure? I think We should be told what they will be. The minister has not said so, but I would venture to say that only a very small fraction of the freight revenues of the railways, and incidentally of the freight rates which the west and the Atlantic provinces will have to pay, is affected by this decision. My reason for saying this is that of all those exceptions the class and commodity rates are getting now to be smaller and smaller and every time there is an increase in freight rates the effect of it is made to be felt upon a lesser and lesser group of rates and therefore it becomes a greater burden for those who have to pay those rates and they are affected more seriously by it.
I come now to the question which was asked earlier and which I will not go into in detail at this stage, but on which I hope, when the bill is referred to the committee, there will be some clarification. I refer to the method by which this order is going to become operative. Yesterday and earlier I
asked the question, what formula is going to be adopted? What method is the board going to establish? What procedure is going to be followed in the implementation of this subsidy of $20 million? How is it going to be distributed? Is the relief granted by this measure to be tied up with wage increases? The minister said no and then later on he said that it was not going to be tied up with anything. Well, it has to be tied up with something. There has to be some kind of formula under which the board is going to proceed, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not going to be nearly as easy as anticipated by the minister because those of us who are familiar with the bridge subsidy of $7 million, which is administered by the board of transport commissioners, know that there was no easy method to put that into effect.
The railways have said all along that they need the relief granted by the 17 per cent increase. They said that they needed all of this increase in rates to put them in funds so as to accept and put into effect the majority report of the conciliation board. I think the house should be told whether this bill is subsidizing wages. If so, the minister should tell us. Not only would this create a precedent but it could have serious implications for the future.
There is another matter which I would like to discuss at this time but I would prefer not to begin its discussion and have it interrupted; therefore, sir, I wonder whether you would call it six o'clock?
On motion of Mr. Chevrier the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader what the business will be for tomorrow and whether he can outline the business for Friday as well?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow afternoon we shall continue with this debate and then go into agricultural estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: On Friday?


Howard Charles Green: The same program. By the way, if this bill does not go through tomorrow we may not take it on Friday but go on with the agricultural estimates; I cannot say for sure.
I believe there was a bill which did not get third reading today. It will be called first tomorrow.


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