1960-05-19

PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Hon J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillingaie): Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. Yesterday a motion was rejected by the house for a copy of the current feasibility study of the proposed causeway between Prince Edward Island and the New Brunswick mainland. I have in my hand a document which has been distributed, I believe, in this house and elsewhere entitled "Northumberland strait crossing, interim report on feasibility study" delivered by Major General H. A. Young, deputy minister of public works, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
I submit that it is an outrageous breach of the privileges of this house to deny to the house something which has subsequently been given to the parliamentary press gallery and to the public generally.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised the question as a matter of privilege. If he will recall the events of yesterday, there was a motion made and rejected by the house on its own vote for the production of the document.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Contempt of parliament.


Mr. Fulton:: How can parliament be in contempt of parliament?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege I think there should be some statement made by the government as to the reason for the production of this document in a place other than the House of Commons when the House of Commons was refused it by a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: I find myself in some difficulty about this; because as I recall the practice of the house it does not criticize its own decisions, and in effect what the hon. member is doing by raising this point as a question of privilege is reflecting on the vote which the house took yesterday with respect to the production of this document.


Mr. Pickersgill:: If Your Honour would permit me to say a word on that point, I am not criticizing the decision the house
took yesterday. I am criticizing the conduct of a member of the government today in producing in this fashion a document that the house decided should not be produced to the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the minister concerned having just come in he is obviously not in a position te answer at once. Surely, however, it is desirable to recall just what happened yesterday when the motion was made. The minister asked that it stand, and as he explained subsequently, he wanted it to stand because i1 was his view that there was no such document as that technically described by the hon. member's motion. The hon. member, with that facility for precipitate action for which he is so well known, refused to let the motion stand for investigation and forced a vote. In those circumstances the minister had no alternative but to refuse the motion, because he was not at all certain that there was such a document.
Now, what is happening? The hon. member is urging that there is contempt of parliament. It was parliament which decided that the motion should be rejected.


George James McIlraith: No.


Mr. Fullon:: It was the House of Commons which decided the motion should be rejected and I fail to see how the House of Commons can be in contempt of itself. It is, therefore, perfectly obvious that if my hon. friends in the opposition would just show a little reasonableness on a request to allow motions to stand, this matter could have been disposed of without the confusion they themselves have generated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the Minister of Justice has raised this point I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that there seems to have been a further breach of the privileges of the house in the statement made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) yesterday in reply to the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Phillips), because in that statement the minister said categorically that there was no such report, as will be found on page 4001 of Hansard, and today his department issues a report to the parliamentary press gallery. I submit, sir, that no minister of the crown has a right to mislead this house the way the minister did yesterday.

Question of Privilege


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The statement which has just been made has no foundation in fact. Apparently the rule around here recently is for the opposition regularly to raise smokescreens by way of alleged questions of privilege. This is another example of that type of attitude.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Prime Minister has stated in this house that a statement I made had no foundation in fact.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the house wants to hear the hon. member there will have to be a little less noise. The hon. member is raising another question of privilege?


John Whitney Pickersgill: A question of personal privilege. The Prime Minister, sir, has just stated in this house that a statement I made was not a matter of fact, notwithstanding that the statement I made is right here in Hansard; and I intend, sir, in order to show how irresponsible the conduct of the Prime Minister is, to read this statement.
In reply to a question which the hon. member for Prince directed to the minister after, I might say, this motion had been rejected by the house and which therefore perhaps raises a question of propriety, the minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for directing this question to me, along with preceding questions. While I regret exceedingly that it was not possible to give a reply to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as to the feasibility or otherwise of the causeway, because it is impossible to do that-we have no such report-
And then today, sir-


Some hon. Members:: Read on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -the parliamentary press gallery is given an interim report on the feasibility study.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has taken a different point of view from that expressed by the Prime Minister on facts which are on the record. It is not possible to continue a debate on a question of privilege unless there is some motion before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no mistake about the statement to which I referred, which was xhat a minister of the crown, the Minister of Public Works, had misled the house.


George James McIlraith: Look at the record.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Again the Prime Minister is wrong. I did not say he had misled the house. He sought to mislead the house; he did not succeed,


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must take exception to the last remark of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, that the minister had sought to mislead the house. He knows that such a statement should not stand, and I ask him to withdraw.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister's words speak for themselves-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Graffiey:: Be a man and do it quickly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I would ask the minister to explain how he could say there was no report when he has produced a report today.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If hon. members will restrain themselves I think the matter might be disposed of. I have asked the hon. member to withdraw the statement that the minister sought to mislead the house.


Mr. Hellyer:: Ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his smokescreen charge.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it would not be in accordance with the standard of conduct we have set for ourselves to allow such a statement to stand. I am sure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who has a very high appreciation of the practices of parliament, would not want to have that appear in the record. I know that his initial statement referred to a misleading of the house and I take no exception to that, but then he added the other phrase and I think he should amend it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Your Honour, of course, as almost always, is quite right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: That is worse.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinfon):: Shocking condescension.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In using the words "sought to" I was obviously seeking to interpret the mind of the Minister of Public Works. I would never wish to do that, sir, and I of course withdraw.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to you, sir, that the Prime Minister should also be asked to withdraw his statement that this matter was raised as a smokescreen and that the statement of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was not factually correct, inasmuch as the hon. member has read Hansard to show that it was correct. Perhaps the Prime Minister will now withdraw his statement.


Mr. Speaker:: From time to time I have observed that hon. members have used the word "smokescreen" with respect to actions on the other side of the house, and while strictly speaking it is not in order to impute improper motives I do not think that is a statement that I should request be modified unless the hon. member who used it wishes to do so himself.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member, surely this matter cannot properly be resolved unless the Minister of Public Works-


Edmund Davie Fulton: He is trying to.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -addresses himself to the question which has been raised.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He is trying to.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have been on my feet not less than eight times. This matter is simple to everyone except the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He asked me to table a report.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; the word "report" is not in the motion. Read it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why don't you read the motion?


David James Walker: He asked that we should table the current feasibility study in the house. Eventually some day we hope to have a study or report as to the feasibility or otherwise of building a causeway between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. That is what we hope to have, but it is a very difficult, long term project requiring a great deal of research. However, in order to keep the house advised from time to time as to the progress being made progress reports have been made.
These studies involve four or five departments. A great deal of study and research have been put into the matter, including the use of facilities of the national research council. Nevertheless we are not now in a position to give a feasibility report such as was required by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, and it was impossible to table something that we did not have and will not have for some time. I told the house what I would do, and if the hon. member had asked for it we could have done it for him. But he is simply being tipped off by someone, because there are no Liberal representatives from the maritime provinces and therefore he has to do a half-baked job. He does not understand what is going on.
Question of Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the minister who has the floor to deal with a question of privilege will not raise another one.


David James Walker: Therefore, if he does not know,
I think it is correct to say that we have had two progress reports on the studies that are now going on in connection with this causeway.
In reply to the hon. member I may say that today the hon. member for Prince, who has been following this matter-after all he is a member from Prince Edward Island-has asked for a progress report. I will be very happy to be able to give that report to the house when the orders of the day are reached. This is something entirely different from what was requested by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I do not blame him for not understanding; he very seldom does understand. When the time comes I will make this interim progress report as to our investigations, and then I think even the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will be able to see the difference between a progress report and a feasibility study, or feasibility report, such as he requested yesterday. The two are so far removed from one another that there should not be any possibility of misunderstanding even by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would draw Your Honour's attention to the wording of the motion, which the Minister of Public Works was very careful not to read and which he misrepresented in the statement he has just made. It should be in the record correctly, since he has indulged in a kind of innuendo in which I do not intend to indulge. On page 3999 of Hansard of yesterday the motion reads:
For a copy of the current feasibility study of the proposed causeway between Prince Edward Island and the New Brunswick mainland.
As I told the minister yesterday, the motion was put on the order paper because of a statement in the Charlottetown newspaper. I might point out that the document here is called a feasibility study, and it was quite obvious that this was what was requested.


Mr. Speaker:: I think both points of view on the question of privilege which the hon. member has raised have been expressed, and the house should proceed to other business.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the government is inviting associations and individual persons
4028	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to offer suggestions at this time on the marking of Canada's one hundredth birthday in 1987. Numerous suggestions have already been received from various sources, but the government wishes to be certain that all interested parties and groups have had an opportunity to contribute their ideas.
It might be asked why this invitation is made at this time, some seven years before the actual event. The answer is that activities such as public ceremonies of the nature and magnitude of the ones expected in this country at that time will require years to plan and complete.
It would be unfortunate if any worth-while proposal for the centennial were to be disregarded because it had not come to our attention in time to be included in the overall program or to permit of its execution. As the house knows, a national committee on Canada's centennial comprising ministers and other representatives of the federal government and of the ten provinces has been formed to meet in the early autumn to work out the broad lines of the centennial program. It is suggested, therefore, that if possible any suggestions on the subject should be placed in the hands of the centennial secretariat in the privy council office by August 1.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs report to the house on the meeting of the NATO council held this morning in Paris?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have received reports from Canada's permanent representative on the NATO council about the meeting which was held in Paris this morning with the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France and the United States to review the situation we face as a result of the failure of the summit meeting.
I think all members of the house would be interested, Mr. Speaker, if I were to read the communique which was issued at the conclusion of this morning's meeting. This is the communique:
The permanent council of NATO met in Paris on May 19 and heard statements from the foreign ministers of France, United Kingdom, and the United States on the events which prevented the holding of the summit conference.
In the communique published at the end of its meeting in Istanbul, the Atlantic council welcomed the prospects of negotiations with the U.S.S.R. and expressed the hope that these negotiations would lead to an improvement in international relations.


Reaffirming the complete solidarity of the countries of the alliance it fully approves the statement of the three heads of state or government in which they-
And here they are quoting from the statement which was issued by the three western leaders.
-"remain unshaken in their conviction that all outstanding international questions should be settled not by the use or threat of force but by peaceful means through negotiation" and "remain ready to take part in such negotiations at any suitable time in the future".
The permanent representatives of the various member nations on the NATO council will, of course, be reporting back to their governments in order that instructions may be received as to the further course to be followed.



DISARMAMENT


[Stage Direction]
10-MEMBER COMMITTEE MEETING
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the statement made by Chairman Khrushchev that the Soviet union would continue to participate in disarmament discussions, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs say what is the timetable for that 10-power meeting on disarmament?


Howard Charles Green: The meetings of the 10-member disarmament committee were adjourned until June 6. So far as I know they will be reopened on that date. This course will be very much in line with Canada's wishes, and we shall do what we can to try to obtain some favourable results from the meetings of the disarmament committee.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. I have been asked to address it to him because I understand that for some reason or other he has some responsibility in this matter. I do not know whether it is because he has responsibility for the epidermis of statues. Has the government decided to fingerprint civil servants as a general practice?


David James Walker: One of the newspaper reporters who probably asked the hon. member to ask this question also asked me the same question yesterday. I may say that so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned we have

nothing to do with this matter. It is something which was decided some time ago by the civil service commission, and I believe they have already fingerprinted employees in several departments. I believe that at the present time they are working on one of the categories in the Department of Public Works. Does that answer the question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I address a supplementary question to the Secretary of State, and ask him the reason for this policy now in operation of fingerprinting all civil servants?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of Slate):: I will inquire into the whole matter and report tomorrow.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wish to address a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. In view of reports that yesterday the minister criticized the accuracy of the press and/or reporters with regard to the Bomarc missile, would the minister consider giving us a full and accurate statement on the Bomarc now, since we may be unfairly prejudiced by the alleged inaccuracies?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I did not criticize the attitude of the press in connection with the Bomarc. I simply mentioned that possibly too much play was given to the failure of certain trials of the Bomarc and not enough play to the eventual success which was achieved in the recent trials of the weapon.
As to the latter part of the hon. member's question, I shall be pleased to give him a full report on the Bomarc trials in due course.
(Translation):




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny). Has the minister received a letter from "La Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste" of St. John, pointing out that an historical building on the grounds of the St. Johns Military College is about to be torn down?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire of my officials about this matter. It could be that such a letter reached my office
Inquiries of the Ministry during my absence on my recent trip to Europe. In any case, I shall look into this matter and report later on.
(Text):



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, of which I have given him notice. Will the minister make a statement to the house with respect to a story in last night's Toronto Daily Star reporting alleged irregularities at the R.C.A.F. air materiel command?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. A board of inquiry has been investigating alleged irregularities at the R.C.A.F. air materiel command, but the findings of the board are not yet available and, in consequence, it would not be appropriate for me to say anything further at this time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister tell us
whether there was an earlier board of inquiry, early in 1958, and if so what did that earlier inquiry disclose?


George Randolph Pearkes: There was no inquiry in early 1958 into the matter which is now under investigation.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister any information to give the house with regard to his reported meeting with the National House Builders Association?


David James Walker: Yes. I am looking forward very much to meeting representatives of the National House Builders Association in my office after orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In the light of statements made outside this house as to the
4030	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry urgency of amending the Immigration Act, can the minister say whether amendments will be brought forward at this present session?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I have
answered that question three times already this session but I am still unable to give a definite answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should probably explain that that is my Dutch blood coming out.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he will comment on the report in this morning's press from Washington that the United States-Canadian meeting on the joint development of the Columbia river basin, scheduled for today, has been postponed because, according to officials there, the Canadian delegation has requested more time to prepare.


Edmund Davie Fulton: meeting had been scheduled to start today and to continue on Friday and Saturday. We asked Washington whether in view of the necessity of preparing facts and figures and co-ordinating the studies made on this side of the border with those of an international work group, and for other reasons, the meeting might be postponed. I am hopeful it will be possible to hold the meeting on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Phillips) yesterday asked this question: "Has the minister any progress to report on the Prince Edward Island causeway study?"
In reply to this question may I say that you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that some time ago a study was undertaken by the federal government with respect to the possibility, from an engineering viewpoint, of constructing a causeway between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. This study, which has been most complex in nature, has involved several departments of government
[Mr. Hellyer.)

including the departments of fisheries, transport, and mines and technical surveys, and it has been co-ordinated by the Department of Public Works. I felt that hon. members would be interested in having an interim report on developments up to this time.


An hon. Member:: Speak louder.


David James Walker: I will. This investigation has involved five major studies-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister has in mind making an extended answer, as I conclude he may, having regard to the papers he holds in his hand, then I think it should be by leave of the house. That is what I think should be done since the answer would seem to me to go beyond the normally concise answer which the rules of the house call for. Does the house give the minister leave to read this answer?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we should be told whether this is a rehash of the document which has already been given to the press, because if it is I see no reason for cluttering up Hansard with it.


David James Walker: I have not compared this rehash with the alleged document to which the hon. member refers. This will take about three minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to complete the statement?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear an objection to the minister going beyond the normal limits. Perhaps the minister will therefore make his answer as concisely as the rules require.


David James Walker: Thank you. This investigation has involved five major studies, namely a tidal survey, a shore line survey, a survey of remedial works, a survey of ice conditions and a consultant's study of design alternatives for the crossing. I will try to summarize this report to a greater extent than it is already summarized here.
The tidal survey was basic to the other studies and predicted the effect on tidal ranges in the strait which would result from the construction of a full causeway. This study indicates that the division of the strait into two gulfs by the construction of a full causeway would create a great change in water levels on either side of the causeway and throughout the strait.
The shore line and remedial works surveys were undertaken in those areas which the tidal survey indicated as being affected by the change in tidal conditions. The shore line indemnities which covered buildings and other

foreshore properties, including land, were estimated at about $3 million. The remedial works, including reconstruction or raising of existing wharves and harbour facilities, reconstruction of highways and bridges, as well as dredging and shore line protection, were estimated at about $13 million. That is just for that small item.
The study of sea ice conditions provided information for design-perhaps the hon. member who wanted this report would at least listen as I read it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege. I showed great restraint, I think, a while ago when the hon. gentleman chose to be very insulting in his references to me. But I was listening intently, and I was one of the few members of the house who were listening intently.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that the remark the minister has just made is completely uncalled for and should be withdrawn.


David James Walker: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that obviously the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate listens with his mouth open.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully
request that you use your authority to prevail upon the hon. member who is speaking so that if he cannot conduct himself like a minister of the crown he might at least speak like an adult.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister has gone as far as the practice would permit, and I ask him not to continue with his answer.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Shut your mouth.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


William Heward Grafftey: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the minister did not hear what I said. The house has been indulgent in permitting a rather lengthy answer, and I think in the circumstances the minister should not continue with the answer he is reading.
Now, was there a question of privilege that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi wanted to raise?


William Heward Grafftey: It is all right, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE AND COMMERCE



SMALL BUSINESS BRANCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville asked this question:
Is the minister aware that, in the small business branch, not a single employee can speak or understand French?
The hon. member's information is not correct. One member of the small business branch speaks and understands French.


Yvon Dupuis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give the name of that one employee?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will obtain the name for the hon. member.


Yvon Dupuis: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister tell the house how many employees there are in the small business branch, which employs only one French Canadian?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister has the information he may proceed, but ordinarily a question of that kind would need to go on the order paper, as it calls for statistical information.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Labour whether they can offer any explanation as to why the monthly release of the statistics on unemployment which is due today has not been made?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, there is no set date for the release of the dominion bureau of statistics labour force survey. It is usually released around the 20th but it is sometimes released on the 21st, 22nd or 23rd, as I think will be found from an examination of the dates of the releases month by month. There is no definite date for the release.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister indicate the last time such figures were not released by the 19th of the month?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a question that should be looked into and certainly has to be looked into, in order to prove how utterly wrong the hon. gentleman is.



TIMMINS, ONT.    STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could answer the question he took as notice yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. gentleman asked whether a request had been received from the Ontario provincial government for financial assistance in the rehabilitation of the victims of the Mount Joy flood. The answer is that there is no record in my office of such a request having been received.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the minister's statement to the house yesterday that a new organization to be known as the national emergency telecommunications organization is to be set up under his direct control, and in view of the fact that there will now be five ministers responsible for emergency plans, can the minister say whether the government plans to establish one unified organization to co-ordinate all aspects of civil defence?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking yesterday about the matter of telecommunications, and the statement I made is, I think, very easy to understand.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to reply to the question I addressed to him yesterday.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Gloucester asked a question in these words:

Can the minister inform the house whether instructions have been issued to the unemployment insurance commission not to divulge to members of parliament unemployment figures available from local or regional offices in their respective areas?
In reply I said that no such instructions had been issued by me and I knew of no instances where hon. members of parliament have been refused unemployment figures. The hon. member for Essex East followed with a supplementary question in the following language:
Has the Minister of Labour given any instructions to the unemployment insurance commission or to any government servant that members of parliament are not to be supplied with information that it has always been regarded as a right of the representatives of the people to have?
In reply I stated:
On the contrary, I have relaxed the practice that had been in force under the previous government.
My reply at this time will be somewhat lengthy and rather detailed. It may be that Your Honour will be of the opinion that my reply is too lengthy to give in answer to a question. If that is the case I would request that I be allowed to deal with this as a question of privilege. The hon. member for Essex East has asked a question which, if it is not answered fully, will leave the impression that I have taken steps to restrict or infringe the privileges of the members of this house. The wording of his question relates to information which he says is regarded as a right of the members of this house. I feel, therefore, that a matter of privilege may be implied here; and the matter is of such importance that it cannot be answered by a simple negative.
Yesterday both the hon. member for Gloucester and the hon. member for Essex East asked me questions about the release of information to members of parliament by the unemployment insurance commission. I have already stated what the hon. member for Gloucester asked, and in reply I said at the time that no such instructions has been issued by me. I feel that I should add that my office has made it known to both regional and local managers that members of parliament are to be supplied on the local level with whatever information is available regarding employment or unemployment in their areas, regardless of the political affiliation of that member. For example, I recently wrote to the managers of the unemployment insurance commission offices at Port Arthur and Fort William in these words:
It would be appreciated if you would supply Mr. D. M. Fisher, M.P., with the figures he requested.

