1962-04-09

Mr. Speaker:: On April 5 the hon. member for Beauce raised a question involving the Minister of Public Works, who was not then present, and at my request the matter was deferred until the minister would be present. The hon. member for Beauce raised as a question of privilege the correctness of an answer given by the Minister of Public Works some days earlier in respect of the vendor of a property in Beauceville as a site for a post office, I think. Perhaps the best course would be to have the minister make a statement, if he has had an opportunity of examining Hansard; then I may dispose of the matter after hearing him.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: A question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Beauce on April 5 during my absence from the house, concerning the site for a new post office building in the town of Beauceville East, in the province of Quebec. This is my first opportunity of replying, and I should add that I have no objection whatever to this matter or any other matter connected with my department being referred to the public accounts committee.
As early as the fiscal year 1957-58 it was noted that a need was developing for more postal accommodation in Beauceville East. Subsequently, after consultation with the post office officials, a new public project was scheduled tentatively for 1962, and meanwhile a continuing lease was arranged. In 1959 Mr. Paul Giguere, at that time mayor of Beauceville East, requested the government to construct a new federal building to benefit his community. A similar request was received during the same year and the one following from the hon. member for Beauce himself and also from the council of the municipality.
In November, 1960, as a result of its investigations, my department decided to list the project for consideration in the main estimates of 1962-63, and began actively to examine the requirements of the project including the availability and cost of a site.
The initial visit of departmental officials to Beauceville in December, 1960 disclosed only two sites priced at $20,000 and $30,000 respectively, and both poorly situated due to the flooding which occurs on the Chaudiere river at that place. Shortly thereafter Mr. Giguere, now ex-mayor, suggested a third possible site described as the Lorenzo Mathieu property and available for sale at $16,000. Subsequently Mr. Giguere informed the department that he had taken an option on the property in his name for $16,000 in order to prevent its sale to others and to assure that the government would get this site for a post office. His previous interest as mayor of Beauceville East in acquiring a new post office lent credence to his statement.
After due consideration it was found that this property was the best of the three examined, being the only one free from flooding; and, as it was centrally located adjacent to the bank and the city hall, and the most economically priced, it was clearly the most advantageous purchase available. I should add that it had approval, as to location, of the new mayor of Beauceville East, Mr. Jacques R. Renault.
Accordingly the matter was submitted to the treasury board and the purchase price of $16,000 for the Mathieu property was approved.
Obviously the hon. member was correct in his statement regarding the name of the vendor given in my answer of March 19, 1962. Some of the records in my department identified the site as the Lorenzo Mathieu property, as a result of which this name was inadvertently used by the department in the preparation of the answer to the hon. member's question and read by me to the house. I therefore request that Hansard be corrected at page 1921 for March 19, 1962, by the substitution of the name Paul Giguere for that of Lorenzo Mathieu.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that I accept the correction made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker).
However, reference to the motion I proposed last Thursday, would show that it read as follows:
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge), that the matter concerning the purchase of a parcel of land for the construction of a public building in Beauceville,

Question of Privilege
as well as the reply given by the Minister of Public Works or his parliamentary secretary in this respect and related documents, be submitted to the standing committee on public accounts.
I was therefore asking the house to submit the transaction to the committee on public accounts. Another reason which prompted me to do so is that the treasury board agreed to make that payment of $16,000, as proved by the contract entered into on September 26, 1961, under its minute number 581250, dated May 18, 1961, whereas Mr. Giguere became the owner of the land on May 24 only, that is after the treasury board had accepted to pay the amount of $16,000.
Consequently, that transaction enabled Mr. Giguere to make a profit of $8,000.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Beauce has raised a question relating to an answer given by the Minister of Public Works upon which the minister has had an opportunity to comment. He raises this matter as a question of privilege and submits a motion that the acquisition of the property be referred to the committee on public accounts. If there is a question of the privileges of the house involved, then the hon. member is within his rights in making a motion and insisting that the question of privilege, as must be done with any question of privilege, be disposed of at once.
If a matter of the privileges of the house is not involved then the hon. member's remedy is to give notice of his motion on the order paper, as any unofficial member of the house would do, or to take the matter to the public accounts committee and ask that committee to consider the question which he wishes them to consider.
On the last occasion the question was raised I indicated to the hon. member that I did not think a matter of privilege would arise unless he were prepared to assert, on his own responsibility, that the house had been deliberately misinformed by the minister, thereby inputing some impropriety or improper conduct to the minister which would raise a question of the privileges of the house. As he has not asserted this, I do not find that there is a question of privilege involved. The matter has been discussed, hon. members of the house can form their own conclusions and, as I stated, the hon. member has another remedy to bring his question before the public accounts committee.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Would Your Honour listen to what I have to say in connection with the matter? Your Honour has disposed of it apparently on the basis that there is just one item involved in this question, namely the error in the return to the house made by the minister; but I think Your

Honour forgets the point which was raised by my hon. friend from Beauce when the matter was first raised, namely that there was a question of an option for $16,000 having been taken on a property which just prior thereto had been purchased for $8,000.
Surely that is a matter which affects the privileges of all hon. members of the house, and surely it is a matter which the public accounts committee might properly be charged with. Otherwise an hon. member would have no recourse under the circumstances if the motion were to go the bottom of the list. I simply bring to Your Honour's attention, if I may, that treasury board had approved on the 18th day of May-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member need not go into the facts. I take the view that in the absence of some charge against the minister which would necessarily involve the privileges of the house, the other facts, while they may disclose something which deserves inquiry and attention, are not of the order of those situations which involve the conduct of a minister vis-a-vis the house. Therefore they must be inquired into in the usual way, either on the estimates of the minister's department, by bringing the matter before the public accounts committee, or by the other remedies and opportunities that are available to private members to bring to the attention of the house or its committees matters which they feel deserve that attention.
I think it would be very dangerous to set the precedent that any hon. member of the house could rise in his place at any time without notice and move that certain matters be considered by the house or by committees of the house, unless they genuinely involve known and established privileges of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to make two points in connection with what Your Honour has said. The first has to do with the matter which the minister himself has raised, namely that he said at the outset that he had absolutely no objection to the matter being referred to the public accounts committee. I should think the minister would be the first to want to clear this up in so far as the particular individual in question, Mr. Giguere, is concerned. The next point is that Your Honour has suggested this matter might well be disposed of on another occasion when the estimates of the Department of Public Works are up for consideration. There is certainly at this time, under these circumstances, no knowledge in so far as we are concerned that these will ever be reached,

and it seems to me that under those circumstances the hon. member's point is well taken in making the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have given the hon. member full opportunity to express his views. I believe he will find that the opinion I have expressed is correct, and I do not propose to hear further representations on it.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege affecting the routine measures before the house, the hon. member for Laurier is trying to create the impression here, and thereby is misinforming the house, that the estimates of the Department of Public Works might never be reached. They have already been before the house for two days this session-


Mr. Pearson:: In the further supplementary estimates.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and might well be reached again if the opposition would get on quickly with the tasks in front of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Denis:: Very funny.



THE BUDGET


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I table the budget white paper and say that it will be available to all hon. members this afternoon in the distribution office. I am tabling copies in English and French.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Another deficit.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps for the convenience of hon. members, and as well subscribers to the records of the house, it would be well to follow the usual practice, and in keeping with that practice I move that the white paper be printed as an appendix to today's Votes and Proceedings and also to tomorrow's Hansard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Another deficit; almost $800 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Have all hon. members heard the motion? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have
Sports
a number of announcements to make with respect to the fitness and amateur sport program.
First of all, I am today writing the provincial governments informing them of our intention to set aside $2,500,000 of the $5,000,000 authorized for the fiscal year 1962-63 to assist provincial programs designed to encourage, promote and develop fitness and amateur sport. This division of the fund underlines the important role which the dominion government feels the provinces can play in the new program. By channelling a considerable part of our annual expenditures through the provinces we hope to stimulate activity at the community level. At the same time, sufficient funds should be available for the dominion government to assist the work of national organizations and projects of national interest, including encouragement to national and international competitions, support for fitness research, production of technical informational material, and other aspects which can best be carried out at the federal level.
The house may be interested in knowing how the $2,500,000 will be divided among the provinces. A flat rate of $50,000 is proposed for each province signing an agreement, with the balance being provided on a per capita basis.
In addition to these grants, the dominion government is proposing as an interim measure to provide immediate assistance totalling $250,000 to the provinces for planning and organizational purposes. As we are most anxious to assist the provinces in preparing for a comprehensive nation-wide co-operative effort, and since we feel that the necessary funds can be effectively utilized for this purpose while federal-provincial negotiation of agreements for larger sums is being completed, we have decided to press forward through the provision of these interim grants.
I might say that all these grants are closely in line with the views expressed by the national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport and by provincial ministers at the special meetings which were held in February on this subject. I believe they will go on a long way toward encouraging the kind of provincial and community participation which is so essential to a well rounded and effective national effort. The provinces have so far shown a keen and enthusiastic interest in the new fitness and amateur sport program, and I am optimistic about their reaction to the arrangements which I am now submitting for their agreement and approval.
The final announcement I would like to make has to do with further grants to various national organizations. The house will recall that some $15,000 has already gone
2606	HOUSE OF
Support Prices for Dairy Products out to three organizations with emergency needs. I now have the pleasure of indicating federal approval of grants totalling $142,800 to provide urgently required assistance in connection with various national and international competitions as well as other projects in the field of fitness and amateur sport. These are also being made available on an ad hoc basis on the recommendation of the national advisory council pending the final working out by the council of suitable criteria for the making of such grants.
They will be charged to the program's allocation for 1961-62, as will the $30,000 grant which has been provided to assist the British Empire and commonwealth games association in sending a Canadian team to the games in Perth, Australia, later this year. Also charged to the program's initial allocation is the $35,000 grant to the Calgary Olympic development association which I announced in the house last week. Taken together, these various expenditures add up to some $473,000 in assistance made available during 1961-62, which I believe represents very substantial progress for a program of such recent origin and complexity.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on March 22 the Acting Minister of Agriculture announced the dairy support program for 1962-63. The house will remember that the acting minister said there would be consultations among the officials of the government, producers and processing organizations. Since that time consultations have been held with the producer and processing groups concerned with the production and handling of dairy products. There was general agreement on the wisdom of the government policy aimed at increasing consumption on the one hand and decreasing production on the other. However, the fluid milk producers and cheese producers asked for modification of the program in so far as it affected their groups.
The cheese producers asked that the support price of last year be retained and, therefore, it would not be necessary to pay them extra compensatory payments. The fluid milk producers asked for a year's postponement before the compensatory payments were denied to their surplus milk.
Since Ontario and Quebec are the main dairy provinces, I asked their ministers of agriculture and their staffs to meet with me.
It had been agreed since last spring that because of the divided jurisdiction between 

provincial and federal governments relating to dairy products, there should be joint planning and action. The agricultural ministers of the other provinces know that I have been consulting with Quebec and Ontario during the last 12 months.
Following a full discussion with the two provincial government representatives last Wednesday, the federal government has decided to authorize the agricultural stabilization board (1) to buy butter at 64 cents per pound as last year and resell at 52 cents per pound; this is to give an incentive to consumption; and (2) to leave cheese at the same level as last year.
Thus the support levels and the agricultural stabilization board's purchase prices for dairy products will be retained at the same level as during 1961-62. In addition the compensatory payment of 25 cents per hundred for milk for manufacturing purpose, exclusive of surplus milk from fluid producers, will continue to be paid. This policy should maintain returns to all segments of producers at the same level as during the current year.
The fluid milk producers of Ontario are giving us written assurance that their association will work with the provincial government of that province and other producers of milk to set up an integrated milk marketing plan for Ontario this year. The representatives of the provincial government of Quebec have indicated that there will be provincial legislation this session to allow for setting up of a producers' board in that province.
The significance of this will be appreciated by milk producers everywhere. It means that if Ontario and Quebec set up producer controlled milk boards then a tremendous step forward will have been taken toward the time when producers will have a greater say in their industry. Needless to say, the federal government will be glad to see this movement spread across Canada. The milk industry of British Columbia is a good example of producers handling their own business successfully. We feel that the whole country benefits when producers co-operate democratically to solve problems of supply and price. For that reason the fluid milk operators will get the year's postponement requested, with the understanding that the federal government will not support the price on their surplus milk after April 30, 1963.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is not the hon. member for Essex East going to say something?


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I imagine the milk producers will be very much pleased to hear the announcement made by the minister. The country also will be pleased to know that serious consultation is taking place

among the government, the agricultural stabilization board and the dairy industry. The minister has not yet indicated-or at least if he did so I failed to get the point-that the problem has been solved with regard to the butter producers, particularly in view of the overrun. The fact is that assistance is now paid on a butterfat price and that from every 100 pounds of butterfat 120 pounds of butter can be made.
The dairy industry has requested an additional 2J cents so that creamery butter will be produced at the guaranteed price of 66J cents, while the producer will get 64 cents for his butter and the consumer will be giving 52 cents. The 2\ cents has been requested by the dairy industry.
I believe this must be done to keep the program on a realistic basis. I also believe that something should be done in this connection for the unpasteurized cheese producers. The problem is such that the butter price establishes the cheese price on the export market. The raise in the price will mean an additional cost to the export market for cheese. At the present some assistance could be given to unpasteurized cheese because of the fact that Britain is in a position to buy 6 million or 8 million pounds of cheese that we have not produced.
I hope this consultation with the dairy industry will continue. I believe there must be a much better relationship with the whole dairy industry than is possible at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: After
listening to the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Timiskaming, it just remains for me to observe that the farmers have not yet received from this government all that they have asked for.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And it took the hon. member 10 minutes to think up that poor comeback.



FEED CORN


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have another announcement to make.
As a result of the drought in western Canada there is a shortage of high energy feeds in the Atlantic provinces. Corn has been made available as a substitute in Ontario and Quebec, but because of the distance involved there has not been the same opportunity for its use farther east. In order to sustain the livestock and poultry industry in the Atlantic provinces, cabinet
B.N.A. Act
has authorized an assistance of $5 per ton on corn shipped to the area by rail or boat up until October 1, 1962.
This program is distinct from the national program of freight assistance on western feed grains. It is designed as a temporary measure of assistance until the fall, when high energy grains are normally available from western Canada.
Details concerning the assistance are presently being developed and will be announced shortly.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, this belated announcement by the minister will be much welcomed by those people who almost two months ago came to the minister and made this request. The only thing is that it is unfortunate that two months have been lost.


Mr. Pigeon:: Twenty two years of inaction and arrogance.


William Arnold Peters: We
welcome the extension of freight assistance on feeds for eastern Canada. The fact that a subsidy of $5 a ton will be paid to corn producers we hope will move all the corn that is available, giving eastern agriculture the opportunity to take advantage of it. Because of this necessity at this time we believe the government should give much more consideration to greater equalization of the feed situation across Canada than is now possible under present circumstances.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Pursuant to an agreement made in the House of Commons the other day, I hereby give notice that the divorce bills will be on the order paper in their proper place tomorrow.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-86, to amend the British North America Act, 1867, with respect to the Senate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Explain.


John George Diefenbaker: The amendment which will be brought before the house will be restricted to retirement at the age of 75 years of all members now in the other place, as well as those who may thereafter be appointed. Provision will be made for a retirement pension for all who are now in the Senate. A resolution to that effect will be

Division
placed on the order paper today. I think I should also make it clear now that in the event that this amendment is passed, no appointment of successors to vacancies resulting from the compulsory retirement of senators under this legislation will be made until after the next general election.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the right hon. gentleman shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would defer his request until this motion has been dealt with. The first motion is for leave to introduce the bill, which motion I now put. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Speaker, I must say on behalf of this group-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows this is not a debatable motion.


Mr. Brunsden:: No, he does not.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John George Diefenbaker: that the said bill be now read the first time.


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


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, without any comment on the principle or purpose of the bill I should like to say that this group cannot agree to first reading because-


Mr. Speaker:: The question will then be put.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the house under

standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the statement by the Canadian chairman of the international joint commission that Canada's interests were sacrificed by the government in signing the treaty for the development of the Columbia river. May I speak to this motion, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker:: I would be interested in hearing the Leader of the Opposition, who asks for leave, on the question of the urgency of debate on the subject matter which is proposed, which I see to be the statement of the Canadian chairman of the international joint commission that Canada's interests were sacrificed by the government in signing the treaty for the development of the Columbia river. I take it that what the Leader of the Opposition is asking leave to debate is that statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the argument governing this matter of urgency and importance is to be found- and it has often been quoted in this house-in Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 100, paragraph 3, which reads:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
It seems to me that the circumstances under which this motion is being moved are similar in many ways to those which existed when the motion was moved last June for the adjournment of the house to discuss the dismissal of the governor of the Bank of Canada, and at that time, Mr. Speaker, you agreed to that motion.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in present circumstances there are no ordinary opportunities to discuss this subject, and I believe that the subject is of such great importance that it should be discussed at once.
Leaving aside the circumstances of the dismissal of a man who has served Canada with such distinction in war and peace-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a statement which goes beyond what he is asking the house to discuss.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not at all.


John George Diefenbaker: And there was no dismissal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a matter of debate.
Columbia River Agreement


Mr. Speaker:: The urgency of debate is related to the matter which is set out in the hon. member's motion, namely the statement of the chairman that Canada's interests were sacrificed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The urgency of the matter is related, I submit, to the importance of the statements made by General McNaughton and the contradiction of those statements by the government, statements which are of great national and, indeed, international significance; because when a man in General McNaughton's position says that Canada was sold out and that the Columbia river treaty amounts to servitude in perpetuity of our vital rights and interests, surely when a statement of that kind is made-


An hon. Member:: By a Liberal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -that statement should be debated in the house at once, particularly as that statement, and other statements which I could have mentioned, have been denied and contradicted by the government. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, surely this is a subject for immediate debate in order to get this matter of both national and international importance cleared up.
So far as the opportunity of debating this matter in the ordinary way is concerned, there are eight or nine items that have been listed by the house leader as the business of the house for today and they, of course, do not provide any opportunity for discussing this matter. Second, Mr. Speaker, there is no item listed on the order paper, especially under government orders, that would provide an opportunity to debate this subject.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, because of the uncertainty created by the Prime Minister's utterances, as recently as Saturday night, about the early dissolution of this parliament, there is no assurance that this matter can be discussed in the house. In view of this uncertainty we may not be here after tomorrow night. Therefore, in view of this uncertainty which has been created by the Prime Minister and members of the government, in view of the importance of this matter both nationally and internationally, and in view of the statements which have been made and contradicted, surely the government will be only too anxious to have it debated at once, and that is the purpose of this motion.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Before I hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs I would like to ask a question of the Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Pugh:: Which he will never be able to answer.

Columbia River Agreement


Mr. Speaker:: -which might help to clarity the situation. As I see the importance of the statement of the Canadian chairman of the international joint commission, it is in relation to the Columbia treaty; and that treaty, as hon. members of the house know, has been signed but has not yet been ratified. As I recall the questions asked and statements made in this house about ratification, it is in my mind that the house was assured that no ratification would take place before the house had been asked to debate the treaty. Now, if that is the case, what does the Leader of the Opposition say as to the urgency of debate, if no action is to be taken with respect to the subject matter of the chairman's statement until the house has an opportunity to debate the treaty?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, surely the importance of the statements and the requirement for immediate discussion of them are not the same as the discussion which is required of the whole treaty. The Prime Minister has already stated this session that there will be no such discussion of this treaty in this house until all arrangements are made and agreement reached with the government of British Columbia. The importance of having an immediate discussion on this matter attaches to statements made by General Mc-Naughton in respect of the policy of this government and the procedure of this government in relation to this treaty. When statements of this kind are made, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the treaty itself, surely that should be discussed immediately as a matter of urgency.


