1962-04-12

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Cathers.


[Stage Direction]
Miss	Margaret Aitken (York-Humber)
presented the second report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon.	Gordon Churchill	(Minister	ofVeterans Affairs) moved that the first report of the special committee appointed to consider with Mr.	Speaker the	procedure	of
this house, presented Tuesday, April 10, 1962, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon.	Donald	M. Fleming	(Minister	of
Finance): I wish to table a report which I have received from the tariff board. This is the board's report on reference No. 128 relating to engineers' and architects' plans, drawings and blueprints. I am tabling copies of the report in English and French, and also a transcript of the evidence taken at the public hearings.
This report contains recommendations relating both to rates of duty and to the method of determining the value for duty of plans, drawings, and blueprints. The report is being carefully studied.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make which I believe represents a new breakthrough in Canada's welfare system.
26207-1-184
I have today written provincial ministers informing them of the government's intention to initiate a new program of welfare grants designed to assist in overcoming major deficiencies in our present nation-wide network of welfare services. By 1967 these grants will result in the channelling of $2,500,000 annually in federal funds into the fields of general welfare, professional training, and research. Nothing like this has ever been done in Canada before, and I hope there will be discussions with provincial authorities in the near future with a view to obtaining their full co-operation in an endeavour which I believe will strengthen tremendously Canada's welfare efforts.
There are two separate grants involved. The one pertaining to general welfare and professional training will commence at a level of $450,000 for 1962-63 and increase at the rate of $450,000 annually for five years, reaching $2,250,000 by 1966-67. The other grant respecting welfare research will begin at a level of $50,000 in 1962-63 and increase at the rate of $50,000 annually for five years, reaching an amount of $250,000 in 1966-67. Funds for the current fiscal year will be provided through a supplementary estimate.
This new program will be complemented by the establishment of a national council of welfare, as announced in the speech from the throne. I hope to make a statement very shortly indicating the membership of the council, one of whose first tasks will be to assist in working out the details of the new grants system. As I have indicated previously, I would also like the council to consider a number of other important social security matters such as the development of a new and integrated approach to public assistance, and the need for an increase in the level of benefits under family allowances along with the question of raising the age limit at which such allowances are paid in the case of children who are still attending school.
In taking these historic initiatives in relation to welfare, the government is anxious to furnish a balance to the emphasis which has long been placed on the provision of cash benefits. Income maintenance payments such as old age assistance, blindness and disability allowances, and unemployment assistance are vitally important, but in many instances their effectiveness has been reduced to some extent by the shortage of human resources

Health and Welfare
necessary to implement them fully. The welfare grants and the new council will, we believe, go a long way toward giving a more positive impact to these measures.
As far as the welfare research grant is concerned, we have seen the benefits which have accrued from scientific research in many fields, including health. We feel that similar gains may well be registered as a result of concentrated and organized study of human problems such as long term dependency and juvenile delinquency. A good deal of work is, of course, already being done in such areas and it is our hope that federal assistance will provide the necessary added impetus to these efforts.
The welfare research grant will be made available on a non-matching basis, while the general welfare and professional training grant will be on a matching basis with the provinces except for two of its aspects, scholarships and fellowships, including travel costs, and teaching and field instruction grants. Neither grant will be allocated among the provinces but both will be held in a central pool similar to the method followed for public health research under the national health grants program.
Projects relating to the field of corrections of concern to the Department of Justice will also be covered by this program through cooperation between our two departments.
Mr. Speaker, the government has received many representations calling for the kind of program we are now initiating. As the Prime Minister told the annual meeting of the Canadian Welfare Council in May, 1961, we have also had a frank exchange of views with representatives of welfare organizations about what should be done. As a result, the government is particularly aware of the many serious problems being encountered in the welfare field and has come to the conclusion that a national system of welfare grants affords the best approach to their solution.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare will accept in the spirit in which I say it, that we are all very happy to see this eruption to life on the part of the minister. The program he has announced, of course, must be examined in the light of the recommendations made to the government not in 1960, as the minister implied, but late in 1958, when the Canadian Welfare Council recommended the establishment of a program embodying some of the features which the minister announced today.
The grants to which the minister referred are positive matters to pursue, but as the minister so well knows they do not represent a new effort on the part of the government of
TMr. Monteith (Perth).]
Canada. It would be regrettable, however, if the minister were to use the appointment of the new council, the personnel of which has not yet been named, as a device to delay extending family allowance payments to school children up to age 18, as we in the Liberal party have proposed. That need not wait. Likewise we would hope that the establishment of this program would not in any way serve as a device to stand in the way of establishing for Canadians a national minimum pension of $75 a month on a contributory basis, as proposed by the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: This is the party that said $46 a month was enough.


Mr. Hees:: Remember the six bucks?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Are we hearing from two buck Fleming?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure whether or not the house has reconciled itself to hearing the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, members of this group always welcome any improvement in our social welfare program, however microscopic. We hope these decisions have not been timed to correspond with the urgent necessities of coming events.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Elections are the only things that move this government, in any event.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPEN QUOTA FOR ALL DELIVERY POINTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in a decade all grain delivery points in western Canada have been placed on open quota. This marks the end of the longest period of elevator congestion in the history of Canada's grain trade. For ten years in succession restrictions on deliveries have had to be applied, so that grain producers who started farming since 1952 have never known a time of unrestricted deliveries.
The 1961 grain crop was a short one but of high quality and relatively few grades. This took the pressure off storage requirements. Coupled with this was the increased world demand for Canadian wheat that emptied elevator bins at an almost unprecedented rate.

Mr. Speaker, the end came today, when all delivery points were put on open quota by the wheat board.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,
I am sure the country will welcome the fact that we are about to have a general election, as that is the only way by which we can get this government to do the things which have been urged for some time. What the Minister of Agriculture has announced was urged in this house two years ago-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -not only by members of the Liberal party-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to attempt to obtain the hearing which his remarks deserve.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that they deserve serious attention. As I said, it is a good thing we are having an election as this is the only way in which we have been able to get this government to do anything positive for those sections of the people who have been asking for attention. Notwithstanding what hon. gentlemen may say now by way of intervention, what the minister has announced today was urged by members of the Liberal party during the past two years-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -on behalf of
certain sections of agriculture. We are glad that at long last coming events have joined with what we have urged in order to bring the government to some decision.
Mr. 3runsden: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Brunsden:: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is introducing his supplement too soon. I recognize the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: The
New Democratic party also welcomes the announcement of the minister. In fairness to the farmers themselves I think it should be pointed out that the removal of quotas is desired as a long term program. However, it should be remembered that part of the reason this has been accomplished has been the sales ability of the wheat board, and part the drought condition last year. However, we welcome this announcement also and hope that the farmers who have some grain on hand are able to dispose of it now.
26207-1-184i
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Sour grapes.

On the orders of the day:


Edwin William Brunsden: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of his very welcome announcement of open grain quotas across the prairies, and with particular reference to the remarks on his statement made by the deputy farm leader of the opposition. Is it not true that there was an election in 1957, at which time the grain elevators across Canada were plugged with wheat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the facts which the hon. member is seeking to elicit are known to all hon. members in the house.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of reports to the effect that certain members of the Geneva disarmament conference have made representations to the governments of the United States and the Soviet union to the effect that there should be no resumption of tests while that conference is sitting. May I ask whether the Canadian government has associated itself with those representations?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, our
representatives have had discussions both in Washington and in London about the whole situation at the Geneva conference, including the question of a possible nuclear test ban. These discussions have taken place within the last few days and are quite apart from any representations made by the eight unaligned countries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it a fact that Canada is not included in those representations from the eight unaligned countries?


Howard Charles Green: I have not seen the report with regard to the representations by the eight. I am doubtful whether that report is accurate. Canada made her own representations.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. My question
2888	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry is based on a telegram addressed to me which I received this morning. "Mundy-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I question whether the hon. member is entitled to read a telegram addressed to himself as the basis of a question. It is rather unprecedented. Perhaps he would indicate what his question is.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to ask a question based on a telegram I received this morning from Creston in which certain members of a militia unit who were accused of political activity deny such activity, as does the chaplain. The telegram also urges the Minister of National Defence-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -to make his statements outside the house. Will he kindly oblige?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the statement I made yesterday was in effect a report for which the hon. member had asked with regard to the circumstances of the allegations he had made, and which were proved to be incorrect as far as the unit at Creston is concerned. I have no objection, of course, to giving this report outside the house or anywhere else.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question. The minister claimed that the chaplain and his associates carried on political activities during hours when the men were on duty. Will he make that statement outside the house?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I made a statement in the house yesterday which the hon. member can read. I stand by that statement.


Mr. Fisher:: Make it outside the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have confidence in the information I was given.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Make it outside the house. [Later:]


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address another question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the minister's statement yesterday that service regulations forbidding active participation in the affairs of any political organization apply to members of the reserve forces only in regard to political activities on service establishments or when engaged in strictly military duties, has the minister instructed Lieutenant Colonel Reynolds, commanding officer of the 8th field regiment, R.C.E. to rescind his order to Sergeant McSeveney and Corporal Nichol to resign from the Creston New Democratic party club?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday the situation was as reported. I have no information that, as alleged by the 

hon. member on April 9, the chaplain of the regiment and the two N.C.O.'s were asked to resign their membership in the New Democratic party. The allegation made by the hon. gentleman is completely incorrect. The chaplain was asked only to refrain from engaging in political activities in the armouries and among personnel when in uniform. The two N.C.O.'s were asked to stop their political activities while they were on call out serving full time with the Canadian army.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question. As the minister is incompletely and inaccurately informed would he further investigate this matter?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think the situation is that the hon. member has been unmasked in attempting to make political capital out of an incident which occurred and he does not have sufficient good judgment now to keep quiet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think both hon. members would do well not to lecture each other.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question of privilege I shall hear him.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister has no right to say that I am making political capital out of this incident. I wish to see justice done to Canadian citizens and their rights preserved. No one in the militia should be given an order like that by a colonel of another political persuasion.
(Translation):



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. V. F. Dubois (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question.
Is the minister aware that the vast majority of posters, inscriptions, etc. in the east block are printed in one language only?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe that on March 22 last, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) addressed a letter to me pointing out that anomaly.
Following that letter, I gave necessary instructions to have all inscriptions replaced by bilingual ones.

(Text):


Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I should like to inquire whether provision is being made in the renovation of the west block or elsewhere for the use of a lounge by hon. members' secretaries, as we are making streetwalkers of these-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Harold Hicks: -pardon me; I did not mean it that way.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member communicate with the Speaker.


William Harold Hicks: I apologize for that expression, Mr. Speaker. I meant of course that they have to walk in the streets instead of having a place to rest during the noon hour.


David James Walker: While this matter is being inquired into, perhaps they could use the room of the hon. member.