At the same time I should point out that when members of parliament in Ottawa request information from individual employees of the commission, these figures are made available and this information is cleared through my office. I can assure the house that there is nothing new in this practice and I think the reason will be readily understood. I do not think any hon. member would suggest that it would be good administrative practice or in the best interests of the members themselves to have a situation where individual employees of the commission were issuing figures and other information over the telephone on their own authority, particularly in the case of figures or other information which might not yet have been made available to the minister's office.
Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, that any member of this house will be given whatever information he requests, provided that the information is available and that it is not of a confidential or privileged nature. I would also point out that there are certain recognized procedures and practices of this house which can be followed and which are available to any member in the obtaining of information from the government.
The hon. member for Essex East, in his supplementary question, opened up the general field of information to be supplied by the unemployment insurance commission, when he asked whether I had given instructions that members of parliament were not to be supplied with information which has always been regarded as their right. I am surprised that the hon. member for Essex East, knowing my respect for parliament and for the privileges of members, should have asked that question. I want to provide him with an answer, Mr. Speaker, and in order that there may be no doubt in the minds of hon. members, regardless of where they may sit in the house, I feel that my answer should be as full and complete as possible.
It was brought to my attention in December of 1959 that certain instructions had appeared in the official manuals of the unemployment insurance commission which would have the effect of limiting the availability of information to members of parliament, whether in the provincial or federal legislatures, who were seeking information on behalf of their constituents. I felt that this was an undesirable limitation which was being placed upon members of parliament in carrying out their duties, and I immediately wrote to the commission informing them of my views in this matter.
I do not wish to take up the time of the house unnecessarily, but I feel I should quote
Inquiries of the Ministry briefly from that letter in order that there may be no doubt in the minds of hon. members as to my views. I wrote as follows:
I question the wisdom of this decision. In my opinion, members of the legislative assembly should be afforded every possible courtesy in the offices of the unemployment insurance commission in the same manner as a federal member of parliament.
I went on to say:
When a member of the legislative assembly inquires about a particular case, it is not idle curiosity; it is because he feels that he has an obligation to undertake such action on behalf of his constituents. I feel that any information which would assist a member of the provincial parliament in this objective should be made available to him with all promptitude and courtesy.
It is hardly necessary to say that I hold the same views in regard to members of this house, and that the commission was made aware of those views very early in my administration.
On January 19 I received a letter from the commission explaining why they felt that these restrictions were justified, and I replied on January 20. In my reply I dealt with the situation as it relates to both provincial and federal members of parliament. I would ask the indulgence of the house to refer very briefly to one or two paragraphs in this letter. This is what I wrote on January 20:
I do not see how anything in section 98 could under any circumstances be construed as granting authority for a directive against giving out information to members of parliament.
If there is such a directive, I think it should be rescinded.
On February 4 I was informed by the commission that the instructions had been amended to give effect to the views I had put forward, and to make information available to members of both federal and provincial parliaments who were inquiring on behalf of their constituents. I was also informed that a minute of the commission authorizing the restrictions referred to had been cancelled and that all officers were being advised accordingly.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to have taken up so much time of the house, but I feel that this is an important matter, reflecting to some extent on the privileges of hon. members, and as such it was proper to deal with it fully.



FEDERAL-MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO CONSIDERATION OF MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to report progress on the serious and continuing consideration which

Inquiries of the Ministry last year he assured the annual meeting of the association of Canadian mayors and municipalities was being given to their representations.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would be more specific about what particular feature of the representations of that association he has in mind I should be glad to endeavour to answer his question.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, what I had in mind was that the association of mayors and municipalities made a number of recommendations to the Prime Minister at a meeting in North Bay, which was attended by the Prime Minister. He assured them that he would give their recommendations serious and continuing consideration. All I am asking for is a progress report at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, of course when the Prime Minister says that serious consideration will be given to anything, serious consideration is given to it. I think it would be more appropriate if I made a suggestion to the hon. member. He has already indicated that a number of matters were dealt with by the association in its representations. If he would indicate what particular ones he is interested in we shall do our best to give him information on the specific questions.


Erhart Regier: In other words there is no progress.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES CANADA COUNCIL-INQUIRY AS TO CONTRIBUTION TO TOUR OP ST. JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY CHOIR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. I understand it may have to be directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister inform the house whether the Canada Council has contributed a grant to the trans-Canada concert tour now being undertaken by the internationally famous St. Joseph's University choir, whose visit to the capital and presence in the galleries this afternoon is a tribute to the spirit of music?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Canada Council does not come under my jurisdiction, but I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Gloucester in welcoming this famous choir to Ottawa.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. L. McFarlane (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should Ike to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister advise the house as to the cost of the new mines and technical surveys building at the corner of Booth street and Carling avenue, Ottawa, which was opened by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois), last evening?


David James Walker: I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question. In reply I would say that the mines and technical surveys building was opened last evening by my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. It will be known as the geological survey building. It was built by the Department of Public Works and is one of a complex of buildings in that area for the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. The total cost of the building is expected to be approximately $6,346,560.


Murray Lincoln McFarlane: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of this expenditure of well over $6 million, is there any reason why air conditioning was not included in this building?


David James Walker: Air conditioning was not provided in this building because at the time it was designed it was not in the regular course of events to do so. Also it would cost an additional sum in excess of $1 million. However, the hon. member will be glad to learn that certain laboratories in the building are air conditioned as the result of special representations made by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $600,946,640.92 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 total of the amounts of items 64 and 95 of the said estimates, $350,000;
(c)	one third of the total of the amounts of items 137 and 267 of the said estimates, $565,070;
(d)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 193, 194, 195, 197, 199, 203, 207, 208, 213 and 303 of the said estimates, $1,472,592.58;

(e)	one third of the total of the amount of the item set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $5,000,000,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, in this resolution approval is sought of a vote of sums aggregating $600,946,640.92 designed to provide for the expenses of government for the months of June and July. This sum includes one sixth of all items in the main estimates and one third of the one item in the supplementary estimates. It also provides additional amounts for 14 specially designated items, each of which relates to some program or payment that is not capable of being distributed throughout the year purely on a prorata basis month by month. These items relate chiefly to programs which are concentrated in the summer months.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that no item will be completely voted if the present resolution is approved, and the full right of hon. members to debate these items in committee of supply accordingly remains, save in so far as several items have already been approved in committee of supply. I offer to the committee, Mr. Chairman, the time-honoured undertaking, given with a view to avoiding repetition of debate when the items are under consideration seriatim in the committee of supply, that the passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


Mr. Deschaielels:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks have to do with Canada's failure to win the 1967 world's fair. This is a dream or vision which has caught the imagination of Canadians in recent months, and here is a sample of the great illusion we had, as shown in an editorial in the Globe and Mail of February 12, 1960:
A great event the Montreal world's fair will be; gay and handsome and exciting it will be, if we know that cosmopolitan city. Montreal has no lack of imagination and talent; nor any lack of hospitality. A world's fair will give it the chance of a lifetime, the chance of a century, to put itself and Canada on the map.
There will not be a world's fair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member permit me to ask him if he does not think it would be more appropriate, instead of raising this matter on a motion for
Interim Supply
the granting of interim supply, to bring it up on the estimates, for instance, of the Postmaster General, as he was the minister principally concerned in the effort to bring this world fair to Montreal? The business announced for the house for today and tomorrow, Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, contemplates that the house will be asked to continue its study of estimates in committee of supply, and following the Department of Agriculture the next department whose estimates are to be called is the Post Office Department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont would be very ill-advised to accept the suggestion of the Minister of Finance since this matter has, of course, nothing whatever to do with the Post Office Department and it would be Your Honour's unhappy duty to rule the hon. member out of order if he sought to raise the matter in that connection. Moreover, sir, this is a matter which obviously is costing the treasury some money in the year 1960-61, because I do not imagine that the Postmaster General, the Associate Minister of National Defence and the other persons who went to Paris went there at their own expense. Therefore there can be no question that the matter is comprehended within the estimates now before us. It is of the greatest possible current interest and, although I respect the desire of the Minister of Finance not to have matters which could be raised on the ordinary consideration of the estimates brought up at this time, it seems to me it is of such current interest that it is perfectly right for my hon. friend to go ahead.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, may I also remind the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont that if he has something to raise as a grievance there will be an opportunity on Monday next on the motion to resolve the house into committee of supply.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It must be left to each member to determine his course of action.


Jacques Flynn: The last time we had a motion for interim supply I think I gave my views on the proper course of debate on such a motion. Of course I do not want to rule any subject out of order unless there is formal objection. If there is agreement on both sides to discuss certain matters, I can see no objection. But I have already indicated that I could not see how the standing orders could permit a discussion of any subject, because in my opinion this is not a proper time to raise grievances. The standing orders provide for such opportunities. Now, if there is

Interim Supply
agreement that the hon. member can discuss this matter, I have no objection. However, if I am forced to give a ruling I shall do so-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you do that-


Jacques Flynn: I will not do that, but I said if I am forced to give a ruling I will give my views on the subject because I have considered the matter since the last occasion on which it was raised.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to point out that my hon. friend said nothing whatever about bringing forward any grievance. What my hon. friend is discussing is an expenditure which has already been made by the government, very evidently made by the government, and the minister is now asking us to vote money to expend in connection with this precise matter. What the hon. member is seeking to do is to dicuss whether or not the committee is to approve this particular expenditure, which is in the fraction of the total expenditures for the year or part of it for which the Minister of Finance is asking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate just now said compels me to raise a question of order. I had not done that up to the moment he rose. If what the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont wishes to discuss is an expenditure already made, then that makes it clearly out of order, because what is sought here is a vote of money for the next two months, the months of June and July. This does not relate at all to expenditures already made. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has made it quite clear that the subject now raised by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont relates to expenditures hitherto made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said part of it had already been made. As the Minister of Finance very well knows, all he is asking for is a fraction. The minister knows as well as I do that the formal reservation of our constitutional rights, which he very solemnly read out a few minutes ago, does reserve all those rights so far as current expenditures in the current fiscal year are concerned. I concede that it would be quite wrong to discuss some expenditure made in the fiscal year now closed, but this is an expenditure being made at the present time. It is a continuing process throughout the year. The money is taken out of some vote; I do not know which vote, but it is obviously taken out of some vote. Surely, therefore, it is completely within the competence of the representatives of the taxpayers here, who are being asked to vote the money, to discuss whether or not is should be voted.
[The Chairman.]


Jacques Flynn: What is the view of the committee? In their minds is there any limitation to the discussion in circumstances like these? Is it a fact that any subject that may have any relevance to an item of the estimate is in order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Discussion in unlimited.


Jacques Flynn: Is it unlimited? I should like to hear the views of the committee on that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has certainly become well established over the years that on this motion for interim supply members have a right to discuss every subject concerning any estimate or any appropriation. In other words they have a right to discuss any subject which they could discuss under the estimates of a department. The minister will certainly accept that interpretation of the rules, because he will remember very well that in 1956, on a motion for interim supply, there was a debate on the conduct of the Speaker which extended for hour after hour. The only justification under the rules for that debate was that there was an item in the estimates covering the salary of the Speaker.
The minister will also remember that in 1957 he took some six pages of Hansard on this kind of motion to discuss a matter which had no direct relevance to any particular item, but which was considered to be in order. That is all we are endeavouring to do at this time, to carry out a well established rule of the House of Commons which permits us to bring up matters of expenditure in the way my hon. friend is trying to do now.


Erhart Regier: If I may speak to this point of order, I should like to point out that on a motion for interim supply in the year 1957 Messrs. Knight, Knowles, Fleming, Stewart, Hees, Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace) and Diefenbaker spoke. In addition, Mr. Ellis spoke on bulletin No. 10 which related to the Department of National Revenue, and Mr. Diefenbaker spoke on the question of keeping open the customs port of West Poplar, Saskatchewan.
On a motion for interim supply in 1956 the then leader of the opposition spoke in regard to pipe lines. Mr. Knowles spoke; Mr. Drew also spoke on the subject of reform of the other place; Mr. Knowles spoke on closure; Mr. Blackmore spoke on the Bank of Canada; Mr. Hees spoke on pipe lines; Mr. Diefenbaker spoke on Right Hon. Mr. Howe's radio speech; Mr. Cameron spoke; Mr. Barnett spoke on fishing and combines; Hon. William Hamilton spoke-he was not "honourable" then-on the tax on

magazines; Mr. Dinsdale spoke on the Fontana expropriations; Mr. Zaplitny also spoke on that subject matter. On July 25 of that year Mr. Knowles spoke on the Canadian National Railways work contracts.
In the year 1955 there were no debates on any of the interim supply motions. However, on a supply motion in 1953-54 Mr. Macdon-nell spoke, and the leader of the opposition also spoke on the chief justice of Newfoundland in connection with the implementation of the Criminal Code. I feel that this is a time when any hon. member has the right to speak on anything connected with any expenditure that is made by any department of the government.


Jacques Flynn: As I said, I have not given any ruling. Does the minister insist that the Chair rule on this point?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not raise any point of order at first. I asked the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont a question, and I indicated to him that there are opportunities for raising, at what I consider the appropriate time, the subject that I understood he was proceeding to discuss. It was only when the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate rose and said that this related to an expenditure that had been made-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Part of it had been made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, when he spoke he said the expenditure had been made. I pointed out that this would take it out of the scope of this resolution, because this had to do with moneys that had not, as yet, been expended. On this motion we do not discuss past expenditures, we discuss the voting of money for future purposes. After the time that was spent discusssing the proper scope of discussion on a motion for interim supply during the last such motion, at the end of March, I am sure no one in this committee wishes to revive a general discussion on that subject.
The point I was compelled to raise was based upon the statement by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. If this is simply a matter of discussing an expenditure that has been made hitherto, then it is not proper on a motion which relates to the voting of money for future needs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just to clear up the point may I say this. It is a well-known rule of the House of Commons that the word of an hon. member as to what he has said is accepted. I said that part of this expenditure had already been made. I did not say the whole expenditure had already been made, because it so obviously has not been made.
Interim Supply


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member said that the second time, but not the first time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said in one sentence something as to the expenditure having been made, and I said part of it has already been made. Surely the minister is not going to say that if X dollars out of an amount that has not yet been voted by this committee has already been spent by the government as a result of interim supply, that vote is closed. He told us the exact opposite in his statement of our constitutional position.
I agree with the minister that we should get on with the discussion and not discuss the rules. I will therefore not say anything further.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Since I do not know of a better time than today, at which to raise this matter, Mr. Chairman, with your permission I will continue my remarks. Before going on with them, however, I wish to express the hope that the time taken by this discussion will not be included as part of my allotted time.
There will not be a world's exhibition in Montreal in 1967. The question now arises as to what happened to deprive us of a feast so well earned by all Canadians for this centennial year of confederation. In other words, where lies the responsibility for such spectacular and disappointing failure or blunder in Paris on May 5? This is a question I will try to examine in as many aspects as possible in the relatively short time at my disposal.
At the outset, let us recall that the city of Montreal was pledging $5 million of its own in this project, the Quebec government $15 million, and that the federal government had promised to add $20 million in order to provide for a grand total of $40 million.
On February 8, 1960, at the inaugural meeting of the provisional national committee of Canada's centennial, the Montreal bid and proposal was approved by the Canadian government and was approved by all parties in the House of Commons later on. This was therefore a national proposition under the direct and immediate responsibility of the government, as we can see if we refer to page 918 of Hansard of February 10, 1960:
The cabinet has approved the appointment of the Postmaster General as the minister to represent the government in relation to the plans for this project.
Hon. members will recall that on March 8, in Paris, the U.S.S.R. prevented a vote as between Canada and Austria, and how it was agreed to postpone a deciding vote to May 5,

Interim Supply
1960. But before going any further I should like to put on Hansard a few articles from a book entitled "Dominion of Canada Treaty Series," 1934, more especially from the chapter entitled "Convention Relating to International Exhibitions" agreed in Paris, November 22, 1928 by 31 countries including Canada. Let us read articles 35, 36 and 39.
Article 35
(a)	At any time after the coming into force of the present convention any non-signatory country may accede thereto.
(b)	Such accession may be effected by a notification in writing transmitted through the diplomatic channel to the French government. Such notifications of accession shall be deposited in the archives of that government.
(c)	The French government shall transmit immediately to the governments of all signatory and acceding countries certified copies of any such notifications, showing the dates on which they were received.
Article 36
The present convention shall come into force, in respect of the countries which have taken part in the first deposit of ratifications, one month after the date of the proces-verbal thereof. In the case of countries which ratify subsequently or accede thereto, and in respect of colonies, protectorates, overseas territories and territories under suzerainty or mandate not included in ratifications, the convention shall take effect one month after the date of receipt of the notifications provided for in articles 33, paragraph (d); 34, paragraph (b); 35, paragraph (b) .. .
Article 39
The government of the French republic shall communicate to the international bureau copies of all ratifications, accessions and denunciations.
If Russia was not a member of the international bureau before February, 1960, having in mind the provisions of articles 35, 36 and 39 it would be most interesting to know exactly at what date the notification of Russia was received by the French government and then filed with the international bureau. We would therefore be able to appreciate what was the delay that elapsed between the notification by Russia of membership and March 8, which was the date fixed for the deciding vote as between Canada and Austria.
The reason for this is obvious. If we refer to the official letter from the U.S.S.R. ambassador in Paris to the international bureau, we note that this letter is dated February 26, 1960. I hold in my hand a copy of this letter which was printed in La Presse in its edition of March 15, 1960. It reads as follows:
Paris, February 26, 1960.
(Translation):
International Exhibitions Bureau.
This letter is over the signature of the Russian ambassador.
I am instructed to inform you that the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics intends to organize the next universal exposition of the first category in 1967 in Moscow, capital of the Soviet union.

