1960-03-25

[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 25, 1960

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.

Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice, pursuant to section 10 of the House of Commons Act, that a vacancy has occurred in the representation of the House of Commons for the electoral district of Labelle, in the province of Quebec, by reason of the appointment to the Senate of Hon. Henri Courtemanche, the member therefor.



NATURAL GAS


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unusual to make announcements of this kind in the House of Commons on the development of our natural and human resources. We can, however, welcome them both because the country is in need of both. The announcement which the minister has just made underlines the variety and the richness of the resources of our country. As I say, the announcement, although it is unusual, is welcome. It also points up the desirability of early action being taken to make possible the export of gas from this country.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: The development of Canada's natural resources is important to the future of our nation. We have some differences with the policy the government is following but, of course, any indication of their development is most welcome. I really do not see how this matter could have very much association with the anniversary of the Prime Minister's entry into politics in this country.


An hon. Member:: Gas.


Hazen Robert Argue: Somebody says it has to do with gas. Of course, that was not my thought.


Mr. Hees:: It is the beginning of a great development era.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hazen Robert Argue: If the Prime Minister wishes to take credit for this development since it is coming about the same time as this anniversary, of course this anniversary will have to bear many other responsibilities including some of the difficulties of the Minister of (National Defence (Mr. Pearkes). I do not really think there is any connection between the development of Canada's resources and this welcome anniversary.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister seen the Washington dispatch to the effect that the United States appropriation for the Bomarc B missile is being cut from $421 million to $50 million for the next fiscal year and will the minister tell the house what effect this announcement will have on Canada's defence policy?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has been consistently consulted regarding a possible revision of the joint air defence plan which might be adopted in order that the development of defence and warning against ballistic missiles might be accelerated. This would be in accord with our belief that the Soviets are placing greater emphasis on missiles and less on bombers.
As the hearings before the subcommittee of the committee on appropriations of the house of representatives have not been completed, the house will realize that it would be highly improper for me to comment upon the actions of this committee or to make any statement at this time on a speculative press report of a meeting that was supposed to be held in camera.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. Does the minister not agree that this announcement from Washington means, in effect, that the program is washed out, that the Bomarc is a dead pigeon?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with what the hon. member has said but, as I stated, it would be improper for me to make any further comment at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Will Canada proceed with its Bomarc installations in the event that the United States appropriation is cut by this amount, and if-
[Mr. Hees.l


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the minister's replies have already indicated that he does not propose to answer the hypothetical aspects of these questions, and the hon. member is now getting into the purely hypothetical because, as has been indicated, this is a matter before a committee. As hon. members know, there are several stages to committee proceedings before there is any ultimate disposition of the matter.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then my question is this. Is it the Canadian government's policy to proceed with the installation of bases for the Bomarc missile?


George Randolph Pearkes: As the hon. member knows, we have selected two sites for the Bomarc units. On one of those sites, at North Bay, construction has started. Construction has not started on the other site.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the minister has told the house that-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -the question is hypothetical because the report concerned a meeting which was held in camera. May I now direct to him this question. Is the minister aware that Dr. Herbert F. York, the defence department's chief scientist, told the senate defence appropriation committee in an opening hearing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is apparent from the question as far as it has gone that the hon. member is proposing to give some information rather than ask for some. If he has a factual question to ask of the minister, I suggest he put it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the critical review of the Bomarc program which is under way in the United States at the present time, as announced by Dr. York at an open hearing, will the minister now suspend all work on the Canadian Bomarc sites and the SAGE installations until the outcome of the United States review is complete?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister if he still retains confidence in this weapon?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister justify further ex-

penditure of the taxpayer's money on a SAGE-Bomarc system which no longer retains the confidence-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member is putting forth a case rather than asking a question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very important question whether this system which is no longer effective justifies the expenditure of the Canadian taxpayers' money.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not denying that it is an important question. I am only suggesting it is not the proper place to debate it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I put another question? Can the minister tell us whether tenders have been called for the same work at the Bomarc site installation at Mont Laurier.


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should reply to this in place of the Minister of National Defence. Tenders have been called, and tenders have been submitted to the Department of Defence Production and we are studying those tenders at the present time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister tell us when the contract will be awarded?


Mr. O'Hurley:: It depends on the length of time it will take to study the tenders.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister tell us whether the length of time required has any reference to or any relationship whatsoever with the controversy raging at the present time in respect to the cancellation of this program?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Mr. Speaker, when we get a contract demand from the Department of National Defence we work on that contract demand until such time as the Department of National Defence advises us that they want to cancel it, and so far we have not got any notice to that effect.



RADAR GAP FILLERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell the house whether or not the government is proceeding with the installation of the radar gap fillers which are designed to give warning against the approach of manned bombers?
79951-0-155i
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Randolph Pearkes: Regarding gap fillers, sites have been selected but in all cases the ground has not yet been acquired and no construction work has started.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY REPORTED U.S. CONFUSION OVER PRIORITY PLANS FOR LOCKAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him if his attention has been drawn to an article in the Chicago Tribune entitled "Priority plan for seaway upsets lines", in which it is stated that United States shipping interests are in a state of confusion over conflicting information from Canada on the status of priority plans for lockage? Is the minister aware of this, and has any priority been established as between different forms of cargo on the St. Lawrence seaway or the Welland canal?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article. Last year when congestion occurred in the Welland canal priorities were instituted which I think served the shipping interests very well. If at any time further congestion occurs, priorities will again be instituted. We hope that this year it will not be necessary to introduce such priorities.


Lionel Chevrier: The point of my query was that the United States lines were complaining that they had asked for information from Canada and had received no reply within the last 30 days, I think it said.


George Harris Hees: The inquiry was not directed to me. However, any information about priorities will be given if such priorities are needed. As I say, we hope priorities will not be needed.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State-for External Affairs. As the disarmament conference is now progressing, I wonder whether the minister could report whether approaches have been made to include China in the disarmament conference, because otherwise disarmament might be only onesided.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: If the hon. member would refer again to the western plan he

Inquiries of the Ministry would find there a suggestion that in the second stage there should be a wider conference called to which all nations with significant military power would be invited.



DISARMAMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if the six principles proposed yesterday by the representative of France in the ten power disarmament committee as a necessary foundation for a disarmament treaty, and which have been accepted by the Soviet union, have been accepted by Canada?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a report from General Burns as yet. I understand that Mr. Moch was in fact speaking for all of the five western countries when he made that proposal, and the reaction to it seems to me a very hopeful sign.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister say whether or not those six principles which were outlined in today's press were put forward by France with the knowledge of the government of Canada?


Howard Charles Green: I cannot give a definite answer to that, but I presume they were.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to report on the situation in South Africa.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I have received a report from the high commissioner in Capetown. While, of course, the hon. gentleman would be the first to aver that I cannot refer to the contents of the report, I can say that it indicates that there are, and will be, widely differing interpretations of why and in exactly what circumstances the incidents took place.
The house will be aware that the South African government has taken steps to institute judicial inquiries into the tragic happenings, and I understand that the formation of a larger commission to investigate the background of the various contributing factors is under consideration by the Union government.

This government is fully aware from questions asked in the house, from press comments, and from correspondence which has been received, that there exists in Canada a profound current of anxiety at the measures which the South African authorities considered it necessary to take. I have already made it clear on numerous occasions that the government has no sympathy for policies of racial discrimination and that we deplore the development of a situation which has given rise to such tragic violence and loss of life.
There have been requests that some positive action should be taken by the government. We understand the sincere feelings and motives which have prompted these suggestions.
However, as to the suggestions themselves, the government must have one over-riding criterion in mind. The important consideration is not whether any action or statement by Canada would relieve Canadian feelings, but what practical effect such action or such a statement might have in South Africa itself. In other words, we have a responsibility, and a solemn one, to reconcile the natural desire in the circumstances to demonstrate by positive action Canadian feelings of distress and, on the other hand, the necessity of ensuring that any such statement or action would help, and not hinder, those people who so strongly merit sympathy and concern.
The weighing of these considerations is a responsibility which rests on the government alone, and in no sense do we seek to evade it. The conclusion of the government is that at this time no beneficial purpose would be served by diplomatic protests or by even more extreme measures to intervene in this tragic situation.
I might add that in the last two days an announcement was made in the parliament of South Africa by the prime minister that he intends to attend the prime ministers' conference in London in May. In 1957 the then prime minister found himself unable to attend. The fact that the present prime minister will attend is a circumstance which, I am sure the house will understand, will ensure that the feelings of the various component parts of the commonwealth can be properly made known.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister in the light of what he has just said whether he is in a position to comment on a press report to the effect that he informed a delegation of the national federation of Canadian university students, when he received them on Wednesday last, that he was opposed to taking too strong a stand on

the tragic South African situation because of his desire to be in a position to mediate at the forthcoming prime ministers' conference in London?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will make no attempt to comment on a press report but, in saying that, I would not go as far as the statement in question implies according to the reading thereof by the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the light of what the Prime Minister has said, whether he is now willing to revise the statement he made in the house on February 16, as reported at page 1139 of Hansard of that date:
Today it would be extremely hard to find two nations between which Canada could be a go-between.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that that is not an appropriate contribution to the proceedings at this stage because it is an argumentative question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question in view of the reply which he has just given to the Leader of the Opposition on the question of apartheid in South Africa. Will the Prime Minister now revise the statement he made in this house in reply to a question I put to him earlier in the session to the effect that he would not initiate any discussion of this matter at the prime ministers' conference?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that what takes place at the prime ministers' conference is secret. I am glad to notice the tremendous interest of the hon. gentleman in apartheid because I seem to recall that on a number of occasions when he was one of the representatives at the United Nations in New York and the vote took place on the South African question, he led in Canada's position about taking no attitude and having no vote thereon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the Prime Minister for this historical narrative and ask him if he proposes to initiate a discussion of this important matter at the prime ministers' conference?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I expected that question to be asked and therefore in order to make sure that the historical record is correct I would remind the hon. gentleman that if he will look at the answer given by the former prime minister, the Right. Hon. Louis St. Laurent, on June 22, 1956, with regard to prime ministers' conferences, he will find a complete answer to his question.
Inquiries of the Ministry



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him if he has seen a statement in this morning's Globe and Mail which reports that food and fuel supplies were reported yesterday to be running low on Walpole island in the St. Clair river and that the island residents are attempting to obtain a United States coastguard cutter to break through the icebound channel? What has happened, may I ask the minister, to the usually efficient services of the Department of Transport?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would say that the usually efficient services of the Department of Transport are as efficient as usual. I have heard no complaint in this particular regard. As always happens when we do hear complaints or receive requests for service we supply them as quickly and efficiently as is reasonably possible.


Lionel Chevrier: I am bringing this to the attention of the minister now. Is the minister going to take cognizance of this and bring assistance to these islanders?


George Harris Hees: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the islanders do not need the assistance of the hon. member for Laurier. If they want assistance from this government I am sure they will ask for it. If they ask for it, every consideration will be given, as always, to requests of this kind.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question? Why, then, is the United States coastguard service going to the assistance of those people rather than the Canadian service?


George Harris Hees: Perhaps because they have a cutter in the immediate vicinity. I would say that would be the logical answer.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Minister of National Defence. Does his department contemplate an early closing of the R.C.A.F. station at Mount Hope?

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Randolph Pearkes: I will have to take that as notice. I do not think we contemplate an early-closing but I will look into the matter and let the hon. member know.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I confirm the answer I gave to the hon. member for Trinity regarding Mount Hope airport. There is no intention of closing it in the immediate future. There are certain changes being introduced for the purpose of efficiency and economy but there is no intention of closing the airport.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration? Is she pleased to hear the minister's answer to the question?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: With regard to the conversations which have taken place between this minister and my colleague, yes.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister make a statement to the house soon clarifying details in respect of direct lending through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for 1960, and in particular the details of eligibility for applicants earning less than $5,000 annually?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I will be very glad to consider that request and go into the matter with officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. This morning I received a copy of a very beautiful and artistic publication entitled "Invitation to Canada".
(Translation):
This copy of Invitation to Canada is a pre-publication issue made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. (Text):
Are we to understand that there will not be any French version of this publication?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was a French version but I will take this as notice and look into it.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has recently received a visit from the premier of Manitoba to discuss agricultural matters, and can he clear up the mystery surrounding this visit?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: There is no mystery that I know of in connection with the matter. The premier of Manitoba did come to see me the day before yesterday. We had a general discussion on various matters, and I have nothing to report to the house in connection with it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister seen the report in the Winnipeg Free Press, for March 23, which discussed this as a mystery visit to Ottawa and indicated the premier could not give any information about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is one of those questions that there has been some controversy about. In my opinion without any further thought, it is not a proper question; it is simply asking for verification.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not asking for any verification. I simply asked the minister whether he had seen the report.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is it, it is not perhaps a relevant question at all.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 24, consideration in committee of supply of the following resolution-Mr. Fleming-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $603,488,902.52, being the aggregate of (a) one sixth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $593,558,978.34;	(b) seven
twelfths of the amount of item 212 of the said estimates, $904,166.67; (c) one third of the amount of item 36 of the said estimates, $216,666.67; (d) one sixth of the total of the amounts of items 176, 183 and 184 of the said estimates, $615,247.00; (e) one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 62, 263, 367, 394, 460 and 463 of the said estimates, $8,193,843.84; be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961.
The Chairman:: Shall I dispense with the reading of the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the resolution carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vancouver East just before ten o'clock last night raised the question of racial discrimination in South Africa. I do not think there is any division among Canadians in their attitude toward this very difficult problem. I think Canadians, and I think political parties represented in this house, believe that a mistake is being made by the government of South Africa in giving less than equal treatment to the coloured people in that great nation.
I think, however, there is a difference of attitude in Canada as to what steps should be taken by the government and as to what Canada's general approach should be to this great problem. It is not a problem that is based solely on the essential principle that there should be equal treatment to the people of all races. It is based also on the practical world situation today. As we see the growth and development of many new independent nations, particularly in Asia and Africa, it is of the utmost importance that the democratic nations, and that the white race, should not appear to be in opposition to these important and welcome developments. If the democratic nations, if a country like Canada, should appear to be opposed to these natural developments, it will jeopardize our democratic system in the future, and it will certainly weaken the western world, including the commonwealth of nations.
So, for many reasons, it is essential that the voice of Canada should ring out strong and clear in opposition to apartheid in South Africa. The Prime Minister's statement this morning showed that this government does not support the racial policies of the government of South Africa. But I think it confirms a belief that we in the C.C.F. have, and we think can be substantiated, that the government's policy on this question is unnecessarily soft; that the government has not taken, in the past, a forthright stand of opposition to the policies that are being followed. I have looked over the record of the discussions and the votes at the United Nations. I have in my hand the terms of the resolution which was presented to the general assembly last year, and the vote on this resolution. The resolution reads as follows:
Recalling its resolution 1248 of 30 October 1958 on the question of race conflict in South Africa resulting from the policies of apartheid of the government of the Union of South Africa,
Interim Supply
Deeply convinced that the practice of racial discrimination and segregation is opposed to the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Considering that government policies which accentuate or seek to preserve racial discrimination are prejudicial to international harmony,
Noting with concern that the policy of apartheid is still being pursued,
1.	Expresses its opposition to the continuance or preservation of racial discrimination in any part of the world;
2.	Solemnly calls upon all member states to bring their policies into conformity with their obligation under the charter of the United Nations to promote the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms;
3.	Expresses its deep regret and concern that the government of the Union of South Africa has not yet responded to appeals of the general assembly that it reconsider governmental policies which impair the right of all racial groups to enjoy the same fundamental rights and freedoms;
4.	Appeals to all member states to use their best endeavours as appropriate to achieve the purposes of the present resolution.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very moderate and well considered resolution, and that it is a resolution about which there should be no equivocation so far as Canada's position is concerned, and that in voting on a resolution of this type the government should be prepared to vote in favour.
What has been the result of this discussion and this vote? The result has been Canada has abstained, and the argument as to why Canada has abstained has been that Canada would not wish to do anything that might lead to South Africa leaving the commonwealth. I want to hasten to say I do not want to see the government of South Africa leave the commonwealth. I like to see the commonwealth strong and as influential as it can be. But I think there are greater and more important considerations than that very question. A more important consideration is the question of racial discrimination. Canada should not hesitate, and should not have hesitated for any reason, to support the resolution to which I have referred.
What has been the attitude on the part of other nations? There were 67 nations who supported this resolution; three nations opposed it and seven nations abstained. Canada abstained. Canada was the only commonwealth nation that abstained. I am sorry, I am mistaken. Canada and Australia were the only commonwealth nations that abstained. The United Kingdom voted against the resolution. All the other commonwealth countries, Ceylon, Malaya, Ghana, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, stood by their principles and voted in favour of the motion. They voted to condemn or to criticize racial discrimination.

