1962-04-13

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Canadian National Railways


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave of the house to table the documents referred to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister with reference to the betterment of pension conditions for employees of the Canadian National Railways.
The Prime Minister correctly said that in 1959 there were important financial changes made with reference to the Canadian National Railways pension plan, as there were in a previous period, the date of which escapes me at the moment, when the predecessor of the present government was in office.
The Prime Minister was also right in saying that these matters are disposed of first and foremost by the Canadian National Railways pension plan board. This group comprises people who deal with the actuarial soundness of the pension plan of the Canadian National Railways. Unless my memory fails me at the moment there are approximately 15 or 20 members representative of the various railway unions and of the various divisions of the operating branches of the Canadian National Railways.
The Prime Minister was also quite right in saying that the matter had been submitted to the sessional committee on air lines and other agencies owned and operated by the government, which committee had heard evidence on the matter. I am sure the house will remember also that representations had been made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) to the committee and the house on many occasions with reference to the betterment of conditions concerning this pension plan.
While I have no right to introduce a contentious note, and have no intention of doing so, I would remind the house and the Prime Minister that these matters might well have been disposed of a long time ago. It could well have been done by the sessional committee or on recommendation from them. It might well have been done much earlier in the session by a bylaw passed by the Canadian National Railways, which is now tabled. This government has been in office now over 4J years and could have done it at a prior time.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: What about the previous 22 years?


Lionel Chevrier: However, that does not derogate from the fact that these recommendations as put forward to the Prime Minister by the Canadian National Railways pension board are excellent and commendable, and


the house and the country I am sure will accept them with satisfaction. However, I would add this comment. It is unfortunate that the government has not thought of coming to the assistance of the railway workers, some 25,000 of them, who have been put out of work by the policies of the present government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is departing from the subject matter of the announcement. I recognize the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, everybody seems to be a lion this morning for the poor railway worker. It seems to me, if I correctly caught the Prime Minister's phrasing that this announcement applies only to existing employees rather than to existing employees and existing pensioners. If that is the case there will be considerable disappointment. If he reviews the proceedings of our committee last year, he may remember that the main impetus for a review came from the people who were presently on pension. This organization is centred in Winnipeg. The hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown) had arranged for them to speak at the committee hearing. They made their presentation to all of us. I know that, even as the Prime Minister suggests, there will be considerable disappointment, and this notwithstanding the fact that the present employees of the Canadian National Railways will be delighted from their point of view. If I am wrong in this assumption I hope the Prime Minister will correct me.
However, it seems to me there is almost an unexpected turn here in view of the opinion expressed last year by the president of the C.N.R. before our committee that it was most unlikely that the pension board or the management could see their way clear to improve the pensions. The question, of course, that will remain in our minds extends not only toward the existing pensioners but also toward the fact that the very same conditions that created a poor pension period for the workers on the Canadian National Railway also apply to the other giant railway.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesier-Hanls):: May
I direct a question to the Prime Minister which arises from the very welcome statement he made this morning regarding railway pensions. Would the Prime Minister be good enough to tell the house how reconsideration of this question came about, and whether or not there is any application to the Canadian Pacific?


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps the latter part of the question would be in order, but the invitation to the Prime Minister to elaborate on his statement would not seem to me to be the urgent type of matter that is dealt with on orders of the day.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT AMENDMENTS TO CONFORM TO TAX-SHARING ACT AND INCREASE PAYMENT

Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to provide an arrangement with respect to fiscal years commencing on or after April 1, 1962 similar to that provided in the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act with respect to previous fiscal years; to provide also in the said amendment for an increase of one third in the amount of the payment, from one dollar and fifty cents to two dollars per capita.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can tell us whether, as reported in today's press, Canada has made formal representations to the government of the United States regarding its decision to resume nuclear tests. The minister mentioned discussions yesterday, but the press today reports that there were formal discussions, involving a two hour conference between our ambassador in Washington and the secretary of state of the United States. The story goes on to report that the representations Canada made were to the effect that these tests should not be resumed whether or not the United States was able to reach agreement with the Soviet union in the matter.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that matter yesterday in my answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition. I saw the article to which the hon. member is referring but I think there was quite a bit of speculation in that article.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: In view of the importance of this matter, does the minister think that he could advise the house as to the nature of the representations Canada made?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: I think the hon. member will realize that where there are exchanges such as I described yesterday it would not be wise for me to try to put a title on those exchanges.


COLUMBIA RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question based on a press dispatch in the Gazette this morning headed, "Fulton Backs McNaughton Treaty Plan", and reading in part as follows:
Hanna, Alta.-Canada would have been better off with a Columbia river treaty drawn according to General A. G. L. McNaughton's wishes, justice minister Davie Fulton said here.
If this press report is correct, does this represent the general opinion of the Canadian government?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not place such reliance on a heading of a newspaper article. The heading in fact does not fully fit the report and the report itself is only a partial one. I think the hon. member would be quite unwise to count too much on this article.


MANITOBA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gale):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works whether the federal government has made an offer to the government of Manitoba to pay two thirds of the cost of moving the town of Churchill to a new site and, if so, whether that offer has been accepted or is being considered?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisler of Public Works):: I will accept that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Doesn't the minister know?


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC  REPORTED STATEMENT BY PREMIER RESPECTING DEFICIT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will he comment on the statement of the premier of Quebec that encroachment by the central government on the provincial taxing authority has caused Quebec's large deficit?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it would be improper to invite the Minister of Finance to comment on a statement made in a provincial legislature which relates to the financial affairs of that province. If hon. members do not accept that view, I will be glad to hear the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the report in question is one in which the premier of Quebec is reported to have laid on the shoulders of the federal government responsibility for his own deficit, and therefore I think it is a matter of concern to this house and to the federal authority.


Mr. Speaker:: The premier of Quebec was expressing an opinion, and if the question is allowed it will involve asking the Minister of Finance to express an opinion. In essence it will introduce a controversial debate rather than a search for information, and I would consider that sort of question improper at this time in the house. It should be taken up in a debate in the house or in committee, where the pros and cons can be dealt with.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Lionel Chevrier: The Speaker has decided.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -to meet the point you have made and on which you have expressed some concern about expression of opinions, perhaps it would meet the needs of the situation if, instead of my offering any comment, the house were to give me leave to put on the record the figures of payments out of the federal treasury to the province of Quebec-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker-


Donald Methuen Fleming: -commencing with the fiscal year 1956-57.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must ask the house to observe the proprieties. It is impossible to know what the Minister of Finance is saying if everybody seeks to settle the question before it has been fully placed before the Chair. I understand that the minister suggests that, by leave, some document should be placed on the record. I understand that leave is not available, so I will consider the matter closed.


Mr. Grant Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Finance. Due to the serious financial difficulties which the government of Quebec has got itself into, could the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Grant Campbell: -give us comparable figures of federal grants to the province over the last eight years to assist Quebec-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have regretfully- perhaps not regretfully-to inform the hon. member for Stormont that the finances of the province of Quebec have not yet become the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order too, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are two hon. members on their feet. I am not sure, but I think the Leader of the Opposition rose first and I will hear what he has to say.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you if it is not improper to allow debate on the budget of Quebec when we are not allowed to debate the federal budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: That is a home run.


An hon. Member:: That is a knockout.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have my own point of order, Mr. Speaker, and then I wish to comment on the observation of the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: You are not entitled to do that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My own point of order is this. While the financial affairs of the province of Quebec are its responsibility, and are immediately the responsibility of its own minister of finance who is the premier of the province, nevertheless the payments out of the federal treasury to the province of Quebec are a matter of federal concern. As I understood the question of the hon. member for Stormont, he was asking me about the payments out of the federal treasury to or for the benefit of that province. This I should take to be a proper question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: No; I am sorry, but I cannot-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have an observation I wish to make also on the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can deal with this point of order and then hear the minister again.


Mr. Campbell (Slormoni):: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is unnecessary. I am quite clearly of the view that federal

payments to the province of Quebec is information equally available to all hon. members of the house, and this is not a proper subject for an inquiry on the orders of the day. I will now hear the Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, under the guise of raising a point of order, has made a statement upon which I think it only right that comment and rejoinder should be made from this side of the house. He has sought to leave the impression that the federal government is in some way denying to the house an opportunity for debate on the budget.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not the fact. The facts are all against the Leader of the Opposition, as they so often are.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact is this, that some of his supporters, notably the voluble member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the member for Laurier and others, have been screaming for days that we should get on with the supplementary estimates, and we were told that we should be diverted to the discussion of a particular debate that those opposite sought to introduce into the house on Monday. Only one debate at a time can proceed-


An hon. Member:: Then sit down and we will get on with the business.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and I suggest very respectfully that the sincerity and earnestness of protestations like this can best be judged by the actions of those who make those statements-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and we have faced nothing but obstruction from them. We have had nothing but obstruction for days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Denis:: Get your flag.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I agree that hon. members are capable of forming their own conclusions about the conduct of the house and that we should not spend time debating matters that convey certain things to some minds, and other things to others.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to allow the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: -to make that statement-


Mr. Drysdale:: We have a new Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order. While I appreciate that the hon. member may be aroused by what has been said, I think no good purpose would be served in continuing the discussion. We have had one speaker from each side. It is true that the Leader of the Opposition was relatively brief, but I am not going to hear any more discussion on this point.


Grant Campbell: I am not going to hear the hon. member say-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lionel Chevrier: The statement made by the Minister of Finance was-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: -wholly inaccurate.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Each will deny the other's view, and I see no point in continuing the discussion.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question which I am now soliciting from the Minister of Finance is of the utmost importance to the residents of the province of Quebec-


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, you have decided that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member adverting to the question he asked some time ago?


James Russell Keays: No, I think it is a little different, and I would like to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Russell Keays: -ask the minister whether federal payments to Quebec have been reduced, in view of the fact that the premier of Quebec claims that the provincial deficit was caused by federal action.


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a fair question, too.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Graffiey:: Running from a fight.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not understand the significance of the question; would the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine mind repeating his question?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The Grits are running scared.


James Russell Keays: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether federal payments to the province of Quebec have been reduced, in view of the fact that the premier of Quebec claims that the provincial deficit has been caused by federal action.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Andrew W. Drysdale: That is a good question.


Mr. Hees:: Yes, very fair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is showing persistence, but payments to the province are voted by this house-


John Andrew W. Drysdale: It is federal money.


Mr. Speaker:: -and information about the payments to the provinces is equally available to all hon. members. In those circumstances it is not customary to take the time of the house to ask about those matters.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: It is a reflection on the federal government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I point out that while on previous occasions the house has been given the figures year by year showing repeated increases in the payments to the province of Quebec, the house has not yet been given the estimate for the payments in the present fiscal year 1962-63 to that province.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will have that in the budget debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it the house will have the opportunity to deal with those matters in due course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we have the budget debate.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that there is no urgency in a matter which the house has eventually to decide.


Mr. O'Hurley:: You don't want it, eh?
(Translation):


Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Can the Minister of Finance tell the house the amounts paid to the provinces since 1956-57, including those paid to the province of Quebec?
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that this question and all similar ones be put on the order paper.


Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, with all this confusion I will not say to which minister I will direct my question; I will let the Speaker decide. Is it not a fact that the Quebec deficit in the amount of $140 million-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: -would amount to close to $400 million had not the Quebec government-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: -decided to collect close to $250 million from the federal government?
[Mr. Keays.l


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon.
member has got his argument on Hansard by now, but I must tell him that he is strictly not in order.


SHIPPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Labour in the absence of the Minister of Transport. Is the Minister of Labour able to say what the result has been of the meeting which the Minister of Transport has called between the pilots and the shipping federation?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: The Prime Minister has advised the house that the Minister of Transport is even now in discussion with the interested parties to this dispute. Consequently I am not able to give any report. If there is any report I think it only proper that the Minister of Transport should give it.


Lionel Chevrier: What prompted my question was the fact that yesterday, in answer to a question, the minister said he had a meeting with them yesterday and I wanted to know what the result had been. However, I have a supplementary question, and it is this. In view of the fact that the pilots of Vancouver and the pilots of Saint John, as well as the stevedores in some national port, have said that unless there is a settlement reached they will support the strikers, and the stevedores are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour, what action has the minister taken to bring the parties together?


Michael Starr: The situation to which the hon. member for Laurier refers is, at the moment, hypothetical.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
EASTER RECESS OR DISSOLUTION?
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May
I address a question to the Prime Minister, and ask his courtesy and consideration for those of us in the House of Commons who represent ridings from 1,000 to 3,000 miles away from the seat of government. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will indicate to those of us in this position whether we should arrange our office affairs and transportation on the basis of an Easter recess or dissolution of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think I will be in a position early in the week to make a full

statement on this question, so that hon. members may do that which the hon. member suggests they should do. I hope, early in the week to be able to make a statement that will answer the question in the fullest detail.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschaielets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: In the absence of the Minister of Justice may I direct my question to the Solicitor General. Following a press report emanating from Washington to the effect that the United States and Ontario will cooperate in the fight against organized crime, may I ask if the federal Department of Justice will now co-operate actively with the province of Ontario in this field. If so, how does it intend to proceed?


Hon. W. J. Browne (Solicitor General):: think that question asks what the policy of the government is going to be, and I do not think it is a suitable question for orders of the day.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the federal Department of Justice now join with the United States and the province of Ontario to fight organized crime in this country?


William Joseph Browne: I still think that is a question of policy, but the Department of Justice is endeavouring to fight organized crime all the time, and is not waiting for the initiative of anyone else.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice if he is now in a position to table the documents which this house voted the other day with regard to the decision of the Attorney General of Canada to allow the extradition of one John Papalia, a possible witness in connection with the crime probe now being conducted in Ontario.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we hope to be able to do that the beginning of next week.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before the commission disbands, I hope.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On
Friday last I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question concerning an order for return which had to do with the biographies of certain officials
Inquiries of the Ministry of the water resources branch. I wonder if the hon. gentleman can now indicate when this information will be available.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; it is being tabled this week.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CANADIAN FIGURE SKATERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, to introduce a happy note into this house, I am sure all hon. members will be interested in knowing that we have two young Canadians, of whom we are all proud, visiting the House of Commons. I refer to Donald Jackson, the men's world champion figure skater, and Wendy Griner, who was runner up in the ladies' division. These two young people have brought great honour to Canada. They are accompanied by their mothers, Mrs. Jackson and Mrs. Griner.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition may I join in the welcome which the minister has given on behalf of the house to two of our most outstanding and distinguished international athletes. Not many of us got a chance to attend the world skating championships in Prague but most of us had the opportunity of seeing the performance on television. It was magnificent, and if it had not been for one unfortunate little slip and a fall we would have had two gold medals instead of one.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On
behalf of the members of this party I wish to join with the Minister of Labour and the leader of the official opposition in extending a welcome to these Canadians who have brought such honour to Canada. I trust their efforts in this field will spur the federal government to a realization that it has to do more with regard to assisting this type of sport.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On April 6 the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate inquired whether a government chartered aircraft was touring the eastern Arctic with welfare workers aboard. This matter has been investigated carefully and the answer is no. Transportation in the eastern Arctic does depend on charter aircraft, but there has been no such flight during the past few weeks.
2938	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State TRADE



AIR LIFT OF U.S. EXECUTIVES TO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question relating to what has become popularly known as the Hees air lift. I wonder if he can give us any details as the reason for his department air lifting United States executives to Canada. Could the hon. gentleman give us a general explanation of the plan?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This government has made efforts over the past years to generate trade for Canada and Canadian producers in every part of the world. The United States is a very large and lucrative market which we want to penetrate as much as we can. We have made tremendous efforts to penetrate that market by sending trade missions to the United States and encouraging individual businessmen to go there and sell their products. This is just one further example of the effort of this government to help sell Canadian products for Canadian producers. In this case we are bringing United States buyers to Canada in quite large numbers so they can see for themselves the fine products which Canada produces for them to use in their own country.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just want to ask the minister if he could comment on the report that in order to achieve this he had to threaten to pay for having these people up here himself.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: A supplementary question. Is the minister sending an air lift to Cuba as well?


George Harris Hees: I think that question deserves the kind of answer which it will not receive.

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



SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
Public Printing and Stationery-
740. Printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public-further amount required, $200,000.
Mr. Pitman:: Last night before the committee rose there was some discussion which had to be cut off with regard to the work being done by the queen's printer in connection with the printing and distribution of the Canadian Bill of Rights. We in this party feel that the bill of rights was probably one of the proudest achievements which parliament has been able to carry out over


the past century. However, I think the worst thing which could be done is to associate this achievement with any particular party or prime minister.


Some hon. Members:: Nonsense.


David James Walker: On a point of order, would the hon. member indicate if it is not our Prime Minister and the Conservative party who should be given any credit for it? The Liberals opposed it for 22 years.


The Chairman:: That is not a point of order.


Walter George Pitman: It is obvious that what the minister has said is right. This is something which was introduced into this house by the Prime Minister, but surely it was passed by this parliament and endorsed by all the members of the other parties. When such a document is being published at public expense I think it would be better understood if it were not partisan.
This is by no means the first bill of rights which has been drawn up. There is, for example, the constitution of the United States of America. The reason this receives the respect of all people is that it is non-political; no political party has made it a special area of concern.


Mr. Slogan:: I wonder if the hon. member would feel that the children in the United States reciting the Gettysburg address are participating in a partisan activity?


Walter George Pitman: Surely not; but I have no knowledge that the government of the United States produces copies of the Gettysburg address at the public expense and sends them out to the school children.


Joseph Slogan: They do.


Walter George Pitman: This document must surely be looked upon with approval by Liberals and by members of the New Democratic party. It must be capable of being hung in the homes of all people. It must be capable of being hung in school rooms and looked upon with pride by people belonging to all parties and of all persuasions. I would hope, therefore, that the queen's printer would change the format which has been used.
Some days ago I placed a question on the order paper in relation to the use which is being made of the bill of rights. In one supermarket in Toronto copies were being dispensed as part of a promotion campaign for selling toothpaste. I am not going to blame the government for this, and I am not sure that the format used by the queen's printer was being used in this instance. Surely if we want this document to receive the respect of people of all political persuasions we do

not want the name of any political personage on it. That should be the rule of thumb with regard to all such documents when they are produced at public expense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Last night we heard a statement from the hon. member for Leeds concerning a particular document published by the queen's printer bearing the signature of the Prime Minister in relation to the enactment by parliament of the bill of rights. The hon. member for Peterborough has proceeded this morning to add his contribution to the most extraordinary statement made last evening by the hon. member for Leeds. The hon. member for Leeds is new and he may be very gullible but he should not, I think, attempt to go very much further in his political career making the kind of statement he made last night unless he has checked his facts first. The hon. member will find it is a good practice to check facts before assertions are made in this House of Commons, and I commend the same advice to the hon. member for Peterborough.
I wish to make two points in relation to this matter. We are speaking here of a document printed by the queen's printer and made available by him to the public. I wish to speak first of all of the commercial aspects of the matter; then I wish to deal specifically with the objections taken by these hon. members to the use of the signature of the Prime Minister on a government publication.
The first fact that 1 think is worthy of the attention of the committee is that this is not a publication that is costing the taxpayers of Canada so much as one cent. The hon. member for Leeds put this matter before the committee last evening as though public funds were being used in an improper manner with a view to publicizing the photograph and signature of the Prime Minister. Surely the hon. member does not object to the assertion that the Prime Minister introduced the bill of rights in this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With the help of parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With no help from the Liberal opposition, Mr. Chairman; none whatever. Of course it was parliament that enacted the bill of rights; only parliament could. During 22 years in office hon. members opposite had not only made no effort to introduce a bill of rights but they had opposed efforts made by the present Prime Minister when he was in opposition to introduce and enact a bill of rights. When the Prime Minister in 1960 introduced the measure to enact the bill of rights in this country, was there any assistance from hon. members opposite? No, there was not, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, oh.
Supply-Secretary of State


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was
opposition; there was derision; there was obstruction.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Don't talk nonsense, utter nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If hon. members opposite are prepared to admit that the records of this house are correct in indicating that the Prime Minister introduced the bill to enact the Canadian Bill of Rights, then perhaps we may now move on to consider the question whether public funds are being used at all in this matter, let alone used in some improper way to give currency to the photograph or signature of the Prime Minister in some manner that is not proper. The fact is that the treasury is making money on this publication; it is a best seller. It costs 30 cents to print every copy of this publication, and we are selling it at $1 a copy. We are not giving it away. We are not imposing a burden on the treasury. We are selling this publication and making a handsome profit on every sale.


An hon. Member:: Profiteers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When I say it is a
best seller I mean exactly that. Twenty thousand copies were printed, 14,500 have already been sold and more orders are coming in. I think one may take satisfaction in the fact that this document is paying dividends to the federal treasury. I wish we had more documents of that kind.