MARITIME PROVINCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 10 the hon. member for Gloucester asked me if I had received a brief from Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia and Premier Robichaud of New Brunswick with regard to further utilization of maritime coal. Such a brief has been received and the representations are under study.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: A supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister advise the house on what date the brief was received, and whether it has been brought to the attention of the ministers or departments concerned?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, briefs are always brought to the attention of the ministers concerned.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the house whether he will agree to table the brief presented to him on March 7 by Premier Stanfield and Premier Robichaud on outlets for maritime coal? My reason for asking the question is that it appears now that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and the officials of the dominion coal board have not been made aware of that brief.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the hon.
gentleman is not looking for information; he is giving information. As to the words in the earlier part of his alleged question, I shall give consideration to them.
(Translation):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What steps does the minister intend to take, following the statement made by the shipowners to the effect that they will operate their ships without the help of the pilots who are now holding meetings?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, about that work stoppage of the St. Lawrence pilots, as I said yesterday, I met them and they have submitted new requests, much more moderate than their previous ones, which are now being discussed with the representatives of the Shipping Federation.
I intend to convene both groups again about those requests today, and I am confident that they will come to an agreement before very long, in the interest of both groups and of the public at large.
As for the question asked by my hon. friend, I have nothing to add to what I said the other day, that is that the minister and the Department of Transport are responsible for shipping operations on the St. Lawrence and, according to the requirements of the act, have to provide the necessary aids to navigation on the St. Lawrence. We intend to abide by the provisions of the act.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Has the minister informed the shipowners that their action, in the case of the question that has been asked, would be illegal, as he indicated to the pilots that their strike was illegal?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the Shipping Act provides that any ship going up the St. Lawrence has to pay a pilot's fee, whether there is a pilot or not operating her.
As far as our department is concerned, all it can require of a ship plying the St. Lawrence is that she pays the pilot's fee.
If the ship in question is plying up or down the St. Lawrence without a pilot, well, it is a decision for the ship to take; our department cannot take that decision.
2890	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister aware of section 375B of the Merchant Marine Act, which says that shipowners must have a pilot from St. Regis up?


An hon. Member:: St. Regis-
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether, in his view of the fact that the parties to the dispute between the pilots and the shipping federation have not been successful in getting together, and in view of the further fact that there is a grave danger to navigation if ships are moved without pilots, he will lend his good offices and those of his departmental officers in order to bring these parties together.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the great many questions that the hon. member for Laurier has directed to the Minister of Transport and myself with respect to this dispute. I am sure the hon. member is just as anxious as we are, or should be, that this dispute be settled. I am also sure he is aware of the fact that the Minister of Transport is devoting a great deal of time and energy to bringing about a settlement between these two parties. Consequently I think all this barrage of questions is not doing this dispute any good at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have no intention of being lectured on what my responsibilities are by the Minister of Labour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Don't be so touchy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: The fact is that the Minister of Labour, who refused yesterday to reply to a question as to whether this was a legal or an illegal strike, notwithstanding the fact that his colleague had said it was an illegal strike, should be-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Orders of the day.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I was on a question of privilege, and I submit to you-


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the hon. member's question of privilege. It seems to me that it is a point of order. I agree that the hon. member should not be lectured on the questions that he asks; it is his perfect right to


ask questions. As the hon. member has raised the point, I consider the matter disposed of.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I had not completed what I intended to say.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member did not complete what he intended to say because he departed into some irregular utterances himself, which prompted me to intervene.


Lionel Chevrier: But the minister was going on to lecture a member of the opposition on a matter concerning which he says he has absolutely nothing to do, and I am trying to say to the minister now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There will be opportunity for debate if we can get to the orders of the day. The hon. member for St. Mary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a question-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I just recognized the hon. member for St. Mary. I will hear the hon. member as soon as I have heard him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rose on a question of privilege affecting the rights of the opposition in this house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is entitled to rise on a question of privilege when he gets the floor, if it arises out of something that has been said by the hon.-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does arise out of the
incident which just ended.


Mr. Speaker:: -member who has the floor, or if the hon. member for St. Mary defers.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have much chance to ask a question, with the four members of the Liberal party. I have a question to ask the Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will hear the hon. member for St. Mary. I did recognize him before the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate rose, and therefore I think he has the floor.


Georges-J. Valade: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving a lesson on procedure to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I have a question to ask the Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights of the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -arising out of the exchange between the Minister of Labour and my hon. friend from Laurier. My point is this, that we on this side of the house listened politely and without interruption-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -politely and without interruption to the lecture delivered by the Minister of Labour, which was totally out of order and a gratuitous reflection upon the conduct of a senior member of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When that senior member of the opposition rose on a question of privilege he was interrupted, just as I am being interrupted now, by the catcalls of the majority in this house. I submit to Your Honour that the opposition is being put in an intolerable position-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -by this constant barrage that takes place when any hon. member on this side gets up to reply to these gratuitous observations made by ministers of the crown which are listened to in silence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, just so the record will be clear I simply say that what the hon. gentleman has said is not in accordance with the facts, and apparently-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Who is interrupting now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order-


Mr. Ricard:: Pious Paul.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -what the Prime Minister has said-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -is not in order, and I would ask him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: You continue to defy the Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member's point of order arises out of what the Prime Minister said, perhaps he is justified in interrupting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is obviously what I was doing. What the Prime Minister was about to do was clearly out of order. I am asking Your Honour, with great respect, to remind the Prime Minister that he has no right to speak on the matter or discuss it, as he is now doing. He is clearly out of order and he should be so told.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought the Prime Minister was commenting on the matter which was raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I considered that the statement made by the hon. member, having put the issue, was open to comment.


John George Diefenbaker: May I say to the hon. member for Essex East, in words which Mr. Churchill once used, that he is generating such an amount of explosive material internally that I worry about his condition.
He mentioned a moment ago an eruption to life. The statements made, allegedly on a question of privilege, by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate are not in accordance with the facts. This is simply placing on record by way of exculpation in advance a state of affairs which is not correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would permit me to say this. He may feel there is something to be corrected, but statements have been made about the attention given by one side of the house to the other. Hon. members know what the situation is, and there is no need to debate it. I consider we would make better progress by proceeding with the order of business rather than by pursuing the matter. It is quite improper, of course, for either side of the house to barrack -I think that word was used-or interrupt vociferously in a manner which makes it difficult, if not impossible at times, for the member who has the floor to speak. But I certainly should not want to single out as a matter of privilege the conduct of any individual in the circumstances which exist at this time when it seems to me there is more than the usual exuberance in the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a further question of privilege arising out of what the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister has said that I made a statement which is not in accordance with the facts. That amounts to saying I knowingly made a statement which is untrue, which is contrary to the rules of the house. I am not going to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw. The facts are well

Inquiries of the Ministry known; they have been observed by everyone here this afternoon, and they can be judged by the record.


An hon. Member:: They will be.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members interpret statements in their own way sometimes. In any event, I trust that the house is satisfied to proceed.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: On Tuesday the hon. member for Port Arthur asked me a question regarding the effect of the Ontario legislation in respect to municipal taxation of pipe lines on the revenues of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. I have been advised by the president of the corporation that it is a provision of the agreement between this corporation and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, covering the lease of the northern Ontario section, that Trans-Canada will pay all taxes, rates, duties and assessments of every kind. Accordingly the legislation referred to by the hon. member has no effect on the revenues of the corporation.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question.
Is the minister now in a position to acquaint the house with the results of yesterday's meeting between federal and provincial authorities in connection with the removal of tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the discussions that took place here in Ottawa between representatives of the three administrations concerned were at the level of the officials of those various governments. Each representative must report to his own government, and after those reports have been received the governments will get in touch. In brief, that means that as soon as we have received those reports, we shall inform the house.


Georges-J. Valade: Is the minister in a position to tell if, prior to March 31, 1958, representations had been made to the Department of Transport in order to abolish the tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the toll issue on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges is another one of those questions left unsolved by our predecessors during the 22 years they were in office. This is, I believe, what my hon. friend wanted to know.
(Text):



NUCLEAR ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs through whose department Atomic Energy of Canada is handled. Has the nuclear power plant at Rolphton gone into operation?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisier of Veterans Affairs):: The nuclear power plant at Rolphton, Ontario, became critical as the scientific term expresses it, at 2.40 a.m. yesterday, and considerable attention has been paid to this important event by the press of the country. The power station will not be fully effective, that is it will not be generating steam and transferring electricity into the Ontario grid until sometime later this year because of tests which must now be carried on to make sure that the reactor is working properly, but it is an important advance in the development of power from atomic sources.
The N.D.P. station has cost $33 million. It is a co-operative project among Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Ontario hydro and the Canadian General Electric Company. It will have an electricity output of 20,000 kilowatts, and is the prototype for larger plants such as the 200,000 kilowatt Douglas point nuclear power station which is now under construction near the shore of lake Huron.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: May I address a supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can the minister advise the house of the progress which is being made in the construction of the large Candu nuclear power plant in Bruce county?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Progress is going on according to plan, and that very large nuclear power plant is expected to be in operation in 1964.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can he confirm a statement reported to have been made the other day in Elliot Lake by the chief of research for his department, Dr. John Convey, that in two years the department's research into non-military uses of uranium could approach a state at which sufficient uranium could be needed to keep all mines at Elliot Lake in production?


Hon. Jacques Flynn (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I shall take the hon. member's question as notice.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister, as the result of representations made to her by Rev. Dr. Peter Kelly of the native brotherhood of British Columbia, on behalf of the Fort Simpson band in respect of the sale of timber on the Tsimpsean reserve No. 2, make an announcement to the house with regard to whatever decision has been reached?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I think the hon. member is under some misapprehension. There is no decision to be made. I announced in the house that new tenders would be called, and they will be called as soon as the specifications are drawn.



DOIG RIVER, B.C.-REPORTED CLOSING OF SCHOOL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has seen two articles which appeared in the Alaska Highway News of April 5 which indicate that the school of the Doig river Indians in British Columbia is once more closed, and that conditions among the Indians do not appear to be satisfactory. If the hon. lady has not seen the clipping I will be pleased to send it to her. Perhaps she would be good enough to have the matter looked into.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I am fully acquainted with the situation. The
Inquiries of the Ministry hon. member may recall that I said previously these people are not living on a reservation. They left the reservation and went to a crossroads because there was a store there. The store has now been closed and they are in the wilderness, so to speak. Efforts are being made to have them return to the reserve, where there is a school which will take care of them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are certain other conditions referred to in the article. I wonder whether the hon. lady would look into it and report at a later date.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has any decision been reached regarding the erection of a permanent building for the fishery research station now located in London and, if so, where is it to be built? Further, if a new location is contemplated, would the ideal area in Grey North, bordering on Georgian bay, be given serious consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is one appropriate for the order paper. If the minister is able and willing to answer, I do not object.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I can say that the lease on the present accommodation in London does not expire for a number of years yet, I think in 1966. Therefore no decision has yet been taken as to when or where permanent accommodation might be built, but careful consideration will be given to all the pertinent factors before any permanent location is selected.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the minister a supplementary question. Could the minister say whether any steps have been taken to improve the accommodation of the Department of Fisheries with a new permanent building in St. John's.


John Angus MacLean: I am not clear on the hon. member's question. Did he refer to the research board?


John Whitney Pickersgill: For the activities of the Department of Fisheries generally, including the research board, in St. John's.


John Angus MacLean: This is a matter that has been under constant review. The situation has improved considerably. I think it was two years ago that accommodation
2894	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry occupied by the provincial government in the research board building eventually became available to the board, which relieved the situation somewhat. But the general problem of suitable accommodation in the St. John's area is under review.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him if he does not think his decision to sit on April 19 should be amended, in view of the fact that it is a holy day and for some of us it would be a matter of some inconvenience.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was unaware of that fact when I mentioned the date yesterday. I certainly would not do anything to have the house sit on a holy day. (Translation):



SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
DOCUMENTS ISSUED IN BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Can the minister tell us how many posters, forms, signs or other documents are now, as a result of his initiative, issued or published in the two official languages of the country-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: -thus showing the progress made in the field of bilingualism during the last four or five years?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Could the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: -if a request is put forward to him in the appropriate way, produce a list of such documents?
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I did not hear all the question because of interruptions. What I did hear inclined me to the view that the question is properly one which should go on the order paper. If the hon. member wishes to repeat his question, and the house will permit me to hear it-


(Translation):


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to produce the list the hon. member is asking for.
(Text):



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In the light of his statement made in this house some eight months ago that the government had decided to grant an international air service route to C.P.A. from Calgary-Edmonton to London, may I ask the minister if landing rights have yet been authorized by the United Kingdom government at London?