Interim Supply
I think this is a soft policy of the Canadian government that is not supported by the Canadian people.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member if he does not realize that Canada did vote in favour of those paragraphs in the resolution which did not mention South Africa, but which dealt with racial discrimination.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes; so far as the paragraphs are concerned which do deal with racial discrimination, Canada voted. But when it came to paragraph 3, the nub of the resolution, the heart of the resolution, Canada backed away and refused to take a stand in opposition and took no stand at all so far as this particular section was concerned. As I have said, Canada abstained from voting on the resolution. My friend says that in the view of the government discrimination is only bad if it is outside the commonwealth.
If this had been a resolution directed against a non-commonwealth nation, certainly if it had been directed against an east European nation, Canada would not have hesitated to make a strong, ringing declaration. I suggest that there should not be one attitude to one group of nations on the question of racial discrimination and different attitude, no matter to what degree, to racial discrimination within the commonwealth. I am, therefore, critical of the government for not having taken a strong stand at the United Nations and for not having issued a strong diplomatic protest to the South African government at this time.
The United States government made an official statement. The Canadian government, through the Prime Minister, has been stating Canada's position in the house. But I believe that in general ours has been a position that is less frank than the Canadian people would desire. My first suggestion, therefore, as to what should be done so far as our country is concerned is as I have outlined.
Second, I would think that the Canadian people would be fully justified in doing as are many people in the United Kingdom, for example, at this time, in refusing to purchase goods on sale in their country which have been produced or manufactured in South Africa. If the goods produced in South Africa on shelves in Canadian stores were not moving at this time to the same degree they have moved in the past, I think this situation would be a clear indication to the government of South Africa that the people of Canada protest this mistaken, inhuman and unchristian attitude and policy of that government.
There is in this morning's press a report that the United States ambassador to the United Nations, namely Henry Cabot Lodge,

current president of the United Nations security council, will be calling the 11 nation body together early next week to deal with the South Africa racial conflict. Third, I would hope that Canada would take a firmer position in the future within the councils of the United Nations on this question, that Canada would support and would call for a full inquiry now into the situation in South Africa by the United Nations or any agency of the United Nations, and that Canada would support a strong protest from the United Nations security council in respect of the situation in South Africa and the attitude of the South African government.
I have noted in recent days that a petition is being circulated amongst the members of the United Nations asking for a special session of the United Nations to protest any further atomic tests by the government of France and that there are almost enough signatures supporting a United Nations special assembly meeting to require that such an assembly be undertaken. I would think that a special session of the United Nations itself on this question is fully justified in the interests of humanity. In any action that can be taken by the United Nations I would hope that Canada give this action its wholehearted, full and unequivocal support.
The fourth thing I suggest is that Canada should not only welcome, as we do, the statement that Prime Minister Verwoerd of South Africa will be attending the prime ministers' conference; but we should have from the Canadian Prime Minister-our Prime Minister-a clear indication that this question of racial discrimination will be raised at the prime ministers' conference in the interests of humanity, of basic democratic fair play. I suggest also in the interests of maintaining and extending the influence of the commonwealth.
After all, Mr. Chairman, it is not the size of an association of nations, in my opinion, that is most important as far as influence is concerned. It is no longer mainly a question of the size of armaments or the type of armaments in the arsenals of any given political power that decides its influence in the world. In the main I think it is a question of the record and the attitude of the government to basic human freedoms and rights of the citizens within the nation. If the commonwealth is to be strong, we must take all possible steps to remove the cancer in the commonwealth body which is damaging to its existence and is weakening its strength.
Once again, in order to make our position completely clear, may I say that we are not asking a nation that has taken a wrong course and that today is in conflict with

humanity to remove itself from the association of the commonwealth of nations any more than we would ask that a nation within the United Nations that has undertaken an unjustifiable act should be expelled from the United Nations. We think the thing to be done is to take every feasible step to clear up the malady or the affliction and to remove this sore and this blight on the commonwealth and on humanity itself.
The easiest thing in the world, Mr. Chairman, is for anyone to be intolerant of others because of colour, religion or economic or social status. I think it is part of the conflict and the competition of life in every person and in every nation that we continue to work on the question of racial equality as well as economic equality, freedom of speech and the other rights that we all hold so dear.
The main purpose of my rising at this time, Mr. Chairman, is not to make a sweeping condemnation of the government, and I do not do that. From my associations with hon. members opposite and from the public statements of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs I can say that I know of no one in this chamber who condones what is being done in South Africa. It is a question of emphasis. It is a question of practicability. I think it is also a question of how we view this kind of discrimination and of the importance we attach to it.
I hope the government will take a stronger position on this question that is not governed by questions of one nation being in or out of a given organization but is based on a type of fundamental conviction that all people are in fact born equal and should have equal rights in human society.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I feel that we cannot grant this interim supply without objecting to the inclusion of funds for the SAGE-Bomarc program. When the government cancelled the Avro Arrow a year ago last February the inference was drawn that air defence was no longer valid. The minister himself, in explaining this cancellation, suggested that the threat from manned bombers was diminishing and that the threat from intercontinental ballistic missiles was increasing. This was obviously true, Mr. Chairman, and was a fact which was well recognized. But at the same time the minister added that the threat from the manned bomber continues. Many times in the intervening months he has gone on record as saying that in any allout war in the foreseeable future manned bombers would be used as well as intercontinental ballistic missiles and that they would be used at least for mop-up operations. In that event it was essential, the minister told 79951-0-156
Interim Supply
us, that Canada should continue with the defence against manned bombers. I see the minister is nodding his head, I presume in assent.
Almost immediately, however, a contradiction was introduced and the contradiction was the continuation of a half policy of air defence. The government clearly gave the impression that the Bomarc was a superior while at the same time less expensive alternative to the manned interceptor as a defence against manned bombers. The impression was conveyed to the Canadian people through the press, and was widely accepted at least for a time, that the threat from the bombers was diminishing. We could, the government told us, safely cancel the Avro Arrow, the world's most outstanding all-weather interceptor, but at the same time we had to continue with a defence against manned bombers. It was, of course, a defence only for a very small part of the Canadian nation, but we had to continue with a defence against manned bombers.
Not only did the government decide to proceed with the installation of the SAGE-Bomarc system, but it has also tried to convince us and the Canadian people, though not too successfully, that it should continue to operate its CF-100 squadrons even though that plane is subsonic and the latest Russian bombers which might be sent in in attack against the North American continent are supersonic.
The inconsistencies have begun to make an impression, but it has been a very difficult process to try and impress upon the government and the Canadian people the fact that the government's policy was no policy at all. As a matter of fact, I think it has been easier to convince the Canadian people than it has the government. The government's intransigence on this particular point is a mystery to all of us who sit in the House of Commons, at least on this side of the house, and I am sure to most of the press gallery and to thinking Canadians.
Why would the government cancel the first line of defence against the manned bomber, and continue with the second line? This question has never been answered satisfactorily. Time and time again those of us on this side of the house have said: All or nothing. The continuation of the SAGE-Bomarc program without supersonic interceptors makes no sense whatsoever to the Canadian people, and anyone should be able to see that.
The recent announcement from Washington that the SAGE-Bomarc program was being held up for a month for reconsideration was because the United States authorities were convinced that due to the present

Interim Supply
accuracy of long range intercontinental ballistic missiles and because the SAGE-Bomarc installations are fixed installations they are indeed very vulnerable to missilry. The United States decided to pause for a fresh look; but not our government, which decides to go blindly on down a road leading to nowhere without giving any satisfactory explanation as to where they expect to wind up.
We believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is not good enough. If the minister would tell us that he was going to continue a complete policy of air defence, that would be one thing. If he told us he was going to re-equip the air defence squadrons and that in addition to that he hoped that the Bomarc B would be successful so that it might be used as the second line of defence, we could at least see the logic of that policy, whether we agreed with it or not. But why, at the present time, the minister refuses to tell us whether or not he intends to re-equip the air defence squadrons, while at the same time telling us that he does intend under any circumstance to continue with the installation of the SAGE-Bomarc system, it is to us a matter of complete mystery.
We repeat, Mr. Chairman, that as far as we are concerned, the SAGE-Bomarc installation by itself is ineffective and a waste of the Canadian taxpayers' money. Not only does it protect too small a part of our nation, but it is far too vulnerable to attack by enemy missiles. It is vulnerable not only to attack by intercontinental ballistic missiles; it must be remembered that one ICBM direct hit on one of these bases would wipe out the base completely and provide an air corridor through which any number of enemy bombers might fly. The bases are also vulnerable to air-to-ground missiles, missiles carried by attacking bombers; and these missiles could be launched some hundreds of miles out in advance of reaching the Bomarc bases. The Bomarc missile and the SAGE system would not be able to differentiate between attacking dummy missiles and the real thing, and they would of necessity be fired one after another and once the half squadron has gone there would be nothing left to defend our cities and the approaches to the North American continent. All would be gone; the corridor would be open and the bombers would fly through.
These overriding considerations, Mr. Chairman, are of the greatest importance. But in addition to this the missile itself has not been proven satisfactory from a technical standpoint. And so we on this side of the house take the view that, first of all, we have had no assurance that the missile will ever be

effective. It is small comfort to us to be told by the Associate Minister of National Defence that it took 80 tests before the Bomarc A became operational and that undoubtedly after as many tests the Bomarc B will reach the same stage of effectiveness. This is no comfort whatsoever.
Even if it should become operational, and we repeat that we are not the least bit convinced that it ever will, we still say that with the government's present half policy toward air defence this expenditure makes no sense whatsoever and is a complete and utter waste of the Canadian taxpayers' money. Time and the time again we have raised this subject in the house. Every time the minister has given us some bland assurance that he has confidence in the missile. The minister feels that ultimately it will be successful. After all, he says, there have only been seven tests and quite often it takes many more than this before success is achieved. We wish that we could be as optimistic as he, but we are not.
Mr. Chairman, let me read some of the comments which have been made. After the sixth test questions were raised, and I have here an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of February 2, 1960 entitled "$6 million start made on nearby Bomarc site. Cabinet ignores failure." This article goes on:
The sixth straight fizzle of the Bomarc B missile, the type that will come to Canada in 1961 has not slackened government plans to build launching bases near North Bay and Mont Laurier.
Then the next sub heading is "Tenders called", and it continues:
Tenders have been called for concrete work estimated to cost $6.2 million for first-stage construction of the base 100 miles northeast of Ottawa while questions are being raised in the commons about the Bomarc's worth.
Questions are still being raised, and still the cabinet refuses to act. Still the cabinet ignores failure. This cabinet seems to have something in common with the Bomarc B in that after a repeated series of failures it still does not realize that it is incompetent to do the job.
Then after the seventh test this report appeared in the Ottawa Journal of March 8, 1960:
PM says not suspending Bomarc plans.
Furore in the commons yesterday over the second straight failure of a Bomarc B test missile led Defence Minister Pearkes to protest that "we are losing all sense of proportion in this matter".
Mr. Chairman, let me ask you, are we losing all sense of proportion? This weapon is the one on which the government has hung the whole air defence of Canada. This is the only weapon in the government's plan to defend the Canadian nation against air attack either by manned bombers or by missiles. Yet we are told by the minister that

we are losing all sense of proportion in this matter. Is it not a matter of concern that the survival of our nation is at stake? The article continues:
There are many more tests to come, he (the defence minister) indicated, and success is anticipated in them.
In addition, he stated that failures to date have not been of a basic nature but that of small components; that the United States is paying the lion's share of the cost of the Bomarc program, even in Canada, and that Canada so far has spent relatively little on the program.
Further on, the article states, under a subheading "80 Test Flights":
The Bomarc A, he explained, went through 80 test flights before becoming an operational weapon.
The implication was there that the Bomarc B might do the same and he was sure that failures experienced to date "can be overcome."
We know the story of the Bomarc A. Even after 80 tests, when it did become operational, it is still no good. Attacking bombers can fly over it, or under it, and it can be jammed by radar. It is an ineffective weapon, and what assurance have we that this new weapon will be of greater use even if it does become operational?
Again, after the seventh failure, another article appeared, this time in the Globe and Mail of March 8, 1960. The heading is: "Pearkes Again Voices Confidence in Bomarc". One thing one can say about the Minister of National Defence is that at least he appears to be a congenital optimist. We only wish he had something to be optimistic about. This report is from the Ottawa bureau of the Globe and Mail, and the dateline is Ottawa, March 7. It begins:
Following a telephone consultation with U.S. defence secretary Gates, defence minister Pearkes today again told the commons he was hopeful that mechanical failure in the Bomarc B missile would be overcome.
The weapon-scheduled for a key role In Canada's air defence-failed for the seventh consecutive time in a test launching attempt at Cape Canaveral, Florida, on Saturday.
Further on, the article states:
He (Mr. Pearkes) then reported his telephone talk with Mr. Gates, who gave him assurances that "if there is any change made at all in the defence program for the North American continent under NORAD, Canada will be consulted." Bomarc B is part of the program.
What we cannot understand is why, if the minister has been consulted, and if he has been informed of developments in the United States, he should continue to insist that Canada go ahead with this installation and continue to spend the taxpayers' money on a program which obviously has lost the confidence of military and scientific people in the United States. Why does Canada insist on throwing money down the drain? As this article says, $6 million is being spent merely for a start on a base at North Bay.

156J
Interim Supply
This amount of $6 million is far greater than the sum which was involved in other so-called scandals-horses on the payroll, the printing bureau and so on-and I am not for a moment suggesting that there is anything wrong in this latter case; I am merely pointing out that it is necessary to keep these things in proportion. The minister tells us that we should not lose all sense of proportion in these matters. This is a very important matter. Since when are we to be told: what is $6 million? I say that $6 million is a very important sum to the taxpayers of Canada. If it were spent in some other field it might be of real benefit. If it were spent, for example, on scientific research and development it might well achieve something of lasting worth in the military sphere, perhaps with derivatives of value to our industrial development and growth.
We would like to hear from the minister why he asks us to vote funds for the continuation of this program in the circumstances I have outlined. Why does he come and ask parliament to vote money for an expenditure which 95 per cent of thinking people know is going to turn out to be a complete and utter waste?
I was looking for another clipping reporting a meeting recently addressed by the Associate Minister of National Defence. As I recall it, it reported the associate minister as indicating his confidence in this weapon system and as saying he thought that after it had been tested a number of times it would prove to be successful. According to the report, as I remember it, the associate minister urged that Canada should continue with these plans for the SAGE-Bomarc system, and the hon. gentleman went one step further, he said that this missile should be established at other locations across Canada.


Mr. Sevigny:: On a question of privilege, I most certainly never stated the last portion of the remarks which the hon. member for Trinity is imputing to me. I simply said that the Bomarc A was considered successful and that it was reasonable to hope that the Bomarc B would eventually prove to be a success, also. That is all I ever said. I deny having said what the hon. member is imputing to me at the present time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I accept that correction. 1 am very disappointed to hear it. I was referring to a report in a newspaper, and I know that sometimes these reports are not completely accurate. But I had thought that the associate minister was for the first time showing evidence that he had some concern for the defence of people west of Toronto, that he was giving consideration to the needs of the

Interim Supply
people of Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Victoria and other western cities and towns. It is disappointing to hear him confirm that I was wrong and that he, too, has given no thought to how the air defence of Canada should be enlarged in order to include a greater portion of this country than just the area around the great lakes basin.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Will the hon. member for Trinity permit a question? Is the hon. member aware of the fact that the Bomarc program is part of an integrated program under the supervision and direction of the organism well known by the name of NORAD which is in charge of the defence of the North American continent?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, I am well aware of that, and that is just the point I am trying to make, that when this integrated program is being integrated out of the United States' plans it should at the same time be integrated out of the Canadian plans. If we have an integrated program we should be consistent and not insist that we go blindly ahead with our own installations at the very time when the United States, the senior partner in this NORAD agreement, has decided that the program is no longer valid. How can the two ministers put any other interpretation on the facts. A reduction in the amount of money to be spent this year from $421 million to $50 million is surely a clear indication that the program is going to be washed out and that any expenditures we make are going to be money down the drain? Do the two ministers deny that? Can they not see the handwriting on the wall? Can they not see that our friends in the United States have come to the conclusion that the expenditure of this vast amount of money on the SAGE-Bomarc program as they had set it up even as late as a year ago is no longer consistent with their objective and the amount of money they have available to spend?
If the two ministers cannot see that, I feel they should rise in their places and explain this matter to parliament and the Canadian people because as yet they have not done so. If any further reason was required we now have it to indicate that the fullest, frankest and freest discussion of defence policy should take place at the earliest possible date.
One further dramatic piece of evidence to indicate that the government has no policy and that it should seek the advice of all hon. members of the committee has now been presented to us. Again we urge the minister and the Prime Minister that when the defence committee is established every effort be made not to restrict the discussion there but that

it take the fullest possible form and that we be allowed to discuss, not only matters of expenditure and particularly past expenditure but also matters of policy affecting this country, not only in its isolated sense, but in its relationship to its NORAD and NATO partners. This discussion is essential and we again urge the minister and through him the government to allow what the Leader of the Opposition asked for earlier in the year, a full and complete policy discussion.
In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, it is obvious to us that this SAGE-Bomarc system makes no sense whatever in its present form. As a single defence mechanism against manned bombers we feel it is a waste of public funds. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Essex East:
That the amount requested by the Minister of Finance by way of interim supply in item (a) of the proposed resolution be reduced by what fraction of the estimates for the Department of National Defence being requested in the present resolution is destined for the Bomarc and Sage systems.


Jacques Flynn: It seems to me the Chair
can hardly accept this amendment because it is impossible from its wording to determine the exact amount by which there would be a reduction in the main resolution. Unless the hon. member can find an amendment which would make it in order, I cannot accept it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, my amendment in amended form would read as follows. I move:
That the amount of interim supply in item (a) of the proposed resolution be reduced by $1 million.


Mr. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, not
too long ago I had the privilege of visiting Halifax in company with the hon. member for Trinity. I am not sure who is the most effective missionary but on two days in succession I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Kootenay West referred yesterday to the excellent C.C.F. speech made by the hon. member for Trinity and today I find myself again in complete accord with him. I do not wish to add too much to what has been said. In view of recent developments we are becoming more and more convinced that Canadian defence policy is just the tail of the kite of United States defence policy. When a kite is flying it goes in one direction but the tail may go in five or six other directions. They are tied together but the tail goes in another direction.
I do not know who is responsible for this. I hope the Minister of National Defence is not because I have great personal regard for him. I think rather this is the fault of the cabinet as a whole and unfortunately

the poor minister must face the consequences. He has stated on a number of occasions that he has confidence in this missile. We in the opposition and Canadians generally have no confidence either in this missile, in the government's defence policy or in the minister in having to present this policy to parliament and the people. If the blame is the minister's own, in the face of everything we have seen today I think the greatest service he can render his country is to resign from his office. If, on the other hand, it is not his fault and he has only to face the music on behalf of the cabinet, then it is time they took another look at what they are trying to do. I do not think they have the confidence of parliament or the Canadian people with regard to defence policy at the present time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the Minister of National Defence not going to say anything about the statements that have been made on defence policy this morning?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I replied to various questions about defence policy in the question period this morning.


