1962-04-18

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the practice I followed in previous years I should like to give notice of an amendment to the Excise Tax Act resolution which I intend to move when this resolution comes before the committee of ways and means in due course. The amendment is merely to change the effective date of paragraph 7 of the Excise Tax Act resolution.
The paragraph in question deals with the liability for sales tax when certain equipment is diverted from a tax exempt use to a taxable use. It now provides that legislation based thereon is to become effective from budget night. The amendment I propose provides that this legislation shall come into force on receiving royal assent. In view of the expected delay in the enactment of legislation based on the budget resolutions it is considered that this paragraph, which concerns the administration and collection of sales tax, should not be considered as having come into effect on budget night and instead should await the passage of legislation.
I think I should give the text of the proposed amendment.
That paragraph 9 of the Excise Tax Act resolution be amended to read as follows:
"9. That any enactment founded on paragraphs 1 to 6 of this resolution be deemed to have come into force on April 11, 1962, that any enactment founded on paragraph 7 of this resolution shall come into force on the date the said enactment is assented to, and that any enactment founded on paragraph 8 of this resolution be applicable in respect of contracts of insurance entered into or renewed after April 10, 1962."



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on March 30 I made a brief statement in the house relative to a drug called thalidomide which has been removed from the market. Last Monday similar action had to be taken regarding another new drug, MER 29, and I understand that parallel steps were carried out in the United States.
I might add that in order that the procedure for reviewing new drugs should encompass the most complete assurances of their safety,
I have today requested the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada to set up an ad hoc committee to consider procedures which the department has followed for over 10 years.
I am most anxious, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada receive the full benefit of advances in medical science as soon as safety has been determined. I trust that the action being taken today will be reassuring in this regard.



GATT-ANNOUNCEMENT OF FURTHER RESULTS OF NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce some further results of the GATT tariff negotiations which have been taking place in Geneva.
During the tariff conference Israel, Portugal, Cambodia and Spain engaged in tariff negotiations with several countries in order to complete the necessary steps for their accession as member countries to GATT. This will bring the membership of the GATT to 44 members, accounting for well over 80 per cent of world trade.
In our negotiations with Israel and Portugal, concessions of interest to Canadian exporters were secured. In addition, indirect benefits accrue to Canada by virtue of bilateral negotiations between these two acceding countries and third countries including the United States. The results of the United States negotiations with these two countries have already been drawn to the attention of the house in my announcement of April 6.
Tariff reductions obtained from Israel of interest to Canadian exporters include the following: wheat, aluminum, synthetic rubbers, phenol and radio navigational instruments. Bindings against tariff increases were secured on hoops and strips of iron and steel, internal combustion engines and cattle hides.
Portugal has agreed to reduce the duty on flaxseed, synthetic rubbers, copper, synthetic fibre threads and yarns, films and refrigeration apparatus. Existing rates on salted cod were bound against increase.
In return, Canada has agreed to bind the existing free entry on oranges, almonds,

Questions
boards and blocks of cork, ripe olives in brine and unset diamonds. Canada also agreed to bind the existing rates on corks and to reduce the duty on manufactures of cork from 15 per cent to 10 per cent.
Canada did not negotiate directly with Cambodia, but all tariff reductions agreed upon between Cambodia and third countries will be available to Canada. The results of these negotiations will be announced later. With respect to Spain, negotiations have been successfully concluded between Canada and Spain and it is expected that the results of all Spain's negotiations will be made public shortly.
I wish now to table three copies each of the protocols providing for the accession of Israel and Portugal to the general agreement which Canada signed at Geneva on April 6.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POST OFFICE ACT


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-88, to amend the Post Office Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William McLean Hamilton: This bill is designed to implement certain recommendations contained in the report of the royal commission on publications and, specifically, to eliminate for all publications local delivery rates of postage and to reduce rates on cultural publications and certain other special classes, allowing the first 5,000 copies of such publications to be carried free of charge.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Howard: With respect to Mr. Joseph Dreaver and his duties to survey the Indians of Saskatchewan in respect of their reactions and recommendations concerning the findings of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Indian affairs (a) has he made any report or reports as to his findings: and, if so, what does the report or reports contain (b) is he under any obligation to report by a certain time; and, if so, what are the details surrounding this (c) what procedures and systems does he use in conducting this survey, and who developed them (d) how long will he be employed (e) what travelling expenses have [Mr. Hees.l
been incurred (f) what are the names of the reserves which he has visited in the course of his survey, and upon what dates did he visit each such reserve (g) has he visited any organizations of Indians; and, if so, upon what dates?


Mrs. Fairclough:: The answer to this question is as follows:
(a)	Yes. An interim report has been received, the contents of which are privileged.
(b)	Further reports will be submitted by Mr. Dreaver from time to time as the survey progresses.
(c)	The systems and procedure to be used in the survey are the responsibility of Mr. Dreaver.
(d)	One year or until such time as the survey is completed, whichever is the lesser.
(e)	Travelling expenses are included in the per diem payment for Mr. Dreaver's services.
(f)	Mr. Dreaver has visited the Big River, Sandy Lake, Muskeg Lake, Wahpaton Sioux, Red Pheasant and Sweet Grass Indian reserves. The information as to dates of these visits is not presently available.
(g)	Yes. Mr. Dreaver has met with members of the Onion Lake and Meadow Lake bands, a member of the executive of the Queen Victoria treaty association, the executive committee of the federation of Saskatchewan Indians, the president of the independent Indian association, members of the executive of the Battleford, Regina and Prince Albert Indian and Metis societies. Mr. Dreaver has also met with Indian trappers at Prince Albert and Indians from northern Saskatchewan reserves at Buffalo Narrows.


BUTTER OIL
Mr. Malheson: 1.	How much butter taken Into storage has had to be converted into butter oil since March 31, 1958?
2.	What volume of butter oil has been sold since March 31, 1958, and for what total price?
3.	What volume of butter oil is now held in storage, and what is its approximate value?
4.	What is the estimated loss sustained since March 31, 1958, as a result of failure to sell butter in that form and its necessary conversion to butter oil?
Answer by: Mr. Charlton:
1.	No butter had to be converted to butter oil, but as the weight of butter oil is approximately 80 per cent of the weight of butter, conversion is desirable in order that storage costs be minimized. Since March 31, 1958, 100,215,629 pounds of butter have been converted to butter oil.
2.	1,762,087 pounds of butter oil have been sold for $1,374,427.86.
3.	78,474,292 pounds of butter oil, with an inventory value of $61,209,947.76.
4.	The saving in storage costs will compensate for the cost of converting butter to butter oil and therefore there is no loss to date.


YARMOUTH HOUSING LTD.    CHECK ON TENANTS' QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is there any agreement between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Yarmouth Housing Limited as to tenants' qualifications in respect to incomes, and as to rentals charged; and, if so, is a check ever made to ascertain whether terms of the agreement are being carried out?
2.	When was the last such check, if any, made, and with what result?


Mr. Walker:: 1 and 2. The corporation entered into two agreements with Yarmouth Housing Limited in regard to limited dividend projects consisting of 24 and 32 units respectively. Both agreements contain tenant income qualifications and rental rate restrictions.
The projects are inspected annually by the corporation in regard to physical condition and rental administration. The last inspections were made in May 1961 and inspections for the current year are scheduled for June. At the time of the last inspection the company's records reflected that all tenants qualified for occupancy under the agreement with the corporation and income declaration forms were due for renewal in January 1962. It was verified that rental rates approved by the corporation were in effect at the time of the last inspection.
Questions


GAP FILLER STATION-CONTRACTS FOR U.S. PRODUCTS
Mr. Fisher: How many American products, of what kind and to what value, were supplied or whose approval for supply have been approved by the government in the contracts relating to gap filler stations?
Answer by: Mr. Chambers:
Under the cost-sharing arrangements with the United States covering the construction of 45 gap fillers to be located in Canada, the construction of bases and the provision of unit equipment is being provided by Canada.
The United States is responsible for and is absorbing the cost of the supply, installation and testing of technical equipment. The radars are of U.S. manufacture but are being installed by Canadian firms. The communications equipment is of Canadian manufacture and is also being installed by Canadian firms.


FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO QUEBEC SINCE 1956-57
Mr. Graffley: What amounts have been paid, by fiscal years commencing 1956-57, out of the federal treasury to or for the benefit of the province of Quebec?
Answer by: Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):
The attached table shows the amounts including tax abatements which have been contributed out of the federal treasury to or for the benefit of the province of Quebec for fiscal years 1956-57 to 1961-62, together with the estimated contributions for the year 1962-63.

Federal Contributions to or for the Benefit of the Province of Quebec and Certain Provincial Institutions 1956-57 to 1962-63
(in thousands of dollars)
1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Preliminary Estimates 1961-62 1962-63	TotalA.	Unconditional grants 1. Statutory subsidies	3,301	3,301	3,301	3,301	3,301	4,023	4,023	24,5512. Tax abatements (estimated, excludes abatement re university grants)	143,634	124,740	132,590	150,978	152,327	157,158	179,504	1,040,9313. Tax rentals	.	-	-	-	-	-	4. Equalization	-	43,060	55,004	68,631	71,111	62,632	76,390	376,8285. Stabilization	-	-	-	6. 50 per cent share of federal estate tax	-	-	-	-	7. 50 per cent share of income tax on power utilities	1,186	1,675	2,281	1,504	1,221	2,064	2,097	12,028Sub-total	148,121	172,776	193,176	224,414	227,960	225,877	262,014	1,454,338B.	Conditional grants 1. Agriculture	350	278	783	901	1,002	1,762	2,215	7,2912. Health	10,291	8,332	15,940	15,116	14,010	13,900	12,392	89,9813. Hospital insurance	-	-	-	-	13,937	72,000	85,792	171,7294. Welfare	11,746	16,069	20,457	28,281	34,596	55,859	54,955	221,9635. Vocational training, etc	648	5	2	3	43	10,904	12,767	24,3726. Highways and transportation	445	99	438	447	465	8,400	25,500	35,7947. Resource development	64	16	109	165	920	3,059	3,554	7,8878. Civil defence	-	-	-	-	-	591	1,200	1,7919. Municipal winter works	-	-	-	1,426	1,686	9,934	15,200	28,24610. Other	-	-	-	-	-	-	Sub-total	23,544	24,799	37,729	46,339	66,659	176,409	213,575	589,054C.	Payments for the benefit of provincial institutions 1. University grants (including net value of abatement to Quebec 1960-61 on)	4,628	4,758	7,326	7,499	7,700	7,889	10,656	50,4562. Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property..	1,170	2,424	2,769	4,026	4,873	4,955	5,363	25,580Sub-total	5,798	7,182	10,095	11,525	12,573	12,844	16,019	76,036TOTAL	177,463	204,757	241,000	282,278	307,192	415,130	491,608	2,119,4283086	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions

Before we proceed to the next question, Mr. Speaker, may I say I have available similar information concerning the payments made to all the provinces. This information has been requested in other years by hon. members and, were it the wish of the house, I have that information here and it could be
Questions
put on the record to show the breakdown by provinces and the totals for the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this table be printed in Hansard at this stage?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]



Summary or Federal Contributions to the Provinces and Certain Payments to Institutions in the Provinces tor the fiscal years 1956-57 to 1962-63
(in thousands of dollars)
1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Preliminary Estimates 1961-62 1962-63	TotalA.	Unconditional grants 1. Statutory subsidies	20,571	20,571	20,571	20,748	20,689	23,530	23,530	150,2102. Tax abatements (estimated, excludes abatement to Quebec re university grants)	157,281	275,564	275,119	313,778	307,685	312,957	715,939	2,358,3233. Tax rentals C1)	365,938	213,868	249,039	279,730	288,663	312,562	-	1,709,8004. Equalization	-	135,978	143,438	182,985	189,655	166,918	178,231	997,2055. Stabilization	-	3,458	5,676	-2,315	2,327	3,143	-	12,2896. 50 per cent share of federal estate tax	-	-	-	-	-	-	13,337	13,3377. 50 per cent share of income tax on power utilities	6,613	7,360	8,682	4,753	4,226	6,397	6,500	44,5318. Atlantic provinces adjustment grants	-	-	25,000	25,000	25,000	25,000	35,000	135,0009. Transitional grant (Newfoundland)	2,250	1,400	1,050	700	350	-	-	5,75010. Newfoundland additional grant	-	-	13,550	7,300	7,650	8,000	8,000	44,500Sub-total	552,653	658,199	742,125	832,679	846,245	858,507	980,537	5,470,945B.	Conditional grants 1. Agriculture	938	1,037	1,864	6,729	3,788	5,063	4,169	23,5882. Health	36,438	34,596	45,909	45,975	47,942	48,900	49,243	309,0033. Hospital insurance	-	-	54,708	150,593	188,938	283,300	324,208	1,001,7474. Welfare	38,353	48,149	74,072	90,860	102,790	139,213	150,845	644,2825. Vocational training, etc	4,668	4,765	8,057	8,371	8,668	61,024	104,803	200,3566. Highways and transportation	26,909	50,943	53,669	56,834	54,228	42,244	50,160	334,9877. Resource development	2,717	4,314	8,741	15,266	17,916	23,965	23,106	96,0258. Civil defence	814	968	1,025	1,563	2,245	3,688	4,793	15,0969. Municipal winter works	-	-	249	6,584	8,908	24,656	37,889	78,28610. Other	137	72	62	62	100	-	-	433Sub-total	110,974	144,844	248,356	382,837	435,523	632,053	749,216	2,703,803C.	Payments for the benefit of provincial institutions 1. University grants (including net value of abatement to Quebec)	16,049	16,558	25,524	26,112	26,708	27,249	36,964	175,1642. Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property.	9,676	17,535	21,852	22,551	24,600	24,888	27,344	148,446Sub-total	25,725	34,093	47,376	48,663	51,308	52,137	64,308	323,610TOTAL	689,352	837,136	1,037,857	1,264,179	1,333,076	1,542,697	1,794,061	8,498,358
(i) The recovery of the overpayments under the 1952 agreement for the fiscal years 1957-58 to 1961-62 has not been deducted from the tax rental payments for these provinces: Newfoundland $102,315 per annum; Prince Edward Island $228,221 per annum; New Brunswick $182,201 per annum; Manitoba $209,938 per annum and Saskatchewan $304,180 per annum.


w



*1

o
2
o

w
Questions
1. NEWFOUNDLAND-1956-57 to 1962-63
(in thousands of dollars)
Preliminary Estimates
1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	1961-62	1962-63 TotalUnconditional grants 1.	Statutory subsidies	
2.	Tax abatements	
3.	Tax rentals!1)	
4.	Equalization	
5.	Stabilization	
6.	50 per cent share of federal estate tax	
7.	50 per cent share of income tax on power utilities	
8.	Atlantic provinces adjustment grants	
9.	Transitional grant	
10. Newfoundland additional grant	1,569 13,805 214 2,250	1,569 4,449 11,579 247 1,400	1,569 4,737 12,155 286 7,500 1,050 13,550	1,569 5,725 14,292 177 7,500 700 7,300	1,569 5,069 15,391 130 7,500 350 7,650	1,656 8,883 11,194 149 7,500 8,000	1,656 6,227 15,357 281 152 10,500 8,000	11,157 6,227 42,668 79,968 281 1,355 40.500 5,750 44.500Sub-total	17,838	19,244	40,847	37,263	37,659	37,382	42,173	232,406Conditional grants	1. Agriculture	130	137	171	149	150	142	143	1,0222. Health	1,026	1,095	887	1,065	846	1,100	2,262	8,2813. Hospital insurance	-	-	2,858	4,708	5,095	6,300	7,288	26,2494. Welfare	3,716	3,456	5,266	5,965	5,148	5,821	6,328	35,7005. Vocational training, etc	406	385	377	195	236	5,095	5,356	12,0506. Highways and transportation	1,171	861	4,753	5,359	6,579	1,721	2,050	22,4947. Resource development	66	56	165	462	935	876	1,135	3,6958. Civil defence	33	14	25	19	46	45	75	2579. Municipal winter works	-	-	-	25	39	178	276	51810. Other	25	-	-	-	-	-	25Sub-total	6,573	6,004	14,502	17,947	19,074	21,278	24,913	110,291Payments for the benefit of provincial institutions	1. University grants	415	426	657	673	688	672	958	4,4892. Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property..	-	33	133	76	147	149	161	899Sub-total	
415	459	790	749	835	821	1,119	5,188TOTAL	
24,826	25,707	56,139	55,959	57,568	59,481	68,205	347,885
(') The recovery of the overpayment under the 1952 agreement which amounts to some $102,315 per annum for fiscal years 1957-58 to 1961-62 has not been deducted from the tax rental payment for those above years to which the deduction applies.