Murdo William Martin: It would help offset your deficit of $791 million.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Turning now to point No. 2, is there something extraordinary about the use of the signature or photograph of the Prime Minister on a publication? To listen to the hon. member for Peterborough talk, any document that bears the name of a minister in office obviously is immediately disqualified because he is a political figure.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is going to have to revolutionize the practice that has existed here in parliament for many and many a year, because documents issued under the authority of a minister must be so described. They do not just come out without some authorization and it is customary, of course, on all these documents to name the source of authority. If that were not given, of course, hon. members opposite like the hon. member for Peterborough would be screaming about there being no shown source of authorization.
What are the facts here? It was a new member who was chosen by the Liberal party to make such a foolish, uninformed and misleading statement last evening. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who always rises and tells us he does not remem-
2940	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State ber something being done since confederation, always leaving the impression that he has been here since confederation and knows everything that has gone on here and everything that was ever done in the house, was present in this chamber last evening, but he did not call on his memory, such as it is, to rebuke or correct the hon. member for Leeds.
What are some of the facts the hon. member for Leeds evidently was not aware of and had not taken the trouble to find out, and which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate had either forgotten or did not choose at the time to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Leeds before that hon. gentleman got himself any further into the posture of putting his foot in his mouth?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: A Liberal tradition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What are the facts? Let me turn up just a few publications. The hon. member for Leeds is a Liberal; he was elected as a Liberal. I have before me a government publication entitled "Canada-1949". This is a government publication issued when the Liberals were in office. What do I find? Here is an insert entitled "A Message from the Prime Minister of Canada".


Paul Joseph James Martin: A dignified prime minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This message was printed, Mr. Chairman, and it bears the signature "Louis S. St. Laurent, Prime Minister". The document is dated January 1, 1949. Fifty thousand copies of this document were printed. I suppose those 50,000 signatures must be a very great burden upon the soul and conscience of the hon. member for Leeds. They have been in existence for the last 13 years. The publication contains a message from the prime minister of that day. He tells the story of the entry of Newfoundland into confederation. I suppose on the theory that he was a political figure the hon. members for Leeds and Peterborough would say it is highly improper that a message of this kind accompanying a government publication should have borne the signature of the prime minister of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A different situation altogether.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have dealt with one publication, but let us not stop there, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Would the Minister of Finance permit a question? Am I correct in assuming that that particular publication would have been printed at public expense, unlike the document that is presently being discussed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, it was printed at public expense. There was a small charge for the sale of that document, I think 25 cents. It did not sell for the substantial price at which the document bearing the signature of the present Prime Minister is sold.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Two different situations altogether.


Mr. Howard:: A pox on both your houses.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Leeds may perhaps draw a distinction between documents bearing the signature of a prime minister and documents bearing a photograph of a prime minister. Let us see what we have here. I have in my hand another publication entitled "Canada-1948".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who is holding up the estimates now?


Mr. Matheson:: Filibuster.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Turning over the cover of this document we find a photograph of the then prime minister, Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. It is quite an impressive photograph, too; it is the famous Karsh photograph, and it is in colour, a very expensive colour printing job.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Would Your Honour consider me in order if I were now to ask you to point out to the Minister of Finance that he is holding up the supplementary estimates?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Nonsense. Who started this?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East has just shown that what irks and pains him very much is to be obliged now to hear the truth.
I have shown this photograph to the committee and pointed out that it is a very expensive printing job because it is all in colour. Anyone who knows anything about printing knows that the addition of colour makes a printing job very much more expensive. Although much additional money was spent on printing that photograph in colour, this publication still sold at the same low price of 25 cents.
But suppose the hon. member for Leeds still says there is a difference; after all, it may be that there is some difference here between a prime minister's photograph in colour or a signature of a prime minister on a document, on the one hand, and the signature of the present Prime Minister on a document on the other hand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What a spectacle the Minister of Finance is making.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Essex East is leaving the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Run for your life; the Minister of Finance is coming.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about the content of the message? It may be significant in testing whether there is any political aspect to such a publication or political advantage to the prime minister of the day if we examine the printed matter that accompanied this handsome coloured reproduction of the photograph of the prime minister in 1948. What this is all about is not an announcement of Newfoundland entering confederation. It is not an announcement of the enactment of a very important constitutional document on the government of Canada. This printed matter contains, if you please, the record in office of the then prime minister, in 1948, namely Mr. King. It purports to tell the story-of course in the same glowing terms-of the length of time he had been in office, and it compares him with some other lesser prime ministers who had not survived in office quite so long. If this has no political aspect to it, or if there was no political value accruing therefrom to the prime minister of the day or to the party he led at the time, then I am a very innocent person indeed. However, I must confess to having not only the deep suspicion but the profound conviction that this particular page appearing in this publication opposite the photograph of the prime minister had the effect of painting his record in glowing terms, just as did his photograph appearing in colour.
However, that is not all, Mr. Chairman. If the committee wishes more I can give it more. There are other publications. There is nothing new about this procedure. One might expect the armed forces not to be overlooked in the matter of government publications. Here is the bound volume containing the monthly issues of Current Affairs of the Canadian forces for 1955. Here is the issue for June 15, 1955, volume 8, No. 12, containing a foreword bearing the signature of Ralph Campney, minister of national defence.
It would not do, Mr. Chairman, to overlook some other hon. members opposite. I produce another publication entitled "Canada and the United Nations, 1956-57". This document, if you please, has an extensive foreword-it is a three page foreword-which bears the signature "L. B. Pearson, secretary of state for external affairs, Ottawa, May, 1957". Does that date of May, 1957, recall anything to your mind, Mr. Chairman? Of course it does. I just thought of it. That was the month prior to the election, was it not?
26207-1-187
Supply-Secretary of State I am sure that it was by the purest-and I emphasize the word "purest"-chance, the merest coincidence, that this particular publication came out at that time bearing the signature of one L. B. Pearson, secretary of state for external affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Canada's next prime minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; Canada's
former secretary of state for external affairs. This was not an isolated example. Of course, apparently when you have an idea-this will be the theory of the hon. member for Leeds-you keep it up. I refer to the advertising theory. Here is the same publication, namely Current Affairs for January, 1956. It contains another foreword bearing the signature of Ralph Campney, minister of national defence. Here is Current Affairs lor October 15, 1952, which has a foreword bearing the signature of the late lamented Brooke Claxton, minister of national defence. Here is another one, Current Affairs of the Canadian forces, January 1, 1957. Again there is a foreword bearing the signature of Ralph Campney, minister of national defence. One could go on and on, Mr. Chairman. However, perhaps I have said enough-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -to indicate that when the hon. member for Leeds spoke last night and splattered all over the record some of the most misleading statements that have probably been heard by this House of Commons in its lifetime, he did no service to himself or to the standards of public life.


Mr. Maiheson:: Every word in Hansard
speaks for itself, as does the document itself. I certainly am not going to be a party to this filibuster and hold up this item.


An hon. Member:: Who started it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: He should withdraw the statement he made last night.


Harold Edward Winch: Over the years in this House of Commons I have heard a great deal of histrionics and have seen much of dramatics, but I have seen nothing which quite compares with what we have seen and heard in this last 10 minutes from the Minister of Finance.


Lionel Chevrier: Twenty five minutes.


Harold Edward Winch: No, I am referring to his last 10 minutes. I am not quite certain whether he is to be compared in respect of dramatics with Hamlet or Mark Antony in the death
2942	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State of Caesar. I do not mean Mark Antony of Rome; I mean Mark Antony in the death of Caesar.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do you not think he reminds you of Falstaff?


An hon. Member:: How about some facts?


Harold Edward Winch: If anybody at this session has been guilty of politicking and histrionics, it is the Minister of Finance right here and now.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Who raised the matter?


Harold Edward Winch: He went over issue after issue of previous publications by the queen's printer in which there were pictures and introductions by other prime ministers or other ministers in the cabinet. That is not the question before this committee at this time whatsoever.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: What about the Saskatchewan News?


Harold Edward Winch: It is the extraordinary situation of a statute of the House of Commons and of the other place being issued by the queen's printer with a photograph and a signature. It is just about the lowest guttersnipe type of campaigning that could be done.


An hon. Member:: What do you want?


Harold Edward Winch: I will give you just one reason.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was no
photograph of the Prime Minister. The hon. member has not seen the document.


Harold Edward Winch: Have I not?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member produce it?


Lionel Chevrier: Don't talk so much.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would ask the hon. member if he will produce it here. I refer to the photograph of the Prime Minister to which he has just referred. Will he produce it? I can tell him that the Prime Minister's photograph was not published.


Harold Edward Winch: Or his signature. I said "or signature".


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Finance is too sensitive.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sensitive about misstatements.


Harold Edward Winch: I said "or signature" on a statute of the House of Commons and of the other place, and it must be of both. It is "An act for the recognition and protection of hu-many rights and fundamental freedoms", statutes of Canada, 1960, 8-9 Elizabeth II, chapter 44, assented to August 10, 1960. The Minister of Finance in the documents produced did not
[Mr. Winch.l

and to the best of my knowledge- I will put it in that way-cannot produce a statute of Canada issued by the queen's printer over the photograph or the-


Joseph Slogan: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Harold Edward Winch: -signature of the Prime Minister.


Joseph Slogan: You do not want a question, do you?


Harold Edward Winch: I say this is the question, not the way it has been presented to us now by the Minister of Finance. I say it is strictly politics; because if the Minister of Finance was not politicking he would have referred this house-


Joseph Slogan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Harold Edward Winch: -to the fight and the work of the late J. S. Woodsworth for a bill of rights .for Canada.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Joseph Slogan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My point of order is that the hon. member is trying to mislead the committee by suggesting that the Prime Minister signed the act, whereas on this illuminated copy of the bill of rights the Prime Minister's signature appears under a quotation and not under the act.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I am afraid the hon. member is engaging in debate and not raising a point of order.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not quite understand why the hon. member rose, but because of the point he mentioned I am going to ask this question. Do hon. members think that in any publication of the statute we should have not only the statute but a quotation from Hansard and the document signed by the prime minister of a Conservative government or any other government?


An hon. Member:: Is it signed in the statute book?


Harold Edward Winch: This is a most unusual procedure. I say this is not a matter of putting forward the principles of the bill of rights. It is strictly a campaign approach, and I say that it brings this House of Commons and the other place into disrespect that this kind of thing should be used for political purposes and should not be a matter of principle and of right acceptable to all parties and all people, as the Prime Minister told us it would be when he introduced the bill of rights.
I want to come back to what I was saying when I was interrupted. If this document has

been produced in the form it has been because of the great principles embodied in the bill of rights, I say it is very peculiar that the Minister of Finance did not see fit to go beyond stating that this was a matter which had been deep in the heart of the present Prime Minister ever since he entered the House of Commons as a member of the opposition and mention also that over 30 years ago Rev. J. S. Woodsworth fought for a bill of rights from the very day he entered this house, and so did M. J. Coldwell, who is no longer with us. Neither the Liberals nor the Tories would accept a bill of rights when it was demanded over 30 years ago, but we are very happy that finally they did repent.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: You mean the Liberals.


Harold Edward Winch: My only regret is that the bill of rights now on the statute books of Canada is being used for political purposes and not as a statute of principles. I also regret that it was not made an irrevocable part of the constitution of Canada, the British North America Act, whether that act remains a statute of the British parliament or whether our constitution is brought home to Canada where it belongs. The bill of rights is something that should mean a great deal to all citizens, and it should not be used for political expediency by a government that does not know how to be elected except by using misleading propaganda and misusing a statute of the people of Canada.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, much has been made of this signature on the bill of rights, but what I am proud of and pleased about is that this name of Diefenbaker is not only on the bill of rights but is inscribed in the hearts of the members of every ethnic group in Canada.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say this. When we hear the hon. member for Vancouver East stand up here and talk about the rights of people, after his party used a technical procedure of the house yesterday to deprive individuals of rights that they are guaranteed under the laws of this country, I do not think it goes down very well.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The hon. member's remarks were out of order and irrelevant to the debate.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, would you ask the hon. member to retract his remarks? He made the statement that we have misused the procedures of parliament.


An hon. Member:: You certainly did.


Harold Edward Winch: We abide by the procedures of parliament at all times and exercise our 26207-1-187i
Supply-Secretary of State rights as laid down by a democratic parliamentary institution. If hon. members on the government side do not believe in that, that is their business, not ours.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Hansard speaks for itself. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the committee too much, and I am going to turn from this matter which is relatively controversial. I would ask the Minister of Finance to draw the attention of the queen's printer to the importance of expediting the printing of the statutes of Canada. I have checked on this matter and in the past it has sometimes taken four, five or six months or perhaps a little longer before the statutes of Canada have been printed. Since there is a great deal of reliance placed on them by lawyers and judges throughout Canada, I think it is particularly important that they be printed as soon as possible.
There is one other relatively non-controversial matter I should like to raise and which I think comes under publications issued by the queen's printer. I refer to the Hansard free list, under which Hansard is circulated to the various provinces and to provincial libraries. Perhaps consideration could be given at the next session to seeing that at least one copy is airmailed to each provincial government. I have had requests from some of the British Columbia provincial members that this be done, and I think it would perhaps have the additional value of raising the standard of debate in the provincial legislatures.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, we will all agree as to the desirability of the earliest possible publication in bound form of the annual statutes enacted by parliament. It is desirable in the public interest, and I think it is a matter of general satisfaction that so far as 1961 is concerned there was a very great improvement in this respect. Although parliament sat until the end of September the bound volumes were available in both English and French early in December, and I think this must be a record having regard to the very ample size of that volume. I am told that the bound volumes were available two months earlier than has been customary in other years.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to say much on this item until the neo-fascist member for Vancouver-Kingsway rose in his place.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege Mr. Chairman, this is a slur cast upon a member of the house, and it is a plain breach of the rules of the house. No member can call another member by an offensive name of that kind without defiance of the rules
2944	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State and I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to require the hon. member to withdraw that most unparliamentary and offensive term.


William Arnold Peters: If it is unparliamentary I will withdraw it. I will refer to him only as one who uses fascist tactics.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That expression is no better. It is equally an offence against the rules of parliament to say that an hon. member uses fascist tactics.


William Arnold Peters: I would be prepared to defend the word "fascist" as being a parliamentary term.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It cannot be applied to an hon. member of the house. It is quite clear that it is unparliamentary and I ask you, sir, to require the hon. member to withdraw it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: To my mind the term is unparliamentary, and I am sure the hon. member would not want to persist in using it.


William Arnold Peters: I think the tactics are such, but I will be pleased to withdraw it if it offends the Chair.
We were discussing the printing of the bill of rights the other night, and I believe the minister failed to mention something that should be mentioned in this regard. I believe all Canadians are pleased that this particular document has been put out and that there is a bill of rights, although we all know the act does not go far enough. We also know that by putting in this signed statement from Hansard a complete false impression is being given. If this statement from Hansard had been separated from the extract from the bill there would be some justification for it.
I believe that Canadian students across the country are going to be more interested in this than anyone else. However, the document does not contain the whole of the bill of rights. The bill of rights has two parts, and it might be of interest to hon. members to know what the other part of the bill of rights says because it might have some bearing upon whether or not the statement by the Prime Minister is applicable. Section 5 (2) of part II reads as follows:
The expression "law of Canada" in part I means an act of the parliament of Canada enacted before or after the coming into force of this act, any order, rule or regulation thereunder, and any law in force in Canada or in any part of Canada at the commencement of this act that is subject to be repealed, abolished, or altered by the parliament of Canada.
Obviously this section gives to the parliament of Canada responsibility for the administration of this act, not the prime 

minister of the country. The third paragraph of section 5 reads:
The provisions of part X shall be construed as extending only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
The following section refers to the War Measures Act, and the remainder of the act occupies almost as much space as the printed document to which I referred. At the end of the act we find the words "The Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery, Ottawa, 1960." This act, as contained in the statute books, is not signed by the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance, I was surprised to hear, said this was a very good piece of literature to be distributed by the queen's printer because it cost 30 cents and sold for $1. Well, sin pays too, but we do not necessarily sell it merely because one can make a profit on it. I do not think this is a reason for having this document printed and sent out. I feel that the complete bill of rights should be sent to the children of this country simply because we want them to learn what is contained in the bill of rights, and what protection is afforded by it.
It would have been far better, therefore, if the Prime Minister had the whole act printed. Perhaps this would have stimulated a desire on the part of the children to extend the bill of rights and make it constitutional rather than the statutory type of act which it is now. This is not a constitutional document and is not in the same category as the bill of rights of the United States. I believe this document is being misinterpreted when it is published in this manner. This scorn should not be heaped on the opposition because we want to be more factual_____


John Andrew W. Drysdale: That will be a change.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is he not aware that it is the first part of the statute that is known as the bill of rights, and is so described in the statute itself?


William Arnold Peters: Chapter 44 starts out with the preamble to which we have already referred. Part I is the bill of rights, and part II has no designation at all, it is just headed "Part II".


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: What is the last section, at the end?


William Arnold Peters: Section 4 reads:
The provisions of this part shall be known as the Canadian Bill of Rights.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: Here are these lawyers arguing about something that is really not correct. I grant that the short title for this part I is "The Canadian Bill of Rights", but part II is not separated in any way from part I. I suppose there is a technicality here, but I am not a lawyer. Both hon. members who are questioning this are lawyers. Would they consider this to be a legal document? Could a layman look at this and say "This is my bill of rights and I am going to take this document into court with me"? This document cannot be presented in court. Is this not true? I ask the Minister of Finance, who is a qualified lawyer, if this document has any legal status in court?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Who said it had?


William Arnold Peters: Nobody said it had; I am just asking the question.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Is anyone going to say that I can take this document into court and present it as the bill of rights? If I took this into court, I would be thrown out.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: True.


William Arnold Peters: It only becomes propaganda, therefore, and it is this to which we are objecting. If the complete act had been printed it would have covered only one more column in this illuminated document and then I could take this document into court, even with the illumination. It is the propaganda aspect of the matter to which we are objecting.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I should like to speak to the point raised by the hon. member. I suggest that even if the complete bill of rights were reprinted, as he has suggested, on a piece of paper it would still not be recognized by courts of law. He would have to produce the statutes of Canada in court, and they would be recognized. There has been a practice of reprinting excerpts of statutes, such as Magna Carta, but when you go into a court of law you rely on the complete statute. Nobody is being misled. There is a reference at the top to the statutes of Canada, and if the school children are as interested as the hon. member thinks, then it is quite easy for them to get a copy of the statute and read the whole thing.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this particular subject because I think there is a basic principle involved here that has been completely overlooked, not only in this particular incident but in a lot of other incidents that have been occurring recently. The Prime Minister of this country is the head of a political party,
Supply-Secretary of State and he always has been. When the opposition comes along and says that because the name of the Prime Minister is appended to a certain document it is therefore a political document, they are just quibbling and quibbling shamefully. I can assure hon. gentlemen that there are a good many people in this country-and in fact they will soon learn they are a majority of the people of this country-who regard the prime minister-our present Prime Minister-as the leader and head of this country. They believe that the Prime Minister and the office of prime minister deserve the respect of the people of this country.
I feel that this principle has been bypassed for the sake of political expediency and an effort has been made to bring down the Prime Minister of this country to a level to which he should not be brought down. The Minister of Finance gave many examples of this type of thing. It is absolutely impossible to say that this government is not run by political figures, because they are and we all know it.
There have been a good many examples of this sort of thing in the last two years. I refer to trying to drag down the head of this country, and the government in general as far as that goes, for political purposes in order to attempt to degrade this government and this country in the eyes of other people.
I say this is not the feeling of the people of Canada. The people of Canada want to respect, and they do respect, the Prime Minister of the country while he holds office. I think it will be shown very shortly that the present Prime Minister does hold the respect and confidence of the people as prime minister of this country. I think all the things that have been said in this debate have been directed at one thing only. The opposition say this is a political document. If there is any vestige of truth in that statement it is not one tenth the amount of political dragging down that has been carried out in regard to this particular issue.
We are all proud of the bill of rights. I have gone into schools and have been shown the bill of rights hanging up, with the Prime Minister's signature on it. It was held in more respect because there was a signature to it. There is a living person, the Prime Minister, attesting to this document; it is not just a cold statute of Canada. The people of this country know, as has already been said today, that this has been a project of the Prime Minister for a long time. I say there is nothing more than a political effort and a great deal of quibbling in this whole argument. I think it does not help the position of parliament to raise this matter in a political manner in an effort to discredit the Prime Minister.