Mr. Peters:: I wish to support the amendment that has been moved. I recently visited North Bay a number of times and inquired of the people there and learned there is a difference of opinion about what is going on with respect to the Bomarc development. The people are entitled to know what is happening. We know the value of the class B Bomarc and are completely unsatisfied with this. If Canada is going to pursue the defence policy that has been outlined in the past few years we will obviously have to have bases in Canada and for this reason Mont Laurier and North Bay were chosen. Canada will have to give some assurance to the people that we are not building bases that cannot be used for anything else in the light of developments with respect to the Bomarc B in the United States. I believe that one of these days the minister will come to parliament and tell us that the United States government has scrapped its program for Bomarc B missiles and that we are now going to use Nike, Thor, Atlas or some other missile presently under development. If we build cement bases in North Bay they should be suitable for use with other types of missiles.
We cannot change our program overnight in the House of Commons and say that this nation will be able to go into the production of another type of missile, because the fixtures that have to be installed for this type of firing are not interchangeable from one rocket to another. Bach one requires
Interim Supply
a different type of base. For this reason I think we should discontinue our work on the Bomarc missile base at the present time and wait until we have more assurance that this is the type of missile we are going to use, because I doubt whether it is. We should be in the position to be able to change over.
I should like to ask whether in fact any Bomarc missile base is in the course of erection in North Bay area. It is my understanding that there is a trailer parked on the highway at about the approximate place at which the semi-automatic ground environment tunnel is to be, and this is the extent of the development. In fact no work is taking place on the Bomarc missile base at all.
This may be a very hush-hush matter. If it is, the people of North Bay may not know everything that is going on, but some of the citizens should , be in a position to know. They know of absolutely no work going on at the missile base. The only work that is going on is taking place at Trout lake, and the Trout lake development is the semiautomatic ground environment for the eastern central command. There will be a tunnel between the environments and it is not really a missile base anyway.
If we are voting an appropriation, if we are voting supply toward this missile base, then we should know whether it has been started or not. The minister has informed the house that the Mont Laurier base has not even got to the stage where we own the land, although we have an option on the land where the base will be built.
I am in agreement with the hon. member for Trinity with respect to this amendment. It would seem to me that we should at least leave ourselves an opening, and if we are building a Bomarc missile base at North Bay today we should be sure it will be applicable to some other type of missile. We should be giving consideration to an alternative plan because, obviously, if we have any more failures in the Bomarc missile development program there will be no missiles developed in the United States. Canada is not in a position to make another mistake such as we made with the Arrow. I do not think we are in a position to make that kind of a mistake more than once every 10 or 15 years, and we we have already made it. This is a worth-while amendment and it has my full support.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, this amendment which the hon. member for Trinity has moved in an impressive, reasonable, logical statement is one of no confidence in the defence policy of this government,

Interim Supply
with particular reference to the expenditure of money. We are being asked to vote expenditures of money now on some aspects of that defence policy which, in our view, make no sense whatever, especially in the light of the information we have received in the last day or two from Washington concerning the Bomarc missile, and not only the Bomarc missile but the whole system of continental defence which is under review and re-examination in Washington at the present time. In the light of what has happened to this particular missile, and in the light of this re-examination which is taking place in Washington of the bases of our continental defence system, to which we are attached, it seems to us, Mr. Chairman, to be the height of folly to go ahead with expenditures of this kind.
In so far as the Bomarc is concerned, surely a single dollar now being spent on Bomarc facilities and Bomarc bases is, to say the least, in very great danger of being wasted, especially, Mr. Chairman, when the government cannot make up its mind as to what kind of weapon this Bomarc would be if it were successful technically. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister have recently thrown some doubt on the advisability, which some of us share, of using nuclear warheads in this particular weapon if it should in fact be technically successful, and there is no evidence to that effect. But the Minister of National Defence has been quite specific and categorical on this subject. He has not retreated one inch, so far as I know, from the position which he announced on March 10, 1959, when he said, as reported at page 1776 of Hansard:
Both the Prime Minister and myself have on several occasions stated that there will be two squadrons of Bomarcs ... These will be separate units with complete establishments of personnel, missiles and launching apparatus.
He made clear, as the Prime Minister made clear at that time and on other occasions, that those two complete squadrons would not achieve their maximum effectiveness unless they had nuclear warheads. However, there is no indication, even from the minister's statement this morning in answer to a question, that the government's confidence in this missile, which confidence has been pretty well abandoned in the country where it is being made, is shaken in any respect. This is just one example of wasteful expenditures of money on national defence policy.
Another example, perhaps, is the Lacrosse missile. On October 1,	1958 the Prime
Minister announced that we would establish a battery of Lacrosse missiles at initial cost for equipment of $1,198,000. It was stated by the minister in the house on July 3, 1959

that there would be an item in the estimates for that purpose. The minister said, as reported at page 5443 of Hansard:
There is money provided in the estimates for the initial procurement of this Lacrosse weapon.
We were told on February 22, 1960, as reported at page 1296 of Hansard, by the minister, who had said the year before that there was going to be an item in the estimates:
. .. we are not at the present time in a position to make any firm recommendations or place a firm order.
He was referring to this particular missile. This is the kind of thing which surely gives us the right to make this kind of motion of no confidence in the spending policy of this government in matters of defence.
What is the relationship of this uncertainty, to say the least, to the whole question of continental defence? The Bomarc is likely to be a failure; the CF-105 has been scrapped. We now have our continental defence, in so far as there is any defence of any kind, through interceptors composed of squadrons of CF-lOO's, squadrons of CF-lOO's which could not possibly be effective against the latest potential manned bomber let alone missiles for which they were not designed to be effective, squadrons of CF-lOO's which the minister himself said on May 28, 1957 were obsolete. On that occasion he was reported in the Victoria Times of May 28, 1957 as saying:
Millions of dollars have been spent developing and producing the CF-100 jet fighter, which now are obsolete and unsaleable.
They are the planes which are now the only equipment we have in respect of continental defence. Presumably in these particular estimates which we are now being asked to vote, there will be some money for the maintenance and upkeep of the CF-lOO's in our continental defence squadrons.
There is something even more surprising than the incidents I have mentioned in regard to defence policy and which gives us even better cause to question the advisability of spending money of this kind on this kind of policy. The Acting Secretary of State said in this house on March 11, 1960, page 1972 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I did not consult my colleague, but I still say that our $281 million contribution to the Colombo plan has done much more for world peace than the billions which we have had to spend on defence.
We are being asked to spend more millions on defence which, according to the Acting Secretary of State, are not as effective for defence as are the expenditures on the Colombo plan. When we questioned the Minister

of National Defence on that particular statement, he agreed with it. His reply is found on page 1973 of Hansard, where he said:
Mr. Speaker, all members of this government agree with the statements made by another hon. member of the government.
If the Minister of National Defence agrees with that kind of statement, how can he justify expenditures of this kind on things like the Bomarc, presumably on the Lacrosse, and on other aspects of continental defence which are increasingly under question in Washington as being of no value at all for defence. This is the kind of thing, which gives us every right to move a vote of no confidence in the defence expenditure policy of this government. This is the kind of thing which leads us even now to insist that this whole question of defence policy should be re-examined from the very foundation. Perhaps the minister even now will do his best to make that possible in the committee which is being set up, restricted though its terms of reference may be. Perhaps the minister even now in this committee will say something to justify the expenditure of millions of dollars on this kind-if you can call it that-of defence.
Until he can do that and do it convincingly-which is not going to be very easy in the light of the evidence we are getting every day-we will support this motion as an indication of no confidence in the defence expenditures and defence policy of this government.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before a vote is taken I want to make it clear that we in this group will support the motion for precisely the reason given by the Leader of the Opposition, namely that we have no confidence whatever in the defence policy of this government. We feel, and feel very strongly, that Canada today by and large is spending $1,600 million on a defence program for obsolete weapons, obsolete equipment, and that is an expenditure that is a sheer, fabulous waste of money. We think it is not only a waste of money but it is bound to lull the Canadian people into a sense of false security, certainly any of them who may put some credence in the statements of the Minister of National Defence. We feel that a great part of these hundreds of millions of dollars should be diverted from the Department of National Defence-any expenditures such as this-to the economic assistance of the emerging nations in the world.
If that were done we feel convinced that we would get a far greater degree of security for our nation, and for others believing in our type of system. We believe that before
Interim Supply
the defence committee that is being established there should be a full, complete and unfettered inquiry into defence policy; that there should be no endeavour, as there will be undoubtedly, to prevent the committee from making recommendations that would clear up the defence mess into which our country has been plunged. The most disturbing feature, I think, of our whole policy is the complete reliance of the government on the United States defence program. We are the tail on the United States defence policy. We are in the hip pocket of the United States on defence policy. We are called a partner, but we are not a partner. We are not a partner in policy. We are not a partner in basic discussions. We are merely the errand boy for the United States in this defence program.
The government does not even know from day to day what United States defence policy is. They are not informed. Apparently they do not even listen to the radio to hear the reports that are coming forward. What is the announcement now? The announcement is that the United States is going to reduce its own expenditure from $420 million to $50 million on the Bomarc.


Mr. Speakman:: Who told you?


Hazen Robert Argue: Who told me? It was not the Minister of National Defence. He is not in the know. He has not been informed. This announcement was on the radio this morning, and I think there is every indication that this is the thinking, the likely policy, in the United States.
The Minister of National Defence told us on a former occasion that the United States would be putting some $70 million into the Canadian section of the Bomarc defence system. We are being left high and dry, obviously, if the United States expenditures are cut from $420 million to $50 million, if we had originally expected $70 million as our share in this development. This government promised that Canada would be able to hold its head high. We would have an independent policy, and that where our policy was associated with the United States we would be an independent partner with a substantial voice in defence policies.
We are not being consulted. Obviously, the government is not being consulted. The government is not even being informed of the very tremendous changes in the United States defence system. It is obvious that Canada is merely waiting to follow the statements of policy that emanate from the United States from time to time. This, for Canada, is a very degrading position. We not only stand defenceless today because of the policy of the

Interim Supply
government, but in the eyes of the world we must look a complete, but somewhat unimportant, satellite of the United States.
I hope the Minister of National Defence will not allow this vote to be taken without some comment. He may not wish to give opposition members the satisfaction of a reply but he owes the people of Canada a reply outlining the government's attitude at this time in these very rapid developments in the defence policy of the United States.
The Minister of National Defence has taken a posture on these huge expenditures on obsolete weapons. He is not willing to compromise on this attitude. Obviously it is a misdirected policy. I think the policy should be changed. If, in order to change its policy, it is necessary for the government to change the minister who occupies that portfolio, then this should be done. We need a new attitude and a new policy in the Department of National Defence. If one reads the editorial pages of some of the main newspapers of this country that traditionally support either the government party or the opposition party one will see a clear indication that people in all walks of life supporting all political parties say that this government's defence policy is misdirected, useless and in need of a thorough and complete overhaul. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we are delighted to have the opportunity to support this amendment.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am going to reply to the criticisms which have been made because, as I pointed out this morning on the orders of the day, a great deal of this criticism has been based on a speculative report which can only be described as a leak from a meeting of a committee which is being held in the United States and which was held in camera. However, I want to contradict flatly the statement which was made by the hon. member for Assiniboia a few minutes ago that Canada was not being consulted. Canada has been consulted step by step and Canada's opinion has carried weight. I can say quite frankly that I have been speaking almost daily with the secretary of defence or Mr. Douglas who is his deputy in Washington. I am fully informed of the proposals which are being presented to the committee on appropriations at this time. But until that committee has heard all the evidence and until the committee has reported upon what its recommendations are-and I say "recommendations" advisedly because, as far as Canada is concerned, nothing will be done without consultation with Canada-I am unable to say anything. I am not going to talk about matters which are based purely on a newspaper report which, as I say, purports to be a report of a committee held in camera.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has said that the report is a leak or that this was a confidential inquiry in camera. Does the minister deny the report? Does he deny that there is going to be made a very slashing reduction in the United States appropriations for the Bomarc missile?


George Randolph Pearkes: As I said, I have no comments to make at this time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have just one comment based on the minister's statement of a moment ago. If he has been as well informed as he has led this committee to believe, I cannot understand-nor, I am sure, can my colleagues- why, when the United States air force itself decided to suspend operations temporarily pending a re-evaluation, the government did not accept the advice given them by those on this side of the chamber on January 26 last. That is the very least that should have been done.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jacques Flynn: The question is on the amendment.
Amendment negatived: yeas 23; nays, 82.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the resolution carry?


Murdo William Martin: I have a few remarks that I should like to make before this resolution passes, Mr. Chairman, and I wonder whether I might call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on the subject raised by the leader of our group, the hon. member for Assiniboia, when he spoke this morning, the recent incidents that are very much in the minds of the Canadian people at the present time, namely, the racial violence in South Africa.
I should like to impress upon the government in particular the importance of one aspect of this question which I do not think has been stressed so far. The incidents of wanton butchery the other day, reprehensible though they are, are overshadowed by what could develop from these incidents. History down through the years is dotted with examples of people in such straits as the

coloured people of South Africa being driven in pure desperation to blood baths which have spread right across a whole continent, and which in fact could spread right across the world. We may find a situation where this policy of apartheid will spread and become a war between the races.
If we stop to look at the possible reason behind what happened, Mr. Chairman, I think we will find it is really based on a false premise. I think the reason the situation came about is due to the fear of the white people that if the coloured people are given equal representation in a place where they outnumber the whites there is a danger of their treating the whites in turn as the whites have treated them in the past. Again, I think if we look back in history we will find that there is no basis for such fears. Only the white race down through the years seems to have been cursed with this rapacious greed for wealth and power. The red people of this country did not have it; at least, they did not until we taught it to them. The brown people of the West Indies and the Far East did not have it until we brought it to them. The black people of Africa did not have it. It would appear that the white race is the only race that seems to be cursed with whatever it is that seems to bring about this war between races.
I should like to impress upon the government and the Prime Minister that if we do not speak up against this sort of thing we will be seen in the eyes of all coloured peoples of the world as condoning by our silence what happened the other day. I cannot recall any injustices in our history, Mr. Chairman, which were corrected unless somebody spoke out against them and did something. I say that if we do not speak out against this injustice we will stand condemned in the eyes of all the coloured people in the world.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961, the sum of $603,488,902.52 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.
Interim Supply
(Translation):


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, the government is asking us today to authorize supplementary estimates for the Department of Agriculture representing a fairly large sum of money.
We note that the first item in the supplementary estimates requires no elaborate comments, even though it calls for a rather high amount in administration costs of the agricultural stabilization board, considering that we are being asked to vote an amount of $57,661,176.
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman must be under a misapprehension as to the matter we are now discussing. We are in committee of ways and means at this time, the committee of supply having reported the former resolution. The hon. member is discussing one of the items in the supplementary estimates which we have not yet reached.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are trying to save time.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about the agricultural stabilization act-
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I thought I could deal with agricultural stabilization, during the discussion on supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: The hon. member for Essex East is to blame.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-54, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1960.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? Now, by leave?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister could assure us that the bill is in exactly the same form as the resolution?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The bill is in the usual form.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

Supply-Agriculture


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Livestock division-
634.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $43,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to these grants to agricultural organizations, I do not suppose that the Minister of Finance can possibly be expected to have any knowledge of the important subject of agriculture, certainly only in very general terms, and that being the case, and as I notice that the Minister of Agriculture is not here, I am glad to see that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture is present. Perhaps he can assist the minister in answering questions which, as I say, cannot be expected to lie within the wide range of knowledge that the Minister of Finance possesses on matters which are of substance as well as matters involving procedure in this house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
635.	Quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs-further amount required, $800,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the
parliamentary secretary could give a brief explanation of this item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. gentleman does not mind, I will endeavour to reply to his question, and I assure him and the hon. member for Essex East that I am not without some farming experience. I speak as a one-time farm labourer, and I shall endeavour as best I can to answer the questions which come from those two expert agriculturist friends of mine.
Item 635 contemplates the provision of an additional sum of $800,000. The original estimate here was a substantial one and it has already been increased by supplementary estimate. The marketing of hogs during the present fiscal year has exceeded all previous forecasts indicated in the main and previous supplementary estimates. Based on the figures for the marketing of hogs since January 1, 1960, the forecast of hog marketings to the end of the fiscal year is 148,000 hogs per week, and an additional sum of approximately $800,000 is required for the payment of the

premiums on grade A and B hogs which are eligible. Included in the estimate is the $9,000 required for the printing of additional premium warrants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Speaking as one who was born on a farm in Ontario and raised on a farm in Manitoba, I should like to ask the minister if these premiums were for the purpose of stimulating the production of hogs, and if the hon. gentleman finds any inconsistency in the fact that these premiums are paid to stimulate production when, at the same time, the government has changed its support policy in midstream to cause the contrary effect on production. How does the minister reconcile those aims in the treasury board?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman is not giving us a correct surmise when he says that the purpose of these premiums is to increase production. The purpose of the premium payment is to encourage the improvement of quality.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister tell us what the division of this expenditure is? I see it covers not only quality premiums on high grade carcasses but administration costs. What are the administration costs?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is $9,000 for the printing of premium warrants and $791,000 for the payment of the quality premiums on A and B carcasses.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the minister for reminding me that Mr. Gardiner started these quality premiums before the war for the purpose of getting into the United Kingdom market. Can the minister tell us how many hogs or hog products have been shipped into the British market in the past year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Plant products division-
637.	Contributions to the governments of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor-in-council, of one-half of the amounts paid by the governments of those provinces for transporting haying equipment, fodder and livestock to and within those provinces on and after July 1, 1958-further amount required, $13,500.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. You are going so fast that the Minister of Finance and I are having difficulty in following what we are called upon to vote. This looks like a rather important item although the amount involved is not as large as the preceding vote. Perhaps the minister could give us some information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Vote No. 637 contemplates the provision of $13,500 as Canada's contribution to the governments of two of

the western provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, toward the cost of transporting haying equipment, fodder and livestock to and within these provinces after July 1, 1958, as indicated in the item No. 637. There have been payments made. The actual expenditure to January 31, 1960 was $34,541, and it is estimated that the amount required to provide for these payments to the end of the present fiscal year is an additional sum of $13,500 in round figures. The bulk of it is for the province of Saskatchewan.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was any of that money expended in the main vote for Alberta?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, this is for Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
638.	To extend the purposes of vote 614, further supplementary estimates (1), 1959-60, to include the transport of livestock bedding other than straw, $1.
John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Kenora-Rainy River expressed some concern about this dollar item. Perhaps the minister would tell us what the purpose of it is?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of this item is not to add money but to enlarge the scope of an item that was previously passed in the supplementary estimates which was an item of $300,000. It made provision for payments toward transportation costs on shipments of fodder and straw and on the movement of cattle from October 12, 1959, to the end of the present fiscal year. It is desired to extend this costsharing to include sums paid on other forms of livestock bedding such as shavings and sawdust due to the shortage of straw, particularly in Manitoba.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say where the shavings and sawdust come from?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I cannot in all cases, Mr. Chairman, but it is intended for use in Manitoba principally.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
639.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration- further amount required, $134,000.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance will perhaps recall that when we were discussing the crop insurance legislation last session there was some discussion about the relationship of prairie farm assistance to crop insurance. Can the minister say whether or not any of the reluctance of the provinces to participate in the federal scheme is due in any way to the attitude taken by the federal government toward payments with regard to prairie farm assistance
Supply-Agriculture
and any beneficial consequences to any individual farmer under the Crop Insurance Act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should think not, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of what the Minister of Agriculture had to say about this subject, I think the minister will recognize that his brief reply is hardly relevant or helpful in the matter. I am asking if one of the provinces has objected to the scheme because a farmer cannot obtain both benefits?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the point of my answer was that I think the two subjects are not related. The hon. gentleman is seeking to impinge a discussion in relation to crop insurance on an item that relates to prairie farm assistance.