Questions
2. PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-1956-57 to 1962-63
(in thousands of dollars)
1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Preliminary Estimates 1961-62 1962-63	TotalA. Unconditional grants 1. Statutory subsidies	657	657	657	657	657	657	657	4,5992. Tax abatements	-	-	-	-	-	-	1,304	1,3043. Tax rentals (l)	3,073	769	785	1,544	1,138	1,776	-	9,0854. Equalization	-	2,955	3,074	3,005	3,454	2,811	3,522	18,8215. Stabilization	-	412	418	-159	210	193	-	1,0746. 50 per cent share of federal estate tax	-	-	-	-	-	-	97	977. 50 per cent share of income tax on power utilities	36	52	49	36	42	54	55	3248. Atlantic provinces adjustment grants	-	2,500	2,500	2,500	2,500	3,500	13,500Sub-total	...	3,766	4,845	7,483	7,583	8,001	7,991	9,135	48,804Conditional grants 1. Agriculture	38	39	56	67	83	278	169	7302. Health	300	335	438	421	448	300	364	2,6063. Hospital insurance	-	-	-	447	1,011	1,400	1,524	4,3824. Welfare	305	366	475	560	602	726	797	3,8315. Vocational training, etc	33	62	110	134	25	196	375	9356. Highways and transportation	434	1,233	535	1,172	551	606	650	5,1817. Resource development	15	17	21	1,171	1,500	1,044	1,100	4,8688. Civil defence	-	-	1	6	14	25	30	769. Municipal winter works	-	-	-	1	-	16	95	11210. Other	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Sub-total	1,125	2,052	1,636	3,979	4,234	4,591	5,104	22,721Payments for the benefit of provincial institutions 1. University grants	99	99	150	153	154	158	210	1,0232. Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property.	58	76	89	113	102	103	111	652Sub-total	
157	175	239	266	256	261	321	1,675TOTAL	
5,048	7,072	9,358	11,828	12,491	12,843	14,560	73,200
(') The recovery of the overpayment under the 1952 agreement which amounts to some $228,221 per annum for fiscal years 1957-58 to 1961-62 has not been deducted
from the tax rental payments for those above years to which the deduction applies.
3090	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
3. NOVA SCOTIA-1956-57 to 1962-63
(in thousands of dollars)
Preliminary Estimates
1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	1961-62	1962-63 Total
A.	Unconditional grants
1.	Statutory subsidies	
2.	Tax abatements (estimated)	
3.	Tax rentals	
4.	Equalization	
5.	Stabilization	
6.	50 per cent share of federal estate tax	
7.	50 per cent share of income tax on power utilities	
8.	Atlantic provinces adjustment grants	
Sub-total	
B.	Conditional grants
1.	Agriculture	
2.	Health	
3.	Hospital insurance	
4.	Welfare	
5.	Vocational training, etc	
6.	Highways and transportation	
7.	Resource development	
8.	Civil defence	
9.	Municipal winter works	
10.	Other	
Sub-total	
C.	Payments for the benefit of provincial institutions
1.	University grants	
2.	Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property.
Sub-total	

2,057	2,057	2,057	2,057	2,057	2,132	2,132	14,549-	-	-	-	-	-	12,799	12,79922,333	9,032	11,824	11,280	11,224	14,145	-	79,838-	17,375	15,575	20,665	21,019	18,172	20,163	112,969-	-	-	-	1,173	1,173238	401	460	233	346	475	482	2,635[DOT] 	-	7,500	7,500	7,500	7,500	10,500	40,50024,628	28,865	37,416	41,735	42,146	42,424	47,249	264,46362	93	127	109	147	159	168	8651,719	1,855	1,921	1,514	2,877	2,600	2,643	15,129-	-	1,573	8,163	9,595	11,500	13,364	44,1951,573	2,127	2,962	3,422	4,460	4,336	4,842	23,722420	452	495	471	603	1,618	2,297	6,356951	3,532	2,934	3,887	3,979	1,213	2,500	18,99664	51	111	2,131	1,177	1,861	1,125	6,52025	39	49	92	150	216	220	791. 	-	-	338	220	334	285	1,1775	5	5	5	5	-	254,819	8,154	10,177	20,132	23,213	23,837	27,444	117,776695	702	1,065	1,074	1,084	1,114	1,482	7,2161,194	1,892	1,922	2,175	2,135	2,157	2,340	13,8151,889	2,594	2,987	3,249	3,219	3,271	3,822	21,03131,336	39,613	50,580	65,116	68,578	69,532	78,515	403,270
Questions
4. NEW BRUNSWICK 1956-57 to 1962-63 (in thousands of dollars)
1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Preliminary Estimates 1961-62 1962-63	TotalA. Unconditional grants 1.	Statutory subsidies	
2.	Tax abatements (estimated)	
3.	Tax rentals0)	
4.	Equalization	
5.	Stabilization	
6.	50 per cent share of federal estate tax	
7.	50 per cent share of income tax on power utilities	
8.	Atlantic provinces adjustment grants	1,679 17,807 228	1,679 12,609 8,645 220	1,679 13,613 8,651 202 7,500	1,679 9,434 16,864 100 7,500	1,679 9,333 17,416 115 7,500	1,745 10,227 16,006 93 7,500	1,745 10,031 16,566 856 94 10,500	11,885 10,031 73,023 84,148 856 1,052 40,500Sub-total	19,714	23,153	31,645	35,577	36,043	35,571	39,792	221,495B. Conditional grants 1. Agriculture	53 1,926	51 1,813	93 1,739	116 1,360	113 1,585	133 1,800	144 2,411	703 12,6343.	Hospital insurance	
4.	Welfare	
5.	Vocational training, etc....	
6.	Highways and transportation	
7.	Resource development	
8.	Civil defence	
9.	Municipal winter works	
10. Other	1,848 248 3,982 664 21	2,332 278 3,977 1,074 34	2,934 359 11,682 582 38 61	4,575 3,103 424 8,252 1,031 70 311	7,914 4,137 992 3,715 1,480 93 196	9,700 4,327 1,347 2,520 1,492 171 363	11,110 4,900 3,008 2,500 1,190 173 551	33,299 23,581 6,656 36,628 7,513 600 1,482Sub-total	8,742	9,559	17,488	19,242	20,225	21,853	25,987	123,096C. Payments for the benefit of provincial institutions 1.	University grants	* [DOT] [DOT] *	
2.	Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property..	555 494	565 781	866 926	885 904	900 1,075	881 1,086	1,248 1,173	5,900 6,439Sub-total	1,049	1,346	1,792	1,789	1,975	1,967	2,421	12,339TOTAL	29,505	34,058	50,925	56,608	58,243	59,391	68,200	356,930
(>) The recovery of the overpayment under the 1952 agreement which amounts to some *182,201 per annum for fiscal years 1957-58 to 1961-62 has not been deducted
from the tax rental payments for those above years to which the deduction applies.



Questions
8. SASKATCHEWAN-1956-57 to 1962-63
(in thousands of dollars)
				Preliminary Estimates	
1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61 1961-62 1962-63	Total
A. Unconditional grants
1. Statutory subsidies	2,080	2,080	2,080	2,098	2,092	2,116	2,116	14,6622. Tax abatements (estimated)	-	-	-	-	-	-	20,849	20,8493. Tax rentals^)	27,432	13,874	14,399	20,052	16,855	19,348	-	111,9604. Equalization	-	19,197	19,862	20,180	23,723	21,222	23,430	127,6145. Stabilization	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-6. 50 per cent share of federal estate tax	-	-	-	-	-	-	909	9097. 50 per cent share of income tax on power utilities	50	66	96	51	58	59	60	440Sub-total	29,562	35,217	36,437	42,381	42,728	42,745	47,364	276,434B. Conditional Grants	1. Agriculture	30	55	186	3,043	355	990	346	5,0052. Health	2,095	2,275	3,006	2,254	2,489	2,600	3,028	17,7473. Hospital insurance	-	-	8,430	13,378	14,454	15,900	17,772	69,9344. Welfare	2,199	2,577	3,913	4,238	4,727	6,487	8,035	32,1765. Vocational training, etc	340	419	452	1,274	920	1,284	3,808	8,4976. Highways and transportation	2,919	3,351	366	87	367	93	80	7,2637. Resource development	49	216	1,116	1,601	2,300	1,465	1,227	7,9748. Civil defence	49	43	51	71	132	162	170	6789. Municipal winter works	-	-	33	322	789	1,299	1,995	4,43810. Other	42	10	10	10	23	-	-	95Sub-total	7,723	8,946	17,563	26,278	26,556	30,280	36,461	153,807C. Payments for the benefit of provincial institutions	1. University grants	881	879	1,332	1,353	1,365	1,397	1,852	9,0592. Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property..	284	625	726	747	846	854	923	5,005Sub-total	1,165	1,504	2,058	2,100	2,211	2,251	2,775	14,064TOTAL	38,450	45,667	56,058	70,759	71,495	75,276	86,600	444,305
(*) The recovery of the overpayment under the 1952 agreement which amounts to some $304,180 per annum for fiscal years 1957-58 to 1961-62 has not been deducted
from the tax rental payments for those above years to which the deduction applies.
3096	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
9. ALBERTA-1956-57 to 1962-63
(in thousands of dollars)
	1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Preliminary Estimates 1961-62 1962-63		Total
A. Unconditional grants								
1. Statutory subsidies	2,274	2,274	2,274	2,400	2,358	2,816	2,816	17,2122. Tax abatements (estimated)	-	-	-	47,062	47,0623. Tax rentals	37,311	28,892	38,350	40,261	39,635	43,524	227,9734. Equalization	-	14,744	7,991	15,109	17,511	14,862	9,329	79,5465. Stabilization	-	6. 50 per cent share of federal estate tax	-	-	-	-	-	2,247	2,2477. 50 per cent share of income tax on power utilities	1,767	1,980	2,216	1,239	1,449	1,871	1,901	12,423Sub-total	41,352	47,890	50,831	59,009	60,953	63,073	63,355	386,463B. Conditional grants	1. Agriculture	66	67	69	1,688	1,117	231	74	3,3122. Health	2,589	2,888	3,527	2,906	2,755	3,700	4,296	22,6613. Hospital insurance	-	-	8,775	15,699	16,906	21,000	24,009	86,3894. Welfare	1,648	2,148	4,492	4,802	5,361	7,315	8,910	34,6765. Vocational training, etc	528	1,380	1,652	870	924	5,890	10,970	22,2146. Highways and transportation	2,019	5,398	2,229	1,109	268	700	50	11,7737. Resource development	21	184	476	2,461	2,142	2,543	2,702	10,5298. Civil defence	119	142	126	278	405	533	550	2,1539. Municipal winter works	-	-	-	1,069	1,545	2,752	4,230	9,59610. Other	10	20	10	10	10	-	-	60Sub-total	7,000	12,227	21,356	30,892	31,433	44,664	55,791	203,363C. Payments for the benefit of provincial institutions	1. University grants	1,123	1,160	1,802	1,865	1,925	2,009	2,722	12,6062. Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property.	330	1,045	1,676	1,605	1,590	1,607	1,737	9,590Sub-total	1,453	2,205	3,478	3,470	3,515	3,616	4,459	22,196TOTAL	49,805	62,322	75,665	93,371	95,901	111,353	123,605	612,022
%

Questions
10. BRITISH COLUMBIA 1956-57 to 1962-63
(in thousands of dollars)
	1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Preliminary Estimates 1961-62 1962-63		Total
A. Unconditional grants 									
1. Statutory subsidies	1,281	1,281	1,281	1,281	1,281	1,672	1,672	9,7492. Tax abatements (estimated)	-	-	-	-	-	-	71,178	71,1783. Tax rentals	55,730	51,446	51,321	58,752	65,643	65,529	-	348,4214. Equalization	-	4,491	8,237	11,258	5,926	5,902	-	35,8145. Stabilization	-	3,046	5,258	-2,156	2,117	2,950	-	11,2156. 50 per cent share of federal estate tax	-	-	-	-	-	-	5,888	5,8887. 50 per cent share of income tax on power utilities	1,415	1,325	1,456	350	260	928	943	6,677Sub-total	58,426	61,589	67,553	69,485	75,227	76,981	79,681	488,942B. Conditional grants __ 	38	70	132	115	183	96	98	(6Z3,210	3,807	4,250	3,962	4,150	4,000	4,110	27,4893. Hospital insurance	-	-	12,784	20,406	22,493	25,500	29,114	110,2975,971	5,378	9,196	10,444	13,567	19,267	21,492	85,3155. Vocational training, etc	549	719	1,017	1,309	904	3,104	7,998	15,6006. Highways and transportation	6,680	16,818	12,333	15,123	17,650	15,867	11,000	95,4717. Resource development	846	1,147	2,747	2,585	2,334	3,874	3,640	17,173187	212	225	350	483	586	600	2,6439. Municipal winter works	10	10	104	713	1,727	3,294	5,035	10,87310. Other	10	10	10	-	50Sub-total	17,491	28,161	42,798	55,017	63,501	75,588	83,087	365,643C. Payments for the benefit of provincial institutions	1,398	1,487	2,316	2,355	2,409	2,409	3,332	15,7062. Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property.	596	1,453	2,245	1,875	2,443	2,468	2,668	13,748Sub-total	1,994	2,940	4,561	4,230	4,852	4,877	6,000	29,454TOTAL	77,911	92,690	114,912	128,732	143,580	157,446	168,768	884,0393098	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all briefs, letters, and submissions presented to the government or any agency or branch thereof since January 22, 1961, dealing with Bill C-38.
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: We are
prepared to accept this motion with the reservation that documents of a confidential nature, or documents which are ordinarily privileged, will not be expected to be produced. As this bill was introduced in the house only on January 22, 1962, there can be no briefs dealing with Bill C-38 as such prior to that date.