Léon Balcer: As I have said earlier, we are in communication with the minister of civil aviation of Great Britain and a meeting is being set up between senior officials of his department and my department. According to the latest correspondence from Right Hon. Peter Thor-neycroft, this meeting will take place late in May.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Why did the minister make the announcement eight months ago when the authorization to land in London had not been granted?


Léon Balcer: I imagine the hon. member for Laurier does not know that we had a meeting here between Mr. Thorneycroft and myself, and certain events have taken place in the last eight months. The hon. member should go back and read the papers, and he will get his answer.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister seen a copy of a form letter sent out by the social allowances commission in Quebec to old age pensioners who were receiving supplementary allowances? If so, can he explain why the recipients have only now been informed that they are being paid for the last few months of last year and that they were no longer eligible for the supplementary allowances as from February 1, 1962?


Jay Waldo Monteith: This situation seems to have been caused by the fact that the Quebec social allowances commission did not process until quite recently some applications they had received from pensioners for special assistance of this type. Welfare matters such as this are administered by the provinces, though my department pays one half the cost under the Unemployment Assistance Act. Under this act the provinces are free to grant whatever aid is required on the basis of individual need.
The Quebec commission seems to consider that on this basis some people at least do not require more than $65 per month. Thus the pensioners whose income was raised to that level by supplementary allowances are now receiving only federal old age security, which means that my department is paying all the extra cost instead of one half of it. Of course if the commission feels that in individual cases a higher payment is warranted, we would still be prepared to share the added cost under unemployment assistance.


Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-ICingsway):: I wonder if the minister could tell us what has been the reaction from British Columbia in regard to this cost sharing program.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We have had no word whatsoever from the province of British Columbia, it being the only province from which we have not heard. We have no indication whether or not they intend to participate in the welfare increases.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising from yesterday's announcement by the Minister of National Defence regarding the building of eight warships in Canadian yards. Can the minister indicate whether the maritime commission is working with Defence Construction Limited to see that contract tenders are shared by the maritimes, Quebec, the great lakes and the Pacific coast areas when these ships are being constructed?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The maritime commission allocates these ships. In some cases a tender is called; in others it is a question of a negotiated price. Every effort is made to distribute the shipbuilding work in as equitable a manner
Inquiries of the Ministry as possible among the yards in Canada which are capable of carrying on this type of construction.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if the minister could indicate whether there has recently been a reappraisal of the yards in order to find out which ones are capable of doing this work.
I ask this question because in recent years contracts have tended to go to only two yards.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The allegation which has just been made is completely inaccurate. At the present time there are six destroyer escorts under construction, and they are at six different yards.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. According to an article in La Tribune of April 5 the government is about to sell the post office building at East Angus. It is reported that the Tory candidate in Compton-Frontenac, Mr. Bill Clifford, is responsible for the sale of that building at a reduced price. If that report is correct can the minister assure the house that the public interest will be well protected?


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret that as a backbencher I have to rise and call the attention of hon. members to the rules of the house. I refer to citation 177 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which refers to the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may raise a point of order with respect to some incident that has happened, but if he wishes to raise a point of order in general with respect to the entire opposition, I am afraid that would be rather novel.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I refer to the question just asked by the hon. member for St. Denis.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: We have a
Speaker, by the way.


Georges-J. Valade: I think there is an important lesson here which may be presented by backbenchers. I refer to citation 177 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which states in part:
Reading telegrams, letters or extracts from newspapers as an opening to a question when the orders of the day are called is an abuse of the rules of the house.
Further along it says:
It is the member's duty to ascertain the truth of any statement before he brings it to the attention of parliament.
2896	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Brassard (Lapointe): Was the hon.
member here in 1956?


Georges-J. Valade: Before the question was
answered I merely wished to direct the attention of the hon. member for St. Denis to this rule.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course the question has been disposed of and answered now, and it may be that the point is taken too late to be effective in this case; but there is a precedent for requiring an hon. member to take the responsibility for the truth of the facts on which he founds a question. I think perhaps unfortunately this has been overlooked a good deal in our practice. In any event, I think the point has perhaps now passed its usefulness.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say a word on the point of order. I wish to inform the house that I did not read a word of the newspaper clipping. The words I used were mine, and I take responsibility for them. I merely wished to inform the house that the Tory candidate is trying to sell a public building for almost nothing, and I feel the public interest should be protected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is taking advantage of the floor to make statements that certainly are not in order.


Lionel Chevrier: Government members do that repeatedly, sir.
(Translation):



INQUIRY AS TO RECEIPT OF MODEL DESIGNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State if he has received designs of the various flags recommended by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson)? If so, what are they?


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question- (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Lapointe is asking a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm may I point out I did not accept the previous question. (Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State if his department still has the flag design proposed by the Prime Minister-


(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not consider that the question was a proper one to be asked on orders of the day, and I believe it was not answered.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was allowed to be asked, Mr. Speaker. That is the point. Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, may I please direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State?


Mr. Speaker:: May I inquire whether the Secretary of State answered the question?


Noël Dorion: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I had not allowed the question. If the hon. member has a question that is his own I would be glad to hear him, but I will not entertain a supplementary question to a question that I did not consider to be in order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The first question was allowed; it is now on the record. While the Secretary of State did not rise to reply to it, surely the hon. member for Lapointe has the right to ask a similar or a supplementary question, since the other question was not ruled out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. member. If the question was such as to raise the privileges of the house or of the hon. member or a point of order, then the hon. member should address himself to the Chair; but if no such point is involved in the question I consider that a supplementary question to a question that is not in order would also not be in order.


Augustin Brassard: Then, Mr. Speaker, I do not have a supplementary question to ask of the Secretary of State; I simply have a question to ask of him.


Georges-J. Valade: Is it in order?


Augustin Brassard: We have a
Speaker here in the house.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to ask the Secretary of State if he has received the flag design proposed, in 1945, by the Prime Minister of Canada?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The question is of the same category as the question to which it was supplementary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Two-flag Jack. (Translation):


An hon. Member:: Two flags.

(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I correctly apprehended the question it was of an entirely different order. It asked the Secretary of State whether he had received the design of a certain flag. It has been the custom over the years for the secretary of state to receive the designs which are sent to the government from time to time, and to file them in his department. I know this because I was once secretary of state. It therefore seems to me the question comes within the accepted ambit of the functions of the Secretary of State.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member has a point. What design was it that the question related to?
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, all those who have read the minutes of proceedings of the committee entrusted with the study of the various flag designs in 1945 know it very well. I put again the question to the Secretary of State. In 1945 the hon. member who is now the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) suggested a national flag, which was in no way of a distinctive nature. I want to ask him if he has this flag design in his flies.


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, in 1945 I had not yet entered the field of federal politics, f Text) *



CANADA GRAIN ACT


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the third reading of Bill No. S-19, to amend the Canada Grain Act.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture whether any consideration has been given to the matter we raised yesterday. I refer to an apparent conflict between the terms of the Canada Grain Act, which is now being changed to include mustard seed and rape-seed, and the provincial laws relating to noxious weeds. Many of the provinces consider that mustard falls into this category. I was wondering whether any consideration has been given since yesterday to this particular matter and whether some protection can be given in the matter of differentiation in the new Canada Grain Act and the provincial acts-I refer to differentiation in the matter of mustard seed-which also class this as a weed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I assume that if I speak I will close the debate. Is that the situation?
Supply-Northern Affairs


Mr. Speaker:: No. As to whether the minister has a right to speak, by leave of the house he might answer the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we wish to preserve the rules of the house. I do not wish to prevent the minister from speaking. However, it should be done only by unanimous consent. By moving third reading the minister has exhausted his right to speak. Your Honour, of course, has often made that decision. However, I should hope there would be unanimous consent to allow him to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister may answer the question without closing the debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The question asked by the hon. member for Timiskaming is one to which it is extremely difficult to give a precise answer. There has been a great deal of discussion in the western provinces as to a clear distinction between the various types of mustard seed. In some provinces they are considered noxious and in others they are a crop. As I understand the situation, mustard is grown for commercial purposes. It is clearly defined in the Canada Grain Act and in the new regulations. It is different from the mustard that is commonly known in western Canada as a noxious weed.
I do not foresee any great difficulty in putting this in the Canada Grain Act. However, I will speak to the board of grain commissioners about this matter to ascertain if they will carry on discussions with the three governments in western Canada in order to see whether anything can be done to make this matter any clearer than it is today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
Northern administration branch-education division-*
730. Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $200,000.
Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, and it is this. We were not on this item when the estimates were last discussed in this chamber. As a matter of fact we were on item 729. While we on

Supply-Northern Affairs this side of the chamber welcome the decision of the government to deal with supplementary estimates, in the light of what has taken place I think I should review briefly what has happened outside the House of Commons and here in the House of Commons concerning the manner in which the estimates have been brought before us. On Friday, March 23-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, you called item 730. The hon. member wishes now to precipitate a debate on broader questions. There can be such a debate if it is sought. However, it is not proper to have it in this committee on item 730.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not attempting to precipitate a debate, Mr. Chairman. I was rising on a question of privilege, as I have a right to do. When we were last on these estimates we dealt with item 729 and we did not pass it. We are therefore still on item 729 unless and until the government gives some indication of a change. The government has given that indication, but it gave it a very short time ago. That is the matter that I suggest is a question of privilege. I wish to make a statement and I do not wish to enter into a debate. I think I have a perfect right so to do. My statement is this-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On this question of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not a question of order; it is a question of privilege.


Lionel Chevrier: It is a question of privilege, not a question of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as privilege is concerned, Mr. Chairman, this being a day for government business and the chosen item of government business having been called-


Lionel Chevrier: I	rise	on a	question of
privilege-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman-


The Chairman:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: I	rise	on a	question of
privilege. I had the floor on a question of privilege and the minister interrupted me. No interruption is allowed on a question of privilege.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I believe only one question of privilege can be taken up at a time. The hon. member for Laurier has raised a question of privilege. I understood the Minister of Finance to be replying to the question raised by the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not get started.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Does the hon. member wish to discuss the question of privilege?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. I wish to discuss it as calmly as I can. I hope the minister will not rise and interrupt me repeatedly, as it is his practice to do. I was stating that on Friday, March 23 the house concluded consideration of the third set of supplementary estimates and passed the appropriation bill. Then we embarked upon the fourth set of supplementary estimates, commencing with the Department of Agriculture, about five minutes before five o'clock. On Monday, March 26, instead of continuing the supplementaries, as the government should have done and as the opposition asked, they were not called again until Wednesday, March 28. If they had been called at the beginning of that week they could easily have been concluded by March 30 and probably by March 29, particularly as items in nine various departments were passed on March 30.
Having failed to do that, the government should have called the supplementaries on April 2, and they could have been concluded at the latest by April 3. Instead they were held off until Friday, April 6, about one hour before five o'clock, by which time General McNaughton's interview was in the press. In other words the committee was given no consecutive opportunity to dispose of this business.
If one looks at the order of business one will find 10 items were given last night by the house leader as the business for today, the first item having to do with the electoral boundaries commission, and the next having to do with a measure concerning the Senate. I will not go over them all, as they can be found at page 2864 of Hansard. Then this morning about 11.30 the house leader advised that supplementary estimates were coming on.
As I said earlier, we on this side of the house have no objection whatsoever to the calling of these supplementary estimates, but what we on this side of the house to object to is that statements are being made outside of the house, particularly on television last night by the Prime Minister, that we on this side of the house are obstructing and delaying the business of the house. That, sir, is not the fact.