Hazen Robert Argue: These two things are different, Mr. Chairman, but they are closely related because to the extent crop insurance may be adopted in given areas it will reduce the amount of crop insurance paid under prairie farm assistance and-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think I can satisfy my hon. friend, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing in this item that is being voted now that provides for crop insurance. This is simply an additional amount of $134,000 to be added to the amount previously voted by parliament to provide the administrative requirements of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. It arises out of inspections. That is the immediate occasion for asking for the addition.


Hazen Robert Argue: I understand that fully. I can tell the minister why he needs the money. As time goes on and more and more inspections are made under the act during a given crop year, it is found that certain sums of money are required and so parliament has to vote them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is specifically this situation in the west. These increased inspections were the result of early snow in the prairie provinces. It was necessary to re-inspect areas that originally were considered ineligible for assistance. In some cases several re-inspections had to be made. It is this situation which has given rise to the need for this additional appropriation.


Hazen Robert Argue: If one could interpret from what the minister said that those with crops under the snow would become eligible it would be a welcome innovation, but I do not think that is what the minister is saying.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I repeat what I actually did say, Mr. Chairman. These additional expenditures were due to early snow

Supply-Agriculture
on the prairies and re-inspections became necessary because of that fact.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would hope that the minister would consider the question I am about to ask under this item. I think it is as relevant as any discussion about prairie farm assistance can be. Is there any indication that certain areas will be brought under crop insurance during the coming year so that there may in fact be somewhat less money required for prairie farm assistance? The minister well knows that the provinces are complying with the federal legislation and passing complementary legislation to make it operative, but is there any indication that certain areas will in fact have the 25 per cent sign-up necessary to bring them under crop insurance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, that will depend, of course, entirely on the governments of the provinces themselves and their legislatures but there is nothing in this item that pertains to this subject. There is no provision in this item in relation to crop insurance.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister misunderstood my question. I did not ask whether the province of Manitoba would provide some type of crop insurance scheme. My question was this. Has the government any indication that a given area or a number of areas will come under the crop insurance plans that are being provided?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understand that there has been no conclusive indication in that respect but again that is a situation that could change as a result of provincial action.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister's statement tends to confirm my impression that a vast majority of areas in the prairie provinces do not consider the crop insurance plan set out in legislation passed last year sufficiently attractive in order to come under the provisions of the act and therefore exclude themselves from the provisions of prairie farm assistance. I think the scheme was misconceived in its various clauses, was brought in without the consent of the provinces and got off to a bad start. Worse still, there is not sufficient incentive for the vast majority of areas to get the 25 per cent sign-up which is the minimum requirement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
640.	Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural commodities stabilization account for the net operating loss of the agricultural stabilization board during the fiscal year 1959-60, $57,661,176.
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Under this item, we are asked to vote an amount of $57,661,176 under

the heading "Operating loss sustained by the agricultural prices stabilization board". That, Mr. Chairman, is the highest amount Canada has ever spent to support farm prices, since the passing of the Agricultural Prices Support Act in 1946.
If we look at the report, we find that the total amount spent under the act since 1946 is approximately $100 million, including the losses arising from the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, mainly in the western provinces, and which accounted for $70 million of that amount.
Under the Liberal administration, from 1946 to March 1957, the Agricultural Prices Support Act cost $25,052,806.98.
Now if you look at the expenditures for the past three years, that is since the Conservative government took over, you find that in 1958, Canada spent close to $6 million, and in 1959, $15,124,000. Now, for the year 19591960, we are asked to vote $57,661,176.
That means that since the election of the Conservative government, it has cost the taxpayers the substantial amount of $78,773,819 to support agricultural prices.
In short, therefore, it can be said that in the last 12 years of Liberal administration, it cost us $25 million to support those prices, while in three years of Conservative administration, the amount expended was $78 million.
(Text):


James Stanley Speakman: Will the hon. member permit a question?
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: If I may, I shall go on with my remarks and you can ask your question when I have finished. Those are substantial amounts and no doubt did a lot of good to farmers. But did the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which the Conservative government introduced, help farmers to the extent called for by their requirements and by fairness? No, far from it. While farmers had been promised support prices tied to cost prices and set 12 months in advance, the government recently backed down on this plan.
Admittedly the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) did set interesting prices for certain commodities in 1958, 25 cents for pork and 44 cents for eggs; but what has happened since? Many businessmen, manufacturers, and

even professional men went into pork and cattle breeding with resulting well known awkward surpluses.
Then the government was seized with panic, and the Minister of Agriculture went back on his wonderful promises and forgot the fine arguments he had used when the bill was being considered.
It is true, as Mr. Paul-Henri Lavoie said in the Terre de Chez Nous of May 6, 1959, that:
Whenever surpluses substantially exceed marketing possibilities, a high class show is put on, led by groups whose real intentions are concealed by high-sounding names. Panic-stricken government authorities rush into legislation which often bears the earmarks of expediency.
What a face-about since the statements the Prime Minister made in 1957 and 1958.
What reversal too, in the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture who recently made the following declarations during the convention of the Catholic farmers' federation in Toronto:
(Text):
We have managed to maintain better prices for a considerable number of commodities, particularly through the operations of the stabilization board, but only so much is possible along these lines.
(Translation):
The minister claims that his government helped maintain better prices for a considerable number of farm commodities. But, of course, he is very careful not to say for which ones. Were they better prices for wheat, oats, barley, pork, eggs, etc.? Of course not. And in the same speech he said that the prices obtained were higher than those obtained by U.S. farmers.
In closing his remarks, the minister said: (Text):
The policies of this government during the past two and a half years were designed to improve farm income position and share of the national wealth.
(Translation):
Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, a responsible minister making a statement like that when it is known to everyone, especially to farmers, that the net farm income in 1959 was 7 per cent lower than in 1958, that is, by $88,174,000.
In spite of the huge amounts we spend to support the prices of farm products, those prices keep coming down, while the cost of goods and services required by the farmers keep rising. In this connection, I should
Supp ly-A griculture
like to quote a few figures which I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider, after he has had a chance to read my remarks, since he is not in the house this afternoon. I would ask him to consider and ponder those figures, and I dare him to challenge their accuracy.
If we compare the average price of certain farm products in the ten-year period running from 1947 to 1956 with the average price in 1957, 1958 and 1959, we find that during the last ten years of the Liberal regime, wheat was selling at $1.49 a bushel, whereas in the last three years it has been selling at $1.23. In the last three years, barley, that used to fetch $1 a bushel, has been selling at 75 cents a bushel. Oats, which between 1947 and 1956, was selling at 65 cents, has been selling at 53 in the last three years. Prices of flaxseed have similarly dropped from $3.36 to $2.67; pork is down from $27.16 to $26.19 a cwt.; eggs, which used to sell at 41.6 cents a dozen, have been selling at 35 cents a dozen in the last three years.
I could go through the list of all farm products, and we would find similar price drops. I have here all the figures. For instance, rye which used to sell at $1.50 a bushel during 1947 to 1956, sold at 58 cents a bushel in 1958; the price of potatoes dropped from $1.99 to $1.73.


Mr. Pigeon:: What about butter?


Samuel Boulanger: Butter has been selling at 64 cents and I hope the government will keep it at that level. It is the only product on which eastern farmers depend for staying on the farms.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Why was it not increased under your administration?


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I have just given figures of farm prices and shown that there has been a steady decline as a result of Conservative party policy. Now if we look at the price index of goods and services bought by farmers we find that, there too, prices are detrimental to farmers. In 1956 for instance, the price index for goods and services bought by farmers was 247.6; it went up to 255.9 in 1957, 259.9 in 1958 and to 273.5 in August 1959. This is to say that, since 1956, the price index of goods bought by farmers has gone up by 25.9. If we take the index from January 1, 1959 to August of the same year, we notice an increase of 13.6 in eight months.

Supply-Agriculture
We have not heard the Minister of Agriculture deal with the price index of goods bought by farmers.
As for the farm prices index, it was 234.6 in 1956, and three years later, in 1959, it reached 238.1, an increase of 3.5.
Prices of goods and services increased by 25.9 while farm product prices did so by only 3.5. In addition, with the prices the farmer now gets for his product, he can buy 27 per cent less of the goods and services he needs, as compared to 10 years ago.
If we examine the report of the royal commission on price spreads of food products, we note that in 1957 farmers obtained for every retail sale dollar: 53.9 per cent for beef; 59.7 per cent for pork and 77.1 per cent for butter. 1 could mention a lot more products but shall mention only a few: on the price of canned tomatoes, the farmer's share was 18.3 per cent; on evaporated whole milk, 41.1 per cent.
In 1949, for every dollar paid by the consumer for farm products, farmers received 59 cents, whereas they were getting 44 cents in 1958.
Yet, as reported in the April 27 issue of the Ottawa Journal, the Prime Minister had this to say in Newcastle on April 26, 1957:
(Text):
His party's agricultural program, he said, would include a system of flexible price supports, aggressive salesmanship around the world for Canadian farm products and an early commonwealth conference.
Between 1951-1955 he said, the farmer's share of the consumer price dollar dropped from 59 to 51 cents.
(Translation):
That is what the Prime Minister was saying two and a half years ago.
Today, the figure has reached 44 cents. The Prime Minister dared to say, as did the Minister of Agriculture himself, as reported on page 255 of Hansard of January 23, 1959:
Therefore I feel it is quite apparent that the cost-price squeeze which was a cause of hardship to the farmer under the Liberal administration ever since 1951-52 has been finally halted and reversed.
Mr. Chairman, only after we have compiled all the figures for the years during which the Conservative party will have been in office shall we be able to realize all the damage caused to our farmers.

Since the Agricultural Stabilization Act has not achieved the purpose for which it was passed, I suggest that the government should establish a commission composed of farm experts and leaders of farmers' unions, in order to consider and work out a plan consistent with farmers' needs. In a word, an advisory committee capable of establishing an over-all plan for amending the Agricultural Stabilization Act, so as to set definite support prices, in relation not to some percentage of the average price over the last ten years but to the production cost index.
I ask the Minister of Agriculture and the government to instruct the committee on agriculture to discuss the Agricultural Stabilization Act and to investigate the estimated loss to our farmers.
I am making these suggestions, because I have some doubt as to the ability of the Minister of Agriculture. It is hardly possible that the experts, or the officials of the Department of Agriculture, who have been advising the Minister of Agriculture and all the other cabinet ministers these last twenty two years, are not still giving the present Minister of Agriculture, and the present government, the same sound advice. However, this act has not achieved the expected results, and I challenge the minister to prove that it has helped give the farmer his fair share of the national income, to which he is entitled. The net income of farmers, as I said a moment ago, has been $88 million less in 1959 than in 1958, in spite of those $57 million we are now called upon to vote.
I challenge the Minister of Agriculture to show us that the Agricultural Stabilization Act has safeguarded the interests of the small farmer. Moreover, I challenge him to show us that farmers have known, 12 months in advance, the prices of farm products such as eggs and pork. I also challenge him to show us that his act has not been the cause of a price upheaval in the field of farm products in the course of the last two or three years.
If the minister has nothing to fear, he will accept this challenge and ask the committee to look into that matter and to report to the house. His refusal will be the clear evidence that his government has repudiated its promises, the Agricultural Stabilization Act and farm people.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
641.	Salaries and expenses of the board-further amount required, $23,889.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the Minister of Finance can tell us why there should be such a rather considerable increase in the expenditures as there appears to be. Perhaps he could also refresh our minds as to what the original vote was.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Item 641 contemplates the provision of an additional $23,889 toward salaries and expenses for the board of broadcast governors. The item in the main estimates was $200,000. It has been found necessary to add to this amount in order to cover expenses partly as a result of the public hearings being conducted by the board of broadcast governors for second television licences in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say
whether a corresponding amount has been saved within the C.B.C budget as a result of the transfer of these quasi-judicial functions to the board of broadcast governors?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not reflected in the supplementary estimates. But of course when the functions of the adjudicating body were detached from the normal functions of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I think there was some expectation that there might be some saving. But that would have nothing to do with the present item which arises by reason of the fact that more public hearings were found to be necessary during the course of this year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister confirm recent rumours about who is going to get the licence in Toronto?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I do not know.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister give us any indication of the principles on which the board operates in the giving of these licences?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think I will have to refer the hon. gentleman to the act and to what the board has said in indicating the standards to which it wishes those holding or receiving licences to adhere.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Indian affairs branch-
642.	Welfare of Indians-Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $410,000.
William Arnold Peters: Does the minister care to indicate whether this item is an indication that the amount of welfare assistance being paid
Supply-External Affairs to Indians in various localities has been increased as has been asked for by a number of members in past years?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, sir. This item covers both direct relief assistance to Indians and also payments for the care of indigent Indians including maintenance of juvenile delinquents.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does it reflect any change in policy?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. There is an increased scale of food relief that is reflected here.


Mr. Benidickson:: That is perhaps identified by an order in council or a change in the regulation. Will the minister give us that information?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The scale became effective on April 1, 1959, the beginning of the present fiscal year.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask whether this scale will be made available?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. If the hon. gentleman wishes the detail of it, I shall be glad to see that it is sent to him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS North Atlantic Treaty Organization-
644.	Further contribution by the Canadian government towards the cost of constructing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization permanent headquarters-To increase by 248,029 new French francs the amount of the contribution provided for in vote 92, main estimates, 1959-60; the equivalent in Canadian dollars estimated as of March, 1960, is, $48,018.
Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether the minister can tell us the total cost of this building, the total cost of Canada's participation in it and the percentage of the cost which has been allocated to Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. The total cost of the new NATO headquarters building in Paris is 4,739,745,800 French francs or 47,397,458 of the new or so-called heavy French francs. The equivalent in Canadian dollars is approximately 10J million. Canada has contributed to date $605,002. With the item now appearing in the supplementary estimates, the total contribution toward the construction of the building will be $653,145. Canada's proportion is 6.08 per cent of the total.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It appears that this building is now completed. I understand it is completed and occupied.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Almost. The delegations moved into it just before the annual

Supply-External Affairs meeting of the ministerial council in December. The meetings of the ministerial council were held in the building December last. However, the building was not altogether complete at that time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It appears that the cost will be in the neighbourhood of 10J million Canadian dollars. Has the minister the figures there for the original estimate of the cost of this building.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was estimated, I am told that, that 900 million French francs would be the total construction budget for the year 1959. An amount of 1,097 million French francs was approved as the 1959 budget and a further amount of 192,745,800 French francs has been approved as the 1960 budget. I am told that provision will carry the building to completion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The question I asked was whether the minister has before him the original estimate of the cost made four or five years ago. I think it was a figure very much smaller than the ultimate cost which is now $10J million.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not that information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International Civil Aviation Organization-
645.	Payment to the International Civil Aviation Organization in part reimbursement of compensation paid its Canadian employees for Quebec income tax for the 1958 taxation year-further amount required, $1,427.
Lionel Chevrier: I think perhaps the minister should give us some explanation of this item. I know there was at one time a considerable amount of difficulty in connection with the province of Quebec in so far as the arrangements for the building in Montreal were concerned. I know that some time later the difficulties were ironed out. I think the committee should be given an idea first as to how much the building costs the government in so far as occupancy is concerned and, second, as to what arrangements have now been made with the government of the province of Quebec in connection with certain diplomatic exchanges or emoluments, if I may so call them, to which members of ICAO felt they were entitled. I wonder what amount of information the minister can give us on that matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This item pertains only to a particular provision in respect of ICAO. This is the item under which provision is made to cover payment of Quebec income tax reimbursements in respect of the members of the staff of ICAO in Montreal.


William Moore Benidickson: That is Canadian staff?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, those who are subject to the Quebec tax. That is the entire purpose and scope of this item.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think we should be entitled to a little more information. Perhaps I should know this but I do not at the moment. I think under this item we should be entitled to know what is the position of the government so far as ICAO is concerned. I think too we should be entitled to answers to the questions I put a moment ago. I would not think they would be hard to answer, nor would I think the information would be difficult to obtain because it is of a more or less public nature as it has been discussed in the meetings of one of the subcommittees of ICAO.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman will appreciate that this is simply a small amount added to an amount previously voted by parliament. This is simply a further amount required.
As to broader questions involving the relationship between ICAO and the Canadian government, may I suggest to the hon. member that I think the proper place for that would be in discussion of the main estimates of the Department of Transport when in committee of supply on the estimates for 1960-61. This item the committee is now asked to approve is a small additional amount required to complete the reimbursement that the house approved when it passed the original item of $9,000. It relates purely and simply to this one matter of reimbursement in respect of the Quebec income tax.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not going to insist on the matter because I feel the item is one which the house would want to approve in any event. But I wonder whether the minister would bring it to the attention of his colleague because I feel the house should get an explanation of the entire position so far as ICAO is concerned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would be pleased to bring that to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Transport.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether these Canadian employees pay federal income tax, and is there reimbursement in respect of that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are not reimbursed for federal income tax. The reimbursement extends only to additional tax for which they are liable by reason of the headquarters of ICAO being located at Montreal where they are subject to a provincial income tax as well as the federal income tax.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then the salaries of the Canadian employees of the organization are subject to federal income tax, I take it, from what the minister has said?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Canadian employees of ICAO are exempt from federal income tax, but like all other members of the international secretariat are required to pay a similar amount to ICAO in the form of a staff assessment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
646.	Commonwealth scholarship plan. $11,000.
Lionel Chevrier: The matter of commonwealth scholarships was discussed, I believe, during the debate on external affairs and I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs at that time what number of Canadian students would benefit under the commonwealth plan. I wonder if the minister could give us that information?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the hon. gentleman referring to the fiscal year 1959-60 or to the fiscal year 1960-61?