Mr. Howard:: I am sorry that did not come to my attention earlier. That "1961" is a typographical error. It should be 1962.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that an amendment be made in the motion so that it will read 1962?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the parliamentary secretary is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 52-Mr. Racine:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, options, and contracts concerning the purchase of a lot for the construction of a public building in Beauceville, together with a copy of all contracts or other documents now in the possession of the Department of Public Works relating to this property.
Mr. Roberge:: I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member for Megantic may proceed in the absence of the hon. member for Beauce?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Why not?


An hon. Member:: You are afraid.


Mr. Pigeon:: No, we are not afraid; he is not in the house.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege having to do with this motion as well as questions in the name of the hon. member for Beauce which were raised as a question of privilege
Motions for Papers
in the house some time ago. The points I raise are two in number. First, there are five questions standing in the name of the hon. member, certainly the vast majority of which could have been answered in a very short time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: They were not answered-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Laurier will agree with me that delay in answering a question, or the absence of an answer, does not raise a question of privilege.


Mr. Hellyer:: The government has to keep the old cabbage leaves well covered.


Lionel Chevrier: In view of the serious allegations made by the hon. member, I think it would be appropriate to answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: However, dealing with the motion, if the minister and the government, who seem to be unmoved by the questions and the motion, are so sure of the facts it seems to me they should accept the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I thought perhaps the hon. member was raising a point of order as to whether the motion could be placed before the house in the absence of the hon. member in whose name it stands. My impression is that without the consent of the house a substitute mover is not acceptable.


Lionel Chevrier: I was coming to that point, Mr. Speaker, and I was going to ask you to invite the house, in view of the question of privilege raised by my hon. friend, to decide that this is one of those cases wherein unanimous consent might well be given.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If he had any sense of responsibility, he would be in the house.
(Text):


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Laurier, if it was felt to be important that the hon. member for Beauce should clarify this question, I think he should be in the house now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am advised that the practice which the house has followed in the case of motions coming before the house in the absence of the mover is that if the motion is opposed, the mover must be present; if the motion is unopposed, the house has normally

Motions for Papers
allowed a substitute mover. In those circumstances perhaps the minister concerned could indicate whether the motion is accepted.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There seems to be some confusion as to identity, and when it is cleared up they will be admitted.


Mr. Churchill:: The minister asked for it to stand, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Denis:: They have got something hide.


Mr. Pickersgill:: What are you afraid of?


Lionel Chevrier: Let us hear from the minister.


ENGINEERS' COMMITTEE REPORT, ST. LAWRENCE RIVER AND MONTREAL HARBOUR
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 54-Mr. Fisher:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the report of the committee of engineers, designated as the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour committee 1950.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. It has been requested that the motion stand, and in the absence of the mover the motion will have to stand. No. 53, Mr. Pickersgill-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, at least the minister could have accepted your invitation to explain the position of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.	,


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, we havff
hundreds of questions to answer, and we are doing our best to get around to answering them.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hundreds more like this one?


David James Walker: You cannot make a silk purse out of a a sow's ear; I am not going any further.


Mr. Pearson:: That is perfectly true.


IMMIGRATION-ADMISSION OF WIVES OF CANADIAN CITIZENS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 53-Mr. Pickersgill:
That an order of the house do Issue for a copy of a letter addressed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on March 5, 1962, by Ian G. Wahn of Toronto, regarding the difficulty experienced by two Canadian citizens in having their wives admitted to Canada, together with a copy of any acknowledgment made by the minister.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in view of the fact that this may be the last day of the session. Can she say whether, in her reply to the letter from Mr. Wahn, about which a motion was accepted by the hon. lady today, she indicated that the wives of these two Canadian citizens were to be admitted to Canada?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The wives of Canadian citizens who comply with Canadian regulations are always admitted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister whether the wives of these particular Canadian citizens have complied with the regulations?


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Speaker, the document referred to in this motion is a departmental report. Under the long established practice of the house, departmental or interdepartmental documents are considered privileged. In the circumstances I would hope my hon. friend would agree to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Fisher:: I would ask to have it transferred pursuant to standing order No. 47, when it will be open for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 47 this motion is transferred to notices of motions (papers).


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture whether a delegation representing western agriculture waited on the government yesterday in connection with drought relief. If so, can he report to the house?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: I have no knowledge of anything along that line.


COLUMBIA RIVER-REPORTED CALL FROM B.C. PREMIER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the report of an interesting telephone call from Premier Bennett of British Columbia to the Minister of Finance on Monday last, is the minister in a position to satisfy the ever-increasing curiosity concerning this most unusual report and will the minister inform the house of the facts?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have had various telephone conversations with Premier Bennett over the last two or three weeks. I wonder if the hon. gentleman would particularize the report he has in mind.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It was a report which many of us consider there are good grounds for believing, to the effect that the premier of British Columbia suggested it might be necessary to call an immediate election in certain circumstances.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The premier indicated his wish that parliament should ratify the treaty before dissolution, but he did not indicate to me that he proposed to call a provincial general election in British Columbia if that course were not followed. (Translation):


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Bissonnetle (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production.
Would the minister care to comment on a telegram from the Lauzon shipbuilding workers' unions addressed to several members from the Quebec area, to protest against the building of Canadian submarines abroad?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, on April 17 I received a telegram from the workers' unions of Lauzon, protesting against the construction of a submarine in England.
First, I must say that no contract of the kind was awarded abroad, and if it should ever happen, I can assure the workers of Lauzon that they will be protected by other contracts more beneficial to them, such as the construction of frigates provided for in the new program, as well as the conversion of frigates of the existing fleet, and their share of repairs to our warships, as in the past.
We want to provide work for our defence industry in compensation for contracts we award abroad, and that, always in order to help certain sectors of that industry which are now undergoing some serious difficulties, like our aircraft industries, for instance.


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Does the Minister of Defence Production not think that the very idea of asking for tenders-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice Bourget: -in view of buying submarines in England is an insult to our shipyards as well as to our qualified workmen in Lauzon and elsewhere in Canada?
26207-1-197
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. O'Hurley:: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Levis speaks of insults, he should get some information with regard to circumstances connected with this matter.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary question. Is it the policy of this government, in view of helping our Canadian industries at a time when we have many hundred thousand unemployed people, to consider the question of dollars and cents?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Levis wants to discuss the matter of Canadian defence contracts, I am ready to explain what we have done and to point out the premiums we have paid to keep those defence contracts in Canada, but there is a limit to the amount we can pay in order to do so.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, another supplementary question. Does the minister-
(Text):
A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: The last two supplementaries appeared to me to be more of the order of a debate than a search for information. I recognize the hon. member for St. John's West.


Maurice Bourget: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address myself to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Maurice Bourget: The matter concerns-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will come to the hon. member in due course. I recognize the hon. member for Lapointe.
(Translation):


INQUIRIES FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
On February 26 last I asked the Secretary of State, through the Minister of Transport, to provide me with certain documents concerning the Boisjoli affair. I wonder if I will get an answer before the dissolution of parliament is announced.


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Slate):: I shall take the hon. member's question as notice and try to answer it as soon as possible.

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, and ask him when I might expect an answer to starred questions Nos. 356 and 357, passed as orders for returns on April 2. These are simple questions directed to the Department of Transport, and certainly would not require the amount of investigation that was required for the questions the Minister of Transport answered today.


Noël Dorion: I shall make every effort to give an answer as soon as possible.


Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State when he expects to be in a position to answer question No. 406, which was passed as an order for return and which related to conditions prevailing on Halfway House, Blueberry and Prophet river reserves?


Noël Dorion: I do not know if it will be possible to answer tomorrow, but I will try.


COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Stinson (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. However, before doing so I should like to thank him and all other members for the many messages they were kind enough to send to me when I was in the hospital. Has the Prime Minister any comment to make on the story appearing in the press today to the effect that the commonwealth prime ministers' conference is to be held on September 10?


An hon. Member:: He will not be there.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: As the house knows, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has communicated with the various prime ministers of the countries of the commonwealth, and I would expect that an announcement will be made by him in this regard very soon.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. If the election had been held on September 12, as the Prime Minister suggested yesterday, would this not have interfered with the holding of the commonwealth conference?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman should be complimented on his kind remarks.
(Mr. Dorion.]


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that we have enough difficulty with questions that are pertinent without dealing with those that are hypothetical.
(Translation):


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, who is accountable to the house for the C.N.R.
Could the minister give some information to the house concerning the rental of several rooms in the Chateau Laurier for a political convention to be held in the fall for the election of a new party leader? Apparently the rooms have been rented recently by the hon. member for Essex East.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the house that I would not want to interfere in any way with the campaign of my hon. friend for Essex East.
(Text):


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is he aware that the publication entitled "Northern Neighbours, Canada's Reliable and Independent Magazine reporting the U.S.S.R.", is presently classified as second class mail, and will he give consideration to reclassifying the magazine so that the Canadian people will not be subsidizing the distribution of such questionable propaganda?


William McLean Hamilton: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I have some doubt that "Northern Neighbours" is either reliable or independent. I agree with him when he says that it seems to be U.S.S.R. propaganda. However, the Postmaster General does not classify magazines as being eligible for second class rates. The laws of the country establish certain qualifications which, if met, allow any publications to benefit from the second class rates. This publication meets those qualifications. It is therefore entitled to second class rates. I might add that I do not accept the implication in the question that the Postmaster General should assume the responsibility for censorship of that which passes

through the mails. I have trust and confidence in the Canadian people themselves to make their decisions. I do not think we need a censorship branch in the Post Office Department.


SUGGESTED COMMEMORATIVE STAMP OF PRESENT MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General.


Some hon. Members:: The last question.


Azellus Denis: I should like to know from him if he will recommend to the next Liberal government the issuance of a stamp bearing the minister's picture in commemoration of the most photogenic, expensive and ineffective postmaster general in Canada's history?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should very much like to accommodate this last request of the hon. member, but there are two obstacles which stand in the way. When I said "last request" I meant "death-bed request". As for the two obstacles, I would point out that the hon. member referred to the wrong party as forming the next government; and second, to be commemorated on a postage stamp one must not be alive. I hope to be both alive and here in this position if the Prime Minister so wishes when this house next convenes.


Azellus Denis: A supplementary question. Out of the millions of dollars given away in the last few days of this parliament and to be paid out of government deficits, would the minister spare a dime for the installation of one of his magic plastic mail boxes for the people of St. Denis, who have not seen one yet?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Who wrote that for you?


Azellus Denis: Not Ricard, anyway.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Margaret Macdonald (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he in a position to advise the house when a new ferry will be built for the Wood Island-Caribou service?


Léon Balcer: I am very pleased to tell the hon. lady and the house that an agreement has been worked out between Northumberland Ferries Limited and the government for the building of
Inquiries of the Ministry a new ferry by Northumberland Ferries Limited for the Wood Island-Caribou service. I understand that for this contract, which will be eligible for a subsidy of 40 per cent, tenders will be called very soon so that the building of the ship will be undertaken in the very near future.
While I am on my feet and while I am mentioning this 40 per cent subsidy and talking about shipbuilding, I should like to remind the hon. member for Levis that the Bonaventure or the aircraft carrier that is the largest ship of our fleet and that was bought by the previous government was built in Belfast.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether this ferry to which he referred in his answer to the hon. lady today is the same ferry which during consideration of the supplementary estimates he told us was going to be built?


Léon Balcer: During consideration of the estimates I said that treasury board had approved the decision. Now agreement has been reached between the two parties.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who is wasting the time of the house?


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Can the
minister tell the house about the size of that ship? Is it of the nature of the Lord Selkirk now in service?


Léon Balcer: This vessel will be of the most modern roll-on/roll-off type and will be able to load and unload the full complement of automobiles in a matter of minutes. The overall length will be approximately 250 feet, with a maximum speed of 14 knots. Capacity will be 60 automobiles and 350 passengers with up to date accommodation for the crew. The ship will also be able to handle the largest size trailer trucks.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Levis has a supplementary question?


Maurice Bourget: May I ask
the minister what will be the name of the captain, and also his age?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should also like to ask the minister a supplementary question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let him answer the first one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say when this ship will be ready for service?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I will not attempt to answer the first question. When the ship is christened I think the question of my hon.

Inquiries of the Ministry friend will be answered. However, I think a proper name for that ship would be the Mrs. Macdonald, in view of the continuous effort on her part in this connection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I merely wish to repeat my question to the minister. Can the minister say when the ship will be in service?


Léon Balcer: It will be built in a Canadian shipyard. I am sure it will be done with the greatest speed, so that it will be in service in the near future.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Will he use his good offices to ensure that Ferguson Industries Limited at Pictou, Nova Scotia, which lies in close proximity to the Nova Scotia terminal of this ferry route, is given every opportunity to tender on this ship?


Léon Balcer: I am pleased to tell the hon. member that Ferguson Industries will be asked to tender on that ship.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPENING OF LAKEHEAD TERMINAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David James Walker: If I might be permitted to reply to the hon. member for Port Arthur I should like to assure him and members of the house that the harbour terminal at the lakehead will be definitely opened with an appropriate ceremony befitting an occasion of that kind, undertaken jointly by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport.
The opening of this terminal is of more than local importance, as it will include accommodation for deep sea shipping. The deepening of the interconnecting channels to open the upper lakes to deep sea traffic is now being carried out by the United States. Thus the new facilities, which will be among the most modem in the world, will soon become the western terminus of the St. Lawrence seaway. This is, of course, of significance to western Canada as well as to northwestern Ontario. All members of the house will be pleased, I know, that our Prime Minister has consented to officiate at the opening ceremony which will take place on June 23 next.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. Can the Minister of Public Works tell the house, in view of the fact the Prime Minister is going to be there, when he consulted the Leader of the Opposition about this?


David James Walker: Which one of the four, Mr. Speaker? There are four horsemen of the apocalypse, and I do not know which one.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-DISLOCATION OF SHIPPING THROUGH CLOSING OF EISENHOWER LOCK
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and if I could comment on the previous answer I will say that we would welcome a visit sooner. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he can give us an appreciation of the dislocation, particularly in the grain trade, that has been caused by the closing of the Eisenhower lock. My question is occasioned by scare reports in the press that it is going to dislocate the shipping of grain for this season.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, of course we are very anxious to see shipping in the seaway resumed as soon as possible. I have inquired through my officials, and I am informed that the officials of the St. Lawrence seaway authority are keeping in close touch with the United States authorities, and barring unforeseen developments it now seems fairly certain the lock will be in service by April 24 at the latest.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
a supplementary question. Does the Minister of Transport not think, in view of the circumstances, he should send his colleague the Minister of Public Works to make an investigation of that lock to ascertain whether the funds were properly spent?