Supply-Secretary of State


Mr. McGee:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a very few words on this subject. To allege that the document the hon. member has on his desk is a political document is, in my view, the same as alleging that any reproduction of the Gettysburg address by Abraham Lincoln amounts to a political document in support of the Republican party in the country to the south.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka in everything he said. I think we all have respect for our Prime Minister as prime minister, and this has to be kept on a level where it is respect for the head of the country, no matter who the particular head may be. I think it is very difficult to keep this idea separated in Canada. We know this. We have to elect our prime minister, in our political set-up; therefore it becomes more and more difficult to make the separation.
I am very concerned about this matter of the Canadian Bill of Rights. When we went to school as children I am sure everybody in this country felt we should have something more, because of the fact that we were only a dominion to start with, to which we could tie our Canadian citizenship. For this reason I believe the hon. member will agree with me that regarding the Canadian Bill of Rights, while you can put in one comer the illumination that is already there, it should be in the form of illumination and the bill of rights itself should be complete so it may be the charter of Canadian citizenship, the rights of Canadians as Canadians. There is no objection to the fact that the present Prime Minister introduced this bill of rights, and we all give him credit for having been interested in it for a long time; but when we have the queen's printer printing it, it should be in terms of illumination rather than just a part of the document. This is my point.
(Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong the debate unduly but as a man of study I am interested in this discussion which reminds me of La Fontaine's fable "The plague-stricken animals" in which at one point the ass is denounced as having grazed a mouthful of grass. So, when I hear the opposition criticize what they call irregularities in the use of public funds and especially of the facilities offered by the queen's printer, I am reminded that our opponents instead of raising such points might do well to look into what happens within their own ranks when they are in power.
I will give but two examples. First, the Liberal members who are so scrupulous when they are in the opposition do not hesitate, as


soon as they are in power, to use the government and all the facilities provided by the budget to make their own propaganda at the expense of the taxpayers.
I am going to give another example; it has to do with hospital insurance in the province of Quebec. Public announcements appear in the newspapers, at public expense.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I believe that the hon. member is getting far afield from the item which is before the house, and I shall ask him to keep his remarks within the scope of this item.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Now to the second point, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the supporters of the New Democratic party that they look up that publication of the Saskatchewan government, the Saskatchewan News; they will find in it propaganda in favour of the government now in office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(Text):
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Marine services-
Marine regulations including pilotage and marine
reporting services-
748. Administration, operation and maintenance -to extend the purposes of vote 412, main estimates, 1961-62, to include the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen, $1.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, there are just one or two brief statements I should like to make in connection with this matter. In view of the fact that the parties to the dispute between the pilots and the shipping federation of Canada are now meeting, I will make my remarks as brief as possible.
I would like to make several points rapidly; first, the importance of settling this dispute as quickly as possible because of the damage it has caused and will cause to the Canadian economy if it is allowed to go on much longer; second, because of the inconvenience it is causing to the travelling public; and last but not least, the danger to the safety of navigation. This danger to navigation has been demonstrated by the ship Eskimo which got into difficulties a few miles outside the port of Montreal because it was navigating without a pilot, and also by the Consuelo, a British ship which tangled with an anchor in the port of Quebec; the anchor hooked up the cables telecommunication services and caused substantial damage.
It is also important that this strike be not allowed to go on because of the fact that navigation is opening on the St. Lawrence seaway; that is, upstream from Montreal. This opening has been announced for April 15. If settlement is not forthcoming by that

time, tremendous damage will ensue. In that area ships must have pilots. Pilotage is compulsory in accordance with section 375(b) of an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act, though much to my surprise yesterday, when I told the Minister of Transport that from St. Regis in the province of Quebec upstream there was an obligation on the part of shipping to have compulsory pilotage, his reply was that St. Regis was not on the St. Lawrence river. Of course, to anyone who knows the St. Lawrence there is no doubt that it is.
Then again, there is the reasonable suggestion which has been put forward from time to time that a public inquiry should be undertaken. Five grievances of the pilots have been submitted to the minister, two of which have already been granted. It seems to me that the remaining three points could be settled were an undertaking given by the ministry of transport that a public inquiry would be held to consider the whole subject of pilotage.
I appreciate that there are difficult problems which arise in the Department of Transport in connection with these matters. It has been my feeling all along that while under the Canada Shipping Act the pilots are subject to the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport, when a dispute of this kind arises it might be determined not by the Minister of Transport but by the minister whose responsibility it is to deal with such matters, namely the Minister of Labour. I make that suggestion without the slightest reflection on the Minister of Transport. When I was in the Department of Transport I often wondered why it was that the Minister of Transport as the pilotage authority should have the responsibility for settling stoppages of this kind. I am wondering if the Canada Shipping Act should not be amended so that when there is a dispute of this kind, or when pilots holding meetings and the federation refusing to meet with them, the Minister of Labour should enter the picture.
I hope there will a settlement of the dispute, and I trust that the parties will agree to a public inquiry under the direction of the government so that all aspects of this pilotage question may be explored insofar as they concern the pilots, the ship owners and the ship operators. If this were done a great service would be rendered to an important branch of our economy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway and steamship services-
752.	Canadian National Railways deficit, 1961- amount required to provide for payment to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the national company to the Minister of Finance,
Supply-Transport
and to be applied by the national company in payment of the system deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) arising in the calendar year 1961, subject to recovery therefrom of accountable advances made to the national company from the consolidated revenue fund, $68,172,716.
Lionel Chevrier: Here I think we should ask for some explanation from the minister. This concerns the deficit of the Canadian National Railways for the financial year, 1961, and which amounts to more than $68 million.
There are a number of questions which come to my mind in this connection. Yesterday we had an opportunity of discussing many of the matters which arise in connection with freight rates which normally would come under this item, and I do not intend to go into that subject again. However, there is a number of other questions which arise. First I think we should know how much has been paid by way of subsidies to the Canadian National Railways in respect of freight rates. This is a matter which was not discussed last evening. I think the minister should give the committee the total amount and then the breakdown. There is another important matter concerning the deficit-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member prefer that I endeavour to answer his questions one at a time as he goes along?


Lionel Chevrier: No; I would rather go on, if I may. There is another matter, and that concerns the recapitalization of the Canadian National Railways. The C.N.R., as the committee knows, was originally a collection of a large number of bankrupt lines, and over the years the company has been obliged to carry on these lines at tremendous cost. Unfortunately it has not been possible, because of the tremendous capital costs involved and the deficitory operation of many of these lines, for the railway to show a profit except in some years. As we know, the railways in the United States, in the United Kingdom and, to some extent, on the continent are all in difficult circumstances because of competition. I am not going to enter into that aspect of the subject in order to keep away from a contentious field, but I think the minister should give us some indication of what the intentions of the government are with reference to these tremendous fixed charges borne by the C.N.R.
The former government, as the minister knows, brought legislation into the house which was a sequel to a recommendation made by the Turgeon commission. This legislation had to do with wiping out a number of fixed charges of the C.N.R. But because of the manner in which this is operated, and while the president of the C.N.R. has, I believe, no fault to find with the operation of the act, nevertheless, because of changed

Supply-Transport
conditions in the field of railways and railway operations, the fixed charges of the C.N.R. have been increasing over the years.
It seems to me there is one thing which the royal commission on transportation might well have done and which it did not do. There were terms of reference; and while I take it the royal commission on transportation had the responsibility of following the terms of reference, it did not do so. As was pointed out to us last night by the hon. member for Port Arthur, the royal commission on transportation decided of its own volition, notwithstanding a statement in the house by the Prime Minister, to look into certain aspects of the Crowsnest rates. It strikes me that the royal commission might well have gone into the circumstances surrounding the fact that the operation of the C.N.R. produces almost every year a tremendous deficit, whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway makes a profit. I do not wish to make an invidious comparison, but here is a field where I think the royal commission could have been of great assistance to the Canadian National Railways, to the government and to the country for that matter. If this had been done it strikes me the commission would have rendered a real service to the railways of Canada.
I come back to the question of recapitalization. Is it the intention of the government to give consideration to that in the future? Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation to reduce the tremendous burden which the Canadian National Railways has to carry? If the government does not look with favour upon this suggestion which has been made from time to time, what is the alternative?
Although there are other matters I wish to discuss relative to this item I believe I have said sufficient for the moment, and I will stop here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has raised two questions, Mr. Chairman. One relates to the share received by Canadian National Railways of the $50 million appropriation made by parliament last year and the second, broadly speaking, concerns the question of recapitalization of Canadian National Railways.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman. The minister dealt with the first point last night. I did not have that in mind. I had in mind the total amount of subsidies paid to Canadian National Railways by the government either for freight rates or other purposes. I now ask the minister whether he can give me the total, together with a breakdown.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The annual report of Canadian National Railways shows that in 1961 the system received the following subsidy payments: Freight Rates Reduction Act, $10.7 million; Maritime Freight Rates Act, $10 million; east-west bridge subsidy, $3.5 million interim payments-that is, out of the $50 million-$27.9 million; Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island steamship services, $14.6 million, for a total of $66.7 million.
On the question of recapitalization I can assure hon. members that this is a subject that is under very intensive study at the present time, and discussions between Canadian National Railways management and the government have been held for some time. This is something that will be submitted to parliament in due course.
The hon. member has drawn attention to the heavy burden of fixed charges borne by Canadian National Railways. Just to look at the figures for the last two years, in 1960 in its operating results Canadian National Railways showed net railway income available for fixed charges of $6,473,732. The total of fixed charges amounted to $69,088,803. For 1961 I give the corresponding figures. The net railway income available for fixed charges was $4,831,862. The total fixed charges amounted to $72,987,242. I should point out that with respect to the total fixed charges in each case, a sum of money was received from Trans-Canada Air Lines which had the effect of reducing the net fixed charges to these figures:	for 1960:	$61,023,045; for 1961,


Lionel Chevrier: By the figures he has placed on the record the minister has certainly borne out the gravity of the situation. In 1960 the net railway income in round figures was $6.4 million with which to pay fixed charges, and the fixed charges amounted to more than $69 million. In 1961 the position was even worse. The net railway income in that year was $4.8 million and the fixed charges amounted to almost $73 million. The position has worsened in 1961 vis-a-vis fixed charges.
I do not wish the minister to rise and say that this is a matter of government policy and government decision which will be announced in due course. That is the customary declaration by ministers. In view of the gravity of the matter I feel the minister should pause for a moment to analyse, as I feel he could do in two or three minutes, the serious situation in which Canadian National Railways finds itself in relation to the other railway. I had thought that in answer to the points I raised the minister would comment on this matter. I am sure he and his officers have studied the problem. No doubt it has engaged the

attention of the officers of the Department of Finance, because here is one field wherein the expenditures could be substantially reduced if careful attention were given to the problem.
It seems to me that the recapitalization act of the C.N.R. provided for a study or re-examination of the facts after a certain number of years. I understand that time has expired. I think the Minister of Finance said in the house one day the matter was under consideration and that in due course a statement would be made to the house. I am now inviting the minister not to make a declaration of policy but to give some indication of the thinking of himself and his officers with respect to this serious problem.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I believe I can be brief in dealing with the gravity of the problem of fixed charges. I think the figures I have placed on record speak for themselves.
As to what may be the thinking of the government on this matter, I feel it would be altogether premature to attempt to outline any views on this question at this time. It is a subject which will come before the house at the proper time, because to take any steps with regard to this problem would necessarily involve legislation and that would be the time, after the discussions with Canadian National Railways have been concluded, to make the type of statement the hon. member has invited.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall vote No. 752 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: I have just two short questions. The first one has to do with employment on the Canadian National Railways. It has been said, and I think authoritatively, by the Canadian Labour Congress and its affiliates that within the last five years there has been a diminution in the employment of railway workers across Canada of some 25,000 or 5,000 per year. Is the government contemplating any measure or has the government taken measures to deal with this problem? I am not thinking now of the budgetary aspects to which the minister could refer. I am thinking of direct assistance to those in the railways who have lost their employment. The former minister of transport and the present Minister of Transport to a lesser degree have said that men are not laid off the railways until it is absolutely necessary so to do-and that statement I 26207-1-188
Supply-Transport
believe-but that as soon as work increases these men will be given an opportunity to come back. That is perhaps a fact, but none the less it does not derogate from the situation that, according to the information I have, about 5,000 men a year have been laid off from the railways. I am wondering whether the government has anything in contemplation with respect to these men.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a known fact that employment on the railways has been declining. Broadly speaking, I think there are two reasons for this fact. One is growing competition from other forms of transport and the other is growing automation on the railways themselves. The decline has been gradual and I believe the problem has been met by the railways, not by retirement on any material scale but simply by not recruiting new employees. If the situation called for any specific measures or if the government were proposing any new measures, they would, of course, be submitted to the house in the usual way.


Lionel Chevrier: The other question and the last one is this. I should like to get the views of the minister on amalgamation of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. Is the minister in favour of amalgamation? Does the minister support the views of his colleague in the house, namely the hon. member for Stormont who in a debate in the house and then outside the house has declared himself to be in favour of the amalgamation of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, notwithstanding the fact that in his own constituency of Stormont-there is a divisional point of the Canadian National Railways-which employs a number of men and which for them would mean loss of employment. I was wondering whether the Minister of Finance is in accord with the views of his colleague the hon. member for Stormont.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the policy of the government is well known in this respect, Mr. Chairman. It is reflected in the existing fact and that fact is competition. The government believes that competition is a good thing.


Mr. Carter:: I should like to take just one minute of the time of the committee to speak on this item. While we all deplore the deficit of the C.N.R. and all hope that the financial situation will improve during the coming year, I wish to say a word of commendation to Mr. Donald Gordon and the management of the Canadian National Railways for their decision to reduce the passenger fares within the maritime provinces. In making that statement I couple it with the hope that the reduction

Supply-Transport
in fares will not result in a deterioration in the quality of service which the railway proposes to offer. If we can maintain or even improve the service along with the reduced fares, I believe that will help materially to improve the revenue to the C.N.R. from passenger traffic by making it more competitive with other forms of transportation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-
753.	Supplemental pension allowances to former employees of Newfoundland railways, steamships and telecommunication services transferred to Canadian National Railways-further amount required, $6,546.
Chesley William Carter: I just wish to ask one question of the minister as to this group of employees. Are they the people who transferred from the Newfoundland railway in 1949 when Newfoundland became a part of Canada? Is this the particular group that had no contributory pension plan at all?


Donald Methuen Fleming: These are the group to whom the hon. member refers and who were transferred at the time of confederation from the Newfoundland railways, steamships and telecommunications to Canadian National Railways on April 1, 1949. I am told that it is not correct to say they had no pension plan previously. However, the plan they had and the rights they had have been merged now under the general scheme of employees of the Canadian National Railways.


Chesley William Carter: What I was trying to get at was whether this vote was to supplement their existing plan or whether it was to increase the pensions for those employees who had no contributory plan at all but who on retirement have received I think the nominal sum of about $30 a month.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This provision
which is being included in the supplementary estimate is designed to provide supplements for the pensions that would otherwise have been payable. It is an increase of $6,546 over the amount provided in the main estimates owing to a larger number of employees retiring during 1961 than was anticipated when the main estimates were prepared.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
754.	Trans-Canada Air Lines deficit, 1961-amount required to provide for payment to Trans-Canada Air Lines (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the company) arising in the calendar year 1961, subject to recovery therefrom of accountable advances made to the company from the consolidated revenue fund, $6,450,082.
Lionel Chevrier: I shall try to be as brief as possible on this item, Mr. Chairman. However the minister gave me an entree to discuss it when a moment ago on item No. 752 he said that the policy of the government is that of competition.
I take it he meant competition in the field of transportation generally as well as in the field of aviation. The minister will remember that it is this policy of competition in the field of aviation which is causing the industry such concern. I am sorry that the Minister of Trans-[DOT]port is not in his seat at the moment because this is a matter which concerns him and more particularly his predecessor, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for much of the chaos in the field of aviation.
When the members of the government were on this side of the house they seized every opportunity at their command to demand competition and when they got into office they certainly went further than they intended to go with respect to competition in the field of aviation. The first thing the government did was to ask a British expert, Mr. Wheatcroft, to make a report on air line competition in Canada. I hold his report in my hand and I would point out that in this excellent report Mr. Wheatcroft recommended against competition in certain fields. Notwithstanding that fact, the government decided to grant a transcontinental air service to Canadian Pacific Airlines. According to many experts in the field, that policy and other policies of the government which I will deal with in a moment are responsible for the item which we have before us today to provide $6J million for the deficit of Trans-Canada Air Lines. In addition, Canadian Pacific Airlines had an equally high deficit in 1961 amounting to approximately $4 million.
The policy of the government has never been announced in the house for some reason or other, except piecemeal through an answer to a question or by a statement made by a minister outside the house, and to my mind this is very strange conduct on the part of the government. However, just prior to the election of 1958 the former minister of transport made a statement on aviation in which he said:
It is not intended to place T.C.A. or other Canadian air lines in competition with each other in the international field. International routes are set up by reciprocal agreement with other foreign countries, and provide rights for foreign air lines to operate over the same or equivalent routes. Therefore, plenty of competition already exists in the international field without the duplication which would result if Canadian air lines were made directly competitive over the same international routes.

That statement by the former minister of transport is quite clear, that there should be no competition between C.P.A. and T.C.A. on the international routes. But what did the government do? In the latter part of 1961 the government authorized Canadian Pacific Airlines to operate a route from Vancouver-Ed-monton to London. This was not only in contradiction of Canada's own policy in the field of international aviation but also in contradiction of the bilateral air agreement between Canada and the United States. Although Canadian Pacific Airlines announced in October of 1961 that it was going to start the new service from Vancouver-Edmonton to London and advertised the fact that these flights to London would originate in Vancouver and Edmonton, the company has not yet obtained permission so to do.
I have put many questions to the present Minister of Transport but he has evaded them continually and repeatedly by stating that conversations are going on between Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, minister of aviation of the United Kingdom, and the minister's officials. To those of us who sit on this side of the house it seems strange, having regard to the fact that it was first stated by the government that there would be effective competition and then later that there would be no competition in the field of international aviation, that the government, having announced a competitive international route, is not able to obtain permission for C.P.A. to land in London.
When told in the house that the government was out to destroy Trans-Canada Air Lines, as I stated, the present minister replied that competition on this route would be negligible and would not affect the government owned air line.
That is not what the minister said in a speech at Vancouver on December 4, 1961. At that time he stated that because of competition in world aviation the best interests of T.C.A. and C.P.A. would not be served in competing with each other and that there should be cooperation between the two. So we have this anomalous position. First, according to the former minister of transport, there should be no competition between T.C.A. and C.P.A. in international fields. Next, the present Minister of Transport announced in the house a new service for C.P.A. in the international field on the run Vancouver-Edmonton-London. Then the present minister stated in the house that this would not in any way affect T.C.A. and that the competition would be negligible. Three months later competition on international routes has suddenly become serious and there should be greater co-operation between C.P.A. and T.C.A.
The question arises in the minds of those who are interested in the field of aviation, 26207-1-188J
Supply-Transport
what is the policy of the government? Need I talk about the decontrol of class B aircraft announced by the former minister of transport which has caused such chaos among the small operators to the extent that there have been a large number of bankruptcies. Now it is being stated that it is the intention of the government, so the industry has been advised, to drop decontrol and put the situation back where it was before.
I think the government should make up its mind what its policy is going to be in the field of civil aviation. Is there going to be competition in the domestic services, is there going to be competition in the international services, or is the field going to be divided?
I think the government should inform the members of the industry, who I know are totally and wholly dissatisfied with the manner in which the government has outlined its policy from time to time.
I just want to say one further word because I do not want to hold up these estimates unduly. It has to do with Quebecair. Last year and the year before Quebecair was in very difficult circumstances and asked for assistance. The Minister of Transport stated that the air transport board would consider the position. The board did so and made several recommendations to the government. I understand that five recommendations were made including (a) a subsidy, (b) an operations payment during the winter and (c) a joint winter operations payment and a subsidy, but that treasury board on each and every occasion turned them down.
I know, of course, that the Minister of Finance will deny this but it is common knowledge in Rimouski that the person who held up this matter was none other than the Minister of Finance himself. It was common knowledge when I was down there not so long ago that, notwithstanding the recommendations of the air transport board and the desire of his colleague, the Minister of Transport, that a subsidy should be granted, the Minister of Finance was the one who held it up and decided against it. The minister will be free to deny that statement if he wishes to do so.
Then there is the other point, that the Minister of Transport told Quebecair in unequivocal and clear language that the government had decided to give that corporation exclusive air routes on the north shore of the St. Lawrence and, by inference, to take them away from T.C.A. Of that there can be no doubt. The Minister of Transport went a step further and said that such an announcement would be made by the government at a future time. There is no doubt about that; that is known all over the trade and in Quebecair offices. It is known in the air transport and

Supply-Transport
industries association and it is known in Trans-Canada Air Lines. It is known from one end of the industry to the other that that statement was made.
What happened was that the Prime Minister asked that the matter be held over- this was in the press-until such time as he returned from his trip to Japan. The Prime Minister returned from Japan, but nothing was done, other than, I take it, the Minister of Transport was slapped down because Quebecair is still waiting for its assistance. I need not tell the Minister of Finance that Quebecair needs the assistance. Quebecair is now under new management, and has had a total reorganization of its capital structure. There are new people at the head of the corporation. I am sure that they can do an excellent job. 1 ask the minister to give serious consideration to the recommendations that I know have been made, (a) by the Minister of Transport to the government and (b) by the air transport board to the minister.
One other thing I should like to mention and it is this. Quebecair asked the government to assist it in taking over one of the larger aircraft it had purchased from Cana-dair. This aircraft had been purchased at great cost. It was impossible at the time, several months ago, for Quebecair to use this aircraft profitably. I am informed that, notwithstanding the representations of Quebecair to the government to assist them in taking over that plane, either by representations to Canadair-