Lionel Chevrier: This vote is for 1959-60.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, but I thought the question put by the hon. gentleman, if I correctly recall it, concerned rather the fiscal year 1960-61.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know that I had that in mind when I put the question because it was a general question. I simply asked the minister how many Canadian students would benefit under the plan and the minister said he would let me know in the course of the debate. I am sure there were other questions, but I did not get an answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I would be glad to remind him and get the answer for the hon. gentleman. This item is a new item of $11,000. There is provision for this in the 1960-61 estimates. It has not appeared previously in the 1959-60 estimates, but it was found necessary to make some provision during the present fiscal year to finance Canada's participation in the scheme before March 31. Approximately $2,600 is required to cover travelling and living expenses for members of the Canadian scholarship committee to meetings which will have been held before the end of the fiscal year, and an amount of $8,400 has been recommended to be paid to the Canadian Universities Foundation for services which they have rendered.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister say how many students will benefit under this plan, and what the total cost of it will be?
Supply-External Affairs


Donald Methuen Fleming: There have been no students designated as yet. The plan, of course, came out of the commonwealth trade and economic conference which was held in Montreal, and it is contemplated that when the plan is launched-hon. members will recall it is this September that the plan will be officially launched-there will be approximately 1,000 students from all parts of the commonwealth for whom scholarships will be provided.
In the distribution of cost the United Kingdom indicated at that conference that it was prepared to accept one half of the cost. We undertook on behalf of Canada to bear one quarter, and other countries of the commonwealth came forward and indicated the shares they were prepared to assume.
The next stage was the conference held at Oxford last July at which all the countries of the commonwealth were represented. It was an educational conference and the details of the plan were worked out there by a quite impressive array of educationists from all parts of the commonwealth.


Lionel Chevrier: May I go a step further and inquire whether the number of students in Canada will be in proportion to the participation by Canada in the total cost, that is, a quarter thereof?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think not necessarily, Mr. Chairman, but I speak subject to correction and I will bring that question of the hon. gentleman to the attention of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it possible to find out now what is likely to be the cost of this plan which will be inaugurated, as the minister said, in September?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The item provided in our main estimates for 1960-61 is $500,000 as Canada's share. Of course, it will take time to have this plan fully set up. In other words, there will not be a thousand students selected all in the first year. It is expected that the period of a student's study abroad for which the scholarship will be provided will vary from two to three years on an average. Consequently, when the scheme is fully in effect Canada's contribution is likely to be at least $1 million a year.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a very welcome and a very forward step which is being taken by the commonwealth nations in providing for an exchange of university students on the basis of a thousand scholarships. I think that providing educational training, particularly to people who come from the less developed countries, will enable them to be of immense service to

Supply-External Affairs their own countries when they return, and to make a part, admittedly only a small part, of Canada's educational facilities available to those students is a very excellent gesture. This is not a grand scheme involving fabulous sums of money. It is more of a symbol of what can be done among nations of the commonwealth to promote good relations and to promote the training of citizens of various countries in order to help in the future development of their own lands. The point I should like to make at this time is that I do hope this scheme may be broadened or that a scheme similar to this may be added thereto. We are a bi-cultural nation. We have universities in Canada engaged in education and training where French is the language used. I ask the minister to what extent the facilities of our French universities can be used in addition, of course, to the facilities of our English universities.
I make the suggestion to the minister that Canada should explore the possibility of entering into an exchange scholarship scheme with the French community, having in mind particularly the fact in Africa a number of nations within the French community are now emerging to national and independent status. This would be not only a means of providing educational facilities for young citizens of those countries but it would also tend, I believe, to improve our relations with the French community and provide facilities for the training of the citizens of those countries to help in their own future development.
I think it would be somewhat difficult, considering all the circumstances, to provide a very substantial portion of training in our French universities for students already coming to Canada under the commonwealth scheme. Therefore this might be an innovation of a type which would enable our French-speaking universities to play a full and important part in the training of citizens from other countries in our own land.
As I am sure the minister will recognize, this suggestion is not being put forward in any partisan way but is merely an obvious extension of the kind of plan which I believe will commend itself to the Canadian people as a whole and which could play a useful part in the development of the lr'es of citizens in other countries of the world and also in the national development of the countries from which those people come. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to ask almost the same question as the one just put by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue).
I might now ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) to give us more specific de-

tails. When Canadian students want to study in another commonwealth country, will they be allowed to do so in their own language, if they are French-speaking Canadians, or will they have to enrol at an English university?
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: The basic duality of the Canadian culture, of course, is kept in mind at all times. When the Canadian educationists were selected to represent Canada at the Oxford conference last summer, the Canadian group included some very distinguished educationists from the Frenchspeaking universities. I think hon. members will bear in mind that in the provision of openings for students the question rests basically with each university to decide what accommodation it is in a position to offer. In addition, of course, in ascertaining what scholarships can be made available to students from other lands arrangements must be worked out in association with the Canadian universities themselves. This is one reason why the Canadian scholarship committee has been set up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have already expressed our support for this scheme. We did so when it was first announced. It is a valuable and imaginative initiative. We all wish it success, and we approve of the estimates for this purpose.
As the minister has pointed out, the value will largely be of a reciprocal character. We think of the scheme largely in terms of students from other parts of the commonwealth coming to Canada, but there is also, of course, the value which the scheme will have for Canadian students who go abroad. As the minister has stated, its special value will be the opportunity it will afford to students from what we sometimes call the materially underdeveloped parts of the commonwealth, though they may not be underdeveloped in other ways at all.
I should hope, though I know the committee will have to work these things out, that special encouragement will be given to these students to go to parts of the commonwealth other than the United Kingdom, because there are so many existing schemes and scholarships by means of which they can go to the United Kingdom at the present time. By the same token, I hope it will be possible to encourage Canadian students to go to parts of the commonwealth other than the United Kingdom to continue their work, because we have so many arrangements enabling our students to go to the United Kingdom at the present time, arrangements from which many of us have benefited.

It may well be that a Canadian student in, let us say, an Asian country of the commonwealth will not learn as much about high level bridges as he might in some other commonwealth country, but he will perhaps learn a good deal about building bridges of understanding, and I am sure that is one of the purposes which the government had in mind when they encouraged this development.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for what he has said about this vote. A great deal of thought was given to this enterprise before it was launched at the commonwealth trade and economic conference at Montreal.
I do not think it would be amiss, in referring gratefully to his memory, to recall that the Canadian position at this conference with regard to the enterprise we are now considering was put forward by the late Hon. Sidney E. Smith. It was a project which was very dear to his heart. I do not need to remind the committee that he had taken a very active part in higher education in Canada and in developing the concept of the value of exchanges in the educational field between the different countries of the commonwealth.
The United Kingdom took a leading part in sponsoring this proposal. Lord Home, the secretary of state for commonwealth relations, spoke for the United Kingdom on this subject and it was, I think, as those of us who were privileged to be present will recall, one of the high points of the conference. Some of the expressions which came from the representatives of the colonial territories in relation to this plan would have warmed the hearts of all hon. members had they been present to hear them spoken. High hopes are held concerning this commonwealth scholarship scheme, and it may be that over the years students will enjoy benefits as a result of this plan which will enable them to devote to the service of their countries in the commonwealth talents and training which will be of very great value to the people of all parts of this family of nations.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister could say whether any thought is being given to an extension of this plan or to a new plan of a similar nature for an exchange of students with the French community as an appropriate way to recognize the bilingual nature of our country as well as the desirability of such a plan and the further advantage of improving our relations with that community.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is, of course, a commonwealth plan. No suggestion has ever
Supply-External Affairs been made that there should be an extension of this plan to include countries outside the commonwealth. As far as a separate plan is concerned as between Canada on the one hand and the French nations on the other, I have not heard of any suggestion of that nature as yet.


Hazen Robert Argue: Although the minister has not heard of it, I have made this suggestion on a number of occasions. The minister will be pleased to know it was given an excellent response in the French language newspapers of this country and a number of impressive articles have subsequently appeared supporting the idea. I commend it to the minister and to the government for consideration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee would like to be reminded that this is not exactly a new idea. There were a great many blocked funds after the war and under the aegis of my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, they were used for precisely this purpose not only in France but in many other countries of Europe.
(Translation):


Mr. Dorion:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks on this item.
I believe that student exchanges within the commonwealth are an excellent thing and that, because of them, we may reach better understanding and closer relationship between commonwealth countries.
Equally excellent, at least in part, are the suggestions of the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue). There is such a thing as "l'Union culturelle francaise," which is not a government agency but which has a similar purpose among French communities or French groups scattered throughout the world.
Besides, I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has already received with great cordiality a delegation from that organization.
I do not know in what form something similar might be provided for the people of French language and culture, who represent no less than a third of Canada's population. However, knowing the extremely friendly feelings of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) towards our ethnic group, I should be extremely happy if he could find a way to give equal opportunities to Canada's French-Canadian group. Perhaps, for instance, something similar might be attempted within

Supply-External Affairs NATO, where there are a number of Frenchspeaking countries, or perhaps we might consider student exchanges between Latin America and French Canada.
Besides, it should not be restricted to French Canadians, but should be open to all Canadians, whether English- or Frenchspeaking, wishing to get closer to French cultural centres. I am sure the Minister of Finance will give the matter careful consideration, in view of the true friendliness he has always shown to Canada's French language cultural group.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
647.	Gift of uranium to the international atomic energy agency, $61,842.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, this vote represents a gift of uranium to the international atomic energy agency. Would the minister give some indication as to what other gifts of uranium were made to this international agency by other governments?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, Canada made the one gift in this case. A request was made by Japan for three tons of natural uranium metal. That request was made to the international atomic energy agency. Canada offered to provide the entire amount and that offer was accepted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not objecting to this vote, Mr. Chairman, and indeed, I support it. I think it was a good thing to have done, but the fact that we are the only government that has taken this action is interesting because the United States which is also a large producer of uranium has been making gifts of enriched uranium to other countries in connection with the building of reactors in these countries. Indeed, I believe United States policy has been to assist these countries in the construction of reactors of a type which can use only the kind of enriched uranium that is made in the United States and not in Canada. It is an interesting contrast, if you like, that we are making our gifts of uranium to the international agency without any commercial considerations attached to them-nor should there be, of course-while the United States seems to be making gifts of enriched uranium which we do not produce to individual countries in connection with reactors being built in those countries, sometimes at the expense of the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Mr. Dorion.l
648.	Expenses in connection with Canada's participation in the world refugee year and, notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act, to authorize payments to be made pursuant to this vote up to the 1st day of April, 1961; there shall be charged to this vote and included in the unexpended balance of vote 55 of the main estimates, 1959-60, an amount equal to the amount spent and charged to that vote in connection with the world refugee year, $600,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to recall to the committee that when we were discussing world refugee year in the last session of parliament I reminded hon. members that the government of Canada just before the Hungarian uprising had had a survey made by a senior officer of the immigration branch and a senior officer of the citizenship branch of the refugee camps in Europe with a view to seeing whether we could not on our own do something more than was then being done about reducing the population of these camps, and that by a curious coincidence I was on the verge of making certain recommendations to my colleagues when we were overwhelmed by the Hungarian problem and the matter was left in abeyance for the time being. I confess that I regret to have to say I never had another opportunity to make those recommendations.
Meanwhile, of course, the suggestion came for a general approach to this problem under the aegis of the United Nations commissioner for refugees in the form of world refugee year. We are all very pleased to hear the announcement the other day that the movement of the 100 families had been so successful and had cost so much less than was anticipated that the government proposed to make some extension of that program. When I have concluded perhaps the minister would tell us what numbers he envisages would be included in this extension. I am not going to urge at this time that there should be any very large increase in the strictly governmental participation in this scheme because I believe that the concrete and constructive suggestions I intend to make would in fact be preferable.
As soon as it was published I carefully examined the little booklet prepared by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration setting out the conditions for the admission of unsponsored and sponsored refugees to Canada. In most respects it seems to me these conditions are highly satisfactory. There is one of these conditions that has so far seemed to be an obstacle to one single refugee being brought to this country under private sponsorship. I should like to read that requirement to the committee. The requirement is that the sponsor must-and then

there are set out four requirements which I will not bother to read:
(v) provide assurance, where the refugee suffers from illness which will require treatment in Canada, that he will receive the medical care he needs. When the illness is such that institutional care is necessary, the approval of the provincial health authorities must be obtained before the refugee can be permitted to come to Canada.
The brochure then lists certain conditions that must be fulfilled by the refugee. He must be of good character and so forth.
It goes on to say:
The Canadian government does not set a limit to the period or to the extent of the responsibility assumed by the sponsors. Relief of indigent residents of Canada is normally the responsibility of the municipalities and the provinces. A sponsored immigrant who finds himself in need of assistance is a burden on the municipality or the province if his sponsor fails to live up to the guarantees he gave when applying for the immigrant's admission. This will explain that the Canadian government should insist that sponsors of immigrants, including refugees, accept full responsibility for the persons brought to Canada under their sponsorship until they become eligible for normal municipal or provincial social and welfare benefits. Sponsors who may wish to ascertain the extent of their responsibility and the nature of the welfare assistance available from municipal or provincial authorities, which vary from province to province, are requested to get in touch with these authorities for further information. Sponsors may also wish to take advantage of hospital insurance plans in respect of the refugees whom they have sponsored.
As the representations which were made to the Prime Minister the other day by the welfare council, and which the Prime Minister put on Hansard on March 3, clearly show, the welfare council and others interested have found that this requirement is one that is in fact in practice a bar to any effective action. It has proved to be up till now and in my opinion it will continue to be a complete bar. I know it is not intended to be. I am not for a minute suggesting that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the government as a whole put this requirement in deliberately to make the sponsorship unworkable, but that has been the effect of it.
Not only has it been the effect, but it is precisely what I told the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the last session of parliament would be the effect. I had some experience in administering the Hungarian refugee movement and I know that it is almost impossible for the federal government to negotiate with provincial and municipal authorities about this particular matter with any finality or with any satisfaction, and it is quite impossible for private sponsors to do it. I am sure that is why the welfare council made the recommendation it did. It was that the federal government, in consultation with the provinces, arrange as expeditiously as possible for the acceptance of
Supply-External Affairs public responsibility for established public health and welfare services for privately sponsored refugee families admitted under the government's program for private sponsorship during the world refugee year.
When the Prime Minister announced on the seventeenth of March the decisions that the government had already reached with respect to these representations he said that they had agreed with some of them, and I am sure that there was a good deal of satisfaction taken over that. The first of their recommendations and, far and away, sir, the most important of them, the Prime Minister said he was not able to deal with at that time because a decision had not been reached about it. Now, here is my suggestion. I do not agree entirely with the recommendation of the welfare council and I am going beyond what they suggested. If we really mean business at all about this world refugee year and about private sponsorship-personally I should like to see more private sponsorship and that is what I am urging, more private sponsorship and more ease for private sponsorship instead of any large addition to the direct government movement-I am quite convinced that this problem can be very easily solved if the government will do, with respect to these privately sponsored refugees, precisely what was done in the case of the Hungarian refugees.
The federal government should undertake the residual responsibility of health care after a certain period for those refugees who are admitted and who are going to be selected by the United Nations commissioner for refugees. I think it is quite reasonable to expect that the sponsors should look after them for a year. It seems to me, sir, that should be done instead of trying to leave the sponsors with an open-ended commitment which many of those voluntary organizations cannot in conscience undertake because they cannot be sure that two years hence they may have the same officers or the same personnel or, in fact, that they will be in a position to carry it out. Most of them are composed of people who take their responsibilities and regard their word seriously, and would not want to subscribe their names to something that was not going to be carried out.
It seems to me, sir, that this is not suggesting any very great burden on the treasury. I am going to give two reasons for this view. The first is the one that was given the other day by the Prime Minister or by the Secretary of State for External Affairs; I forget which one of them it was that told us how much less costly and how much more encouraging this movement of the 100 families was than it was expected to be,