Mr. Nugent:: It is because of his age; he is 75.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this question comes under my jurisdiction as the minister responsible for the Canadian section of the international joint commission. I may add that throughout my whole term as Secretary of State for External Affairs, General Mc-Naughton and I have worked together in a thoroughly friendly and co-operative way. His retirement from the commission results solely from the fact that he has passed the age of 75 years.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Graffiey:: You said he was dismissed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I trust that the minister will not discuss the question of the termination of the employment of the chairman, because that is not the matter which the house is asked to debate, but rather a statement made by the chairman. I would not think it relevant, as I indicated to the Leader


of the Opposition, to discuss the circumstances of his employment or his position as chairman unless the request for leave to debate this matter were broader.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to you that the Leader of the Opposition charged today that General McNaughton has been dismissed.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: And they say, "Hear, hear" now. Surely Your Honour is not going to hold that I cannot say anything about that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If leave is granted, you can.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I certainly would not think of preventing the minister from responding to that statement, but I rose as soon as the statement was made to check further comment on that line, and I trust the minister will limit himself to dealing with the question raised.


Howard Charles Green: That is what I intend to do, Mr. Speaker. This statement was made, the Liberal party have shouted, "Hear, hear" and that has gone on the record. I wish to deal with that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then let us have a debate.


Howard Charles Green: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that his retirement from the commission results solely from the fact that he has passed the age of 75 years, and has nothing whatever to do with the Columbia river issue or any other issue with which the commission has dealt.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has risen on a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will agree that he has had an opportunity to deny the statement in the remarks which Your Honour has allowed him to make with regard to the circumstances of dismissal.


Mr. Jones:: What arrogance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The issue before the house is a simple one, whether or not under our rules and practices this question is of such urgency that it requires immediate debate. If we decide it is, as I respectfully believe we should, we would then have an opportunity to hear from the Secretary of State for External Affairs in great detail on the point he is making and on other aspects

of the question. But the motion before the house now is whether this is a question of urgent national importance that requires immediate debate. The Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that generally speaking the hon. member for Essex East expresses the correct view, that what we are trying to determine is whether there is urgency of debate, and not to go into the issue surrounding the circumstances in which the statement was made and all the details which might be appropriate if debate were allowed.


Howard Charles Green: With effect from the year 1956, Mr. Speaker, all appointments to the Canadian section of the international joint commission have been renewed annually-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker-


Howard Charles Green: -and that was when the Leader of the Opposition was the secretary of state for external affairs-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is persisting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have heard the point of order. I would think that in view of the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition an answer to the allegation that the chairman was dismissed or discharged must be appropriate, even though that statement was irrelevant to the main issue.


Mr. Hellyer:: The question is the urgency of debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I made a statement quoting what General McNaughton himself had said-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and I said that the government itself had already denied that statement. Now the Secretary of State for External Affairs rises and denies it again. But General McNaughton has denied what the minister has said; he has said that he was dismissed by the arbitrary decision of a dictator.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has had his turn, and I would like to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I consider it permissible for him to indicate the disagreement with the view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: In General McNaughton's case provision has been made each year since his 65th birthday, in 1952, when the Leader of the Opposition was secretary of state for external affairs-
Columbia River Agreement


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: -to provide for continuation of his employment in the public service by means of an annual extension prior to his birthday.
As the house is aware, all Canadian judges retire at the age of 75. In the Canadian section of the international joint commission-


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member's point is well taken. It is not permissible to debate the issue. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs would confine himself to the facts of termination, if it has come about, of the chairman's employment and not debate it, I would consider it relevant.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in the international joint commission Mr. Lucien Dansereau's term expired last year shortly after he reached the age of 75 years-


Murdo William Martin: On a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: A flagrant violation of the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member feels aggrieved that the comment is broader than it should have been and is not correct, perhaps I would be prepared to allow him to make an explanation to correct it, but I cannot find the Secretary of State for External Affairs out of order from phrase to phrase.


Murdo William Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Henry Frank Jones: What arrogance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, what the Secretary of State for External Affairs is doing is seeking to deal with the circumstances of the retirement of General McNaughton, which is not in issue. When I raised this as a point of order a few moments ago Your Honour said that I was justified, in other words indicating to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he was out of order. The issue before us is clear; is it a matter that requires urgency of debate? That is the only issue before the house now. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs wishes to bring himself in order he should address himself to that question and to no other.

Columbia River Agreement


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs disagrees with the statement made, perhaps he would indicate what he thinks is the scope of his contribution at this time, and then I could deal with it.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with nearly everything the hon. member for Essex East says. His trouble is that he just cannot take his medicine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Benidickson:: That is no answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I say, in an effort to clarify the extent of the discussion, that I am trying to obtain the assistance of the house in the decision which I have to make as to the urgency of debate regarding the matter which the Leader of the Opposition has asked leave to debate. It is only because the Leader of the Opposition made a statement which, as I indicated at the time, was not relevant to that issue-I refer to the statement with respect to the dismissal of the chairman-that I have allowed the contradiction to take place. I trust that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will hasten to deal with that part of the question and get on to the issue of urgency of debate.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in the case of General McNaughton the term was extended for approximately two months-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Surely this is not
relevant.


Howard Charles Green: -in order to enable him to attend the fiftieth anniversary meeting of the commission-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the same point of order?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My point of order is that when I rose I said, "leaving aside the circumstances surrounding General McNaughton's dismissal", and Your Honour stopped me. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is now attempting to debate those circumstances. Surely he is not going to be permitted to go into the details of the matter without Your Honour giving me the same opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think it would be highly improper to spend time at this stage debating the circumstances of the termination or the present employment of the chairman


of the international joint commission, and even if the leave which is asked for were given I would consider it out of order to debate that issue. I feel that if the Secretary of State for External Affairs makes a simple denial of the statement that was volunteered we should drop the matter there and proceed to determine whether the house wishes to debate this issue.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, statements have been made to the effect that prior to the signing of the so-called Columbia river treaty General McNaughton had dissociated himself from that treaty and had advised against signing it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are nearing the dissolution of parliament is no justification for any minister of the crown to so flagrantly violate the rules which has been done here today. Four times the Secretary of State for External Affairs was called to order but he continues to introduce material which is not relevant to the issue before us.


William Moore Benidickson: He is reading every word of a prepared statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member would state specifically what he complains of.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am complaining that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, contrary to the ruling which Your Honour has stated three times-


An hon. Member:: Four times.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -has gone on to discuss circumstances having to do with the retirement of General McNaughton from the chairmanship of the international joint commission. I repeat, Mr. Speaker-and I do this knowing how much we are in Your Honour's debt for the way in which you have adjudicated over our proceedings-that the only issue before us is whether we are entitled to debate this as a matter of urgency. Obviously the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not addressing himself to this point. With great respect I say that the minister ought to be told that unless he does address himself to this one point, Your Honour does not propose to allow him to continue. That is the course which Your Honour took with regard to the Leader of the Opposition, and quite properly so. The one issue before us is, is this matter one of urgency? Is it of the same category, for instance, as the Coyne-Fleming dispute? I believe it is and-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have heard the hon. member for Essex East. Again I think perhaps this is the same point of order. I was under the impression-and I may be mistaken-that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has dropped the issue of the employment of the chairman of the international joint commission-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; he is reading from the same statement.


Mr. Speaker:: -and had proceeded to
address himself to the question which I raised myself and which is raised by this request, as to whether it is urgent to debate the statement made by the chairman of the international joint commission.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was trying to do.


Miss LaMarsh:: You are reading the same speech.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, statements have been made to the effect that prior to the signing of the so-called Columbia river treaty General McNaughton-


William Moore Benidickson: The minister has not
turned the page of the statement he is reading,


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Hees:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister, I believe, is referring to statements made by the chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Which have nothing to do with the question before us.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I have not heard enough of what the hon. gentleman is saying to determine. Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs would advise me whether he considers this a matter of urgency of debate, and that would settle the matter.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, if the opposition would just let me proceed this would be through in a minute.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; the minister should not proceed to read a statement written outside the house.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Howard Charles Green: While certain features of the treaty did not appeal to General McNaughton he did not advise against signing.
Columbia River Agreement


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


An hon. Member:: They do not like it.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this. It is now quite obvious that the minister has before him a statement which has been prepared by someone outside the house, and he is insisting on reading it despite the ruling Your Honour has made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Whether the statement was prepared outside or by the minister makes no difference. He is now trying to place on record this prepared statement contrary to the rules of the house and I submit, with deference, that he should not be allowed to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I feel that the minister is making statements that are related to the issue for which leave is requested. The views of General McNaughton are what the Leader of the Opposition wishes to debate as expressed in the statement which he has made.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not permissible, in determining whether there should be debate, to debate those views. I feel that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is getting into the substance of the debate which would take place if the house gave leave.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is now asking permission to adjourn the business of this house to spend a day debating a statement made in another country, made in Washington-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Made in Ottawa.


Howard Charles Green: -by a public servant who is still a public servant, in which that public servant, a former Liberal minister-


An hon. Member:: Candidate.


Howard Charles Green: -attacked his own government. Surely that is not a proper basis for a motion to adjourn the house. If Your Honour rules in favour of the Leader of the Opposition it will mean that any public servant can go out on the street in any country and attack his government and then have his friends in the House of Commons, for political purposes, rise and ask leave to adjourn the house to spend a day discussing the statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Howard Charles Green: In my view, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will hear the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when I rose to move this motion I had before me a text. I read the first line of that text and I said,

Columbia River Agreement "Leaving aside the circumstances of the dismissal of a man," and Your Honour stopped me and I stopped, although I had before me another page dealing with those circumstances.


Mr. Starr:: Who wrote the statement? Was it written by someone outside or inside the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Secretary of State for External Affairs is now asking Your Honour for permission to do exactly what Your Honour would not permit me to do. If he is to be granted that permission I hope Your Honour will give me the same opportunity to reply to what he is now saying, which has nothing to do with the question of the urgency of debating this matter, according to your own decision.


Howard Charles Green: If I may conclude, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to Your Honour and to the house and to the people of Canada that the action of the Leader of the Opposition today is an example of irresponsibility at its worst.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise and deal with the question of urgency, and I think I can stay in order. The motion has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition because of statements made by General McNaughton. In our opinion there is urgency of debate because these statements have rocked the country and they are rocking this government. They are in contradiction to statements made by the Prime Minister,-


William Heward Grafftey: You are already out of order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -the Minister of Justice, Premier Bennett of British Columbia, the attorney general of British Columbia and officials in the United States. Because of early dissolution we believe the house will have no other opportunity under the rules to discuss this question, and that the people of Canada are entitled to know the facts. This house should have an opportunity to debate this question now. On that account we claim debate is urgent on this important matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point in connection with the subject of urgency of debate. The Leader of the Opposition has said that the statement attributed to General McNaughton is such that it should be debated at once. The Leader of the Opposition is just three days late. This subject was debated in this house on April 6. It was debated by the

hon. member for Kootenay West as well, as he was the one who introduced it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I asked questions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If this motion were accepted it would just be a duplication of a debate that has already occurred. The Leader of the Opposition was not in the chamber on Friday. The hon. member for Essex East was not in the chamber on Friday. They may not know what went on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order-


Donald Methuen Fleming: This matter was debated.


Murdo William Martin: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East raises a point of order with respect to what?


Murdo William Martin: I am raising a question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: Sit down.


Murdo William Martin: The Minister of Finance says I was not in the house on Friday.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Friday afternoon.


Murdo William Martin: If the minister will consult the records of the house he will find that, once again, he is wrong. I was here on Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: That is scarcely a point of order. Can the minister give the citation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Essex East was not in the house on Friday afternoon when this matter was discussed.


Murdo William Martin: I was so in the
house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the debates of last Friday afternoon, April 6, commencing at page 2586. The house was in committee of supply on an item in relation to a payment of $50,000 for engineers' fees in connection with the Columbia river. On that occasion the hon. member for Kootenay West chose to introduce into the discussion the very statement which is the basis of the motion introduced this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition. The afternoon newspaper had just carried the statement so the hon. member for Kootenay West, as found at page 2586, in the second column, read the entire statement into the record. He then proceeded to discuss it, and he did not stop there. After certain observations the hon. member for Laurier entered the act, and he spoke at considerable length, tie raised questions and kept the debate going. Then, of

course, Bonavista-Twillingate could not sit back, so the member for that riding got into the act. You will find, Mr. Speaker, that he contributed his usual-


An hon. Member:: Five cents.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Whatever it may be. That may be found at page 2589. Then the hon. member for Laurier came back again and again. Then the hon. member for Kootenay West came back. Then the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate came back. Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, I observe that the hon. member for Essex East did come in. I beg his pardon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He came in.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister is wrong again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I apologize to the house for saying that the hon. member for Essex East was not here. He did come in at that particular point. That reference will be found at page 2591. He made probably the greatest utterance he has ever made in the house. He said, "Whose fault is it?"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And General McNaughton gave the answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate came in and the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Kootenay West. He went over the whole story. They kept the debate going until the hour of five o'clock.


Murdo William Martin: I rise on a point of order. I regret being obliged to rise so often, but today we have had provocation. What the hon. gentleman is now doing is not addressing himself to the question of urgency. Whether there has been another discussion on certain aspects of the matter has nothing whatsoever to do with the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition, namely that this matter in its present context presents urgency of debate. That is the only issue before us. These ministers today, in these dying hours of this session, have been allowed, Mr. Speaker, to make irrelevant and improper remarks. The question is the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that the statement made by General McNaughton late Friday, and over the week end constitutes within our rules justification for urgency of debate. That is the only issue before us. These red herrings drawn in by the minister who had to do with the Coyne affair should not be allowed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I give the citation?
Columbia River Agreement


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps I might save the minister some time by indicating-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have lots of time.


Mr. Speaker:: -that the rules specifically prevent debate on a matter which has been discussed earlier in the session. Perhaps I had better read the rule. It is the sixth paragraph of rule 26, which I shall be obliged to consider:
The right to move the adjournment of the house for the above purposes-
That is to discuss an urgent matter.
-is subject to the following restrictions:
- (c) the motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same
session;
I am not deciding that this matter has been discussed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I say a word, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is relevant to argue that it has been discussed. I therefore consider that the Minister of Finance is quite in order in the argument he is proposing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point raised by the Minister of Finance-


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I proceed?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Leader of the Opposition raising a further point of order?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to comment.


Mr. Speaker:: I will give the hon. member an opportunity if he disagrees with any statement that is made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to make a comment, may I conclude as briefly as possible my submission on this point. I was about to read the citation which evidently had escaped the knowledge of the hon. member for Essex East. The rule is quite clear that a motion for the adjournment of the house in the manner proposed by the Leader of the Opposition cannot be tolerated under the rule if the motion will revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that nothing could be clearer than that not only has the same matter been discussed at the present session, but it was discussed only three days ago. What is the subject matter? The Leader of the Opposition wishes to discuss a statement by the Canadian chairman of the international joint commission that Canada's interests were sacrificed, and so on. That is the very statement that was read into the record on Friday afternoon by the leader of

Columbia River Agreement the new party down there in the corner of the chamber. It was then debated and discussed, and that discussion is not completed. Under the rules of the house that discussion is still current.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that there could not be a clearer case in which a motion of this nature could not possibly be entertained under the rules of this house. The statement is there. It is on the record. It was put there last Friday. It was debated by hon. members opposite who now say this matter should be debated. It was debated and, that debate is not concluded. There can be no possibility, Mr. Speaker, of entertaining a motion of this kind which would not only be a violation of the rules under citation 26 but, in my respectful submission, would be a complete duplication of a debate already held.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the minister is articulate without being logical. The minister said that this matter was debated last Friday. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, gave the impression that this matter had not only been debated but perhaps concluded last Friday. The item under which this short discussion took place-


Donald Methuen Fleming: An hour and a quarter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -was introduced last Friday, but the minister has very conveniently forgotten that the discussion ended at five o'clock. It was only in respect of the statements purported to have been made by General McNaughton in Washington, statements made according to the Secretary of State for External Affairs outside the country, and therefore not debatable in this house because they were made outside the country. But that evening, Mr. Speaker, General McNaughton returned to Ottawa and made some devastating statements which, as the hon. member to my right has said, have rocked the country and the government.
It is those statements that we surely have the right to debate as a matter of urgency. As you suggested a little while ago, Mr. Speaker, perhaps this matter might have gone to a committee and we might have had a chance to debate it there, but on January 19, 1962, at the very beginning of this session I asked the Prime Minister this question, as found on page 16 of Hansard:
May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to submit the Columbia river treaty to a committee of the house for an examination during the present session of parliament?
The Prime Minister said:
There is no intention of submitting the treaty to a committee of the house for examination.
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1
That is in Hansard. As a matter of urgency, Mr. Speaker, we ask the right to discuss the statements made by General McNaughton last Friday, Friday evening and, over the week end, the comments on those statements and the contradictions by the minister. This matter should be cleared up and it should be cleared up now.
If the Prime Minister will give us the assurance that this particular item of the estimates will be reintroduced immediately this afternoon, we could do so then. If he will not give us that assurance, we have no reason to believe that this item will ever come before the house again and therefore, Mr. Speaker, we will have to persist in our motion.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman forgets that a further question was asked on March 21, 1962, to which I replied, as found on page 2020 of Hansard:
-I think the hon. gentleman is fully aware of the fact that ratification by this house is necessary.
On the question of urgency of debate may I say that there has been no conclusion of the discussion of the supplementary item in question that was before the house on Friday. The opposition are not yet determining the course of the government, and I know it will be a long, long time before they will. We have been trying for 19 days to get the supplementary estimates through. If the opposition will deal with the legislative matters that are before the house and that have to be dealt with we will call supplementary estimates at the earliest possible date and they will have every opportunity to continue the discussion which they started last Friday.
We have nothing to conceal whatsoever. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, and in answer to the hon. gentleman, I would simply point out what was the general view across Canada in October, 1960, as evidenced by an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of October 21 which stated that great credit is given to General McNaughton for having achieved agreement for the treaty, and that it was a victory for General McNaughton.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have now had the
assistance of a good many members of the house in determining whether leave should be given, and unless there is some erroneous argument or proposition that it is felt necessary to correct I propose to discharge my responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition indicated he may have felt there were statements made that went beyond the scope of the argument, and I would not want to dispose of the matter now if he feels he should

have the opportunity to comment, but only in the limited context that there is something erroneous before the Chair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are you the leader of the opposition?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -does Your Honour feel that you want to hear further argument in support of the motion made by the Leader of the Opposition? If Your Honour feels that is not necessary, I readily accede; but if it is necessary, then I should like to reply to the argument of the Minister of Finance and that of the Prime Minister. Only one argument has been put forward on this side on behalf of the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition, but we are in Your Honour's hands as to the necessity of further argument.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Essex East disagrees with the proposition that this matter has been discussed and is still open for discussion, I would hear him on that subject but not on anything else.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure Your Honour does not mean exactly that. That would mean that Your Honour would have given the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Finance the opportunity of dealing with the merits of the proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I am prepared to support the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition in establishing that under our rules there is urgency of debate and to deal as well with the proposition of the Minister of Finance that the discussion on Friday precludes this matter being raised again.
I address myself on the merits that there is urgency of debate. If I wanted evidence to prove this position there is the statement just made by the Prime Minister that he does not propose to enable us to discuss this matter under another item. If the Prime Minister would now agree to revert to the particular supplementary item that was under discussion on Friday we could have a full discussion, but the Prime Minister said no, that he does not propose to have the opposition determine the business of the house. In my judgment that reply is sufficient answer.
The question of urgency arises in a number of ways, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated. It arises first of all out of the fact that we are not now in a position to say, as Your Honour did on another occasion, that we may assume that the business of the house will continue in the normal way; because on Saturday last the Prime Minister, who is indulging in a game called the mystique of elections, said-
Columbia River Agreement


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East is retreading what has already been fairly amply dealt with. I was interested in the question whether the discussion last Friday could be said to have been a discussion of this statement. Certainly the statement of the chairman was quoted, referred to and discussed in the committee last Friday. With respect to that point, if the hon. member for Essex East wishes to argue that that was not a prior discussion of the matter presented by the Leader of the Opposition today, I think he might usefully make a contribution there. Otherwise, as I have said to him, I feel that there must be a limit to the discussion of the preliminary question or we might better go on with the debate. So I ask him to address himself to that and then leave the matter to me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member had better make way for "Pick". He could not do worse.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I assume from your last remarks that subject to the argument made by the Minister of Finance as to the relevancy of last Friday's discussion, Your Honour is of the view that the Leader of the Opposition has established a prima facie case for urgency of debate-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and it is only because of that that I accede. Otherwise, surely Your Honour is not going to deny to a second speaker from the opposition the right to argue that this matter is one that does present urgency of debate. It is only because of the assumption I make that Your Honour believes that the Leader of the Opposition has properly established urgency of debate that I address myself to the question raised by the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Leader of the Opposition feels that any point has not been fully presented, then he is entitled to consideration. I would indicate to him that the point raised by the Minister of Finance and the question I asked the Leader of the Opposition as to the urgency and importance of debating this matter at this time, when ratification of the treaty has to come before the house for debate at some other time, are the two points that seem to me to be relevant. If he has anything further to add on those points I will hear him. Otherwise I suggest that I deal with the matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, you have asked me if I have anything to say on those two points, and of course I have. On the first point regarding the argument that this matter was disposed of in discussion last Friday I have already stated, notwithstanding the

Columbia River Agreement long harangue of the Minister of Finance, that this matter was not discussed or disposed of last Friday, except in reference to the statement that General McNaughton made in Washington. General McNaughton came back to Canada Friday evening after the house had risen and at that time, according to the press, General McNaughton said, and 1 read from the press report:
General Andrew McNaughton, stoking more fuel on his charge of a power sell-out to the United States over the Columbia river has said Prime Minister Diefenbaker is a "dictator"-
That statement has been denied, but that was not mentioned in the House of Commons because it had not been made when the committee was sitting.