Mr. Montgomery:: It is true.


Lionel Chevrier: The facts are as I have clearly indicated them, and I have done so as calmly as I could under the circumstances. If there is any delay, if there is any holdup in the business of the house, it is because of the confusion that exists on the other side

of the house. It is because of the fact that there is no orderly decision as to what the business shall be. One day we are on legislation and the next we take supplementary estimates. Again we are on legislation and later back again to supplementary estimates. If the supplementary estimates had been continued as they should have been without interruption, then in my opinion we would have been beyond them a long time ago.
I conclude my question of privilege by saying this. Before we agree to postpone consideration of item 729 we are entitled to an assurance that the committee will dispose of last year's supplementary estimates, the ones we are now on, before going on with other business.


Mr, Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I want to express our complete approval and support of the remarks made by the hon. member for Laurier. I also wish to bring to the minister's attention the fact that when we concluded discussion of these estimates previously we were on item 729, and it is obvious that the officials thought we were going to proceed with that item because the gallery is flooded with all these great engineers from the water resources branch. There is no branch in any department of the government whose officials spend more time in the gallery than those of the water resources branch. They are all here this afternoon, so it is obvious they expected that the government would proceed with item 729. I trust we will.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this is a pretty far fetched question of privilege. I had hoped that all hon. members would address themselves to making some progress with these items instead of threshing straw that has already been well threshed. Furthermore, let me make it very clear that in other years final supplementary estimates have usually been dispatched in about two days, because final supplementaries are usually of a uniform character. They are usually simply further amounts required for purposes that have already been approved by parliament in adopting the main estimates. That is the character of most of the items.
This year, apart from the short commencement that was made on March 23, three days were set aside for these final supplementary estimates; Wednesday, March 28, Thursday, March 29 and Friday, March 30. Those three days fell far short of being enough for the carrying of these items. Indeed, only a minority of the items were disposed of then. This, I think, is not an indication that the committee proceeded to deal with these items at normal speed.
Supply-Northern Affairs
There is other business of the house that has to be done, and some attempt has to be made to advance business that there is some hope of advancing when it is quite clear that the committee has been bogged down on items in the estimates. We brought these estimates back again last Friday, April 6, and we passed one item in an hour and a quarter.
There is no ground for complaint about our calling item 730 today, because it was made very clear to hon. members this morning why that course was being proposed. It remains with the government, when the government is introducing estimates as its business on a government day, to call the particular items that it is asking the committee to pass. We did not complete the discussion of item 729 last Friday, April 6, or at least the item was not passed, and as certain hon. members had indicated on Monday of this week that they wished to discuss a subject that had been raised in the debate on item 729 it seemed to me we would be affording them a better opportunity for debate by proceeding in the manner that is now indicated, that is to say, by proceeding with item 730 and disposing of it and the balance of the items, and then returning to those items that have been held over, namely the items on external affairs and item 729, and have an orderly debate on those.
I think it would impress hon. members as a grave waste of manpower to have those officials who must be in attendance in connection with the many items that still remain to be considered sitting around waiting if we are to have an extended debate on item 729 or on the items pertaining to external affairs. My suggestion, which was communicated to hon. members opposite this morning and was not objected to by them, was simply that in the interests of orderly procedure we would start with item 730, dispose of the balance of the items, and then return to the items which had been held over, namely the external affairs items and item 729. That proposal was made and this course is put before the committee in the hope of an orderly and expeditious procedure. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we could proceed. The sooner we dispose of these other items, the sooner we will be able to have a debate on item 729 and the external affairs items.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In reply I should like to ask the minister this question. If that was the government's intention it is a sign of poor planning again, because why were these

Supply-Northern Affairs very highly paid and most expensive members of the water resources branch, whose time is most valuable, all brought here to sit in the gallery?


An hon. Member:: Are they?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Why is their time to be wasted here when the government had other intentions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister, of course, has gone far beyond the point raised by the hon. member for Laurier, and I should like to deal with some of the points he has raised. The minister talked about his desire to facilitate orderly procedure, in the light of what we were told last night was going to be discussed today and the fact that at 11.30 this morning the government for its own reasons changed the order of discussion completely, presumably without telling some of the departments that it had been changed.


John Ferguson Browne: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I would ask the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to defer his point of order until the Leader of the Opposition has completed his remarks.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Having changed the order of business without informing the opposition, who were told last night what the order was to be, until 11.30 this morning, the minister talks about facilitating orderly procedure. The minister says that discussion of the further supplementary estimates bogged down. There were hundreds of millions of dollars involved, but discussion bogged down because the government saw fit to introduce legislation which was of no great urgency at all one item of which could not be effective during this parliament. So our discussion of the supplementary estimates was stopped though we should have tried our best to get them through before the end of the financial year. We stopped discussion of the supplementary estimates before the end of the year.
However, when we were discussing these estimates last we were discussing item 729. That item was not adjourned and when we are coming back to supplementary estimates surely that is the item we should begin with. We know perfectly well why the government do not want to discuss item 729. They are afraid to discuss this whole question of General McNaughton-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and in order to avoid that discussion they are trying to postpone consideration of this item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition, of course, has imputed motives and that is the plainest kind of breach of the rules of the house. I had hoped that in response to a proposal that was made with a view to effecting the orderly dispatch of the business of the house we might have had a constructive response. The Leader of the Opposition is basing his remarks now, as did the hon. member for Kootenay West, on a statement that is completely wrong. It just is not true.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You have the officials all here.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have the floor, Mr. Chairman, and the minister interrupted me.


An hon. Member:: He is on a point of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What is the point of order?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The point of order is that the Leader of the Opposition has broken the rules of the house by imputing motives. That is completely out of order, as he well knows. I have given the reason and he has no right to impute motives. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, there is no fear on the part of the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are scared to death.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us have an orderly discussion on item No. 729, and not misleading statements of the kind made by the hon. member for Kootenay West, which are now concurred in by the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I agree with the minister; let us have an orderly discussion of item No. 729. That is the item we were discussing when we adjourned consideration of the estimates. Let us be orderly and continue to discuss what was under consideration at that time. That would be the orderly and proper way of getting the estimates through. The minister says he is anxious to be orderly. Therefore let us be orderly and start where we left off with item No. 729.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Kootenay West several times this afternoon has made the statement that the gallery was filled with officials from the water resources branch of the department of northern affairs-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And there they are.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, there are exactly two officials, only two officials from that branch.


Mr. Pugh:: It shows how much he knows about the subject.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member must realize how completely misleading was his statement. The government has the right to call the business of the day. The business that has been appointed for today is supplementary estimates, commencing with item No. 730. I trust we shall be able to dispose of these remaining items and return quickly to whatever debate is desired on item No. 729 and on the external affairs items which were stood over at the request of hon. members opposite.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister repeat the reason we cannot go on with item No. 729 now?


David Vaughan Pugh: Read Hansard tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you rule, Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a technical point. When you reported progress last Friday we were engaged in the discussion of item No. 729. That item has not been postponed by the committee. That item was before the committee, and I submit it cannot be postponed just because one member of the committee, and he the suppliant, says it should be postponed. It can only be postponed by a vote of the committee. That was the point up to which we had made progress and we were granted leave to sit again to go on from where we left off. I submit that this item cannot be postponed except by agreement.
In all the time I have been in this house I have never heard of a government trying arbitrarily on its own, without the consent of the committee, to change the item under discussion. On several occasions when we asked to have it done it was stated that it was inconvenient for the government to have the items changed. That happened on many occasions.
I say that if the minister wants this item postponed it is the committee which is in charge, and if the committee wants to vote by a majority to postpone discussion of item 729 then it can do so. The Minister of Finance is not the committee, but he has become so arrogant that he thinks he is.


David Vaughan Pugh: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As we were on this item and it was neither passed nor postponed, then we can continue with it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The memory of the hon. member is not yet the substitute for the rules of the house. Whether or not his memory is failing in recalling a similar situation, it is a fact that the government appoints the business for the day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes; these supplementary estimates.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are on a different day from Friday last, and the item appointed for commencing today is No. 730 and, as I have said concerning No. 729, I hope we shall get back to it soon after disposing of the other items.


Mr. Caron:: I have something to say on this point. If you read standing order No. 7 you will find it says:
At the ordinary time of adjournment of the house, unless otherwise provided, the proceedings shall be interrupted and the business under consideration at the termination of the sitting shall stand over until the next sitting day when it will be taken up at the same stage where its progress was interrupted.
Therefore it is clear the government cannot change the item when discussion was started on it.


Frank Howard: I do not know whether this is the relevant citation in Beauchesne which has application to the point, but I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to give consideration to citation 242, which reads as follows:
The procedure of the committee of supply follows the ordinary usage of a committee of the whole house. No amendment can be moved which is not relevant to the grant under consideration. The votes should be considered in the order in which they stand on the paper distributed to the members of the house; but any vote may be passed over and not moved.
Then there is the following sentence:
Once it is moved a motion to postpone it cannot be entertained. Each resolution for a grant forms a distinct motion which can only be dealt with by being agreed to, reduced, negatived, superseded or withdrawn.
Whatever other hon. gentlemen say, I submit this covers the item which was before the committee on the last occasion, No. 729, which deals with the water resources branch.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I thank hon. members for their contributions to this point. I notice it was raised first of all as a matter of privilege, and then some hon. members referred to it as a point of order. In any event standing order 18, paragraph 2 reads as follows:
Except as provided in standing order 56, government orders may be called in such secjuence as. the government may think fit.
Standing order 59 (1) reads as follows:
The standing orders of the house shall be observed in the committees of the whole house so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the seconding of motions limiting the number of times of speaking
-and so on. When the house adjourned on Friday, April 6, only a certain resolution was reported, as recorded in Votes and Proceedings for that day:
The said resolution was reported and concurred in, and the committee of supply obtained leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.

Supply-Northern Affairs
There is no mention there of the item then in progress, and the rules must be interpreted according to the authorities, one of which is May's sixteenth edition, to which reference has often been made in the house. I should like to read an extract from page 731 of May's sixteenth edition, which to my mind is very relevant to the matter before the committee:
Motions for a grant may be submitted to the committee in the order selected by the mover, and so arranged on the notice paper, without regard to the order and arrangement of the estimates (d), or to any motion which was before the committee at a previous sitting and was not disposed of.
I believe this confirms the rule I mentioned a few moments ago, rule 18, paragraph 2, which states that it does not matter whether or not a previous resolution had been disposed of. So far as the order of business is concerned, I am in the hands of the government-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like, Mr. Chairman, before you make a final ruling, to draw your attention to the fact that the notice paper for the supplementary estimates, which I have in my hand and which May appears to refer to, does set out these votes in a certain order. We had no notice given in the house under the rules that this order was to be changed, whatever dictate may have been passed down from the government outside the hours of sitting. The notice paper for the proceedings in committee lists the further supplementary estimates No. 4, and the items are 727, 728-which, as Your Honour indicated, was passed and reported to the house -and we had entered upon the consideration of item 729. According to May, that order having been given on the notice paper it cannot be changed arbitrarily by the government; it must be followed, because this is the notice paper for these supplementary estimates, the only one we have.
That taken in conjunction with the citation given by the hon. member for Hull, that once one of these items is entered upon it cannot be postponed but must be dealt with, would seem to me to deal conclusively with the point. I was seeking, before Your Honour went on to make a ruling, to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that all there is on the order paper of the house is "House again in committee of supply", which gives us no guidance. The notice paper we have for dealing with the supplementary estimates is the one I hold in my hand, and the government cannot arbitrarily change this.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Well-


Frank Howard: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if before you proceed I could draw Your Honour's attention to another citation in
[The Chairnjan.]