Supply-External Affairs how much more quickly those people were recovering and how much easier the integration was proving to be. But I think even more striking, sir, were the answers which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration gave the other day to the questions I put on the order paper about the Hungarian refugee movement.
As the committee knows, we admitted to this country 37,727 Hungarian refugees, most of them without any medical examination whatsoever before they arrived in Canada. It is true they were given a medical examination for the purpose of determining after they got here whether they could be landed as immigrants or whether they would be admitted temporarily under other status. Now, it happens that 1,380 of those 37,000 were allowed entry as non-immigrants and, in most cases, they were allowed entry as non-immigrants for health reasons because they could not satisfy the medical requirements. Three years later there are only 17 of those people receiving help from the federal government out of a total of 37,700. Out of 1,380 who could not satisfy health requirements-I do not say they were all people who could not satisfy the health requirements 'but most of them would have been-there are 17 today, three years later, receiving help from the federal government.
If I may be permitted, sir, to refer to this, the other day I had the privilege of attending the tea given by the Hungarian-Canadian committee in Knox church, and I wish that every hon. member could have been there because that function was organized almost entirely not by the older Hungarian community, though they helped, but by people who came here three years ago without a thing except the clothes they were wearing and who today are as well dressed as anybody you would see in Ottawa. Most of them spoke very good English, and it was a function that anyone in any part of Canada would have been proud to have had a part in organizing. Now, sir, that was something that was possible because the Hungarian refugees did not moulder away for years in camps. There was enough action taken, enough co-operation and enough world interest to get them dealt with quickly. We can hardly expect quite as good results in the case of the residual population of those camps who have been there for so long; but surely that is all the more reason why we should do everything practicable that we can to make a really worth-while contribution to this refugee problem.
I do believe that there is plenty of voluntary enthusiasm for this refugee movement of a practical nature and that if we could get
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
rid of this one obstacle with regard to continuing health care-I do not say that the government should do it all; I think it would be quite reasonable to say that the sponsors should take that responsibility for the first year but I feel that the government can do what we did for the Hungarians-then after one year if the refugees cannot satisfy the normal municipal or provincial health and welfare requirements for such care as is ^publicly given by these provinces or municipalities, the federal government should in fact accept that residual responsibility. If that were done I venture to say that on that basis it would cost a very small sum indeed. It would remove the most irritating obstacle, and it is really not reasonable to expect the municipal and provincial governments to give commitments about this matter. I am sure that the Minister of Labour, who was once the mayor of one of the leading cities in Ontario, would agree, because I know he held those views some years ago when I was minister of immigration and he was a private member of this house. These people may live in a municipality and then go somewhere else, or they may not ever have been taxpayers of the municipality at all. There is migration from one province to another.
As a matter of fact, what we are trying to do here is to make a national contribution to this problem. All of us with experience know this will continue to be a practical obstacle to the movement of people, and it could be removed for a very small contribution. It does seem to me, sir, that it should and could be done and that the vast majority of the Canadian people would be very pleased indeed to see their government do it. I am sorry the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration are not here to listen to what I have to say. I am sure that with the experience they have had already they would find it very difficult to disagree with the opinion I have expressed.
I know from my experience that in the final analysis the barrier that has to be overcome is the barrier provided by the treasury board and its chairman. The chairman of the treasury board is in front of me, and I appeal to his large heart, as well as to his head, because I venture to say, sir, that most of these people who may require medical care now will be making a contribution five years from now to the production of this country out of all proportion to anything it will cost the taxpayers to carry out the suggestion I have made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether the minister could give me some information as to the extent of this problem when world refugee

year is over. I have heard it said, and I do not know whether or not the statement is accurate, that by the end of June-I think that is the closing date of world refugee year-all the camps in Europe will be cleared.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is the hope and expectation. The year began on June 28, 1959 and closes July 1, 1960. It is the hope and expectation that the camps would be cleared by the end of that period.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If that can be done, and it looks as if it will be done, then that is the end at long last of a chapter of post-war experience. It is not a very happy commentary on our society that it has taken from 1945 to 1960 to clear the European camps of refugees. Some countries have perhaps done more than others, but I think our record over the years in Canada has been good in this respect. However, no one can deny we could have done more. Some of the European countries, without our resources or our wealth, have made proportionately a much larger contribution than we have in Canada.
However, the problem will not be ended when world refugee year ends because, as the minister knows, there will be refugees in camps outside of Europe. There is the problem of Asian refugees and the refugees in the Middle East. I express the hope that this activity will not end with the ending of world refugee year. Perhaps it would be a good idea to continue world refugee year to focus the attention of the world on this problem. Perhaps the government will have an opportunity of continuing this work in continuing world refugee year. If they do, 1 think they will get very general support in the house and in the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister the figures for the addition to one hundred?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no figure available yet. It is not possible yet to be at all precise about it. The 100 families numbered altogether 344 persons. It was found that the cost was approximately $225,000. Now, if this works out in proportion it might be expected, that on that basis another 500 refugees could be accommodated within the scope of this present appropriation. But I do not want to lead the committee to think that I am making any estimate now as to the number that could come within the scope of the appropriation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the Minister of
Finance indicate whether or not he is bringing the suggestions I have made to the attention of his colleagues?
Supply-External Affairs


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. I hope I was not delinquent in that respect. I listened quite intently to the remarks that were so earnestly delivered by the hon. member, and I will certainly bring them to the attention of my colleagues, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
649.	Canadian government's assessment towards financing the United Nations emergency force in respect of the calendar year 1960 in the amount of $307,182 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of March, 1960, which is, $291,919.
Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a vote of $291,000 for Canada's assessment toward financing the United Nations emergency force in respect of the calendar year 1960. The minister knows, of course, that when this force was established it was understood by those who supported the establishment, whether or not they contributed to it in terms of men and material, that the expenses of the force would be shared amongst the governments concerned at the United Nations. Therefore, I should like to know the amount of the total expenses of this force and the contributions made by Canada to it, and what proportion of the total expenses those contributions represent. If he has the figures, I should like to know what has been contributed by the other governments.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the approved budget of the United Nations expeditionary force during 1960 is, in round figures, 20 million United States dollars. In so far as assessment is concerned, there is a provision for a voluntary contribution on the part of the United States and the United Kingdom of one half of the total. Canada is assessed for 3.11 per cent of 50 per cent of the $20 million, less equalization credits or 307,182 United States dollars. The equivalent in Canadian dollars is the amount of this item.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it from what the minister has said it has not been possible to work out at the United Nations assembly a graded scale of contributions covering all those members who are willing to be covered. I know there are some members in the United Nations, including the communist states, who have not contributed and who have indicated they will not contribute one dollar to this international activity. Has there been an agreement on the allocation of expenses amongst the other members or have they just worked it out by rule of thumb, as the minister has indicated?

Supply-External Affairs


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am afraid it has been the latter situation. As a matter of fact, there are many members of the United Nations that are delinquent so far as contributions to the support of the expeditionary force are concerned. I have a list before me. There are some 30 of them that are delinquent for a three-year period, half a dozen for two years, and another half a dozen for one year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That, of course, is a very unhappy record from which no one can get any satisfaction. I know there are some members of the United Nations, as 1 have just stated, who have objected to this assessment and have said from the beginning that they would not pay anything toward the expenses of this international force. I know the Arab states have taken that position, namely, that it was not the kind of activity that would involve them in any expense of any kind. I know there are also some other members of the United Nations who have supported and approved this emergency force but who have not done anything to meet its expenses at all. The minister has indicated the expenses of Canada as being placed at 3.11 per cent. It seems to me that is not an unreasonable percentage.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is 3.11 per cent of the 50 per cent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it that allocation would not cover the expenses incurred for the maintenance, supply and transport of our own contingents in that force?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In addition to meeting all the expenses of the Canadian participation, and Canadian participation has been very respectable, to say the least, in that matter we have made a contribution to the force as a whole as well?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, indeed. Canada has made a very notable and formidable contribution to this enterprise, not only through her contribution of men to the force but in her contribution toward its cost.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So we pay all our own expenses and help to pay the expenses of some other participating governments which are not able to meet their own expenses?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not complaining about that fact but it is deplorable that a great international effort of this kind, which has certainly made a contribution to the stabilization of conditions in that part of the


world, should not be maintained on a more equitable international basis.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
650.	To reimburse the agricultural commodities stabilization account for dry skimmed milk donated to international relief agencies, organizations and governments-further amount required, $1,064,220.
William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask the minister for some clarification of this particular item. Last year the Minister of Agriculture told us that we had a surplus of about 25 million pounds of skimmed milk that we could not give away. As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, at the time the price of skimmed milk was not exceedingly high in Canada. Yet we have found that in one year we have been able to give away $1 million worth of skimmed milk powder.
I think this is a matter of great importance to the farmers of Canada, particularly as it relates to the argument that is used that any purchase under stabilization or stabilized prices of agricultural products will create or is apt to create a surplus if it is done in a sizeable amount. This is a case where the federal government have been able to take the surplus and to use it for worth-while purposes and have been able at the same time to do something else.
If you will note, Mr. Chairman, in local stores in the city of Ottawa the price of skimmed milk powder has gone up approximately 40 per cent. A year ago 10 pounds of skimmed milk powder in Ottawa cost $2.50. Today 10 pounds of the same skimmed milk powder cost $3.40 or $3.50. Hence the effect of this give-away program has been, in my opinion, advantageous on several counts. In the first place it has been able to increase the price of the product in the local market and so to stabilize the production of this commodity for local consumption and at the same time it has been used for very worth-while purposes in the relief agencies to which it has been donated. I would ask the Minister of Finance whether he can tell us what international relief agencies benefited from this gift and by how much in each case.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The organizations which benefited are eight in number. Perhaps I could give the amounts in round figures. These figures are in pounds. I can give the exact figures if they are required.


William Arnold Peters: Oh, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Suppose we use the round figures. They are as follows: UNICEF, 46 million pounds; Unitarian Service Committee of Canada, 600,000 pounds; Canadian Lutheran world relief, 2.3 million

pounds; Canadian council of churches, 327,000 pounds; Care of Canada, 14.1 million pounds; Canadian Red Cross Society, 60,000 pounds, Canadian save the children fund, 147,000 pounds; Gold Cross, 30,000 pounds. These figures make a total of 64,512,182 pounds.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, next year if we had to provide for the relief of needy people, would we be able to do so?
In other words, is there any milk powder left in storage which we could supply to relief agencies?
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: The surplus that existed some time ago has been practically disposed of. I have given the figures, Mr. Chairman, of the gifts to these eight organizations aggregating 641 million pounds. Broadly speaking, there is no surplus on hand now.


William Moore Benidickson: May I also ask the minister this question? Am I right in thinking that no support is being given to skimmed milk at the present time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is correct.


William Moore Benidickson: What I mean is that the crown is not obliged to pay anything for the support of skimmed milk under this legislation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is correct.


William Arnold Peters: Can the minister tell us whether any of this skimmed milk powder that has been distributed went to Japan? If so, is some of it the skimmed milk powder that has been involved in the recent reports of serious illness as a result of school distribution of this product or is there any further information as to what the actual cause of this occurrence was? If there is not, is the department considering making an investigation in that particular country on our behalf in order to clarify this problem? I think it is generally conceded by all Canadians that there is certainly nothing in skimmed milk powder to produce the results that are indicated and that contamination must have taken place from some other source. As we have established an international market for skimmed milk powder, I think we should protect it and maintain the reputation that I think we have built up and the good will that we have established by the gifts we have made amounting to, as the minister has just told us, some 64 million pounds.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the minister made a statement in regard to this matter in the house several days ago. I 79951-0-157
Supply-External Affairs think the hon. gentleman probably will find his answer in Hansard in the minister's statement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
651.	To reimburse the agricultural commodities stabilization account for canned pork donated to Japan for the relief of typhoon victims, $60,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister tell the committee whether there is still a supply of canned pork on hand?


William Moore Benidickson: We are on vote 651.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; that is the one. Can the minister tell the committee whether there is still in the warehouses a supply of canned pork? What amount was given to Japan? Does the government contemplate giving additional amounts?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer is that there is still a quantity of canned pork on hand, very definitely. Second, the gift to Japan consisted of 100,000 pounds of canned pork purchased at a price of 60 cents per pound, the item here being $60,000.


Mr. Winch:: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether he can give an explanation of a peculiar quirk in economics. We have had a great deal of canned pork purchased by the government in order to stabilize the pork producers of this country. We gave it away in these instances. I have no question about that matter at all. We try to sell it at give-away prices, and if the minister would take his wife's place and do some shopping he would find on the shelves a canned pork meat loaf which is imported from France. Can he explain the economics of that situation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I would not think it would be a very general situation that the hon. member has described. How much canned pork comes into this country from France I do not know, but I would think that canned pork from an outside country at the present time would find it difficult to make much headway in Canada with the quantities of pork being produced here and the fact that, under our price support program, such a very large quantity of it is on hand.


Harold Edward Winch: The thing that brought the matter to my mind is that half an hour ago I got a letter from one of your constituents asking me to find out why.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said it would be hard to sell French canned pork in this country. Is the government selling any of its own canned pork?

Supply-Finance


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, we are not
selling the canned pork in the open market.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the government selling it in some closed market then?


William Moore Benidickson: To whom is it giving the pork away?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In this particular case to Japan. It was found that the number of countries of the world which are interested in acquiring canned pork is a much smaller number of countries than those interested, for instance, in acquiring things like skimmed milk. It is a matter of diet and some religious observances.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
652.	To reimburse the agricultural commodities stabilization account for canned pork donated to international relief agencies, $1,096,442.
William Moore Benidickson: On this item which is related very closely to the previous item perhaps the minister would give us a little more information as to the development of the disposal of canned pork. I think he will recognize that in reply to a question of mine not long ago the ministry indicated that the cost of storing canned pork in this country at the moment was at a figure of about $40,000 per week.
The minister presides over treasury board, and I am sure that as chairman he is very concerned about an item which seems to cost something in excess of $2 million a year. I am confident that memos have been given to him in recent times about this very important item of expenditure, and perhaps before we pass this item the minister might just indicate what the intentions of the government are in this respect.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, in connection with this item the government did provide some 5,500,000 pounds of canned pork to six world relief organizations and we still have a formidable supply of canned pork on hand. I have indicated one of the reasons just now, but I can assure the committee that my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, is doing all a man can do to meet this problem of our very large surplus.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Contingencies and miscellaneous-
653.	Telephone service at Ottawa for all departments-further amount required, $87,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would give some explanation of this item. I remember that when we were on the other side of the

house there was always a great deal of complaint-sometimes it was vociferous and sometimes it was bitter-about the tremendous amounts of telephone bills. This is a large amount by way of an addition. It is a supplementary item of $87,000, and while it is for telephone service at Ottawa for all departments I presume it covers a certain amount having to do with long distance calls. I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to break it down, and after having done that perhaps he might tell us what the total amount of the telephone bill is going to be for the fiscal period 1959-60.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, it is one of the misfortunes of the Department of Finance that the telephone expenses of all departments are charged to the Department of Finance. This was a consolidation which was carried out some time ago before the change of government. I accept no responsibility for this kind of consolidation. It makes the Department of Finance appear sometimes to be assuming responsibilities which do not belong to it. This item is to supplement a vote in the main estimates of $1,326,200, and this additional sum is required to meet the increased cost of monthly accounts for switchboard equipment and local service by reason of a tariff adjustment effective December 1, 1958, to apply to the fiscal year 195960.


Lionel Chevrier: Where is the switchboard?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Here in Ottawa The hon. gentleman asked for the figure for the forthcoming year. Item 118 in the main estimates for 1960-61 gives the figure as $1,458,800. We have been faced with the results of these tariff adjustments.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the $1,458,800-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No-$1,413,200 is the total for 1959-60.


Lionel Chevrier: Is that for Ottawa alone?


Donald Methuen Fleming: To which year is the hon. gentleman referring?


Lionel Chevrier: 1959-60. The minister gave me a figure of $1,326,200, I thought.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The sum of
$1,326,200 is the same vote in the main estimates for the present year, and that is to be increased by $87,000, making a total for this present fiscal year of $1,413,200.


Lionel Chevrier: Is that for Ottawa alone?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


William Moore Benidickson: The Minister of Finance indicated that prior to his assumption of responsibility in the Department of Finance

it had been felt by all departments that the Minister of Finance who is in charge of treasury board was perhaps the person who, over all, should review possibilities of economy in connection with an item of this kind. That is why it is under the minister's jurisdiction.
The minister has introduced estimates into this house for the forthcoming year which include an item such as is before us, and I find that under column 8 of his estimates for the coming year it is indicated that he proposes to spend $22 million as against $19 million in the last fiscal year. I suggest to the minister that this is a point that should be carefully considered by the Minister of Finance, because it was given to the Minister of Finance as an item for economy for a very good reason. Yet we see increases despite the fact that the Minister of Finance in past years used to complain against the former administration that they allowed this item to rise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister tell us, as a result of his listening in, how many unnecessary telephone calls and how much unnecessary cost through the sort of wasteful extravagance which he talked about in June of 1957, if he remembers that date, he has been able to eliminate?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I can say this, that I have stood pretty firm against requests for extending services in different departments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are there as many telephone instruments in the government departments today as there were on June 21, 1957?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would not want to undertake to answer that question offhand because it would depend to some extent on how you measure the equipment. There has been a good deal of consolidation in equipment, switchboards, and that sort of thing. Changes of that nature have been occurring in the past couple of years. If the hon. gentleman wants something specific I would be glad to get that information for him, but I would hesitate to make a general answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think we want to hold up these supplementary estimates, but in view of the fact that for many years we had to listen to eloquent speeches on this subject from the hon. gentleman and some of his colleagues, I think that when the main estimates come along we should like a report from the Minister of Finance as to what he is doing about this telephone problem. It does seem a lot to be spending, $1J 79951-0-157J
Supply-Finance
million, for just the calls which take place in Ottawa, not counting those made in the rest of the country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I cannot control the rates, of course. The hon. member will agree with that, I think.


William Moore Benidickson: This item deals with telephone calls with respect to Ottawa.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Telephone service.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not expect the
Minister of Finance to have full details with respect even to the section of the department which is strictly his, the minister's office, and still less with respect to the whole of his department, but I do hope that between the present time and the presentation of the final estimates for the coming year he personally will investigate whether or not there is adequate control in his own office over the number of long distance calls that are being made in comparison to the number made under his predecessor.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister did not answer my question in relation to the number of local calls as compared with long distance calls. Could the hon. gentleman tell us how much of the account which he has mentioned went for long distance telephone calls?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I do not have the breakdown showing that. This is a figure which covers the telephone service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
654.	To authorize the treasury board to delete from the accounts certain debts due to, and claims of Her Majesty, each of which is in excess of $1,000, amounting in the aggregate to $960,734.50, $1.
Lionel Chevrier: With regard to this vote, there is a detailed statement on page 16 of the various claims which amount to $960,000, roughly speaking $1 million. This sum is made up of claims as high as 153 in number from the Department of National Revenue and 52, in another instance, from the Department of National Defence, the first amounting to $674,000 and the other to $170,000. Can the minister give some indication what these claims are for?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. This is really an annual practice. Under the amendment to the Financial Administration Act passed a year ago, provision was made that there might be write-offs of certain amounts without further reference to parliament. Careful investigation has, of course, taken place to determine whether there is any hope of the recovery of the amounts claimed. That investigation is carried on in the first place by the particular department concerned, and then the matter goes to the treasury board. The

Supply-Finance
details shown on page 16 indicate that the amounts in the various departments aggregate $960,734.50. The reasons for the applications differ. Sometimes it is a case of insolvency. Sometimes it is a case of a claim which, except against the crown, would be long since outlawed under the statute of limitations. Sometimes it is a case where it has been found that there is just no hope of recovery, involving, for example, some indigent person advanced in years who has no hope of ever being on his feet financially again to answer a claim. The claims vary in amount, but I would say they average between $1,000 and $2,000. There may be some in excess of that figure. In the Department of National Revenue I see two claims of $23,000 each. But in every case I can give the committee an assurance that there is no suggestion of writing off any claim which has any real value whatever. Incidentally, those two cases that I mentioned in the Department of National Revenue arose respectively in 1932 and 1937, and in this list which is before me some go back even to 1925.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know that I understand fully what the claims are for, and how it has anything to do with this item of telephones.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are on the next item, Mr. Chairman.