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I rise on a point of order? The point is that Quebecair is not a matter to be dealt with on the vote before us. We are not dealing generally with matters of licensing and we are not dealing with general civil aviation policy. We are dealing with Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, may I say that this subject has everything to do with the item and I will tell the minister why. Trans-Canada Air Lines was asked to withdraw from this field on the north shore. That is known by everybody; and they refused to do so, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Transport had given his undertaking that Quebecair would get exclusive rights on the north shore. I am, therefore, four-square within this item.
Now then, continuing, 1 should like to say Quebecair had made representations that this large plane be taken back by Canadair or be used by the R.C.A.F. I am informed, rightly or wrongly, by those who live in the Rimouski area where I was, that notwithstanding the representations made to the government by the Minister of Transport, the Minister of National 
Defence stood up and said that under no consideration would he accept this second hand plane for the R.C.A.F. It was only after a full and complete consideration of the whole matter that I believe a final arrangement was arrived at. I thought I would put that on Hansard. I ask the minister to come to the assistance of this company which is trying to do a good job on the north shore of the Rimouski area of the province of Quebec. I hope that the Minister of Finance will convey to the Minister of Transport the statement I made, that he should not have intervened in the way he did with T.C.A. and he should not have made the statement that he did, namely that Quebecair be given exclusive rights in that field, until and unless it had received approval of the government of Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can assure the hon. member at once that he is away out on his facts all the way through his speech. Let me begin with what he had to say about the deficit of Trans-Canada Air Lines. He has ascribed this to some aspect of competition and he complained about competition. Well, I would think the best authority on the reason for the Trans-Canada Air Lines deficit in the year 1961 would be the president of T.C.A. Here is what he said in his report, in explaining the deficit for 1961:
This was a paradoxical period of air line operations in which record traffic volume was accompanied by the largest deficit in the company's history. A new domestic fare structure proved immensely popular and there was a heavy increase in passenger business. Simultaneously, however, passenger demand shifted so emphatically towards economy class service that there was a pronounced deteriorating effect on the company's average revenue realized per passenger mile, this declining from 6,25 cents in 1960 to 5.81 cents in 1961. While 44 per cent of the company's passenger traffic had been economy class in the previous year, and an increase to 69 per cent had been forecast, the actual figure rose to 79 per cent. This revolution in travelling habits more than offset the company's achievement of substantial economies as evidenced by a very satisfactory reduction in operating cost per available ton mile from 36.72 cents to 31.30 cents. Obviously, this discrepancy between revenues and expenses requires remedial action.
This year's deficit amounted to $6,450,082.
Then the president goes on in his report to speak about the acquisition of new equipment, the cost of which of course is rising aU the time. So, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, in what he had to say about the reason for this deficit is completely at odds with the president of the T.C.A. himself.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I much prefer the reasoning advanced by the president of T.C.A.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister permit a question? Is the minister aware of the proceedings of the sessional committee on airlines and shipping, owned and operated by the government, at which evidence was given last year concerning the deficit of Trans-Canada Air Lines, in that competition was in large measure the answer?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The committee has not sat during this session. I am giving the statement of the president of T.C.A. because he outlined in his report the reason for this record deficit in the operations of the company in 1961. It should not be thought, Mr. Chairman, that this was the only time that Trans-Canada Air Lines had a deficit. It had deficits, smaller of course, in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1960. These deficits could hardly be ascribed to competition, so I think the hon. member is quite wrong in his conclusions on this subject.
Now, he goes on to use this item to discuss a question with regard to the licensing operations of the air transport board. This discussion, Mr. Chairman, is quite irrelevant to the subject with which we are dealing here, the operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines. Trans-Canada Air Lines is not the air transport board. The air transport board is given jurisdiction by this parliament in respect of licensing of air carriers. I suggest, therefore, that the subject be properly deferred to an occasion when it will be in order.
Now, the hon. member makes a strong plea for Quebecair. He has made what I think was about as strong a case of special pleading for a particular, privately owned company as I have ever heard in this house.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad to hear that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I just question, Mr. Chairman, whether under these conditions any hon. member is justified in making so strong a plea on behalf of a particular private company. Let me make it very clear that what he had to say about this, and what he had to say about communications passing between ministers, about the opinions expressed by these ministers, is just a compound of gossip he has gathered. It is a lot of nonsensical speculation, most of which I do not believe I will dignify by any detailed statement. I think it was out of order, and I do not like to see the time of this house occupied in dealing with gossip and speculation.


Lionel Chevrier: Did you turn it down?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member desist for one little moment in pursuing his gossip?


Lionel Chevrier: For two little moments.
Supply-Transport


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are sent here, Mr. Chairman, to be responsible members and not to be old gossips. In this matter this particular company evidently overstretched itself in its operations-quite overstretched itself- and then comes the government asking for special assistance, at the expense of the treasury, to relieve it of some of the difficulties into which it has gotten itself.
Mr. Chairman, in this situation the concern of the government must be for the public interest and not for the interest of some particular private company. I can assure the committee that in its relationship to this situation and any action that may be taken at any time in regard to it, it is the public interest that will guide the government and not the interest of any particular private company.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the minister did not answer my question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not intend to, in view of the gossip.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it a fact that the Minister of Finance is the one who held up at treasury board the recommendation made in favour of a subsidy to Quebecair?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this is just a sample of utter irresponsibility on the part of an hon. member. The hon. member knows perfectly well that what happens in treasury board is secret, and he as a privy councillor knows what is the oath of office. He has just invited one minister to break the oath of office in order to comment on this silly gossip in which he has been indulging and with which he has been larding up the record this afternoon. I do not intend to accept his invitation to indulge in gossip.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has referred to gossip; he has referred to irresponsible statements. The statements were not irresponsible, and it is not gossip. Those are facts that are well known in aviation quarters, and I am not-


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are not facts.


Lionel Chevrier: -going to embarrass the minister, as I well could, by putting statement on the record right now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You cannot embarrass me with the truth.


Lionel Chevrier: But I am going to send over to the minister a statement that is a complete denial of what he has said, and a complete confirmation of the statements I have made. I do not want to put them on the record and thereby embarrass others,

Supply-Transport
and more particularly the Minister of Transport. I asked for production of the documents; I was not able to get production of the documents. One of the documents was not even confidential; but months after they had been sent, they were made confidential. For that reason it is not possible for me to use them and I have no intention so to do, but I can tell the minister that the information upon which I have based the statements I have made is accurate.


Mr, Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the hon. member that he is misinformed. If he is purporting to say that he has statements that support the gossip which characterized his earlier statement, then I have to tell him that he is misinformed and his gossip is not the truth.


Mr, Chevrier:: It is not gossip; it is fact.


William Heward Grafftey: Factual gossip.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I will only be a couple of minutes. I am not at all interested in gossip or rumours of any kind. However, I would like to ask the minister this question. Having regard to the five years the present government has been in office, what is his policy approach to crown corporations such as Trans-Canada Air Lines when they are initiated in the public interest and have done a terriffic job on behalf of Canada?
I can only say from my own point of view that after following five years of this government's policies and operations it does appear to me that their general policy is, if it affects a crown corporation, crash or smash, because only in the five years this government has been in office have we even heard talk of hurting crown corporations and turning them over to private enterprise by sale or competition, whether it be Eldorado, Polymer, or instituting measures that hit very hard at initiating services such as the C.B.C. and now T.C.A.
This matter can be discussed under this item. I think we have to honour the initiation of T.C.A., the pioneering it did, the service which it rendered. When it comes to a major transportation policy and difficulties arise, this government, instead of assisting, brings in completely unnecessary competition against a crown corporation which did the pioneering and was financed by the people. When it reaches a stage of major development, the government exercises a competitive policy.
I will not go any further than that, sir. I would like to ask the minister whether he can give us just a straightforward statement as to government policy with regard to crown corporations such as T.C.A.; whether

it is crash or smash, and why bring in competition at the expense of the Canadian people?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
Trans-Canada Air Lines has received at the hands of this government the fairest and indeed most generous consideration. The company has been provided with what it required to keep itself equipped with aeroplanes of the latest design and manufacture; indeed, enormous sums have been provided and expended in the equipment of the company for all its operations.
The action of the air transport board in the licensing of Canadian Pacific Airlines for a transcontinental flight daily to connect with overseas operations I presume, was based on the board's view that the time had come when Trans-Canada Air Lines was so fully established and so strong that it could face a measure of modest competition. But on this subject I really see no profit in getting into some doctrinaire discussion. The hon. member, according to his views, favours state monopoly in these matters. Some of the other hon. members of this chamber take a different view. I think we are not likely to harmonize those views this afternoon on this supplementary estimate.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Chairman, I think I must rise after the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East, because in the province of British Columbia we have Canadian Pacific Airlines employing about 2,500 people; in fact, it provides one of the largest payrolls in the province of British Columbia. I rather gathered from the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East that he felt Trans-Canada Air Lines should have a complete monopoly in air transportation. I certainly could not support any such view.
In so far as pioneering is concerned, the polar route to Europe was pioneered by Canadian Pacific Airlines and they have provided a good deal of the service and a lot of jobs for people in British Columbia. They provide a large amount in taxes to the treasury of this country. Any suggestion that T.C.A. should have a complete monopoly certainly would not be supported by the people of my riding.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I made no such suggestion. My reference was only to the competition brought in by this government in the past few years on nation-wide business, which the C.P.A. was never in until this government took office, and my hon. friend knows it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall vote 729 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: What about 766?


Thomas Miller Bell: It was carried.


Lionel Chevrier: I had intended to say something on vote 766.


Thomas Miller Bell: We have passed it.


An hon. Member:: We can revert to it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The Chair is quite disposed to revert to vote 766.


Thomas Miller Bell: I would have no objection.
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
766. Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority In such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve -further amount required. $4,125,000.


Lionel Chevrier: I simply wanted to ask the parliamentary secretary if he is satisfied that this sum of $4,125,000 is properly required and is a proper vote, or expenditure, as far as the seaway authority is concerned. My only purpose in asking this question arises from the fact that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance had some qualms about these expenditures some time ago and I do not want him to think there is anything the matter with them now, since he is piloting these estimates.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have examined the financial statement involved here and I believe these are proper expenditures. The circumstances to which the hon. member for Laurier refers are somewhat different from those which now arise on this vote. They related to another part of the St. Lawrence seaway. On an earlier occasion the hon. gentleman and I had an interesting argument-it remains one of the interesting experiences I have had in the house. I had my opinions and he had his. I do not imagine he has changed his. I have not changed mine. However, I think this is not the occasion to revert to that difference.


Lionel Chevrier: I am delighted that the parliamentary secretary who is now piloting these estimates through the committee feels that this is a proper expenditure. Otherwise I am sure he would not recommend it.
There is another matter. I am glad the hon. member for Stormont is in his seat, or near his seat. The other day my hon. friend from Welland was discussing a certain matter and in the course of those remarks he stated that there was a great deal of unemployment in Cornwall. The hon. member for Stormont rose and said: "Ask your colleague the hon. member for Laurier, because he is the one who is responsible for putting the locks on the other side; he is the one who is responsible for all this unemployment."
Supply-Transport
I thought I would put on the record what the facts are in this connection, because the hon. member for Stormont has repeatedly made the statement in the house that with the locks going on the United States side there has been a great deal of unemployment in Cornwall. I have obtained figures which indicate what the total amount of employment in the Department of Transport or in the St. Lawrence seaway authority was in the constituency of Stormont from 1950 to 1962. These figures indicate that in 1950 there were 236 employees of the Department of Transport in Cornwall. In 1951 there were 185; in 1952, 229; in 1953, 195; in 1954, 267; and after the seaway got started in 1954 there were more employees in the Department of Transport and with the St. Lawrence seaway authority than prior thereto. I say this because the figures indicate that in 1955 there were 264 employees, in 1956, 258; in 1957, 316; in 1958, 309; in 1959, 293; in 1960, 334; in 1961, 252; and in 1962, 271. Thus, in so far as employment in the offices of the Department of Transport and the St. Lawrence seaway authority is concerned-


Grant Campbell: Has the hon. member included the head of the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the various executives, the counsel, the solicitors and the accountants? Is he comparing those with the working men and tradesmen formerly employed on the Cornwall canal, which is now virtually abandoned except for a half a dozen boats a year coming up to service one industry? If he wants to compare employment let him compare the Eisenhower and Snell locks.


Lionel Chevrier: I am comparing all the employees which were formerly with the Department of Transport in Stormont with all the employees which the St. Lawrence seaway authority has now in 1962. There are far more today than there were then. The reason is that the former Liberal administration had the good sense to establish the St. Lawrence seaway headquarters office in Cornwall, and that alone accounts for 150 of those employees.
I would ask permission to table the comparison of figures of those employed in the Department of Transport prior to the opening of the seaway.


Thomas Miller Bell: By whom were those figures prepared?


Lionel Chevrier: By the St. Lawrence seaway authority.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I understand that it is not customary to table documents at the committee stage. There could be an exception made if unanimous consent is given.

Supply-Transport


Thomas Miller Bell: I have no objection. Perhaps it could be agreed that when the Speaker resumes the chair he could ask permission formally.


Paul Raymond Martineau: That would be the idea.


Grant Campbell: I should like to have a look at those figures beforehand to substantiate them, especially as the hon. member is noted for his facility at suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.


Lionel Chevrier: There is another matter. The hon. member for Stormont has repeatedly stated that cessation of work after the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway has been responsible for the unemployment in the Cornwall area. I intend to disprove that by putting on the record the following figures. The St. Lawrence seaway authority was responsible for a good deal of employment during the construction of the seaway but nothing compared with what the hon. member had in mind. The seaway was started in July, 1954, or, at least, the administration was authorized to begin its operations then. However, no work was done in Cornwall in 1954 or 1955. In 1956 there were 180 men employed from Fraser point on lake St. Francis to the west end of Stormont county. In 1957, there were 513 men employed. In 1958, there were 635; in 1959, 457 and in 1960, when the work was completed, there were 258. This clearly indicates that if the seaway was placed on the other side of the line, that was not responsible for unemployment which followed after the discontinuance of the seaway work. What actually happened was that during the period since 1957 when this government took office-and I do not say this in order to enter into a contentious aspect of this matter-three cotton textile mills closed down.


Grant Campbell: May I ask the
the hon. gentleman a question?


Lionel Chevrier: After I am through. These mills were responsible for the employment of 2,500 people and there are today according to the statistics which I have been able to obtain from the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder, of March 23, 1962, 4,294 people seeking employment. Then again it is clear, as I have said on another occasion, that shipping on the Cornwall canal was small in the year prior to the construction of the seaway as compared with the shipping in other ports. As a matter of fact it increased after the opening of the seaway; so if there has been an increase in employment in that area it is not due (a) to a diminution of the number of employees in the Department of Transport or (b) the St. Lawrence seaway authority, or (c) to the fact that the canal is on the other side [The Chairman.]
of the line. It is certainly not due to the fact that those employees on the canal ceased to work, because there were a small number employed there compared with the 4,258 people who are now out of employment.


Grant Campbell: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows that every effort made by this government to assist the textile industry in providing tariff assistance was consistently, persistently and bitterly fought and opposed by the hon. member's own colleagues, and the most recent episode is that of the Senate turning down the class or kind legislation. The hon. gentleman also knows that the textile industry is now in a better condition than it has been for the past 20 years.


Lionel Chevrier: In Cornwall?


Grant Campbell: No, not in Cornwall, because due to the neglect of the previous government the situation there was already too far gone to revive. In the same year that Cornwall Cottons declined Dominion Textiles made one of the highest profits it made for many years.
As far as the Cornwall seaway is concerned, the people of Cornwall know that it was locating the locks on the United States side that ruined Cornwall. Just ask the people of Cornwall about this. I suggest they will have an opportunity to give their answer very shortly and their answer will be found by the hon. member to be very pointed indeed. I would be delighted if the hon. gentleman were to come to Cornwall and oppose me in the constituency of Stormont. I would be delighted indeed if he were to do so.


An hon. Member:: He is afraid.


Ernest John Campbell: Of course he is.


Lionel Chevrier: Afraid of an oddball?


Ernest John Campbell: Does the hon. gentleman think that the Eisenhower and Snell locks on the United States side run themselves and that no one is employed on them? If they were located on the Canadian side in Cornwall they would certainly provide employment in that area.
I have several times contended-and I contend here and now-that the hon. member by his actions and by his neglect of the interests of this country and his former constituency-* his former home town-has made it impossible for there ever to be an all Canadian seaway in Canada. I say that for this reason. As we know the volume of traffic in the St. Lawrence seaway has been extremely disappointing but if for any reason it should ever increase perceptibly so that it becomes a threat to the New York port authority, you can be assured that all the vested interests centred in the New York port authority, the

financial and railway interests there, will insist that the Welland canal be bypassed by enlarging the Erie canal system so that not only will Cornwall be left high and dry as it now is-after Cornwall had been on the Cornwall canal for 120 years-but the whole St. Lawrence seaway including the port of Montreal will be bypassed by the new Erie canal. The new canal will bypass the Welland canal instead of twinning it, and traffic will be directed from the upper lakes and the interior of this continent down to New York with the result that the entire St. Lawrence system plus, to a degree, Halifax and Saint John will be bypassed.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Grant Campbell: There was only one occasion on which we could have assured there being an all-Canadian seaway and that was at the time of the original construction when the hon. gentleman sold out to the United States. One of the most monumental blunders in the history of Canada was the error made by the hon. gentleman in relation to the failure to twin the Welland canal which was already reaching full capacity. It was as elementary a fallacy as to endeavour to increase the size of a bottle without increasing the neck.
These are the two fundamental errors the responsibility for which my predecessor, despite his canniness, evasiveness and agility with words has never been able to completely evade, and he has not convinced the people of Stormont. If he thinks he has, let me tell the hon. gentleman that the proof will be in the pudding and the opportunity to taste the pudding may come very shortly indeed.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, one word in relation to what was said by the hon. member. Not a word was said by him in connection with the statements I have made, which are a complete answer-


Grant Campbell: I must examine those figures before commenting on them and learn the source of them.


Lionel Chevrier: -which are a complete answer to the charges he has made in this house for the last five years.
May I point out that the hon. gentleman commenced his speech by saying he wished to ask me a question; but he forgot all about the question because he started ranting about everything under the sun. I simply wish to conclude my remarks by saying that no member from the constituency of Stormont since that constituency has existed has done more harm to his constituency than the present hon. member for Stormont.
Supply-Transport


Grant Campbell: Will the hon. member not agree that he sold out the interests of that constituency to the United States?


Lionel Chevrier: I say that for the following reasons, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman has said repeatedly that there are no pilots in the constituency when in fact there are at least 35 of them. He has said repeatedly there should be an amalgamation-


Grant Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; what I said was that there were in the Cornwall area no native born pilots, no people born in Cornwall. There are pilots there who have simply moved in and located there overnight.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. That is a question of debate.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman has repeatedly said there should be an amalgamation of the C.N.R. and C.P.R. employees, thus putting out of work a large number of people in the Cornwall area which is a divisional centre of the C.N.R.


Grant Campbell: How many people are employed on the C.N.R. in Cornwall?


Lionel Chevrier: Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, on more than one occasion the hon. gentleman has said that a great deal of harm was constituted by the fact that Cornwall was not a seaway city. The other day the mayor of Cornwall celebrated the fact that Cornwall is now a seaway city. Notwithstanding the fact that the mayor of Cornwall and the industrial development corporation of Cornwall have repeatedly stated that Cornwall is a seaway city, the hon. member for Stormont insists that Cornwall is not on the seaway but is on high and dry land.
The hon. gentleman has emphatically stated and repeated that I am the one who is responsible for having effected the situation which exists today and he complains of there being no 27-foot facilities opposite Cornwall. The hon. gentleman does not know the facts. In point of fact, 27-foot facilities exist over a distance of three miles from Grace creek right up to the head of the locks at Cornwall. The hon. gentleman does not know that. As the member of parliament for the constituency of Stormont he should acquaint himself with at least the elementary situation obtaining in that area and cease to chase industry away; but no, notwithstanding the fact that the people of Cornwall are clamouring for industry to locate in that area the hon. member for Stormont insists on stating publicly that the seaway is on the other side of the line which in effect is tantamount to telling industry not to come to Cornwall because

Supply-Transport
there are no deep water facilities. Let me emphasize that the facilities are all there. If the hon. member for Stormont will only cooperate with the mayor of the city, the city council and the Cornwall industrial development corporation, industry will come to Cornwall.


Grant Campbell: Mr. Chairman, if there are facilities in Cornwall it is because of the fact that this government has spent over half a million dollars creating a port, which was done at the instigation of the present hon. member for Stormont. These 27-foot facilities now exist to intercept traffic before it goes south into the United States and to direct it back to Canada from the United States after proceeding through the Eisenhower and Snell locks. If there are facilities in Cornwall it is because of the efforts of the present hon. member for Stormont in persuading this government to attempt to retrieve some portion of the traffic we formerly had.
Furthermore, if my predecessor from this constituency produced so much benefit for Stormont, why did he abandon it, like a shepherd leaving his flock at the mercy of the wolves? The hon. gentleman abandoned that constituency. If he feels he did not abandon it I would be delighted if he were to return and oppose me in that constituency.