The Soviet union is in a position to organize and hold an exhibition of a high and proper standard, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 1928 Convention relating to international exhibitions.
The government of the Soviet union expresses the hope that the holding of the universal exhibition for the first time on U.S.S.R. territory will constitute an important step toward the subsequent development of international co-operation and mutual understanding between all nations.
Since the government of the Soviet union intends to start preparing at once for this international event, it would be grateful if governments of the 1928 convention contracting countries were immediately informed Of the Soviet government's plan and if the 1967 universal exhibition in Moscow was duly registered by the international bureau.
I should be obliged to you for acknowledging receipt of this letter.
(Text):
According to information I could gather from press reports, Russia argued that her application should be entertained on March 8 because this application was made within a period of six months after the first official application of Austria, which was filed in November, 1959. Again, after examining the contention of the U.S.S.R. and the provisions of this constitution on international fairs, I fail to see in the constitution any ground sustaining such contention. At any rate, Russia became a competitor on February 26, 1960 and it would be interesting to know why the Canadian people were not notified of this development until March 8 when this was announced in La Presse and we were told that Moscow was now in the competition to obtain this international exhibition.
You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that according to the provisions of the constitution, article 29, which I read a few minutes ago, it is laid down that notification of accessions is to be filed with the international bureau by the French government. Thus, this application from Russia late in February should not have been overlooked by the Canadian government.
Let us deal at this point with the deciding factor-the vote taken on May 5. We all know that on March 8 there were 23 countries-members of the international bureau-with the right to vote. The Canadian Press received, apparently on or around April 25, 1960, the astounding news that seven iron curtain countries had joined the international bureau and would have the right to vote on May 5. This was astonishing news for the Canadian public as a whole, but it should have been no surprise to the Canadian government if members of the government had been on their toes. Had they studied a very peculiar paragraph on page 15 of the constitution under the heading "protocol of signature", I submit the Canadian government might have found there

in black and white the pattern followed by the U.S.S.R. even though this protocol was signed as long ago as 1928. I quote:
The delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that, in the application of the provisions of article 4 of the convention, whereby an interval of at least five years must elapse between two special exhibitions of the same kind organized in the same country, the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics reserves the right to regard as separate countries the six republics members of the union-
There follows the names of the republics which Russia claims should be recognized as entities, each having the right to vote.
It would therefore be interesting to know:
1.	What is the date of the application of each of the seven iron curtain countries for membership in the bureau as shown in the files lodged with the French government?
2.	At what date were the seven notifications transmitted through the diplomatic channel of the French government to the international bureau, and when was Canada informed of the same?
3.	Did the Canadian government check to see whether in respect to the seven iron curtain countries the provisions of the constitution had been strictly adhered to?
If the right to vote of these seven iron curtain countries was justified-which I doubt-then another question is raised, namely why did we not do the same? We must not forget that between February 26, the date of the entrance of Russia, and May 5, the date of the deciding vote, there was ample time in which we might have persuaded friendly countries to join the bureau, and any suggestion that the Canadian government was taken by surprise is not supported by the facts. In this connection I wish to quote an editorial which appeared in the Gazette of May 6, 1960:
In fact, Russia herself was not a member of this organization until three months ago; she entered in February. But once she decided to come in, she was determined to have what she was seeking. For this reason she made the necessary arrangements-all quite legally-to bring into the bureau seven of the nations of the Soviet bloc. They are Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Roumania, Bulgaria and the two Soviet republics of Byelorussia and the Ukraine.
It is an old technique-as old as the hills. It is the method of joining some organization and bringing your supporters in with you.
If Canada failed in these negotiations in Paris, she failed because she did not counter Russia's move. As this was a tough game, perhaps it ought to have been played more toughly.
As Canada's Department of External Affairs had some part in the matter, it was in a position to supply information on Russia's plan to bring in her seven voters. Perhaps such information was given by the department but was not acted upon. For Canada might well have persuaded other countries of the non-Communist world to enter also.
Interim Supply
There are many such countries. They are even to be found within the commonwealth; Australia is one.
We have been outmatched and outguessed, and what surprises me most is the fact that on March 11 we had been warned by no other than his worship, the mayor of Montreal, that if we wished to succeed more planning was necessary and urgent. While I am on the subject, may I recall that we were also informed in March through reliable sources, namely, the representative of Belgium, that the official application submitted on behalf of Canada was not acceptable because it was not labeled in conformity with the requirements of the regulations. In connection with this point I will read article 8 which prescribes as follows:
Such applications shall state the title of the exhibition and its duration, and shall be accompanied by the classification of exhibits, copies of the general regulations, the jury regulations, and all documents necessary to show the measures proposed to ensure the safety of persons and property, the protection of industrial property and copyright, and to satisfy the conditions prescribed below in Sections IV and V.
According to the same reliable source, this would have been the real reason for the postponement of the deciding vote from March 8 to May 5, 1960.
These are the facts, and I submit that the responsibility for this spectacular failure or blunder lies directly with this government. We have missed the boat again, due to lack of leadership and due to the confusion and fumbling of the government which has shown a complete lack of interest, imagination and vision with regard to this matter. What took place in Paris in respect to this world exhibition was nothing less than a political election at international level. The poor result we obtained is to be regretted and resented by Canadians as a whole and by Montrealers in particular.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: have just a brief observation or two to make on this subject. I agree, I think, with only one part of one sentence of the remarks just made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont. I myself feel it is regrettable that Canada was not chosen to be the host of the world's fair, but there we part. The hon. member has built up his observations on a basis of newspaper clippings, hearsay and other material.
For example, the hon. member was quoting from a book published in 1934 without realizing that the convention was rewritten and revised in 1948. However, I have no argument with the main points he has brought up. They are contained in the new convention as well.

Interim Supply
Basically, the situation is this. First of all the hon. member cast doubt on the acceptability of our application. The answer is that the application was completely acceptable in every way. There was no change made in it between March 8 and May 5 and it was this application which was voted on. Any suggestion to the contrary is completely and absolutely without foundation. This is proved by the fact that it was accepted by the organization and voted upon.
There are two other points basic to the argument the hon. gentleman raised. We can deal with these quite simply. The hon. member said, "What about the seven countries that came in? Why did you not do something about it?" The answer is, according to his own information, that in order to vote on May 5 they required to be members of the bureau by April 5. Their accessions actually were made between March 30-that is six days before the final date-and April 4 which is one day before the final date, one day before the required time. The hon. member may be interested to know that we did not receive official notification of the accessions from the French government until May 2 which is almost a month after they joined the bureau. It takes some time for information to find its way through normal diplomatic channels. The reason the Canadian Press had the story on April 25 was that in our constant efforts to keep abreast of all developments in connection with the fair we had ourselves turned up through diplomatic channels news of these accessions and had taken steps to confirm the fact long before we received any official advice whatever. I may say that under these circumstances it is obvious that we could not rush in at the last moment, within the last six days, to counter a move such as that.
Finally, the hon. member asked, "why did you not do something like this beforehand?" I would suggest to him that there has been in many parts of the world surprise and I might almost say dismay at the particular course of action which was followed by these satellite states in this connection. International bodies of this sort which are not major political bodies but organizations which are set up to regulate, control and direct some small section of international relations are not normally a battleground for one country as against another. They are designed primarily to come to thoughtful decisions and bring the benefit of the wisdom of their membership to bear on these matters. Under these circumstances countries find their way in, after adequate notice, one or two at a time. They are not introduced to swing a

vote as was done in this particular case. This certainly would not be the approach of the free nations of the world, I am quite sure.
I might point out to the hon. gentleman that the free nations of the world under our democratic process are not able to line up, whip into line and rush in almost overnight, other countries. The free nations of the world make their own decisions. They consider these matters carefully, slowly and deliberately. To suggest that on such short notice we would be required to introduce a number of nations to offset those that entered is to exhibit a complete non-recognition of the facts in this particular instance.
I close simply by saying that throughout this operation there has been a tremendous effort exerted. I am told by those in the Department of External Affairs it has been one of the strongest efforts that has ever been put forward in anything of this sort over a long time in an attempt to bring this fair to Canada. Every stone has been turned, every effort has been made and every person has been contacted who seemed in any way able to assist us. When you examine the results you will find that they hinged on the sudden entry of a group of nations satellite to the U.S.S.R. Without these last minute entries for the countering of which there was no course of action open to us Canada would have led in every vote which was taken and that, I suggest, is the measure of the worth of the effort we put forth.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Postmaster General a question. In view of the-what shall I call it-sharp practice followed by the Soviet union in introducing six satellites at the last minute, as it were, in the last month, and in view of the delay on the part of the French government, which may be understandable, in making that change known to the Canadian government, would it have been possible or desirable to ask the French government whether under those circumstances the meeting could have been postponed?


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we could have done that within the rules of the bureau. The bureau sets its own meetings. The French government acts purely as the repository of these accessions and transmits them to other bodies. They have no control whatever over the activities of the bureau itself.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Could we have asked the bureau?


William McLean Hamilton: One
could suggest that it would have been possible to ask the bureau but this meeting had been established long in advance. It had been set for the definite purpose of voting on

this and I suggest there was no other course of action open to us but to proceed with the meeting as called.


Mr. Creslohl:: What was the reason for the first postponement?


William McLean Hamilton: am glad the hon. gentleman asked that question because here again the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont was somewhat in error. According to the regulations of the bureau six months must elapse or can elapse between the first application of a nation and the time that that application is voted on and at any time during the six months period other nations can enter their applications. Canada entered hers and was quite prepared to have the vote taken at the March 8 meeting. Russia came in just a few days before that meeting and took the position that she insisted on having the full six months elapse before the vote was taken.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the minister permit me a question at this point? Was the Canadian delegation accompanied by a legal adviser in Paris? I question the validity of the reason brought by Russia for postponing the election which was to take place in March. I say that because I fail to see in the constitution anything that sustains Russia's point of view that six months must elapse after the filing of the first applications. Was the delegation accompanied by a legal officer?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, you do not need a legal adviser to
appreciate most of these points. The answer to the hon. member's question is no, we did not have a legal adviser, but this point was fully considered both by our own delegation and the bureau generally and the course of action which was followed was arrived at as a result of those discussions.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, in order to make the record clear, may I say this. The minister said I was citing extracts from an old convention dated 1928. This is true but unfortunately I forgot to say that I am citing from the new version amended in 1934 which is the one that is up to date.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct my remarks to an item of interest that has been in most of our newspapers during the last week or two. I refer to the disastrous floods in the northern Ontario area and particularly the floods at Mount Joy township which is across the river from the town of Timmins.
As most hon. members know, a total of something like 2,000 people had to be evacuated because of the flood. I wish some hon.
Interim Supply
members could see just how extensive is the damage in that township. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I should like to extend an invitation to members on both the government side and the Liberal opposition side, if they are free, to come up when I go home this week end and see at first hand some of the damage that exists up there. In some cases logs have been driven right through windows and have beaten about inside the house for a period of four or five days. Stoves are ruined as are refrigerators and all sorts of household equipment, and in particular furnaces with their electric motors, and everything of that nature. As most hon. members will realize, a furnace is a very necessary implement up in the northland.
The damage is both direct and indirect. Many of the farms are flooded to such an extent that there is very little hope of any crop this year. Many of the farmers lost livestock. In other cases where the houses themselves were not flooded, the sewers backed up in the basements and flooded the basements. Pumps were put to work. When the people had to be evacuated the pumps could not be properly attended and when the people came back they found that the pumps had drawn up sand and so forth underneath so that the foundations of the houses had dropped and in some instances extensive repairs are required to most buildings.


Mr. Cardiff:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Murdo William Martin: Yes.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Has the hon. member any idea of the numbers of cattle that were lost?


Murdo William Martin: I have no idea of the total; I know that on one farm one farmer lost eight of his purebred Jersey cows but I have no idea of the total loss. I do know that for a period of three days the only way they could get feed in and milk out was by helicopter. An R.C.A.F. helicopter was moved in to assist and it did yeoman service in that particular field.
As some hon. members know, they have started a flood disaster fund and the Ontario provincial government has offered to match dollar for dollar. If and when the federal government has an opportunity to assist in this matter I should like them to give the lead in something that is very necessary.
The low lying section of Mount Joy township, which runs right along the river, has been built up in a place where it should never have been built up at all. It is subject to floods in any spring when the water is slightly higher than usual and much more so at a -time of major floods such as we have had this year. I think it is rather a matter

Interim Supply
of throwing good money after bad to spend extensive amounts to repair those houses. Anyone who has seen the result of flooding knows that floors are buckled and plaster falls from the walls. It would take extensive repairs to put those houses back into proper condition. Just a matter of two or three hundred yards away there is a steady rise and there are millions of acres all across the north country where those houses could have been built, or where families could be moved, and we would have a permanent cure to this thing and not a temporary one. If we make temporary improvements we may have to go through the same thing in two or three years' time.
I have discussed this with the minister's officials in the township and they are fully in accord with this. If and when the federal officials consider some financial assistance I should like this suggestion to be kept in mind and posibly we might be able to find a permanent cure for this problem rather than a temporary one.
I should like to mention the desperate condition of the township itself. In the part that was flooded this year there is, I am told, approximately 80 per cent of the assessable property. Anyone who is familiar with municipal affairs knows that when a municipality is just about to send out its tax bills for the year and finds itself faced with a flooded area of 80 per cent of its assessable property it finds itself really in desperate financial straits.
The picture of assistance locally was something that would warm the heart of anyone who saw it. Immediately the call went out, the danger was realized, and every hall in the town of Timmins, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, all the parish, all the church halls, everything, were placed at the disposal of those victims, and when they were evacuated they were promptly rounded up, fed and clothed where necessary. The spirit of the community was such that by the end of the week those halls were empty because all -the refugees had been taken into private homes throughout the township.
The provincial government moved in and set up a mobile welfare unit which would look after all the needs in regard to food and clothing for -the victims until they were rehabilitated. This, of course, is on the normal 40-20-20 basis, 40 per cent by the federal government, 20 per cent by the provincial government and 20 per cent by the municipality. As I mentioned a moment ago, the greatest difficulty will be for the municipality

to find the 20 per cent because of the condition in which it finds itself at -the present time.
The response to the disaster fund has been most remarkable. All the local papers, the radio stations, the television stations have done a tremendous job. I recall watching the local television station, CFCL, Friday night. They put on a live program for one hour, with all the big local entertainers donating their time. They asked the people to phone in requests and to phone in their donations. In that one hour they raised over $2,500 in donations. They got donations from as far away as Rouyn, Noranda, Cobalt, Kapuskasing and Hearst.
There is one problem that really came to light in this emergency as no doubt it has in other emergencies which have struck as quickly as this one. I refer to the lack of coordination among the various people who want to help. There were numerous occasions when people were standing by ready to assist but because of the lack of co-ordination their help went unused. I do not think blame for this can be put on any one individual. The head of the local civil defence coordination, who is incidentally the fire chief, worked day and night in an attempt to coordinate all the various offers of assistance, and so forth. I think the problem was caused by the lack of understanding and lack of realization of the public generally in regard to civil defence. I know that over the years the fire chief has tried to get the people in that area interested in civil defence. In fact, in the township of Mount Joy he made many efforts to get some people interested in the need and use of civil defence.
This may be something for the minister and for the civil defence in general to consider. They should consider a possible change of name. If it were called civil emergency rather than civil defence it might appeal more to and get more people interested in it and act. When we talk about civil defence to the general public they immediately get a picture of evacuations because of an atom bomb or something of that nature. In a place like Timmins, of course, the people feel that they would be one of the last targets in an atom bomb attack. They think that it will never happen to them. But I believe that every community across the country is in fear of something. One community is in fear of floods, another in fear of bush fires and another has some other danger hanging over it. If civil defence could be related to the particular problem of the community it is possible that we could get people interested,

and once they became interested a much better job could be done so far as civil defence co-ordination is concerned.
Finally, once again I should like to extend an invitation to any hon. members of the house who are interested to come to Timmins this week end. I should like particularly to see a cabinet minister or parliamentary assistant come along with the group.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take much of the time of the committee and I hope what I have to say will not be very contentious. I wish to say at once that I am going to be critical of a public agency but in doing so I am not implying any criticism whatever of the government.
I asked a question in the house the other day which was answered by the Minister of National Revenue. It had to do with the regulations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, if they had any, with respect to persons being candidates for public office. The minister's answer appears on page 3954 of Hansard for May 17, at which time he said:
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that section 8, subsection 3 of the bylaws of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation states:
''No officer or employee of the corporation employed on a full-time basis shall be a candidate for any public elective office or actively support any candidate for any public elective office, but an officer or employee of the corporation may, subject to the permission of the president, be or actively support a candidate for a municipal or civic office, provided that the acceptance of or the support of the candidature for such office does not interfere with the proper and regular performance of his duties with the corporation."
I do not think it would be fair to the committee or to the minister to debate the general question involved in this bylaw. I must say that I do not know when the bylaw was passed. It may have been there since the inception of the corporation, but I was never aware of it before. I admit that right oft. I do think it does raise a pretty fundamental question.
I am troubled, as I am sure every hon. member of the house is, by the extent to which private employers not directly but indirectly limit the capacity of citizens to offer themselves for public service, and it seems to me that unless there is some very compelling reason for it employees of public corporations should not be put in the position that civil servants properly are but should be in the same position as employees of the C.N.R. with respect to candidature of this kind.
I admit at once that there are some special problems connected with broadcasting that would have to be taken into account but, as 79951-0-255
Interim Supply
I say, it is not to discuss the general principle involved that I am saying what I am saying now. The minister went on to say with reference to a particular case which has arisen recently in British Columbia:
In reply to the supplementary question relating to the one particular individual mentioned, I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that this supplementary question, which related to British Columbia, refers to the case of a commentator on the program "Neighbourly News" who was not a member of the staff but a freelance artist and who announced his candidacy in the next British Columbia election. In accordance with the corporation's practice in this regard and the principle enunciated in the regulation which I read a moment ago, he was given two weeks' notice of termination of employment, and arrangements are now being made and discussions are taking place with him and others as to a replacement commentator.
The person in question has, I understand, been adopted as a candidate in an election which undoubtedly will take place in the province of British Columbia but which has not been called. It seems to me this is of some importance even with relation to the bylaw. Moreover, the bylaw, of course, applies to full-time employees and not to persons who are employed at piecework as this particular person had been.
It does seem to me that there are, in the facts of this case, certain circumstances which seem to suggest that the action taken was neither fair nor reasonable, nor is it the kind of action which any of us who believe in our free and representative institutions should wish to see taken. It so happens that this gentleman is a member of the party to which I belong, but it would not make any difference to me to what party he belonged. In the case of people who are simply employed to do a particular specific thing once a week, it seems to me it is wrong to say that these people cannot be adopted as candidates for some future election and retain their engagement. If they use the opportunity given to them to broadcast in order to further their candidature or to further the particular interests of their party, I quite agree that would be an abuse and if that were done I think the corporation would be perfectly justified in dealing with it as an abuse.
But in this particular case this man has been compiling and broadcasting a program called "Neighbourly News" for 15 years. There is a similar program on the radio here. I listen to it occasionally on Sunday morning, as I am sure some other hon. members do, and a more completely non-political program it would be pretty hard to imagine. I quite grant that it might be possible to introduce into it something that would be objectionable or unfair, but surely under our system we should not anticipate that someone is going to do something wrong.