Beauchesne which makes it even clearer. I refer to citation 242 (4), which says:
A proposed resolution may be allowed to stand over with general consent until another occasion, but if it has been regularly proposed from the Chair and discussed-
And item 729 has been discussed:
-no motion for its postponement is regular because there is no period to which it can be postponed.
Then it gives as a reference page 426 of Bourinot's fourth edition.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I agree with that citation, but the point at the moment is that there is no motion for postponement. Item 729 was discussed until the end of business that day. Today is another day. With regard to standing order No. 7, which was quoted by the hon. member for Hull, if we were to interpret that in the sense that any business commenced on one day if not terminated must be continued the following day, the government would never have any choice as to the business with which it wished to proceed.
The committee must go along with the order that is before it. The order is No. 13, "House again in committee of supply", which is the general order. That is the notice paper to which May refers. To my mind this document mentioned by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a notice paper; it is simply a list of supplementary estimates. They must be listed in some order. I cannot see how they impose upon the government an obligation to proceed in that order, because in fact that order is very often deviated from for various reasons. Again I say that I must conform to the resolutions that are before me as chairman in the order in which they appear, unless the government wishes to change that order or unless the committee gives unanimous consent to so doing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, is your argument based on your statement-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not an argument.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -that the record of the previous day should be blotted out? Because Your Honour said that the record of the previous day does not apply; you start with a new record. There was once strong criticism about this.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I certainly did not say that the record of the previous day should be blotted out, because it stands on its own merits. What I did say was that when we come to the next sitting and it is a government day, we must proceed with government orders as they are indicated to the Chair by the

government leader. This we are doing today, and I cannot see how we can deviate from that procedure.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say finally that this is a most unusual and, in our opinion, irregular procedure. I cannot remember it happening before. We should discuss this-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -because it is obvious that the government is unwilling to proceed with a debate on the Columbia because the water resources branch, as I have been told a number of times, has not got the answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, that is utterly untrue. If the hon. member will co-operate in the business called we will go back to item 729 when these other items are disposed of. You have made a decision, as I understand it, that item 730 is before the committee, and I trust we can proceed with our business.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister whether he is giving us an assurance that we will now continue right through the supplementary estimates and there will be no further alteration in the order of business; that we will go right through the supplementary estimates until they are completed?


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Chairman, we have now reached a position where we know that the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate feel they should be running this country with or without the consent of the voters. They have done that before in this house, and we know what happened. That is what they are doing right now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I ask the minister, that is all.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The first point has now been ruled on, and the committee is engaged in the discussion of item 730.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to appeal your ruling.


Mr. Drysdale:: More wasted time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You should have been around in 1956.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Constant squabbling and bickering.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tearing the page out of Hansard.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: There were only four Liberals on Friday talking it out.


Lionel Chevrier: Co-operation with arrogance.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Opposition filibuster. They hate to see government progress.
Division
Mr. Pallet!: They hate to face the facts, that is their problem.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
In committee of supply when vote No. 730 of the further supplementary estimates (4)	1961-62
was called for consideration, a point of order was raised to the effect that as vote No. 729 was under consideration at the termination of the committee's last sitting, it was irregular to proceed with vote No. 730.
The chairman ruled that in accordance with section 2 of standing order 18 and May's sixteenth edition, page 731, the government could call its business in such order as it deemed expedient without regard to any proceeding in a prior sitting of the committee. Whereupon the hon. member for Kootenay West appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question before the house is an appeal from a ruling given by the chairman of the committee of supply.
In committee of supply when vote No. 730 of the further supplementary estimates (4)	1961-62 was
called for consideration a point of order was raised to the effect that as vote No. 729 was under consideration at the termination of the committee's last sitting, it was irregular to proceed with vote No. 730.
The chairman ruled that, in accordance with section 2 of standing order 18 and May's sixteenth edition, page 731, the government could call its business in such order as it deemed expedient without regard to any proceeding in a prior sitting of the committee. Whereupon the hon. member for Kootenay West appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the ruling confirmed.
And the house having resumed in committee:



Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall item 730 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Welfare and industrial divisions-
731. Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $202,000.
Mr. Granger:: I should like to refer briefly to the matter of assistance to Eskimos in Labrador. In 1954, I believe it was, a grant was made by the federal government to assist in various projects for Eskimos and Indians in Labrador. Eskimos generally throughout Canada are looked upon as being a federal responsibility. When Newfoundland entered confederation it was agreed that Eskimo affairs would be administered through the government of the province. Subsequently it was agreed that a substantial sum-some $200,000, I believe-would be granted by the federal government toward assistance to Eskimos in Labrador. The province administers Eskimo affairs. In addition to what the province may spend, the federal government agreed to make its own contribution. As I said, the contribution was to be made to the government for the benefit of these Eskimos.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think I should point out to the hon. member that there is in this item nothing that has anything at all to do with the Eskimos in Labrador. His remarks are not related to this item or to anything in this item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point that has been raised by the minister may I say that this item does have to do with Eskimos. What my friend the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador is seeking to present to the committee very briefly is the fact that Eskimos are treated differently in one part of the country from the way in which they are treated in another part of the country. When we are asked to spend this money for one part of the country it seems to me that would be a relevant point to make. I do not think the hon. gentleman has any intention of doing any more than make the point briefly.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: That is so, Mr. Chairman. I really thought they were related inasmuch as Eskimos are looked upon generally as a federal responsibility and that in the past Eskimos in Labrador were looked upon as being in part a responsibility of the federal government. As this item has to do with funds to be spent on Eskimos on the mainland of Canada, or that part of Canada, shall I say, other than the province of Newfoundland, and as Labrador is of course, a part of the mainland, I thought I should bring to the attention of the minister the fact that after that first grant was spent, no other grants have been made toward the assistance of Labrador Eskimos. Recently in a letter from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources I gathered that it was not

the intention or-and perhaps I should put it this way-that the government looked upon what had been done as fulfilling completely the obligations the federal government had toward the Eskimos in Labrador. I want to express my disagreement in that regard very briefly. The Eskimos are a federal responsibility. At one time the Eskimos in Labrador were looked upon as being partially a federal responsibility. I should like to express the hope that the minister will assess the situation and make assistance available to the Eskimos in Labrador through the provincial government as was done heretofore, because such assistance has not been forthcoming for well over a year now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
732. Yukon Territory-operation and maintenance 

to extend the purposes of vote 302 of the main estimates for 1961-62 to include the contributions detailed in these estimates, $51,020.
Mr. McMillan:: I should like to ask the minister if this vote has anything to do with the celebration of the Yukon gold rush. The government has admitted spending $385,000 on Arizona Charlie's, two saloons, and a mortuary. I am wondering what the total amount is for this celebration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Item 732 has nothing to do with any celebration of any anniversary in the Yukon.


William Hector McMillan: It is for picnic grounds, and I wondered if that had anything to do with it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National museum of Canada-
734. Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $50,000.
Mr. Mcllraiih:: I have one or two questions I should like to ask about this item. I am sorry, I have risen on the wrong item.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to know the details of this expenditure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a sum made up of sundries. The main estimates provided $855,972 and this additional sum was found to be required to enable purchases to be undertaken for the establishment by 1967 of suitable exhibits. It relates to the Canadian historical museum to be ready for opening by July 1, 1967, and to include the human history branch of the present museum, the Canadian war museum and suitable other items to be acquired in the course of the next five years to ensure that exhibits will be available to cover the essential features of Canada's development.
Supply-Privy Council


Douglas Mason Fisher: Will this projected plan for 1967 require the taking on of any personnel to work in this particular area?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am informed it will require some personnel to be added before 1967.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Paul Raymond Martineau: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Next is privy council, vote No. 735.



PRIVY COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
735. Expenses of the royal commission on railway problems-further amount required, $34,462.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, you said that we had completed the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I do not think that is correct. Surely the supplementary estimates indicate that northern affairs is one item or one subject, and we ought now to proceed to item 729 and certainly not have the committee misled with the suggestion that this department has been completed.


William Arnold Peters: They would like it to be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They would love it to be. They are so frightened.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are you calling 735, Mr. Chairman?


Paul Raymond Martineau: The item before the Chair is vote No. 735. When I stated, "This completes the items of northern affairs and national resources", I meant that we had completed the series at present before the Chair.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Chair wants the statement, "This completes the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources" left on the record in that way. There is one item still outstanding.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course there is still an item outstanding. I think that is well understood. May we proceed with 735?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it is understood, that Your Honour in ruling, ruled that the proceedings on a preceding day were to be blotted out entirely. Therefore, according to the decision recently rendered, there is no record because the proceedings were blotted out. There is no record that 729 was before us and we are now going to have it recorded in Hansard that this department is completed. It seems to me that should be formally changed.

Supply-Privy Council


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that it was a mere slip of the tongue on the part of the Chair. Item 729 has not been adopted yet and we are simply going on from 734 to 735.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because you are afraid to go on with 729.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There you have another breach of the rules of the house, a member making an assertion that amounts to the attribution of motives. There is nobody on this side of the house who is afraid of anything.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are all afraid.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All we are asking is that hon. members opposite conduct themselves in such a manner-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that the business of parliament may be transacted, and on the completion of these other items we may then return to item 729 and the items of external affairs.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member for Essex East on a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, in the brief time that the minister has left me to make an observation, may I say it is most extraordinary that having finished one whole department we should leave standing one item in that department. There can be only one conclusion, that the government does not want this house to discuss General McNaughton's complaints against the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Closure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There can be only one conclusion and that is that the hon. member and his colleagues simply wish to obstruct instead of trying to get on with the business of the house. If they really want to deal with item 729, Mr. Chairman, the straightforward way to get to it is to dispose of these other items and then we will go to 729 very quickly. I do not think they want to go to it at all. They just wish to talk as if they did.


Lionel Chevrier: I want to say a word in connection with the point of order. The minister says that the quickest way to get to 729 is to get rid of these other items.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say "get rid of".


Lionel Chevrier: The experience we have had at the hands of the Minister of Finance and the leader of the house is that when we do get through with a matter we do not then get what the minister has told us will be put (Mr. Pickersgill.]
before us. I am going to say now that if we do get through with these other items tonight we will not return to 729 because the government will call something else, as they have been doing in the last two or three weeks.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You were afraid of Coyne and you are afraid of General McNaughton.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a false assertion.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The item before the committee at the present time, according to the order established, is 735. Before we proceed to the discussion of that item and the other items I must interrupt the proceedings at this time. As it is five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motion (papers), private bills, public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Smilh (Winnipeg Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the house to give unanimous consent to placing order No. 191, Bill No. S-9, which is now at the bottom of the list, at the top in order that it may be considered in committee of the whole together with Bills Nos. S-10, S-14, S-15 and S-12 which are already before the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member asks that a private bill which appears as order No. 191, being at the end of all the divorce bills, be raised to fifth place and referred to the committee of the whole with the other bills.