Lionel Chevrier: I would certainly fix you if I ever came back.


Grant Campbell: Come back. I urge the hon. gentleman to come back. If the hon. member requires proof of my statements I urge him to take advantage of the opportunity of returning to that constituency as my opponent.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Douglas Mason Fisher: If you want to get through you will have to let me ask one question.


Grant Campbell: A refugee from the seaway.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I thank hon. gentlemen for the prompting. I wish to ask one question. Is the government aware that the United States corps of engineers has received a substantial grant from congress this year in order to carry out immediate study and planning for a United States canal that will save United States traffic going through the Welland canal? If so, what effect does the government think such a project, if proceeded with, will have on the prospects of the Welland canal and the adjacent area?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, the government is well aware of that to which the hon. member has referred. The St. Lawrence seaway authority is embarking on studies in respect of the twinning of the locks but to endeavour to forecast at this time just what the outcome might be of any action such as has been suggested would, I think, be speculating more than I would like at this stage.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The point about which I wish to find out is whether the government is prepared to move very quickly if the United States engineers come up with a recommendation that would lead to a unilateral move on the part of the United States for a canal completely within the United States; that is to say one could foresee where this might take no notice of the St. Lawrence seaway authority at all. It is for that reason that I think we would all have considerable concern and would appreciate something a little bit more definitive about the position of the Canadian government.


Richard Albert Bell: I think the hon. member is well aware of the rapidity with which the government is prepared to move at all times. However, in respect of this particular matter I should not like to speculate as to what the situation might be after some hypothetical action on the part of the United States government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Water resources branch-
729. Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $50,000.
['Agreed.']
Paul Joseph James Martin: Under this item I think it is in the national interest that we should come back to a matter of great importance, and one that has to do with a fundamental difference between an important official of the government of Canada and the government itself. It is a difference which, in principle, is not unlike the difference that arose and shook the foundations of government in Canada last summer in the dispute between the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance.


Richard Albert Bell: They are as different as are day and night.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I refer, of course, to the serious charge made by one of Canada's most distinguished sons. I refer to General McNaughton who said that the Columbia river treaty represented a sell out on the part of those who negotiated that treaty for Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the hon. member believe that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
question. Whether I believe it or not is not the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I am saying is that a distinguished Canadian who has spent the greatest part of his life in the public service of this country has said that Canada was sold out by those who negotiated that treaty.


Richard Albert Bell: If the hon. gentleman
does not believe this, why does he repeat it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That charge having been made, it should have come to parliament through the proper procedure for assessment as to validity. General McNaugh-ton asked that his charge be aired before a parliamentary committee of this House of Commons where we would have had an opportunity of examining him as to the nature of the indictment and where we would have had at the same time an opportunity of hearing from the ministers responsible, and the officials in order to determine the validity of this charge. Notwithstanding the requests made by the Leader of the Opposition and by other hon. members in this house, including the hon. member for Kootenay West, this government has delayed the opportunity of our discussing this matter in the way in which the matter is now about to be discussed.
This is not, of course, a new procedure for this government. It will be recalled that for many months we sought to bring before a committee of the House of Commons the former governor of the Bank of Canada so that that unfortunate dispute-bludgeoned by the action of the Minister of Finance- between that official and himself, could properly have been assessed by a committee of this house.


An hon. Member:: That is an old song.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Notwithstanding the reluctance of the Minister of Finance to have the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada discussed by the banking and commerce committee and notwithstanding the reluctance of the government to allow the governor to come before that committee and discuss that report, we know that the governor was able to state his case in the other place before a committee of the non-elected members of this parliament.


Richard Albert Bell: And a poor case it was.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Paul Joseph James Martin: As a result of the disclosures made this government, if it had confronted the Canadian people, would certainly not be sitting on the treasury benches today, as everywhere throughout this country-


An hon. Member:: That is what you think.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -there was disquietude, dissatisfaction and disgust-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -with the way in which the Minister of Finance had sought to prosecute the dispute between himself and the governor of the Bank of Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is not accurate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That dispute is now a matter of record. However, it will be recalled in the days and weeks to come. It will be discussed on the hustings, in the general elections about which we are soon to have an announcement. Let no one make any mistake about this. The people of Canada will indict this government for what they did and the manner in which they dealt with the Coyne affair. We now have a second Coyne affair which arises out of the charges made by General McNaughton.


An hon. Member:: Another Liberal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says he is a Liberal. Surely that is not an offence in this country. Since when was it an offence? Let me tell my hon. friend that General McNaughton was a distinguished soldier in the first world war and was commander of the Canadian forces in the second world war. He was appointed to his first responsible office under the government of Canada when he was made chairman of the national research council by the government of which Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was prime minister. It was a Conservative appointment. He began his public service as an appointee of a Conservative government. From that time on he has rendered distinguished service to his country. No one can take that away from this distinguished Canadian. He has asked that he be allowed to come before a committee of this House of Commons so that he can make these serious charges. The Minister of Finance is not in his seat at the moment. This important matter is apparently being conducted now by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, although the Secretary of State for External Affairs apparently is now here holding a watching brief, whatever that may or may not be. The fact is that General McNaughton has made a serious charge. That charge should be heard. As he is not a member of this house, he
2960	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs cannot speak in this House of Commons. Consequently, he should be afforded the opportunity of going before a parliamentary committee.
If there was ever any doubt about the justifications for his request to have this matter placed before a parliamentary committee, we now have in justification a statement made by no less a person than the Minister of Justice who, according to a Canadian Press dispatch in this morning's paper is quoted as having said the following at Hanna, Alberta. I quote from a report of the Canadian Press which appears in this morning's Montreal Gazette, page 4.
Canada would have been better oft with a Columbia river treaty drawn according to General A. G. L. McNaughton's wishes, Justice Minister Davie Fulton said here.
Mr. Fulton said in an interview that it was not possible to draw the treaty in the manner Gen. McNaughton desired without treading on British Columbia's toes.
If General McNaughton had said nothing, this statement of the Minister of Justice would have been ample justification for our discussing this important matter. But coming on the heel of, or right after, or within a few days of the indictment levelled against this government by General McNaughton, this statement of the Minister of Justice now offers strong supporting justification for our request that a committee, namely the committee on external affairs, be set up forthwith

tonight, if necessary-so that there may be no delay in the government's plans with regard to dissolution. We can sit all day tomorrow; we can sit all night tonight, and determine whether or not there is validity in the indictment made against this treaty and against this government by General McNaughton. If the government refuses the request I am making today in support of that made by General McNaughton, then let the government stand in proper perspective in relation to the bill of rights about which the Minister of Finance spoke so vigorously two or three hours ago in this house.


Thomas Miller Bell: And so eloquently.


Paul Joseph James Martin: General McNaughton has made a charge. Under our bill of rights he should be given the opportunity of presenting his case before the highest court in the land, this parliament, through one of its committees. To deny General McNaughton that right on the eve of the dissolution of parliament will be an admission by this government that the charges made by General McNaughton and now supported by the Minister of Justice are justified.
The issue before us now is a simple one. It is not the merits of the treaty. It is the right of one who was in a position to know.


It is a question of examining the charges he has made with regard to the way in which the treaty was negotiated, a treaty which he says is not only contrary to our interests but with regard to which he says the Canadian people have been sold out by the government. In the face of these charges, serious charges supported by the Minister of Justice, this government will stand in contempt of parliament, in contempt of the Canadian people, if it denies the request I am making, that the external affairs committee be set up now. Set it up at six o'clock and we will sit throughout the hours to determine the validity of the serious charges made.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of this party to support the request made by the hon. member for Essex East. I think he outlined very eloquently and properly General McNaughton's services to this nation, his contributions and his stature. He indicated that General McNaughton's first interest is to protect the interests of Canadian people and not go along with people in the United States because it is easier on occasions.
As far as the Columbia is concerned, Canada has come off second best for the second time in Canadian history. In 1846 the government of Great Britain signed the Oregon treaty and in return for the surrender of the land south of the 49th parallel and west of the Columbia river British subjects were guaranteed free access and navigation to the sea along the Columbia river in perpetuity under article 2 of the treaty. Many years later that treaty was followed by the building of dams by the United States government on the Columbia river. I do not blame the United States government but there was not a single protest from any agency of this government. I have had the record checked and not even the water resources branch was sufficiently alert to the position to warn the government that this was happening.
The former secretary of state for external affairs and present Leader of the Opposition had the records of the government searched at that time.


Howard Charles Green: That was under the former government.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am trying to be quite fair. That is quite right; it was under the former government. I think it was a great omission that Canada's interests were not protected because I have talked to officials of various United States agencies who were amazed that we permitted these dams to be built without any protest in view of the impediment to navigation, the fact that there was no longer

access to the sea from the upper Columbia, the damage to our fishing interests and so on.
Now we come to this second occasion, the Columbia river treaty. General McNaughton has rendered great service to Canada and I am not going to repeat the many things that were said by the hon. member for Essex East. I was very disappointed, as I think many members of the house were, by the treatment of this gentleman who has given such great service to Canada in the first and second world wars. In fact, he was serving Canada before some of the advisers were bom. The announcement of his retirement was through a short and, I thought, very inadequate press release. I must bring it to the attention of the committee that a goodly number of lesser lights have had their retirements mentioned by way of announcement in this house. Personally I thought this was a rather shabby procedure on the retirement of a person who had rendered such great service to Canada. Mind you, that is not the attitude of the Canadian people or the Canadian press. I am already in receipt of sufficient telegrams and correspondence to realize what large sections of the Canadian people think of General McNaughton. However, to clinch that and to save time I am simply going to quote an editorial that appeared in the Vancouver Sun of December 18, 1959 under the heading "All Honour to Andy". It reads as follows:
General Andrew McNaughton has the stuff that makes great Canadians. He deserves official recognition for his outstanding victory in getting Canada a fair share of Columbia river downstream benefits. This feat will stand as a great achievement in the history of Canadian international bargaining. And as a landmark in Canadian economic development. It sets a precedent for future Canada-U.S. water control issues.
General McNaughton endured much uninformed and unfair political criticism on both sides of the border. But he knew his objective. He ignored all the irrelevancies. He developed a long-headed strategy. He stuck to it, to Canada's lasting benefit.
It is true he started from a position of strength. But he succeeded in making the other side recognize reasonably quickly that it had lost the battle. That avoided needless economic bloodshed by averting prolonged delay in coming to terms.
The five year climactic struggle began from what McNaughton described as a U.S. position of contending "with all the forces at its disposal" that Canada wasn't entitled to anything from the U.S. for controlling the Columbia. McNaughton was privately determined Canada would get 50 per cent of all the U.S. power gained. And get it in value holding electricity, not inflation vulnerable dollars.
His masterstroke was to refuse to truckle in any way to U.S. arrogance.
That is a very different attitude to some people I could mention.
He proposed diverting extra Columbia waters into the all-Canadian Fraser, thus depriving the U.S. of all benefits from Canadian control. He had international precedent. But the Americans thought he was bluffing. Then he ordered engineering
Supply-Northern Affairs studies of this gargantuan scheme. That might have been a big bluff. But the U.S. either overlooked it or couldn't nerve itself to call it.
Forces which preserve the Fraser for salmon could have blocked McNaughton's hydro scheme just as they've blocked all other hydro prospects there. A threat from late 1957 that Wenner-Gren development of the Peace river might jeopardize developing of the Canadian Columbia probably helped the Americans to see things General McNaughton's way sooner than they might have. But it can't account for the bonus he won in the settlement. Not only does Canada get 50 per cent of extra U.S. power, but the percentage is calculated on the gross increase, not the smaller net. And in 35 to 50 years Canada can still divert Columbia waters into the Fraser if that still makes hydroelectric sense.
I read that editorial because I think it outlines clearly what Canada owes to General McNaughton in one vast achievement which as a result of his tenacity and determination can mean in any future settlement millions of dollars in power value annually to Canadians for years to come.
I quite agree with the hon. member for Essex East that there have been so many contradictory statements made by persons of prominence on both sides of this issue and by both the federal and provincial governments that this gives greater reason for General McNaughton having the opportunity to be heard. General McNaughton has remained in office as a public servant since the treaty was signed. Because he was a public servant his lips were sealed. He was waiting week after week to have the opportunity to present his case before the external affairs committee, and I am quite sure he would soon knock the arguments of the water resources branch into a cocked hat. He waited week after week but without the opportunity being afforded.
Now he has the right to speak because he is no longer a public servant. General McNaughton does not bring this issue forward because of any interest in partisan politics. He takes this stand because of his strong conviction that Canada has received a poor deal in the Columbia river treaty. I recognize the fact that this treaty was, shall I say, forced or the terms of it were dictated to meet the wishes of the provincial government. But the situation is such that it never can be clarified in the minds of Canadians unless we have General McNaughton before the external affairs committee. The members of this party agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Essex East, that we will sit here tonight and tomorrow or as long as is required to complete this business.
Then, in addition to that, the government has promised all the chambers of commerce, farmers institutes and other organizations in the Kootenays, the Arrow lakes, the water resources committees, that they will be advised when this committee is to sit and given an

Supply-Northern Affairs opportunity to present their case. We will even continue in session long enough for them to get to Ottawa and present their case in connection with certain aspects of this treaty.
I mentioned that there were a great many contradictions, and I want to deal with them briefly. When the Prime Minister signed the treaty he made a few brief remarks, and I quote one paragraph:
In conclusion, the treaty that is being signed today is without precedent in the relations between nations. It represents a new level of co-operation for mutual advantage. Without the proposed agreement neither country could secure benefits for its people equal to those that can be realized through the action that the treaty contemplates.
Now, that is what the Prime Minister said on that occasion. Then, what did the Minister of Justice say in an address to the Canadian club in Montreal on February 13, 1961? He said:
I would like to stress at this point that the government of British Columbia was closely associated with these negotiations and gave wholehearted approval to the plans unfolded in the treaty negotiations.
I am quite confident that is an accurate statement on the part of the Minister of Justice. What does Mr. Bennett say when he refuses to go along with the terms of this treaty? A recent statement made by the Minister of Justice indicates that the federal government bowed to the wishes of the province of British Columbia. What does Mr. Bennett have to say? I have a copy of his address made at Prince George on September 16, 1961. He was kind enough to send me this copy from his office. I quote:
Well, as you know, the United States and Canada have signed a treaty. It has been ratified by the congress of the United States but not by the parliament of Canada. As you know, too, British Columbia has agreed to the general engineering principles outlined, but has never agreed to the financial proposals put forth by the government of Canada.
The reason we have not agreed to those proposals is very simple: We want at-site power on our Columbia river installation as soon as possible. And to bring that about, we must dispose of our surplus power at a fair and equitable price.
It might be asked, "Well, what of it? Look at now much you're getting and how little you're giving away".
All right-let's look. But let's not even look through my eyes, because after all, I may be prejudiced. Let's look instead through the eyes of the secretary of the interior of the United States of America, Mr. Stewart L. Udall.
Mr. Udall is the member of President Kennedy's cabinet who has the direct responsibility of seeing that the Columbia river treaty is carried out by the United States. Recently, he issued a statement on the treaty. I have a copy of the statement with me tonight, and because it is so extremely important that we understand clearly what the treaty implies, I am going to quote rather fully from his remarks.
In any event, Mr. Udall goes on to discuss the effect of the Canadian storage at the

Arrow lakes, Duncan and Mica creek. Then, he says:
As each of the Canadian storages become operable, the resulting improvement in flows can be utilized by generators already installed in the existing U.S. projects. Most of the U.S. projects were originally constructed with additional generators for reasons of economy of construction, anticipation of load growth and the subsequent availability of additional storage.
Then, Mr. Bennett said:
I quote again from Mr. Udall's statement: "To provide flood control and power benefits equivalent to those provided by the Canadian storage as of 1970 entirely from projects in the United States would require an investment in the United States of about $710 million over the next nine years. To realize these benefits through Canadian storage, on the other hand, the costs in the United States over that period are estimated at not over $150 million."
That is point No. 3, and it needs no further comment from me. Here is point No. 4:
"Because of the relatively small new incremental investment required on our part, Canadian storage yields power quickly and at an extremely low cost to the United States. The delivered cost... is less than one half the present basic wholesale power rate of the Bonneville power administration."
Again, no further comment is needed from me.
There is a great deal more in Mr. Udall's statement, and I would be glad to have you look at it. But for the sake of illustrating what we give and what we get from the treaty, I believe the examples I have quoted will suffice.
And so here, to summarize, is what we are giving:
Canada will provide one natural resource, our water, and surrender another, our land which will be flooded forever.
Canada must finance, pay for, engineer, construct and maintain forever all the storage dams.
By carrying out the development, Canada will give the United States 50 per cent more storage- which means the power of another Grand Coulee dam, plus flood control, plus irrigation benefits, plus navigation control-all at a fraction of the amount it would cost the United States to realize these benefits if it were to carry out the work on its own side of the boundary.
And over and above all this, the Columbia treaty gives the United States the right to build the Libby dam in Montana, a dam which they have wanted to build for many years, and one which will yield them great benefits.
That is the "little bit" which Canada is giving under terms of this treaty.
And what are we getting?
Sixty four million dollars in compensation for our flooded land, plus half of the so-called "downstream benefits".
This is the package the government of Canada has been pressing British Columbia to accept. This is the deal which the zealous-and in my opinion, extremely naive-chief Canadian negotiator, the Honourable E. Davie Fulton, wants British Columbia to buy.
We say this is not good enough, either for British Columbia, which has the most to lose, or for Canada. We agree that the treaty can be made to work, but only if the potential benefits to Canada are brought back into balance with the certain sacrifices of Canada.
Then, after Mr. Bennett makes that statement, we had the minister of lands and forests in British Columbia saying what a wonderful

treaty this is. Can you understand the confusion in the minds of the public when we have these various statements? Then, we have the Minister of Justice speaking to the Prince George chamber of commerce, when he outlined very clearly that this treaty was signed with the United States and he criticized Mr. Bennett very strongly for his statement. I quote:
The Bennett juggernaut even tried to roll over the treaty itself-to discredit the terms Bennett's own minister, the Honourable Ray Williston had worked out with us during a year of hard work and splendid co-operation. You are told we are trying to ram this treaty down the throats of an unwilling British Columbia. What a monstrous proposition. The B.C. government helped make the treaty. The B.C. government endorsed the treaty. The B.C. government is primarily responsible for many of its most important terms. Why the abrupt change about the treaty? Why did the Bennett government cast out its own creation?
Then, later on we had this statement from the Minister of Justice, to which reference has already been made, to the effect that Canada would have been better off with a Columbia treaty drawn according to General McNaughton. In view of these contradictory statements, and in view of the great confusion in the public mind, we wholeheartedly support the proposal for bringing General McNaughton immediately before the external affairs committee.
With regard to this treaty I think the federal government received very poor advice from its water resources branch. The officials of this branch just look at things in terms of power and kilowatts; they do not look at things in terms of land, natural resources and values of that sort. The treaty was signed by this government with no definite knowledge of where the site would be for the High Arrow or Duncan dams. Premier Bennett has said the provincial government has spent $500,000 a month for the last eight months in order to determine whether they could build dams on these sites. The locations of the dams have been decided without any regard to the land to be flooded, the damage to agriculture, to the forest industry or the detriment that will be caused to the fishing resources. The damage caused will cost millions of dollars to restore, according to the wildlife service of British Columbia. This government has not considered the compensation that will be required because of the destruction of beaches, wharves, roads and ferries.
In addition to that, until recently the water resources branch did not know anything about the cost of moving logs from one side of the dam to the other. I have been told by prominent engineers attached to a large corporation that it will cost $25 million to build the equipment to lift nearly one million feet of logs a day over the High Arrow dam.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Richard Albert Bell: That is nonsense.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance says, "Nonsense". Does the parliamentary secretary think he has better knowledge than at least three top-notch engineers in Canada who were employed by this company and spent weeks studying this question? They have said it will cost $25 million to install the equipment to move the logs over this dam automatically. That is not provided for in the estimates of cost at all. Or, I am informed, the government will have to pay this company $500,000 a year in perpetuity, if equipment costing two or three million dollars is installed.
I am not blaming the federal government for this; I think they were very poorly advised by some of their own officials. How can you say that a treaty is a satisfactory one if you do not know what your costs will be, and other engineering firms have indicated that the cost of these dams is underestimated by over $100 million. I am not blaming the government for these figures, but I do say that the situation is such that General McNaughton, with his known capacity in this field and with his knowledge and experience from which the house and the public can be properly informed on this situation, should be called before the external affairs committee to tell his story. I am sure when that story is told he will convince his most caustic critics that he is the man who has the answers.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this problem is a very good example of people, with the best intentions, getting into a great deal of difficulty. I happen to be a native of the Columbia watershed; in fact, I was born about the centre of that portion of the Columbia watershed which is in Canada. My people were pioneers in that whole district. One was a member of parliament for Kootenay and then for many years a senator for Kootenay; so I have been particularly close to this picture from the time it first came before the standing committee on external affairs, which must be ten years ago. I can assure hon. members that I have never had the slightest intention of allowing that portion of my native province to be subjected to any deal which was unfair, and that is still my intention today.
I am afraid the hon. member for Essex East has overlooked the answer I gave to a question asked by him on April 9 which will be found at page 2641 of Hansard. He asked that General McNaughton be allowed to appear before the external affairs committee and my answer, speaking for the government, was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already given the assurance that before the treaty is ratified

Supply-Northern Affairs
it will be referred to the standing committee on external affairs, and at that time I would hope that General McNaughton could be called and give whatever evidence he wishes.
The treaty has not yet been ratified. There is no intention of ratifying it without putting it before the standing committee on external affairs. Personally I would be delighted to see General McNaughton, the residents in my old home district and anybody else appear before that committee, because the one thing in which I am interested is seeing that the treaty is a proper one and that the Columbia is developed in the best interests of the Canadian people.
Let us not hear any more of this idea that the government is trying to rush this thing through without giving General McNaughton a chance to appear, because that is not the case at all. Hon. members have had the assurance of the government that before this treaty is ratified it will be submitted to the standing committee on external affairs.