Mr. Harkness:: It is too ridiculous to be mentioned.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It might not be ridiculous in the country.
The other point was that the Prime Minister had indicated that ratification has to be discussed in the House of Commons. Well, of course, that is not true. The Prime Minister ought to know that ratification is an executive act and has nothing whatever to do with the House of Commons. As the Prime Minister, who is an old parliamentarian, should know, ratification is not a matter for decision in the House of Commons. It has become a convention of our constitution that the House of Commons should examine and approve matters of importance which require ratification by the government. When I asked the Prime Minister if these matters would be considered and approved in the House of Commons during this session before ratification, the Prime Minister said no.


John George Diefenbaker: No, no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I asked him if these matters would be submitted to a committee for consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this treaty, before ratification, should go before the committee on external affairs. If it is not considered by a committee-


John George Diefenbaker: What treaties, when you were in office, did you send before a committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister, who is afraid to look at the present or the future, begins to look far back. I tell the Prime Minister that the committee on external affairs considered every important treaty while we were in office.


Henry Frank Jones: The Liberals are running from the past.


Some hon. Members:: Nonsense.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister has said this treaty will not go to the House of Commons during this session; that is one matter relevant to the necessity for discussing this subject right now. The Minister of Finance also said that all these matters were discussed last Friday, irrespective of what General McNaughton said when he returned Friday evening and irrespective of the comments over the week end. The argument of the Minister of Finance is nonsense under the circumstances.
I am satisfied, therefore, you will appreciate that this is a reasonable motion and it should be admitted that we should discuss this matter now as a matter of grave importance.


Mr. Speaker:: Reference has been made to the bringing before this house of the Columbia river treaty. The Leader of the Opposition has mentioned referring the question to the committee on external affairs. The Prime Minister referred to a question which appears at page 2020 of Hansard for March 21, 1962, which I take it is an assurance by the Prime Minister that the ratification of this house is considered necessary by the government before the treaty will be ratified.


John George Diefenbaker: That's right.


Mr. Speaker:: Now, that may not be legally necessary, but I take it that is the statement. In order that the statement will be on the record I shall read the question and answer:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister, in view of certain statements that have been made in recent days, whether he can give the house an assurance that the Columbia river development treaty with the United States will not be ratified until it has been discussed and approved in this house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is fully aware of the fact that ratification by this house is necessary.
The Leader of the Opposition properly indicates that ratification, in law, may be made by the government without consideration by the house. However, I took the statement- and I have the Prime Minister's assurance that that is what he intends-to mean that the treaty will not be ratified without being brought before the house.
I approach the problem with that in my mind. In so far as the statement the Minister of Finance made is concerned that there had been discussion, I would not like to base a decision on that earlier discussion because, although it involved the same statement that creates the issue today, that discussion was on an item of northern affairs which did not involve the Columbia treaty directly. What

I consider to be the matter of public importance that is now raised is the wisdom or desirability of the present treaty on the Columbia. The statement that the Leader of the Opposition asked to debate was the statement that Canada's interests were sacrificed in the treaty which has been signed by Canada and the United States with respect to Columbia power.
Now, the urgency of debate on that matter, to my mind, has to be determined not on the fact that the chairman of the international commission made a statement last week, but on whether there is an opportunity for the house to deal with the matter before the consequences of the treaty become effective. The treaty cannot become effective until it has been ratified, and the house is assured that it will not be ratified until the house has had an opportunity of debating it.
We are therefore faced with this proposition; that before any harm to Canada's interests can arise, the house will have an opportunity to debate this issue. It seems to me that takes care of the argument about the urgency of debate. This treaty was signed something in the neighbourhood of a year ago and has been discussed from time to time, and X recall that another motion was made under this same rule to debate this same treaty about a year ago.
The contrary argument to that which I have been accepting is that there is something in the statement which General Mc-Naughton made which is of urgent public importance in itself. I cannot see how it can be important except in relation to the treaty which he is discussing. As I have said, the treaty cannot be implemented until it has been debated.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would Your Honour listen to one point on this particular question?


Some hon. Members:: Order. Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member if he has something to say. It seems to me that to ask to interrupt the important business which is on the order paper under this rule is unwarranted.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The point you have just made, sir, is that the question of urgency revolves around the question of the consequences of the treaty being signed or not signed at this particular time. May I just call to Your Honour's attention the following statement by the Minister of Justice in Vancouver last year as reported on July 25:
The United States will not wait forever ... If it's not settled in a matter of months, we are in danger of losing the whole thing.
Surely there are consequences implied here which can be either way, consequences if the
Question of Privilege
treaty is ratified and consequences if the treaty is not ratified, and it seems to me a matter of urgency that we have a discussion of the facts so that we shall know these consequences.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that the matter may be looked at in different ways, but I have a clear view that the matter of urgent debate must be one of public importance and significance, and that is public importance arising out of the importance of the treaty itself and its consequences. To my mind no public interest will suffer if this is not debated today, and there will be plenty of opportunity to deal with other aspects of the statement made by the chairman of the joint commission.



PRIVILEGE


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a question of privilege. The question of privilege that I wish to discuss has to do with the right of the House of Commons to vote the expenditures of public moneys by the Queen's ministers. The House of Commons has the right to control these expenditures; and after the discussion we have just had, and particularly having regard to the statements made by the Prime Minister and others, I say there is a clear right on the part of the house to discuss expenditures.
We have before us in the house at the moment in further supplementary estimates No. 4 a commitment to spend $138 million. That money has not yet been voted Notwithstanding the fact that these matters have been before the house from time to time, March 31, which is the end of the fiscal year, has gone by and there has been no complete opportunity on the part of the house to dispose of this matter.
I say to you with respect, sir, that the government has a constitutional obligation to pass these supplementary estimates before dissolution. This is a fundamental right which the elected members of parliament have, but instead of that, on Friday the house leader chose to announce hypothetical legislation for today and I say, with respect, that the government has delayed consideration of these estimates although we have asked for them repeatedly.
I also say to you, sir, with respect that the Speaker has a responsibility, and a very serious one, in this matter. The Speaker is an officer of the house, and he has the responsibility to uphold the rights of the elected representatives in the House of Commons.

Question of Privilege
There is, and there has been, a denial of our right to discuss these further supplementary estimates. I also say, having regard to the statement made by the Prime Minister, that we will not be given the immediate opportunity to discuss a matter which has been before the house quite recently, and I say too that the government cannot pay this $138 million until an appropriation bill has passed through this house.
If we are to have responsible government in this country the government should bring the supplementary estimates before the house. That is our fundamental right, and the government should explain-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member has not finished, but I find difficulty in seeing that the point of privilege which he raises has yet arisen. It seems to me he is anticipating. What basically is involved is the right of the government to order its business in the way it thinks appropriate. No one will disagree with the proposition that the government of Canada cannot spend money without the concurrence of parliament, but what I am concerned about is whether the hon. member can relate his question of privilege to something that has occurred, or is he entirely anticipating something that will occur?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is a bogus question of privilege.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is this fact that nine days have elapsed since the fiscal year ended, and from statements made by the Prime Minister outside this house, and from the statement which the Prime Minister has made this afternoon, it is quite clear that we are not going to be given an opportunity to deal with this matter now.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is asking me to make the assumption that the government will not behave in a constitutional way. I cannot make that assumption in advance; therefore I see no substance in the argument at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I had not completed my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I should let the hon. member conclude, but I have told him I see no substance in his argument.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to conclude.


Mr. Speaker:: When the hon. member has concluded I shall hear the Prime Minister.


Lionel Chevrier: I thought I had laid the basis for a motion which I intended to make. I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, that the house do now proceed to item No. 16 of government orders for the purpose of exercising the time-honoured and fundamental right to control the expenditures of the Queen's ministers in accordance with the principles of responsible government.


Henry Frank Jones: An abuse of the English
language.


John George Diefenbaker: The moving of that motion, Mr. Speaker, just indicates the limits to which the opposition will go. They realize full well-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: The motion has not been put.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the hon. member for Laurier make a proposal which he claims raises a question of privilege, and I dare say the Prime Minister would wish to comment on it, which he is entitled to do.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member rises on what he calls a question of privilege. Then he proceeds to make statements that are without basis in fact, and he ends up with a motion that is entirely out of order. Motions have to be moved in the proper way, and so far as his present allegation is concerned, no government has ever been obstructed in the manner in which this government has been and is being obstructed by the opposition on supplementary estimates. Outside the House of Commons these hon. gentlemen are forever challenging an election, but inside the House of Commons they are sitting in fear.


Lionel Chevrier: It is certainly not fear of you.


John George Diefenbaker: Over and over again-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Tell us another good joke.


John George Diefenbaker: Over and over again they have had the opportunity to deal with supplementary estimates. They covered the estimates in general. Then the supplementary estimates were introduced and we had 19 days on the earlier supplementary estimates and we have had four days on the present ones. We have allowed them to go on and on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Allowed them? The dictators.


John George Diefenbaker: That was not the kind of treatment the opposition got when those gentlemen were over here. They introduced the closure of debate. They trampled on the opposition. We have allowed them-
[Mr. Chevrler.J


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are getting a little far afield when we get on to closure. Would the Prime Minister deal with the question of the supplementary estimates and the alleged matter of privilege?


John George Diefenbaker: I surely have the right to answer these hon. gentlemen who speak of dictators. These were the petty dictators of those days. These are they.


Lionel Chevrier: You are the dictator.


John George Diefenbaker: The same old bunch. I submit that the motion is out of order. It is obviously an intended subterfuge on their part. They have had 23 days to discuss supplementary estimates, and now the hon. gentleman has the colossal nerve to stand there and say these things should have been put through by March 31.


Lionel Chevrier: Why didn't you bring them on before? We waited for weeks before they were brought on.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we waited for weeks and weeks and the hon. gentlemen, while their leader was travelling around, were talking.


Lionel Chevrier: Where have you been?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will be
travelling more, too.


John George Diefenbaker: -hon. gentlemen opposite have been talking and talking. I asked them to pass the supplementary estimates and I said, "Let us get the legislation through and then we will have the opportunity of answering to the Canadian people", and I know what the result will be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: They have no leader; they are not ready to face an election.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might have an opportunity to comment on some of the gratuitous and characteristically personal references made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has accused us on this side of the house of being petty dictators. That phrase might be applied to hon. gentlemen opposite without the word "petty" before it. The Prime Minister has also accused me of travelling instead of remaining in the house and presumably obstructing the legislation. The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
26207-1-167
Question of Privilege


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister should be the last person in Canada to talk about travelling. The sky is full of government aeroplanes these days going to political meetings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: They have no leader.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am very loth to interrupt such an interesting debate, but I have heard the argument pro and con on this motion which, if it stands, must stand as a motion based on privilege. In my opinion it does not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as the
seconder of the motion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I would hope I could be heard before Your Honour makes a decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I could be assured by the hon. member that he will direct his remarks to that issue and not join in the debate which I feel would be more appropriate on another occasion, I will hear what he has to say. The motion is to order government business. If there is a question of privilege to found the motion on, that is the only consideration that would be relevant.
I can see none. I will give the hon. member a brief opportunity to speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will address myself very strictly and narrowly to the question of privilege involved. The question of privilege is the prior right of the House of Commons to vote supply before proceeding with the Queen's business.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is what Simon de Montfort asserted; this is what William Lyon Mackenzie asserted-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Here we have $138 million in the supplementary estimates that have not yet been voted. They relate to the last fiscal year, not the present fiscal year, a fiscal year that ended nine days ago. Except for one hour last week the government did not bring forward these supplementary estimates, notwithstanding the fact that they had committed the name of Canada to the spending of this money. I suggest that the most fundamental and elementary of all the rights of the House of Commons is to vote supply before going on with the business of the government. These ministers forget they are ministers; they forget that the House of Commons is supreme.

Questions
I say, sir, that the fiscal year having ended, no other business should or properly could be taken up in the house until the accounts of the previous year are settled and until the government-which have no right to take this for granted-are satisfied by a vote on these matters that a majority of the members of parliament still have confidence in them. That is what parliament is about, in case the right hon. gentleman has forgotten. That is why I am asserting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Obstruction.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate the hon. member's argument on the basic right of parliament to vote supply before the money is spent. If governments do not comply with that basic right of the House of Commons, then they are open to criticism and censure. But the ordering of the business of the government is its own responsibility. It is when the expenditure is made without authority that a constitutional issue arises. I think hon. members have anticipated that there will be some unconstitutional act, rather than demonstrating one; therefore I do not propose to accept the motion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Control by an irresponsible government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A babbling brook over there.


Michael Starr: They have wasted 2J hours this afternoon.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fisher: Up to March 23, 1962, had the Department of Transport been asked by any person, association, or municipality to take over the airstrip at Steep Rock Iron Mines, Atikokan; and, if so, who or what were they; on what dates, and by what means, did they approach DOT; and to what effect were the representations?
Answer by: Mr. Martini:
Yes: by letter of July 2, 1958 from Mr. W. M. Benidickson, M.P., and by further letter of June 12, 1961, forwarding a letter from Mr. Baswick, reeve of Atikokan. These representations requested the department to look into the possibility of taking over the maintenance and operation of the Atikokan airport.
Investigations indicated that the present strip was a small one and because of its location could only be expanded and developed at high cost; and that the airport did not fall within the category for which the federal

government normally assumed responsibility but fell within the category where further development would require a cost-sharing program with local interests and is of a standard and type which, under normal federal policy, is operated by local interests rather than by the federal government.


PORT ARTHUR SHIPBUILDING LTD.
Mr. Fisher: Has the Canadian maritime commission, the records of annual expenditure for both shipbuilding and ship repairing in each of the shipbuilding yards in Canada; and, if so, what are the annual figures in each case for Port Arthur Shipbuilding Limited, since 1955, with a breakdown which distinguishes government craft and naval craft?
Answer by: Mr. Martini:
The information provided by Canadian shipyards to the Canadian maritime commission concerning annual expenditures on repairs and conversions is supplied to the commission on a confidential basis and is, therefore, not available for release. With regard to government construction contracts at the shipyard of Port Arthur Shipbuilding Limited there is official record as follows:
(a)	Government naval minesweeper, delivered in 1957, cost $4,416,000.
(b)	Government icebreaker, Alexander Henry, delivered in 1959, cost $2,795,000.


*PORT ARTHUR SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Fisher: 1.	On March 23, 1962, did the Department of Transport or the Canadian maritime commission have any information to indicate that Port Arthur Shipbuilding Limited, had at hand or would have at hand in 1962, any vessel construction contracts under the subsidy arrangement announced on May 12, 1961?
2.	If not, has either the commission or the Minister of Transport received any communications from the parent company of Port Arthur Shipbuilding Limited, the Canadian Shipbuilding Company, which indicate any reasons why such contracts have not been assigned by the parent company to the Port Arthur yard; and, if so, what are the reasons?
3.	Has the Canadian maritime commission any information which would indicate that Port Arthur Shipbuilding Limited might be given a contract in 1962 to build a government vessel or that It was bidding for the right to build such vessel or vessels; and, if so, what are the details?


Mr. Martini:: 1.	No application has been received from Port Arthur Shipbuilding Limited.
2.	No.
3.	The Canadian maritime commission has no information that an order will be placed.


RADIO AND T.V. STATIONS, MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Creaghan: 1.	How many English language radio and television stations are there in the maritime provinces

owned by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and where are they located?
2.	How many news rooms are maintained for the same, and what is the total estimated annual cost to the corporation?
3.	How many French language radio and television stations are there in the maritime provinces owned by Radio Canada, and where are they located?
4.	How many news rooms are maintained for the same, and what is the total estimated annual cost to Radio Canada?
Answer by: Mr. Lambert:
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Three English language radio stations and four low power radio transmitters. The stations are situated at Halifax and Sydney, N.S. and at Sackville, N.B. The low power transmitters are located at Edmunston, Grand Falls, Plaster Rock, N.B., and Barrington, N.S.
One English language television station at Halifax, N.S. plus three T.V. rebroadcasting stations, which carry the Halifax station service, located at Liverpool, Shelburne and Yarmouth, N.S.
2.	One English language news room located in Halifax, serving both radio and television operations in the maritimes. The operations cost annually is estimated to run to about $175,000, which includes television film stock, film processing, freelance cameramen's fees, etc.
3.	The corporation has one French language radio station and one French language tele-vison station at Moncton, N.B. In addition there are six low power radio transmitters located at Digby, Weymouth, Meteghan, Yarmouth in Nova Scotia, and Kedgwick and St. Quinton, N.B. carrying the French network service.
4.	The corporation does not maintain a French language news room in the maritimes. The stations carry the news broadcasts of the French network originating from Montreal. The radio station in Moncton provides a local news service through an arrangement made with the French language newspaper L'Evangeline. It is not considered to be in the public interest to disclose details of such contractual arrangements, as it would affect the position of the corporation in a competitive business in negotiating for services.