Interim Supply
It is not a question of this man's livelihood. I understand he gets a small payment of approximately $35 a week which does not seem very excessive and which I gather does not mean very much to him, but there is a real principle involved here. The facts that the minister was given by the C.B.C. in order to reply to the house are not inaccurate, but they are perhaps not entirely candid or entirely full, if my information is correct, and I have every reason to believe it is.


Mr. Lambert:: The gentleman himself
probably wrote to you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite true. The gentleman himself wrote it. I have the document sent by him and I would be very glad to read any part or all of it into the record or show it to the parliamentary secretary. If the rules permitted I would, of course, be quite happy to lay it on the table but only ministers can lay documents on the table as I well know from previous experience.
This gentleman, who is in every way a reputable person, was in fact, according to the information supplied to me, told in the first instance very shortly before he was to give his broadcast that he was not going to be allowed to go on and it was only after he had protested that he was then told he could go on for another two weeks. He was also given permission to make a farewell broadcast. According to the information given to me, which I believe to be correct, every script that he used was always read in advance by someone else.
There would have been, therefore, very little opportunity for him to abuse this broadcast in any case. He was told that he could make a farewell broadcast. I have a copy of the text here of the speech he was going to make. Part of the text was censored and the person in the C.B.C. who censored it signed it and initialled it. I think the committee should hear what it was that was censored, what it was that the official of the C.B.C. felt it was improper for the listeners in British Columbia to hear on this program.
I will not read the whole thing, but will read the part he was told to leave out. Perhaps I will have to read the previous sentence so that the continuity will be clear.
And now, neighbours, it's not going to be easy for me to say what I am now going to tell you. This is my last Neighbourly News broadcast. You might say this is my swan song as your Sunday morning reporter of the doings of the small towns and their folks, and yes, even their dogs and cats and other pets.
That part was left in, and this is the part that was to be struck out:
As some of you may know, I happen to be a candidate-


Norman Platt Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; I am just wondering whether the hon. gentleman would not agree that this is strictly a matter of internal management of the corporation. This house would not expect to have the handling of the day to day affairs of the corporation nor matters of staff policy. I am just wondering whether this material which the hon. member is trying to put on the record is really relevant and proper at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the parliamentary secretary did not hear what I said at the outset of my remarks, through no fault of his own, because he did not know I was going to speak on this subject and he did not happen to be in the chamber. What I said was that I felt a fundamental human right was involved here, the right of a citizen to be adopted as a candidate for the legislature or for any other public office without having a penalty put upon him by a public corporation. It is that matter of fundamental human rights, which according to the speech from the throne are certainly within the purview of this parliament, upon which I am speaking. We are being asked to vote a very considerable sum of money for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which is ultimately responsible, not to the government but to parliament.
I would raise a question, and I only raise it as a question, as to whether the statute does, in fact, give the corporation power to do things of this sort, which do seem to call into question a person's civil rights. This is not a matter of any internal management, this is a matter of public privilege, because the corporation was not seeking to discipline somebody for some infraction but because the corporation, by its action was, in fact, penalizing someone in the exercise of his undoubted civic rights; that is the point I wish to make. If the parliamentary secretary feels that there is still a point of order I would be glad to sit down so Your Honour could rule.


Norman Platt Lambert: I have just this observation. While the hon. member may question, on broad lines, the principle that he enunciated, I am wondering whether or not he is going too far in going into the detail of what had been taken out of the talk. That has nothing to do with the question. I have not got the act before me, but it will be remembered that it is clearly indicated in the legislation that matters of staff policy shall be for the president of the corporation; that is what it says.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This gentleman was not a member of the staff of the C.B.C.


Norman Platt Lambert: It is really a legal nicety, I think, to indicate whether or not a person

is a staff member when he is a full-time employee, a regular part-time commentator engaged on a contract or when he is an occasional commentator hired on a strictly free-lance basis. The dividing line as between a regular part-time commentator under contract and a full-time employee is extremely narrow. It is for that reason I am raising this point of order as to whether it is appropriate to discuss matters of staff policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in this committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps before Your Honour makes a decision I could cite a very distinguished precedent. A question arose on a matter of interim supply on March 29, 1957, with respect to a part-time commentator on the C.B.C., and it was debated at some length in this committee. One of the distinguished participants in that debate was the Minister of Finance. It does seem to me, sir, that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
As to the other point raised by the parliamentary secretary as to whether or not it is a proper thing for me to read the part of this document that was censored, I think perhaps, in a way, the parliamentary secretary may have a point there. There is no question in this case but that this man, under the terms of his contract, did submit his scripts for censorship. They were always submitted and, therefore, I assume that if this particular passage were to be cut out, he would have no very valid complaint on that ground if he was being continued in his employment. But this, after all, was not a broadcast in a series. He was being permitted by the C.B.C. to give a farewell broadcast when his employment was terminated. Then, that farewell broadcast was butchered, and it seemed to me that that was a rather serious thing.
It seems to me, also, that perhaps more than any other assembly in this country, this House of Commons should be jealous of the civil rights of others, particularly those who are seeking to be candidates for public af-fice.


The Deputy Chairman:: This, of course, is a very difficult situation on which to make a decision. I must say that I cannot find anything that would, in my opinion, make the hon. member out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do think, because it is rather important to illustrate the kind of person this was, that I should read what he wished to say on this farewell broadcast which he was going to give because he had been told he could be employed no longer. He wished to inform the people to whom
79951-0-2554
Interim Supply
he had been broadcasting for 15 years that he was not going to be permitted to broadcast any longer:
As some of you may know, I happen to be a candidate in Vancouver for the next provincial election, and the C.B.C. has seen fit to dismiss me because they say it's against their policy to let me stay on the air while offering myself for public service. Apparently this policy applies to commentators who express personal views on public matters... but for the life of me I can't see how it holds water in my case. After all, I'm not a commentator, I'm just a reporter of the country news and human interest stories taken from the country papers, and I disagree with their decision because the policy implies that I might use the program for my own political gain.
Yet this would be impossible because every week my script is checked in advance by the producer anyway. To me the policy is a reflection on a person's integrity, and I like to believe that my record over 15 years of broadcasting Neighbourly News speaks for itself. Be that as it may, my dismissal takes effect immediately and this will have to be my farewell to you all.
This gentleman, when he was not permitted to include this passage in his broadcast, did not give the broadcast and his employment has been terminated. I think it is unfortunate that this should have happened in this particular case. But I am much more concerned about the general principle involved than I am about the particular case. My reason and my justification for raising it at this time and taking up the time of the committee in order to do so is that I feel it is extremely important, if we are going to maintain our free representative institutions, that as few obstacles as possible be put in the way of a citizen offering himself for public service in an elective capacity. It seems to me that public corporations should set an example to the rest of the country in this regard in the right way and not what seems to me to be the wrong way. In saying that I do not want anyone to misinterpret for a minute what I have to say and to suggest that I am saying that people who are candidates should be allowed to go on broadcasting during an election campaign or that they should broadcast at all if they are broadcasting the kind of broadcast in which there would be abuse. I would not suggest that for a moment.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Where would you draw the line?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly what we pay these people for, namely to draw the line and not just to put a ban on very-body. That is what parliaments are for. That is what public officials are for. It is precisely to draw the line and not just to make things illegal on a broad scale. That is why we talk about a bill of rights; at least I have always conceived that was the reason.

Interim Supply


Mr. McCleave:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Was the paragraph he read the sole attempt to say good-bye?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not read the whole broadcast. There are two or three other paragraphs that might have been referred to but I did not think it was fair to the committee to take up its time to read them. As I said before, I am not making any criticism of the government. I do not suggest that the government had anything to do with this matter. I think it was done entirely by the C.B.C. as it should have been or rather, I mean as it should not have been. I might correct myself there. What I am saying is that in my opinion it should not have been.
I want to tell hon. members that this is not a new view that I take of these matters. In case it may not be widely known in the House of Commons, may I say this. My political opponent in my first election campaign was a distinguished Newfoundlander who was an extraordinarily good broadcaster and who had broadcast on the C.B.C. on the same kind of basis as this, as far as I know. I never inquired into the details of it but he was not a member of staff of the C.B.C. He was employed in this sort of way to make broadcasts to fishermen. He did not do it during the election campaign because he was busy with other things, but he was retained again for that purpose immediately after the election in 1953. How I happened to find that out was that some rather ardent supporter of mine wrote to me or communicated with me in some way and suggested that I do something about it. My attitude was that I had done all I needed to do. I had been successful in the election and this man had not been successful. He was a good broadcaster and I did not see any reason on earth why the C.B.C. should not go on with him on its staff and I do not see that now. It also happened that very shortly afterward the film board wanted somebody with a good Newfoundland voice and they asked the C.B.C. who they would recommend. The C.B.C. recommended this gentleman and he was retained by the film board. It is true that I was not actually the minister in charge of the film board at that time but my friend Mr. Harris was, and Mr. Harris took no exception whatsoever.


Mr. Halpenny:: Your halo is showing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know it. All I am saying is that I think all of us in the House of Commons, to whatever political party we belong, should in this matter take a liberal

view and I use the word with a small "1". I think this is really an extremely important case. It is for that reason that I have sought to air the matter here today.
There is also another broadcasting matter I wish to say a brief word about. It does not affect the C.B.C.; it affects the board of broadcast governors. Here again another important principle is involved. I do not intend to go into details in this case. This matter also was the subject of a question on the order paper. It was question No. 359 and appeared in Hansard of May 9, 1960. The questions I asked were as follows:
1.	Was a broadcast entitled "What are the national issues in the west coast union fight" broadcast by station CJOR, Vancouver, on February 20, 1960?
The answer given was yes. The second question was as follows:
2.	If so, was station CJOR forbidden by the board of broadcast governors to permit the rebroadcast of this program on other stations and, if so, for what reason?
The answer given was as follows:
Station CJOR, Vancouver, was advised that the program could not be rebroadcast until the board received assurances from the station that those holding views opposed to those expressed on the program of February 20, 1960 would be given an equal opportunity to express these views on the first possible program following.
The step taken by the board in this instance was consistent with the provisions of the board's directive to all radio stations entitled "Political and controversial broadcasting policies." This directive requires that, if a station broadcasts a program on a controversial subject, equal opportunity must be given to all parties to the controversy to express their views. After listening to the taped recording of the program broadcast by station CJOR on February 20, entitled "What Are the National Issues in the West Coast Union Fight", the board was satisfied that this requirement had not been met.
I am not going to take any time on that matter. With that general principle I thoroughly approve. I think one of the best features of broadcasting in Canada is that in connection with these controversial broadcasts we have a general regulation to provide for the airing of both sides. The last thing I would ever do would be to attack that principle in which I firmly believe. But in this particular case I think the board of broadcast governors made a mistake. If the facts are as they have been represented to me- and again I may say I have made every effort to find out-a real effort was made in this case to get persons to represent both sides of the case more than a week beforehand but unfortunately, though there was every prospect that this opportunity would be accepted, the person to represent one side did not turn up. It was a broadcast from a meeting and the meeting had to be held. It

seems to me that every reasonable opportunity had been given. I think that here again we should always err-if there is going to be any erring at all-on the side of liberality and of freedom rather than the reverse.


Mr. Argue:: I want to go along with most of the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. In a case like this I feel it is far better to err on the side of leniency than to be too rigid in the application of the rule that people engaged politics should not be in the employ of the C.B.C.
In Saskatchewan we have, of course, a bill of rights; and in that province civil servants have the right under the law to take a normal citizen's part in political activities as long as it is not within their working hours. However, we also have another rule which provides that anyone who becomes a political candidate shall immediately leave the position which he or she occupies, but can obtain leave of absence for the period of the election or during the time the person concerned is a candidate. We feel that in a democracy such as ours it is the duty of the government to preserve the fundamental right of citizens to take part in politics and afford them some protection in their normal occupations.
The subject I really wish to deal with at this time concerns the attitude of the Prime Minister in failing to give the farm delegation satisfaction as to the date of another meeting when it would have a chance to present its case. This matter has been raised on a number of occasions. 1 raised the subject on April 8 when it was announced in the press that the Prime Minister had refused to see the farm delegation. At that time, in reply to my question, the Prime Minister stated:
I cannot enter into an argument during the course of orders of the day, but may X say that any representations made in the past constituted not an alternative but a series of alternatives.
The Prime Minister had been asking the delegation to present some alternative program. At that time the right hon. gentleman was apparently inferring that if the delegation came forward with some other policy, and not a number of alternatives-a single alternative-he might consider meeting the delegation. Since that time the question has been raised again. In fact, it was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Essex East, and that hon. member received from the Prime Minister what was in my opinion a most unsatisfactory answer.
I think in a country such as ours the Prime Minister should be available to meet delegations representing major organizations and the Prime Minister should not hesitate to give the continuing liaison committee an
Interim Supply
opportunity to meet with him once again and present for the third or fourth time its case for deficiency payments. I think this is a somewhat arrogant and high-handed attitude which the government-the Prime Minister -has taken. I think it is an unreasonable attitude, and it is one which for the life of me I cannot understand because I feel the Prime Minister should not be guilty of slapping in the face the hundreds of thousands of western producers who through their delegations and spokesmen presented a well-reasoned case in support of deficiency payments and an economic program.
There seems to be an attitude among supporters of the government that the farm delegation members do not know of what they speak, that they are asking for something which is undesirable or impracticable; in short, that they really do not represent rank and file farm opinion. I believe that hon. members who put that argument forward are completely mistaken. I have it from the president of the interprovincial farm union council, Mr. Alf Gleave, that neither by letter nor by resolution has a single local of the farmers' union gone on record in support of the government's policy of a dollar an acre payment as the answer to the farmers' economic problem.


An hon. Member:: In what province?


Hazen Robert Argue: The president of the farmers' union in Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is a fairly important province. I would be interested to know from the hon. member if there is a single farm union local in Alberta, or in Manitoba, for that matter, which has gone on record as being in support of the dollar an acre program as a suitable answer to the farmers' economic problem.


Mr. Speakman:: If the hon. member would call at my office I will show him at least 16 letters-


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member could bring them into the house, and then the public would know about them. I doubt very much if they are in existence at all.


James Stanley Speakman: On a question of privilege: is the hon. member questioning my word?


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, not at all. I would like to see them in the house, but the hon. member will not be bringing them into the house.


Mr. Aiken:: I do think the hon. member for Assiniboia went much too far in stating he did not believe the letters were in existence

Interim Supply
at all, after they had been referred to by another hon. member. I think that is a statement which should be withdrawn.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh. The hon. member asked me if I doubted his word, and I said: not at all. What more does the hon. member now wish? I went on to say that I thought it would be very interesting if we could have those letters produced in this house, and I challenge the hon. member to bring them into the house. Since they are undoubtedly in existence, the hon. member need have no hesitation about doing so in order that the public may know whether a single farm union local has expressed any support of a dollar an acre payment with a $200 limit as the answer to the farmers' economic problem.
Supporters of the government in this chamber have taken it upon themselves to lecture the farmers with regard to what they want. These members have been going around saying that farm organizations are not speaking for the farmers, that they really do not know what the producers themselves would like the government to do. I have in my hand a copy of the Western Producer for April 28, 1960 in which appears a heading in very large red type: "Farmers Back Liaison Committee". The article says:
Shackleton-Sask.-Members of parliament who had suspected that farm organization leaders did not represent the views of their grass-root members got an answer in no uncertain terms in this southwestern Saskatchewan district April 22.
Calling the Saskatchewan wheat pool the most democratically run organization in the country, 45 farmers representing 622 permit holders told two members of parliament that they were solidly behind wheat pool officials in statements on wheat policy, that they continued to support the liaison committee representing 10 western farm organizations in negotiations with the federal government for a solution to the country's grain problem, and they urged the members of parliament to consider in future dealings with wheat pool officials that they were dealing with all 141,227 grass-root members of the organization.
There are other instances of government members who have taken issue with the farmers regarding their stand. The two members in question referred to in the report I have just read are the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and the hon. member for Kindersley.


Mr. Harkness:: On a point of order, I submit that the type of speech which the hon. member for Assiniboia is now making is completely out of order when we are discussing interim supply. I submit this on a basis altogether different from that which has been argued on any other points of order which may have been raised as far as this debate is concerned.
The hon. member is now making a speech on general agricultural policy-general agricultural matters-and I submit that this is

contrary to the rules as outlined in Beau-chesne, section 148 on page 126 of the fourth edition:
1. It Is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded: and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
The general debate on agricultural policy took place over a period of three days on item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. This interim supply is to give supply for a certain proportion of the money provided. The place on which a general agricultural debate can take place is on the first estimate of the Department of Agriculture. This debate lasted three days. There was every opportunity at that time for the hon. member to make a general speech on agriculture. I submit that to attempt to make another general speech on agriculture on the interim supply bill is to be out of order. This argument would not apply to those items not passed but, as you are aware, approximately 10 or 12 of the agricultural estimates have been passed and a general debate on agricultural policy lasting for three days took place on the first item. To revive debate at this time is contrary to the rules of the house and therefore general speeches on agricultural policy should not be permitted at this juncture.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on the point of order raised by the Minister of Agriculture. I have listened to what the hon. member for Assiniboia was saying and would find it very difficult to support the position taken on the procedural point by the Minister of Agriculture.
The hon. member for Assiniboia has raised what I think is a legitimate grievance. That grievance as reflected in the words used by the hon. member is that the government in refusing to meet the representatives of the farm organizations from western Canada has violated what the hon. gentleman believes to be the proper conduct of government and he has stated his views by way of expressing a grievance. Surely in expressing that grievance the hon. member is entitled to indicate that the grounds taken by the government for not having met these representatives of agriculture is not a sound one. The hon. member expressed that by indicating his views on certain aspects of agricultural policy as enunciated by farm organizations. Surely no serious objection can be taken to the point made by the hon. member for Assiniboia in this regard.
The government is deservedly charged with having failed to carry out its promises.

The government is deservedly charged with failure to meet these representatives-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I think the hon. member for Essex East has made a point of order and has gone far enough in doing so.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I still have the floor, Mr. Chairman. Your Honour has taken the position that I have made my point and that possibly I have gone beyond it, and if that is Your Honour's view-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know that hon. gentlemen opposite do not like hon. members of the opposition to mention-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I submit that hon. gentlemen have made a comment and I am entitled to comment on that. Whenever we raise any point they do not like, whether it be agriculture or some other subject, hon. members opposite seek to put us down.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let me say that here is one member of parliament who is not going to be put down by hon. members opposite.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. We can only have one hon. member speaking at a time. If the hon. member for Essex East wishes to speak again to a point of order the Chair will be very happy to hear him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am very glad that the Chair at least will protect those of us in the opposition who are seeking-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Smith (Simcoe North):: The hon. member makes a travesty of the rules.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. members opposite again seek to put me down. This is a very good example of what I am talking about and I hope the country will see it.