Mr.   Chairman@: Shall item 654 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: No. What are these debts for?


Donald Methuen Fleming: They arise in a multitude of ways. These are sums owing to the crown and they arise in different departments in just about every way that debts can arise in favour of the crown. This is a procedure that is carried out periodically.


Lionel Chevrier: I was not questioning the procedure. I wanted to get some information about these various items. The minister a moment ago said something about the statute of limitations. Does the statute of limitations apply as against the crown?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It does not run against the crown.


William Moore Benidickson: I noticed that the minister, when answering the inquiry of the hon. member for Laurier, thumbed through three or four pages of notes, information which is always supplied, as we all understand, to the minister when items of this kind are being discussed. I do not think that the committee wants at this stage to go into an exhaustive discussion of every item that might be represented in the over-all total, although this item is very large. I think, perhaps, that in the circumstances the minister might
IMr. Fleming (Eglinton).]
be willing to review and then table the explanatory notes that I am sure have been provided by the treasury board with respect to these write-offs which involve possible claims of the crown with respect to sums of over $1,000 in each case. Otherwise, as I think the minister will agree, the discussion here could go on interminably. Certainly on this side we would want a little more information about, for example, the 153 claims of the Department of National Revenue which total $674,000. I would be willing, if other members of the committee are willing, to have the minister submit his explanatory notes to explain this item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, I do not think that is a very happy suggestion. There are pages and pages of this material. I may say that with respect to one of the departments to which the hon. gentleman referred, the 153 claims that pertain to the Department of National Revenue, the list which I have, running to several pages, consists of bankruptcies. All these cases involve bankruptcies. In some cases one dividend was paid and that was the end of it. This is a matter of writing off the balance of a claim against a bankrupt estate. There is nothing unusual about this practice, and I am sure the hon. gentleman was familiar with it when he was parliamentary assistant to the minister of finance. I can assure members of the committee that these items are not written off if there is any hope of the recovery of any portion of them.


William Moore Benidickson: As so often happens, we find that when an offer is made to the Minister of Finance which might reduce the time taken in discussion in parliament the hon. gentleman seems to adopt the attitude that he just cannot be generous in replying. The recourse open to us is to begin immediately to ask, with respect to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, for details about the two claims indicated there which amount to $2,860. I was quite prepared to forgo the privilege which I think is mine as a member of the committee to go into this thing exhaustively because I am quite satisfied that the minister presiding over treasury board, and with the officials from whom he has help in reviewing all of these cases, acted in accordance with the proper principles that would be expected to apply, but I think we are at least entitled to the detailed information to establish that that is so. If the minister does not choose to do that I am afraid we will have to pursue this case by case under the supplementary estimates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suggest to the hon. gentleman not in any spirit of want of co-operation but as a practical matter that I do not think his suggestion is practical. The reason why it is not practical is that there are 17 or 18 pages, many of which are in small print. That has never been asked for before. If it were placed on Hansard there would be endless tables.


William Moore Benidickson: I would be quite agreeable to having the facts tabled if not printed in Hansard. The alternative, of course, as the chairman will recognize is to give-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will accept the suggestion of having a copy of these pages tabled. I may not be able to do it today.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not mean those particular pages but whatever the minister considers circumspect and proper with respect to the two claims for citizenship and immigration and the 153 in national revenue, and so on. I expect some co-operation and compliance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is entirely acceptable. If the hon. member is asking for tabling I accept his suggestion at once. I was speaking about having all of these pages in small print copied into Hansard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are all familiar with the fact that from time to time lists are published in newspapers of names of people with bank accounts about which they have forgotten. Is any effort made to give publicity to these debts owing to the crown before they are written off in the localities in which the people live? There may be some charity cases, as the minister has said, where this would not apply but there may be other delinquents who, if they knew their names were going to be published might pay.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I trust that in the case of anyone indebted to the crown who is in a position to pay the department concerned is making strenuous efforts to collect, but these have not been publicized in that way.


William Moore Benidickson: I assume that the minister being in charge of items in the main and supplementary estimates would be the one to decide as to the appropriateness of putting in an item of this kind here or elsewhere in the estimates, something that might relate to a forsaking on behalf of the crown on a bail bond, let us say, in a narcotics prosecution case. Would this be the item under which he would ask parliament to deal with the matter if there had been a forsaking on the part of the crown receiving a bail bond?
Supply-Finance


Donald Methuen Fleming: A debt to the crown can arise in many ways. If the hon. gentleman will tell me that he has a particular case in mind about which he wants me to make an inquiry I will be glad to do so.


William Moore Benidickson: I draw the attention of the minister to some questions that have already been raised this session but I assume that they conceivably refer to payments not necessarily made in the 1959-60 fiscal year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are no such payments involved in this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
656.	Contribution to the New Brunswick fishermen's disaster fund, $50,000.
Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, when the announcement was made last June that the federal government was prepared to contribute to the New Brunswick fishermen's disaster fund the announcement was received by all hon. members with appreciation. I should like the minister to inform us why there has been such a delay in providing this money. I understand the payment has not been made because the money was not voted. Since the announcement was made we have had before the committee a number of supplementary estimates-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that the money was paid. It was paid promptly last August. This is provided now to reimburse the governmental fund out of which the money was paid then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am going to crave the minister's indulgence for one moment to utter one sentence that is completely out of order, and it is this. We have had some very disastrous storms this winter which are going to make it virtually impossible for many fishermen on the Atlantic coast to carry on their fishing operations this year unless some assistance is given to them. Although not of a magnitude comparable to the disaster that occurred on the prairies last fall, it is a disaster that is every bit as great so far as the Atlantic coast fishing industry is concerned. I should like to ask the minister if he would commend this problem to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries to see if something could be done about it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries-
Special-
657.	Assistance in the construction of vessels of the dragger or long-liner type-further amount required, $124,512.
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Has the minister received any representations to the effect that there should be an increase in the amount of $165 per gross ton which is covered by this type of assistance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I am not personally aware of any. I will refer my hon. friend's inquiry to my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries. The figure mentioned is the standard subsidy. Of course, exceptions may be made to some of the restrictions attached to that subsidy by the minister but I am not aware of any representations myself. I will refer the matter to my colleague.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to ask the Minister of Finance to give serious consideration to increasing this assistance. This assistance covers subsidies on dragger and long-liner vessels and was first introduced during the war. After the war it was decided it should be carried on and the assistance was amended at that time. Since 1947 a total of $2,464,000 has been paid under this type of assistance.
When the system was introduced on the basis of $165 per ton, the cost of a 55- or 60-foot dragger was in the vicinity of $25,000. By 1953 the cost had risen to $39,000 and in the last year or two the cost for similar vessels has risen to between $70,000 and $75,000. Therefore, the subsidies which in the early years covered as much as 23 to 25 per cent of the cost of those vessels have decreased in their coverage to less than 10 per cent. I would ask the minister therefore to give serious consideration to increasing the subsidy to, let us say, $265 or $275 per ton. If for some special reason it is advisable not to increase the total amount, I feel in view of the fact that in the last four or five years the amount paid under this subsidy has been- Mr. Chairman, I see that it is now five o'clock.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: If I may interrupt you at this stage, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance and the government that so far as we on this side of the house are concerned we are quite prepared to go on with the consideration of the supplementary estimates, provided that is the view of our friends who sit to the right of us. If it is, perhaps this would be an opportunity of getting on with the business of the house.


Mr. Herridge:: This group, under the particularly pressing circumstances that exist

at the present time, are willing to go on with the estimates for the remainder of the afternoon.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank hon. members for their co-operation and appreciate this offer very much. I gladly accept it, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: I thought you were going to turn it down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not that one.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the motion was adopted that the resolutions be concurred in. I must have the concurrence of the house as to whether the committee shall have leave to sit again later this day or the next sitting of the house, as the case may be. By unanimous consent the house apparently is willing to waive the hour for private and public bills and to revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I see the Minister of National Defence has a word to say.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the business of the house at this time, but at 5.45 p.m. I propose to ask for the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions so that I can make an important statement regarding the revised air defence plan.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions at 5.45?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the committee will rise at that time and report progress.

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



DEPARTMENT OP FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
Special-
657. Assistance in the construction of vessels of the dragger or long-liner type-further amount required, $124,512.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose and reported progress at five o'clock I was just saying that in the last five or six years the amount spent under this item showed very little variation. I believe that this is the first year that the Minister of Finance has had to come before the committee with supplementary estimates to cover this item. I suggest to the minister that if under special circumstances the government decides that it should not spend

more than $400,000 or $500,000 a year as a set limit for this assistance, then in my opinion certain arrangements or agreements could be arrived at with the provinces concerned, since this is assistance that concerns only the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, to the effect that each province could not use more than a certain percentage of that amount, but I still insist that the basis of the assistance should be increased from $165 to $265 a gross ton. My reason for insisting on this is that the fisherman who purchases a boat that costs him $70,000 is put to very heavy expense which he has to cover during the fishing period which in most of the provinces, especially in New Brunswick, Quebec and Prince Edward Island, is limited to a season of six months.
On a $70,000 boat the fisherman is called upon to pay at least $2,000 a year in interest alone. He has to pay insurance costs in the vicinity of $1,000 besides that. In most cases he has to pay municipal taxes on the vessel amounting to $700 or often up to $1,000 a year.
If the purpose of this item is to help the fishermen on the basis of approximately 25 per cent of the cost of the vessel, and as the cost has more than doubled in the last 10 or 12 years, I again urge the minister to give this request very serious consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
660.	Northwest Territories-Administration of justice in the Northwest Territories, including the Northwest Territories territorial court-further amount required, $7,300.
Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister tell us what this item is for? I do not think the details are clear enough.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a sum required to meet additional expenditures incurred in the course of administration of justice in the Northwest Territories. This additional expenditure has been incurred in retaining the services of outside reporters and the services of sheriffs.


Lionel Chevrier: I see in the details that a portion of this item, $5,600, is for the maintenance of prisoners and juvenile delinquents. May I have some explanation of that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: These are expenses incurred in connection with some very lengthy trials, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are these expenses in the Northwest Territories defrayed by the federal government and not by the territorial administration, as they would be in a province?
Supply-Justice


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, we are responsible. This is in addition to the item that was provided in the main estimates of approximately $107,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
661.	Combines Ingestigation Act-Office of investigation and research-further amount required, $35,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister give some explanation of this item, and also can he tell the committee what the position is with reference to the Combines Investigation Act. The minister may recall that there was legislation on the order paper at the last session, which was amended first in one direction- I forget the details at the moment-and then later on it was decided to drop another portion of the legislation, and finally it was not proceeded with. Is it the intention to proceed with it at this session?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this $35,000 is required in connection with expenditures for fees and expenses of counsel, reporters, witnesses and other special assistants. The expenditure incurred in this respect was larger than was originally estimated.
In reference to the inquiry about legislation, I believe it is the intention of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to introduce a bill during the present session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What does this $35,000 represent in relation to the whole item? What is the item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The original item was $452,109.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is about an 8 per cent
increase?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which is a pretty substantial increase. Is this all for one trial?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understand not, but I speak subject to correction on that point. As to this 8 per cent increase, I think the hon. member will appreciate that in this field it is very hard to estimate. You do not always know when estimating in the previous year what trials you are going to encounter during the following year, or what the length of those trials is going to be. It is very difficult at times to estimate the length of a trial, and so far as the expense is concerned it is determined to some extent by the length.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister got the total cost of a recent celebrated unsuccessful prosecution undertaken by the government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I have not. I would doubt if the expense has been fully tallied up yet, anyway.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Legislation

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
662.	General administration-further amount required, $55,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the
minister could explain what this item is for. It should be fairly easy to estimate the costs of the Senate, one would have thought.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding that assumption, the Senate has incurred additional expense for publishing Senate debates, of $13,000; printing of other publications, $38,000, and expenses of committees, $4,000, aggregating $55,000. The intermediate item is principally for reporting services for divorces and other committees of the Senate, and the payment of a fee to the economic consultant of the Senate standing committee on finance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, does this mean that the senators are talking more than they used to do or does it cost more per word to print what they say?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In so far as the
printing and publishing of the debates is concerned, and the printing of other publications, all I can say is that this is an expense incurred to the queen's printer and these are the charges that have been incurred. I presume they must be met.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
663.	House of Commons-general administration- estimates of the Clerk-further amount required, $85,000.
Mr. Mcllraith:: What is the explanation of this item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This item concerns an additional requirement of $85,000 for the publishing of the debates of this house, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the cost of publishing the debates increasing? Is there a new rate or a new tariff or do we just talk more?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a great deal of talking being done, Mr. Chairman; there is no denying that. In the course of the present fiscal year, not only this session but in the course of the fiscal year, there was a good deal of talking done. There was a good deal of talking done in 1959 and also 1960. Of course, the unrevised edition is published, and then there is the revised edition of Hansard as well, Mr. Chairman. This is a cost incurred which results from the printing and publishing, and I suppose it must be met.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the rate charged by the queen's printer any higher than it was a year or two ago?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think so, Mr. Chairman. Some of his costs undoubtedly have risen; there can be no doubt about that.


George James McIlraith: Does this reflect an increase in the number of committee reports and the evidence taken in an increasing number of committees? I have the view that there are more committees sitting than there have been in former years.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this is for the Hansard report of the debates of the house only.


Lionel Chevrier: Are there any of these reports of Hansard printed outside the office of the queen's printer?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, my understanding is that they are all printed by the queen's printer.


Lionel Chevrier: None is done outside?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, these are all done at the national printing bureau. This has to be so in the case of Hansard because it has to be in here not later than 11 o'clock the following morning.


Lionel Chevrier: Does that apply to the revised edition as well?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I am sure that is correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Finance what proportion of the salary of the queen's printer is charged against the printing of Hansard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not believe there is any. I think you will find his salary is payable entirely under the estimates of the queen's printer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say to whom it is being paid now because it appears to be the view of the present government that the office is redundant?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is an acting queen's printer, who is the assistant queen's printer, but he is not being paid the salary established for the queen's printer.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask who the acting queen's printer is? Before the minister answers, could he give some reason why parliament has had to wait so many years for the appointment of a queen's printer? It seems to me that is a position of importance to parliament, and surely the government ought to be able to come to some decision on an appointee to a position such as this.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The gentleman who is acting in this capacity, and who is the assistant queen's printer, is Mr. Clifford Watt. The hon. gentleman speaks about the position being vacant for years. I think he is overlooking the fact that the previous incumbent of this position retired from it only about a year ago.


Lionel Chevrier: It was 18 months ago, I am told.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not recall the exact time, but it was about a year ago or perhaps a little more. I am quite sure that no one is suffering and service is being rendered. I have heard no complaints about the service being rendered by the printing bureau in connection with the printing of the reports of the house. I am not in a position, and it would not naturally fall within my province, to make any announcement concerning intentions to make an appointment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the service is not suffering because there is no queen's printer, does not the minister think the position is redundant and ought to be abolished? Surely there must be some good reason for having a queen's printer. If there is a good reason for having a queen's printer, it is difficult to believe the service would not suffer if the office were left vacant for so long. My own opinion is that it is suffering.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall vote 663 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. This is the only place where I can ask the minister, on the general administration of the House of Commons-I could have asked under the Senate vote, I suppose-when the government is going to get around to appointing a librarian of parliament. This is a crown appointment over which parliament has no control. There is no question, however, that the service to parliament is suffering during the period of this vacancy in this important office. It is an office of pecular interest to us in this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is nothing in this item that relates to the library of parliament. If the hon. gentleman does not find an answer to his question in due time, there will be other opportunities for him to press the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
664.	To provide, notwithstanding the Public Service Superannuation Act, that Lieutenant Colonel W. J. Franklin, who purported to elect, on the 16th day of February, 1960, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 40 of that act, to continue to be a participant under part II thereof, shall be deemed to have elected, within the period prescribed by the said subsection, to continue to be a participant
79951-0-158
Supply-Legislation
if, before the 1st day of May, 1960, he contributes to the consolidated revenue fund an amount equal to the amount that he would have been required to contribute had he elected within the said period, $1.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this vote. I should like to say a word about the incumbent with whom I have been associated for a period of many years, first in my capacity as a member of parliament for the constituency of Stormont, from which he came, and that of Glengarry as well, but more importantly in my capacity as an honorary colonel of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders. Colonel Franklin and myself share that honour and that distinction. I feel that on this vote I should express a word of appreciation, I am sure on behalf of those who sit on this side of the house, for his excellent services during the many years he acted as Sergeant-at-Arms.
He was not only a soldier of repute but also proved in this difficult position to be a good administrator. He was above all, I think, a fine gentleman. Colonel Franklin's record in two world wars is one which I am sure most of us here know. His record in the first world war was one of distinction. In the second world war, he immediately offered to mobilize the first battalion of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders, and that he did with immediate success, but afterwards took command of the second battalion. It was during the period of time that I was on the other side of the chamber and was minister of transport that he was appointed to the position he held with such distinction and, I believe, with such satisfaction to all sides of the House of Commons during his time in office.
I should particularly like to refer to his ability to get along with not only the members of the House of Commons but the many people on the staff who are obliged to come in contact with the Sergeant-at-Arms repeatedly. I think I can safely say that this statement applied to him not only during the years up to June, 1957, but afterwards. It was a position that required a great deal of tact and Colonel Franklin was known for that characteristic.
I think the government should be commended for introducing this item in the estimates. I am positive it will be supported not only by us but by all members who sit on both sides of the chamber who, I trust, will find it possible to approve the words which I have just expressed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the hon. gentleman for what he has said. For my part I should like to join very heartily in the tribute he paid to Colonel Franklin. I had a very happy and warm personal

Supply-Legislation
relationship with Colonel Franklin. In the 15 years we had been together here I think the friendship which I had been privileged to enjoy with Colonel Franklin was probably unusually warm. I can most heartily and sincerely endorse what the hon. member for Laurier has said about Colonel Franklin.
Just recently I had occasion to convey to Colonel Franklin an expression of personal regard and esteem for the long public service he has rendered. He was a man of very great tact and indeed a man of considerable personal charm. One could not ask for anything happier than the way in which Colonel Franklin addressed himself to the wide variety of duties that fall upon the shoulders of the Sergeant-at-Arms. A great deal of versatility is required of the incumbent of that position. Colonel Franklin's service to the Canadian people through this parliament I am sure will be long and gratefully remembered.
I think we may all be happy indeed at the thought that now in his retirement he is enjoying good health, and we hope he may look forward to many years of happiness in his retirement and the well-earned leisure that goes with it. I appreciate indeed what the hon. gentleman has said about the provision that has been made for his benefit by this item. I hope it will commend itself to all hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: I have other opportunities and means of expressing my appreciation of Lieutenant Colonel Franklin, retired Sergeant-at-Arms, but I should not like the opportunity to pass, as I am now in my seat when this vote is before the committee, without saying that I endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Laurier and the Minister of Finance, particularly as I had the responsibility of working with Colonel Franklin, when he was Sergeant-at-Arms, more closely perhaps than other hon. members of the house. In the three years in which I have occupied the chair I have enjoyed that association and have found him at all times to be a co-operative, and able officer of good judgment. I wholeheartedly endorse what has been said and add my best wishes to Colonel Franklin in his retirement.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On behalf of this group I want to express their appreciation of the services rendered by Colonel Franklin over a good number of years and to wish him a lengthy, happy and healthy retirement. Having said that, I should like to ask the minister why this item is necessary. Would the minister mind explaining this item? It is not quite clear to some of the members of this group.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Very simply the explanation is this. Colonel Franklin had not completed in the prescribed time the papers that were necessary in order to enjoy the benefit of file supplementary death benefit plan under the superannuation act.