* CASES DECIDED ON BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Matheson: Has any case, in which the Department of Justice was involved, been decided on the basis of the Canadian Bill of Rights; and, if so, which case or cases?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: There are four decided cases in which the Department of Justice was represented and in which a provision of the Canadian Bill of Rights was 26207-1-167J
Questions
in issue or was raised in argument. These cases and their citations are as follows:
Sun v. Attorney General for Canada, 1961 S.C.R. 70; Rebrin v. Bird and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 1961 S.C.R. 376; Walsh and Jordan, 1962 O.W.N. 88; Lafleur v. Guay and the Minister of National Revenue, 61 D.T.C. 1059.


* GRAIN CARRIED UNDER CROWSNEST PASS RATES
Mr. Fisher: Has the government been provided, in the last two years, with any estimate of the difference between income and revenue to the railways from grain carried under the Crownsnest pass rates; and, if so, what agency provided the figures, how detailed were the studies, what official authority was given to determine these figures, and what use, if any, does the government plan to make with them?


Quinto Antonio Martini: Special studies and submissions on the cost of moving grain at statutory and related rates were presented by Canadian National Railways, Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba and the grain trade to the royal commission on transportation which was appointed pursuant to order in council P.C. 1959-577, dated May 13, 1959.
The commission made an independent assessment of the studies and submissions and alternative figures arrived at by experts retained by the commission. Certain conclusions and estimates of the commission are contained in volume 1 of its report. The commission has also reported that special studies will be included in volume 3 which has not yet been received by the government. No other estimates of the cost of moving such grain have been provided to the government during the past two years.


WINDOW CLEANING CONTRACTS, MILITARY COLLEGE AND R.C.A.F. STATION, QUE.
Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Since March 1957, has the government awarded any window cleaning contracts with respect to Le College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, and the R.C.A.F. station in the same city, province of Quebec?
2.	If so, when were such contracts awarded, and what are the names of the tenderers for each of the abovementioned contracts, the amount of each tender, and the names of the tenderers to whom the contract was awarded in each case?
Answer by: Mr. O'Hurley:
1.	Because of the tremendous volume of files processed in the district offices of the Department of Defence Production and the limited storage space available, files are kept for a period of three years only. Therefore it is not possible to provide the information requested from March, 1957. Information is, however, available from March, 1959 to the present time.

Questions
Two contracts were placed by the Montreal district office of this department for window cleaning at R.C.A.F. station St. Jean, P.Q., and College Militaire Royal, St. Jean, P.Q., during the latter period.
2.	On September 16, 1959, a contract in the amount of $560 was awarded to Lussier Window Cleaning, 466 St. Jacques st., St. Jean' P.Q. for the exterior cleaning of approximately 1,400 second storey windows at R.C.A.F. station St. Jean, P.Q. Tenders were not invited in this instance because Lussier Window Cleaning was the only known firm in the area at that time that was interested in, and capable of, providing this service.
On June 7, 1961, a contract in the amount of $3,070 was awarded to Astor Window Cleaning Co., 3634 Drolet st., Montreal, P.Q. for the exterior cleaning of approximately 3,264 windows on the first storey, 1,282 windows on the second storey and 741 windows on the third storey of various buildings at R.C.A.F. station St. Jean and College Militaire Royal, St. Jean, P.Q. the dates for cleaning were June and September 1961.
Tender Response June Sept.
Firm	cleaning	cleaning
Affiliated Building Services Co.,
1500 St. Catherine st. West,
Montreal 25, P.Q	 $1,057.40	$1,057.40
Astor Window Cleaning Co.,
3634 Drolet st.,
Montreal, P.Q	 1,575.00	1,495.00
Quick Window Cleaning Co.,
4981 Barclay ave.,
Montreal, P.Q	 1,615.05	1,615.05
Fire Prevention Service Co.,
1500 St. Catherine st. west,
Montreal, P.Q	 1,823.00	1,823.00
Lussier Window Cleaning Enrg.,
466 St. Jacques st.,
St. Jean, P.Q	 1,850.90	1,850.90
Service De Lavage General,
80 rue Olivier,
Victoriaville, P.Q		2,095.00	1,995.00
Imperial Building Maintenance,
9255 St. Michel blvd.,
Montreal 38, P.Q	 2,325.00	2,331.00
The lowest tenderer, Affiliated Building Services Co. was not accepted, as a post tender investigation disclosed the fact that, at the time, this firm lacked the necessary resources to successfully execute the work.


CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDY ON FOREIGN OWNED SHIPS
Mr. Broome: Do the regulations governing ship construction subsidy, allow subsidy to be paid to foreign owned ships built in Canadian yards; and, if so, has the 
Department of Transport or the maritime commission any knowledge as to whether other countries, giving a similar subsidy, follow this same procedure?
Answer by: Mr. Martini:
No. The applicable paragraphs of the regulations read as follows:
2.	(i) "shipbuilders" means a Canadian citizen or a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada, or any province of Canada that is engaged in the business of shipbuilding;
(j) "shipowner" means a Canadian citizen, a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada or of any province, or Her Majesty in right of any province.


APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF PARIMUTUEL BETTING
Mr. Mcllrailh: 1.	Are any applications from racing associations for approval of parimutuel betting, pursuant to section 178 of the Criminal Code, pending before the Minister of Agriculture?
2.	How many of such applications have been approved, and how many have been rejected since January 1, 1961?
3.	What are the names of the associations whose applications have been approved since January 1, 1961?
Answer by: Mr. Jorgenson:
1.	Yes.
2.	Nineteen (19) new applications approved, fifteen (15) new applications rejected.
3.	1. High River Agricultural Society. 2. Lake McGregor Memorial Park Association.
3.	Millarville Racing and Sports Association.
4.	Calgary Trotting and Pacing Association.
5.	Northern Alberta Trotting and Pacing Association. 6. Kirkfield Park Jockey Club. 7. Western Fair Association. 8. Central Canada Exhibition Association. 9. Alviston Driving Club. 10. Grimsby Recreation Company Limited. 11. Prince County Horsemens Club. 12. Osnabruk Racing and Driving Association. 13. Williamstown Driving Park Association Limited. 14. Ottawa Valley Driving Club. 15. Tillsonburg Driving Park Association. 16. Grimsby Driving Park and Athletic Association Limited. 17. Mount Royal Jockey Club Incorporated. 18. King Edward Park and Amusement Company. 19. Montreal Jockey Club.


OTTAWA VALLEY DRIVING CLUB
Mr. Mcllrailh: 1.	Has Ottawa Valley Driving Club Ltd. ever conducted race meetings under the supervision of the Minister of Agriculture; and, if so, where, and on what dates?
2.	Has the said club applied since January 1, 1961, for approval of parimutuel betting; and, if so, what disposition has been made of such application?
3.	Who are the directors of the club?

Answer by: Mr. Jorgenson:
1.	No.
2.	Yes, The Ottawa Valley Driving Club Limited has been granted tentative approval for racing dates subject to the provision of a proper race track with proper parimutuel wagering equipment and facilities and all other pertinent requirements.
3.	J. W. Baskin, Paul Hudson, Gordon McDougal, Warren Armstrong, H. J. Patterson, M. Wright, L. Armstrong.


TILLSONBURG DRIVING PARK ASSOCIATION
Mr. Mcllrailh: 1.	Has the Tillsonburg Driving Park Association Ltd. ever conducted race meetings under the supervision of the Minister of Agriculture; and, if so, where, and on what dates?
2.	Has the said association applied since January 1, 1961, for approval of parimutuel betting; and, if so, what disposition has been made of such application?
3.	Who are the directors of the association? Answer by: Mr. Jorgenson:
1.	No.
2.	Yes. The Tillsonburg Driving Park Association Limited has been granted tentative approval for racing dates subject to the provision of a proper race track with proper parimutuel wagering equipment and facilities and all other pertinent requirements.
3.	Scott Merrill, J. W. Baskin, Warren Armstrong, E. L. H. Burpee, L. Armstrong.


NATHAN LEWIS, R.C.A.F. STATION, TORBAY, NFLD.
Mr. Regier: 1.	Was a Mr. Nathan Lewis employed as a civilian employee at the R.C.A.F. station at Torbay, Newfoundland; and, if so, what were his responsibilities, and for what period or periods was he so employed?
2.	Has Mr. Lewis been suspended from his duties; and, if so, for what reason, and on what date?
3.	Where, and in what manner, is the suspension to be terminated?
4.	Has Mr. Lewis been given a hearing regarding his suspension, and will he be given a hearing before the suspension is terminated?
5.	What is regarded as the normal period of keeping a worker under suspension in cases of this kind?
Answer by: Mr. Chambers:
1.	Mr. Nathan Lewis was hired on December 5, 1958 as a cleaning service man at R.C.A.F. station Torbay. Mr. Lewis was employed in this position until October 16, 1961.
2.	On October 16, 1961, Mr. Lewis was suspended from his duties pending approval of a recommendation from the commanding officer, R.C.A.F. station Torbay, that he be dismissed because of unsatisfactory service, including tardiness, absenteeism, disregard of regulations and instructions, and a complete lack of responsibility and dependability.
Questions
3.	Under P.C. 1962-6/463, dated April 5, 1962, Mr. Lewis was dismissed from the government service.
4.	Early last year, Mr. Lewis was warned of his shortcomings and placed on probation. When no improvement was forthcoming, Mr. Lewis was advised that he was being placed on suspension pending approval for his dismissal. At that time, he was informed of his right under the civil service regulations to present his side of the case to a senior officer of the department. A hearing by the commanding officer, R.C.A.F. station Torbay, was arranged for November 17, 1961. Mr. Lewis was informed of the hearing by registered mail, but did not appear. In January, 1962, Mr. Lewis came to Ottawa and was interviewed by the R.C.A.F.'s director of civilian personnel.
5.	There is no "normal" period of keeping under suspension employees recommended for dismissal, since each case is treated as an individual matter in accordance with all the circumstances surrounding it.


EDMONTON POST OFFICE
Mr. Matheson: 1.	When did the government announce its intention to construct a new Edmonton post office?
2.	When was real estate purchased for this purpose?
3.	When were architectural plans commissioned?
4.	When does the government intend to call for tenders?
Answer by: Mr. Walker:
1.	There is no intention to construct a new post office in Edmonton. It is assumed that the reference is to additions and alterations planned for postal terminal A, an existing building. No announcement has been made concerning this project but the information was published in the estimates of the Department of Public Works for the fiscal year 1960-1961.
2.	The land was expropriated May 13, 1960.
3.	April 23, 1959.
4.	As soon as plans and specifications are completed.


REMOVAL OF DYNAMITE BLASTING POWDER FROM STRATEGIC LIST
Mr. Morton: When was dynamite blasting powder removed from the list of strategic materials?


Mr. Morris:: Dynamite was deleted from the Canadian export control list with the revision of the list under order in council P.C. 19541226 of August 18, 1954. This action followed the deletion of dynamite from the international strategic control list.

Questions


* RADIO STATION LICENCES, SPECIAL BAND
Mr. Deschaielels: 1.	Has the Minister of Transport announced by way of a press release dated May 10, 1961, that new licences for radio stations operating on a special band would be issued on April 1, 1962?
2.	Have such licences been issued, as promised, on April 1, 1962; and, if not, for what reason were those licences not issued, and for what period of time is the issue of such licences being postponed?
3.	How many manufacturers have informed the department that they were ready to operate as of April 1, 1962?
4.	How many manufacturers had their radio stations approved prior to April 1, 1962, according to the departmental specifications?
5.	Does the government intend to compensate the manufacturers, the distributors, and the retailers who have invested large sums of money, following the press release issued by the Minister of Transport on May 10, 1961, for failing to issue licences for such radio stations?


Quinto Antonio Martini: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the five parts of this question are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Sixty-two pieces of equipment from manufacturers and distributors have been processed by the Department of Transport prior to April 1, 1962; of those, 22 have been approved.
4.	No radio station, as such, was approved prior to April 1, 1962.
5.	Answered by 2.


* TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING GRADUATES
Mr. Pitman: 1.	What has been the total number of graduates from all courses for unemployed persons sponsored under schedule M to the agreements under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act as of the latest date for which figures are available?
2.	What has been the total number of graduates from all courses for unemployed persons sponsored thereunder in Ontario as of the latest date for which figures are available?
3.	Does the Department of Labour have information regarding the number of these course-graduates who have found employment; and, if so, how many have become re-employed?


Mr. Thrasher:: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the three parts of this question are as follows:
1.	Total number of graduates in all courses from January 1, 1961 to February 28, 1962 is 9,183.
2.	Total number of graduates in Ontario for the same period is 1,453.
3.	No.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question, in tabulated form, is as follows:
Number of fall-out shelters built in the Ottawa area under the provisions of the National Housing Act to January 31, 1962.
New Home Houses Improvement
City of Ottawa	
-	-Nepean township	
3	1South Hull	
1	-


UNEMPLOYED TAKING TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING
Mr. Pitman: 1.	How many unemployed persons were taking training under schedule M to the agreements under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act in Canada in each month during the year 1981?
2.	How many unemployed were taking training thereunder in Ontario in each month during the year 1961?
Answer by: Mr. Thrasher:
Mr. Speaker, the answers to the two parts of this question, in tabulated form, are as follows:
1.	Number of persons given training each month for the period January 1, 1961 to December 31, 1961
Month	No.
January	 2,535
February	 3,093
March	 4,151
April	 3,297
May	 2,894
June	 2,830
July	 2,964
August	 3,259
September	 3,958
October	  4,130
November	 4,762
December	 4,789
2.	Number of persons given training in the province of Ontario for the period January 1, 1961 to December 31, 1961
Month	No.
January	 140
February	 269
March	  420
April	 531
May	 661
June	 888
July	 1,269
August	 1,287
September	 1,524
October	 1,491
November	 1,650
December	 1,558
These figures represent the total numbers receiving training during the month and not new enrolments for each month.


*N.H.A.-LOANS FOR FALL-OUT SHELTERS, OTTAWA
Mr. Pitman: How many in the city of Ottawa have received loans for fall-out shelters under the National Housing Act loans for new houses and under the home-improvement loan provision of the N.H.A.?


*N.H.A. LOANS, SUDBURY AND NICKEL BELT CONSTITUENCIES
Mr. Mitchell: 1.	How many National Housing Act approved loans and N.H.A. direct loans have been placed in the Sudbury and Nickel Belt constituencies since January 1, 1961?

2.	What was the total amount of legal fees paid in connection with the above loans, and the names of the legal firms receiving these fees?
3.	What amount was paid and remains to be paid to each of the above named firms?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, this is a long answer. I would ask leave of the house to have it printed in Hansard without being read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1.
N.H.A. loans approved in 1961
Approved	C.M.H.C.	
Constituency Lenders	Direct	TotalSudbury 80	318	398Nickel Belt 12	436	448Total 92	754	846
2. Legal firms engaged for legal services in the constituencies of Sudbury and Nickel Belt by C.M.H.C. in 1961.
(The legal firms listed below were engaged for work relating to title search and preparation of mortgages covering direct loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the National Housing Act. The corporation follows the customary mortgage practice under which legal fees are paid by the borrower. The corporation has no record
of the amount of these fees.)
Lawyer	Number of Loans
J. L. Chapman	 32
J. N. Desmarias, Q.C	79
Hugh A. Doig	 76
E. C. Facer, Q.C	76
George M. Miller, Q.C	94
J. L. McNahon	 79
Lloyd J. Valin, Q.C	 79
H. Waisberg, Q.C	 73
Gerald F. Kinsman,	Q.C. ... 56
C. T. Fouriezos	 53
G. S. Shay	 9
V. H. Little, Q.C	 48
Total 754
(Note: As approved lenders select their own lawyers, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has no record of the law firms engaged or the fees paid relating to the N.H.A. loans made by approved lenders.)
3.	Answered by part 2 above.
Order for Returns QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	What are the tons and ton miles of freight moved on equipment owned by Northern Transportation Company Ltd., and licensed by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, during the years 1959, 1960, and 1961, tabulated as follows: (a) total from and to all points within the company system northbound (b) total from and to all points within the company system southbound (c) from Fort Smith, N.W.T., to all points within the Northwest Territories (d) from Hay River, N.W.T., to all points within the Northwest Territories (e) from Hay River, N.W.T., and Fort Smith, N.W.T., destined for distant early warning station sites (f) from Norman Wells N.W.T., destined for the distant early warning station sites (g) from Norman Wells to all other points within the Northwest Territories?
2.	Of the total tonnage and ton miles moved within the Northwest Territories, what percentage of each of these totals was moved for (a) crown corporations (b) Canadian government departments (c) distant early warning station sites (d) consignees other than above?
3.	What gross revenue was earned by N.T.C.L., in each year, 1959, 1960, and 1961, from the carriage of goods within the N.W.T., tabulated as follows:
(a)	goods carried for crown corporations (b) goods carried for Canadian government departments (c) goods carried to distant early warning station sites (d) goods carried for consignees other than (a), (b), or (c) ?
4.	Of the total tonnage provided for carriage by the Northern Transportation Company Ltd., what tonnage was allocated to Canadian (private enterprise) carriers, licensed by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, by the N.T.C.L., for movement within the N.W.T., during the years 1959, 1960, and 1961?
5.	What sources of revenue has Northern Transportation other than by the carriage of goods by water?
6.	Other than transportation operations, what business activities are carried on by Northern Transportation Company Ltd.?
7.	What is the yearly statement of income and expenditures, in tabulated form, in totals and in cents per ton mile, for the years, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, and 1961, of yearly (a) freight earnings
(b)	miscellaneous earnings, other than freight revenue (c) operating expenses (d) administrative expenses (e) depreciation (f) operating profit (g) income tax paid (h) net profit?


MEDICAL SERVICES, ETC., INDIAN RESERVES, B.C.
Mr. Maiheson: 1.	What medical services are available to the Indians on (a) Halfway reserve (b) Blueberry reserve (c) Prophet river reserve (d) Doig river reserve?
2.	What transportation facilities are available to and from the above reserves?
3.	How often and for how long has the Indian agent at Fort St. John visited each of the above reserves during the year 1961?


VETERANS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT LEGAL FEES, N.B. AND N.S.
Mr. Robichaud: What was the total amount of legal fees paid
by the veterans affairs department from April 1,

Order for Returns
1957, to March 31,	1962, in the provinces of
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and what were the names and addresses of the recipients of such fees, and the amount received in each case?


PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, LEGAL FEES, N.B. AND N.S.
Mr. Robichaud: What was the total amount of legal fees paid by the Department of Public Works from April 1, 1957, to March 31, 1962, in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and what were the names and addresses of the recipients of such fees, and the amount received in each case?


NATIONAL DEFENCE DEPARTMENT, LEGAL FEES, N.B. AND N.S.
Mr. Robichaud: What was the total amount of legal fees paid by the Department of National Defence from April 1, 1957, to March 31, 1962, in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and what were the names and addresses of the recipients of such fees, and the amount received in each case?


FISHERIES DEPARTMENT LEGAL FEES, N.B. AND N.S.
Mr. Robichaud: What was the total amount of legal fees paid by the Department of Fisheries from April 1, 1957, to March 31, 1962, in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and what were the names and addresses of the recipients of such fees, and the amount received in each case?


TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT LEGAL FEES, N.B. AND N.S.
Mr. Robichaud: What was the total amount of legal fees paid by the Department of Transport from April 1, 1957, to March 31, 1962, in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and what were the names and addresses of the recipients of such fees, and the amount received in each case?


NORTHERN AFFAIRS LEGAL FEES, N.B. AND N.S.
Mr. Robichaud: What was the total amount of legal fees paid by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources from April 1, 1957, to March 31, 1962, in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and what were the names and addresses of the recipients of such fees, and the amount received in each case?


NATIONAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT LEGAL FEES, N.B. AND N.S.
Mr. Robichaud: What was the total amount of legal fees paid by the Department of National Revenue from April 1, 1957, to March 31, 1962, in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and what were the names and addresses of the recipients of such fees, and the amount received in each case?


CANADIAN HOSPITAL STATISTICS
Mr. Macnaughlon: 1. What is the annual wage bill for all hospital employees in Canada (a) general hospitals (b) mental hospitals?

2.	What is the total number of employees working in hospitals in Canada (a) general hospitals (b) mental hospitals?
3.	What is the number of employees per bed working in hospitals in Canada (a) general hospitals (b) mental hospitals?
4.	What was the estimated amount being spent in 1959, 1960, and 1961, on the construction of hospitals (a) general hospitals (b) mental hospitals; and, how much of this was contributed by the federal government?
5.	How does the average hourly rate for general employees in hospitals compare with the average hourly rate in the transportation industry, the primary and secondary industries?
6.	What is the comparison of wages paid to (a) nurses (b) social workers (c) psychologists (d) nursing assistants (e) cleaners (f) kitchen staff, in federal hospitals as compared with community hospitals?
(Translation):


SHIPPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) or to his parliamentary secretary.
Since the minister stated in the house last Friday that he has asked his officials to bring together the pilots and the shipowners and since the pilots claim that neither the shipowners nor departmental officials got in touch with them, has the minister no comment to make in this respect and can he explain this situation?
(Text):


Quinto Antonio Martini: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker,
could the parliamentary secretary also take as notice the following question?
Why does the minister insist that the pilots go back to work before their grievances are settled since the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) did not lay down such conditions in other disputes such as, for example, the one involving C.N.R. employees?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
(Translation):


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could also consider it as notice.
In what way is that strike illegal, as the minister claimed in his telegram of last April 6?

(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour a question arising out of those which have just been asked. Can the minister tell us whether the strike that is now going on between the pilots and the shipping federation of Canada is a legal strike?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, before I answer that question I shall have to look closely at the three questions that were asked previously.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I do so as a member of this house and as honorary president of the Kootenay Battalion association, a battalion in which many trade unionists and some socialists served Canada in world war I. I can hardly contain my indignation.
Have instructions been sent by the minister or army headquarters to militia units ordering that militiamen, temporarily called out with special militia training units, must resign from membership in the New Democratic party, and provide proof in writing to the officer commanding of their resignations, and abstain from all political activity on behalf of that party during their off duty hours?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have not sent any instructions to militia units, or to any other destination, concerning membership in the New Democratic party or on any other subject pertaining to that group; nor has army headquarters sent any such instructions. I do not know the source of the information on which the hon. member bases his question, but it would seem to have some destructive intent as far as the armed services are concerned.


Mr. Winch:: We have proof of it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The situation with regard to the armed services is quite well known. Members of the regular forces are forbidden by Queen's regulations to take part in political activity. That is definite and well understood. No such prohibition exists with respect to militiamen. However, neither officers nor men of the militia or regular forces are permitted to carry on political activities in government armouries or in other military enclaves.
26207-1-168
9, 1962	2629
Proposed Vancouver-Sea Island Tunnel


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I say before I proceed that I resent the implication in the minister's answer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I resent the question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the minister know that the C.O., Lieutenant Colonel Reynolds, and Major Lee, officer commanding the 17th field squadron of the 8th field regiment R.C.E. (militia), demanded that a captain and two N.C.O.'s resign their membership in the New Democratic party and submit proof of their resignations to him in writing? Does the minister know that the captain in question, while proud to serve with this unit, severed an enjoyable association in protest against this infrigement of his civil rights and a Canadian citizen?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I know absolutely nothing about anything along that line.


William Arnold Peters: You know nothing, period; just leave it there.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can only say that if such a request was made I should think it would have been made because political activity was being carried on in the armouries or in the unit contrary to regulations.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question. Does the minister know-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the federal government should give consideration to the advisability of constructing a bridge or tunnel across the north arm of the Fraser river between the city of Vancouver and Sea island in the municipality of Richmond.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house will give unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to move down where we can hear him.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear no objection. I take it that the hon. member, if he wishes to take a more central seat, is at liberty to do so for this time only.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Speaker, again I should like to thank the house for its courtesy on this occasion in allowing me to move to the central part of the chamber in order to bring
2630	HOUSE OF
Proposed Vancouver-Sea Island Tunnel before the house what I personally consider is a matter of urgent importance to the city of Vancouver and the entire greater Vancouver area. Notice of motion No. 19, which I have introduced today, reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the federal government should give consideration to the advisability of constructing a bridge or tunnel across the north arm of the Fraser river between the city of Vancouver and Sea island in the municipality of Richmond.
In presenting the background underlying the importance and necessity of this resolution I wish to draw to the attention of the house the population figures for the greater Vancouver area. The population of the greater Vancouver area for 1961 is estimated at 769,900 by the dominion bureau of statistics. The population of the whole of British Columbia is estimated at 1,631,000. The British Columbia research council predicts that by 1971 the population of the greater Vancouver area will be 1,076,200, and that the population of the entire province will be 2,316,900. It is pointed out by the industrial development commission of greater Vancouver that this area includes 309,257 acres of land and embraces ten municipalities. This indicates that this important area is Canada's third largest industrial area. I provide this background information in order to indicate the importance of the problem I am trying to raise.
Sea island which is in the municipality of Richmond within my riding is in the mouth of the Fraser river. The island is surrounded by the north arm of the Fraser river which functions as a barrier between the city of Vancouver and Sea island. The other part of Sea island is surrounded by Moray channel. Sea island itself contains some 4,050 acres and is noted primarily for the fact that it is Vancouver's international airport.
I should point out to hon. members that at the present time the Vancouver international airport is being acquired by the federal government. It is hoped that in the very near future we shall be able to see construction started on a terminal the cost of which would amount to perhaps more than $20 million. The majority of Sea island is owned by the Department of Transport. A fairly small portion is owned by the Department of National Defence. From talking to the town planners in Richmond I understand it is hoped eventually that the whole of Sea island-the whole 4,050 acres-will eventually become zoned for airport use. At the present time there are some 3,000 people living on Sea island.
The point I am trying to make with this resolution is the fact that at the present time there is no-and I emphasize the word "no"- direct access to the city of Vancouver from Sea island. The only access at present is a
[Mr. Drysdale.l

two lane swing span bridge over the Moray channel. This swing span bridge connects Sea island with Lulu island. From Lulu island it is necessary to go over the Oak street bridge which is a $9 million provincial government toll bridge. Previously there was direct access to Vancouver international airport through the old Marpole bridge which was also a swing span bridge. I think many of the people in the former government will remember the many times tugs and tows forced the opening of that bridge, with delays from 45 minutes up to an hour. However, eventually the Marpole bridge was removed by the provincial government.
There is in existence another bridge called Eburne bridge which connects Sea island and Lulu island. The Eburne bridge is a wooden structure which has come to be in a very dilapidated condition, with the result that there was forced closure of this bridge some time last March. Since that time in March 1961, the only communication between Sea island which is Vancouver's international airport and the lower mainland of Vancouver has been the swing span bridge of two lanes. Anybody knowing the idiosyncrasies of bridges will understand when I say that on several occasions this particular bridge has either closed and failed to open, an occurrence which has tied up the water traffic, or else the reverse procedure has taken place, namely it has opened and failed to close, something which has caused a great deal of difficulty.
It seems to me to be idiotic, to say the least-and that is a rather strong word- that this very important airport, one of Canada's most important, is completely dependant on this two lane swing span bridge. Perhaps to my friends who are not familiar with that area in Burnaby-Richmond I might say that they could get the same analogy if they consider what the situation would be if they had only one access road, for instance to Malton airport or to Dorval airport, and this particular access road were subject to closure without notice. I think it would be fairly easy to imagine the difficulties that situation would produce with respect to traffic tie ups. On a couple of recent occasions last year the bridge failed to close for a period of two or three hours and traffic has been backed right up over the Oak street bridge into Vancouver, a distance of from one and a half to two miles. It has also been backed up into the Richmond area, also another two miles.
I think this will indicate to the house the necessity, as I have indicated in the resolution, for the construction of either a bridge or tunnel. While I mention the alternatives of a bridge or tunnel, in my opinion

the only practical method of providing communication between the city of Vancouver and Sea island would be to establish a four lane tunnel, I would suggest that the most suitable location-and this suggestion has been made on previous occasions-would be a continuation of Granville street, which is one of the main arterial highways in the city of Vancouver, over to Sea island with the four lane tunnel. There have been varying estimates as to the cost of this tunnel.
I think it has been suggested that possibly an amount of $10 million would be adequate for the tunnel. I would point out that this would mean an additional saving in the distance to the downtown Vancouver area. As a matter of fact, it would be some 2.6 miles less to Vancouver. If the distance was measured from the Oak street bridge, the distance saved would be a minimum of 1.3 miles. Hence from the distance point of view we have 1.3 and 2.6 miles. We would have the added benefit of continuous access rather than this haphazard basis we now have as, under the rules of navigation, the tugs and tows of course have the right to go through and it is the automobile traffic which is forced to wait. I myself had the experience of being over on the Sea island side of the bridge and having the bridge open while one little tugboat went through. It took about 15 minutes. Out of curiosity I counted approximately 60 cars that were tied up on each side. You can imagine the awkward situation that would have resulted if ambulance service had been required or if the necessity had arisen to get fire engines either over to the Sea island side, as they are based on the Lulu island side of Richmond, or if you had the alternative situation where the fire engines come over, as I believe they do once a week, and if the bridge stuck. If there was a fire back on the Lulu island side, it would be impossible to give adequate fire servicing.
I should like to point out to the house the passenger traffic at the Vancouver international airport has been progressively increasing. In 1950 there were some 397,000 passengers; in 1957, some 794,000; and in 1961, some 938,000.
Looking at the situation from the constitutional aspect, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that under the British North America Act of 1867, section 91(10), navigation and shipping are, of course, under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Under section 92(10), which deals with provincial rights, the following statement is made:
10. Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:-
- (c) Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada
26207-1-1681
9, 1962	2631
Proposed Vancouver-Sea Island Tunnel to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
For the assistance of the house I would point out that the water area surrounding Sea island comes within the jurisdiction of the north Fraser harbour commissioners, a board that was established in 1913. I should also be obliged to point out to the house, however, that in 1924 some six harbours within the Vancouver area were made public works. Unfortunately one of those harbours was not that of the north Fraser harbour commissioners. The result is that we have the provincial government as the owner of the foreshore and the bed of the river. However, in 1951 the provincial government granted a 21 year lease of the foreshore of the harbour with the result that we have the north Fraser harbour commissioners in effect acting as agents of the provincial government on a purely administrative basis.
While I am on the legal aspect I would also draw to the attention of the committee that under the Navigable Waters Protection Act I think there would be a requirement of federal approval for such a bridge or tunnel. I should like to point out to the house that although the Moray channel bridge, which I have spoken about previously, was constructed by the provincial government, there was a grant of some $400,000 to the provincial government in order to make it a toll free bridge.
At that time the city of Vancouver was the owner of the Vancouver international airport and one other necessity in considering this particular bridge was the provision of adequate access to federal government properties, namely those of the Department of Transport and those of the Department of National Defence. So we see, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government through the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence owns nearly all of Sea island at the present time and this is a change in factors from what we had under the previous situation. The federal government will be building an airport terminal at a cost of $20 million and it is a very simple and obvious proposition that for such a gigantic undertaking one of the minimum requirements is the assurance of continued access.
In fairness I feel I should point out that it is my personal view that the provincial government has not assumed its responsibility under the present situation, because I will admit quite freely that I think that primarily the matter is the responsibility of the provincial government. However, under the circumstances I feel it is necessary for the federal government to take the leadership, and I suggest that it consider having an
2632	HOUSE OF
Proposed Vancouver-Sea Island Tunnel engineering survey made now to study the construction of such a bridge or a tunnel, and that it communicate with the provincial government with a view to solving the very urgent problem of providing adequate access.
I have discussed this matter with many of the people in the lower mainland area. The simplicity of the problem has made it rather difficult to argue, but the important fact is that construction should be commencing very soon on the terminal. As I have indicated by reference to the tremendous increase in the population of the lower mainland and the volume of business being done at the Vancouver international airport, it is urgent now that the federal and provincial governments get together and assure that a bridge or tunnel will be constructed so that adequate access to the Vancouver international airport will be provided.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will be grateful to the hon. member who has introduced this resolution which concerns a problem of acute importance, I am sure, to those who live in the great metropolis of Vancouver. The resolution invites the federal government to give consideration to the advisability of constructing either a bridge or a tunnel across the north arm of the Fraser river between the city of Vancouver and Sea island in the municipality of Richmond, which municipality I take it forms part of the hon. member's constituency.
I have no hesitation in saying at once that we on this side of the house will support this resolution, but perhaps the hon. member will allow me to take the liberty of making one or two suggestions. It seems to me that when members of this house are considering the very vital problems of transportation in our country today we should at once be willing to give consideration at least, if not action, to any measure that is desirable from the point of view of improving traffic conditions in a metropolitan area such as Vancouver.
The other thing I should like to say is this. The resolution speaks only of consideration, and toward the end of the hon. member's remarks he said something about an engineering survey. However I should like to make this suggestion. I think that an engineering survey is not enough because, if I understand what he has in mind, an engineering survey is normally made by the engineers of the Department of Public Works. My memory of a number of engineering surveys made either by the Department of Public Works alone or jointly with the Department of Transport leads me to say that it takes quite a long time before there is any result. If there is going to be any action in connection with a resolution such as this one, it would


strike me that a committee or commission of engineers independent of either of the two departments should be established.
We have, for instance, the question of the Richelieu waterway. First, the Department of Transport gave that matter consideration and then the Department of Public Works gave it consideration, as well as a committee of officials of the two departments. After two years had gone by the matter was finally submitted jointly by the two governments to the international joint commission. I make these observations because a great deal of time was lost in that regard.
That is why it would strike me that a committee of engineers or perhaps a committee comprised of an economist and two engineers might study the desirability of (a) building a bridge, (b) building a tunnel as well as (c) the question of cost and (d) the location and any other matters that the government would want to submit to such a body. I only make these suggestions in an attempt to be helpful because I have found that a great deal of time has been lost in making many of these surveys in the past.
The hon. member referred to the constitutional problem. While I have not given it any study, offhand I believe it is one that might perhaps come within the sections to which he has referred. If not, the Navigable Waters Protection Act is a statute that might be called into play in a project of this nature. As the hon. member knows, that statute comes partly under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport and partly under the Department of Public Works, but for the purposes that the hon. member has in mind it seems to me that the matter is one which would fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works.
In order not to delay the resolution and also to give others an opportunity to speak, I will sum up my remarks by saying that, first, the opposition is favourable to any project of a transportation nature such as this which will improve traffic conditions in any great metropolitan area such as Vancouver and, second, in order to bring the matter to a head quickly it strikes me that not only should consideration be given as requested in the resolution but action should be taken upon the resolution by the appointment of a board of engineers to study the various aspects of what we think is a laudable project.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: I have
a good deal of pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in supporting the motion introduced to the house today by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale). It states:
That, in the opinion of this house, the federal government should give consideration to the advisability of constructing a bridge or tunnel

across the north arm of the Fraser river between the city of Vancouver and Sea island in the municipality of Richmond.
As the hon. member has pointed out, at the moment access to Sea island is by means of the Oak street bridge, a new bridge constructed by the provincial government. This replaces the old Marpole bridge. Then, in order to cross the Moray channel there is a two lane swing span before you enter Sea island proper. It is this particular span that has proven to be the bottleneck. In any consideration of the over-all planning for the Vancouver airport, which has recently been turned over by the city of Vancouver to the federal government and where the Department of Transport is planning new passenger facilities, the question of access to this airport is of the utmost importance. It is not only access to the airport which must be considered, but it is access to a major national defence air force establishment. This access, of course, is limited by the fact that you simply have the Oak street bridge and the Moray channel bridge.
The resolution refers to a bridge or tunnel. There has been a rather sketchy engineering survey made which indicates that a tunnel would be superior to a bridge. In so far as a bridge is concerned, of course you either have to have a low span bridge, in which case you get interference with the traffic on the north arm of the Fraser river, or you have a high level crossing over the north arm and which would be located somewhat westerly of the present Oak street bridge, and this might interfere with zoning regulations and flightway plans. On the other hand, the tunnel would have the advantage that it would not interfere with other river development considerations and it would not infringe upon the necessary restrictions of air traffic control. It would provide direct and immediate access for emergency defence purposes, independent of other traffic facilities in the area. A tunnel would be less vulnerable than a ground traffic structure in the event of hostilities.
The hon. member has mentioned the growth in the population of Vancouver. The growth in his own area of Richmond has been equally startling from a percentage point of view. For instance, from approximately 20,000 in 1954 the population of Richmond has risen to 42,000 in 1962 and it is expected to be 80,000 by 1969.
I know that members of this house are apt to view with scepticism the claims made by members coming from the west coast. They think that we have a pretty good province but we are inclined to gild the lily by claiming advantages beyond those about which we can brag. The fact is that we have the fastest growing area in Canada. We have an economy based upon natural resource development and
S. 1962	2633
Proposed Vancouver-Sea, Island Tunnel our natural resources have only just been touched. These figures do seem to be unrealistic when compared with the rather lethargic growth in the east, but they can be considered to be very conservative estimates when you consider what the growth on the Pacific coast will be.
It is quite true that the problem of access to the airport is a matter for the provincial government. At the same time, however, the federal government has its responsibility. The federal government will be spending something in the neighbourhood of $12 million on airport facilities. As the hon. member has pointed out, although the number of flights from the airport are decreasing the number of passengers is increasing. I believe the figures he gave indicated that almost one million passengers passed through the Vancouver international airport last year. These figures will continue to grow, and they will grow very fast. The problem of moving these passengers to and from the airport is going to be a matter which must be considered by the Department of Transport, and the people who are associated with the department on the west coast in developing the facilities there.
I have great pleasure therefore, Mr. Speaker, in seconding this motion and urging the house to give support to it. The question of a location of the tunnel, whether it is at the foot of Granville street or whether it is at the foot of Hudson street is something for properly qualified technical people to decide. It would necessarily be somewhere in that area and would have the additional advantage of rejuvenating a section of the city which was cut off from the flow of traffic when the old Marpole bridge was abandoned and the new Oak street bridge constructed. It will only be justice if the development of a tunnel, such as is envisaged by this resolution, results in the Marpole business area regaining some of its former prosperity.


Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to have the opportunity to support this motion introduced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond (Mr. Drysdale). The crossing proposed in this resolution would join the city of Vancouver with Sea island, and is certainly something that should command the attention of the federal government because of the huge investment they now have at Sea island as a result of the acquisition of the Vancouver international airport and the defence installations. For these reasons, it is of the utmost importance that we have access to the island.
There is no direct access, of course, at the present time from the city of Vancouver to
2634	HOUSE OF
Proposed Vancouver-Sea Island Tunnel Sea island. One of my main concerns in relation to this matter is the generally recognized fact that with the growth of traffic there a new crossing is going to have to be built by someone. I think it is true that the initiative should have come from the provincial government. Unfortunately, it has not come from that quarter so I think the matter has been properly raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. At the time the Oak street bridge was constructed, the city of Vancouver felt it was very badly discriminated against in the matter of sharing the cost of the approaches to the bridge. This view was expressed by the city council at that time, and they protested very strenuously to the provincial government. Representing as I do the people of Vancouver-Kingsway who will be concerned with any costs arising from a project of this nature, I want to make sure that they get a better deal than they did on the last occasion a crossing was built. I believe there have already been some studies made regarding the possibility of a crossing by C.B.A. Engineers Limited. I do not know how detailed the studies were, but I believe they concern a crossing at the foot of Granville street where we formerly had a bridge which is no longer in use. I might remark that with the growth of traffic now developing we should not be doing away with bridges already in existence.
The federal government should take this matter up at once because it is quite evident that the provincial government is not going to go ahead, as it should. As I said, along with other members taking part in this debate, while in the normal course of events it may not have been a direct responsibility of the federal government, the fact is now that the federal government is in possession of the larger part of Sea island, has huge defence establishments and this, along with the importance of Vancouver international airport, indicates it should give immediate attention to the question and see what can be done about it.


Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: should like to commend the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale) for introducing this most worth-while resolution. It is one which I feel all hon. members from the province of British Columbia should support, and its sponsor has again indicated most progressive thinking in regard to a very worthy public project. He has made it very clear that we have no direct access between the city of Vancouver and Sea island, and that we must have direct access in order to cope with the great amount of traffic now prevalent and which is expected to increase.


The hon. member has pointed out that he does not want any bottleneck between the city of Vancouver and his own progressive constituency. He has long been an advocate of a more modem and up to date international terminal and has played a large part in the planning of what we all feel will be the most modern international airport in this country, if not on this continent. As he pointed out, we are about to spend $20 million, and before the terminal is completed we may have to spend $30 million. At the present time there is a substantial investment there in airplanes and airport works, and it does seem foolish to have this very large capital investment and at the same time have no direct access to the place where it is located.
All of us who make periodic visits to the terminal have to consider whether the bridge referred to by the hon. member will be open or not. If it is not, then there is a considerable waste of time. Leaving aside the matter as to who should pay for the tunnel or bridge, and I for one feel a tunnel would be more appropriate, the main consideration we must have is that of getting access to the area. Again leaving aside the matter of who should pay for the tunnel or bridge, I believe it would be most wise for the federal government to give consideration to the project, as suggested by the resolution.
I also hope that the co-operation of public officials in the municipality of Richmond and the city of Vancouver, together with that of the appropriate minister in Victoria, will be sought and secured.
It is common knowledge that the present day trend is towards rapid transportation. By air it is only four hours from Vancouver to Toronto, and an hour from Vancouver to Calgary. As a sidelight I may relate that on a recent trip from Vancouver to Toronto, the stewardess asked a passenger at Vancouver if she could help him off with his overcoat and he said: "No thanks, I am getting off at Winnipeg." That is an indication of how fast we now move between some of the major centres in this country.
The trend is toward speed, and at Vancouver airport we are giving consideration to the provision of larger customs facilities. We are also considering the American system of handling customs and immigration. It is a system I have advocated in this house and elsewhere. Airport passengers travelling north should be cleared through Canadian customs and immigration at Seattle. The Americans have co-operated by establishing appropriate customs and immigration stations in Vancouver for passengers travelling south. This system saves time.

In order to cope with the problem of transportation between the city of Vancouver and the airport we are considering transporting passengers by helicopter. Some people are also advocating the establishment of a monorail service between the air terminal and downtown Vancouver, but I feel that if we can be assured of having a tunnel or bridge constructed we shall have less need for a helicopter or monorail service.
It is foolish to increase speed and efficiency in the air only to meet with delays getting to and from the air terminals. In fact it is a common expression, that "if you have time to spare travel by air". Another version of it put out by the C.N.R. and C.P.R. is that if you "travel by train you avoid the strain". People who want to use air transportation in the Vancouver area ought to be able to avoid the strain by having proper access to the air terminal. At the present time there is need for a further access road and in the near future that need will be much greater.
I have referred to a helicopter site in the city of Vancouver, and I have a letter here which the Minister of Transport wrote to me about the matter. In his letter the minister said that, as regards the location of a heliport, his department considers it would be advisable if the site were removed from built up or congested areas, and if possible it were placed immediately adjacent to water courses where approaches and departures may be safely made without the necessity of flying over built up areas. In this connection we have given consideration to access routes by water into the False creek area.
At the present time the construction of the Chignecto canal is being advocated in the maritimes at a cost of $90 million, but what the hon. member proposes in order to link up his area with the city of Vancouver will be much less expensive, and it must be borne in mind that it will serve a greater population. Late in 1959 an editorial appeared in the Vancouver Sun which urged the city officials to promote Vancouver's status as a world travel centre by supporting the construction of a waterfront access road, and this administration has done that.
The article also emphasized the need for expanded port facilities, including small aircraft accommodation. The present administration has done that also. The editorial also pointed out the need to improve other access routes, and the airport was mentioned. I also noticed that in the Vancouver Province there was a similar editorial which advocated opening up the waterfront and our access routes to the international airport. Therefore it is with pleasure that I join my colleague the hon. member for Burnaby-Riehmond (Mr. 9, 1962	2635
Proposed Vancouver-Sea Island Tunnel Drysdale) in advocating careful consideration by the federal government of this most important matter.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, although I am a representative of a Vancouver constituency I deliberately held back from speaking on this motion until I had heard what other hon. members had to say as to the reason for placing such particular importance on this one proposition which is before the house, namely the building of a bridge or tunnel to act as an access road between the city of Vancouver and Sea island. As a resident in and a representative of Vancouver, I naturally support anything that is going to be of assistance in solving our transportation problem in that city and its environs. We are without doubt in a very peculiar and particular situation in the metropolitan area of Vancouver, the third largest city in Canada. As far as the airport is concerned, from my home I can get to the airport without paying a toll because I go over the Frasel river bridge, which is toll free.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: It is not open.


Harold Edward Winch: In all the years I have been travelling between the airport and my home I have never yet been held up on the Fraser river bridge.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: You are lucky.


Harold Edward Winch: Moreover, since the opening of the bridge we have been hearing so much about, this two lane, swing span bridge over the Moray channel, I have never yet been held up on that bridge and this is the first time I have heard of anybody being held up on it. This may be just a peculiar circumstance, but that has been my experience.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could direct a question to the hon. member?


Harold Edward Winch: Just a moment. Apart from the Fraser river bridge there is no other way of getting to the airport from Vancouver except by going over the Oak street toll bridge owned by the provincial government and then going over the two lane, swing bridge of the Moray channel, which is not a toll bridge because the federal government made a contribution of 50 per cent of its cost.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Four hundred thousand dollars.


Harold Edward Winch: Therefore it had to be a toll free bridge. Mr. Speaker, I was most interested, as I have said, to hear some of the facts and factors mentioned by previous speakers with regard to just what is the purpose of this new bridge or tunnel. I gather from the remarks of the hon. member who moved this motion that he anticipates the
263S	HOUSE OF
Proposed Vancouver-Sea Island Tunnel time will come in the not too distant future when Sea island will be almost completely of an airport nature, either a civil international airport, which it is today, or tied in with the R.C.A.F. Some 3,000 people reside there at the present time, as I believe the hon. member said. That number will undoubtedly not increase; perhaps it will decrease. Therefore on the basis of the hon. member's presentation we now have before us for consideration an access road from the city of Vancouver to what is going to be wholly or solely an airport area.
I certainly agree with and support the idea of a tunnel which I believe will cut off a distance of almost two miles and thus reduce travelling time if you go over the Oak street bridge and the Moray channel, or about three and a half miles if you go over the Fraser river bridge and then over the Moray channel bridge. But if the intention behind this resolution is to provide airport access, I cannot see the necessity for a four lane tunnel. For that purpose I think two lanes would be sufficient under all circumstances, unless of course the idea is that there would not only be access from the city of Vancouver with its hundreds of thousands of people, but also access over the Moray channel bridge into Lulu island, through Lulu island and via Deas island tunnel into Ladner and then to the international border. If that is the idea, then most certainly it should be a four lane tunnel.
But that brings in the fact that we have this new Oak street bridge, which is a four lane bridge and feeds not only the airport but Lulu island, Ladner and south through to the international border, where they will be completing, I think this year, perhaps one of the most modern highways in Canada.
I am from Vancouver and I will support anything that is in the interests of Vancouver; but I believe this matter is of such importance that it just cannot be discussed or concluded on the basis of one bridge, one tunnel or one purpose, excellent as that may be. I believe that when we are asking for this amount of federal money to be spent, it should be on the over-all picture of Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, the Fraser valley, Richmond, Lulu island, Sea island, the airport, freeways and highways. My hon. friend's estimate, which I think is low, is $11 million to serve an airport where we are going to build a $22 million air service station.
I believe that the interests of the hon. member's constituency, the constituency of my hon. friend on my right from Burnaby-Coquitlam and all hon. members from Vancouver, New Westminster and the Fraser valley, would best be served-although I believe this to be an excellent idea in principle


[DOT]-by tying this scheme in with federal assistance in connection with an over-all transportation plan for metropolitan Vancouver, and the first money to be spent should be where the engineers say it is going to do the most good.


Mr. W. A. McLennan (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this resolution I want to congratulate the hon. member from Burnaby-Richmond for bringing it forward. I think that with such an important international airport as we have on Sea island it is rather incredible that we have only one access to it, and actually not a direct one at that.
We have seen many cases of swing spans such as that which crosses over the Moray channel from Lulu island to Sea island getting stuck, being hit by a barge or developing some mechanical failure, and if that should happen it could take several hours to repair.
I support wholeheartedly the resolution my hon. friend has introduced. I am not going to speak on it at great length and go over the details which have already been given to this house, but I can assure the hon. member that it is a credit to him to bring in a resolution of this kind, and it has my wholehearted support.


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I as a member from the central or eastern part of Canada, however it may be designated, rise to become involved in a friendly discussion among hon. members from Vancouver island. I employ as a precedent the intervention of the hon. member for Laurier who pointed out that the principle involved concerns other than merely hon. members from Vancouver city.
It will be recalled that last year a request was made on behalf of the city of Toronto for assistance in constructing the Toronto subway. I believe the federal government was also approached by the city of Montreal concerning assistance for the proposed subway in that municipality. These requests would come under what the hon. member for Laurier designated as assistance for the construction of transportation facilities across Canada.
Although I do not know the details of the problem that was so ably presented here this afternoon, the discussion of this notice of motion raises a burning question that is facing all municipalities. This question comes about by the rapid growth of our municipalities and the problem they face because of the huge capital expenditures created by the need of transportation facilities, sewage facilities and other construction requirements to provide the amenities we wish to enjoy. The questions raised are: How can this construction be financed within the limited budgets of the

municipalities or, perhaps, the provinces? How can they obtain money for the development of these projects at reasonable rates of interest?
Interest rates have been increasing. It is increasingly expensive for municipalities to obtain money in the market. A consideration of this subject involves consideration of the problem of making loans available to municipalities with the consent of the provinces.
A step in this direction was taken by the present government in making loans available to municipalities for the construction of sewage facilities. These loans are available under the National Housing Act as an extension of the national housing program. The problem might be approached on the basis that municipalities having certain transportation problems could obtain loans under this or some other measure. That would be one method of solving the problem. Under such a program the municipalities of Toronto and Montreal would qualify for assistance in the construction of their subways.
It is important in considering this matter to establish a principle so that we do not deal with one project at a time. If each project were examined individually the federal government would tend to say it is a local problem that should be dealt with by the municipality or the province concerned.
Our national development is somewhat hampered in the over-all picture when our municipalities face these huge expenditures. As some have said, perhaps the time has come for the establishment of a financial institution somewhat similar to the Bank of Canada through which the municipalities, with the consent of the provinces, could obtain loans for the construction of projects of the nature to which reference is made in this motion. There could be established a municipal loan bank for the whole of Canada or it could be handled on a provincial basis. The details would have to be worked out. Certainly valid arguments could be made for both proposals.
Those who adhere to the doctrine that constitutionally the provinces should control the municipalities prefer that an institution of this type be established on a provincial basis. The argument is also raised that not all the provinces are equally endowed with wealth and resources and they would have difficulty providing services to some municipalities whose needs are relatively as great as those of metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. As our municipalities develop they require the same type of financial assistance.
Although I do not think the house could approve of an individual project, as such, the notice of motion before us today points
Inquiries of the Ministry up to the federal and provincial governments the need of reassessing the problems of our municipalities in attempting to finance large projects of this nature. It is necessary that this problem be considered to assist in the development of important projects the financing of which represents a heavy burden to municipalities all across the country.


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member for Davenport has touched upon a crucial question raised in this notice of motion, which in itself is laudable. The hon. member who sponsors this resolution has clearly demonstrated the value of a bridge or tunnel to meet a transportation problem in the city of Vancouver. On examination it becomes clear that in the resolution the people of Canada are asked to assist financially in the construction of a transportation facility that would be of purely local benefit, and I would think-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman in the middle of a breath, but it being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: The house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.


Lionel Chevrier: Where are the ministers?


Murdo William Martin: The ministers are not here yet.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to ask questions of ministers who are not here. While some of them are arriving perhaps I might ask the Prime Minister or the house leader whether he could give, if not at this moment, then when the house adjourns tonight, an assurance with regard to the business of the house during this week after the budget speech tomorrow night. Shall we be proceeding with the budget debate on Wednesday or, if not, shall we be dealing with some other business? If so, can the Prime Minister indicate what it might be?
2833	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: When the house leader comes the house will be made aware ol what the business will be on Wednesday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, now that the house leader is in his place I wonder whether the Prime Minister would permit him to answer the question I asked the Prime Minister a few minutes ago and which he said would be answered when the house leader arrived?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think perhaps it would be preferable to follow the usual course and deal with the business of the house at the conclusion of the sitting. If the house leader wishes to outline it now I have no objection but it is more customary to disclose the order of government business at the conclusion of the day's sitting.



INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM BEFORE EASTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or the house leader? I should like to ask either one of them what the business of the house will be on Wednesday of this week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That question will be answered as usual at the conclusion of the business today.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It has been the practice from time to time prior to the Easter recess to ask the following question and I ask it now of the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister, either now or tomorrow if he wishes, give the house some indication of what the business is likely to be and what legislation is likely to come up between now and the Easter recess?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think a perusal of the order paper will give a pretty good answer to the hon. gentleman. There may be some additional matters. Naturally matters arise that must be brought before the house, but the order paper has sufficient on it to use up the time of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the acting leader of the house on the government side was not in the house when the Prime Minister replied to the question of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister about the order of the business on Wednesday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member would be well advised to bring the matter of Wednesday's business, if that is what he is inquiring into, before the house at the end of today's sitting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, I prefer to deal with it now on orders of the day. The procedure of the house at this time of the session is that this kind of matter is usually discussed between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition-


George Harris Hees: Stop trying to take the place of the Leader of the Opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -on the orders of the day. I have a right to ask the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I anticipated the wrong question. A question was asked of the Prime Minister who answered it and if the hon. member's question is supplementary to that it will be in order to ask it.


George Harris Hees: Don't try to take the place of the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: In any event, I shall be glad to hear what the hon. member's question is, but I take the opportunity to caution him that if it relates to tomorrow's business he should ask it later today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
leader of the house, in view of the statement by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition as to the business of the house on Wednesday-


George Harris Hees: Let the Leader of the Opposition speak for himself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -is he in a position to indicate to the house what the procedure will be tomorrow night after the Minister of Finance has given his budget, and what will be the order of business for Wednesday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: At the appropriate time I will do that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just the opposite of what the Prime Minister said; the Prime Minister has lost his authority.



DIVORCE BILLS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question in his capacity as house leader. As

to the announcement earlier today made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), the chairman of the miscellaneous private bills committee, to the effect that divorce bills will be placed on the order paper as of tomorrow for proceeding thereon, does this indicate that the government has no intention of meeting its commitment made to the house last session about parliamentary procedure on this matter?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will examine in Hansard the hon. member's lengthy question and ascertain whether it requires an answer tomorrow.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Labour is in his seat. I wonder whether, in the time that has expired since this afternoon, the minister has had an opportunity of looking at the questions that were put to him as to whether or not the strike between the pilots and the shipping federation of Canada was a legal one?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity of having Hansard, or whatever you call it, at my disposal with respect to these questions.


Lionel Chevrier: Then may I ask a supplementary question arising out of this same matter. Does the minister think that an appropriate thing to do in connection with a dispute of this nature, to tell the pilots that before their grievances can be considered they must go back to work? Is that the policy which the Minister of Labour follows in other disputes such as for instance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's comment is not in order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works said, "Don't answer that; to hell with him". That is a very nice method and manner of interrupting a question and passing remarks when those of us who sit on this side of the house ask questions and have a perfect right to do so.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier, for whose opinion I have no regard in any event, has no business putting words into my mouth.


Lionel Chevrier: That is what you said.


David James Walker: You are wrong.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laurier has taken exception to a remark which he alleges was made and which I did not personally hear. Is his question of privilege relating to that matter?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My question of privilege is this. While I was putting the question to the Minister of Labour I heard the Minister of Public Works make the following remark and I make this statement on my responsibility as a member of parliament. The statement was, "Don't answer that question; let him go to hell".


David James Walker: That is completely wrong.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What did you say?


David James Walker: It is none of your business what I said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Laurier has made an assertion which has been denied by the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister did not deny it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is obliged to accept the statement of the minister involved whose knowledge would encompass what he had said.


Michael Starr: In reply, may I say that this question asked just now is no different from the other one. I shall be obliged to look at the notes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether he saw in the report that his colleague the Minister of Transport had informed the pilots that this was an illegal strike? Does the minister not know what his colleague knows?


Michael Starr: That was a really smart question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a very smart government.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr
Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the Minister of Labour received a letter dated April 5 from Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis, secretary of the industrial Cape Breton committee on unemployment, pointing out all the efforts being made on the local level to solve this problem or at least ameliorate the conditions and asking that unemployment insurance benefits be extended and, if so, could the minister inform the house of the nature of his reply?
2640	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I received a letter on Friday from a gentleman by the name of Malcolm Maclnnis who since Saturday last is a candidate for the New Democratic party. We have not yet replied to his letter.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.
Could he give the house the fantastic amounts paid by the C.B.C. to Messrs. Paul Lacoste and Norman Hudon, one of whom is recognized as anticonfessional and the other is a Liberal fanatic?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that, as a matter of policy, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does not give any information about fees, contracts or amounts paid to the performers or employees who work for it.
(Text):



INQUIRY CONCERNING STATUS OF CONSTITUENCY OF KAMLOOPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker,
I had a question for the Minister of Justice but, in his absence, perhaps the Prime Minister can answer it. Would the Prime Minister care to comment on a headline contained in a well known Conservative newspaper to the effect that Kamloops is now considered to be a Liberal riding?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question does not relate to the official responsibility of the Prime Minister.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce could perhaps now confirm the statement made by the parliamentary secretary some weeks ago to the effect that the uranium contract with the United Kingdom would be signed during the month of April?
[Mr. Herridge.l


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement he made was that he hoped the uranium contract will be signed before the end of April. That is a statement I made in the house when I was asked next day what my comments on the situation were.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether Professor Hallstein, who is, I believe, president of the council of the European economic community and who is now in Washington discussing relations between the United States and the community, will be visiting Ottawa during the course of his visit to North America?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether he will but if he does I am very happy to be able to assure the house that I will be very glad to see him if he would like to see me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Finance say if it is a fact that he has indicated to Professor Hallstein that there would be no good purpose in the latter coming to Canada at this time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker. The guess and conjecture of the hon. member for Essex East are as wild as usual.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that Professor Hallstein is discussing matters having to do with the relationship between the United States and the European economic community, does the minister not think that the government of Canada should take the step of inviting Professor Hallstein to come here and discuss matters that are now being discussed with the President of the United States, who is giving some leadership in this matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, Professor Hallstein has visited Ottawa before-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Years ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not many years ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Two years ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: About a year and a half or two years ago, and there have been other meetings with Professor Hallstein. I have seen Professor Hallstein at various meetings in Paris since that time. The hon. member does not need to think that there are not meetings going on from time to time. Things can happen without his knowledge. We find a great many things happening without his knowledge.