Léon Balcer: If it were a Canadian lock I think we could not find any better man than the Minister of Public Works. He has been busy for the last four years repairing all kinds of damages that were caused by our predecessors.


Lionel Chevrier: He was going to make a seaway investigation, and we are still waiting for it.


NATIONAL REVENUE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, now that everybody has milked the ferry to the limit I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue possibly one of the last questions I will ever ask him. Can the minister inform the house when he is going to table the list of naughty books forbidden entry to Canada under his instructions?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member feels the finger of approaching fate resting so heavily on his shoulders, but we will remember his way of asking questions when he is not here in the house in the years after the election. So far as the answer to the question is concerned, there have been few books banned by the present minister. They are largely books banned by my predecessor in office. The list is very long. I am told by my departmental officials that we have gone through 1955, 1956 and half of 1957, but having got to 1957 the list will be very short from then on and I hope it will be available when parliament reassembles.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS ATLANTIC PROVINCES    FEASIBILITY STUDIES OF PUBLIC PROJECTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the recent article in the Atlantic Advocate referring to the possibility of a development fund for the Atlantic provinces and in view of the recommendation, among other things, of feasibility studies of public projects in the Atlantic provinces, does the Prime Minister have any comment to make?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gave me notice of his question. The government is now studying this matter and is giving consideration to the establishment of a federal Atlantic development board which would be empowered to examine projects recommended by provincial governments or other parties, and to give assistance and recommend appropriate plans to the government.


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 National Defence. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the report that the army has only been able to recruit approximately 15,000 of the 25,000 people required for the fourth civil survival course? If so, can he advise the house what the reasons are for this failure to attract the required number of men?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the number of people who had enlisted for the fourth and last of the survival courses was some 16,000 odd at
26207-1-198
Inquiries of the Ministry the close of business on Monday, I believe. What the number will be when recruitment for this course ends tomorrow, which I believe is the last day, I do not know. I think I indicated some time earlier it was always anticipated that there might be some difficulty in securing 25,000, the objective of each course, as far as the fourth course is concerned.


MARITIME PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister has been allowed a number of days to give some thought to the matter, can he advise the house if he is prepared to table the brief presented to him on March 7 by the premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick on the expansion of resource development in the Atlantic region through the utilization of maritime coal?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have anything to add to what has already been said in that connection.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister assure the house that the brief has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and the members of the dominion coal board?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last question will apply to this one too.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No answer.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys leaves the chamber, may I direct a question to him. Can the minister advise the house if a brief sent to the Prime Minister and presented on March 7 by the premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick has been brought to his attention, and if so on what date?


Hon. Jacques Flynn (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On what date?


Jacques Flynn: This is statistical information, and if the hon. member wants to put a question on the order paper he will receive an answer.

Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE


PATRONAGE-STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT POSITION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Port Arthur, referring to a newspaper article about patronage in appointments which, in part, quoted certain views of the chairman of the Civil Service Commission of Canada, inquired whether the federal government has revised its views along what he called the same line.
It is quite clear that Mr. Hughes was expressing a personal comment respecting an area of employment over which the federal government has no control, that is appointments to provincial positions which are outside the jurisdiction of the provincial civil service commissions.
In reply to the hon. member's question I would say that the government's views with respect to the federal civil service have been expressed from time to time, notably in the Civil Service Act passed by parliament within the past 12 months, in what was said in the debates on that bill, and in the regulations made under that act two or three weeks ago. These views have not been revised along any such line as the hon. member's question implies.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. What steps is he taking to recover the $8,000 which was overpaid to a supporter of the Union Na-tionale in connection with the Beauceville post office as alleged by the member for Beauce?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, seeing that this is the swan song of the hon. member for Laurier, the pseudo leader from Quebec, who has never been anything else, may I say to hpn that in the fall we will welcome his enthusiastic co-operation in the public accounts committee to fully investigate this alleged matter, if he is re-elected; and if he is not we might employ him as special counsel to help him out.


Lionel Chevrier: I asked the minister a question and he made a speech. I put this question to the minister, since he has refused to answer my first question. Why did the minister not carry out his undertaking to submit the allegations of the hon.

member for Beauce to the public accounts committee promptly? Having suggested this, he then refused to let the matter go to the public accounts committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me this is reviving a matter we dealt with the other day.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister not answer my question as to what steps he as Minister of Public Works is taking to recover that amount?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, for many, many months I have wanted to ask the hon. member-


Lionel Chevrier: Answer the question.


David James Walker: -why the Welland canal, which he predicted would cost $1.3 million, cost $27 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David James Walker: To deal with the question of the Beauceville post office-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister asked me a question and I think he is entitled to a reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Questions are in the reverse direction at this stage of the day. If the hon. member has been misquoted or if there is a matter of explanation that arises out of the comment of the minister I will give him the floor-


Lionel Chevrier: It does.


Mr. Speaker:: -but not to continue a debate.


Lionel Chevrier: No, but the hon. member wants to know why the Welland canal cost $27 million. The government ought to be able to give the answer, because they supported it and the Minister of Finance approved that expenditure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will appreciate that this is not the time to debate the construction of the Welland canal, or the cost of construction.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree, Mr. Speaker; your ruling is quite correct.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down, then.


Lionel Chevrier: But the statement I wanted to make was that the original Welland canal which was estimated to cost $50 million actually cost $132 million when a former Tory government was in office.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member accepts my ruling, I would be glad if he would abide by it.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: On Monday, the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine asked me a question with regard to the prospects for the installation of television service in these islands, and the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond also raised the question with me at the same time. I have an answer here, Mr. Speaker, which is rather long for orders of the day, and rather technical. With the permission of the house I suggest it might be better if it were printed in Hansard..


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The text of the answer is as follows:]
The corporation has given a great deal of attention to possible methods of extending C.B.C. French language television service to the Magdalen islands. Four possible plans have been studied:
(1)	Video tape recordings.
(2)	Kine recordings.
(3)	A series of rebroadcasting stations in Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton island and the Magdalen islands relaying live network service from our present Moncton station.
(4)	Extension of the French network from Moncton to Cape Breton where a network relay station would serve a rebroadcast station in the Magdalens.
The first two plans were abandoned because of the high costs involved particularly for a non-live service. Plans 3 and 4 have the advantage of providing live service to the French language population of P.E.I. and Cape Breton, as well as the Magdalen islands. While both these plans are more expensive in dollar terms than either video tape or kine recordings, the fact that they would serve more than twice as many people makes their estimated cost per capita the same or lower.
Plan 3 (the system of rebroadcasting stations) would involve a relatively high capital cost and would affect limited potential for future extensions of service. While plan 4 (extension of the network) would involve a lower capital cost than plan 3, operating costs would be substantially higher resulting in a somewhat higher per capita cost. However, this plan would lend itself more readily to extension of t.v. service into adjacent areas should the need arise in the future. In addition, plan 4 is considered to be more satisfactory from a technical point of view.
Inquiries of the Ministry
At the moment, the corporation is assembling further data and refining its estimates, particularly with respect to the costs of extending network service. When this process is completed, probably within the next few months, the corporation will be able to decide which of the two plans under study should be acted on.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has given any consideration to the establishment of a royal commission to undertake a study of parliamentary procedure with regard to divorce.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a matter, of course, for parliament to decide.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschaleleis (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister say if he has included in his budget the $200 deposit that the member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm is going to lose in the coming election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members have been taking a fair amount of latitude today, and perhaps now we can get to orders of the day.
(Translation):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland English (Gaspe):: I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General.
Was he made aware of the fact that a civil servant, that is a postmaster at St. Anne des Monts, tendered his resignation in order to run as a Liberal condidate at the next election?


William McLean Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that would be-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the question hardly warrants the time of the house.


William McLean Hamilton: thought the vacancy might be of interest to the hon. member for St. Denis.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



TORONTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Does the government intend to insist that the Canadian National Railways fulfil the promise allegedly made by its president, Mr. Donald Gordon, that there would be no level crossings and that a security fence would be erected in built-up areas adjacent to the access line to the new marshalling yards in Vaughan township north of Toronto?


Léon Balcer: I am quite sure that any undertakings given by Mr. Gordon in this connection will be carried out.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
To questions asked yesterday and the day before by the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bourbonnais), the minister replied that the province of Quebec had not yet given an answer to the offer made by the federal government concerning the Sou-langes canal.
Here is my question. Should no reply to this offer be received from the province of Quebec within a reasonable time, would the Minister of Transport consider an offer from the Sulphur Converting Corporation?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member's question is a little too hypothetical to be urgent.



SESSIONAL EMPLOYEES-CONSIDERATION OF GOOD FRIDAY AS HOLIDAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the house leader, and through him Your Honour, whether consideration can be given to the establishment of Good Friday as a holiday with pay for those sessional employees who are now on the staff of the House of Commons and who have not had any holiday this session. Could Good Friday be classed as a holiday for them, as it is for other civil servants?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might take the matter up with the Speaker at an early opportunity.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wish to
direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Has any part of lots 15, 16 or 17, concession 1, in the township of Pittsburgh, west of the Great Cataraqui river, been declared surplus by the federal government during the twenty-fourth parliament? If so, has it been disposed of, to whom has it been sold, and what were the details of the sale and the price?


Donat Raymond: The hon. member gave me notice of this question, and during the short period of time I had at my disposal today to make inquiries of the crown disposal corporation I have not discovered any record of any such request having been made in this regard.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister inquire further and, should he have any information, give it to me privately?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I shall make further inquiries.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
The Chairman:: The committee has before it for consideration the following resolution: 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. 1962, the sum of $138,416,981, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Regier:: I want to thank the other members of the New Democratic party who have again asked me to be their spokesman on this particular occasion. There is some honour, loyalty and appreciation of each other in our group, and I wish to say that I am proud of each of the seven other members in our group.
It used to be said that there was honour even among thieves, but I am dismayed to note that the Liberal party cannot even be classed in that category. I have noted with dismay the absence of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River in recent days. He has been re-elected to this house on many occasions as a Liberal-Labour member and has

always been regarded as the financial spokesman or financial critic of his party. His responsibility has been to watch daily the financial affairs of our country, and especially the financial activities of our government. Yet in the interests of political expediency he was most unceremoniously and mercilessly dumped by his political party. By contrast, I am very happy that neither my national leader nor my house leader are so anxious for publicity that they would thus violate the ordinary rules of honour and decency, and I am also very proud at this moment that I do not belong to the Liberal party.
In this resolution we are being asked to vote money to the government of the day, but history has a way of taking many turns. The very origins of parliament were to provide a voice for the taxpayers in determining how the money necessary for the maintenance of law and order should be collected, but look how this has worked out. Under our rules we have now established an allocation of six days in which to debate the budget. We agree we ought to spend no more than six days debating how the money is to be collected; yet all of us know, and many of us regret, that we spend six, seven and eight months of the year discussing mere details of governmental expenditures. Readjustment of that situation is badly needed. We all know that a government requires at least minimum funds in order to sustain our society; yet under the existing situation we allocate only six days to a debate on how the money is to be collected and, as I have just said, we spend six to eight months of the year niggling about details of particular expenditures.
Looking at the financial policy of the government, I am afraid I must come to the conclusion that the government has no policy. Its financial policy is neither fish nor fowl. It is neither hot nor cold; it is lukewarm. It is something to be spewn out of the mouth as distasteful, and I expect the electorate of Canada will agree with me in that regard on June 18.
I was very disappointed with the attitude taken by the official Leader of the Opposition during his television appearance on budget night. The leader of the Liberal party in his television appearance on budget night really found nothing to complain about in the budget as it had been presented, except that it had arrived many years too late. I believe that the Canadian people will by now have noted that the leader of the official opposition has yet to present a real alternative to the financial policies of this government. Perhaps I am saying too much when I call them financial policies, because in my opinion the
Ways and Means
actions of the government in the field of finance are very contradictory and I believe they can best be described in the quotation "John versus Don".
Last fall we read some rather interesting newspaper speculation to the effect that John was about ready to fire Don and move him into some other field of responsibility. However, I understand that St. James street and Bay street made adequate representations and Don managed to retain his present office. I was pleased-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do you believe all that bunk?


Erhart Regier: I was pleased to read the end result, Mr. Chairman, because despite the fact that I disagree with the basic Tory and reactionary policies of our Minister of Finance, I would hate to think of the condition our country would be in today if the irresponsible economic and financial attitudes of our present Prime Minister had been able to prevail within the councils of the government. I would rather live with the financial policies, even though I hope it would not be for too many years, of Bay street and St. James street as represented by the present Minister of Finance than live in a country dominated by the lack of knowledge and the financial and economic irresponsibility of a Prime Minister who seems quite prepared to increase a deficit to the tune of $100 million in the interests of four constituencies and in the interests of only 100,000 people; who is quite prepared to be irresponsible and spend $15 million, which is only a preliminary expenditure, on behalf of two constituencies; who is quite prepared to be irresponsible and advocate the abolition of tolls on a couple of bridges in order to bribe a few more constituencies back into the Tory camp. In the face of irresponsibility of that type I would prefer the traditional Tory financial atmosphere even though I hope I would not have to live with it for many years.
Our government is responsible for the economic welfare of the Canadian community. The United States of America is always regarded as the heart of so-called free enterprise, the heart of capitalism. I would like to think that the government of Canada would be at least as bold as the President of the United States in that he was recently so amazingly successful and was able to call to task the steel corporations of his country. Over there a steel corporation, Mr. Chairman, is spelt s-t-e-e-1. I am afraid that in Canada we have far too many s-t-e-a-1 corporations and this government, like the one before it, seems quite prepared to allow a policy of s-t-e-a-1 to continue ad nauseam.