Mr. Macdonnell:: State your point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Greenwood is not one of those who continually obstructs-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: State your point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -but I would not want his mild intervention at the moment to be characterized as it might be-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: State your point.
Interim Supply


Paul Joseph James Martin: -if he persists in repeating it as a part of this process of obstruction.


Heber Edgar Smith: You are the
obstructer. You are making a travesty of the rules.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity of expressing my right of free speech in this chamber.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is a well-known rule that debate cannot be revived at a later stage. That relates in the main to items that are passed on motions and therefore are concluded when the debate is over. However, the administrative item for agriculture on which debate can take place has not been fully passed. The funds have not been voted. We have under discussion a fraction of the administrative item. It was on that basis that I was seeking to raise the question of deficiency payments.
I would not have occupied many more minutes of the committee's time if the point of order had not been raised. I do not think the minister challenges my right to refer to the attitude of the Prime Minister on something that happened as recently as yesterday.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the hon. member still on a point of order?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes. The Prime Minister's estimates have not been passed and therefore remarks having to do with the Prime Minister's attitude and the government's policy as stated yesterday should be in order at this time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Further on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East attempted to make the point that this was the time to raise grievances. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, this is not the time to raise grievances. We are discussing interim supply and I believe that any speeches made should have reference to some item in the estimates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course.


Douglas Scott Harkness: However, the hon. member seems to think that a grievance of any kind whether or not it relates to an item in the estimates can be raised.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that at all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would contend that that is not so. Quite apart from that altogether, after having dealt with the first matter the hon. member for Essex East talked about the complaint the hon. member for Assiniboia

Interim. Supply
made that the government did not see again the western liaison committee representing the ten big western farm organizations. As the hon. member for Assiniboia admitted, in speaking to the point of order he went on to talk about deficiency payments in general. He sought to make a general speech on agriculture. I see that the hon. member is nodding his head. I think that is the case. Therefore I believe my original argument is valid. We had the general debate on agriculture and the first item was passed by this committee. It is therefore not in order to have a general debate on agriculture again at this time. As I said, this argument would not apply to any items except the 10 or 12 in this department which have already been passed. I maintain it applies to those items and there should not be a revival of general debate on these items at this time.


James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a question of privilege as I attempted to do a few moments ago.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The committee is now discussing a point of order. The Minister of Agriculture has raised a valid point with respect to the items that have already been passed and I do not think the hon. gentleman should engage in a full and general debate on agriculture at this time. I do feel, however, that the hon. member is free to raise certain points provided he does not engage in a full, general debate on agriculture.


James Stanley Speakman: Will the hon. member for Assiniboia contain himself until I am through. He questioned my possession of some letters. I am going to give excerpts from those letters for his edification.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member will have a chance. It is a question perhaps of disagreement between two hon. members. I do not think there is any point of order or question of privilege at this moment. The hon. member will have a chance to speak after the hon. member for Assiniboia is through.


James Stanley Speakman: If the hon. member doubts my word-


Hazen Robert Argue: No, I do not.


Charles Edward Rea: I must say the hon. member for Assiniboia did not doubt the hon. member's word. He said he did not doubt it, or words to that effect. However, the hon. member for Assiniboia has the floor.


Hazen Robert Argue: The record will show that I did not doubt-


James Stanley Speakman: You said you doubted the existence of those letters.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then my hon. friend assured me they were in existence and I accepted his word without reservation. I went on to challenge him to produce them. He said he did not want them produced.


James Stanley Speakman: I did not say anything of the sort.


Hazen Robert Argue: If he wants to produce them I am very happy that he is about to produce them. I think he might produce them on his own time rather than on mine, Mr. Chairman.
When I rose initially I quoted the statement that the Prime Minister made in this house as late as yesterday having to do with arranging another meeting for the western farm delegation. We have had a debate in this house already on deficiency payments. We may have some further debates in this house on that question during this session because new developments can arise from time to time. But I feel that the government is in serious error, the Prime Minister is in serious error, in refusing readily to grant to the farm delegation an interview so that they can present their proposals to the government at this time.
No matter what may be said about the position taken by the farm delegation and their representatives, they have not asked the government for as much as they were promised by this administration in recent election campaigns. I would hope that the Prime Minister, either by his own statement or by a statement through the Minister of Agriculture, will agree to meet this delegation once again.
This delegation and their representatives are not people who do not know of what they speak. They are responsible spokesmen; they have asked the government for an interview and I insist that this is a democratic right which should be granted to them by the Prime Minister.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say one word in connection with these remarks which have just been made, the allegation that the Prime Minister and the government have refused to meet this western farm organization. This is completely untrue and incorrect. We have not refused to meet the farm organizations. In fact, the Prime Minister wrote to them saying we would be glad to meet them as soon as they sent down a definite alternative which they wanted to discuss with us. They have not yet sent down that alternative. We have been sitting prepared ready to meet them at any time that they sent it down, and that is the situation. There has been absolutely no refusal to meet those western farm organizations,

and these allegations the hon. member is making to the contrary, that we have refused to meet them, have no foundation in truth whatever.


James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Chairman, just to put the record straight I should like to read excerpts from a few of those letters for the edification of my hon. friend.
As our member of parliament, we ask you to press the government for some assistance at once.
This is signed by a local official.


Hazen Robert Argue: Who is that?


James Stanley Speakman: He is asking for an acreage payment as a means that would help the man who does not sell his grain.


Erhart Regier: On a point of order, I believe the letter has to be identified.


James Stanley Speakman: I take the words as my own, Mr. Chairman.


Erhart Regier: I believe it is a rule of this house that every letter that is read to the house has to be identified.


Mr. Hodgson:: A doubting Thomas.


Charles Edward Rea: It has been the custom. If the hon. member does not want to do that and wishes to adopt the words as his own, of course, that is different.


James Stanley Speakman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Erhart Regier: In other words, they are not actual letters; they are phonies.


James Stanley Speakman: I ask the hon. member to withdraw that remark immediately.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Doubting the word of a member.


James Stanley Speakman: The hon. member said, "In other words, they are phony."


Hazen Robert Argue: Put them on the record.


Charles Edward Rea: Will the hon. member for Wetaskiwin tell me what he wishes withdrawn? I did not hear any remark.


James Stanley Speakman: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member from his seat and not on his feet said, "In other words, they are phonies." I ask that that be withdrawn immediately.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Erhart Regier: In that regard, I will be very happy to amend my statement and say that the letter may be phony.


James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I ask for the withdrawal of the remark of the hon. member. I think it should be withdrawn immediately.


Murdo William Martin: On the point of order, I am not sure of the actual rule itself 79951-0-256
Interim Supply
but I know that on more than one occasion I have been challenged in this house when I read from a letter, and I was compelled to identify the author of the letter. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure of the rule but I do know that has happened to me on occasion.


Charles Edward Rea: I wish to get the
first point of order straightened away. I feel that the second remark of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is one that has been used in the house before and therefore I feel that I should not ask for a withdrawal. Do you intend to continue?


James Stanley Speakman: Yes, and I intend to take the words of the letters as my own because they are written to me as the representative ' of those people in parliament.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not an official of the local.


James Stanley Speakman: Yes, as their member of parliament, my hon. friend.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a question?


James Stanley Speakman: No; contain yourself. You have made your point and we did not interrupt you.


Hazen Robert Argue: Maybe the letter is phony.


James Stanley Speakman: That is fine. My hon. friend can be unparliamentary. He has been here 15 years, and by now he should know how to conduct himself in the House of Commons; apparently he does not.
Therefore those producers feel that an acreage payment as in 1958 would meet with general approval.
We request you to have the government make an additional payment this year of $1 per acre.
I am sure that a limited acreage payment would help those in dire need and put more money in circulation even if some do not need it and in turn help the whole economy.
I will not put any more on the record. I hope I have made the hon. member eat his words.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, rather than eat my words, I am sure I am being verified in the questioning I did of the kind of letters and the kind of documents my hon. friend is producing. I asked him whether the person writing the letter wrote it as an official on behalf of a given local union, or was it some official of the union who was writing a private letter to my hon. friend?
I have heard in the country that members of the government party are endeavouring by radio broadcasts, by letter writing, to get people to write in to them and say, "We want an acreage payment we do not want anything else." I am wondering whether this unnamed person in the partially produced letter that my hon. friend says

Interim Supply
he has in his possession really is an official of a farm union local speaking for the local or if these are letters that are being brought in by some paid official of the Conservative party somewhere in western Canada who is doing a political favour for my hon. friend.


James Stanley Speakman: We do not have to stoop to C.C.F. tactics.


An hon. Member:: What has that got to do with the point of order?


Hazen Robert Argue: I was not talking on the point of order. I was discussing the subject before and I have a few remarks I want to make about the minister's statement. The minister said that the Prime Minister has not refused to see a delegation. I think that is a lenient interpretation of the attitude of the government. The government is trying to hold a gun to the head of the farm organizations by saying to them, "You produce the kind of alternative we have been talking about or we will not consider anything at all". The farm organizations have produced alternatives. They have produced alternatives in the plural. They have produced four well-known alternatives which I could relate but in the words of the Prime Minister himself he does not want alternatives. He wants an alternative.
I suggest this is a high-handed attitude on the part of the government, that the government to trying browbeat the farm organizations into submitting to the government something that is the Tory answer to these problems, which is no answer at all. As I survey the situation I feel that the farm organizations are very accurately and genuinely representing their membership. They have already given the government alternatives and yet the government refuses to see them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the observations made within the last few minutes by the hon. member for Assiniboia and earlier stated by him be-bore the Minister of Agriculture rose to say a few words. As the hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out, on May 18 I asked the Minister of Agriculture the following question:
May I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether, now that the Prime Minister is back, he has found it possible to answer the representations made to him by western farmers for a conference with the government with regard to an alternative proposal to meet their particular situation?
The minister replied as follows:
I think the hon. member should address his question to the Prime Minister rather than to me.
Then I went on:
Would the Minister of Agriculture not consider looking over toward the Prime Minister to see that I get some kind of reply from someone?

At that point surely either the Minister of Agriculture or the Prime Minister should have unhesitatingly risen in his place and indicated whether or not the government was prepared to meet this farm delegation or the liaison committee as it is sometimes referred to. Then I had to press the matter further and I did. I said:
In view of the importance of this matter I wonder whether, since the Prime Minister's return, he has had an opportunity of conferring with his colleagues to fix a date for the delegation from western Canada that wishes to discuss with the government a proposal in the alternative, in view of the fact that the request for deficiency payments was turned down by the government. I am sure the Prime Minister will recognize that this question has to be settled very soon.
After that encouragement from the member for Essex East the Prime Minister rose and after paying some tribute to my interest in agriculture, a habit in which the Prime Minister now seemingly likes to indulge, he said:
However, I would say. .. that this matter is under consideration.
Surely the time has arrived when the government can no longer get away with that kind of reply. That is the reply that the government has given to the farmers of western Canada since March, 1959 when they came to Ottawa 1,000 strong to make representations to the government of Canada, and only a year later were they able to get a reply from the government turning down their demand for deficiency payments.
I am not now commenting on the demand but on the right of the people of this country to make representations to the government which they elected, particularly a government elected on the basis of assurances given by them to these very farmers. It is the inalienable right of the citizens of a free country like ours, if they cannot persuade the government to adopt the point of view of those who make the representations at least to be able to lay their point of view before the members of the government, and that is the point made by the hon. member for Assiniboia. This government disregards this inalienable right.
The Prime Minister says that this matter is under consideration. It is true that the question was raised in the house about two weeks ago. I raised it. I complained about the refusal of the government to see the liaison committee, and what was the reply?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I dealt with the matter fully at that time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am now going to deal with the reply. The minister said that the government was not going to refuse-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I must submit again that this is completely out of order. The hon. member is going back to the debate we had on the first item of the agricultural estimates when this very matter was considered and dealt with fully by me. Now he says he is going to refer to that debate. If that is not reviving a debate I do not know what it is. Under the ruling you made a short time ago, Mr. Chairman, the member for Essex East has no right to revive that debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not going to revive any debate. I was simply giving the reply the minister gave as to why the government will not see the liaison committee, the reply of the minister at that time, not the reply of the Prime Minister. He did not give that reply. The reply of the Minister of Agriculture at that time was, "We will see this liaison committee"-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -"but we will only see it provided they write a letter and state a proposal". That was the position taken by the minister at that time, but that is not the position taken by the Prime Minister. In view of the reply of the Prime Minister, we are now entitled to know whether or not this delegation is going to be given opportunity to state its views. If the government does not today, not tomorrow, not some weeks hence, not after the Saskatchewan election, reply to the representations that have been made first by the hon. member for Assiniboia and now by me, then the government does not deserve to receive the recognition which a government is entitled to receive. We are entitled to say that in this matter the government is arrogant, that it is insolent, that it refuses to take steps to meet an important body of citizens who feel they have certain positions they want to put before the government. Do I overstate-


Mr. Jones:: What nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Saskatoon says, "What nonsense". He is the representative of the city of Saskatoon and I should have thought he would be the last person to say that. I can understand the hon. member for Greenwood, who looks at me now so critically, taking that position. He lives in Toronto far away from the problems of these people, as I do myself.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask a question? The reason I am questioning what the hon. member is saying is that a clear statement has been made by the Minister of Agriculture pointing out that the Prime Minister and he are still waiting for a further communication 79951-0-256i
Interim Supply
from these people in Saskatchewan and that there is no question of refusing to see them. That is a plain statement. Let me make one more point. Will the hon. member for Essex East not deal with that plain statement of fact?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has asked me a question and I will deal with it. I thank my hon. friend. He has now confirmed that I was in order although the Minister of Agriculture said a few moments ago that I was out of order because I was discussing that very matter. I will say this to the hon. member for Greenwood, who loves this parliament and who loves free government, that that kind of reply made by the Minister of Agriculture, which he has just repeated, should never be made by any responsible government.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Don't be pompous, Paul.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What this means-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Don't be pompous, Paul.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend should not forget that the farmers of Saskatchewan are very annoyed-


Charles Edward Rea: I must remind hon. members that they must address the Chair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to remind my friend, the minister of northern affairs, with regard to pomposity, that he wants to go back to western Canada to hear what the farmers there are saying about the speeches he made on this subject during the Easter recess. He complained about the farm leaders from western Canada. He said that they did not represent the farmers of western Canada. When my hon. friend goes back to Saskatchewan he is going to receive a reception the like of which he has never received before from the farmers of western Canada because of the tour which he made so elegantly, not pompously, during the Easter recess.
Let me tell the hon. member for Greenwood that it is not within the prerogative of a government, having given assurances to the farmers of western Canada as this government did, to say to the farmers, in effect, we do not declare any policy; we cannot accept your original proposal; you put in writing what you think should be done and send us a letter-put O.H.M.S. on it if you like and perhaps no postage will then be charged- addressed to the Prime Minister; we will examine your proposal, and having examined it, will then grant you an audience, an interview. That is the situation.
I say that this government, if it has a policy, should declare that policy. It should be

Ways and Means
obliged to say whether or not it has a policy on the matter instead of putting the whole responsibility on the farmers of this country. That is my answer to the hon. member for Greenwood. As an upholder of responsible government he should join with me in condemning the Minister of Agriculture and this government for its unwillingness to state a policy and for putting the whole responsibility on the farmer. When the right hon. gentleman during the last election campaign went all over this country urging the farmers of Canada to support him-


Charles Edward Rea: Order; I wonder whether or not hon. members realize that we are discussing interim supply which, I understand, is for the year 1960-61.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for reminding the hon. member for Greenwood what is the point under discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the light of what we have indicated, and I say this seriously to the minister, how can he possibly justify this procrastination of now over a year. Either the government has a policy or it has not. The government ought, without any reservation, to say to the farmers of Canada, as they said with regard to the deficiency payments proposal, we do not agree with that. This was a courageous position to take. It may have been a right position or a wrong position. The farmers say they still have a problem that has to be solved. They say the government has a responsibility.
I am saying as one member of this house, under our constitutional traditions and practices, the government, unless it can give a definite answer, if it wants to follow a proper course and a course sanctioned by usage and by history, to which the hon. member for Greenwood referred so properly and with such great affection, should turn in its seals of office.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

['Agreed.\nProgress reported.']
Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea 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 $600,946,640.92 he granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the resolution
carries, can the minister say whether there is enough in the treasury to meet this demand?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is not a
demand; this is a matter of the provision of money that may be required over the months of June and July. All I can say is that the government will continue to meet its obligations as they come due.


Erhart Regier: May I ask the minister also whether there is enough money in this vote to adequately compensate those worthy servants of the public who will be charged with the responsibility of administering the public affairs of Canada, namely the civil servants of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. The resolution which was approved in committee of supply a moment ago makes that provision.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-62 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1961.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall 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: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if he can assure us, since we only just got the bill, that the items in the bill correspond with those in the resolution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I give that assurance and also the assurance that the bill follows the usual form.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1.
['Yes, I give that assurance and also the assurance that the bill follows the usual form.']
Erhart Regier: I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, that while we are willing to allow the bill to go through committee at this particular time, it is our opinion that the government is in no way meeting its obligations to the people of Canada as they were given before March 31, 1958. I would ask the Minister of Finance when the government intends to commence actions with respect to meeting its election obligations to the people of Canada. In my opinion, the actions of the

government hitherto have been such that the government is not worthy of receiving any vote of any amounts of money.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 1
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Erhart Regier: No, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether I might ask the minister whether he might not consider my question worthy of a reply and if he would like a recitation of the assurances that were given to the people of Canada of what they would do if they were elected to office. I have a long list here. However, I feel that would be mere repetition. The minister is aware of the assurances they gave to the people of Canada. In our opinion the minister and his government are not worthy of being allotted any sums of money at this particular time unless they can give us an assurance that they have some intentions at an early date to meet a number of their obligations.


An hon. Member:: There is a longer list of things done.


Erhart Regier: There is no list of things done.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
Schedules A, B and C agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
['There is no list of things done.\nClause 1 agreed to.\nClauses 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.\nSchedules A, B and C agreed to.']
Erhart Regier: It will be a rough ride next time.
Bill reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, bill read the third time and passed.

Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act to permit payment of pension in prescribed circumstances to pensioners absenting themselves from Canada
Old Age Security Act
beyond the periods now prescribed; and to provide also certain saving and transitional provisions to protect and preserve the rights of pensioners so absent upon the date the said measure comes into force.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have a few remarks to make before this resolution is discussed, Mr. Chairman and I wondered whether the committee would see fit to call it six o'clock at this stage.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I think the purpose of this resolution is generally understood, but I should perhaps say a few words about it, reserving, of course, the details until the amending bill has been introduced and we have the text of it before us for debate on second reading.
When the Old Age Security Act was first introduced in 1951 it was considered by the government of the day that payments of pension to persons 70 years of age and over with the required residence qualifications should be limited to those periods of time when the pensioners themselves were actually living in Canada. This was in accordance with the provisions which had been in effect for over 20 years in the legislation which preceded the Old Age Security Act-namely, the original old age pensions act. Accordingly, the Old Age Security Act, as originally approved by parliament in 1951, provided that whenever an old age security pensioner left Canada his pension was automatically suspended for the period of his absence, subject, of course, to immediate resumption on his return. In all such cases, of course, the pensioner was entitled to his pension for the month of his departure and the month of his return.
In addition, section 5 (1) of the original Old Age Security Act went a little further by providing that the pensioner on his return might also be entitled to pick up his pension payments for a period of three months during which he was absent in any calendar year, provided that he returned to Canada within six months from the date of his departure.
At the time the law was first passed little if any objection was taken to the provision that I have described, and there were possibly good and valid reasons for such a restriction at the time. The new legislation

Old Age Security Act
was being placed on a quasi contributory basis, and everyone living in Canada was, modities, as well as an additional 2 per per cent sales tax on purchases of most commodities, as well as an additional two per *cent income tax levy on taxable income in order to help finance the new old age security payments. In addition to these levies, the corporation tax was also increased by an additional two percentage points at that time. Since these additional levies for old age security purposes were all initiated in 1952 no one could claim that because of contributions paid during an earlier period he had built up any acquired rights which would justify the expectation that he should carry his pension with him if he moved outside of Canada. Anybody moving to reside outside of Canada automatically ceased to pay any of the old age security levies I have mentioned, and consequently he could hardly expect to continue to receive an old age security benefit outside of Canada to which he had not previously contributed. In this context the initial provision for three months of permissible absence-in addition to the month of departure and the month of return -without forfeiture of pension was probably reasonably fair at that time, since it permitted persons to leave the country for visits of short duration and to spend the more severe winter months in warm climates, with automatic reinstatement of benefits on return to Canada and with little if any loss in respect of the periods of absence.
As the years have passed, however, individuals have begun to build up what might be described as acquired rights through contributions which they have paid through extra income or sales tax levies over a period which is now approximately eight years in duration. More and more, as time passes, these individuals come to feel that they have contributed to their pension through their working years; that it should be regarded as their retirement benefit as a matter of right; and that they should therefore not be required to forfeit their old age security benefit when they leave the country. In the view of many people, the provisions which were put in the Old Age Security Act in the first place, however justifiable they may have been at that time, are now coming to work a certain amount of hardship and unfairness on individual Canadians who have contributed to the old age security fund for a good many years and who now feel that when they reach the age of 70 and qualify for old age security benefits they should be free to take their pensions with them wherever they go.
It will be recalled that the government first reviewed this matter in 1957, shortly after
IMr. Monteith (Perth).]
it took office following the June, 1957 election. At that time the Old Age Security Act had been in effect only five and a half years. The rates of contribution were still based on the original 2-2-2 formula, and the maximum old age security contribution for any year under the 2 per cent income tax levy could not exceed $60. Consequently, apart from the amount of sales tax contributed by any individual for old age security purposes, no one at that time had contributed to the old age security fund, through the income tax levy, more than $300, or the equivalent of less than eight months of old age security benefit at the $40 rate then prevailing. Accordingly, while the government at that time decided that there should be some relaxation of the existing restrictions on the movement of pensioners outside of Canada, it did not feel that the time had yet arrived when it could recommend the full recognition of the principle that old age security pensioners should take their pensions with them where-ever they went outside of Canada. In consequence, the government recommended, and parliament approved, an amendment to section 5 of the Old Age Security Act extending from three months to six months the period for which a pensioner returning to Canada could obtain reimbursement of pension payments covering the period of his absence.
The time has now arrived when in the view of the government there should be a much more substantial relaxation of these restrictions. Accordingly, the legislation which will be introduced upon the approval of the present resolution will provide for the following:
1.	It will do away with the present provision which requires an old age security pension to be suspended when a pensioner leaves Canada.
2.	It will substitute for the provision requiring suspension a new procedure which will permit pension payments to be continued in all cases of departure from Canada for a minimum period of six full months of absence in addition to the month in which the pensioner leaves Canada.
3.	In the case of pensioners who have resided in Canada 25 years or more after their twenty first birthday there will be no limit whatsoever on the length of the period during which they may continue to receive their pensions outside of Canada.
4.	Only in the case of pensioners who have less than 25 years of residence in Canada following their twenty first birthday will the six-month limit have any effect. Such persons, instead of having their pension suspended as soon as they leave Canada, which is the requirement under the present law, will receive their pension cheques in

the normal way for the month of their departure and will continue to have their pension cheques sent to them wherever they may be outside of Canada for a further period of absence up to a maximum of six consecutive months. If in the seventh month they return to Canada their pension payment will be paid as usual effective with the month of their return and will be continued thereafter without any interruption whatsoever. In the event, however, that they do not return to Canada before the end of the seventh month following the month of their departure from Canada, pension payments will be suspended and will be resumed only with effect from the month in which they actually return.
It will be apparent from what I have said in outlining the purposes of the new legislation that we are endeavouring by this legislation to provide substantially more generous treatment than at present to all classes of pensioners, but that we have as a particular objective the recognition of the valid claims of those long term residents of Canada who can show that they have lived the greater portion of their adult life in this country and who can therefore validly be said to have given most of the years of their life to the service of the nation. Not only have these people contributed as required under the various old age security levies during most or all of the eight years during which these levies have been in effect; but in addition to this, they may be considered to have contributed during their lengthy residence in Canada and during the bulk of their working lives to the taxes which have been required to build up and develop this country.
This group of pensioners which comprises, I may add, the vast majority of those who are presently receiving old age security benefit has, in the view of the government, and I am sure of the people of Canada, a very special claim for consideration in respect of the right to carry their pension with them for an indefinite period wherever they may move in Canada or outside of Canada following their attainment of the age of 70.
It should not be forgotten in this connection that in 1957 the government recommended, and parliament approved, an amendment to the Old Age Security Act which had the effect of reducing the residence requirement from 20 to 10 years. This means that it is possible for individuals on the basis of a relatively short period of residence in Canada to qualify for Canadian old age security benefits. It is even possible for an individual to come to Canada at the age of 60, when he has retired from active
Old Age Security Act
employment and when he may even have gone on to retirement benefit in another country, and through residence for 10 years as a retired person in Canada to claim the full benefit of old age security payments under our Canadian law.
I do not suggest that there are any grounds for questioning the right of such individuals to qualify for old age security benefit in Canada on the basis of such residence, since this is fully in accord with both the letter and the spirit of our Canadian legislation. Parliament decided in its wisdom in 1957 to make this generous provision for our older people, even for those who had newly come to Canada, and I have seen nothing in my experience with the administration of the legislation in the intervening years to suggest that this was not a wise and proper provision.
I do not think, however, that it would be expected by the Canadian people generally, or even by those who have benefited from our old age security provisions on the basis of a fairly recent arrival in Canada and a relatively short period of residence here, that they should be free after ten years' residence in Canada to return to their homelands or move to another country and take a lifetime Canadian pension with them. It seems to me. and it seems to my colleagues in the government, that while the right of a retired person to carry his old age security benefit with him wherever he goes should be recognized in principle and should be clearly enshrined in the law, it should at the same time be coupled with the principle that to qualify for such a lifetime benefit an individual should have contributed over a substantial period of years to the development of this nation and to the provision of those tax revenues which are required for the maintenance of government and services in this country, as well as the stability of the old age security fund itself.
Mr. Chairman, I think I have said enough at this stage to give the committee a fairly clear indication of the basic purposes which the amending legislation will seek to achieve if the resolution presently before the committee is given approval.
I have limited my explanations at this stage to the principal provision of the amending legislation to be introduced, but I should also mention that the bill will also contain certain purely technical provisions relating to the position of pensioners who are outside of Canada and whose pensions are therefore in suspense on the day when the new legislation will come into force. These transitional and saving provisions are of a purely technical nature, and I do not need to go into them at the present time beyond saying

Old Age Security Act
that they are intended to regularize the position of absent pensioners under the new legislation and to deal with them so far as possible as though they had been in Canada on the day when the new legislation comes into effect.
With these explanations, Mr. Chairman, I should like to commend the resolution which is now before the committee and urge its speedy approval so that we can introduce the bill itself and proceed to more detailed consideration of the various points involved at the second reading and committee stages of the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that all hon. members of the committee have listened with considerable interest to the statement just made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wish to assure the minister that in so far as the principle involved in this resolution is concerned it will meet with the approval of those of us in the official opposition. There will be details, of course, which we will want to examine both during this particular discussion stage and more particularly when we deal with the bill itself.
At this stage it will be desirable to confine oneself mainly to the principle of the resolution, a resolution which modifies some provisions affecting those pensioners who for one reason or another desire to leave the country. The resolution, however, is not consistent with the affirmations that were made by the government when during the course of an appeal to the people members of the government indicated their intentions of removing the restrictions in so far as foreign residence was concerned of those who were entitled under the universal. Old Age Security Act to acquire benefits. The minister has indicated in his statement the reasons for this course and in so doing has confirmed at least twice during the course of his remarks the attitude that was taken originally with regard to this particular matter when the act was introduced in 1951.
It will be remembered and noted, of course, that the Old Age Security Act is the only universal system available to any group of senior citizens in any country of the world. Many countries have different systems of providing assistance to the aged. In our country in order to eliminate what was recognized at the time as objectionable- the means test-no other course, it was thought, was open to provide for that objective than to bring in the universal system that we now have in Canada. It will be recalled, too, that the universal system was established as a result of government policy supported by a careful study that was made

of the whole problem by an all-party committee which issued a unanimous recommendation which found realization in the bill that was introduced in this house in 1951.
In order to fully appreciate some of the things that the minister has said and some of the considerations that were in contemplation at the time of introduction, it is important to know that while the present system is not a fully contributory one, it does recognize partially the principle of contribution, originally through the formula 2-2-2 and now, as the minister has mentioned 3-3-3. So, as a result, beneficiaries of this system while actually in receipt of a pension and living in Canada continue to enjoy its benefits and also have the opportunity of sharing in financial provision for the creation of the funds and the resources which make the system possible.
As the minister has said, when the present system was established there was no experience with prior contributions. No one had made any contributions to the fund at that time for the simple reason, of course, that there was no fund provided for up to that time. Therefore, in the first year it was not possible to say that any particular beneficiary had made contributions. Therefore, it would have been difficult to argue that there was, on the basis of contribution, any entitlement for beneficial enjoyment during long periods of absence or complete periods of absence from the country. Now we have had eight years of experience, and I agree with the minister the time has come when a pension having been acquired as a result of contributions and as a matter of right should entitle the pensioner to carry his or her pension outside of the country.
There will be discussion, of course, as to the restrictions which the minister proposes to see continued but with the general principle, as I said, we agree. Certainly the longer the act continues to be in existence that much greater will be the justification for the course which is being taken in principle tonight.
The minister has noted that the government itself since 1957 has moved carefully and slowly in this matter. It did not embark upon the present course in the first months of office. It wanted undoubtedly to see from experience whether or not its former or a priori declarations were sound. That the government has waited until this time is a confirmation of the course which was originally taken. As the minister said, I think quite fairly, there were quite good and valid reasons at the time for the restrictions that were imposed.
As he said, too, at the beginning, in 1952, there was no acquired right but that right

now has been acquired because the act has been in existence for almost a decade.
We were interested in listening to the outlines of what the prescribed conditions are. In the resolution these, of course, are not detailed. In the resolution which he has presented to the house the minister simply recommends to us:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act to permit payment of pension in prescribed circumstances to pensioners absenting themselves from Canada beyond the period now prescribed.
The prescriptions which the minister has postulated are, if I have taken them down correctly, five in number. In the case of pensioners who have lived in Canada for 25 years there is to be no restriction whatsoever hereafter.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Between 21 and 70.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the minister for this correction; who have lived in Canada for a quarter of a century between the ages of 21 and 70.


Jay Waldo Monteith: During that period.


Paul Joseph James Martin: During that period. There is to be no restriction, and any such person who leaves Canada will receive the pension for all time even though living outside the country.
In the case of people living here for fewer than 25 years there are restrictions-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Again, between 21 and 70.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And the minister again points out that the period of residence in that case will be calculated between 21 and 70 years of age.
When we get to the bill we shall want to examine the wisdom of that particular provision. If there is justification for taking the step that is taken in the case of people who have spent 25 years in Canada between the ages of 21 and 70, it may be difficult to convince some of us that the same principle should not be extended to others who have lived here for a period somewhere between 10 and 25 years.
The bill, however, must be recognized as one that is merely an amendment to an existing act. Although the minister referred to some other amendments that were made in an earlier period by this administration, I am sure he did not wish to leave the impression that as a result of this amendment the government is fulfilling all of its assurances with regard to old age security.
While I said that this was a system of assistance to the senior citizens of our country, based in part on the principle of contribution,
Old Age Security Act
it is not a fully contributory system and it could never have been otherwise, if it was to be universally applied, having as the objective for so doing the elimination of the very much objected to means test. But it must be remembered that in other jurisdictions, while there is no universal system such as the United States has, there is a system of contribution there that commends itself to many people in this country.
In the United States the old age survivors and old age security provision is one that applies only to a section of the population of that country, and while the beneficial results after a long period of trial are great, it is to be remembered that in the early stages the beneficial results are small, in some cases much smaller than the total amount of pension provided for under our Old Age Security Act. Nevertheless, the government itself did give evidence of its belief in this system. We will all remember the announcement made by the Prime Minister in January of 1958 that he had asked a distinguished professor in this country to make a study of the old age survivors system in the United States and that that study was to be prosecuted within a period of four months, thereby giving the impression that the government would implement at the earliest possible date after the four months something in Canada similar to the old age survivors system in the United States which, as I said, is a fully contributory system.
However, when the particular professor in question indicated that he could not possibly make the study within a period of four months he resigned or was asked to resign his assignment. To Professor Clark was given the important responsibility of making the assessment, and even in his case, there having been no indication that the study would not be terminated in less than four months, the impression was justifiably created that the government at the earliest opportunity was going to bring into Canada alongside and complementary to the old age security system a system somewhat similar to that in the United States. As we all know, Dr. Clark took more than four months. His study lasted over a period of a year. He presented to the administration and the country a volume of assessment without in any way making any recommendations from which one might conclude one way or another whether he was in favour of or against the adoption of the United States system.
But the government has had this report for a long time. No possible explanation can now be given that not enough time has elapsed between the receipt of that report and the present time so as not to justify the government of the day implementing the assurance

Old Age Security Act
that it gave. The minister has been repeatedly asked in the house, several times this session and four or five times last session, what the government was going to do about the Clark report. On each occasion the minister would affirm quite studiously that the report was receiving careful study.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It still is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says it still is.


Hazen Robert Argue: The same as the farmers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister will not misunderstand me if I say that the fact that the minister has taken and is taking this length of time to study this report reveals two things. First, it reveals that the minister is indeed a very studious minister. Second, it also reveals that this is a device, one not being employed for the first time by this government, to avoid taking a definite decision.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There again, every time one says anything the hon. gentlemen do not like they seek to make it difficult for one like myself, not too adept in debate, to make the remarks that I wish to make.


An hon. Member:: We are just trying to keep you on the straight and narrow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only say that if hon. members who were in the house in 1958 recall the statement made by the Prime Minister when he announced the appointment of Professor Huson, who was to do this job within four months, they will not deny for one moment that at that time the definite impression was given that once the study was over the government would certainly bring in something like the United States has. There have been many speeches by hon. gentlemen who sit in the house now and who have been elected to the house as the result of the assurance given their electors-


James Stanley Speakman: No assurance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that the present government was going to bring in a system comparable to that in the United States. That undoubtedly is the case, and no delay in study, no delay in formulating a decision will convince any serious-minded member of the house or the great majority of the people of Canada that they were not taken in by the government with regard to this matter.


James Stanley Speakman: Of course they were not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is perhaps illustrative of the soundness of my position is that, without in any way detracting from Dr. Clark's report, there was and there continues to exist in the Department of National

Health and Welfare all of the material that is required in the minds of individuals in that department well trained in this field who can supply every bit of information found in the Clark report. If the government in 1958 had wanted to implement the Clark report, if they had wanted to make that part of our form of pension arrangements for the senior citizens of this country, they did not need to appoint anyone to study the matter. They had the facts in the department. They could easily have taken action and by this time we could have had established in this country some kind of system alongside or in place of the present old age universal system that we have in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Why did you not do it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says, "Why did you not do it"? If he will read the report of the all-party committee in 1952 he will get his answer. My hon. friend says, "Why did you not do it?" I want to tell my hon. friend that the government of which I was a member and the party of which I am a member-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would not do it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -were responsible for the old age universal system and, as a matter of fact, are responsible for every single piece of social welfare legislation on the statute books of our country.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I cannot let that go unchallenged. Let us have none of that nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says, "nonsense". We shall deal with that little bit of nonsense. All social legislation in Canada, including hospital insurance, was introduced by a Liberal government and very often, as the record will establish, in the face of Conservative opposition. Moreover, in 1957, during the last session when the Liberals were in office, all social security benefits were increased and the total amount involved on an annual basis was estimated to be approximately $133 million. During the same session, as a result of two years of negotiations with the provinces-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -legislation was introduced by the Liberal government in the field of hospital insurance, a program that now involves an expenditure of close to $300 million.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sure the hon. member will realize that he is straying away from the resolution. The Chair has been very lenient up to now but for the benefit of the

committee generally as well as the hon. member for Essex East perhaps I should read the resolution, which is in these words:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act to permit payment of pension in prescribed circumstances to pensioners absenting themselves from Canada beyond the periods now prescribed-
I doubt whether the Clark report or other security measures would be relevant to the resolution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure no one would quarrel with your decision. All I can say in extenuation is that the observation made by the minister was at least provocative-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The observation
made by you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and on that count I was perhaps justified in giving a little bit of history, which I think hon. gentlemen require from time to time.


An hon. Member:: We have heard the song long enough. You do not have to repeat it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would simply say to the minister that this is a welcome provision in principle but not welcome in all of its details because I do not think it goes far enough and does not meet the whole problem that confronts the senior citizens of our country at this time. I would hope that the minister has given careful attention, as I am sure he has, to the Forand bill in the United States in which medical assistance for the aged is projected as one of the necessary objectives. Having in mind the cost of living in this country, having in mind the problem of geriatrics, the aging of our population, the federal and provincial governments -I have no right, of course, to speak in terms of what the provinces should do-should give consideration now to supplementing our universal system by some form of medical assistance that will relieve many hundreds of thousands of old age pensioners from obligations and concerns which they cannot possibly meet now under the present arrangement. I think that that is an act to which the minister will want to give his attention. The premiums for some medical plans are now beyond the reach of many of our senior citizens.


Mr. Chambers:: On a point of order; surely, again, the Forand bill, a United States proposal, is away beyond what is relevant to the present resolution.