George Harris Hees: And most things do. He is in a complete fog most of the time.


Lionel Chevrier: Who, the Minister of Finance?


George Harris Hees: No, the member for Essex East.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question. Is it a fact that Professor Hallstein can come to Ottawa if he invites himself?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is perhaps hypothetical.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this question is just about on a par so far as responsibility is concerned with the question just asked by the hon. member for Essex East. Professor Hallstein will, of course, always be welcome in Ottawa any time he wishes to come.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if the minister's esprit d'escalier is completed perhaps I could ask him if it is true that the British government has intimated to the government of Canada that if they are not successful in joining the common market they intend to renew the free trade offer to Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, sir. Another
wild conjecture.
[And the Clerk Assistant having called the first order of business]


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the Clerk Assistant seems very enthusiastic this evening. I should like to ask-


Donald Methuen Fleming: He wants to get on with the business.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, perhaps the Prime Minister, to use his own words, would allow us a few minutes to ask questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not necessary for the hon. member to comment. If he will put his question, I am sure the house will hear him.
9, 1962	2641
Inquiries of the Ministry SPORTS



GUELPH, ONT.  ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL TRAINING COLLEGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I wish to direct to the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question arising out of comments he made this afternoon concerning the funds to be spent in connection with the act to promote fitness and amateur sports. Has any arrangement been made to establish a national training college or a centre for coaches at Guelph?


Jay Waldo Monteith: In answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, I think all I can say at the moment is that the matter is certainly under consideration. When a decision is reached, of course, an announcement will be made.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the serious charges made against the conduct of this government by General McNaughton, one who has dedicated himself to the public service of our country and who was appointed by a Conservative government-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -may I ask the
Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, in view of the fact that he is in charge of this matter, as he himself said today, he would agree to have the external affairs committee set up forthwith under our procedure so that General McNaughton could make the charges, as he has requested, before that committee, and give the House of Commons an opportunity of examining into the nature and the validity of those charges.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already given the assurance that before the treaty is ratified 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.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. gentleman expect that would take place before the dissolution of parliament?
2642	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Essex East can make as good a guess about that as I can.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government does not want this matter to be exposed.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the question I was going to put was a question to the Secretary of State. I was going to ask the Secretary of State if he would be good enough to furnish the house with a list of those orders for returns to which returns have not yet been made. In particular, would the minister do his utmost to have a return made to question No. 123 which was made an order for return on February 14? It was a question by the hon. member for Gatineau.


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will make an inquiry and try to answer the question of the hon. member as soon as possible.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Maiheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I should like to address a question to the parliamentary secretary. It arises out of the answer given on March 8, 1962, to this question:
What is the age of the oldest butter now in storage?
The answer given was "August, 1960". Would the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture advise the house whether the government intends to place this butter, produced in August, 1960, on the market?


Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take this question as notice in order to be able to understand it better. I could not hear the hon. member.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Forestry. My question is based on an article which appeared in today's Globe and Mail reporting a 38 acre woodland project on the
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).!

island of Canvey in the Thames estuary, which is being developed to contain species of every tree that grows in Canada and which is to be called Canada Corner. Is the minister aware of this plan and if so has the government made any contribution of Canadian trees towards it? If not, would the minister consider giving some tangible encouragement to this worthy project?


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Minister of Forestry):: I have a copy of the hon. member's question, for which I thank him. I have not seen the article to which he refers and we have received no formal letter in connection with it. I assure him that if we do it will have the utmost consideration.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I may ask the Minister of Finance if he is in a position to tell the house whether the final supplementary estimates amounting to $138 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, are included in his estimates of expenditures contained in the white paper issued today and amounting to $6,563 million?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before they have been voted by the house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have heard the observation offered by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate from a seated position, Mr. Speaker. Let me say that if they had not been included he would be the first in the house to be shrieking and yelling and putting on another phony make-believe act, as he and his colleagues have been doing all day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman, in reply to a perfectly proper, straightforward question, chose to make an utterly uncalled for personal attack upon my motives and upon my conduct in the house. It seems to me, sir, that if the hon. gentleman had done his duty properly in the house and brought the estimates before us as he should, I would have had no occasion to ask this question at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if questions were addressed about the business of the house and not for the purpose of obstructing there would be no need for such answers.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources but perhaps in his absence I might direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the approaching tourist season what action, if any, is the government taking to offset the unfavourable public reaction developing in the United States against Canada because of the government's policy in respect to trade with Cuba?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In
the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, I would say that the assumption upon which the hon. member has based his question is completely false. There is no adverse effect in the United States so far as Canada is concerned. In fact, just the reverse is the case and we expect tourist traffic in the coming year will be the highest on record.


John Richard Garland: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? Does he ever read any United States newspapers?


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is all you read.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps I might comment briefly on that. Unlike some hon. members opposite, I can read.


John Richard Garland: Tory sarcasm.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not see the hon. member for Leeds. If he has a question that he feels must be put I shall be glad to entertain it.


John Ross Matheson: I would ask the Minister of National Defence whether or not he has read in the Sunday Times of London that Canada is lonely and disillusioned, and that Canada's golden dream is at an end. This latter is from the Manchester Guardian.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member perhaps would reserve his comments for the appropriate time.



CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Gordon Churchill (for the Minister of
Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. C-38, to provide for the reporting of financial
Corporations and Labour Unions and other statistics relating to the affairs of corporations and labour unions carrying on activities in Canada.
Frank Howard: I should like to make some short comments on the third reading of this bill. I think we can perhaps liken it to the ride Lady Godiva took in Coventry. We do not know whether the government just wants to peek or whether it knows what it is going to find out after it peeks. I feel that all this peeping and prying into other people's business will show exactly what the government has known for many months, as was illustrated by the discussion in committee about the dominion bureau of statistics publications relating to the control of Canadian industry by foreign corporations. The bill could be referred to as Fulton's false front more than as anything worth while.
We in the New Democratic party supported this measure at second reading. We took the Minister of Justice at his word. We knew that there were things which were good and bad in the bill, but we took the minister's word that the bill had a worth-while objective and that was to assist in the development of a Canadian culture, a Canadian understanding and Canadian control of our economy so that we would have Canadianism rather than Americanism running things in the country. We were prepared, after second reading, to try to deal with the less desirable features of the bill at the committee stage. We moved a number of amendments and we raised a number of objections. All but a minor one or two of them were brushed aside.
However, during the committee stage we asked the Minister of Justice, who piloted the bill on behalf of the government, for information. The further we inquired into the matter, the more amendments we proposed, the more we became convinced, just as the Liberal party did, that this bill is just a sham and a farce. It is not designed to do anything else but give talking points to the government during some expected national event that might take place this summer. In this way, the Tories hope to attempt to mislead the Canadian people into thinking that this government is doing something about our economy. Like so many things, this bill rests upon political expediency and is in the same category as the national productivity council, the Columbia treaty and all the royal commissions we have running around the country. We feel, Mr. Speaker, that it became quite evident at the committee stage the government had knowledge, as former governments have had, of the extent of foreign control over Canadian industry since 1926.

Corporations and Labour Unions
Because there have been increases in foreign control of Canadian industry and the Canadian economy during the last two years, and because this government has done absolutely nothing about that, we cannot support or approve the bill on third reading due to its fraudulent character.


Thomas Miller Bell: On third reading of the bill I feel that one or two remarks made by the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: I think before I recognize the parliamentary secretary I should ask the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to reconsider his last phrase. It seems to me it is not appropriate in debate to refer to bills as having a fraudulent character. I think he would probably wish to modify that expression.


Frank Howard: I did not realize that was an objectionable phrase to attach to a piece of legislation. Perhaps I should speak kindly about the bill and say it is a bill which does not appear to be what it purports to be.


Thomas Miller Bell: This bill, Mr. Speaker, was given frank and full discussion. I have totted up the time and I find we spent 13 hours on it from April 2 to April 6. Many amendments were made, and the official opposition moved two amendments that were accepted by the government. However, during all the time the bill was under discussion the C.C.F.-N.D.P. party were away off base. They had no constructive criticism to make. They did not even understand the legislation. They said that in some instances there was not enough bureaucracy, and at other times they said there was too much. On other occasions they said there were not enough facts, and yet at other times they said too many facts were being requested.
I suggested they were embarrassed by the bill and that they did not take the time even to read or look at it in detail. This is important legislation. There is some urgency for it and I suggest we get on with the business. We certainly are not going to support any hoisting amendment.


Frank Howard: Would my hon. friend permit a question before he concludes? I wonder what the hon. member would think about the phrase that "if the government wishes to lay a foundation for a fascist or communist successor they would not do better than to end up with the catch-all phrase"- the words used by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson).


Thomas Miller Bell: That is the same nonsense the hon. member put on Hansard for the last four or five days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the rather offensive intervention of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert I think one might ask members of the government, when they are talking about people neglecting their parliamentary duties, why the Minister of Justice is not here when this bill is before the house?



ESTABLISHMENT OF ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

John George Diefenbaker: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the establishment of an electoral boundaries commission for the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons; to provide that certain members of the commission may be paid such per diem allowance as may be fixed by the governor in council; to provide for the payment of reasonable travelling and living expenses for the members of the commission; and to provide also that the commission may engage the services of such technical advisers and other staff, including a person to act as secretary to the commission, as it deems necessary.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


John George Diefenbaker: After the vicissitudes of the day, Mr. Chairman, we come now to a matter on which I hope there will be a reasonable degree of agreement. I would have wished to have placed the bill before the committee. That would have permitted a fuller and more complete examination of the matters relevant to this resolution. However, that opportunity is denied. I shall therefore proceed to outline in a general way something of the history of redistribution in Canada and the views expressed in other years by various prime ministers of this country. I shall, as well, place before the committee, without that detail I would have hoped would have been possible, the general purport of the bill which will be presented to the house.
In the speech from the throne on January 18 the following appeared:
My government will ask you to take steps to ensure that the forthcoming redistribution of electoral districts is made in an equitable manner upon an objective basis. To this end you will be asked to approve for the first time in our history a measure to create an independent commission to recommend the changes required in the electoral districts as a result of the decennial census.
Shortly put, the objective we have in mind in the bill that will be presented is to place redistribution in the hands of a non-partisan
9, 1962
Electoral Boundaries Commission commission in order to remove and eliminate the abuses of the past. I do not intend to go into any detail regarding some abuses that took place in recent redistributions, although I have some personal knowledge of what was done.
Indeed, I doubt whether I could have ever become Prime Minister if it had not been for the operations performed on two successive occasions on the constituency I represented. Therefore, I can be extremely objective and most appreciative of what was done. However, I realize that there was a need for a change to be made in what had become a decennial or semi-decennial opportunity for the majority in the House of Commons to so carve up constituencies as to-it was hoped- inure to the benefit of the government of the day.
We dealt with this matter on a number of occasions. It was dealt with in this house in 1947 and again in 1952. On both occasions we placed before the house the suggestion that the antiquated system of endeavouring to make redistribution a means whereby the will of the people might be circumvented in certain cases, or political opponents whose presence in the house was not desired by the government of the day could be eliminated, should be altered. We said there should be set up a commission that would objectively study this question. That, too, was an undertaking given during the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958.
We all know that from 1867 on, the decennial exhibition that parliament gave was not such as was in keeping with the preservation of democratic representation through reasonable equalization of representation by population. That principle, of course, cannot be adopted. There must be some exception. The adoption of this principle without any qualification would mean that, as the urban population of Canada increases and as the tremendous surge continues from the rural parts into the cities and in particular to the suburbs of cities, the rural areas would have an almost negligible representation.
The same problem was faced in the United States by its supreme court in a judgment that was rendered some three weeks ago in the case of Baker v. Carr in which that court dealt with the situation in Tennessee where, as the result of following principles other than those which all of us intend and expect should be followed, a very small proportion of the population was able in that state to control the outcome of the election in that state. We undertook to see to it that never again would redistribution be made an objective of party policy directed by a government. We did so because we believe that the will of the people should not be thwarted or


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the Prime Minister wish to extend the scope of the debate to that subject?


John George Diefenbaker: I notice that the hon. gentleman has not said anything about it
Electoral Boundaries Commission since he got the answers. I want to bring these words of Mr. King to his attention:
If we are ever returned to power-
He was returned in 1935.
-a proportional representation measure will be a feature of the Liberal platform and program of legislation.
The hon. gentleman might add that to his list. To return once more from rather general remarks to the subject matter of the resolution, I stated on June 28, 1952, as found on page 3928 of Hansard:
The only reason we would want to retain it-
A system under which an independent commission would not be appointed.
-would be the political advantage of the party with the majority at the time. After all, the setting up of a commission will not remove from parliament the right and duty to determine the question once and for all. But, Mr. Speaker, the experience in Britain and elsewhere has been that when an independent commission speaks no parliament anywhere within this commonwealth has ever dared to alter the boundary lines of any constituency in a way which would have the result of liquidating a political opponent. In other words the commission system would provide a scientific means whereby redistribution would be determined on the only basis on which it should be determined, namely the question of population, subject of course in every case to these peculiar exigencies that occur in various constituencies where, by reason of the industrialization, the urban nature of a constituency, the rural nature of another, there has been recognized at all times the principle that population shall not be equal in all constituencies.
Now, sir, in 1952 we endeavoured to bring this about and not only did the Progressive Conservatives take this stand but the antecedents of the New Democratic party combined, without success, to press for the postponement of passage of the bill brought before the house until an independent commission had an opportunity to make the necessary reallocation of seats. The then leader of the opposition, the Hon. George Drew, said this as reported at page 3828 of Hansard for June 27, 1952:
-I am suggesting that the government consider introducing another bill-
That is, another after the bill to which I made reference earlier.
-which would set up a commission to carry out redistribution which then could be dealt with when this house reconvenes.
This did not receive any support from the members of the government of that day. Professor Robert MacGregor Dawson discussed in his book some of the proposals to give the power of redistribution to some more impartial body than a committee of parliament. He says this:
Thus Mr. Mackenzie King, in 1933 suggested a commission of six judges from different provinces-
2648	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commission
Then, he describes the nature of the recommendations, and says that the Hon. C. G. Power disclosed in 1947 that the government had had a bill prepared in 1940 to set up a commission composed of a superior court judge as chairman, assisted by two commissioners appointed from each province in turn as its constituencies came under consideration.
I mentioned a moment ago that there has been experience in this regard in the United Kingdom, Australia and South Africa. All of these countries have had a system similar in nature, but differing in particulars because each country has its own peculiar problems. Each is designed however, to remove as far as is practical and possible, the question of redistribution from a purely party matter. In the United Kingdom, the redistribution of seats is provided for by the House of Commons redistribution of seats act, 1949 and 1958. There is a continuous review of the distribution of seats. It is carried on by four permanent boundary commissions, one for England, one for Scotland, one for Wales and one for Northern Ireland. Each boundary commission consists of four members, and in determining the redistribution of seats must take into account local interests. It is required to give persons in the constituency that may be affected by a change in redistribution the opportunity of making representations.
There is parliamentary control; for as soon as possible after a report is made by the boundary commission to the secretary of state, that minister must lay the report before parliament. If changes have been recommended by the boundary commission, there must accompany the reports laid before parliament draft orders in council which are to show how effect is proposed to be given to the recommendations of the boundary commission. If each house of parliament, by resolution, approves the draft orders they are submitted to Her Majesty. If the draft orders in council are not so approved by resolution by each house of parliament, amended drafts may be laid before parliament.
In South Africa, when it was a member of the commonwealth, the redistribution of seats was provided for under the South Africa act, 1909. There, a commission of judges is appointed. In Australia redistribution is dealt with by the commonwealth electoral act, 1918. The number of members to be elected is ascertained by dividing the population of the commonwealth by twice the number of senators. The distribution of each state into an electoral division is carried out by three distribution commissioners appointed by the governor general. One of the distribution commissioners must be the chief electoral


officer or an officer having similar qualifications, and one must be the surveyor general of the state or an officer having similar qualifications. Now, without revealing in any way what is in the bill, I think it would be generally agreed that the electoral officer, occupying as he does a completely independent position, should be one of the members of this commission.
I return to the point I was dealing with a moment ago, the reference to the Hon. C. G. Power, now a member of the other place. In 1952, he set out certain general principles as to redistribution. He said that we must start afresh; that parliament should maintain its control and responsibility over the action it takes with respect to redistribution and that we must lay down some set of rules and regulations upon which we can base future redistribution. Then, as reported at page 3183 of Hansard for 1952, after referring to the need for a brand new redistribution, he said:
-it should be taken out of the responsibility of members of the house.
He did emphasize, however, the need for parliamentary responsibility.
When I spoke of the functions of a boundary commission in July, 1947, I said this:
That commission is one which is above partisanship. Parliament still rules; parliament still controls; but parliament would not act unfairly against a political opponent.
If the recommendation of this committee-
And I am referring to an independent committee.
-were to the effect that a certain change should be made, it would adopt it even though it might be helpful to an opponent.
Now, sir, this whole question was discussed at length in the United States case to which I referred earlier, Baker v. Carr, which I think all hon. members could read with benefit to themselves. It deals with the urbanization of the United States and the degree to which a major portion of the population was finding itself more and more concentrated in certain areas.
I come now to the question of what would happen in the event that we maintain the present number of seats in the house, having regard to the changes that have taken place in population. Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island would continue with the same representation. Nova Scotia would lose one seat. New Brunswick would have the same; Quebec would have the same; Ontario would gain three; Manitoba would lose one; Saskatchewan would lose four; Alberta would gain two and British Columbia would gain one.
There have been some suggestions made that there should be an increase in the number of members in the house. What would

be the effect of an increase in the number of members? If the total number of members were 283 the result would be that Nova Scotia would still lose one; Manitoba would have the same number; Saskatchewan would lose three; Alberta would gain four; British Columbia would gain three; Quebec would gain five and Ontario would gain 10. On the other hand if the total number of seats increased to 293 the result would be that Nova Scotia would have 12 and Newfoundland seven; Quebec would gain eight; Ontario would gain 14; Manitoba would have the same; Saskatchewan would lose two; Alberta would gain four; British Columbia would gain four and the others would be the same. That indicates some of the difficulties that are most apparent.
I have often thought that with a membership of 263 in the House of Commons the number of members is sufficient. Indeed the view has often been expressed that this chamber might be very considerably reduced in size, that the removal of the desks would make a tremendous difference in the quality of debate and make for a closeness between members of the government and the opposition-I am referring to propinquity. It has also been suggested that it would contribute to the informality that characterizes the British House of Commons. However the same distance would still be between us.
It is very interesting to recall that the distance between government and opposition was fixed in the reign of James I to be the distance that would just permit adversaries to touch the points of their swords. That distance between government and opposition has since remained, even though the reason for the distance has long since ceased to exist.
We feel that this commission, when set up, would proceed with its work on the basis of the present law relating to the total number of members in the House of Commons. It should have the power to advise re-allocation of seats in accordance with section 51 of the British North America Act, taking the last census into account in order to bring about equitable results. We would expect it to bring this to the attention of parliament and to recommend such change in the total membership of the house that would make a just and equitable re-allocation of seats without serious dislocation or hardship arising from its recommendations on the number of seats in any one province. When that recommendation had been made to the government, it would then consider asking parliament to make the necessary changes in the law to implement the recommendation.
In summary, therefore, what we are endeavouring to do by this resolution is to
9, 1962	2649
Electoral Boundaries Commission take redistribution out of partisan politics. The experience of the past has been, except in a very few cases, that the gerrymandering of constituencies for political purposes has not been successful as an operation once the people have had their first opportunity to speak afterwards. This is a serious endeavour made by this government, after the fullest study of the matter, to eliminate the abuses of the past, to make the House of Commons truly representative, and at the same time give this commission certain ground rules and directions from parliament as to the principles that it should accept. It is an endeavour at the same time to grant flexibility in the interest of fairness in order to assure that the considerations that have always been in the minds of governments since 1867 shall be maintained.
It must also be pointed out to the commission that rural ridings must necessarily, in the experience of the past, have less population in general than urban ridings, and that there are other considerations such as geographical lines, rivers, county lines and the like which must be taken into account. But all these considerations shall be based on the assurance that an independent commission will bring about a redistribution that is fair, just and reasonable; one that will be determined not on the basis of the frailties of human nature, which all of us have, but on a basic principle that the political advantage of the government or a majority in the house shall not be one of the considerations to be taken into account or given any attention. In other words, as I said a moment ago, we want to follow the lead that has been taken by almost every nation-certainly by the commonwealth nations, as well as by the mother of parlia-. ments-that membership in parliament shall be determined fairly by the people and it shall not be dependant in any way on the course followed by Governor Gerry which gave to this operation the name "gerrymandering". That course which has been followed throughout the years since confederation shall no longer be followed in this nation.
This was our view when we were in opposition; it is our view today in government. This is another step forward in the carrying out of those promises which will make parliament more effective, stronger and more representative of the people as a whole.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have not had the advantage, or the disadvantage-and I suppose that depends on your point of view -of taking part in any redistribution in any parliament, because the last redistribution took place before I became a member of parliament.