Ways and Means
In this regard I would like to quote from a report issued by the B.C. federation of labour entitled "Conspiracy against the consumer: The difference between right and wrong!" This is a report on the investigation by Senator Estes Kefauver, chairman of the United States senate subcommittee investigating price rigging in the steel and drug industries:
The following tables showing profits in the steel industry in recent years is very revealing.
Net income (after taxes) per ton of steel products shipped; 1952, $6.80; 1953, $8.85; 1954, $9.15; 1955, $14.51; 1956, $14.56; 1957, $17.91.
At least the United States now has a president who was able to call a halt to this continuing exploitation of both labour and consumer. Our government has yet to arrive at that concept and do at least as well. All of us remember reading in the newspapers some months ago that leading industrialists across the line were put into jail. I wish to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that our Prime Minister when in the opposition ranks used to call for amendments to our Combines Investigation Act which would demand that officials of companies who were found guilty of violating the spirit of the Combines Investigation Act should be sentenced to a jail term, which should be mandatory and not optional.
All of us were happy to read last fall that officials of the General Electric Company and others were put into prison in the United States of America because they had been found guilty of price fixing. Yet what do we find in Canada? I read again from the publication put out by the B.C. federation of labour, page 7:
In recent years over 150 companies in Canada have been fined under the combines act for engaging in price fixing.
A few of the major examples of price fixing in the last ten years include the following:
1951-Canadian Bakeries, McGavin's, Weston's, and their subsidiaries found guilty of price fixing on a grand scale.
1951-Eddy match company and five lesser firms found guilty of price fixing and restraint of trade.
1953-	Northern Electric, Canadian General Electric, and seven other firms found to be price fixing.
1954-	10 companies in Vancouver convicted of a conspiracy to prevent competition in the supply of coarse paper.
1954-30 gasoline retailers in Vancouver convicted of price fixing (later appeal allowed on a technicality)
1959-	12 supermarket chains in the United States, including such giants as Safeway stores, indicted by a federal grand jury for price fixing.
1960-	19 of North America's largest electrical equipment manufacturers pleaded guilty to price fixing and bid rigging, involving annual sales of $2 billion a year. All told there were 72 guilty pleas, and 88 pleas of no defence.
I should like to think that even a Tory government in Canada would have as much interest in the welfare of the consumers of

Canada and in the economic health of our community as the democratic party of the United States under the leadership of President Kennedy, and that it would be as brave as his administration has recently proved itself to be.
The budget presented to this house is a poor housekeeping budget. The minister is predicting a 7 per cent increase in the gross national product. Assuming the minister to be right in this prediction, how, then, does he forecast a deficit of $800 million? These two factors simply do not add up. If we are going to get a 7 per cent increase in the gross national product there ought to be no possible excuse for a deficit, yet the minister announces that he expects a deficit of a size almost unprecedented in Canadian history.
The minister calls this an expansionist budget but he offers no evidence to support this contention. He has been found so wrong on so many occasions in the past that in the absence of any evidence that this is an expansionist budget I am afraid we have to ascribe this label as mere wishful thinking on the part of the minister.
There is no hope expressed in the budget that continuing heavy unemployment will not remain with us for many years to come. Our unemployment insurance fund has been almost exhausted. I should like to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that some years ago I predicted in this house that in the event of a severe economic recession hitting the Canadian economy this fund, which then stood at $900 million, would begin to disappear and would completely disappear within a short time. At that time the house hooted and howled me down. My statement was labeled as nonsensical and irresponsible, yet the government today has to admit that the unemployment insurance fund is not geared, and never was geared, to handle a situation in which the economy is on the decline.
The investment record, or investment intentions, give the lie to the prediction of the minister that there is to be a 7 per cent increase in the gross national product. I should like to read from a publication issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce and entitled Private and Public Investment Outlook in Canada, 1962. I notice that in terms of current dollars, in 1957 private and public investment in Canada totalled $8,717,000 while the expectation for 1962 amounts to only $8,596,000, in other words, a decline. Capital expenditure as a percentage of the gross national product which, for 1957, is listed as 27.3, appears as 23.3 for 1960. There is nothing in the investment predictions contained in this report to indicate that the minister has any reason for predicting a 7 per cent increase in the gross national

product. I notice on page 11 of the same report, incidentally, the statement that institutional services are expected to increase their investment amounts to $220 million and that government departments are expected to increase theirs by $159 million for a total of $379 million. This clearly indicates a decrease in the private sector of our economy as compared with 1960 of $45 million. Thus, upon the facts, the minister cannot substantiate his prediction about growth. I noticed a report in the Globe and Mail out of the Ottawa bureau dated March 27. It stated:
D.B.S. reported that Canadian industrial production dropped back in January after climbing for 10 months, the fall being even more severe than in the United States.
It went on:
Today D.B.S. reported that the seasonally adjusted industrial production index in Canada dropped by two points, declining 1.2 per cent to 178.6 from 180.7 in December.
The bureau said mining production dropped by 1 per cent and manufacturing by 1.7 per cent, while output of electric power and gas utilities rose by 3 per cent.
Two thirds of the decline of the manufacturing index was in the durable goods field, which has been one of the driving forces behind the economic recovery so far.
I have another complaint against the minister and his administration in that I feel he is continuing to be guilty of mismanagement of the public debt. Our public debt is predicted to increase by some $800 million in this year. His past position has been remedied only by his manipulations of our foreign exchange reserves and by a kind of phony retirement fund or public debt retirement fund that he established at the time of his last budget. We have heard the Minister of Finance present his budget speech to this House of Commons. However, only a few days later our Prime Minister rises in his place and announces an additional expenditure of over $100 million which were not reported in the budget. I can assure the Prime Minister that I am confident that even the people in the Atlantic provinces could think of many more useful ways of spending over $100 million than on this proposition which I have been told is not going to even begin to cover the cost of engineering surveys.


John George Diefenbaker: Who told the hon. gentleman that?


Erhart Regier: The Prime Minister might be shocked if I revealed this information to him. However, I am not one to reveal confidences. The needs of the Atlantic provinces are great. However, I am convinced that the government has no intention of carrying out its announced project of building the causeway connecting Prince Edward Island to the rest of Canada as $100 million bears no relationship to any realistic assessment of what the
Ways and Means
actual cost would be. It is very nice to announce this project only nine weeks before an election date. However, I know that the people of the Atlantic provinces have taken a keen interest in education in the past century and more, and that they are not going to be so stupid as to be bribed by this particular announcement. I know they will take it for what it is worth. I am not saying that the causeway should not be built. However, we have yet to hear or to have reported to us an analysis of the situation. Who knows what else may be promised the people of Canada within the next eight weeks? With the lack of confidence I have in our Prime Minister's sense of economics and of finance I am quite prepared to believe that he may indeed be willing to offer a $10 million bribe to each of the 265 ridings in Canada.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I must inform him that his time has expired.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-89 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1962.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave, now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: just wish to ask the Minister of Finance one question. Is this bill drawn in the usual and accepted form?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, sir.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And all rights reserved for free discussion in due course?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is not interim supply.


Mr. Palleil:: Keep that question until later.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sorry; I will save it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Interim Supply

Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,704,710,347.93, being the aggregate of-
(a)	five twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $1,666,406,647.92;
(b)	an additional one third of the amounts of external affairs items 40, 45 , 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 107, 110, 120, 140 and 145, finance items 50 and 70, forestry item 11, legislation items 30 and 35, mines and technical surveys item 20, national defence item 70, national film board item 5, privy council item 40, public works item 200 and transport items 65 and 170, of the said estimates, $5,451,575.00;
(c)	an additional one quarter of the amounts of forestry items 5 and 20, northern affairs and national resources item 10, loans, investments and advances items 120 and 125 of the said estimates, $3,199,700.00;
(d)	an additional one sixth of the amounts of citizenship and immigration item 90, fisheries items 30 and 45, legislation item 25, mines and technical surveys items 30, 35, 80 and 130, northern affairs and national resources items 50 and 120, privy council item 30, transport items 60, 80, 85 and 125 of the said estimates, $4,550,983.34;
(e)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of external affairs item 35, fisheries items 25, 85 and 90, forestry items 15 and 25, labour items 5 and 40, mines and technical surveys items 40, 50, 70 and 100, national defence item 45, national film board item 1, national health and welfare item 25, national research council item 1, national revenue item 5, northern affairs and national resources items 15, 20, 25 , 45, 70, 75, 100, 108 and 118, public works item 190, trade and commerce item 26, transport items 30, 35, 40 120 and 222, veterans affairs item 60 of the said estimates, $25,101,441.67;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1963.
He said: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps the committee would be prepared to give consent to dispense with your reading of this resolution. Copies have been furnished to hon. members opposite and the details have been supplied to hon. members in the form in which they now appear before you. There are a great number of items and amounts here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A terrific sum, too.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Is it agreed that I dispense with reading the said document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the resolution asks for a vote of five months interim supply. Several weeks ago the house voted two months interim supply for the fiscal year which commenced on April 1, 1962. The addition of today's resolution will bring the total to seven months.
In this respect we are following the same course as was followed by our predecessors in 1949 and in 1957. In both of those years there was a dissolution of parliament in the month of April and an election in the month

of June, so that there are those two clear and recent precedents for the number of months for which supply is asked here.
In addition to an additional five twelfths of all items there are, of course, additional proportions, as is usual, with respect to certain items. These items relate to programs that do not lend themselves to a pro rata provision of supply month by month. For instance, there are numerous grants to international organizations where fixed sums have to be paid without regard to a month by month accrual. In addition, there are numerous programs of work involved in various departments which are concentrated in certain seasons of the year and, of course, the bulk of the concentrations are in the summer months. Therefore with respect to a number of items additional amounts are required.
But I do emphasize for the assurance of all hon. members that in no case do we ask for the full amount of any item. There will still be a proportion to be voted by parliament when parliament resumes in the autumn and accordingly the house can be assured of retaining its right of discussion with respect to any item. Furthermore, I give the usual undertaking that the passing of this measure 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. 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.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the details of the proposed bill having to do with interim supply have been given to the official opposition. We have looked at them and I believe that on the face of it the statement made by the minister is in accordance with the fact that this has been the practice in previous years under similar circumstances. Had this measure been introduced prior to the statement made by the Prime Minister concerning the date of the election, there would unquestionably have been strenuous opposition from this side of the house. However, now that we know the date of the election and as the proposed bill is couched in the language we now have before us there would be no purpose in objecting to its form or substance.
I note also that in his statement the minister has made it quite clear that members of the opposition and, for that matter, members of the house, will retain their right to discuss any of these items at a future time and he has given his undertaking that the voting of this interim supply will not in any way prejudice the right of members to criticize these items. In view of the fact that the form

and substance of the bill are similar to what was proposed when we were on the other side of the house, there is no objection on our part to the measure in its present form.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, in essence this group agrees with the statement that has been made by the hon. member for Laurier. However, in the past, especially in 1958, extensive use was made of governor general's warrants. I regret very much that after that time the Financial Administration Act was amended to grant even more discretion and authority to the government of Canada with regard to the possible use of governor general's warrants in order to carry on the business of government. I should like to ask the minister this question. If approval is given now to this interim supply measure, does he see any possible need to exercise the prerogative of the government of using governor general's warrants before parliament is again called?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The whole purpose of the present measure, Mr. Chairman, is to make provision for everything that we can foresee at this time, and unless something extraordinary should arise that we cannot now foresee the present bill should provide all the supply required to take us up to the month of October.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, this measure will authorize the expenditure of further vast sums for weapon systems and weapons which only have an atomic capacity or which, to use the Prime Minister's words, only reach their full capacity when armed with atomic warheads. It involves in addition, I presume, certain expenditures for housing at the Bo-marc stations at North Bay and La Macaza. The statement of the Associate Minister of National Defence that these devices at La Macaza and North Bay would at best only be useful for something in the order of three years even if they were armed raises, of course, the logic of continuing these expenditures and the logic of parliament authorizing such expenditures at this time. Would the Prime Minister indicate to the committee whether the government has decided yet if it will or will not authorize the use of atomic warheads by Canadian troops?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the attitude of the government has been set out most clearly in this regard. There has been no change and there is no anticipated change.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can we take it then that the further authorization of additional funds for the F-104 program in fact means that the 26207-1-199
Business of the House government intends that they will be used for the strike attack role when the squadrons are ready to go to Europe?


John George Diefenbaker: We have had very long discussions of that matter from time to time and there is nothing more I can add to my statement that there has been no change in our position whatsoever.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Martineau 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, 1963, the sum of $1,704,710,347.93 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-90, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1963.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This completes government business, but we have on the order paper the following notation:
From five to six p.m.-private members' business-private bills (special order).
Perhaps the house would consent to dealing with these matters now, although it is not yet five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree to proceeding now to private members' business?


William Arnold Peters: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear objection to this procedure, and without unanimous consent it is not possible.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I understand this lack of consent to the proposal? Is it that we take up these matters later? Can we not deal with them right now because time is running out and this parliament will soon cease to exist.

Private Bills


Mr. Speaker:: I am in the hands of the house. It is not yet five o'clock and without unanimous agreement we cannot move the clock ahead.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have a simple notation on the order paper with regard to the hour, and if certain business is completed then do we not normally move on to the next order of business? Why would there be a hiatus of half an hour or several hours between one piece of business and another?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the difficulty is that the time of the house now is reserved for government business, and as long as there is government business on the order paper we could not pass automatically to the next order of business, which is private members' business. Perhaps a motion could be agreed to that we now proceed to the business in question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would move that we now proceed to a consideration of private members' business, private bills, special order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Veterans Affairs has suggested a motion to pass to private members' business, but I am afraid there is a technical difficulty to accepting the motion. In effect it would be necessary to suspend standing order 15, which regulates our business, and that can only be done on proper notice. The alternative, in the absence of proceeding with the order paper, would be to move that the sitting be suspended until five o'clock.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps now that hon. members have had a chance to reflect quietly on this, unanimous consent might be given to moving the clock ahead to five o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We agree to that proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the house may be willing to agree unanimously that it is now five o'clock and proceed to the business that is ordered for that time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: We agree to call it six o'clock, if the government so desires.


Mr. Speaker:: The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on the order paper for today.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the motion with respect to Bill SD-2, is the house agreeable to consider the divorce bills in groups?


Frank Howard: I think they should be called in the order they appear on the order paper.
[Mr. Churchill.!


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether hon. gentlemen who have expressed their views strongly would give consideration to the taking of these bills in groups. They have received the full attention of the other place and each of them has been examined. If there are some cases that hon. gentlemen regard as needing further examination, well and good, but I would point out the fact that the people who made these applications did so in good faith.
The law has been as it is and they accepted in groups and if we proceed to ask for royal assent in what has been done at a quarter to six this evening, these bills will die when dissolution takes place. The result will be that those who have the right to expect that parliament will deal with their cases will suffer irreparable loss, besides being subjected to a long delay before the next parliament.
1 realize there are strong feelings on this matter. At the same time I do something I have not done before-I make an appeal to hon. members that they permit the taking of all the cases, excepting those they designate as a result of their reading as desiring further consideration. I would hope it would not be said of us that we, under law, denied those who are proceeding under law their rights and privileges.


Frank Howard: I should like to make a comment on the suggestion made by the Prime Minister. His remarks and the appeal he has expressed now have been uppermost in our minds for the last three years, ever since we became interested in the procedure followed in parliament in dealing with these particular cases.
Over the past few years, perhaps too vigorously at times, we have proposed a variety of alternatives to the present system. Without going into the full details of those alternatives, we have asked that, even though there should be no great desire or agreement to proceed to establish an alternate procedure, at least the government should indicate that it be made the subject matter of intensive study by a royal commission. Were that done it would indicate the government was taking steps to deal with this particular question, which might even be confined to the question of parliamentary divorces.
As I say, we have proposed a number of alternatives but they have all reached a dead end. That is very regrettable to me. It is painful to me, to the hon. member for Tim-iskaming and to others who concerned themselves with the problems and difficulties facing the individuals making petitions to parliament. Indeed it is difficult and painful at this last hour, as it might well be, to have

to say that we feel we cannot agree to the suggestion made by the right hon. gentleman. Had there been coupled with that suggestion some announcement of government policy with respect to dealing with this question in a forthright and definite way, then the reply we now make would probably be quite different.
Again, it is just as regrettable, painful and disturbing to us as it is to everybody else to have to decline to accept the suggestion made by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, in the absence of some agreed method of dealing with the situation with which the house is confronted, I have no other course but to proceed according to the order paper and the rule book. It being five o'clock I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to deal with Bill SD-2.