Mr. Smilh (Winnipeg North):: It is before the committee now and I was wondering whether it could not be considered with the other bills in order No. 1 which are already referred to the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There will be no objection so far as we are concerned.


Frank Howard: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed then that Bill No. S-9 be considered in committee of the whole with the four bills now before the committee of the whole but in fifth place.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed,



GERAND ACCEPTANCE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill S-10, to incorporate Gerand Acceptance Company- Mr. Smith (Winnipeg North)-Mr. Martineau in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Provisional directors.
William Arnold Peters: In conjunction with the discussion that took place on the previous bill, No. S-9, which indicated a great deal of similarity, we believe this bill should also contain a provision that all directors of this company should at all times be Canadian citizens, ordinarily resident in Canada. This seems to be the stated policy of the Prime Minister and it appears to be in the interests of Canada. The sponsor has stated that the executive officers of this company are Canadians, ordinarily resident in Canada, and I wonder has he authority from the company to accept an amendment that all the directors of the company should at all times be Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada.


William Murray Smith: Since discussion occurred last Tuesday on the previous bill I have secured some information for the committee which I think will probably satisfy the hon. members who raised this matter on the previous bill and who are now raising it on this one.
I am not prepared to accept an amendment which would require that all the directors of the company be Canadians, as the hon. member has suggested. I would point out that section 13 of the Small Loans Act states that all of the provisions of the Loan Companies Act shall apply in a case such as this. This company is being incorporated under the Small Loans Act and therefore all the provisions of that act will apply to this company. Section 19 of the Loan Companies Act reads as follows:
The majority of the directors of the company shall at all times be persons resident in Canada and subjects of Her Majesty by birth or naturalization.
Therefore in effect the majority of the directors of this company will by law, be Canadian citizens. I would not be prepared to accept the restriction that all the directors be Canadians since it is stated that the majority of them must be Canadian citizens.


William Arnold Peters: I am aware of the fact that there is that section in the Loan Companies Act, but that act was passed many years ago by a government that had the foresight to see that some advantage would accrue to the Canadian public and some benefit would be secured in providing that the majority of the directors should be resident in Canada.
Private Bills
However I believe we have now progressed to the stage that we should see that all directors of such companies should be Canadian citizens. I can see very little objection to that.
We are not seeking that the shareholders of this company be limited only to Canadian citizens. That I believe would be non-advantageous and it would not be in the company's interest in the matter of raising money, as it is to be noted that this company will have $250,000 capital, $100,000 of which is to be raised before the company goes into operation. Some of this money of necessity may come from people not normally resident in Canada. We have no objection to that, but we do say that all the officers who will be responsible for the operations of the company should be citizens of Canada normally resident in Canada. I do not see why a provision of this nature should not be applied to this company which has the avowed purpose of extending beyond provincial jurisdiction but not necessarily into international jurisdiction. Other companies which have accepted this type of provision have found no particular hardship in it.
The sponsor has stated that most of the shareholders are expected to be Canadian residents. In fact they are expected to be the members of a particular family. I would hope the committee would give consideration to incorporating such a provision in the bill in the interest of developing Canadian ownership and Canadian control of purely Canadian companies.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-14, respecting the Canada Security Assurance Company-Mr. Stefanson-Mr. Martineau in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 5.
Frank Howard: It is stated that the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act shall apply to this company. If it is not already known I believe it should be pointed out that the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act contains a provision that the majority of directors shall be Canadians. I do not think it is necessary to go any further

Private Bills
into our reasoning which has been placed on the record with respect to the other two bills.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-15, respecting The Canadian Indemnity Company and the Canadian Fire Insurance Company-Mr. Smith (Winnipeg North)
Bill No. S-12, respecting Reliance Insurance Company of Canada-Mr. Smith (Winnipeg North).

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-9, to incorporate Brock Acceptance Company-Mr. Smith (Winnipeg North)-Mr. Martineau in the chair.
On clause 2-Provisional directors.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could say something on clause 2. This matter did not, unfortunately, come to my attention during the debate we had the other day; I did not hear the remark to which I shall refer. However, this is perhaps because the hon. member to whom it is attributed, if it is correctly attributed to him, sits closer to the Hansard reporters than I, which would mean that he could speak in a lower tone of voice and have his remark picked up by the reporter.
I refer to page 2687 of Hansard, where I begin my remarks by saying:
The emotionalism exhibited by the hon. member for Davenport and the sponsor of the bill indicates they are on the wrong track. This amendment has nothing to do with the individuals concerned.
Then follows this remark:
It is anti-Semitism.
I do not know whether that remark is correctly attributed to the hon. member for Halifax. If he did make that statement and I had heard it the other day, I would have commented upon it. I only wish to say now that if the remark is correctly attributed to the hon. member for Halifax, it is most incorrect.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3-7 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. SD-1, for the relief of Madeleine Francoise Hankowski-Mr. McCleave.
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, if it pleases the house, perhaps the Senate divorce bills could all be put together for second reading.


Frank Howard: I think it would be more appropriate, Mr. Speaker, to consider them in the order in which they appear on the order paper.


Robert Jardine McCleave: the second reading of Bill No. SD-1, for the relief of Madeleine Francoise Hankowski.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, will you please put the yeas and nays.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.



BRXJCE REID CAMPBELL

Robert Jardine McCleave: the second reading of Bill SD-2 for the relief of Bruce Reid Campbell.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the privileges of all hon. members of this house and the rights of individual Canadians concerning a matter which denies Canadians their constitutional rights. I wish to refer to page 2537 of Hansard of April 5, 1962 where it is reported that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) informed the House of Commons that if it did not pass a bill proposed by him at that time no more divorce bills would be passed by this parliament. It is therefore quite obvious-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the hon. member is now embarking on a matter that is not relevant to the business before the house and which does not in my opinion 26207-1-185
Division
involve a matter of privilege. I would hope therefore the hon. gentleman would not insist upon pursuing the matter.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this was a threat made by the hon. member for Timiskaming. I suggested at that time the threat was made-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I also note that a division has been called. There is a rule which provides that a division cannot be interrupted even for the hearing of a matter of privilege. We must first of all proceed with the division. Call in the members.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, I had arisen before the division was called.


William Arnold Peters: Do you not believe in parliamentary procedure?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You are the greatest abuser of parliamentary procedure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed the members are in?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



WILLIAM METCALFE WATT

Robert Jardine McCleave: the second reading of Bill No. SD-3, for the relief of William Metcalfe Watt.


Mr. Broome:: Before the inevitable vote comes, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we will expedite the business of the house if the members on this side reduce the number to a bare quorum.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, immediately before the vote was taken I had raised a question of privilege regarding a threat which had been made to the members of this house by the hon. member for Timiskaming, as found at page 2437 of Hansard. As I pointed out and informed the house at that time, the threat was that if we did not pass the bill then before us, no more divorces would pass parliament this session. I suggest that is an attempt to deny individual Canadians their rights under the constitution of this country and I suggest that it is the responsibility of members of parliament to protect those rights.


Mr. Speaker:: The incident with regard to which the hon. member raises a question of privilege took place some time ago. Unless he has ascertained that hon. members now, by asking for a vote on second reading of a bill, are infringing the privileges of the house, I fail to see how any current question of privilege is involved.


John Ferguson Browne: I suggest that it is an obvious attempt to carry out the threat which was made at that time and that it is the responsibility of the members of this house to see to it that this right is not denied to these people in the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec who since confederation have had the constitutional right to have divorce bills passed by this house. They are now being denied this right by certain members. I suggest the situation should not be allowed to continue.


An hon. Member:: We are voting on it and so are you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid it is beyond the competence of the Chair or the rules of the house to determine what is in a man's mind. When he exercises his privileges under the rules he is doing so in accordance with the rules. I therefore can see no question of privilege arising at this time.
[Mr. Speaker.}


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members. Is it agreed that the members are called in?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GIOVANNI PALLOTTA

Robert Jardine McCleave: the second reading of Bill No. SD-4, for the relief of Giovanni Pallotta.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please rise.
[And the Second Clerk Assistant having proceeded to call members' names]:


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I am at fault. I am afraid I did not ask for the yeas and nays. By leave of the house I will put the motion in accordance with the rules. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay. In my opinion the yeas have it.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the unusual situation-


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Is this another threat?


Murdo William Martin: -that has developed-


Edwin William Brunsden: Who developed it?


Murdo William Martin: -would it not simplify matters if the government would live up to its commitment?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, at last I have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must inform the house that if the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


William Arnold Peters: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



MILDRED DAWSON MEAKINS

Robert Jardine McCleave: the second reading of Bill No. SD-5, for the relief of Mildred Dawson Meakins.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, speaking on this particular bill I should like to say that I do not know what these private facts are to which the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) has referred-


An hon. Member:: You will find out.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, there are several facts I must now make public because of the statement just made by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin). I do so with reluctance but none the less I have a responsibility to the people whose divorce petitions I am sponsoring. Until five minutes to six p.m. last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, I had no reason to suspect that we would not be able to achieve harmony in this house, even at this difficult period, with regard to the solution of the problem of divorce cases. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) has quoted a statement which shows where the fault lies for this harmony not being reached. The measure that had been put forward to solve this problem was discussed in the committee the other day. No member of the New Democratic party was present at that meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Jardine McCleave: These are public facts. There are two private facts that I shall not divulge until the end of this session of parliament.
26207-1-1851


Frank Howard: -but we all know he has a great propensity for disclosing private or privileged information to suit his own purposes. What he will do in this regard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. On the last bill there was a debate which to my mind was irrelevant. It got started before I appreciated what was being said. I would think that what would be relevant at this time would be a discussion of Bill No. SD-5.


Frank Howard: With respect to Bill No. SD-5, it is a bill which seeks to dissolve the marriage between Mildred Dawson Meakins and Jonathan Meakins. We regret very much that we are going to have to oppose this bill on the ground that we think it is a most degrading way to treat parliament to force these individuals to come here to supplicate and pray for relief of their difficulties when the government out of its own mouth last year promised faithfully that it would alter this procedure. It is unfortunate that the government has placed these individuals in this position.
2912	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is getting into the general problem of parliamentary divorce.


William Arnold Peters: We are all involved in that.


Mr. Speaker:: In my view what would be relevant would be the consideration that would relate to the authorizing of the dissolution of the marriage of Mildred Dawson Meakins, and not marriage in general.


Murdo William Martin: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena not be very pertinent to the principle of this bill which we are now in the process of supporting or otherwise?


Mr. Speaker:: I have already expressed my view and I am sorry I cannot agree with the proposition advanced by the hon. member for Timmins. In my mind there is a distinction between the constitutional problem or the question of the jurisdiction of parliament over divorce and the exercise of that jurisdiction, and the question that arises on a particular bill designed to dissolve a specific marriage. It seems to me that on an individual bill the question of the general problem of procedure in divorce matters does not arise.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
Before I leave the chair, may I ask the house to revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
735. Expenses of the royal commission on railway problems-further amount required, $34,462.
Lionel Chevrier: This is a matter of importance to the committee and the country. It has to do with the expenses of the royal commission on railway problems and is for a further amount of $34,462. Could the minister tell us what is the total amount of expenses, fees, emoluments, costs, disbursements and the like up to the present time covering the commissioners in the hearings they have held across Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The total is $564,534.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister, but I think there are some other points arising out of this upon which the minister could enlighten us. The minister will remember that during the discussion of the matter concerning the dispute some two years ago between railway operators and the non-operative groups the Prime Minister indicated the procedure to be adopted in so far as freight rates were concerned just as soon as the report of the royal commission was handed down.
Volume No. 1 of the royal commission's report was given to the house last session and volume No. 2 was tabled just about the time the house met in January of this year, but we still have no indication of what the government intends to do. I and others from this side have inquired of the ministry what the government intends to do with reference to these matters, and there has been no indication, other than the time honoured formula that when the policy of the government has been determined it will be announced in due course. Of course that can go on for months and years-


An hon. Member:: Twenty two years.