Electoral Boundaries Commission


John George Diefenbaker: But the hon. member is given credit for being one of the architects of the 15 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would say, Mr. Chairman, that any credit I am given in that respect is for something that was achieved, and not merely a promise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With regard to the 15 per
cent that perhaps kept the hon. gentleman in the House of Commons, I have no objection to taking any credit that the hon. gentleman wishes to give me. But that is not really very germane to the point. In the few minutes I have left to me this evening I will try to deal with the principle that the Prime Minister has put forward.
I may say at once that the principle underlying the proposal is completely acceptable to the official opposition in this house. It is not only acceptable, but a resolution to that effect was formally adopted by the national council of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Ferguson Browne: When
was that-in 1917?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You have changed your view.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; I had no view to change. I have explained to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Fifteen per cent responsibility last time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I explained to the hon. members that I have had no direct experience of this matter in the past. Here is the position taken by the Liberal party.
The Liberal party believes that redistribution of membership in the House of Commons should be carried out by a non-partisan commission.
Until now, this has been done only-
This is so far as Canada is concerned:
-in the province of Manitoba, where the commission was established by a Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may continue:
Redistribution means redrawing the boundaries of constituencies according to population. It is required every ten years, after each census. The present government, with characteristic delay, has not arranged for redistribution, based on the 1961 census, in time for the present election. As a result, some parts of the country will be denied the representation in the next parliament to which they are entitled under the constitution of Canada.
A new Liberal government will promptly give effect to the principle of redistribution by a nonpartisan commission.


An hon. Member:: What happened to the old Liberals?
[Mr. Pickersgill.l


An hon. Member:: Is that signed by Mackenzie King?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend this evening to spend any time on the highly selective history and the rather spotty history to which the Prime Minister treated us, nor on the tour around the world that the Prime Minister took, which I have never had the benefit of doing either.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Ask Paul.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think everybody on this side of the chamber listened attentively and quietly to the Prime Minister, and I would hope that in a matter of this sort, when the Prime Minister professes to be seeking to elevate the tone of parliament on this subject, I might be listened to with the same attention that the Prime Minister received.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: It was not elevated when you got up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the Minister of Labour has finished his interjection, perhaps I could continue. It seems to me that there are certain conditions that will have to be fulfilled in any bill to make it acceptable, I would hope to either side of the house but certainly to us in the official opposition. The commissioners must be appointed by the act; they must be named in the bill. We are certainly not going to agree to take redistribution out of the House of Commons and put it in the hands of the governor in council;
I can assure hon. gentlemen of that. We are certainly not going to approve any measure that sets up a commission comparable in any way to the board of broadcast governors. We have had enough of that kind of impartiality in the last few years.
This is not a business for the government. Though the Prime Minister, as the leader of the house, has a certain responsibility to bring the matter before us, in respect of the representation in the house there is no government and there is no opposition; there are simply members of parliament who should, according to the scheme of 1867, represent roughly the same number of constituents, having regard to certain other considerations, some of which the Prime Minister mentioned and all of which certainly have to be taken into account.
It seems to me that the commission cannot be expected to make its own rules. That is our responsibility here in parliament. We will have to specify in the bill the maxima and the minima of population. We will have to lay

down rules so that the commission will know what it is expected to do, because a commission without rules of that kind would simply be at sea in making any attempt at redistribution.
I would commend to hon. gentlemen a careful reading of the speech to which the Prime Minister referred, made by the Hon. C. G. Power in 1947, where Mr. Power pointed out, with a little more time at his disposal than I have now, some of the difficulties that would be inherent in a commission doing this for the first time. I think once it has been done a first time it will probably be relatively easy in the future because it will be merely a matter of rearranging boundaries to take account of any change in population. But the original redistribution, if it is to be done on a new and scientific basis, is going to be a very formidable task indeed, because we can all give all kinds of examples of what a patchwork quilt there is in every province as a result of taking into account all sorts of special factors.
I might say here that perhaps, having had no personal experience in this matter, I may take a somewhat more objective and a less subjective view than that taken by the Prime Minister. I do not believe there has been much conscious attempt to be unfair in any redistribution I have seen anything of. Sir John A. Macdonald did boast about hiving the Grits in 1882; but certainly in the twentieth century I do not think there has been any wholesale gerrymandering, although I know it is the fashion for oppositions to make that claim and it has been done by both parties as Mr. Drew so fairly pointed out in 1947. But I do not believe that is true at all.
It seems to me that another thing that must be prescribed in addition to the maximum and minimum are what geographical, what historical and what other conditions the commission is to take account of, and what exceptional provisions are to be made. They must not be left to do this thing capriciously or without rules; that is our responsibility here.
Then I say the bill should prescribe that the report of the commission would take the form of a representation bill and that the government would have the duty of presenting that bill, unchanged, to the house. That does not mean that members of the government could not move to amend the measure. It would not be a government measure. The government would not be expected to stand or fall on it at all; if it is an independent commission it would not be fair to the government to ask it to. However, the report should be presented in the form of a representation bill by the commission so that we would
Electoral Boundaries Commission have the benefit of the views of the commission. I think the Prime Minister will find that, in the first redistribution after world war II, when the United Kingdom commission there did make a report, the report was not accepted by the government of the day and very substantial changes were made in the measure which they brought in. That was not in 1949; it was earlier than that. I have not looked up the details but I think it will be found that that was the case.
I do not think that should be allowed to happen. If we are to appoint the kind of commission there ought to be-and I say "we" advisedly because this is not a matter for the government or the opposition but is one for the house as a house to do-and if we are to appoint a commission in which we all would have confidence, their report should be here for us to deal with in the form of a bill. After that bill has been presented if the government then is not satisfied or if the opposition or any hon. member is not satisfied they can move to amend it; but parliament should be sure that it has the views of the commission in that form. I say that is another consideration.
I have very little time this evening, and of course in these days we never know what is to come on the next day, if anything. I shall try therefore to get as much said as I can this evening. The Prime Minister referred to the section of the British North America Act governing redistribution, and the important words there are, "on completion of the census 'representation' shall be readjusted".


John George Diefenbaker: I do not wish to break in on the hon. member's speech and I am prepared to recommend that he be granted extra time if the committee will agree. A moment ago the hon. member said we delayed unnecessarily in this matter. Would the hon. gentleman explain how we could have brought this about until the census was completed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what I am going to explain to the Prime Minister. I hope the committee will agree to grant me a few extra minutes as the Prime Minister suggested in order that I may complete my remarks this evening.
Since confederation there has been no election ever held without complying with that constitutional provision; no election after a census has been held, except in 1945. In that case, as the Prime Minister will remember, a constitutional amendment was secured from Westminster postponing redistribution until after the war, so that the constitution was complied with.

Electoral Boundaries Commission
In 1872 the redistribution act was passed on June 14. In those days they were not in any hurry about elections. The voting started on July 20 and concluded on October 12.
In 1882 the redistribution act was passed on May 17 and the election was held on June 20. There had been a Liberal government intervene which fixed elections on a single day, instead of running them over a period of three months as was previously done.
In 1911 the census was not completed when the election was called. I did not have time to look up the actual date of the calling of the election, but the election was held on September 21, so one would assume it was called sometime in July, and it is quite obvious that the census would not have been completed at that time. In 1872 and in 1882 the redistribution was done before there was an election. Communications are much better today than they were in those years. There would have been no difficulty whatever about having the redistribution this year. It could have been in progress now if the government had taken the course that it should have taken, the course recommended by the hon. member for Port Arthur in every session of parliament, to the best of my recollection, since we have been here.
The government did not need to wait for the census in order to provide for the commission. If the government had been serious about carrying out its promise, this measure would have been brought in in 1960. It would have been left on the table for a year so that it could be studied by all hon. members and other interested persons, as is usually done with legislation of this fundamental importance. In 1961 it could have been reintroduced with whatever improvements commended themselves, and passed. The commission could have been in existence from last October. It could have got everything organized so that the moment the census returns were available it could have started to work the next day.


John George Diefenbaker: The census is not yet completed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does not matter whether or not the census is completed. The commission could have been set up. I predict that under the course we are following the actual business of redrawing the boundaries will not begin for two years at the very least. I have very good reason for making that statement. Mr. Harris in 1951 discussed this matter with a good many authorities on the subject including the chief electoral officer. The difficulties in the way of doing this by independent commission are very formidable and

the time required is very great. If the government had been genuinely anxious to carry out this promise which was made at Carman, Manitoba, on May 15, 1957 by the Prime Minister this legislation would have been brought into the house in 1960, at the latest, and there is no reason on earth why it should not have been done, except that this government is never able to do anything when it should be done.


John George Diefenbaker: It is going to be able to do something very shortly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I observe that Your Honour is on his feet. I understood, sir, the committee was going to be good enough to allow me a few extra minutes.


The Deputy Chairman:: It being ten o'clock shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the questions that were asked earlier on the orders of the day, I hope the house leader will now outline to the house what the business will be for the rest of the week. More particularly, I should like to ask him the following questions: What will be the business tomorrow prior to eight o'clock? What will be the business on Wednesday? Earlier today the house leader indicated that he would announce the business for Wednesday. What opportunity will there be to discuss the budget? And finally, when will the further supplementary estimates be called?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the great difficulty in dealing with the business of the house is to know what progress is going to be made from day to day. On Friday when I outlined in the house nine items of legislation, it was only reasonable to expect that some of those items would be passed through the house today. However, we have had only third reading of one bill. This makes the situation very difficult indeed. However, our intention tomorrow is to proceed with the study of this resolution, and until it is passed we cannot have a bill in front of us. That will be followed by the bill respecting the amendment to the British North America Act with regard to the Senate, which is eagerly awaited. Then we shall take the other legislative items that 1 outlined on Friday including the Veterans' Land Act, The Canada Grain Act and so on.


Lionel Chevrier: In that order?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes; the same order that I indicated on Friday. It would be helpful to continue on Wednesday with legislation if we make progress tomorrow. However, I have no means of knowing what the house intends to do. Consequently I cannot forecast just what we should do on Thursday and Friday. For tomorrow I have one suggestion to make which the house might consider. In view of the importance of the budget speech which commences at eight o'clock tomorrow night and the fact that the chief spokesman of the opposition likes to reply, it is suggested that the house might now determine that it will sit past 10 o'clock tomorrow night in order that there may be opportunity for that type of reply without any interruption, and that, we adjourn say at 10.30 or earlier if the spokesman for the opposition moves the adjournment of the debate before 10.30 p.m.


Lionel Chevrier: Will there be no opportunity to discuss the budget on Wednesday on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and any other member who may wish to speak on it in the prescribed order?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is going to be plenty of opportunity for discussion, whether it is Wednesday or not. On some occasions the opposition has asked for two intervening days for consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just put this suggestion to the house leader without wishing to get into an argument. The practice has been to allow someone to speak on behalf of the opposition. However, the Minister of Finance as a rule completes his budget presentation about a quarter to ten. It is not fair to ask anyone on the part of the opposition to speak for 10 minutes only and then not go on with the budget the next day. That is the point I am making. That was the point I wished to put to the house leader in inquiring whether or not there will be an opportunity to discuss the budget on Wednesday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member says it is not fair to go on with the budget the next day. However, that has been the practice over the years. The hon. member for Greenwood is the one who can give evidence to the fact that there always was an intervening day. Sometimes the Easter recess intervened.


Lionel Chevrier: It was the practice when the debate was continued on the next day. I grant that. But if there is not going to be a continuation of the debate on Wednesday, then the question I asked the house leader was this: What opportunity would there be for the opposition to debate the budget?
26207-1-169
Business of the House


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I say one word as I think there is confusion as to what was the practice for many years on the night of the budget. After the Minister of Finance spoke I, who was the then financial critic, was allowed to follow and I was left a good deal of discretion as to the time occupied; but the practice which I followed in all those years was to speak for not more than 10, 15 or 20 minutes and then to adjourn the debate. Never,
I think, did the discussion continue the day following. Usually several days intervened.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there will be full opportunity to continue the budget debate?


John George Diefenbaker: I find it difficult to understand the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. Day after day I read reports saying, "Fiery Leader of the Opposition says 'bring on the election'." I now find him running for cover.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As is customary, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's observations are both irrelevant and offensive. I am asking the Prime Minister whether he proposes to choke off the budget debate after the Minister of Finance has made his statement.


John George Diefenbaker: The house leader has stated that the opposition will have an opportunity tomorrow evening. We will extend the time if the house will agree. Then the determination as to the business for Wednesday will be announced tomorrow night.


Murdo William Martin: Talk about closure and the rights of parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: I have another question. I had asked the house leader whether there was any disposition on the part of the government to bring on the supplementary estimates. Before he answers that question may I put this proposition to him. It has been the practice in the past-and I am sure the hon. member for Greenwood would confirm this-to do what has been suggested now by agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Always in advance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, always in advance; but not now, of course.


Mr. Speaker:: The one matter which appears to have been suggested and which stands for consideration and for decision of the house was that, if necessary, the time might be extended, in order to permit a preliminary reply after the Minister of Finance has finished his budget speech. Is it agreed that is the wish of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Business of the House


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. There can be no agreement on that matter. What we are being asked to do now by the government is to listen to the Minister of Finance for two hours or two and a half hours and immediately thereafter take up our time to reply to the minister without any intervening period at all, even of one day. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that has never been done in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Greenwood knows that when the budget debate was postponed after he made a short reply, that was done by agreement. We asked that the government follow the same course this time. I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me that was the course that was followed in the past.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I said previously this evening that the practice when I acted as financial critic was that I followed the minister of finance and that I used such time as I wished that same evening, usually not more than 15 minutes.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I adjourned the debate and it was not resumed usually for several days.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But you were, of course, allowed to make your speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Was it not done by agreement? Is it not the case that the debate was resumed, with his knowledge and approval by agreement? I ask the hon. member whether that is not the case.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. member for Greenwood answer the question?
Seme hon. Members: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that a question has been asked and I have no objection to its being answered. However, if the house is not in agreement, nothing can be accomplished by debate.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member should be given an opportunity to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: The only course to be followed is to deal with the situation when it arises. As far as 1 can see, there is no agreement about what may be done at ten o'clock tomorrow night. The house will have to decide that matter then. It being ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m. tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Arrogance.
[Mr. Speaker.)


Paul Joseph James Martin: I raised this question on the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker. You had suggested that the appropriate moment to raise this order of business-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If Your Honour will permit me to say so, when I raised this matter on the orders of the day you had suggested that the appropriate time at which to raise it was at this hour. That has been done. We are now discussing the procedure. There has been no agreement. On the eve of the dissolution of parliament we are trying to see to it that at the least, one privilege is given to the opposition, namely that the Leader of the Opposition not only be allowed to begin his speech tomorrow but that, before this house is dissolved, he be given the opportunity to complete his statement with regard to the budget brought in by this government. To deny us this right will be something that the people of Canada will observe.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was ten o'clock. However, I would say to the hon. gentleman that he should recall January of 1940 when he starts telling us what should be done. He should remember what was done then. It is ten o'clock.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it should be recorded that when I made-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Another form of closure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the Leader of the Opposition resume his seat. If the house is concerned about making an arrangement I am content to hear more, but I do not think I can allow a debate to continue which is not leading somewhere in the discussion of the business of the house. It was proposed, as I understood it, to allow sufficient time that the opposition could make an interim reply after tomorrow night's budget speech, and if the house is prepared to agree to a time of 20 minutes or half an hour beyond the conclusion of the budget address the matter can be dealt with. Otherwise it will have to be dealt with tomorrow when the occasion arises.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am merely suggesting that the ordinary, normal, courteous course be followed which was followed by the hon. member for Greenwood, and when I outlined what that course was he nodded his head in assent. I hope it will be followed on this occasion.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is always followed.


John George Diefenbaker: The courteous course will always be followed and always has been.


Lionel Chevrier: It has not been tonight.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we have pointed out what the ordinary course is. Tomorrow evening they will have their opportunity. If they want extra time it will be given if the house agrees. If they do not, then they must make their own decision.


Some hon. Members:: Shame. Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Closure. Closure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The rights of parliament torn to pieces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Shame. Shame.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What a Prime
Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: What a future leader of
the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
9, 1962	2655
Business of the House


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member speaking for his party? As I understand the situation, at this stage it has been proposed that there be time for reply and the house has agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, there has not been agreement.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, all I want to say is that with all this talk of courtesy and decency I hope it will be remembered that there is a group in this corner of the house that would like to have an opportunity to say something.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of any agreement I have no course but to observe the rules of the house. It being ten o'clock, this house stands adjourned until 2.30 tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
It being fifteen minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
26207-1-169i
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 10, 1962