Lionel Chevrier: Can we rely on that assurance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
point; it may never be ratified.


Howard Charles Green: I know that the hon. member for Laurier, who is a very old friend of mine, would not wish to intimate that my word is not good.


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Chairman; could I tell the minister at once that that would be the last thing in my mind. But I was thinking of the business of the house and assurances that we have received that certain business would be brought forward, and it never was.


Mr. Palleil:: That is not right; that is absolutely incorrect.


Howard Charles Green: I would be very doubtful that this matter could be dealt with before Easter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: There is one other point, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Regier:: You are too honest to be a politician.


Howard Charles Green: Some comment has been made about the statement reported to have been made in Alberta by the Minister of Justice yesterday or the day before. Like myself, the Minister of Justice is a native of British Columbia and his people have a longer record than my own in the public life of that province; they have a very distinguished record. He has stated, which is the fact, that originally we negotiated with the United States on the basis of a dam being put in the east Kootenays on the Kootenay river.


There must be a dam go in on that river either in Canada or in the United States in order to stop the flooding. With the consent of the government of British Columbia and with their approval we got the Americans to agree that that dam could be put in east Kootenay in Canada. I think that was very much to the surprise of the government of British Columbia. But then they turned right around and changed their minds completely and said "We will not stand for a dam in east Kootenay", and the result was that the term of the agreement had to be that the dam would be at Libby in Montana.
General McNaughton wanted the dam in Canada; so did the Canadian negotiators. The Minister of Justice quite properly stated that in his speech which is reported in the papers this morning. He is not to be condemned for that. The fact is that all through the conference General McNaughton was kept right in the picture, and kept in by me because he came under me as the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I wanted him in there to see that everything was as it should be. When it came to the final question as to whether the treaty should be recommended, the general did not like some of the features of it; he said, "I cannot oppose it. I cannot recommend it, but I cannot oppose it".
That was his position a week or so before the treaty was signed. Now, apparently, he is a great deal more antagonistic toward the treaty. In the intervening months I think he has been filled by the conviction that the treaty is very much worse than it appeared to him to be at that time. I do not want to be critical of General McNaughton but I can only repeat the leading paragraph on an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of April 11-and everybody knows that the Winnipeg Free Press is one of the strongest supporters of the Liberal party in Canada. It says:
General McNaughton's attack on the Columbia river treaty, which he helped to negotiate, comes very late. If he believed that the treaty was a bad bargain he should have opposed it before it was signed by the Canadian government, when a better version might have been arranged.
Indeed, if he felt, as he now says, that the treaty "sold Canada down the river," he should have resigned as Canadian chairman of the international joint commission, a step which would certainly have made any government hesitate to approve the scheme. Instead, according to the government, he accepted the treaty as the best obtainable, though it was known that he had urged a somewhat different engineering design. Now, when he is being retired from his office, he suddenly tries to lock the bam door while the horse is a long way down the road.
I am pleased today that there is not the same emphasis on General McNaughton having been dismissed, or having been removed, as we heard in this chamber on

Monday. I do not want to go over the discussion which took place at that time but I would point out again that General Mc-Naughton has been under my jurisdiction. He was not dismissed; he was not removed. His retirement came just by reason of years-he had reached the age of 75 years. There was Mr. Dansereau, who had long service on the international joint commission, reaching that same age last year and he was not reappointed. It was simply and solely because of age that General McNaughton was not appointed again. He had been appointed on a year to year basis by the former government when the present Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for External Affairs and there was not the slightest idea of taking any action against General McNaughton because of the Columbia river problem or because of any other problem. It was solely a matter of age.
Here again I have an editorial from another leading Liberal newspaper-in fact, these two papers are the two toughest Liberal papers in Canada-This one is the Toronto Star and it said on April 9:
As for his charge that he has been fired by a "dictator", the general has, in our view, no reasonable cause for complaint. The fact is that he has more than completed his 12-year term as Canadian chief on the international joint commission and the government chose not to renew his appointment.
They are incorrect in referring to a 12-year term because there is no such animal. The General was appointed each year. The article continues:
His statement that he is an international civil servant does not hold water. As a Canadian appointee, heading the Canadian section of the commission, he was responsible to the Canadian government. And the government was perfectly entitled to retire him if it wished.
I would suggest that further criticism along these lines would be unfair not only to the government but also to General McNaughton himself, because it is going to do something to injure his splendid reputation and I can only ask for that fact to be kept in mind. I repeat that before the treaty is ratified it will be possible for the standing committee on external affairs to consider this question, and whatever evidence is brought before it can be heard. Then we can perhaps all agree on a treaty which is in the best interests of Canada.
I must say in conclusion that I think a good deal of the criticism should be directed west, out to the Pacific, rather than here to Ottawa. We have certainly done the best we could for Canada. We have not done any changing of our minds or pulling out of rugs as has been done by some of the others involved in this complicated problem
Supply-Northern Affairs and I really do not think it is fair that very much of the blame should be directed to Ottawa.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the
minister a question. I have just received notice from the press that Mr. Bennett called a press conference this morning and asked the Canadian government to ratify the Columbia treaty immediately.


Howard Charles Green: I am not sure whether the hon. member is trying to get on the same side as Premier Bennett or not. He seems to be in an awful hurry to get the external affairs committee to meet. I do not know whether he wants to get the treaty ratified or not. But Premier Bennett is not running the Canadian government yet.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very glad to hear that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I might be permitted to say a few words in the light of what the minister has said on this matter. I am sorry I was not here to listen to my hon. friend from Essex East, but I understand he did not deal with the merits of the Columbia treaty itself. At this particular moment it is not the matter at issue, though it would lend itself to an interesting discussion if the opportunity should arise. I understand, also, that my hon. friend did not deal with the dismissal of General McNaughton as such but that he was asking for an investigation into the statements made by General McNaughton as a member of the Canadian section of the international joint commission-statements made by him regarding his dismissal and statements made regarding the nature of the treaty which we have mentioned. That is the issue as we have raised it at this time.
Surely, since the Coyne affair there has never been a matter which has cried more loudly for examination and investigation than this one does. The minister said that General McNaughton had not been dismissed, and he quoted some sources which were completely satisfactory to him on this matter. General McNaughton, he said, had not been dismissed; he had merely been allowed to retire at the end of the year's period of extension which had characterized for some years his position as chairman of the international joint commission. In other words, he was holding that office from year to year. That may be the attitude taken by the minister, but I should like to quote an authority which will be equally respectable in the eyes of the hon. gentleman-the Toronto Telegram, which everyone knows is very close to the government in this and other matters.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government's conscience.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Toronto Telegram, had this to say on Monday, April 9:
General McNaughton's blast against government policy on the Columbia river is typical of this embittered old man-
I must say that is a rather ungenerous comment concerning a man who has served Canada as General McNaughton has served, but we will let that pass. The editorial then goes on to say:
He has been fired from his job as chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission-
Then there was the statement made by General McNaughton himself. If, however, the situation is as the minister states it, then surely this is one reason-and it is only one reason and perhaps not the most important- why there should be a chance to reconcile the conflicting statements in regard to this question of his dismissal. That could be done very simply by asking General McNaughton to appear before the committee on external affairs of this house.
There are other statements made by General McNaughton which have also been contradicted by spokesmen of the government. Surely it is a matter of great interest and importance to have these contradictions resolved for the sake of everybody concerned, including the government.
On April 3 the Prime Minister announced the general's retirement. He announced it outside the house in a press statement in which he said that he wished to take the opportunity of expressing the government's appreciation of the distinguished service General McNaughton rendered to Canada over so long a period of time and in so many important fields, a tribute which I think most hon. members of this committee would echo.
It would be very interesting to know, and perhaps the minister will be able to tell us, the circumstances surrounding the issue of the statement of April 3. Was General McNaughton formally apprised of the fact that his position was not to be continued, that he was going to be dropped at the end of this year's extension, if I may use that expression?


Howard Charles Green: I can clear that up at once, Mr. Chairman. I spoke to General McNaughton myself some weeks before this announcement. We had a perfectly amicable discussion and arrangement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On April 6, three days after the statement was made, which, according to the minister was the result of a very amicable arrangement made between him and the general-apparently the general did not consider it exactly in this light-the general


made a statement in Washington which has been given a good deal of publicity. In that statement he said he had been removed and he was quite emphatic as to what had happened.
As I said, that is perhaps the least important aspect of this unhappy episode. The general, having said that his retirement was due to an arbitrary decision-and he went on to say of a dictator-on the same day also expressed very serious reservations about the treaty. Perhaps he felt free to express those reservations only after he had been informed-or the country had been informed -by a press release from Ottawa that he was about to vacate his post. That being the case, General McNaughton might have felt free to say things he could not have said while occupying his position. I need not repeat what he said on that occasion about the treaty because it has already been placed on the record. On April 7, the next day, the Minister of Justice took issue, as I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs also did, with the statement made by the general in respect of this treaty, and whether or not it was in the best interests of Canada.
The general in his turn has taken issue with some of the statements made by representatives of the government. He said on April 7 that he informed the government at the time that he would not associate himself with the treaty and he made it clear to the full federal technical committee that he would speak his mind when the opportunity arose. The opportunity arose after the general was told his term of office was over. Surely this is the kind of thing that should be investigated by the committee on external affairs of this house. If ever there was an important issue to submit to this committee, such a vital subject, this is it. I should have thought the government would have been the first to desire that this matter be looked into by a committee of this house in that way.
Another reason for having such a committee meet at once arises from the statement made yesterday, and an explanation of which was offered today to the effect, according to the Canadian Press, that the plan submitted by General McNaughton at the time was a better one than that which was actually signed in relation to the Columbia, but that it was impossible and impracticable to bring it about at that time.
Another reason for investigating this matter arises from the statement issued by the general this afternoon and from the press conference held by the premier of British Columbia this morning. All these matters

have thrown this whole question into confusion and indeed into disarray. Surely the committee on external affairs, while parliament is sitting, is the place where some of this confusion we would hope could be removed and where we could be given the opportunity of finding out what actually has happened, not only in connection with General McNaugh-ton's charges against the government and the negotiation of this treaty but also in connection with the treaty itself. In this way we might have an opportunity before this parliament ends of looking into the treaty. I do not quarrel with anything the minister said with respect to the treaty being submitted to the committee on external affairs before ratification. That, of course, is the convention and the custom under our constitution, that parliamentary approval should be given to every international engagement or treaty which imposes any commitments or obligations on this government, this country or this parliament. That is the normal course of events. That is what happens. These matters do not always go first to the committee on external affairs, although it has been the practice to submit conventions and treaties first to that committee, and then they are referred back to the full House of Commons.
Ever since this treaty was signed-and it was signed in circumstances which made it very doubtful indeed whether ratification would be easy and early because of the attitude taken by the province of British Columbia in connection with it-


Howard Charles Green: After it was signed that attitude was taken.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That attitude became pretty clear in the letter sent by the premier of British Columbia to the Minister of Finance on, I believe, January 13, 1961, only a day or so, I admit, before the signature.


Howard Charles Green: In that respect may I point out that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is unaware that ministers from British Columbia and their officials had been sitting in all the way through and had agreed to every word of the treaty.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am indeed aware of that, Mr. Chairman. I am aware of the fact that representatives of British Columbia took part in the negotiations. I assure the minister that I am not disposed any more than he is to give any particular credit to the government of British Columbia for the way it has handled this matter. Nevertheless before the treaty was actually signed, and notwithstanding the fact that representatives of the government of British Columbia sat in on the negotiations, the premier of British Columbia sent a letter
Supply-Northern Affairs to the Minister of Finance in which he expressed very grave doubts about the implementation of this treaty, especially on the financial side.
It was not too late even then, in view of the doubts on the part of British Columbia as expressed by the premier, to have waited until those last minute doubts were removed. Surely this made it desirable that this treaty should go to some committee of the House of Commons at the earliest possible date, especially in the light of the difference that had arisen between the province of British Columbia and the federal government.
If those differences could not be resolved there was no possibility, as I see it, of the federal government carrying through its signature to ratification. It would be idle to ratify or give parliamentary approval to an international treaty if that treaty could not be implemented through the co-operation of the province which was essential to its implementation. This was surely the time when we should have had an opportunity to examine this treaty before the committee during those months.
Over the past months I have put a good many questions to the government in regard to this matter. On March 24, 1961 as reported at page 3304 of Hansard I asked the Prime Minister whether we could expect that this treaty would be submitted to this parliament shortly for consideration. In replying the Prime Minister said:
I wish to make it clear that it will be submitted but the date when it will be submitted still remains to be considered.
Then I said a little later on that, while recognizing the difficulties of discussing a treaty in a committee before these difficulties had been resolved with the province, nevertheless we hope these difficulties can be resolved without delay, at least to the point where we can examine this treaty in parliament.
The Minister of Justice said that he agreed that the proper place to do that was before the committee on external affairs, when there would be the fullest discussion and fullest vindication of the terms of this treaty.
An entirely new situation has now arisen. If that situation had not arisen, perhaps we would not be justified in requesting consideration before this committee of this treaty in the dying days of a parliamentary session. However, this is an entirely new situation now, when the chairman of the international joint commission who has so much to do with the negotiations of this treaty makes with regard to it certain statements which are, to say the least, important and which have been contradicted by the government itself. We still have some days
2968	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs in this parliament. No one knows how many. However, we have enough in which to ask tor the committee to be convened at once and to ask General McNaughton to appear before this committee and to tell this House of Commons what he means when he says that Canada was sold down the river when this treaty was signed. The government owes that consideration, in justice to itself as well as to parliament. While statements remain unchallenged, except by statements made on the other side by ministers, this is the time to resolve the differences. The ministers say one thing. General McNaughton says something else. Premier Bennett says something else out in British Columbia. The Minister of Justice says one thing in Ottawa and something else out in Alberta. If there was ever a time when a situation was confused and was dangerous in its confusion, and if there ever was a time when that kind of situation should be cleared up, surely this is it. Surely the minister will realize the advisability of calling this committee together at once, not for the reasons about which we have been talking in the past, namely to go into all the articles of the treaty, although that would be desirable, but to get this single problem solved: Who is right with regard to statements made about this treaty?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is another Coyne affair.


Mr. Pugh:: Two sides to the coin; two flags.


Harold Edward Winch: As a member of this House of Commons from British Columbia speaking on this most important issue now before us, may I say that I am not interested in saying anything about the retirement, whether forced or otherwise, of General McNaughton. I am interested in only one thing. I refer to a situation which, because of misunderstandings, charges and countercharges and a tirade of abuse between governments, has resulted in no action over the years in the development of hydro power resources in my province, with particular reference to development in the Columbia river basin.
I wish to say that in the years during which I have had the honour of being a representative of British Columbia I have never before known of a situation which was so heartbreaking as that relating to the power potentiality and development in British Columbia. I think there has been a great deal of misunderstanding. I think there has been far too much politicking, with the result that the general public do not know who is telling the truth and who is lying. A further result has been that development, which should have started a long time ago, is still to come, perhaps some time in the distant 

future. If the story were fully known, I believe it would make one of the most fantastic stories in the history of Canada. We have as the premier of British Columbia one who regards himself as a king maker, himself to be king with a British Columbia empire.
From my knowledge of British Columbia I feel absolutely safe in saying, without fear of any honest contradiction, that several years ago the government of British Columbia made some kind of backhand agreement with a corporate power in the United States for a certain development on the Columbia. From what I know, and as far as I can know, of that backhand arrangement, I have no hesitation in saying that had it not been for the action taken by the present government there might have been the greatest sellout ever known in Canada on the Columbia and its power potential. Because action was taken by this government to prevent that sellout, we then had a northern vision, not of this government but of the premier of British Columbia, wherein once again there was an agreement-the full details of which I maintain are not known and perhaps never will be known- as to the development of the power on the Peace river. Hence between politics, and the egotism, ambitions and desires of the premier of British Columbia we have had develop that extraordinary situation of a great deal of talk, charges, countercharges, abuse, and passing of the buck, and no development, be it on the Columbia river or on the Peace river.
We have in British Columbia this terrific potential power both in the south and in the north. Its development can be determined only by the two responsible governments getting together for the purpose of co-operating in the interests of British Columbia and of Canada. The matter is never going to be resolved by the continuation of what we have now and what we have had in the past between the two governments. Moreover, I feel quite safe in saying that the development of these two potentials, namely the Columbia and the Peace, cannot come to fulfilment without complete provincial and federal cooperation, as the hydro potential of the two put together is so great that it can be utilized only by a national power grid system if both are to proceed at the same time.
However, Mr. Chairman, our main and perhaps only concern at this moment is the Columbia river basin and its development by arrangement between the federal government and the government of the United States, and between the federal government and that of the province of British Columbia. I believe that the spirit of co-operation and compromise has been missing over the years. I believe that