Lionel Chevrier: I hear one enlightened voice say 22 years and in reply I say that when the Turgeon royal commission brought down its recommendations we acted at once. We did not wait two years. We brought in all the recommendations by way of legislation and implemented them by way of legislation in the house, save one or two. However I do not want to get away from my question. Could the minister give some indication what the intentions of the government are, having regard to the statement of the Prime Minister and the recommendations of the commission?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is, of course, a subject of very great importance. As the hon. member has said, volume 1 of the report of the royal commission came down in 1961 and volume 2 earlier this present year. Volume 1 contains far reaching recommendations affecting the operation of branch lines, unremunerative lines and passenger services, as well as several other features of the burdens borne by the railways.
That volume examined the fundamental position of the railways and the change which has come over the nature of railway operations in recent years. It took account of the fact that our railway legislation and our system of regulation carried out through the board of transport commissioners was adapted to a period when the railways enjoyed a virtual monopoly in the field of transportation, but that that situation has very greatly changed. In gist, this was the purport of volume 1.

In volume 2 the royal commission examines the fundamental question as to the basis of railway rate making, and again speaking very briefly, the commission has recommended some fundamental and far reaching changes in the whole basis of railway rate making. It is not going too far to say that the recommendations of the royal commission in this respect contemplate a radical departure from the basis of rate making as provided for in the present provisions of the Railway Act. As the hon. member is well aware, those provisions in the Railway Act have been unchanged in their substance for many years.
The two combined volumes of the report offer and would involve a fundamental reconstruction of much of our railway legislation, particularly on the financial and regulatory side, and these recommendations cannot be slurred over quickly. Because of their far reaching nature they require the most intensive study and they are receiving that study.
There have already been meetings with the presidents of the two transcontinental railways in regard to this subject. It is being actively pursued but I think I would be less than fair to the hon. member's inquiry and to the subject if I did not lay stress on the fact that this is one of the most important, far reaching recommendations that has come before a government from a royal commission for many a day and it will require, both on the part of government and in due course on the part of parliament, the most intensive study possible. I know the hon. member will not expect legislation based on the report to be coming before parliament at an early date.
In the meantime the government has asked parliament to make the necessary provision for the period during which the study is proceeding. We have on the order paper now a resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport contemplating an amendment of the Freight Rates Reduction Act to extend, but not beyond April 30, 1963, the period during which the revised rates under that act shall be applicable, and to increase the authorized expenditure under the act by an additional $15 million.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, parliament will be asked to appropriate a subsidy in the same sum as in 1961, namely $50 million, on terms similar to those attaching to the $50 million appropriation in 1961. This will meet the requirements of the railways, at least in part. In the meantime the action that parliament may see fit to take in due course on the report can take account of the necessity, if any, of dating the revisions made on behalf of the railways to suit the needs of the situation, taking into account
Supply-Privy Council at the same time these two provisions that parliament is being asked to make for this intervening period.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two matters I should like to discuss in connection with this, but before doing so I should like to ask the minister whether the $50 million payment that he referred to as being renewed this year, as originated last year, is in the main estimates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it is not in the
main estimates because, of course, they were compiled before volume 2 of the report of the royal commission was received. It will be in the supplementary estimates for 196263.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it contained in the budget matters?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the figures I gave in the budget two nights ago take account of that additional $50 million.


Lionel Chevrier: What I did want to bring to the attention of the minister-he dealt with volumes 1 and 2 of the report-were some of the recommendations contained in volume 1 which the Prime Minister clearly and definitely stated would be implemented. I refer to the subsidies recommended in the first volume of the report, which can be summed up very briefly as follows. In respect of passenger services, Canadian Pacific Railway, $22 million; Canadian National Railways, $40 million; a total of $62 million for passenger subsidies. Then in respect of light density lines to provide compensation for losses actually incurred in the operation of lines which the railways are prepared to abandon; C.P.R. and C.N.R., $13 million. Then there are the following:	Export
grain traffic, Crowsnest pass rates; C.P.R. contribution to variable costs, $2 million; contribution to constant costs, $9 million. There is also the Canadian National Railways contribution to variable costs, $4 million; contribution to constant costs, $7,300,000. That is a total $22,300,000, making a grand total of the subsidies recommended in volume 1 of $97,300,000 distributed over a period of years but beginning at a fairly large amount and then tapering down. Roughly speaking this amounts to $100 million. This report, volume 1, was brought down last year; therefore I think the committee is entitled to know why that portion of the report was not implemented because volume 2 discusses a different matter entirely.
The minister did say that there was legislation on the order paper having to do with the Freight Rates Reduction Act and there

Supply-Privy Council would also be included in a further supplementary estimate, which I take it will be at the next session of parliament-am I right in assuming that it will be taken at the next session of parliament, and not this session?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That will depend entirely on how long this session continues, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chevriers I think I can take it for granted that the $50 million payment the Minister of Finance has in mind will not be brought down at this session of parliament. Then there are other matters which arise. I asked the Minister of Labour the other day what was the amount of the settlement made between the railways and the engineers. It took him a long time to find out what it was, but finally he did come up with the reply that it was $6 million. How is that going to be paid? Is the Minister of Finance going to bring down a further supplementary estimate to cover that amount, because the Canadian National Railways certainly cannot pay for it; they have a deficit of $67 million, which we will be discussing in a moment or two.
Then the all-important matter is the settlement that Canadian National Railways will make with the non-ops arising out of the negotiations taking place at the present time. What will that amount to? If it is at all in the nature of what the conciliation board recommended in the Milvain report last year, it may well run into a substantial amount; it may well run into $50 million. What provision is being made for that?
Those are two matters I should like to put to the minister-why the undertaking of the Prime Minister to carry out these recommendations in volume 1 was not carried out; and how will the money be found to deal with these two additional items over and above the $50 million which the minister is going to repeat in further supplemen-taries?


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to put on record in Hansard exactly what the Prime Minister did say. Apparently the minister has taken objection to what I said earlier. I made the statement, and I stand by it, that we were never told at any time there would be two bites at the cherry. At no time was there any indication that we would proceed by stages in this matter. We were told that the recommendations would be brought down and that the house would act on them. Here is what the Prime Minister said as reported at page 359 of Hansard, November 30, 1960 dealing with the dispute which had arisen between the railways and the men. He said this, and I quote:
The reason we say we are waiting tor the report of the royal commission is this. It will make its report as to the means whereby these discriminatory rates may be avoided. Legislation will then be introduced in order to equalize opportunity across Canada. The companies may then make an application to the board of transport commissioners to raise the freight rates and to take into consideration the agreements now in existence between the employers and the unions back to January 1, 1960.
I asked the Prime Minister if he realized that this was bound to take some time; I had had some experience of these matters with the Turgeon commission. If hon. members will look at Hansard they will find the Prime Minister said the recommendations would be acted upon promptly. As the minister has said, the recommendations contained in volume 1 are of entirely different nature to those contained in volume 2. So it is difficult to understand why that statement or promise which was made by the Prime Minister was not implemented. After all, it was made almost two years ago. The Prime Minister surely knew the situation. He must have been in discussion with the members of the royal commission.
In so far as volume 3 is concerned, the minister knows better than I do that there will be no recommendations contained in that volume. At least, we have been told that that is the case. I believe the royal commission itself has made that clear in a press release. The third volume deals with technical matters, as the minister said, and is there to support either the first volume, or the second, or both volumes. So it is difficult to understand why it was not possible to implement the first part of the report.
A great deal was said by the Prime Minister about the effect of horizontal freight rates and how they were having a detrimental effect on the economy generally. I think there has always been general agreement on that. The only point which was at issue in that connection was how to do away with the unfavourable effect of the horizontal rates. The
Supply-Privy Council board of transport commissioners laid down several rulings in cases made public. The question is now whether volume 2 disagrees with what has been decided in those cases by the board of transport commissioners. I am not able to say, but I presume that the object of the first volume was to give these subsidies to the railways with that in mind. However, when I look at Hansard and at the statement made by the Prime Minister, which is to the effect that the moment the royal commission has made its report legislation will follow, the freeze will be lifted and the railways will be able to make their applications to the board of transport commissioners,
I am not so sure. In these circumstances I think the minister will understand at once that it is not an easy matter for those of us who sit on this side to understand what is the view of the government.
Coming to the $6 million which I mentioned earlier, the minister is right. I was in error. I was calling on my memory. In any event, it is $4,500,000 and it is still a substantial amount which will have to be found. True, it is over a period of three years. Then there is the additional amount which will be required if a settlement is brought about between the railways and the non-operative employees. These payments to which the minister has referred will not suffice. The $50 million he is going to bring down in a supplementary estimate, the portion of the $4,500,000 which he will be required to bring down for the C.N.R. in the same sort of estimate, will not cover the amount required in the event of a settlement of the dispute between the railways and the non-operative employees. The question arises: how are these capital sums to be found?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did deal with that. I said they would be found in the way in which they have been found in the past and in the light of such provision as parliament may choose to make having in mind the recommendations of the royal commission.
Volume 3 of the report is not expected to contain any further recommendations but it is expected to contain studies which will throw more light on the recommendations contained in the previous two volumes.
On the matter of horizontal increases, it will be recalled that parliament took action at the request of the government two years ago to put a stop to such increases. As a matter of fact not only was a freeze placed on further applications to the board of transport commissioners in respect of further horizontal increases in railway freight rates, but parliament was asked to make provision -and it did-with a view to preventing a
2916	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council horizontal increase which was then about to be made in pursuance of leave granted by the board of transport commissioners.
It was on that account that parliament enacted the Freight Rates Reduction Act. It is due to the terms of that act that the last horizontal increase ordered by the board of transport commissioners was not carried into effect. In the light of the freeze put on by the board in respect of further applications to the board for horizontal increases parliament last year, after it was aware of the terms of volume 1 of the report of the royal commission, made available $50 million for payment to the railways, and a similar provision, as I have indicated, is going to be asked of parliament now without prejudice to whatever decision parliament may make in the light of the recommendations of the report or the date of the effect of such provisions as parliament may choose to make, particularly in regard to those matters that are dealt with in volume 1 of the report.


Lionel Chevrier: What was the $50 million to which the minister referred?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was provided last year in estimates for payment to the railways on terms to be determined by the board of transport commissioners. The board determined the distribution of that amount. My recollection is that approximately $29 million went to the Canadian National Railways and approximately $21 million went to the Canadian Pacific Railway. There was an item in last year's appropriation bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Was this to carry out the recommendations of volume 1 of the report to which I referred earlier?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman. If the hon. member will look at the statement made by my colleague the Minister of Transport at that time he will appreciate that parliament was asked to vote the sum with knowledge of the recommendations made in the report of the royal commission and also of the fact that the freeze on any further horizontal increase in railway freight rates was being extended; and generally with regard to the position of the railways. The sum was not associated specifically with the several recommendations contained in volume 1.