BRUCE REID CAMPBELL

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-2, for the relief of Bruce Reid Campbell-Mr. Martineau in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall clause 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: We now have on the order paper 327 bills and prior to today we have had only two hours' opportunity to investigate the allegations in these bills. I believe we should have a much longer time today to look into some of these bills.
The bill before us asks for relief for Bruce Reid Campbell, domiciled in the province of Quebec. The petition indicates that the marriage took place in the county of Middlesex, England. The adultery took place in the province of Quebec.
This marriage was solemnized in the Church of England; it was duly published and celebrated by Arthur Douglas Young, rector. At the time of the marriage the petitioner was a solicitor in the Canadian army. He was temporarily resident in England but domiciled in the province of Quebec, Canada. His wife, June Ethel Phyllis Campbell, was domiciled in England before the marriage, and since the return to this country of the husband and wife the parties have declared the province of Quebec to be their domicile, in the district of Montreal.
Mr. Chairman, in this case, again, there are children. One of the matters which has concerned us very greatly is the fact that this particular marriage comes under the British North America Act and gives the federal government jurisdiction in the matter. Out of that marriage there is issue; Malcolm Harold Campbell, Donald Ernest Campbell and 26207-1-199J
Divorce Bills
Janice Anne Campbell. The petition contains the information that there have been no legal proceedings between the plaintiff and the respondent as to the maintenance of the children; there has been no agreement or arrangement between the spouses with reference to the children.
This matter of maintenance of children has been argued in the past and probably will be argued in the future. I presume it is a legal argument beyond my ability or comprehension. However, it would seem to me as a layman that if the federal government has the responsibility for this marriage, they must also have the responsibility for any children born of the marriage. There has been considerable discussion in other places regarding the residency clause, and because a particular province is concerned it has been said that the children of the marriage are the responsibility of the provincial authorities and not the federal government.
In this case, Mr. Chairman, we are concerned with whether or not this petition should be granted, but in this case the passing of the bill will give relief to only one person, we assume, if the charge of adultery is correct, and that of course is a matter that warrants some discussion. The fact that we are considering giving relief to the petitioner will create a certain amount of hardship for the children of this marriage.
These children are all of an age at which they are not expected to look after themselves. The first child was born in 1947, the second in 1949 and the third in 1951; therefore they are still of an age when they can expect and should receive parental assistance. Because the question of the maintenance of these children has not been dealt with in the province, because there has been no previous legal application before the courts in connection with their support, this becomes a matter for this committee to consider now, because we are being asked to grant relief to the husband in this particular case, who of necessity would be the breadwinner of the family. Therefore I think in this particular case we should be very much concerned about what happens to the children. I presume that before consideration is given to this question there will have to be some indication that the children have been taken care of and that they will be looked after financially if we separate them by law from their parents.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to the evidence given in this particular case because I think it is important. I would refer the committee to page 11 of the proceedings held in the other place in regard to this matter:

Divorce Bills
By Senator Cameron:
Q. Are your children with your wile? A. Yes, I thought it best to allow her to have their custody.
By the Chairman:
Q. Your wife has had custody of the children all the time? A. Yes.
Q. You entered into a definite agreement with her about that, did you? A. No, we discussed this until finally my lawyer drew up an agreement.
Q. That agreement has been signed, has it? A. Yes, on November 30.
Q. That agreement gives her what? A. Custody of the children.
Q. Do you pay her any money? A. No, sir. In the past I have been paying, though.
Q. But there is nothing in the agreement requiring you to pay her any maintenance? A. In the future, no sir.
Q. You have no monetary responsibility so far as the agreement is concerned? A. In the future, no.
Q. How long have you been separated now? A. I moved downstairs in September, 1961.
Q. Do you go to see the children at all? A. I occasionally drop up in the evening. My mother owns the property, it is three flats.
Q. They are still living on your mother's property? A. Yes, on the top floor.
Q. How old are the children? A. My oldest boy is 14, the next one is 12, and my daughter is 10.
Q. Are they all going to school? A. Yes.
Q. They are being satisfactorily schooled? A. Yes.
Q. Properly clothed and looked after? A. Yes.
By Mr. Gomery:
Q. Do you know what plans are to be made in the future concerning your children? A. Just the fact that my wife wants to marry another man and he has promised to bring the children up properly and they will be schooled and well taken care of.
It is apparent from this evidence that the matter of the custody of these children has not been settled. While it has been argued on occasion that there are certain matters which enter into provincial jurisdiction, I think that because this matter comes under a section of the British North America Act which establishes in parliament the responsibility for marriage and divorce, by implication we are responsible for looking after the children of the marriage.
When somebody petitions parliament he should at least be prepared to say what he is going to do in relation to the issue of the marriage. I believe that the issue of the marriage is a part of and cannot be divided from the original marriage. The issue is part of the marriage, and I believe there is no hon. member in the committee this afternoon who would not agree that one of our major concerns in granting this petition is the side effects and the results it will have on those being affected by this particular bill. It is evident that the corespondent in most of these cases has a direct interest in the future of the arrangements set out in the petition or in the evidence. In many cases, if the petition is granted he or she will marry the defending party in the case. In other cases, of course, they say they have nothing to do with the affair at all and that their names
fMr. Peters.]
were improperly used. We have set up machinery in the other place to consider these matters. The position of the innocent party in the proceedings is discussed as is the position of other people who may be involved. In these circumstances I think no one would disagree that before these petitions can be granted parliament should be satisfied that a suitable arrangement has been made for the protection of the children concerned in these cases.
The father in the case now before us has indicated that the second man involved, the corespondent, has agreed to accept the children as his own and to provide support for them. I suggest this is an unrealistic way of looking at the situation. Certainly, he should have some responsibility for the care of the children. However, I do not believe we have any direct relationship with the corespondent in this case. We are not at liberty to determine whether he has agreed to accept these responsibilities. We are dealing with what normally would be called hearsay evidence. This is not, in my opinion, the type of arrangement of which we should approve. This is one of the problems with which we have been faced during the past two or three years, and I believe it would be better if, in fairness to all the parties concerned in the case before us, there were an arrangement which would satisfy the house as to the probability of the children being cared for, educated and given sustenance in their formative years.
There is another matter with which I am concerned in relation to this petition, and it is the possibility that the citizenship of these children may be changed. The adultery alleged is supposed to have been committed with one Arthur Dewing of Stamford in Connecticut, which is one of the states of the United States. It may be that we are not even protecting the birthright of these children, their right to remain Canadians, because they are under age and if they are accepted by a foster father they may even lose their right to be Canadian citizens. I believe no one in Canada would want a decision of this type to be made for these children with no protection from the court which is granting the separation.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not wish to get into the debate but I should like to set the hon. member's mind at rest in that regard. If these children were born in Canada they are Canadian citizens.


William Arnold Peters: I thank the minister for that information. I was aware that they could carry their Canadian citizenship. I am only suggesting that their foster father, as a citizen of the United States, would no doubt exercise a great deal of influence on the children

during years when they are not of an age to formulate opinions for themselves. It could come down to the same argument as is used in Ontario at the present time with regard to adopted children and religious considerations. It is felt unwise and not necessarily in the public interest to allow children to be placed in families having a religion other than that of the natural parent. I think by similar reasoning this would also apply to the question of citizenship in this particular case. This may not be a major problem, because I agree that children born in Canada, even if they are ten or eleven years old, would probably want to continue their Canadian citizenship. Nevertheless a man who was keeping such children only because he had volunteered to do so would have considerable influence over them and the result would not necessarily be in the interest of Canada in general.
I am sure that the adultery charge itself is of great concern to the house and that the arguments which have been advanced on several previous occasions with relation to other cases should be examined again, because the courts are always warned, and rightly so, that in cases where a paid investigator is used only a limited amount of credence should be given to his evidence. Obviously this is so because on many occasions the paid investigator has been hired by the lawyer for the plaintiff and has, therefore, a special interest in the case. Let me refer to the questioning by the committee when this matter was discussed. The evidence will be found on page 13 of the third report from the other place.
Q. What is your full name?-A. George Roland Foucher.
Q. What is your age?-A. 45.
Q. Where do you live?-A. Montreal.
Q. What is your occupation?-A. Investigator.
I believe that in all fairness we have the right to ask ourselves and the house to give consideration to a number of further questions which should have been asked. One of them is whether this investigator-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Frank Howard: The last point mentioned by my hon. friend from Timiskaming is an important one because it concerns the weight which should be attached to the evidence which was given before the committee of the other place.
Before I get into that, I might perhaps say that I do not particularly want to engage in debating this particular bill. I do not wish to engage in reading through the evidence to discover whether something is right or wrong. We do not particularly think this should be a function of parliament. If I may be allowed to make a general comment or suggestion
Divorce Bills
along that line, I should like to do so. Before the committee sat, a suggestion was made by the Prime Minister that we might lump all these bills into one and deal with them by a process of automation, I suppose. To that suggestion we could not agree at that time. We then propose that there is still a way out of this impasse and we would hope that it might be taken. We still have a few minutes left before we reach the hour of recess or adjournment or whatever we are going to reach. Perhaps the members of the government could reflect upon what course of action they might suggest or might wish to suggest in this regard and, before the hour of six o'clock-I am not sure whether that would be 5.36 by the time of the clock or whether it will be six o'clock by the time of the clock -or in any event before the committee rises, we might be in a position to hear a positive pronouncement by the government on the course of action they wish to undertake to deal with these things. Perhaps we could easily at that time follow the course of meeting the requests of the petitioners themselves. I say this only in a general way. There is a good half hour or three quarters of an hour perhaps left. I would hope that the Prime Minister who earlier expressed concern about this matter-with which concern I agree- and some of his colleagues in the cabinet who are interested in this matter might be thinking about some proposal to make and we could consider it on its merits at that time. We do not wish to be obstinate. We feel that this is something with which parliament should not be dealing. I am sure all members of the House of Commons would like to see these divorce bills taken out of parliament and dealt with in some other way so that we should not be obliged annually to go through this same sort of tortuous process. We hope that perhaps we could find some common ground of agreement there. If the cabinet or the Prime Minister on their behalf would later on care to make some suggestions, either publicly or amongst the house leaders including the hon. member for Kootenay West, we may be able to reach some agreement on what course we should follow.
Apart from that however, if I may I should like to get back to the question raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming with regard to the value we should place upon evidence given by private investigators. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that I placed on record yesterday some quotations from a decision by Mr. Justice Spence in Ontario with respect to a particular case and in which he said we should look very carefully into the evidence given by people who classified themselves as investigators or as private detectives but who are in fact not licensed to carry on that

Divorce Bills
activity under whatever the provincial law happens to be; that if they are people who are not licensed to practice they are in the same class or nothing more than a paid witness on behalf of whoever they happen to be giving evidence about; and that such evidence-I am paraphrasing Mr. Justice Spence's remarks-given by these people requires careful scrutiny, corroboration and substantiation by others.
We drew this matter to the attention of Senator Roebuck who is chairman of the Senate divorce committee. Yesterday I read extracts from that letter. The answer we received was "Thank you very much. The contents of your letter have been noted". In this instance, as to the people who classified themselves as investigators, namely George Roland Foucher and Jean Vinet, in neither case in the evidence that is before us is there any query made of them as to whether or not they are in fact licensed as private detectives or licensed investigators under the private detectives act of Quebec. I look beyond the information contained in the printed evidence. I have the official papers and documents which go along with this bill and which retain all of the originals, including the original petition, the original transcript of evidence, the notice of application, copies of the advertisements and the like. Nowhere in any of the official documents or papers relating to this particular case is there any indication that anyone was the least bit interested in whether or not Mr. Foucher and Mr. Vinet were licensed as private detectives under the private detectives act of Quebec. I, of course, do not think we are entitled thereby automatically, because there is no indication that they are not so licensed, to come to the conclusion that they are in fact not licensed. It might well be that they are licensed. However, the point is that even after this matter was drawn to the attention of the chairman of the committee of the other place, and even after it had been drawn to his attention that it would be helpful if this information was obtained, there was obviously no desire to do so or no effort made in that direction, thus indicating perhaps that this is something which the committee of the other place or at least its chairman did not consider was a practical or worth while matter. In fact, I remember in one instance reading the evidence given by a lady who classified herself as an investigator and gave her age as 82. She perhaps was licensed as a private investigator, but it seems highly unlikely. From following the evidence that she gave, we learned that she did not go out of her way to discover the circumstances which happened to exist in a rooming house in which she lived. However, she classified herself as an

investigator. In that instance I think she would have been nothing more than a paid agent.
With that approach or that background, perhaps we should see just what these two gentlemen, these private investigators, discovered in their search for adultery upon which this petition is founded.
Mr. Foucher who is one of the investigators, and is apparently the major one, gave certain evidence shown on pages 12 and 13 of the record. Certain preliminary questions are asked. Then towards the bottom of the page Mr. Gomery who is the counsel for the petitioner clearly asks as follows:
Q. Were you asked to conduct a divorce investigation on Mrs.-
That is the respondent.
-by myself? A. Yes, on the 30th August, 1961.
Q. Could you tell the committee the result of that investigation?
Then it continues on at some length as follows:
A. On Friday, September 15, and Saturday, September 16, 1961, I followed Mrs.-
He gave there the name of the respondent.
-during the day. On Friday, the 15th, from approximately 1.30 p.m. until approximately 5.30 p.m. when she left from the corner of St. Antoine and Green and entered a black Renault car with a gentleman in it, I followed her. They drove around town stopping off quite some time at the Camillien Houde observatory at the mountain and returning home at approximately 5.30 p.m. I followed the car.
Q. By returning home what do you mean?
A. On returning close to her residence on Selby street, which is just around the corner from St. Antoine street.


Mr. Nugent:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frank Howard: Certainly.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: It has become obvious that this large group of divorce bills is not going to go through. I can understand what the hon. members are striving to do and I have a suggestion which I hope they will consider. The result of their present course of action is that this large number of divorce bills will not go through and I suggest to them that even if half of the total number were allowed to go through they would still achieve their objective by blocking passage of the rest and would still be bringing pressure to bear as they hope to do.
It can be argued, of course, that we would be discriminating against the other half that we did not pass, but I simply suggest that for the purpose they wish to achieve they are now discriminating against all these people who are unfortunate enough to have divorce bills on the order paper. In effect what I am suggesting is that we do not discriminate

against half of them, that we give relief to half of them because otherwise all of them are going to suffer disappointment.
I understand that the hon. members who have been speaking have given considerable study to this subject. It may be that there are certain cases about which they have graver doubts than they do about others. Possibly they might be willing to let every second bill go through or the first half of the list or the last half of the list. I am merely suggesting that the hon. members can achieve the same objective even if we give relief to half of these people, and I would ask them to consider that suggestion.