two reasonable and sensible governments, although they have failed to get together in the past, owe it to the people of British Columbia and of Canada generally to resolve their difficulties and to do so very quickly; but they can only resolve their difficulties by complete honesty and a full statement of the facts.
I agree entirely with the statement of our house leader, the hon. member for Kootenay West, and the statement of the Leader of the Opposition, that the way to arrive at the facts and an understanding of the true situation so as to be able to pinpoint what is the best thing to do and how to proceed in the future is to have all those concerned, the federal government, the provincial government, the United States authorities and General McNaughton, appear before a committee of this house with that committee having absolute authority to call for persons and papers.
I think the government must accept a great deal of responsibility for the situation which has arisen. With their knowledge of the situation, I believe they should have been in a position to have the committee meet a long time ago and thereby clear the air. I believe that the government, perhaps unwittingly, though it is hard to say, has allowed itself to be made the stooge of the premier of British Columbia and has been made to play his game whereby as a result of the trading of abuse and the lack of action, he has been able to say that he cannot proceed because of the federal government.
This is the senior government and as such it has complete control of licensing on international rivers and waters. Having that in mind, the federal government should have been in a position to put Premier Bennett on the spot and make him put up or shut up, prove or disprove. I regret that a firm attitude of this sort has not been adopted by the federal government up till now.
I also want to say that I believe the statements made by General McNaughton are such that they cannot be ignored by the government. The government owes it to the people of Canada in general and the people of British Columbia in particular to make provision as speedily as possible so that General McNaughton, with his ten years of study and knowledge in this field, may be able to present his facts in perspective, and to give the reasons why he has made his recent charges, which I think have been confirmed by the recent statement of the Minister of Justice in Hanna, Alberta, as quoted by the hon. member for Kootenay West. If the newspaper report is correct this is something which the senior government cannot ignore. The minister has said that a Columbia river treaty drawn according to General A. G. L.
Supply-Northern Affairs McNaughton's wishes would have been better for Canada, but that it was not possible to draft a treaty in the manner suggested by General McNaughton without treading on British Columbia's toes. I do not think he meant British Columbia's toes but rather the toes of Premier Bennett with his aspirations of kingship in British Columbia.
I say that under the British North America Act and having regard to the powers of the federal government one man should not be allowed to dictate something which is against the best interests of his own province and the people of Canada. In view of the statement made by the minister as reported by Canadian Press, I say it is the duty and responsibility of the government and an immediate necessity to have this matter clarified without delay. I wish to emphasize that I believe it would not be in the interests of Canada and I know it would not be in the interests of British Columbia for the matter of the Columbia river basin development to be made a political issue in the federal election. This matter transcends politics. It transcends speeches on the hustings. It concerns the development of the hydro potential of British Columbia and is a matter which should be discussed and decided away from the field of politics by reasonable men and women, whether they be in the provincial legislature or the House of Commons. Although the time may now be very short before the dissolution of the 24th parliament of Canada, it is my sincere hope that some method will be found immediately to have this matter clarified and settled while we are still here.
I must conclude now but I want to repeat what I said in beginning my remarks. This is not a matter of the federal government saving face, of Premier Bennett and the Social Credit government of British Columbia saving face or of General McNaughton saving face. Development of the Columbia river is a matter of great importance and something that is essential to British Columbia. In all fairness I must say that it is also of importance to the states south of the British Columbia border.
I hope that viewpoint will be recognized and appreciated and that some way will be found by immediate negotiation with the province of British Columbia to bring this matter to a reasonable conclusion, so that a start can be made very soon on the development and so that we may bring to an end the trading of abuse and charge and countercharge. We have a greater responsibility than to deal with this matter in the way it has been dealt with up to now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2970	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs
['As a member of this House of Commons from British Columbia speaking on this most important issue now before us, may I say that I am not interested in saying anything about the retirement, whether forced or otherwise, of General McNaughton. I am interested in only one thing. I refer to a situation which, because of misunderstandings, charges and countercharges and a tirade of abuse between governments, has resulted in no action over the years in the development of hydro power resources in my province, with particular reference to development in the Columbia river basin.\nI wish to say that in the years during which I have had the honour of being a representative of British Columbia I have never before known of a situation which was so heartbreaking as that relating to the power potentiality and development in British Columbia. I think there has been a great deal of misunderstanding. I think there has been far too much politicking, with the result that the general public do not know who is telling the truth and who is lying. A further result has been that development, which should have started a long time ago, is still to come, perhaps some time in the distant ', "future. If the story were fully known, I believe it would make one of the most fantastic stories in the history of Canada. We have as the premier of British Columbia one who regards himself as a king maker, himself to be king with a British Columbia empire.\nFrom my knowledge of British Columbia I feel absolutely safe in saying, without fear of any honest contradiction, that several years ago the government of British Columbia made some kind of backhand agreement with a corporate power in the United States for a certain development on the Columbia. From what I know, and as far as I can know, of that backhand arrangement, I have no hesitation in saying that had it not been for the action taken by the present government there might have been the greatest sellout ever known in Canada on the Columbia and its power potential. Because action was taken by this government to prevent that sellout, we then had a northern vision, not of this government but of the premier of British Columbia, wherein once again there was an agreement-the full details of which I maintain are not known and perhaps never will be known- as to the development of the power on the Peace river. Hence between politics, and the egotism, ambitions and desires of the premier of British Columbia we have had develop that extraordinary situation of a great deal of talk, charges, countercharges, abuse, and passing of the buck, and no development, be it on the Columbia river or on the Peace river.\nWe have in British Columbia this terrific potential power both in the south and in the north. Its development can be determined only by the two responsible governments getting together for the purpose of co-operating in the interests of British Columbia and of Canada. The matter is never going to be resolved by the continuation of what we have now and what we have had in the past between the two governments. Moreover, I feel quite safe in saying that the development of these two potentials, namely the Columbia and the Peace, cannot come to fulfilment without complete provincial and federal cooperation, as the hydro potential of the two put together is so great that it can be utilized only by a national power grid system if both are to proceed at the same time.\nHowever, Mr. Chairman, our main and perhaps only concern at this moment is the Columbia river basin and its development by arrangement between the federal government and the government of the United States, and between the federal government and that of the province of British Columbia. I believe that the spirit of co-operation and compromise has been missing over the years. I believe that\n\ntwo reasonable and sensible governments, although they have failed to get together in the past, owe it to the people of British Columbia and of Canada generally to resolve their difficulties and to do so very quickly; but they can only resolve their difficulties by complete honesty and a full statement of the facts.\nI agree entirely with the statement of our house leader, the hon. member for Kootenay West, and the statement of the Leader of the Opposition, that the way to arrive at the facts and an understanding of the true situation so as to be able to pinpoint what is the best thing to do and how to proceed in the future is to have all those concerned, the federal government, the provincial government, the United States authorities and General McNaughton, appear before a committee of this house with that committee having absolute authority to call for persons and papers.\nI think the government must accept a great deal of responsibility for the situation which has arisen. With their knowledge of the situation, I believe they should have been in a position to have the committee meet a long time ago and thereby clear the air. I believe that the government, perhaps unwittingly, though it is hard to say, has allowed itself to be made the stooge of the premier of British Columbia and has been made to play his game whereby as a result of the trading of abuse and the lack of action, he has been able to say that he cannot proceed because of the federal government.\nThis is the senior government and as such it has complete control of licensing on international rivers and waters. Having that in mind, the federal government should have been in a position to put Premier Bennett on the spot and make him put up or shut up, prove or disprove. I regret that a firm attitude of this sort has not been adopted by the federal government up till now.\nI also want to say that I believe the statements made by General McNaughton are such that they cannot be ignored by the government. The government owes it to the people of Canada in general and the people of British Columbia in particular to make provision as speedily as possible so that General McNaughton, with his ten years of study and knowledge in this field, may be able to present his facts in perspective, and to give the reasons why he has made his recent charges, which I think have been confirmed by the recent statement of the Minister of Justice in Hanna, Alberta, as quoted by the hon. member for Kootenay West. If the newspaper report is correct this is something which the senior government cannot ignore. The minister has said that a Columbia river treaty drawn according to General A. G. L.\nSupply-Northern Affairs McNaughton's wishes would have been better for Canada, but that it was not possible to draft a treaty in the manner suggested by General McNaughton without treading on British Columbia's toes. I do not think he meant British Columbia's toes but rather the toes of Premier Bennett with his aspirations of kingship in British Columbia.\nI say that under the British North America Act and having regard to the powers of the federal government one man should not be allowed to dictate something which is against the best interests of his own province and the people of Canada. In view of the statement made by the minister as reported by Canadian Press, I say it is the duty and responsibility of the government and an immediate necessity to have this matter clarified without delay. I wish to emphasize that I believe it would not be in the interests of Canada and I know it would not be in the interests of British Columbia for the matter of the Columbia river basin development to be made a political issue in the federal election. This matter transcends politics. It transcends speeches on the hustings. It concerns the development of the hydro potential of British Columbia and is a matter which should be discussed and decided away from the field of politics by reasonable men and women, whether they be in the provincial legislature or the House of Commons. Although the time may now be very short before the dissolution of the 24th parliament of Canada, it is my sincere hope that some method will be found immediately to have this matter clarified and settled while we are still here.\nI must conclude now but I want to repeat what I said in beginning my remarks. This is not a matter of the federal government saving face, of Premier Bennett and the Social Credit government of British Columbia saving face or of General McNaughton saving face. Development of the Columbia river is a matter of great importance and something that is essential to British Columbia. In all fairness I must say that it is also of importance to the states south of the British Columbia border.\nI hope that viewpoint will be recognized and appreciated and that some way will be found by immediate negotiation with the province of British Columbia to bring this matter to a reasonable conclusion, so that a start can be made very soon on the development and so that we may bring to an end the trading of abuse and charge and countercharge. We have a greater responsibility than to deal with this matter in the way it has been dealt with up to now."]
Paul Joseph James Martin: We have done our best. A second Coyne affair.



[Stage Direction]
695.	Official hospitality-further amount required, $6,500.
Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister give an explanation of this item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before the minister speaks, may I just raise a matter? We were engaged in the discussion of other matters, and while we have agreed to let this other item through, we inadvertently were unaware that item 692 had been called.


Howard Charles Green: This is the item for official hospitality-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe the minister has understood my observation. I was just pointing out, as a matter of courtesy to the committee that item 692 had been called when we were unaware that it had been called. We do not want to take up much of the time of the committee, but we have some questions on this item.


The Deputy Chairman:: Item 692 was called and passed. It was one of the earlier ones. Perhaps we could continue on item 695 and I am sure the minister will co-operate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All right.


Howard Charles Green: This is the item for official hospitality. We have had heavy expenditures for official hospitality during the last fiscal year. One reason for this has been the number of visitors from other countries. For example, during the fiscal year we had visits from President Kennedy; the President of Iceland and his party; the Prime Minister of Greece; the President of Israel; the President of Finland; Prime Minister Macmillan; the President of Tunisia and the President of Argentina. This outline, of course, does not cover all the expenditures included in this vote. However, it has been necessary to spend more for official hospitality than the treasury board thought we should when the original estimate was passed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
696.	Canadian representation at international conferences-further amount required, $115,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: This item 696 deals with Canadian representation at international conferences and so, perhaps, will give me an opportunity of asking a question which I might have asked earlier under 692 regarding the disarmament conference at Geneva. I am particularly interested in statements that have been made within the last day or two about the possibility of the resumption of nuclear tests and the possibility of postponing these tests as the result of some kind of


interim agreement. There is a report, and I am paraphrasing it, to the effect that the Canadian government-the minister referred to this this morning-made what were called representations to Washington; and that certain delegations to this conference from the so-called uncommitted countries have also made representations, to the effect that the United States should not resume tests even though there is no satisfactory or, indeed, any agreement about control or inspection. I wonder if the minister feels he could tell us something about the thinking of the government in connection with this matter? I ask this question, not in any controversial or critical sense, but because the matter is of such tremendous importance. If the minister could give any clarification of the position of the government, I think it would be helpful.


Howard Charles Green: A day or two ago, in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, I read from my first speech in Geneva to indicate the stand we had taken at that time about the tests. Of course that is still the Canadian position and is very clearly understood by all the nations concerned. Attempts are still being made in the conference in Geneva to work out some agreement between the nuclear powers which will result in a test ban treaty. It is impossible to say whether or not these efforts will be successful.
While there may not be agreement reached on a treaty which would provide for no more tests, I think there is also an intermediate position which is that tests should be postponed in the hope that something can be worked out. We are doing the best we can, but at the moment I cannot give the house any assurance as to what the final result will be.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I listened to a report from Washington at one o'clock which gave certain information with regard to Canadian representations which the minister was not able to give us this morning. I am not quarrelling with this because the minister says these discussions are going on, and when diplomatic discussions are going on it is not desirable, in certain circumstances at least, to give out all the details regarding these representations. However, this particular report was very detailed with regard to the nature of the Canadian representation and emphasized the fact that our government had criticized the United States government for taking a position which was too rigid in respect of the kind of control and inspection which was required, and that there would be a greater possibility for agreement if the necessity for control and inspection were reduced somewhat by the United States.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the big controversy between the nuclear powers is as to the type of verification there must be. The Soviet union claims that all the verification necessary can be obtained by the national systems of the western countries. The United States and the United Kingdom maintain there must be some international verification in each of the nuclear countries. Now, the dividing line is not entirely clear. I think there is some scope in there for bargaining. The parties on each side may have been taking a more rigid position than they would adopt as a final position.
Scientific matters are also involved in the question of what can be verified. I think it has been generally agreed that they have been verifying explosions in the atmosphere. The whole dispute is about explosions underground. One of the questions is whether or not there would have to be posts in the Soviet union and the United States, international posts, or whether it would be sufficient to send in inspection teams after there had been seismic disturbances which had not been definitely identified. Now, I believe there is some scope in that field for the two sides to get together. In any event, that is Canada's hope.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I take it the hon. gentleman believes that verification inside the Soviet union is not essential. The minister would even go one step further, and the Prime Minister too, according to a statement made in Montreal the other day, and hope that there would be no resumption of tests at all whether or not an agreement is arrived at between the Soviet union and the United States. This is clearly the position of the government of Canada at the present time. I assume that the representations which Canadian spokesmen have made to the government of the United States are along these lines.


Howard Charles Green: Any representations-


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but we have gone past the hour of five o'clock, so I must rise-


Lionel Chevrier: May I suggest that we pass the remaining items?


Gordon Campbell Chown: It would be necessary to have unanimous consent to do that. If it were satisfactory to all members of the committee, there are only a few items, and it may be desirable to have them passed if unanimous consent could be obtained. I must advise the committee that the proper procedure is to get leave after the committee rises.


Richard Albert Bell: Do it now; it will only take two minutes.


Lionel Chevrier: It will only take a minute.
Supply-External Affairs


Mr. McCleave:: The Chairman does not have to see the clock.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Does the committee wish to carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


An hon. Member:: Stop the clock.


Howard Charles Green: We can try to help work these things out. We do not ourselves take rigid stands like that. We are simply trying to help arrive at some provision which will be satisfactory to the nuclear powers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a word on this question. It is a vital matter. I know the minister is concerned about it. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, our discussion on this matter is in no way political. All we are seeking to do is make a contribution toward the solution of one of the vital problems which faces mankind at the present time.
As I understand the situation, the government of the United States has said through its president that it must resume tests; that this resumption is necessary because of the inability of the United States and the Soviet union to agree on a program for the cessation of nuclear tests under conditions which the United States believes would not prejudice its security.
The Soviet union detonated some very major nuclear weapons last fall. The suggestion is that as a result of such explosions the Soviet union acquired information with regard to problems having to do with anti-missile operations. All I am now saying is what one reads in publications. Indeed, the leader of the Labour party in the United Kingdom has gone so far as to express the view that the Soviet union may have acquired information as a result of these latter explosions which, while not adding to the deterrent strength of the Soviet union, nevertheless gives that country some information in that particular field which may not be open at this time to the United States. It is suggested that this is one of the reasons why the President of the United States has decided to resume tests. The leader of the Labour party in England, Mr. Gaitskell, in a public speech in his country indicated that he would favour the resumption of tests because of these conditions and circumstances which are alleged to have followed the explosions by the Soviet union.
This is the background. I am assuming that notwithstanding this situation, the view of the government of Canada is that the United States should not resume tests, whether or not it is able to reach an agreement at Geneva with regard to the resumption of such tests. I understand further that the

Private Bills
position of the Canadian government is as stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on a number of occasions, namely that the Canadian government believes that it is not in the interests of the present generation that these tests be resumed, whether or not there is a system of control agreed on.
On other occasions I thought the view stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs was unequivocal, but that the position taken by the government through the Prime Minister was equivocal. The statement made by the Prime Minister to a gathering last week in Montreal was to the effect that Canada favoured no resumption of tests, whether or not there was an agreement with the Soviet union. Notwithstanding what may have been achieved by the Soviet union as a result of the explosions of last fall, the view of the government of Canada is that there should not be any resumption of tests by the United States. This is a matter of vital importance. I take it that this is the policy of the government of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry to again interrupt the hon. minister. We are now well past five o'clock and I think I should report progress. So that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, it is my duty to rise, report certain resolutions and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Item stands.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, while you were chairman in committee of the whole I moved to table certain documents. I wonder if I could get permission to do so now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) leave to table certain documents?


Richard Albert Bell: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. SD-6, an act for the relief of Marion Ruth Catherine Slattery-Mr. McCleave.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, if the house is agreeable and there is unanimous consent I would ask that the divorce bills standing in my name be given second reading now so that they may be studied in committee on Monday morning.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the request of the hon. member?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, it is the wish of this party that the procedure of the house be according to the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see there is not unanimous consent.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


William Arnold Peters: the second reading of Bill No. C-42, to provide for minimum wages for employees.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively simple bill and is applicable to a very small number of employees; in fact, it applies only to employees under the jurisdiction of federal fields of endeavour. It covers persons involved in such undertakings as the operation of ships, transportation by ships in Canada, maritime fields, telegraph, railway transportation, aerodromes, broadcasting, banking and such other works within the provinces as come under the general statutes of the federal government.
Therefore the number of employees who would be affected by this bill is limited. This problem has affected all the provinces and the federal government because of the very nature of our constitution. The British North America Act has the capacity of a constitution which makes it mandatory for the Canadian government to have limited legislation and federal jurisdiction over these people. Each of the provinces has its own jurisdiction of a similar nature where that jurisdiction applies. We are asking in this bill only for a basic minimum of $1.25 an hour.
Many members have asked me in the last few weeks if I did not feel that $1.25 an hour was a ridiculously low figure, particularly when the prevailing rates applying to most contracts handled by the federal government where day to day workers are employed is set at a level higher than the minimum for which we are asking here. However, we feel there should be a minimum rate and that it should not be a detrimental hiring rate in areas where industry will be following the lead given by the federal minimum wages. We feel that in some cases employers who are not favourable to establishing reasonable rates

and who often use the minimum rate as their maximum rate also will be influenced by this.
According to a review undertaken by the legislative branch of the Department of Labour, all the provinces now have minimum wage laws in operation. Prince Edward Island was the last province to enact such legislation. In the province of Ontario we have to date a minimum wage law affecting women only and the amount varies according to the zones in which they work. There are minimum wages in some of the provinces which are set as low as 44 cents an hour for workers under the age of 18. Unfortunately, most of the provincial legislation regarding minimum wages has set rates which are ridiculously low, and even those rates have been criticized by some employers because it was maintained that they did harm to their hiring rates.
We are introducing this measure in the hope that this legislation will give leadership to the provinces and encourage them to enact laws providing for a minimum rate as high as this minimum is. In Ontario the minimum rate for women is disgracefully low and that is true with regard to most of the other provinces. It is true that $1.25 is a very low figure in most areas in which the federal government is hiring people at a minimum rate of $1.65. In Port Arthur and the surrounding area I understand the rate is $1.85. However, our figure is considerably higher than the provincial prevailing rate in Ontario and in many other provinces.
We hope the minimum rate set out here will be taken as such. We hope it will protect workers in areas where abuses might otherwise take place, but that it will not necessarily be considered an acceptable rate for any particular area. It will be something to work from.
Some of the Conservative members on the eve of an election would probably like to refer to the fact that in 1935 Mr. R. B. Bennett, a former prime minister of this country, introduced legislation which would have provided certain minimum labour conditions in accordance with a labour code in keeping with the recommendations of the Geneva labour convention at that time. However, the legislation was ruled ultra vires under the terms of the British North America Act. Since that time very little federal labour legislation has been enacted of a kind which would give leadership to the provinces in this field. Considerable discussion could take place as to the reasons why it has been necessary to establish minimum wages and regulate working conditions in the provincial as well as the federal field. It might also be interesting to consider why the federal government has not developed a federal labour code of which a minimum wage would be part, so as to give 26207-1-189
Industrial Relations
leadership to the various provincial departments of labour across the country. This was the wish of Mr. R. B. Bennett in 1935. It is still, in my opinion, the wish of most labour organizations, of most employers organizations and also, I think, of this country in general, that we should find a way of putting into effect the recommendations which have been made over the years by the Geneva conventions as a means of protecting the rights of those in the labour field who are not in a position to bargain for themselves.
Of course, there are no unions across the country which would be asking for a minimum in the fields in which the federal government has jurisdiction; but an act such as we propose would give the leadership for which this country has been looking for many years. The present Minister of Labour is concerned with this matter and he has shown an understanding of the need for a national labour code, as well as of the need for improvement in many of the aspects of labour legislation. In addition, the government over the years has endorsed the decisions of the Geneva conventions affecting labour; so perhaps there has been an indication from Canada that there is a desire to see at least a basic federal labour code established which would include among other things a minimum wage for all employees.
Before I sit down I should like to point out that while we are debating a proposal for a minimum wage we would certainly wish to protect those rights which are enjoyed by employees, and that we would not wish the provision of a minimum wage to take away from any employee under federal jurisdiction any of the rights he now possesses.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: The
hon. member who introduced this measure stated that it is a simple bill. It is not too simple. It contains 19 clauses and some 50 subclauses. However, the principle of the bill is simple. It is to set a realistic minimum wage and I think that is a principle of which most members of this house will approve.
I thank the hon. member for having given credit to a former Conservative prime minister, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, for having introduced in his new deal legislation in 1935 the principle of a minimum wage. This was referred to when this bill was first introduced in this house, I believe on November 28, 1957, by Mr. Stanley Knowles. As far as I can make out, the only difference between this bill and the bill introduced by Mr. Knowles is that Mr. Knowles' bill set one dollar an hour as the minimum wage whereas this bill sets a rate of $1.25.
In the debate on the bill in 1957 as reported at page 1619 of Hansard, Mr. Knowles went on to point out that the Bennett proposal had

Industrial Relations
been ruled ultra vires in that it had been established by the courts by that time that labour-management matters came in part under federal jurisdiction and in part under provincial jurisdiction and therefore it was not competent for the federal parliament to pass a minimum wage act applicable to all wage earners in Canada. As reported at page 1619 of Hansard of November 28, 1957, Mr. Knowles went on to say:
I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bennett, the eminent lawyer that he was, knew of this difficulty and he tried to meet it by a rather lengthy and interesting preamble which can be found in chapter 44 of the statutes of 1935. The gist of that preamble was that Canada, having agreed to an international convention regarding the establishment of certain labour standards, including minimum wages, was obligated by that treaty arrangement to put such legislation on the statute books of the country.
Nevertheless that was not supported by the courts. This bill, dealing only with labour coming under federal jurisdiction, certainly is one with which parliament can deal. In previous debates the objection was raised that bills of this nature are money bills representing increased costs to the federal government. That argument cannot be sustained. I refer again to Mr. Knowles' statement on this question as reported at page 1623 of the date to which I have referred:
A bill, which does not involve a direct expenditure but merely confers upon the government a power for the exercise of which public money will have to be voted by parliament, is not a money bill and no resolution is necessary as a condition precedent to its introduction.
Those are not the words of Mr. Knowles. He was citing the headnote of a decision which appears at page 457 of Beauchesne's third edition.
In other words, if parliament passes this bill the costs, if there are any increased costs as a result of its passage, would still have to be approved by parliament when the estimates are considered.
As the sponsor of this bill said in his opening remarks the rate established by the bill of $1.25 an hour is much less than the rate set through collective bargaining negotiations with the various labour bodies who speak for practically all federal government workers in regard to wages. If this bill passes I am concerned that in some areas the minimum might become the maximum, which certainly would not be a very good thing.
There is a minimum wage law in the United States. I believe a proposal is currently being discussed to establish there a minimum wage of $1.25, which seems to be a reasonable figure although it is considerably above what Mr. Knowles in 1957 thought was reasonable.
I was interested in checking the rates specified in similar acts in the various provinces.