George James McIlraith: I want to express my appreciation to the Minister of Finance for the words he has uttered under this item today about the former Sergeant-at-Arms and to concur with the remarks made by him, by the Speaker of the house and by the hon. member for Laurier. I greatly doubt whether too many hon. members appreciate fully the amount of detail and work involved each time there is a change of parliament. Such a change creates problems requiring infinite judgment, care and patience. I think Colonel Franklin showed great fairness of mind in those many small but intensely practical problems that arise each time parliament changes, and there have been several of those changes since 1945. Holding that view, I was most appreciative of the remarks of the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Laurier, His Honour the Speaker of the house and the hon. member for Kootenay West.
There is one point I want to mention about this item. I think it should be mentioned but I do not want my remarks to be misunderstood. I hold the view that the method of the termination of the appointment left something to be desired. We were dealing with an officer of parliament and the officer of parliament concerned is appointed by letters patent-in other words, a commission -almost identical in form with those under which a minister of the crown is appointed.
There is, of course, no question at all as to the right to terminate that appointment at any time. However, I thought that the method of termination without notice on this occasion surely left something to be desired, bearing in mind the fact that the government was dealing with an officer of parliament. I do not want to elaborate unduly on the subject but surely when dealing with an officer of parliament, and particularly one with such an outstanding record, he having also served outside of parliament with such distinction in one of the fine historic regiments of Canada, a little bit more care and a somewhat better technique could have been used in carrying out the termination of the appointment. I do not wish to pursue the matter unduly. However, I should like to feel that the government would take note of my remarks and that, if the occasion ever arises in the future to deal with a similar matter, more care would be used.


William Arnold Peters: I am wondering why this vote was necessary. This vote would indicate to

me-I may be wrong and if so, I should like the minister to correct me-that no pension had been established for Colonel Franklin during his term here and that now we are waiving the act as such-I refer to the Public Service Superannuation Act-in order to allow him to establish pension benefits. What I should also like to ask is whether this is normal procedure. Do we extend this privilege to others?
I would presume the reason he was not under superannuation was the nature of his position and the fact that there is no foreseeable termination date to that office in the same way as the offices of deputy ministers and other high ranking officials of the government. Will this also be applied to other civil servants in similar circumstances who are not governed by the superannuation regulations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Colonel Franklin was under the superannuation act. Let me clear up this point at once. This item pertains to the supplementary death benefit plan. It is not related to the superannuation benefit in general.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS Surveys and mapping branch-
665.	Geodetic survey of Canada-further amount required, $47,800.
Lionel Chevrier: I wonder whether we could get some general description of this amount?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I can explain this very briefly. This additional sum of $47,800 is required to provide for the purchase of five motor vehicles which were destroyed in a fire at Regina airport on November 1 last, and an underestimation of the amount voted for salaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian hydrographic service-
666.	Administration, operation and maintenance-[DOT] further amount required, including approval of a grant in the amount of $21,250 made to the University of Toronto toward the cost of a geophysical program in the Great lakes, $392,250.
Lionel Chevrier: There are a number of items here, one of which is pretty substantial. The item being voted is $392,250, administration, operation and maintenance. In the detail there is an item of $280,000 for repairs and upkeep of ships and boats. Would the minister indicate what ships and/or boats this amount is for, and why there was not a sufficient amount voted in the main or further supplementary estimates to cover this?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, there was an underestimate of the amount 79951-0-158J
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys here required. The department's estimate of the amount required was made before the vessels had been drydocked. After they had been drydocked and examined it was revealed that the repairs necessary would not be as extensive as had been expected. In some cases all repairs cannot be completed before March 31. Therefore the amount required is $280,000 which is included in this estimate.
I can give the ships: C.G.S. Baffin; C.G.S. Acadia; C.G.S. Cartier; C.G.S. Kapuskasing; C.G.S. Marabell; C.G.S. William J. Stewart and C.G.S. Party. Then for various launches there is a figure aggregating $26,000.


Lionel Chevrier: Are these ships which belong to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys or are they ships which are chartered for that department?


Donald Methuen Fleming: These are all Canadian government steamships, Mr. Chairman. There were advantages, of course, in having this work done during the present fiscal year because the additional work provided employment in a relatively slack season. The doing of this work will make it possible to commence the 1960 field program early in the next fiscal year.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has not answered the question I asked. I asked, do these ships belong to the department?


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are government steamships.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I know they are government steamships from the description the minister has given, but do they belong to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys or are they chartered from some other department such as the Department of Transport or the department of northern affairs?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The title to the ships, of course, is in the crown. The custody, management and operation of the ships is confided to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to pursue this unduly, but this is what I am trying to establish. The Department of Transport has a number of ships. From time to time in the past it has provided some of its ships for hydrographic service to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. What I am interested in knowing is this. There is not an item covering these ships for the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, whereas in the general item under the Department of Transport these repairs are covered. That is why I am interested to know whether these ships, which are the property of the crown, are the property of the crown
2488	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys in the right of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys or in the right of some other department.


Donald Methuen Fleming: These are ships which pertain to the Canadian hydrographic service of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I notice an item here for something new. Could the minister explain what that is? I judge it is new from the wording of the vote itself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, this is a further amount required. Is the hon. member referring to item 666?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, to the words "including approval of a grant in the amount of $21,250 made to the University of Toronto toward the cost of a geophysical program in the great lakes". I assume those words must have been put in because they were not in the main estimate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as that part of the item is concerned, it applies to payments to the University of Toronto for operating H.M.C.S. Porte Dauphine for the purpose of carrying out geophysical work on the great lakes. That work was carried out in pursuance of an arrangement under which the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys gave financial assistance for the period from July 23 to November 30, 1959, to the University of Toronto for a program of geophysical studies conducted in the great lakes. Financial assistance was also given to this enterprise by the national research council for a further period. Moreover, the Department of National Defence has assisted by making available the Porte Dauphine for use on the project.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take it this is something not foreseen at the time the main estimates were prepared, and that is the reason for including this language in this supplementary estimate. Is that correct?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I believe that is correct, Mr. Chairman. The provision in this respect was authorized by the treasury board last July.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to have to take up so much time on this matter of the hydrographic vessels. My recollection is that the former government set aside a substantial sum of money for the construction of a hydrographic vessel. My recollection also is that a portion of that sum was voted, I believe since the present government has been in office. I was under the impression that that was the only hydrographic vessel which was the property of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.


That is why, when the minister gave this list of vessels, I was inquisitive as to where the title lay and I still have not got a reply to my question. I am still of the opinion, however, that there is just the one vessel in that department for hydrographic services. I may be mistaken as to that, and if I am I will stand corrected by the minister. I knew that other such vessels had been chartered from time to time or had been loaned by other departments of government to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. My only purpose in asking the question was to get the assurance from the minister that there was not a duplication of items in the estimates in that the Department of Transport if it happened to be that department, loaned one or more of its ships to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys for the purpose of geodetic surveys in the northern part of Canada. I wonder whether the minister could clear up my query.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will do my best in that respect. I can assure the hon. gentleman in the first place that there is no duplication. Treasury board would be most remiss if it ever tolerated duplication in the estimates. The charges in respect of ships, shipbuilding and repairs for hydrographic purposes are made to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Lionel Chevrier: Could the minister answer the first part of my question about the vessel which was built at considerable cost exclusively for the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys for use in hydrographic surveys in northern Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think I had better attempt to answer as to a particular ship, but if I can be of assistance in getting information about a particular ship for the hon. gentleman I shall be pleased to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geographical branch-
667.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $27,205.
Lionel Chevrier: The amount required for this vote is $27,205, and the largest item is for the continuing establishment. Will the minister give us some idea what the continuing establishment is, and why this additional amount is required?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This amount is required by reason of the underestimation of the cost of the approved programs. The additional amount is based on four items, salaries and wages, $17,500; publication of technical reports, $8,755; a film strip on the city of

Halifax produced by the national film board, $50; repairs and upkeep of equipment, $900, making a total of $27,205.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lionel Chevrier: May we call it 5.45 p.m.?


Charles Edward Rea: Since it is now 5.45, in accordance with the understanding reached when Mr. Speaker was in the chair, shall I rise, report progress and. ask leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to ask the house for unanimous consent to revert to motions so that I may make a further statement regarding the air defence plan.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. minister consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to make a further statement in amplification of the replies I made in the house this morning regarding the revision of the air defence program. As I mentioned this morning, the United States air force has put certain proposals before the appropriations committee of the house of representatives. The United States authorities are releasing at this hour the gist of their proposals which were made to the house of representatives subcommittee yesterday, and I feel it appropriate that this house should be informed of these changes. I should add that this is the statement which is being released by the United States defence department at this time:
The United States air force has proposed substantial changes in its air defence and strategic programs to expedite missile detection systems, to bring in a simplified air defence system at an earlier date, and increase ICBM capability.
The proposal recommends that these projects be financed primarily with funds which would be made available by a reduction in the Bomarc "B" production program and cancellation of the planned installation of advanced SAGE combat centres. An effective SAGE system for control of Bomarc and interceptors will be completed.
The projects recommended by the Air Force include:
1.	The acceleration of MIDAS, the satellite system designed to detect ICBMs at the earliest possible moment after launch.
2.	The acceleration of the second and third units of the ballistic missile early warning system, the first of whose powerful radars is scheduled to become operational within the next few months.
3.	Improvement of the capability of "Century Series" interceptors and modernization of current radar coverage.
Air Defence Program
4.	Technical development of an advanced fire control and missile system for interceptors.
5.	An increase in the number of Atlas intercontinental ballistic missiles previously programmed to be on launch pads in calendar year 1962. This would be accomplished by increasing the number of missiles and launch pads of some Atlas squadrons previously announced.
6.	Insurance of expeditious development and reliability testing of "minuteman," the solid fuel ICBM which is to be manufactured in quantities for installation in hardened underground sites and on railway cars moving at random about the country.
The completed air defence system proposed under the change in program would be operational at least two years earlier than the system previously planned.
These changes will contribute generally to an earlier and effective practical air defence against the weapons on which the Soviet will have to rely for decisive attack within the next several years.
The recommended projects would cost in the order of $500 million during fiscal years 1960 and 1961. The proposed reduction of Bomarc B production and elimination of the hardened SAGE combat centres would make available funds to finance the recommended projects.
The proposed transfer of funds was submitted in classified detail to the house appropriations committee in executive session on March 24, 1960.
The program changes were proposed on the grounds that emphasis in the over-all threat is shifting towards ballistic missiles and that several years' time would be required to bring the advance SAGE combat centres in hardened sites to full operational status. SAGE stands for semi-automatic ground environment. It is an electronic air warning and air defence weapons control network, the heart of which is a computer built by the military products division of International Business Machines at Kingston, New York.
SAGE installations which can be in operation much earlier than those previously proposed in the hardened supercombat centres are scheduled to be completed.
The Bomarc is a surface to air missile developed by the Boeing Airplane Company to operate with all other air defence weapons under direction of the SAGE system. Under the proposed shift in funds, Bomarc units in the revised program would be concentrated in the industrial northeast.
The proposed reduction in total Bomarc strength will not affect Bomarc squadrons programmed for the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Included in the revised air defence budget are provisions for SAGE direction and control in Canada. The Canadian Minister of National Defence has been kept fully informed throughout development of the air force's modified air defence plan.
In further explanation I might say this means that instead of the advanced SAGE combat centre which I announced in July last year it is now propsed to install in Canada a tube SAGE combat centre in lieu of the previously planned transistorized centre. While this program forecasts a reduction in the number of Bomarc B's to be produced in the United States, this reduction does not interfere with the two Bomarc installations which are to be located in Canada. It is still the intention that there will be two Canadian Bomarc sites as an integral part of the modified Bomarc system.

Air Defence Program


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement is obviously a very important one on a vitally important subject. It would not be the part of responsibility on our side to comment on it in any final way until we have had a chance to examine its implications for continental defence and for Canada. I have not yet had that opportunity. The minister with his usual courtesy and consideration in these matters indicated that he would try to give me a copy in advance but it was not possible to do that-and I do not criticize him for this-until I was just entering the house. Therefore, I have not had sufficient opportunity to examine this statement which is such an important and complicated one.
From reading the statement and listening to the minister, however, it is quite clear in my mind that it represents what perhaps may be called a major shift in United States defence policy although apparently not such a shift in that part of the continental defence policy which has been allocated to Canada. It seems clear from this statement that in Washington there is now going to be greater emphasis on the deterrent and less emphasis on defence as such in the hope, no doubt, that by a more effective and powerful deterrent there will be no need for strict defence because it will prevent attack.
This emphasis on the deterrent seems to be shown not only by the reduction in the support to be given by the United States government to Bomarc and to the semi-automatic ground environmental system, but also by the information contained in this statement that there is to be an increase in the resources to be allocated to intercontinental ballistic missiles and to the ballistic missile early warning system.
That in my view, if I understand it correctly, represents a very important shift in United States defence policy which is bound, of course, to have an effect on Canada. But the effect in terms of immediate policy does not seem to be shown in this statement because, as I understand it, while the United States government is abandoning to a very large extent Bomarc and SAGE, restricting Bomarc to the defence of the northeast according to the statement, the two Canadian Bomarc squadrons and the SAGE installations in support of those squadrons are to be maintained. In other words, this statement would appear to indicate that the minister's confidence in this particular weapon remains unimpaired. Perhaps I might put it this way: The United States has changed the kite but the tail remains the same.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, one of the most significant things in the
[Mr. Pearkes.l
minister's statement is the further confirmation of the very inferior role that Canada is playing in the so-called defence partnership with the United States. As I see our position, there is no longer, if indeed there ever was, a real partnership. The minister in his statement pointed out that the proposed transfer of funds was submitted in classified detail to the house appropriations committee in executive session on March 24, 1960. In other words, this is strictly a made-in-Washington policy in which Canada has had no effective voice.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is not correct, of course.


Hazen Robert Argue: The change in United States emphasis away from the Bomarc to intercontinental ballistic missiles demonstrates that the military minds in the United States have decided for all practical purposes that the Bomarc is an ineffective weapon and is in fact a dead duck but Canada remains committed to what is obviously a useless military expenditure in terms of defence, something we in this group have been saying for a long time.
We think every great military authority will confirm that Bomarc weapons are unable to prevent bombers coming through that might be attacking this continent. Even if the Bomarc were operative sufficient planes would get through at any time to destroy the North American continent. We are opposed to the procedure in this regard because we are opposed to nuclear weapons on Canadian soil and in the future these weapons will be equipped with nuclear warheads.
We feel there is altogether too much money being spent on armaments at this time. Those armaments are already obsolete. The minister's statement indicates that we are correct in our view. There should be a large cut in military expenditures and a transfer of this money to economic assistance and improvements in the living standards in underdeveloped countries. This is an indication that on this continent the departments of defence of both Canada and the United States are out of step with the thinking of the people of the world. Now is the time for agreement on disarmament and a change in emphasis from military expenditures to peace expenditures. There is much evidence to support this view.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, may I just answer a couple of questions?


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the time, and in view of the usual practice with statements, where comment is permitted but not debate, although the hon. member for Assiniboia perhaps strayed from that in his comment, I think it would be inappropriate to continue the discussion.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr, Chevrier:: May I inquire from the leader of the house what the business is for next week?


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult to give a complete list for next week. Monday is private members' day and Thursday evening is budget evening, but for Tuesday and Wednesday we will attempt the following items. Item No. 17 on the order paper is a motion in my name dealing with a reference to the committee on agriculture and colonization of a matter pertaining to feed mills in the prairie provinces.
I expect we will have before us from the other house amendments to the energy board act which I should like to bring forward on Tuesday. Then we would continue with item No. 9 on today's order paper, which is a resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works dealing with the Trans-Canada Highway Act.
There is doubt as to at just what stage we will return to this particular matter of supplementary estimates. I might put it down for say Tuesday evening, if things move along in the house, and on Wednesday, if it is agreeable, we would, if we had not completed the supplementary estimates on Tuesday night, complete them. Similarly, on
Business of the House
Wednesday, if it is agreeable, we would like to pass the resolution having to do with the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act so that the bill could be debated on Friday of next week. There would be no restriction of debate in any way at all, but it would be helpful perhaps to have the bill in front of us. That is all I can usefully outline tonight for next week's business.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask one question? Would the house leader not consider putting over the federal-provincial tax-sharing resolution until Friday, say, because of the fact that many of us who would like to participate in this matter are also on the railways and shipping committee which, as the minister knows, will be sitting on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will make some such arrangement. I was wondering whether, if the resolution passed without further debate on Wednesday, we could have the bill in front of us for full debate on Friday. If, on the other hand, that does not suit, we might discuss it on Monday.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you.
It being five minutes past six o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Questions