Lionel Chevrier: Why is it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. member really had an opportunity, as I am sure
Old Age Security Act
he has not because of his many preoccupations, he would see the relevancy of extending the period-


Jacques Flynn: Order; I think I should draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that we are only concerned here with the payment of pensions to pensioners who absent themselves from the country, and not the addition of any amounts to cover the sickness of pensioners. I might draw the attention of the hon. member to citation 250 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, paragraph 3, which reads:
The object of the resolution recommended by the crown is to give the house a first opportunity to discuss the advisability of making a certain expenditure. The details of the projected measure are not then disclosed and debate is confined to the resolution which should not be lengthy, although care must be taken that the terms used are sufficiently wide to cover the whole of the bill which will be subsequently introduced.
I think the wording of the resolution is clear enough, and that we should confine ourselves to the changes that permit the payment of pensions to pensioners who absent themselves from Canada. This is the only point under discussion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not going to argue with you, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are not allowed to.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, who is an authority on procedure as well as deficiency payments and a dollar per acre assistance, tells me I am not in order. I am sure if we discussed agriculture we would be out of order. I am not going to argue the point, but I have always understood that on a resolution of this kind one is at liberty to discuss alternative arrangements which might be supplementary to those proposed in the resolution, provided one dealt with the subject matter. This is the subject matter.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What I said to the hon. member was that he was not allowed to argue with Your Honour in connection with your ruling.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: You have done that before.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure, sir, the Chair would be the last person to accept that suggestion. What my hon. friend is saying is that once the Chair takes a position it is not open to an hon. member to seek to persuade the Chair that the course he is suggesting is wrong. This would mean that we would not be allowed the right, in this parliament, to discuss a question of procedure. That may be my hon. friend's concept of free discussion, but it is not mine.

Old Age Security Act


Douglas Scott Harkness: You know quite well you are not allowed to argue with the Chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Do not make so much noise.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said to the minister, the principle of this resolution is acceptable. We do not believe that in all particulars it goes as far as hon. gentlemen said it should go and would go. We do not believe it goes as far, in some cases, as it is desirable to go. We do not believe that this resolution provides an answer to the problems confronting our senior citizens, but the principle of this resolution is accepted, and in the presentation of this resolution what the government has done is-


An hon. Member:: What you did not do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -to confirm the course taken by the government in 1951, a government which as I said a moment ago, not only introduced this particular legislation of which this is an amendment but introduced every single act of social welfare on the statute books.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Again, I cannot allow that to go unchallenged, Mr. Chairman.


Murdo William Martin: This is one of those rare and happy occasions when I am in a position to compliment the government on a piece of legislation that they have brought before this committee. This amendment before us today concerning old age security is something with which we have not only agreed, but something with which we have agreed for a very long time. The members of this party have for years advocated this very thing that the government has introduced today.
Just to illustrate one of those occasions, I should like to refer for a moment to Hansard for October 16, 1957, page 55, which contains the report of a speech by the former member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. M. J. Coldwell), during the throne speech debate. I quote:
May I add one other thing? I think the residential qualification should be discontinued. If a senior citizen wishes to reside perhaps in the United Kingdom or even across the line in the United States or elsewhere, the pension should be paid as of right. I say it should be paid as of right today because all the people are paying directly for it. This is no longer a gift from the treasury as it was. Right from the time a young Canadian begins to earn he is going to pay 2 per cent of his personal income tax into the social security fund. Two per cent of the corporation tax and 2 per cent of the sales tax which everybody pays also will go into that fund. Our citizens are paying a fairly substantial premium if it is considered over the working period of life of a young man or woman today. The disqualification on account of residence outside the borders of Canada should, we think,

be eliminated as well as the time for qualification reduced as is foreshadowed in the speech from the throne. It is our contention that this pension should be paid as of right.
I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the government has finally introduced this measure. I must say I have to disagree with some of the remarks the minister made when he was introducing this resolution. He made reference to the fact that it is only because this is now a contributory plan that the senior citizens of this country really have any right to this pension. I think that was a very wrong picture that was painted across this country for years, because the impression was given that the pension was something from a benevolent kindhearted, good father sort of a government. Really, you are not giving your senior citizens anything when you reach in their 'back pocket, take a dollar and hand 50 cents back to them. Even when there was no direct contribution to this old age pension, it still came out of the pockets of those people who paid taxes.
I do not intend to speak very long on this resolution tonight, Mr. Chairman. However, I should like to dwell briefly on the residence clause that the minister mentioned. It is quite true that a very good financial case could be made for the fact that if a senior citizen only has to be in this country for 10 years before he can qualify for the old age security, providing he has the other qualifications, his contributions may not amount to enough to pay his pension if he returns to some other country. I think there is a matter of principle involved here, too. We are toying with a problem that has arisen before. Are we going to have two or three different kinds of Canadian citizens? Once a person has been accepted as a Canadian citizen, how can you differentiate one from another? As I say, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to deal with this matter at length tonight, but I think it is something we should keep in mind because it has risen before and I am sure it will come up again.
The minister pointed out something tonight that I think is quite significant. From the time the old age pension measure was first passed it took 20 years before there were any changes, any major amendments. Then from that time it only took nine years until there was another major amendment. Then, lo and behold, it only took three years before we got another. You can therefore see, Mr. Chairman, that the turtle of our social security program in this country is slowly starting to pick up a little bit of momentum. Maybe we can look forward to the time in the not too distant future when we can hope for improvements every year or two in our social security program.

With this hope in mind it may be that one of the other major faults in our old age security could be corrected-that correction was one that was promised by this government by a further increase of our present pension of $55 a month which in many cases is so hopelessly inadequate. The situation is hopeful for the citizens of this country if in the not too distant future our improvements start to pick up once in every one or two years instead of once in every 20 years as in the past. We can even hope that in the not too distant future we shall have a portable pension plan.
I listened closely to the remarks of the hon. and learned member for Essex East. He discussed for some considerable time this Clark report and this portable pension plan or one similar to that in the United States. However, I must admit frankly that when he got through I was still not sure whether he was for it or against it. I know he was against the government because they had not implemented it. Although 1 listened very closely, I do not know whether he is for or against it himself. However, I think this is a very good piece of legislation. I think it is one of the best we have had in the last three years since we have had a really progressive government during the 1957-58 session.


An hon. Member:: They have made two changes.


Murdo William Martin: I hope we can look forward to many more pieces of progressive legislation in the future.


Mr. Payne:: Briefly, Mr. Chairman-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I had recognized the hon. member for York-Humber.


Miss   Aiiken@: I always like to listen to the hon. member for Essex East. I feel that he provides drama in this House of Commons. He is so full of indignation.


An hon. Member:: Righteous indignation.


Miss Aitken:: Yes, righteous indignation. He is so full of righteous indignation that one really never knows what is going to happen. As a farmer, he is indignant over farm problems. As president of the Martin bureau of statistics, he is indignant over unemployment. Now, as a former minister of national health and welfare, he is indignant over the improvements we are making in our social security measures. He is an extremely versatile man. However, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Timmins, he leaves us up in the air. We do not know whether he is supporting this bill to help our old age pensioners or whether he wants the old age pensioners-
Old Age Security Act


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am supporting the principle of it.


Margaret Aitken: The hon. member says he is supporting it. That is the best speech he has made today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am inclined to agree with the hon. member.


Miss   Aiiken@: Ever since I first came into this House of Commons the old age security measures that were presented to the house, as the hon. member for Essex East keeps telling us, back in 1953-that was when I first came here-have always been of special concern to me because in my riding of York-Humber I have hundreds of elderly people who have benefited greatly by the old age pension. Really, to use the word "benefited" is to use an understatement because for scores of them it has meant freedom from want. I will therefore always support the Minister of National Health and Welfare when he brings in measures that improve these benefits for our elderly people.
There are some people who assert that this particular measure will inspire abuses. I suppose it will propably do so because when you enlarge good measures there are always people who will exploit them. But on the other hand we have had up until now one class of people who were penalized, who did not have freedom of movement. What this means is that we are doing a good thing for a very small class of people and we are removing an injustice. For this reason I support this particular resolution wholeheartedly.
But-and there is always a "but" when you are in politics; you always want something more, and I want something more- it is my understanding that the blind person's pension is lost when a blind person reaches the eligible age for an old age pension. That situation also applies to the disabled person's pension. I agree with the principle that no one person should receive two or three government pensions. However, this category of blind persons I feel is a category by itself. This pension is being given because of a special handicap which decreases a person's independence and increases the ordinary costs of living. I feel it has nothing to do with age. In fact, because of the infirmities of age, the blind person needs both pensions more than ever after reaching the age of 70. I would therefore ask the minister to take another look at this situation. I think it is one of the exceptions that invariably surround every rule. I do not believe that blind persons or disabled persons should lose their pensions when they become eligible for the old age pension. If they needed a special pension before they

Old Age Security Act
were 70, they need that pension even more after they reach three score years and ten.
I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare has these pensions always under study and I ask him, if he will, in the not distant future to bring in another amendment that will wipe out that regulation that blind persons and disabled persons cannot have both the blind person and disabled person pension and the old age pension.


Leon David Crestohl: I most certainly welcome this resolution. I was very pleased to hear the minister in clear and lucid form present the arguments in support of the resolution, all of which were laudable and all of which I am sure are welcomed by every hon. member in this house. When the act was originally debated in 1952, I think it was, the same spirit was displayed in the house. Every hon. member of the house and all parties in the house favoured the bill and welcomed it and of course it has become law. I point out merely that we recognize-at least I do and I am sure many of my colleagues do- the fact that the minister's resolution and the address he made are most laudable. We recognize it.
Certainly the government will deserve the approbation of the country for improving the Old Age Security Act. But I ask hon. members to recognize at the same time that it was the former government which introduced this legislation. It may have had defects. Perhaps it did not meet all the anticipations. The minister's present proposal is nothing new. I should like to point out that when the matter first came up in 1951 I spoke on this bill at the time. I should like to indicate that I dealt with section 5 on that occasion and suggested that consideration should be given to old age pensioners who wished to live outside the country. I made that suggestion to the minister at the time, and proposed that it be incorporated in the bill. But reasons were given, as the minister made clear tonight, why it could not then be done. I should like to read part of what I said then on November 26, 1951. I am reading from Hansard of 1951 at page 1319:
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has frankly stated during the debate that time and experience may suggest improvements.
It is logical that that should happen.
At the risk of being redundant I want to ask the minister again to review section 5 of the act which deals with the suspension of the pension to anyone who leaves Canada for a certain period.
Thus the minister's present proposal is nothing new; it is not a new discovery. The point was raised before, though it was not put into effect for reasons which the minister has explained. I hope hon. members opposite will

have the courtesy to recognize that this legislation was enacted by the former government and not by the present government. Of course, as time goes on situations change and improvements are possible. The financial status of people changes. The value of the dollar changes, and it is quite possible that things which could not have been done formerly can be done today. But this is not a new invention. It is not a stroke of genius on the part of the minister, but a natural development of the circumstances of our time.


Mr. Ricard:: If it was good then, why was it not adopted?


Leon David Crestohl: If the hon. member had listened to the hon. member for Essex East, when he gave the explanation, he would know. When you introduce a piece of legislation you can go just so far. You cannot cover all the eventualities. Times change. Economics change. The government may some time be asked: why did you not increase the pension to $100 a month? Perhaps $100 a month is not feasible in the opinion of the government. Perhaps the economic situation does not justify it. They may some time be asked, why they did not make it $60 or $75, and the answer would be that circumstances did not permit it at that time. This was a most desirable piece of legislation when it was introduced. The whole country welcomed it. Why did not the opposition at that time make these proposals, if they say they would like them in the bill? As a matter of fact, a government supporter made that suggestion to the minister. I said as reported at page 1319 of Hansard of November 26, 1951:
At the age of 70 and over people become quite frail, and frequently they are alone. They may have to leave Canada for short or long periods to preserve their health or in order to reside with a child outside of Canada rather than live with strangers or alone. If the denial of the monthly pension is to produce real hardship, the minister, I know, will have another look at this section of the act with a view to eliminating such a possibility.
The time has properly come. This government made certain promises to the people of Canada and the times now permit their present action. As I said, the cost of living has increased and the government goes forward, and eliminates a hardship which we at that time could not eliminate because of circumstances. I say very frankly that I recognize favourably the move which the government is now making. This is something which was promised; something which will stand up and be of real use. I dare say that when the bill is presented we may have further improvements to suggest. The government may reply that it cannot go quite as far as we would like in present circumstances.

That is quite possible. It is the kind of debate which does take place. But I ask hon. members who support the government to give due credit where it belongs for bringing in this legislation in the first place.
I find it necessary now to read a part of the speech made by the former minister of national health and welfare when he introduced this bill in 1951. At that time, the hon. member for Essex East said this:
Mr. Speaker, the bill now under consideration is part of Canada's new program for old age security, climaxing a quarter century of progress in this field.
The government's twofold plan for old age assistance and universal pensions represents the greatest single advance made in this country in our provisions for senior Canadians. It is a national vote of confidence in Canada's capacity to provide for the security of its older citizens.
That is the spirit which prevailed at that time. Certainly we welcomed it and the measure was unanimously adopted.
With regard to the resolution itself, may I say that the experience of the past eight years has revealed certain hardships and difficulties. Certainly the civil servants who administer the act have been very loyal and shown themselves very able, but they have often been confronted with difficulties and circumstances in which understanding is required. One of these difficulties stems from the fact that in many cases it is far from easy for our senior citizens to give satisfactory proof of age. That has been one of the complaints which I have encountered and which I am sure the department has encountered. In my own experience I have found very sympathetic understanding shown by the deputy minister and the senior officials in helping to solve the problems of people who have come to this country late in life after the destruction of records in Europe which would normally have provided proof of age.
A similar difficulty may arise with regard to showing proof of the date on which a person arrived in Canada, how long a person has lived in Canada and what interpretation may be given to the requirement of 25 years residence. Will that phrase mean 25 years consistent and continual residence in Canada, or will some allowance be made if an old age pensioner has been absent, say for a year or two, or for six months, during that period? I am wondering whether any hardship is likely to arise from the wording of the bill. I hope the minister will say that the provision does not necessarily mean 25 years continuous residence in the country.
I hope the minister and the government will approach this and similar problems with sympathy and understanding, and I hope
Old Age Security Act
this attitude will extend to whatever improvements we may be able to suggest to what I have no hesitation in calling a laudable piece of legislation. I am sure, too, that hon. members opposite who have asked why every possible provision was not inserted in the original act will now have-I will not say the courage-the desire and the intention of endeavouring to encompass everything of a constructive and useful nature which might lead to an improvement on the present resolution which the minister has put forward.


William Hector Payne: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. member for Essex East with the same delight that many other hon. members of the committee experienced in listening to his oh so brief remarks as he brought to our attention the various sequences of thought which flickered across his mind, most of them completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion and the resolution before the committee.
I should like in what I hope will be a brief manner to say that I feel this resolution should be treated with a great deal of concern and speed. Rather than listening to recitations of past honours deserved or undeserved let us forget the baloney, take a look at the resolution itself and bear in mind for just a moment what the government has in mind which is to benefit the senior citizens of this nation.
I suggest that we vote upon this resolution promptly, save the time of the committee and at the same time bring a benefit to the senior citizens of this country.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be brief but I cannot resist getting up to express my support for the spirit, the principle and the purpose of this resolution. It is an amendment that has been urged upon former governments and this government by this group for many years. We are pleased to see the amendment which will mean so much to particular groups of our older citizens, those who require for health reasons to live in other countries perhaps to lengthen their lives and those who wish to return to their old country to live with family or friends.
In discussing a resolution of this type I not only see the resolution on the order paper and listen to the details of the debate but in my mind's eye I see the number of people in Canada who will be assisted by the resolution. I am sure we all rejoice in this opportunity.
I listened to the hon. member for Essex East with pleasure keeping my weather eye open to see what was coming next. I heard his reference to the Clark report and the intimation that the government should have hastened in
406S

Supply-Agriculture
that direction. We agree with that but like a former speaker we could not help but wonder whether or not the hon. member was in favour of that action. The hon. gentleman is a master of the art of boldly marching forward while stepping sideways.
We in this group know where we stand. We hope the government will take action in the near future to develop in Canada an overall comprehensive national pension scheme to meet the needs of our citizens in their retirement years. We are in favour of that and will continue to advocate it but we believe this resolution is a step in the right direction.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Monteith (Perih) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-63, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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


DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
Production and marketing branch-
10. Agricultural Stabilization Act administration, $315,130.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister if he is in a position to announce whether or not there will be a floor price on sugar beets? If he is not in a position to make that announcement can the minister say when he hopes to be in that position? When dealing with that perhaps the minister could tell us about my concern and that of other farmers in Ontario-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -as to when we may have some announcement with regard to a floor price on Ontario grown wheat, and also whether or not it is the intention of the minister to provide for a support price on wheat outside of the stabilization act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, when dealing with this matter last Friday I announced that there would be a price announced for sugar beets in the near future. That is the situation. I expect it will be announced in a few days' time. The same thing applies to the other commodities. An announcement will be made shortly concerning both wheat and soy beans.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister say whether or not the government proposes before the end of this session or between the end of this session and the beginning of

the next to withdraw the support principle under this act and provide some other system of assistance as it did in the case of hogs and eggs?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I also stated last Friday that we would continue to support the maximum number of agricultural commodities as the necessity for that support arose by whatever means was most appropriate for the support, whether by means of deficiency payments, offer to purchase, flat payments or some other means.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What the minister is saying is that we will be confronted sometime during this session or the next with further repudiations by the government of its price support policy under the Agricultural Stabilization Act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this constant reiteration on the part of the hon. member for Essex East of words like "repudiation" and references along that line is something of which I am sure all hon. members of this committee have grown tired particularly when references of that kind have absolutely no foundation in fact. There has been no repudiation at any time as far as agricultural policy or the stabilization act is concerned. We have provided to the farmers of this country support on a larger number of commodities under the stabilization act than exists in most other countries of the world and so many more commodities than the former government of which the hon. gentleman was a member that there is no comparison. The government of which he was a member only in one year supported more than six commodities and the only time it did so was during the epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease. Apart from that, four commodities were the most they ever supported in any one year. Since we passed the stabilization act we have had over 20 commodities under support at all times.
(Translation):


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to say a few words on the stabilization of agricultural prices, particularly with regard to sheep and lambs.
We know, first of all, that on May 8, 1959, the agricultural prices stabilization board had announced a support price of $19.55 per hundredweight, in Toronto, for live lambs graded "good". In September of the same year, the board decided to buy from the packers lamb carcasses, graded "Canada choice" and "Canada good", which had been stored by the packers. In October 1959, the same board issued a release in which it

indicated its intention to purchase frozen lamb from the same organizations.
The first requirement of the board, was that to be eligible for purchase the lambs had to be slaughtered and graded in a registered slaughter-house, one in which there was official inspection and grading by the Department of Agriculture. Now we have in Canada small slaughter-houses, operated by individuals, that cannot share in the benefits of this legislation because they are not inspected.
I have received complaints from some of those individuals operating small abattoirs, and not eligible for the benefits of this legislation. Therefore, I ask the minister whether he intends to amend the board's regulations so that those small operators may share in the benefits of this legislation, in view of the fact that the regulations of the prices stabilization board, such as they now exist, discriminate against small operators.
That is so true that I have received a letter from an Ontario gentleman, from which I should like to quote a few words. The letter is signed by a Mr. Robinson, of Hannon, Ontario. I quote:
(Text):
The problem as presented by Mr. Robinson to me is that this subsidy which at the present time amounts to approximately nine cents a pound is not available to him since he runs a small slaughterhouse. Although he advises that he does have Ontario government inspection, he is not set up to accommodate federal inspection in his packing plant.
Mr. Robinson cannot benefit from this recommendation.
(Translation):
Since this man's facilities are not inspected by the federal Department of Agriculture, he is unable to enjoy the same privileges as the large slaughter-houses. I therefore ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) whether he intends to change the regulations so that our small businessmen may take advantage of the legislation and continue to operate.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the regulations to which the hon. member refers really are health regulations. They are in effect for the protection of the Canadian public as far as the quality of the meat which they buy is concerned. Only meat that has been killed in inspected establishments, that is establishments which meet certain standards, can enter into interprovincial trade, and it is only from establishments of that kind, of course, that the stabilization board purchases meats of any
Supp ly-A griculture
kind, whether sheep, pork, or whatever it may.
If we did not do that we would be in the position of being unable to ship the meat that we purchase to any place where the market happens to exist, or ship it out of the country, or to any place else. It would be a completely impractical operation. The actual fact is that owing to our purchase of whatever meat is surplus from the inspected slaughtering plants, it means that the smaller slaughtering plants which have not met the standards of inspection have the ability to sell into a market which they would not have otherwise and are able to dispose of their products. Therefore, actually they suffer from no disadvantage at all.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Controls by the price stabilization board are a handicap to those small producers because those producers cannot afford to pay the same prices as the operators of large slaughter-houses. I feel, therefore, that such control is discriminatory against small producers, small businessmen, and operators of medium-sized slaughter-houses. Some of them might slaughter as many as 50 sheep every week; their slaughter-house is inspected by provincial officials, but they cannot take advantage of the legislation. As a result, they have to pay nine or ten cents more a pound for their lambs than the operators of large packing plants. That is why I suggest that this control is prejudical to small business and to small producers.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, once more I am afraid the hon. member does not understand the situation.