Frank Howard: If I may answer the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, it would appear to me that he was not asking a question but rather making a suggestion as to how we might approach this matter, but either way I will deal with it. Unfortunately, I think we would be picking and choosing among the various cases that appear on the order paper and if we did that we would in fact be saying that simply because the bills involving certain people are in a particular position on the order paper we would grant their petitions but would not deal with those bills that happen to be in another position on the order paper.
I do not think parliament should be put in the position of attempting to pick and choose on the basis of drawing a line halfway down the list or a quarter of the way down or picking out certain ones and not picking others because we have doubts about them. If we accepted this suggestion I think it would cause a great deal more consternation than is being caused at the moment and we would be laying ourselves open to charges against which we could not defend ourselves.
Parliament drew a distinction last year between the types of bills before the house. I have been told by someone who has kept track of the matter in the other place that perhaps two of these bills-I do not know their numbers-involve annulment rather than dissolution of marriage. In other words, a marriage did not exist in the first place because of some peculiarities with regard to the marital relationships of the couples involved. Last session we treated annulments in an entirely different way because a marriage did not exist in the first place. If the sponsor or anybody else wants to pick out the bills of that type on the order paper we can proceed with them and pass them as was done last session. That would be quite agreeable but in our view that is the only distinction we can draw with regard to the bills now before us. We do not think it should be done on the basis of tossing a coin or saying that
Divorce Bills
the first 50 bills will pass but the next 50 will not, or by drawing numbers out of a hat.
I do not think we can engage in a lottery in this regard. I would prefer to have some announcement made by the government of an approach that would meet the situation. I do not think there would be any hesitation then in letting them all pass. Failing that, I am afraid we would be inviting trouble if we followed the suggestion of the hon. member.
Prior to the question being asked I was dealing with what had been ascertained by Mr. Foucher, the investigator, in the course of following the respondent. I do not know where I was when the hon. member asked his question but I will read again the words of the investigator near the top of page 13.
A. On returning close to her residence on Selby street, which is just around the corner from St. Antoine street. I followed the car after that. I returned to the Mount Royal hotel and from there I was able to establish that he had gone up to the sixth floor and I had the name given to me before through the hotel registry-
He gives the name of the person who is recited in the petition as being the corespondent.
He had room-
He gives the room number.
Throughout that night I failed to notice anything happening. Mr. Dewing was not in his room, I lost him, and it was not until the following day, Saturday the 16th, that I was able to take up again after-
He gives the name of the respondent.
-at approximately 7.30 p.m. left in her car and drove and parked it on the northwest side of Atwater avenue near St. Catherine street, and a few minutes later was picked up by the same car and the same man and they went across to the Clover cafe where they remained inside for approximately an hour. They came out again and drove directly to the Mount Royal hotel. I noted that the woman was carrying besides her purse something that looked like a paper bag. The car was left at the hotel, the attendant looked after it, and they went into the Picadilly lounge on the ground floor of the hotel where they remained until approximately 9.15 p.m. Then they both made their way to the elevator, went to the sixth floor. In the meantime I called Mr. Vinet to join me at the hotel. He did so about 9.30 p.m. and from there on I made periodical checks on the room, I heard voices inside until about 11.10 p.m. when Jean Vinet and myself went up to the room and I knocked on the door. It was opened by Mr.-
He gives the name of the corespondent.
I addressed him by his name and asked him to go in and as he was standing inside the door we entered and I asked to speak to-
He gives the name of the respondent.
-who at that time was just on the edge of the bed partly sitting up and wearing a light blue nightgown.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.

Divorce Bills


Frank Howard: Was account taken of the time for the question and answer?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the hon. member for Skeena was interrupted because of the rule of the committee. He was raising a very important point and I only want to refer to one part of the evidence. There are a couple of amusing passages I might mention. I am always interested when these questions are asked about how so and so was dressed. We find the answer here is that he was wearing cream coloured, solid coloured pajamas.


An hon. Member:: What colour do you wear?


William Arnold Peters: Here, we have a budding investigator in our midst, and we did not know it. After the events of the next few months, perhaps he will be appearing before us regularly as one who has entered this very lucrative field.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order, which is not really a point of order. On other occasions when evidence such as this was being read into the record, contrary to what was the practice in this chamber in days gone by, may the page boys be relieved of their duties in the chamber.


William Arnold Peters: We certainly support that.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The committee is in agreement with the suggestion made by the minister, and the page boys are therefore relieved from further attendance at this time.


William Arnold Peters: We are not going to embark on that type of discussion, anyway. I only wanted to point out one thing that was said. There was a question asked by Mr. Gomery, who was the lawyer for the plaintiff, I am told. The question was asked, I presume, of the first detective, Mr. Foucher, and I quote from his answer:
I explained the purpose of our presence in the room and I would say they took it philosophically, there were no acrimonious comments made when we left. We retired downstairs and stayed there for about half an hour and then left.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this would not be surprising if it were not for the fact that this couple were seeking a divorce. This is one of the problems with which we are always faced in connection with these matters, connivance and arrangements that are quite often made. We should refer again to the questioning by the lawyer for the plaintiff, and I quote:
Q. What prompted you to leave? Start from the beginning.
A. Well, things had not been going too well within the family for several years. My wife, for the last two years insisted on taking her holidays on her own, without me, and she came home late one night last summer, very early in the
[The Chairman.]
morning and I gave her a severe reprimand and this time she said she wanted a divorce. I thought this over a couple of weeks.
It would be very interesting to know what a severe reprimand is from a husband to his wife.
Q. Why did she say she wanted a divorce? A. She told me she was in love with another man and wanted to marry him.
Q. Did she say who he was? A. No, but the following day she told me.
Q. Who was he? A. Mr. Arthur Dewing of Stamford Connecticut, United States of America.
Q. Do you know Mr. Dewing? A. Both my wife and I knew Mr. Dewing in England.
Q. He is an Englishman? A. Yes.
Q. What is he doing in Stamford, Connecticut? A. He emigrated to Canada first then he went to join his sister in the States.
Q. What did you do as a result of this conversation with your wife? A. I thought a couple of weeks about it and finally I decided to secure legal advice.
Q. What did you instruct your attorney to do? A. I thought they should start a divorce investigation at least.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the point of the remark that was made at the scene of the alleged offence when the investigator said they took it philosophically and there were no recriminations, as there sometimes are in these cases. The reason for this treatment was that they had decided to get a divorce. She wanted a divorce and he wanted a divorce. He went to a lawyer and asked how to get it. Obviously, this is one of those cases were the corespondent may or may not be guilty of the offence. There is reason to believe that this divorce was obtained by what I would consider to be other than the regular legal procedures.
I return to the evidence, and I find that this question was asked.
Q. As a result of this consultation with your attorneys, did you learn anything which made you think you should move out? A. Yes.
Q. What did the attorneys report to you?
I am surprised this testimony was allowed to continue this far, but the chairman finally intervened and said:
We cannot allow that.
I would think that not only could the chairman not allow it but I would be very surprised if the lawyer could follow this type of question because it would be inevitable that he would become implicated if this line of questioning were continued. The lawyer then said:
Mr. Chairman, I merely want to establish the reasons for his moving out.
By The Chairman:
Q. As a result of the investigation which your attorneys made you moved out?
A. Yes.
It is surprising that in this evidence the chairman did not ask about the date he

3121 moved out of the house which he was sharing with his wife and children. He did not ask for the simple reason, I would imagine, that this would also have indicated that the whole procedure had been instigated by the two people who were interested in obtaining this divorce. If these allegations are true, Mr. Chairman, then since this is a quasi court and since collusion has been indicated, we should act as a court.
Now, we note that in this particular case the respondent appeared before the Senate committee and the chairman of the committee spoke to her as follows:
Mrs. Campbell, I want you to listen to me for a moment. You have gone in the box to give evidence-
This certainly sounds like court procedure.
-and I have to make it quite clear to you that you are under no obligation whatever to give any evidence that will tend to show that you have been guilty of adultery. You can give that evidence if you like, but you can refuse to give it. If you want to give evidence, of course, it will be taken down in the ordinary way. Now, with that caution on my part do you still wish to give evidence?
Well, this divorce was very important not only to the respondent but to the petitioner as well. This was the questioning by the clerk of the committee:
Q. What is your name?
She gives her name.
Q. What is your age?
She gives her age.
Q. Where do you live?
She says where she lives.
Q. What is your occupation? A. Clerk typist.
By Mr. Gomery:
Q. Are you the wife of Bruce Reid Campbell, sitting on my left? A. Yes.
Q. And the respondent in this case? A. Yes.
Q. Were you issued with a subpoena requiring you to be present today? A. Yes.
Q. Did you commit adultery with one Arthur Dewing on September 16, 1961 at the Mount Royal Hotel? A. Yes.
Well, Mr. Chairman, there are two surprising facts here. One is that this lady could get up and make this declaration which has certain social as well as legal restrictions to it, and the other is that this is the type of evidence that can only be given when the respondents themselves wish to make this type of information available. It cannot be forced from someone. Certainly the chairman of the committee fulfilled his duty in informing this person that she had the right to refuse to do this.
The second surprising feature, and the most important one involved in this particular case, is that when this respondent was before the other place no question was asked about what would happen the children. Yet we have seen from the evidence that the children were
Divorce Bills
going to be the sole responsibility of the respondent and that the plaintiff had already declared he was waiving his right to the custody of the children. No questions were asked about the children and no consideration was given to them. It is surprising that this woman appears to have so little maternal affection that she did not ask for the indulgence of the committee for the establishment of her maternal rights to the custody of the children and the formalizing of an agreement which was indicated by the plaintiff as being agreeable to him.
The third point is probably not so important, but it is something I have not often noted in these cases. In this particular case the lawyer for the plaintiff asked whether a subpoena had been issued requiring attendance that day. I may have overlooked this in other cases, but I am under the impression that this is very seldom done. It is very seldom anyone ever subpoenas the respondent, that is, obtains a court order, and I cannot see how such an order could be obtained from the other place. I do not know if the other place has authority to give such an order but I do know that in the House of Commons miscellaneous private bills committee there is no power to subpoena private witnesses.
The Senate may have some legal machinery whereby it can do that, but I do not believe that is so. I shall be very interested in this matter and would like to know if a subpoena was issued through a provincial court.
Mr. Chairman, it has been brought to my attention it is now six o'clock.


Mr. Drysdale:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: It is six o'clock.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I realize the hon. member and his party have clearly indicated they are opposed to the fundamental principles in the bill of rights, but I wonder if he could indicate to the house whether that party, which used to stand for the freedom of the individual as proclaimed by Mr. Woodsworth and other members of the party, intends to perpetuate this violation against individual freedoms contrary to the principles in the bill of rights, or whether that party will give consideration to having these individual freedoms and principles upheld at this time?


William Arnold Peters: That is a beautiful question but it is unfortunate that the time has arrived for the ending of this hour. I wonder if the hon. member who asks this question has in mind the rights of the individual under the bill of rights-is he interested in only one individual in these cases and not in the other

Divorce Bills
four individuals who are concerned? There are the rights of four other individuals to be concerned and three of them are innocent. They have nothing whatsoever to do with this, even though they are going to be very fundamentally affected. With regard to what the Prime Minister said about this matter-


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Will the hon. member answer my question?


William Arnold Peters: It is six o'clock.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order.


William Arnold Peters: The bill of rights, in my opinion, should apply to all people and should be given to all people.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then apply it to all, yourself.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. We are not discussing the bill of rights. We are dealing with Bill SD-2.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: On the point of order, the hon. member has indicated, I think, that the bill of rights is relative at this particular time.


Frank Howard: Six o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, you gave an opportunity some time ago to the hon. member for Skeena to make some introductory remarks before he dealt with the bill under discussion. I should similarly like to take this oportunity to make some remarks with regard to what is proceeding here this afternoon, which is a shocking affront to parliament and to the people of Canada.
I think the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Timiskaming will stand condemned before the people of Canada for their action this afternoon and their part in it-


Erhart Regier: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I believe that a question of privilege takes priority over a point of order. As I understood the arrangement we called it five o'clock at 5.36 p.m. by my time. It is now 5.41 by my time and I believe we are entitled to call it six o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I see no point of privilege there at all, Mr. Chairman. To complete my sentence-


Erhart Regier: I should like to appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to deal with my question of privilege and not permit a minister to brush it away arbitrarily.


Paul Raymond Martineau: So far as the chairman of the committee is concerned it has been brought to his attention that there should not be any deviation from the rules and,

under the rules, private members' business must take up from five to six o'clock, and it is not yet six o'clock.


Erhart Regier: If I may rise on the question of privilege I, appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to explain how we can call a time five o'clock and then, one hour later, refuse to call it six o'clock.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Well, to enlighten the hon. member that particular agreement took place while the Speaker was in the chair. The committee has no knowledge of it and it has no direction to deviate from the normal rules. Therefore I must continue to apply normal rules unless there is unanimous consent to proceed otherwise, and I do not see that unanimous consent.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would like to complete my sentence, that the New Democratic party will stand condemned by the people of Canada for the action of these hon. members today, who are acting with the consent of their entire party.
It is a serious reflection on that party that it will use the power given to it here under the free rules of this house to prevent justice being done under the law to 586 Canadians who, under the law, have made applications in good faith for divorces.
Time and again we have discussed the nature of the procedure with regard to divorces. As I said last night, we have made every possible effort in conjunction with the New Democratic party, with the Liberal party and the other place to reach agreement and consent concerning the method of dealing with this type of procedure in the house.
Not having obtained consent, it surely is not fair to these people, who in good faith and under the law submitted their applications to parliament, to deny them their rights under the law. Whether or not people approve of divorce does not enter into the question at the moment. By this action two members of this house are denying to at least 600 people the right that is due them and is assured to them under the law of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is not going to go unnoticed throughout Canada. I regret that the New Democratic party as reorganized has gone so far away from the principles established in the past by men who were great leaders of the C.C.F. party, Mr. Woodsworth, Mr. Coldwell and others-


Erhart Regier: And you.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and now Mr. Douglas who is leading the New Democratic party. These men, I am sure, would not deny to Canadian

citizens their rights under the law. Never did I hear that mentioned in this house in the past when the C.C.F. was here in strength.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman could I ask the
minister a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was a party which stood, along with other parties, for the rights of the individual, and here is a denial of freedom under the law.


Frank Howard: You are denying it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is a complete denial of the bill of rights.


Frank Howard: You are denying it.