I cannot resist pointing out that in Saskatchewan, where one would think the thinking would be akin to that of the hon. member, the minimum wage is $30 a week for cities and the 15 larger towns within a five mile radius and $29 a week for the rest of the province. This applies to workers over 18 years of age. For those under age 18 the minimum is $2 less; that is, $28 in the larger towns and $27 in the rest of the province. This works out to something in the neighbourhood of 75 cents an hour, or if you wish to take the lower figure of $28 for someone under age 18 who is not employed in the 15 larger towns and cities it is 70 cents an hour. I am wondering why it is that that minimum wage level has been adopted by a province that has a government which is supposed to be a leader in social legislation.
As I said, the minimum wage was first introduced in parliament by a Conservative government, just as a Conservative government introduced hospital insurance, unemployment insurance and other legislation of benefit to the people of Canada. Therefore, there is nothing in the philosophy of this bill that a member on the government side would not consider worthy of consideration.
When we reach a clause by clause consideration of the bill various questions may arise. In some clauses of the bill the hon. member has gone a little far afield. I do not wish to discuss in detail the clauses of the bill but the hon. gentleman set specific limits on board and lodging. I am wondering whether those limits are the same in cases where the employer pays more than the minimum wage. I wonder whether the hon. member intends to set a rate of 50 cents for a meal and 75 cents for lodging in cases where the employer is paying as high as $2.50 an hour for labour. The provisions of the bill are vague in some respects and unrealistic in the light of present day costs, and these matters would have to be discussed when we reach detailed consideration of the bill.
The bill covers all federal employees. As I have said, most of these are fully covered by union agreements arranged through collective bargaining between the employer and the employee. I think of employees such as those engaged on railways, air lines and in communications. In paragraph (g) of clause 3 of the bill reference is made to employment in banks and banking. I am wondering whether employees in this field should be included in a measure of this kind. Questions of this sort would have to be examined by any committee considering the bill.
The hon. member proposes that records must be kept. I do not know the background

Industrial Relations
of this recommendation but the records proposed appear rather elaborate and would, I fear, become onerous. Perhaps modification is required here.
The hon. member has said this is a simple bill to provide a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour. I agree it is simple in its basic philosophy but not in any other respect. Before this bill was passed by parliament it would have to be thoroughly examined in committee. I am wondering, on the basis of indications in the last week, whether there would be sufficient time for the bill to receive the intensive checking in committee that would be necessary. I am in general agreement with the concept behind the bill but feel it requires thorough examination. I suppose the banking and commerce committee would be the appropriate place to which to refer the bill so that representatives of industry and labour could appear before the committee and state their views.


William Arnold Peters: Before the hon. member resumes his seat perhaps I may be permitted to ask him a question. The only figures available for comparison on a national basis are those relating to female workers. Is the hon. member aware that in 1960 there was a minimum wage of $32 a week in Saskatchewan for women, the highest minimum wage for women in Canada?


Ernest James Broome: I did not know that. The table from which I was quoting was the one which was filed by the hon. member. As far as I can make out, it made no distinction with regard to male and female labour, but simply with regard to the location of that labour, whether they were working in cities or in small towns and villages. Even if the hon. member is right, at $32 a week this is 80 cents an hour and he is still 66| per cent under what he is proposing here on a federal basis.


William Arnold Peters: It is very low.


Ernest James Broome: There was one point I wished to make, however, and I thought the hon. member might have made it himself as an argument for the bill, namely that the federal government could very well be a good example for the provinces. This is a point which the hon. member could have made and I think it is an argument for his bill.


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Timiskaming is to be congratulated at least on his tenacity, for this bill has the look of an old friend. We have heard a good deal about it in the last few years. I should like to say that I am quite sure that, regardless of where he sits, every member of this house will subscribe to the principle that the worker is 26207-1-189J
worthy of his hire. Underlying the presentation of this bill I presume there is that wish to see that the worker receives due reward for the energy he expends. Yet at the same time I find it very hard to reconcile certain statements made by the hon. member who introduced this bill, and certain phases of the bill, with the progress that my hon. friend hopes may be made when the bill is passed.
I am particularly concerned at the moment with clause 2(b) which states that "employee" means a person of any age. It is conceivable that in certain departments or in certain avenues of work juniors would be preferable. I can think of a great many young persons in my own community to whom I certainly would not wish to pay $1.25 an hour. Mention was made of the fact that in one area the minimum wage is 48 cents an hour. I am not saying that is a proper wage. However, I believe that we are imposing a handicap when we say to any employer, "You will pay $1.25 an hour for labour regardless of sex and regardless of age". A young man, possibly of the age of 16 years, having left school and receiving $1.25 an hour for a seven hour day, would receive $8.75 a day. If he worked five days a week he would receive $43.75. That amount may not appear to be excessive. Perhaps it is not excessive. However, I say that it represents a figure which may be out of balance with the wages received by the older person. A young man 25 years of age I think would automatically consider that, if his younger brother of fifteen years or sixteen years can receive $43.75 a week, he is being underpaid at $60 or $65. I find it extremely difficult to embrace this bill in the broad terms in which it has been outlined.
A moment ago I said that the worker is worthy of his hire. We all subscribe to this principle. However, how does one determine worthiness? That point seems to be the key to the matter. If this provision was to apply to a specially trained group, a group with certain known qualifications, or if it was to apply to certain specialized work, there might be more justification for that particular clause than there is now. However, you cannot get qualification and you certainly cannot get experience in a young head and a young body. I believe there should be some amendment to this bill-and I am not going to propose it- which would take out of the bill itself this question of sex and age and which would put the bill on a firm basis with respect to the type of labour for which it is intended.
I agree with many of the things said by my colleague the hon. member who last spoke. We are in sympathy with this type of legislation. We wish to see the people of this country obtain a decent living. Regardless of where

Industrial Relations
we sit in the house, I am quite sure that all of us would applaud any forward looking step which would place the extremely low salaried worker-particularly the more adult worker -on a basis of comfort and equality consistent, of course, with services rendered. However, times change. I can remember, Mr. Chairman, when my father came to this country in the early part of this century, when I was a very small boy. He worked for a dollar a day and he was glad to be able to work. I myself can remember working for 50 cents a day and working long hours. It is true that the dollar or the 50 cents meant a great deal more then than it does today. I will grant that fact. However, those were the days of competition for work. We were obliged to get out and find our own jobs. Many of us worked on farms in western Canada for $25 or $30 and our board a month, and we were the better for it as we learned that it was necessary for us to produce something in the way of constructive labour in order to enjoy the advantages of a wage at all.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, with all kindness and with all respect for the mover of this bill I say that the hon. member might be well advised to take a second look at it and to bring into it some clarification as to the persons to whom it basically should apply.
I am sure there are many other members of the house who would like to speak on this bill. It is an important one. We are all interested in workers. Most of us are workers ourselves. I do not intend to monopolize the time of the house. In closing let me say this. Regardless of party, experience, or outlook and particularly regardless of economic position, I am sure there is not a man or lady in this house who will not endorse the basic principle of this bill.


Mr. Murray Smith (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to make any comments on this bill, even though it has been before this house in previous sessions. However, I have read the contributions of hon. members from all sides of the house in previous debates. The thing that struck me from the beginning was that while everyone is in agreement with the basic principle outlined in this bill, there may not be agreement as to the amount and there may not be agreement as to various clauses and subsections of the bill. The situation therefore is one in which everyone wishes to achieve the same end but differs as to the method of going about it.
Another thing that struck me was the need for the introduction of a bill like this. We all know from past history, of course, of instances in which labour was exploited by employers. We have come a long way since then. However, the fact that we have

a bill like this before us would indicate that there is still the isolated instance in this country where labour is being exploited. Coming as I do from the city of Winnipeg may I say this. We had there an experience about which I am sure all members of the house have heard and read. I am, of course, referring to the 1919 Winnipeg general strike. Following that strike the trade union movement grew up and bargained with employers for wages. I think the way our unions have conducted themselves in the past and are conducting themselves at the present time is a credit to Canadian labour. Personally I feel it is a pity that in some instances we do not have 100 per cent Canadian unions and that some of them are still controlled by our neighbour to the south. I also think it is a pity that in some cases there is apathy among some of the union members themselves so that power is concentrated in one or two at the top without in some instances the sanction of the rank and file. But by and large the history of unions in Canada and what they have accomplished for the workers of this country is very commendable indeed.
Previous speakers have pointed out that in this sprawling land of ours-and some consider it is a miracle that it has remained together as long as it has-our lines of geographical barriers run north and south and our economic lines run north and south. Across this country there are various standards of living and various bases of economic stability. Therefore what may be regarded as a minimum wage in accordance with the standard of living in one part of the country may be far too high in the light of the standard of living in another part of the country.
When one looks at the type of workers who would be covered by this kind of legislation he cannot help asking the question, is there a real need for a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour? I would be interested in the production of figures before a committee to which this bill might be referred, to determine the number of employees in these various categories who are in fact being paid less than $1.25 an hour; and if there should be a substantial number I would be interested in the category of work, the age and education of the employees in the various groups. In that regard I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Medicine Hat, who pointed out that there are types of work which would not require a wage of $1.25 an hour or whatever the figure might be.
I am also interested in the points that have been brought out with regard to the minimum wage legislation in the various provinces of this country. I would think that the result we

are seeking could probably be better achieved by working through the provinces, either through a provincial conference with respect to conformity of legislation or through the various labour groups approaching the province in which they are active and in which they are aware of the economic conditions and circumstances, the standard of living and all of the other factors that go into determining a principle such as this. I think it could probably be done better on a local provincial basis rather than through the House of Commons. That has been pointed out by previous speakers when they mentioned that legislation passed in 1935 was disallowed by the Supreme Court of Canada, and therefore we are confined to workers falling under federal jurisdiction.
The arguments I have tried to present and the arguments that others have presented indicate to me that while we want to achieve a certain result, a great deal of discussion must be done in committee on the various clauses of the bill. There is a great deal of information required and a great deal of time must be spent on the matter in order to achieve that result with which all members of the house will be in agreement. I commend the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) for introducing the bill and I hope that other members will express their views on it. I would be particularly interested in hearing from a member of the Liberal party, of whom there are few in the house this afternoon. I think they have something to offer as private members, as well as a party, and I would hope that before the hour ends we would hear from one of the two who are in the chamber this afternoon.


Mr. Habel:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I tell the hon. member that if Liberal members are not more numerous in the house it is because they are working on something else. Not knowing what next week may bring upon us, we have some work to do and we are working at it.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: What have they got to do?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: We are getting ready. In fact we are ready.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I should like to call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that on one occasion this afternoon no member of his party was present and those who are here now are very busy reading newspapers in the back row.


Mr. Batten:: What are you doing over there?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think enough has been said on that subject.
Industrial Relations


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, after this short interruption I should like to go ahead and say a few words about Bill No. C-42 introduced by the hon. member for Timiskaming, which we are now discussing. In general terms I approve of the principle of a minimum wage law for federal employees. Historically I think one of the disgraces of our social system has been the unfair wages paid to those who offer their services. We can think back a good many years and realize that originally the worst exploitation was of child labour and of women who were employed in work that normally should have been done by men. But they were not the only victims of exploitation. For many years men have also been exploited in the services they have to offer to employers.
We know that out of this situation have arisen the labour unions in Canada, North America and throughout the world. I think no one will deny that the labour unions have done a great deal toward raising the standard of wages throughout the world and in that way they have served a very good and useful purpose. Prior to the time labour unions became strong enough to exert influence against employers who were oppressing workmen, it was difficult for anyone to buck the employers and the big corporations.
I think it is also fair to say that there are some people who now believe that perhaps the labour unions have at last reached the same level of power as management, or have perhaps gone beyond that and have overplayed their hand. This appeared to be the situation a few years ago, but I think it is now coming back to normal and there seems now to be a fair distribution in our social system between the powers of large corporations and those of the labour unions. We have just seen an instance this week in the neighbouring country to the south of the power that management is still able to wield. We do realize that it is necessary not only for the workers of the country but also for the government to maintain their strength at this particular moment.
In so far as this bill is concerned, I may say that for many years there have been technical problems in connection with the setting of minimum wages for federal employees. We can think back to the days of the late R. B. Bennett when there was an effort made to pass a minimum wage law for Canada. As hon. members know, this law was declared ultra vires of the federal parliament. I think the reason for this was made obvious in that the act was an effort to legislate in connection with wage standards across Canada. It became clear that this was beyond
2S78

Industrial Relations
the power of the parliament of Canada because it invaded a provincial sphere and for that reason the legislation was declared ultra vires.
However, I think this bill makes an effort to overcome that problem. I am not sure whether or not it accomplishes this purpose, but it certainly makes an effort to get around the difficulty because the effect of it purports to apply only to those who are federal employees or employees of corporations under the control of the federal government. It is very interesting to recall that when the minimum wage legislation was before the Supreme Court of Canada some 25 years ago, the supreme court divided evenly, three judges to three judges. One wonders why the court would have been so composed as to allow such a possibility, but apparently only six judges sat on the case and three felt it was ultra vires while three felt it was not. As a result, the legislation then went to the privy council which held that it was ultra vires and the legislation thereupon became ineffective.
The decision reached at that time is very interesting in view of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada is now the final appeal body in Canada, and one could speculate as to what the decision of that court might be today in a similar case. A portion of the judgment which held that the legislation was intra vires reads as follows:
From two main considerations, the conclusion follows that legislative authority in respect of international agreements is, as regards Canada, vested exclusively in the parliament of Canada. First, by virtue of section 132 of the British North America Act, jurisdiction, legislative and executive, for the purpose of giving effect to any treaty obligation imposed upon Canada, or any one of the provinces of Canada, by force of a treaty between the British Empire and a foreign country, is committed to the parliament and government of Canada. This jurisdiction of the dominion the privy council held, in the aeronautics case and in the radio case is exclusive; and consequently, under the British North America Act, the provinces have no power and never had power to legislate for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement: That, as a subject of legislation, is excluded from the jurisdiction envisaged by section 92.
There was a great deal more of the judgment that might be read. However, I believe it is fair to say that, as a result of the judgment, the legislation was abandoned.
In so far as Bill No. C-42 is concerned, I have looked at it carefully in an effort to see whether or not it does get around the difficulties that were inherent in the legislation declared ultra vires previously. There are one or two clauses that might be considered ultra vires. However, since it is not the custom on second reading to go into bills section by section, I would prefer not
[Mr. Aiken.l
to do so now. I merely say that the bill sets forth a useful purpose and is worthy of consideration. I would hope that the difficulties of the past in connection with wages would be met and that the government would eventually give consideration to this type of legislation.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it would appear from the clock that I do not have too much time to discuss this bill. At this time, I should like to congratulate the hon. member who sponsored it. I am glad to see that he has returned to his seat and that the New Democratic party finally has some representation in the house. For a while, I was wondering how he expected to get support for his bill.


William Arnold Peters: I was out trying to round it up.


Malcolm MacInnis: There were no members of his party present. At this time I should like also to express disappointment in the fact that the champion of labour from Essex East (Mr. Martin) has not been present to add his two cents worth. In fact, his whole party was absent at one point and the house took on the appearance of a Conservative caucus.


Lionel Chevrier: Where have you been for the last few weeks?


Malcolm MacInnis: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask-I am looking to the east and I am looking to the west-oh, I see the acting house leader now-for the three days which I presume we will be sitting next week, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, what the business will be?


Mr. Nowlan:: I am only the acting house leader, so I would not want to exceed my terms of authority, which run only until Monday when the house leader will be back. During Monday, we will continue to deal with the supplementary estimates and the bill, of course, ensuing therefrom. Then, we would take up item No. 12 on today's order paper, which is a resolution on redistribution standing in the name of the Prime Minister. These two are firm, Mr. Speaker. We will deal with supplementary estimates first and then we will take up item No. 12. I do not want, at the moment, to commit myself definitely to the order for the rest of the day, but I would expect that we would then deal with No. 2, a bill dealing with an amendment to the British North America Act; then item No. 14, which is a resolution dealing with a charge on the consolidated revenue fund for the payment of a lifetime annuity to those who may be retiring under the bill which I have just

mentioned. It may be that, at the same time, we may deal with item No. 1 on the order paper today, an amendment to the Customs Act.
As I said, I do not want to commit myself about the order of the latter three, although the first two are firm, namely the supplementary estimates and then the bill with respect to redistribution.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Public Printing and Stationery-
740.	Printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public-further amount required, $200,000.
741.	Reimbursement of the Queen's printer advance account for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $34,821.

[Stage Direction]
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
742.	To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for losses sustained by it during the fiscal year 1960-61 as a result of the operation of federal-provincial projects undertaken under section 3S of the National Housing Act, 1954-to extend the purposes of vote 577, supplementary estimates, 1961-62, to include such losses sustained on or before December 31, 1961, $1,035,918.
743.	Reimbursement to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for amounts loaned under section 36H of the National Housing Act, 1954, to municipalities and municipal sewerage corporations, and forgiven by the corporation during the calendar year 1961, pursuant to section 36G of the act. $35,536.
Loans, Investments and Advances-
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
764.	Advances pursuant to sub-section (4) of section 36 of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of housing and land development projects undertaken jointly with the governments of the provinces during the fiscal year 1960-61-to extend the purposes of vote 601, supplementary estimates, 1961-62, to provide for such advances in respect of housing and land development projects undertaken on or before December 31, 1961, $8,500,000.
765.	Advances charged to the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by subsection (2) of section 36H of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of loans to municipalities and municipal sewerage corporations, for construction or expansion of municipal sewage treatment projects during the calendar year 1961, $3,000,000.
National capital commission-
744.	Operation and maintenance of parks, parkways and grounds adjoining government buildings at Ottawa and Hull, and general administration- further amount required, $25,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
General administration-
745.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $150,000.
Supply-Items Passed
Trade commissioner service-
746.	Administration and operation-further amount required, $167,500.
747.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, land, equipment and furnishings-further amount required, $70,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-Marine services-
Marine regulations including pilotage and marine reporting services-
748.	Administration, operation and maintenance -to extend the purposes of vote 412, main estimates, 1961-62, to include the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen, $1.
Railway and steamship services-
749.	Bell Island-Portugal Cove, Newfoundland ferry service-repairs and improvements to terminal facilities owned by Newfoundland-further amount required, $39,600.
Payments to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the company to the Minister of Finance, to be applied by the company in payment of the deficits, certified by the auditors of the company, arising in the operations in the calendar year 1961-further amounts required-
750.	Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals, $139,552.
751.	Newfoundland ferry and terminals, $685,792.
752.	Canadian National Railways deficit, 1961-amount required to provide for payment to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the national company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the national company in payment of the system deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) arising in the calendar year 1961, subject to recovery therefrom of accountable advances made to the national company from the consolidated revenue fund, $67,307,772.
Pensions and other benefits-
753.	Supplemental pension allowances to former employees of Newfoundland railways, steamships and telecommunication services transferred to Canadian National Railways-further amount required, $6,546.
General-
754.	Trans-Canada Air Lines deficits, 1961-amount required to provide for payment to Trans-Canada Air Lines (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the company) arising in the calendar year 1961, subject to recovery therefrom of accountable advances made to the company from the consolidated revenue fund, $6,450,082.
755.	Reimbursement of the Department of Transport stores account for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $64,628.
B-General-
Canadian maritime commission-
756.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $915,137.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
Loans, Investments and Advances-
St, Lawrence seaway authority-
766.	Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve -further amount required, $4,125,000.

[Stage Direction]
757.	Prosthetic services-supply, manufacture and administration-further amount required, $48,000.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
758.	War veterans allowances-to extend the purposes of vote 462, main estimates, 1961-62, to provide for the payment of the allowances prescribed in part XI of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act; to provide for the payment of the said allowances in the 1962-63 fiscal year out of any moneys appropriated in respect of that fiscal year for war veterans allowances, and to provide a further amount of, $250,000.
Canadian pension commission-
759.	To authorize payment of a pension for life with effect from the 1st day of March, 1961 to Mrs. Mary Cantwell, widow of private William John Cantwell, 10th Battalion, Northwest field forces, in an amount equal to the amount that she would otherwise receive under the Pension Act, as amended from time to time, had the service of private Cantwell in the Northwest field forces been full-time paid service in the armed forces
of Canada subsequent to world war I; and to ratify all payments made to Mrs. Cantwell as pension prior to the 1st day of March, 1961, $1. Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
760.	Grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act and grants to veterans settled on dominion lands, in accordance with an agreement with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act-further amount required, $35,000.

[Stage Direction]
Water resources branch-
729. Administration, operation and maintenance_
further amount required, $50,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-*
692.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $225,000.
693.	Representation abroad-operational-further amount required, $85,000.
694.	Canada's civilian participation as a member of the international commissions for supervision and control in Indo-China-further amount required, $89,000.
695.	Official hospitality-further amount required, $6,500.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 16, 1962