Samuel Boulanger: Yes, I understand.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The price at which sheep or hogs are sold and so on, whether they are bought by a smaller packing plant or a large packing plant, is determined by the support price when the price of sheep is down to the support level. That is what determines the price of live lambs and the wholesale price of lamb products that are sold by small plants is determined in this way. The result, as I say, is that any surplus that exists is taken off the market by the stabilization board and the small plant is able to get the same price as the bigger plant, putting its product out into retail outlets or into wholesale outlets, except for the fact that some wholesalers will not buy uninspected meat because they cannot ship it across interprovincial boundaries and in some cities they are not allowed to sell it. The remedy for these small plants that the hon. member has mentioned is to bring the standards of their establishments up to the

Supply-Agriculture
health standards which we set so that they will be able to pass federal inspection.


Samuel Boulanger: How much would it cost to have federal inspection? I have a letter here which says it would cost half a million dollars to secure the equipment in order to qualify for such inspection.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It costs absolutely nothing for federal inspection. We supply it free of charge.


Samuel Boulanger: It is the equipment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The concern has to bring its operations up to specified health standards which we must maintain if we are going to be able to send our meats into export markets, across interprovincial boundaries and into some cities which fortunately, I think, have pretty strict inspection facilities. Actually what the hon. member is requesting is that we should relax our health standards as far as the inspection and sale of meat are concerned. This simply means that what he is asking is that we should give our blessing to the possible sale of diseased or other inferior meat to the general public which of course we cannot do.


Samuel Boulanger: In our province we have classification inspection but we do not have health inspection. I do not know about the other provinces but in Quebec we do not have health inspection and nobody has died from any meat produced there.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, item 10 is one where the minister might give the committee some information as to the quantity of pork that has been handled by the board, the quantity of pork purchased from time to time in the recent past, some idea of the prices that have been paid for the various cuts of pork, the quantity involved, and some of the main companies that have handled this pork on government account, if the minister has that information. I am particular interested in the business transaction that was carried out whereby I believe some of this pork was sold back to the packing companies from whom it had been purchased. I am interested in the price which these packing companies paid to the agricultural stabilization board for what I believe to have been very large quantities of pork resold to the companies.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I gave figures last Friday, which are to be found at page 3885 of Hansard, as to the amount of pork which we held in the form of frozen pork, as canned luncheon meat and as canned hams as of March 31 of this year. As far as total purchases are concerned, I cannot give complete figures except to say that altogether

we purchased in the neighbourhood of 126,870,000 pounds of pork cuts of one kind and another. Some of this was sold back to be canned as canned pork and then we took possession after it was canned. Some of it was sold into the market. A certain amount was exported and some was put into canned hams. Therefore there is an overlap in the figures from that point of view. However, I think the inventory at the end of March is as definite a figure as I can give at the moment, and I have indicated that I gave that information last Friday.
With respect to the prices at which the various pork cuts have been sold, these have varied considerably. I have not got a list of the figures here. A return was asked for some time ago and I believe that return was tabled and is now part of the records of the house. The return shows what the costs and so on were. The return is about an inch thick.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do you have the number of the return?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not the number of the return. As I recall, the return was asked for by a member of the C.C.F. party. I have forgotten just who it was but I believe it was a member of your group.


Hazen Robert Argue: It included figures of quantities of pork purchased?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I say, it is a very voluminous return; it is about an inch thick. There have been thousands and thousands of entries with regard to the handling of pork and therefore when the hon. member asks for figures it is a very difficult thing to give specific figures because there have been so many transactions in both purchases and sales. As the hon. member will realize, we were buying all this pork in the form of fresh pork cuts and we were not able to find storage space for all of it. Therefore we had to start canning it and what we did in a large number of cases was to buy fresh pork cuts, turn them back to an abattoir for canning and pay a canning fee on the pork. That really involved many cases of what one might call book entries.
We bought pork and we sold it back to the canning companies and then bought the canned pork from them. Actually what we were really doing was paying them for the canning.


Hazen Robert Argue: What was the price received for pork bellies when they were sold back to the companies for canning purposes?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We did not sell any bellies to the companies for canning purposes. You cannot can bellies. As the hon. member is

aware, bellies are chiefly fat and if you attempt to can bellies all you really get is a can of lard with a small amount of meat in it. Therefore no bellies were sold back for canning purposes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Were bellies sold back to the companies?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Bellies were sold untinned to the highest tenderer for rendering into lard.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister give us first of all the prices paid for the bellies; second, the quantities involved; and, third, the prices received for them?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not the figures here that the hon. member has mentioned. I think they appear in the return to which I have referred, and all I can say is that if they are not there I will be very glad to supply them. Generally speaking, of course, we took a severe loss on bellies. There is no question about that because, as I say, once you have pork in the freezer for a certain length of time it tends to get what is known as freezer burn. You can hold it in storage only for a certain length of time. After these bellies particularly had been held for a certain length of time in cold storage we were completely unable to sell them either in Canada or abroad and we had to take some kind of action to salvage as much food value as we could. The only thing we could do was to sell them for rendering into lard which we did. I cannot recall offhand what the amount sold for this purpose was. We did dispose of a limited number of bellies overseas but otherwise they were sold for rendering into lard. We still hold quite a number of bellies and we hope we will be able to dispose of them either on the home market or abroad at not too great a loss. But with respect to the older ones which we bought at the beginning of the purchase program we had to, as I say, salvage what we could out of them and we did that in the only way it could be done, by selling them for rendering purposes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, it puts the committee in a very difficult position when the minister does not have the information with him to answer the questions we ask. My information, obtained from some people in Edmonton-this is why I want some information from the minister-is that very large quantities of pork bellies were purchased by the board from packing companies at relatively good prices. They were sold back to the same packing companies from which they had been purchased in the first place, but they were sold back at such low prices as to be almost a donation to those packing
Supply-Agriculture
companies. The feeling of the people who were talking to me was that the packing companies in the city of Edmonton had made a killing in this business and that the government and the stabilization board had really been taken in, and that this constituted a very substantial cost to the federal treasury.
I do not want to make assertions; I do not want to hurl accusations. I am trying to get some information from the minister on this item on these particular points. Since there are many millions of dollars involved I feel the committee has a right to ask for this information and to receive it before this item passes. I do not believe it is good enough when we are asked to look up returns in the house or when we are told we can get the information tabled at a later time. I think we should have this information when this item is being discussed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I said, there is no question whatever of not providing all the information which it is possible to provide. The point I made before was that the information the hon. member requested could not be given here. If I were to give all of it we would be two days on this one subject because it constitutes thousands of entries. I say there is a very thick return in connection with it and these details can be looked up.
So far as the assertion about which the hon. member spoke and which he said had been made that the packing companies have made a killing in connection with these bellies, that is completely incorrect. We had one or two cases of people who bought these bellies on tender and who attempted to put the bellies back into the trade by selling them as bacon. Those people were promptly prosecuted. As a matter of fact, it cost them a considerable amount of money, rather than making a killing, to attempt to do it. We exercise very close supervision over the disposal of these bellies and we made sure that they were converted into lard. The prices that were paid for them were fairly low. As the hon. member probably knows, the price of lard is extremely low. Certainly, there was no killing made by the people who bought these and converted them into lard.


Hazen Robert Argue: I ask the minister to bring to this committee, before this item passes some information, the information I have requested or enough of the information to give the committee a picture of what has happened. His officials are before him. It is the ordinary practice to ask the administration for details at this time. This is what the estimates are for. There are many millions of dollars involved, and for the minister to come in here empty-handed, without any information, is scarcely good enough.

Supply-Agriculture
I am going to insist, it the discussion should appear to determinate before ten o'clock, that this item stand until the minister can bring to the committee the information I have been requesting. This item is the whole basis of the government's support program which is under attack in the country, which I think has been a disservice to the agricultural producers of this country, which has cost the taxpayers a great deal of money and is doing nothing at the moment, in the opinion of organized agriculture on the prairies, except to cause hardship and to bring about a great deal of uncertainty in the agriculture industry. I believe the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska has some questions to ask. If he has not, I shall continue, but certainly we are entitled to this information and I hope we will get it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as I said, we are quite willing and anxious to give any information which is requested. I am not clear what information the hon. member wants. As he put his question in the first instance I would have been required to be reading here for a very, very long time. The transactions which have taken place, as I have said before, have been thousands in number. What he asked was the price at which these pork cuts had been bought, and the price at which they had been sold.


Hazen Robert Argue: Some general idea.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If he would make it clear exactly what information he wants, I shall be glad to get it. As I say, I am not clear as to what information he does want.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then I would ask the minister to provide this committee, beginning January 1, 1959, with the monthly totals of pork products that have been purchased under this act; the average price that was paid per month for the various cuts involved. I should like the average price that has been paid for the bellies that have been sold. I should like the average price that has been obtained from the companies, and I should like some indication of the largest purchases that have been made by some of the packing companies in the country. I should like the minister to supply the committee with the lowest tender price received by the government for the pork bellies which, according to the minister, have gone into the production of lard.
I just want a general picture of the operations of this board. Surely that can be done. The minister does not have to produce every single transaction; that is not the information we want. This committee is entitled, and I think the minister would be able to do it, to an outline to date of the general operations of the board, the general prices it has been

paying from time to time, the prices it has been receiving from time to time and the cost to the treasury. Let us have enough information to find out how well these packing companies have done on their purchases.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I said, I will be glad to secure this information. I do not know whether it can all be secured in exactly the form in which the hon. member has requested it. If not, and if anybody really wants to go into this in detail, I think the best way to do it is to study the return of which I spoke. One of my officials tells me it has not been filed as yet. It went through my office three or four days ago.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are now talking about something we have not got.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am always frank and honest with this committee. The hon. member is now trying to insinuate that I was trying to mislead this committee when I said this return had been made. It passed through my office several days ago, and I approved it. I thought it had been filed. My official says he does not think it has been filed. Why it has not, I do not know. In any event, that was the situation.
The point I am making is that if anyone wants to go into this in detail, it will be a matter of several days study going over these figures. In so far as a general picture is concerned, I will attempt to give as good a general picture as possible along the lines the hon. member has requested to the committee tomorrow morning.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister for the conclusion of his answer. It is a little difficult for a member of the committee to be told over a period of 10 minutes that a large file has been tabled, a voluminous one that contains all the information that we are requesting and all we have to do is study it. I sent out for the return as soon as the minister mentioned it, and I am waiting to see whether or not the sessional papers office produces it. The minister has now said that he is not certain whether or not the sessional papers office does, in fact, have the return. It is therefore rather difficult for the members of the committee to deal with the problem when we are not even sure whether or not the return has been tabled and is available to hon. members.


Samuel Boulanger: Since the lifting of the embargo on imports from the United States can the minister tell us what quantities of hogs and hog products have been imported?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know the exact quantity but it has been almost negligible. A few trial shipments, small in quantity,

were sent over from the United States but they did not go very well. Apparently there was no profit in them and apparently there were no repeat orders. The prices in Canada and in the United States, when you take into consideration the duty, the cost of transportation and particularly the difference in quality, have been such that as to the shipment of United States pork over here since the embargo was removed, the possibility of it just really has not existed.


Samuel Boulanger: Can the minister give us the figures tomorrow?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, we can give the figure tomorrow, but I do not think the figure is material because, as I say, the quantities are extremely small. The total volume of imported pork, particularly in comparison with what we use ourselves and what we ship to the United States is just negligible.


Hazen Robert Argue: For the information of the committee I may say that I have received a note from the page. I take it that it is from the sessional papers office. It is unsigned but it reads as follows:


Hazen Robert Argue: We have nothing on pork purchases for this year.
This shows just how difficult it is to discuss this question when the minister tells us to look at a return that is not yet available. I hope that by eleven o'clock tomorrow this return will be made available. The minister said it will not be much good to us because it is going to take many days to study it. This is not a very satisfactory method by which to deal with the minister's estimates. He promised-and I know he will keep his promise-that tomorrow he will have available for us in summary form some of the information we have been requesting with regard to the details of the operations of the stabilization board. Therefore tomorrow we can continue with these questions on the basis of the information we are given at that time.


Samuel Boulanger: I have another question to ask the minister and if he cannot supply the answer to this question tonight, I will ask him to supply it for tomorrow. How many farmers are registered to receive the support price on hogs or what number of farmers or percentage of farmers or hog producers have received or are eligible for the support price?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We will have that information tomorrow morning also. I think the committee realizes the fact that with the magnitude of the operations of the stabilization board, the statistics required to answer many questions of this sort would constitute an extraordinarily big pile, that this is not a
Supply-Agriculture
matter on which an hon. member can ask a question and I or the officials can produce an answer instantaneously. In a large number of cases it is something with regard to which we require some notice so that we can have the files looked up and find the answer.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Could the minister tell us whether legal action was taken against farmers who took advantage of the Agricultural Stabilization Act under two registration numbers?
I stated some time ago that certain farmers were using two registration numbers. Therefore, I ask the minister whether legal action was taken by the Department of Agriculture.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I do not understand what the hon. member was talking about. Possibly the translation was not very good. Certainly I did not catch from it anything to which I could make a reply.


Jacques Flynn: Shall item 10 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Hazen Robert Argue: No. I would ask that item 10 be allowed to stand. There are still two or three minutes left.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is agreeable. We can allow item 10 to stand and we can go on to the next item.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the item stand?


Hazen Robert Argue: Let it stand until tomorrow.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska has a question that has not been answered because I think the minister stated that the translation was not too clear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Were there any prosecutions in the two cases to which the hon. member referred?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I just could not get anything which I could understand through the translation system. I would suggest that the best thing for me to do, inasmuch as this item is going to be allowed to stand, is to read in Hansard tomorrow what the question was and then give the answer at that time.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Before this item is allowed to stand, I should like to know whether anybody else besides the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska will be allowed to put his questions tomorrow. I am prepared to speak.


Samuel Boulanger: Go ahead.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am prepared to speak. The hon. member for Assiniboia went

S upp ly-A gricu Iture
to great lengths last Friday to condemn the policy of deficiency payments on hogs and to condemn the stabilization board for the reduction of the support price for hogs. At no time did he offer any solution and at no time did he state that he knew of a better method than a support price for hogs. All he did was to condemn.


Hazen Robert Argue: There should be a floor price.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is a floor price now, and the hon. member knows very well how the floor price works. He went to great pains to point out what was wrong with it. But as to how to improve it, he mentioned nothing. He stated that production had increased and he thought that perhaps this increase resulted from the floor price being too high. I do not know whether or not he mentioned that. There was some reason for the increase. One reason for the production of hogs being as high as it was last year was that there was a surplus of grain to quite an extent three years ago on the prairies. The farmers were anxious to move this grain, and hogs provided an ideal outlet. They therefore went into the production of hogs.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska stated that because our pork exports were falling off we were going to be in a drastic situation with regard to pork surpluses, even with the present method of support.


Lionel Chevrier: Ten o'clock.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Last week's support price on pork was as high as that in the previous year. If the hon. member will-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but, it being ten
o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business is for tomorrow and for next week as well?


Gordon Minto Churchill: For tomorrow we will continue with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture followed by those of the post office. On Monday and Tuesday there will be a supply motion. On Wednesday we have available for the consideration of the house the budget resolutions; No. 11 on today's order paper which is the resolution in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs with regard to War Veterans Act; then No. 6 on today's order paper which is the resolution in the name of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys concerning the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act; and No. 3 on today's order paper which is second reading of Bill No. S-27, an act to control and regulate the sale of feed. Thursday and Friday of next week will be available for estimates and we will have for those two days the two departments that I have called for tomorrow, if they are not completed, followed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of Transport.


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

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

Mr. Pigeon: 1.	How many civil servants were employed by the external affairs department through the civil service commission since June 20, 1957?
2.	How many employees of the external affairs department have resigned since the said date?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):
1.	588.
2.	333.


Mr. Tucker: 1.	Did the Newfoundland hotel at St. John's, Newfoundland, operate with a surplus in the years 1958 and 1959?
2.	If so, what was the amount in each year?
3.	If not, what was the loss in each year?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
19.	1960	4073
Questions
The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1. and 2. Net profit after interest and depreciation:
1958	 $153,224
1959	 152,039
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Hardie: How many landings were made by commercial air line carriers on international flights at Frobisher bay, Northwest Territories, in each month beginning January, 1958 to March, 1960?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
Landings at Frobisher prior to November, 1959 were not classified as to type of service in a manner which would permit the question to be answered for the period prior to that date. Since that date the information is as
follows:
November, 1959	 20
December, 1959	 17
January, 1960	 7
February, 1960	 7
March, 1960	 6

Friday, May 20, 1960