An hon. Member:: Go back to the hills.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is a shocking abuse-


Frank Howard: You are the ones who are finally denying it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -of freedom within parliament. The hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Timiskaming both know that every effort was made this session-


Frank Howard: That is not true.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -to reach agreement-


Frank Howard: That is not a true statement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and all sorts of meetings were held. They were advised of the difficulties in the way, and yet they stand up here-


Frank Howard: That is not true.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -attempting to hold a shotgun to parliament in its dying days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They do this at the expense of-


Frank Howard: You are not telling the truth now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: *

and in denial of the rights of 589 citizens of this country.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, the hon. member said the Minister of Veterans Affairs has not told the truth. I am asking him to retract it.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: I should think so.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I will hear the hon. member on the question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw or be named.


Frank Howard: Oh, here is this threat of naming again that comes up. It is the first thing that comes to one's mind, to name someone.
Divorce Bills


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Frank Howard: If you will contain your blood pressure for a moment, I will. I withdraw and say this, that what the minister said is not in accordance with the facts; and that is a true statement. That was placed on the record yesterday. When the minister gets up here and invites us to get down in the gutter with him, I refuse to co-operate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Morton:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has made an attack upon the minister. I can assure the committee and all hon. members of this house that the minister has done all he can within the realm of practical politics to come to some solution of this problem. I want to say that some of us have negotiated with hon. gentlemen on the other side of the chamber. We came to what we thought was the principle for a solution and waited until we had word from another group as to whether the general principles agreed upon would bring about the solution desired. But it was only at the last minute that we heard this arrangement had fallen through.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erhart Regier: Which other group?


Murray Douglas Morton: I have had private conversations on this matter. The hon. member was kind enough yesterday not to divulge the names of people involved, and I am not going to involve people either. All I am saying is that we waited, and so did the people who are now trying to heckle me, until we thought a solution had been reached. It was at the eleventh hour that we found nothing could be done. I say it is most unfair to blame the minister, who helped us try to reach a solution and who himself was let down at the last minute.


George Clyde Nowlan: On a question of privilege-


Frank Howard: On a point of order-


George Clyde Nowlan: I am on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Skeena did withdraw, or at least in part, or pretended to withdraw-as he does in regard to most things he says in this house-the allegation that the Minister of Veterans Affairs had told an untruth. Then he said he descended into the gutter, or words to that effect. That is just as unparliamentary and I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member- or "the member"; forget the "honourable"- for Skeena should stand up and withdraw more of the canards which he has been throwing out, and particularly the one with regard to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

Divorce Bills


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the oversensitivities of the government demand apology, and I extend it. But I want to say this on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Davenport. If he says that in this house there is another group which at the last moment refused to go along with making some arrangements on this matter, then the minister cannot rise and accuse me of causing all this difficulty. It is the other group that is the cause of it all, if what the hon. member for Davenport says is correct.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think we have had quite a fair discussion on this particular point of order and we should get back to the item before the committee, which is clause 1 of the bill. Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: I would like to ask the minister one question. Is he not aware of the fact that, while it is true negotiations went on for almost a year, it is not going to be a calamity if we have not had the time to discuss these bills and they therefore do not pass, because did this not happen in 1958 with this government, when these bills were carried over in the other place and reintroduced without any expense being involved.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, could I answer that question?


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. Before the minister raises his question of privilege I will hear the hon. member for Halifax on this matter.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I have remained remarkably silent, to the extent that my hon. friends around here are commending me for all kinds of prizes. Perhaps it is because I hold here the Polynesian goddess of justice and she has comforted me in these somewhat bleak moments. I would like to answer the hon. member for Timiskaming on this point. In these cases which I have on the desk there are a number in which unless we grant divorces today children will be born illegitimate. I think it would be a shame if any one of us went forth from here having put that stigma on children.
I would also draw this to the attention of the hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon. member for Skeena. If a child is born illegitimate of an adulterous union, subsequent marriage does not cure that illegitimacy. I make that point. Finally, as I said yesterday, I do not want to enter into recriminations, but I do appeal to the heart of the House of Commons. If ever that heart

was to show itself collectively-and it is only as strong as any one individual's heart-it must be shown at this point.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago we were raising this matter of collusion that quite often appears in these cases. I refer to the arrangement between the parties to a divorce. I was reading certain information that I think gives some indication that this was the case in this particular petition. I would be happy to have information as to why this respondent came before the committee on a subpoena which I would suggest does not exist. There is no machinery to provide it. I presume a subpoena could not be given by parliament and I do not believe it could be given by a committee. We have tried this. Hon. members may recall the case of Eccles v. Eccles a year or two ago. It was the intention of the committee to subpoena the corespondent in that case and also some of the other people concerned. This proved to be impossible. I refer again to the evidence in this case:
Q. Were you issued with a subpoena requiring you to be present today?-A. Yes.
I would suggest-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the royal assent is to be given and I suggest that you, sir, report progress. Then we shall continue, after royal assent has been given, so there will still be an opportunity to get this matter cleared away.
If not, I shall then move that the house do adjourn and dissolution will become official, I hope, tomorrow.
I had expected that there would have been a degree of give and take on this. It is apparent there is not going to be. These people who have taken proceedings-the only proceedings that they can take-are going to be denied what parliament provides as a remedy because one political party is determined that unless it gets its way they should be denied their rights.
I would suggest that you report progress and that we proceed to the other place as soon as the Gentleman Usher reports that the Chief Justice as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General of Canada is ready to give the royal assent.


Frank Howard: I wonder if I can make one comment about what the Prime Minister has just said. Of course, we disagree violently with his suggestion that there is a denial of rights involved here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Frank Howard: We would hope that the Prime Minister, in the period between now and when we come back after royal assent has

ibeen given, will think about this matter and make some concrete and forthright proposals -to parliament so that we might consider them at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister cannot in his position place this house in pawn to meet the wishes of two members in this house and the party to which they belong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: I had intended to rise on a point of order about what the Prime Minister had said, but the applause covered up his sneaking out the back door before I had a chance to do so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Prime Minister did not sneak out the back door. He went to perform the duty of the Prime Minister in relation to receiving the deputy of the Governor General who is coming to give royal assent, and it ill behoves the hon. member to cast a slur of that baseless kind on the Prime Minister. I suggest that if he values his honour as a member of this house he should immediately withdraw that baseless imputation.


Frank Howard: 1 do not want to accuse the Prime Minister unfairly of anything, but he did engage in attacks against me and my party, and before I had a chance to say anything he was gone.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think the hon. member will have to accept the explanation given by the Minister of Finance, because he must take it under the rules of this house.
Having said that, I will put the question: Is it agreed that I rise, report progress and ask for leave to sit again later this day?
Progress reported.


Frank Howard: Is it understood that after royal assent we shall come back and proceed to deal with private bills?


Mr. Speaker:: If the house so decides. This does not put the house into committee. This is simply leaving the door open to return to committee if that should be desired.


Frank Howard: And if it is not desired?


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the committee have leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Later this day.


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Without unanimous consent the house cannot return to committee later this day. Next sitting of the house.
Royal Assent THE ROYAL ASSENT


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Sir:
Government House, Ottawa April 18, 1962
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 18th day of April, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant.
A. G. Cherrier, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to incorporate Brock Acceptance Company.
An act to incorporate Gerand Acceptance Company.
An act respecting Canada Security Assurance Company.
An act to amend the Canada Grain Act.
An act respecting The Canadian Indemnity Company and the Canadian Fire Insurance Company.
An act respecting Reliance Insurance Company of Canada.
An act to amend the Representation Act.
An act to amend the Veterans' Land Act.
An act to provide for the Reporting of Financial and other Statistics relating to the Affairs of Corporations and Labour Unions carrying on Activities in Canada.
An act to incorporate Greymac Mortgage Corporation.
An act to amend the Customs Act.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1962.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1963.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I declare the adjournment, may I say to all hon. members that my wife and I shall be extremely happy if hon. gentlemen wish to join us across the hall after the adjournment. I include in this invitation such members of the press as have survived, and their ladies.

Royal Assent


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what our status is at the moment, it being after six o'clock. However, I believe it would be the wish of all hon. members, whether we are proceeding in a formal sense or an informal sense, that I extend to you at what is no doubt the closing session of this twenty fourth parliament, the thanks of all hon. members for the admirable, fair, good humoured and always pleasant way in which you have presided over our deliberations. If a friendly atmosphere has not always prevailed in the chamber, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly no fault of yours because you have radiated friendliness, fairness and a desire to address yourself to the business before the house. There may not be agreement on all outstanding questions, Mr. Speaker, but on this one I am sure there will be a unanimous feeling in this house in thanking you for the manner in which you have presided over the twenty fourth parliament, as you did over the twenty third parliament.
Perhaps you will not think it amiss, Mr. Speaker, if I associate others with this expression of gratitude to you. I think, of course, of the Clerk of the House and the first assistant and second assistant clerks. They have always been fair, always courteous and always devoted to their duties. I think that all members of this house consider themselves happy indeed that the house has been so admirably served by its officers.
I was not aware that the Prime Minister would be arriving at this particular time, Mr. Speaker, otherwise I might have suggested a few minutes of relaxation pending his arrival. He has indicated to me, however, that I may complete my remarks. In this case, I should like to include as well members of the staff of the house, the Sergeant-at-Arms and his deputy, the staff of this house in all its branches, who served this house so faithfully.
You have been associated and upheld, Mr. Speaker, by two worthy members of this house, the Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairman of committees. They, like you, have presided over the deliberations of the house and committees with fairness, with dignity and have sought as well to make their contributions to the transaction of the business of the house in as pleasant an atmosphere as may be possible in a parliament that is known to have divisions. So, Mr. Speaker, this is an expression that is extended to all who have served this house, and I believe it will be the expression of all hon. members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, which he regrets very much, and in the absence of my hon. friend from Laurier who would normally

have followed the Minister of Finance, I may say that I do not think my sentiments could be expressed any better than in the words used by the Minister of Finance. It has not always been the case in the 24th, or even the 23rd parliament, that I have found myself in agreement with the utterances of the Minister of Finance but, at the very close of this parliament, I find myself perforce in agreement with him because we do appreciate the way in which Your Honour- on some occasions that have been quite trying and difficult, when feelings were aroused and when difficult points were raised-has threaded through the intricacies of procedure and come out with decisions which some of us may not always have agreed with but which all of us agreed were always reached objectively and fairly and in the best traditions of the high office you hold.
As for the staff of the house, the Clerk of the House, the Sergeant-at-Arms and all those who assist them in the procedure of the house and in the housekeeping of parliament which has become more difficult as we spread ourselves into more and more real estate, above ground and under ground, I express the warmest feelings of appreciation. I may add we hope that all the digging of tunnels may be completed by the time the next parliament meets.
In all the matters which make for the efficient discharge by this house of the duties we are sent to discharge as the representatives of the people, we have had the unfailing and courteous assistance of the staff who have often worked very long hours under quite trying circumstances. It is not often that we have the opportunity to express the gratitude we feel and I support the Minister of Finance in all he has said about them. Of course that applies particularly to Hansard. Perhaps there are few hon. members in the house who have more reason to thank Hansard because there are few members who have put a greater burden upon them, according to some of the statistics which I might be inclined to dispute, but which I sometimes read in the press.
As for the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of Committees I echo what has been said by the Minister of Finance. Both of these gentlemen have replaced others who fulfilled those functions previously, and in the particular case of the hon. member for Spadina because of circumstances which we all deeply regret.
Perhaps sometimes our differences with the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of Committees may have been a little more intense than they ever were with Your Honour. Nevertheless on this occasion I would like to echo the words of the Minister of

Finance with regard to the present occupants of those positions-if they are still the present occupants-those occupants who in a very few minutes will cease to adorn those positions. I express our appreciation of them and of those who preceded them. In doing so I include the junior member of the government who, despite whatever differences we had with him, we always found occupied the chair with dignity and decorum.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my last official act as the parliamentary leader of this famous group for this session of parliament is a delightful and pleasant one-to join with the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in expressing our sincere appreciation of your services as Speaker during this parliament.
It has been true that your understanding of human beings, your understanding of the mood of the house, your sense of humour and your spirit of fair play have caused you to be so loved by us and has caused us to have such an appreciation of your period of office. It is for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, that during recent months there has been a growing interest in the house, and in the party for which I have the honour to speak this afternoon, in the proposal that we should have a permanent speaker.
We in this group trust that finally we shall adopt the practice which has been found so satisfactory in Great Britain, namely the appointment of a permanent speaker and that, because he is the permanent speaker, he will receive that due consideration in the difficult periods that come occasionally when the people of a country have to make their decision as to the government they wish to have.
Before concluding I must also express our appreciation of the kindness and hospitality extended to hon. members of the house by your good wife. She is one of the most charming ladies one could imagine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Anyone who has attended one of her dinners cannot but realize she knows what a good table is and how to make certain that all present enjoy themselves in the friendliest of atmospheres.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group, and I might say we all expect to be back after the next election, we trust you will have an enjoyable holiday and will return refreshed to the coming parliament and that we will find, should that parliament
Royal Assent
decide early in its proceedings to make provision for the office of a permanent speaker, you will grace it.


Mr. Speaker:: I trust hon. members will permit me one word more. In view of the kind and gracious things that have been said I should like to acknowledge, first on behalf of my associates in the chair and in committee, the words of appreciation which have so properly been spoken about them. Then I should like to acknowledge the appreciation expressed for the officers at the table, the Clerk of the House, the Assistant Clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms and others who have served the house so well and upon whom we all depend so greatly. For them I am sure I express their gratitude that their services, so often ignored, have been properly acknowledged in these closing hours. Likewise for my wife I could not be more appreciative of the words which have been said about her.
For myself, of course, I would like to say a great deal more than would be acceptable. May I put it simply-that these years in the 24th and 23rd parliaments have been years of great happiness and interest. They have been years of happiness because of the co-operation which the house, on all sides, has extended unfailingly to me, both when I was right and when I was not so right. So I say, not without some feeling, that I am grateful for everything that has been said in this final hour. What I should say to you I am not quite sure as you go out to the experience we shall all share in common. Perhaps the best I can do would be to renew the invitation to join me across the hall, and wish you all many happy returns.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, before the formal adjournment of the house is asked for I should like once more to ask hon. gentlemen in the New Democratic party whether they would be prepared to continue this session until the conclusion of that portion of business which was being considered at the time we resorted to the other place. I make that appeal; I shall do no more. If there is no hope of that appeal receiving the consideration which I would have expected it would receive, then of course there is nothing more to do than for the house leader to move the adjournment of the house. I think tomorrow may be the date when His Excellency will receive the advice and the dissolution already indicated will become effective.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would move the adjournment of the house until April 26.

Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: By leave the house could entertain a motion; it is alter six o'clock. Does the house agree to entertain a motion to adjourn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: That when this house adjourns on Wednesday, April 18, it stand adjourned until Thursday, April 26, 1962.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the house leader what the business will be on April 26.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will confer with the hon. gentleman before we resume.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
It being forty five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
The twenty fourth parliament was dissolved on Thursday, April 19, 1962, by proclamation of His Excellency the Governor General.