Lionel Chevrier: I have just now succeeded in locating item 590. The minister has it and can follow. Item 590-and I hope the minister is following me-reads as follows: Interim payments, related to recommendations of the royal commission on railway problems pending its complete report-*
This would indicate it is in part performance of the recommendations contained in volume 1. I continue:


-to companies as defined In the Freight Rates Reduction Act of an aggregate amount in respect of the calendar year 1961 of $50 million, to be paid in instalments at such times and in accordance with such method of allocation as may be determined by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, as compensation to such companies for the maintenance of their rates on freight traffic at reduced levels as provided for in the said act-
The act there referred to had already been passed. Under that measure $15 million had been given to the railways in reduction of their freight rates. The minister referred to the Freight Rates Reduction Act amendment which is now on the order paper. Similarly there was an amendment to the act last year which reduced freight rates to the extent of $15 million or $20 million, I have forgotten which.
As I read it, the $50 million is apparently partially in performance of the recommendations contained in volume 1. It is partially in performance of the reduction in freight rates as already mentioned in the Freight Rates Reduction Act. It is very difficult to understand this item of $50 million unless you look at it from the point of view that it is to fulfil the recommendations of the Milvain report with which the minister is perhaps more familiar than I am. Is that a correct assumption?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think not, Mr. Chairman. Each of us can interpret the terms of the appropriation act of last session as he sees fit. The fact is that item 590 speaks of interim payments related to recommendations of the royal commission on railway problems pending its complete report.
Now, parliament did not say that it was approving those recommendations in their entirety. Parliament took note of those recommendations and with that knowledge apparently saw sufficient merit in them to regard it as desirable to make some specific provision for payment to the railways, and the method of allocation of that $50 million among the various railways was chosen simply in the light of the provisions of the Freight Rates Reduction Act. The railways and the method or terms of allocation are the same. That is the significance of the reference to the Freight Rates Reduction Act in item 590.


Lionel Chevrier: There is one other point I wish to make. The minister has been endeavouring to answer my questions and I do not wish to pursue this matter unduly but there is another point I feel I should bring to the attention of the minister arising out of the payment of $50 million. I feel I should severely criticize the fact that payments are made to United States railways under this

legislation. Under the Freight Rates Reduction Act-that is, the one that is on the order paper and the previous one that was on the order paper last session-there are a number of United States railways which are receiving payments out of the $20 million for reducing their rates by 9 per cent as required by the order of the board of transport commissioners. It is understood that the $50 million subsidy we have been discussing is being divided among the carriers in the same manner as the $20 million subsidy. I ask my hon. friend to look at the royal commission report very carefully. There is nothing in the report of the MacPherson royal commission that recommends subsidies to the United States carriers. Their recommendations refer only to the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways. The United States railways such as the New York Central in Ontario and Quebec, the Chesapeake and Ohio in Ontario, the Great Northern on the Pacific coast and the Midland Railway in Manitoba did not complain to the royal commission about losses on passenger service. So far as is known they do not have any unremunerative branch lines in Canada, except one of them, the Midland Railway of Manitoba, to a very small degree in the Crowsnest pass rates.
Bearing in mind that vote No. 590 we have been discussing refers to interim payments related to recommendations of the royal commission on railway problems pending its complete report, it is clear that none of the money covered by this vote should be paid to the United States carriers except perhaps a very small sum to the Midland Railway of Manitoba, as I have said, for participating in the Crowsnest pass rates.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member for
V ancouver-Kingsway.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has risen several times this evening. I have been attempting to deal with the matters the hon. member for Laurier has raised. I can be very brief about this one.
The so-called United States carriers the hon. member for Laurier referred to only enter into this discussion in so far as they are Canadian operators; that is to say, as they are operating in Canada. Some of these so-called United States railways are operated in connection with the Canadian transcontinental systems.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which one?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Grand Trunk Western is one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Grand Trunk Western is owned by the people of Canada.
26207-1-186
Supply

Privy Council


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, isn't this remarkable?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, it is. It is remarkable evidence of ignorance on the part of the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let me say again that some of the so-called United States carriers are actually operated by the two Canadian transcontinental systems as part of their systems. This applies to some of the operations across the border. The United States railways or United States carriers that are referred to in any of these statutes or the regulations under them are included simply to the extent that they are operating in Canada. So far as the provisions of the Freight Rate Reductions Act are concerned, the benefits of that act are extended only to those railways which were denied the benefit of the horizontal increase in freight rates to which they became entitled under the order of the board of transport commissioners. Obviously any from whom the benefit provided by that order was withdrawn in the Freight Rates Reduction Act were entitled to share in the provision that parliament made to compensate the railways for the loss of expectation of benefit under that order of the board of transport commissioners.
With reference to the sharing of the $50 million, may I say these factors are all taken into account by the board of transport commissioners. This was the intent of parliament. This is the provision that parliament made in relation to item 590. We may be very sure that the board of transport commissioners has not been handing out benefits to any railway that is not entitled to them.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may be allowed just one word, I should just like to say this. My hon. friend seems to be under the mistaken apprehension that these moneys are going to United States railways operating in Canada. The point is that the United States railways operating in Canada did not seek from the board of transport commissioners or from the royal commission on transportation benefits for unprofitable or unremunerative lines, nor were they granted the same. The royal commission on transportation made no recommendations giving the United States lines in Canada subsidies. That is the point that I am making. As to vote 590 to which the minister has referred, he stated that was in part to carry out and to implement the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation. I am saying here that some of this $50 million has gone to these railways notwithstanding the fact that they never asked for

Supply-Privy Council it and notwithstanding the fact that no recommendations to this effect were made by the royal commission on transportation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will repeat my statement, I hope for the last time as I do not wish to see the committee detained unnecessarily. The $50 million was not provided to implement the report of the royal commission.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not what the minister said a while ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the fundamental error in the reasoning and approach of the hon. member, if he will permit me to say so.


Lionel Chevrier: Then why refer to it at all?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will give the wording of item 590:
Interim payments, related to recommendations ... on railway problems-
In other words, parliament took into account that recommendation. But it also had before it the fact that there was a freeze on freight rates and there had been a withdrawal of the benefits that railways might have expected to receive under the last previous general increase in freight rates permitted by the board of transport commissioners. These were all taken into account. I think that is the answer to the hon. member's observation.


John Ferguson Browne: I just wanted to say that I was very pleased to hear the minister's statement that it was not the intention of the government to rush into any legislation arising out of the royal commission report.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They do not rush into anything.


John Ferguson Browne: I think it is obvious that volume 3 that we have coming from the royal commmission contains much of the supporting material on which their conclusions contained in volumes 1 and 2 were arrived at. It would seem to me that for the government to bring forward legislation and face the transportation agencies in Canada with it before that material is available would put them in a very unfair position. I am quite surprised indeed that the hon. member for Laurier should be urging that the government take quick action in this regard. I feel quite certain that the various transportation agencies in Canada have not even begun to be able to assess all of the implications of the far reaching proposals that have been made in the royal commission report. I was certainly pleased to hear the


minister's assurance that it is not the intention of the government to place the transportation agencies in that unfair position by rushing into any hasty legislation.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall vote 735 carry?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No, Mr. Chairman. There are a couple of questions that I should like to ask the minister. One of the things that puzzle me about the royal commission on transportation is this. I understood or interpreted from statements made in this house by the Prime Minister over several years, and under repeated questioning, that the royal commission on transportation would have nothing to say about the Crowsnest pass rates, which I myself thought was an oversight and should have fallen within their terms of reference. Yet this matter was specifically ruled out. Nevertheless, the other day, in answer to a question that I had on the order paper namely question 374 we discover as follows:
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.
There are two oddities about this to me. One is that we have on the way this information from the royal commission about the Crowsnest pass rates when the Prime Minister specifically ruled out the possibility of any alterations or changes in the Crowsnest pass rates. I understand his words went along the line of phrases such as "sacred covenant" and something that was part of the tradition or almost the birthright of the western farmer.


Mr. Rapp:: And rightly so.


An hon. Member:: The Magna Carta.


Reynold Rapp: And rightly so.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, the Magna Carta; and the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale says "rightly so". If this is the case, what was this study of the Crowsnest rates so important for? Probably the reason we are still waiting for this volume 3 is this. I understand all the experts of the commission have been dispersed, and the commissioners. We know Mr. Mann now has a job heading up the national harbours board. I understand Mr. Anderson, the secretary, is back out west. What is the point of this study of the Crowsnest pass rates, especially in view of the Prime Minister's commitment that this matter was not going to be touched. I understand we are now going to have from this study what is considered to be the exact

expert figure of the burden that the railways are carrying in terms of loss between the revenue they get from the grain traffic and the actual cost of carrying it. This is most interesting information, that this is in hand. But I should like to have some explanation as to why the commission, it seems to me almost in defiance of the line set out by the Prime Minister, should get involved in this particular case.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
hon. gentleman a question.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it not a fact that while the Prime Minister said in the house on one occasion that the Crowsnest pass rates would not be involved, the terms of reference to the commission were not consistent with the assurance given by the Prime Minister?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I quite agree with the hon. member for Essex East. However, there is a related factor coming in here. On the very first day on which the commission met there was a long discussion as to its terms of reference and the whole question was introduced as to whether it could go into labour matters. I am sure the minister probably knows that after some discussion and some submissions it was assumed, on the basis of statements of the Prime Minister to parliament to quite an extent, that the whole question of railway labour was not to be touched on by this commission. I was at the first couple of hearings and I think my memory is correct that this was one of the main reasons why the whole problem of railway labour, which in many people's minds has been central to the predicament of the railways, was not considered, because there had been indications in the house that, though the matter was not strictly within the terms of reference of the commission to rule one way or the other, this was not the intention of the government. Yet we have the situation where this royal commission has bumbled its way into the Crowsnest pass rates picture and has come up with what I am sure will be claimed to be a solid figure showing the difference between the come and the go.
There is one other aspect of the recommendations of the royal commission that I find very ironical, and I wonder whether the minister has seen the irony. I should like to have his comments upon it. Certain newspapers have also picked up this point. I refer to the fact that by the time one has finished reading volume 2 of the commission's report it is apparent that the idea is that the railways are going to be freed at last to get out and compete. Subsidies are going to be 26207-1-186J
Supply-Privy Council wiped out. They are going to do away with the bridge subsidy which is a very real measure of help to the area from which I come. That kind of thing is an anachronism to me. They are not going to fiddle with all these subsidies in this new era of transportation into which we are moving. I know this found wide appeal, particularly in the newspapers of Canada which tend to be great free enterprise organs.
But here is the irony. How is this revolution going to be achieved? It is going to be achieved by more subsidies. We are going to wipe out the bridge subsidy which is designed to remunerate both railways and shippers of goods from eastern Canada to western Canada. The wiping out of that subsidy is something that is certainly going to affect traffic that moves through our area but according to the commission it has got to go. This is the anachronism. How are we going to get this new era under way? We are going to start handing out subsidies. The hon. member for Laurier referred to the total, almost $100 million. That is the great free competition and free enterprise of this new era. As the minister is the one who, in the short range picture at least, has to come up with these new subsidies, I am wondering whether he is aware that there is a certain paradox in the recommendations of the commission.
I should like to have his views on this matter.
There is another thing I should like to point out to the minister that I find ironical. Aside from the submission of the British Columbia government, it is almost impossible for me at least to find in the hearings any evidence upon which these thinkers on the royal commission base this whole new era of free enterprise and competition that is to be opened up for the railways. I have very grave doubts whether the commissioners really listened to the people who came to the hearings. I am making the assumption here that several people on the commission and probably one or two of the professional help theorized that what was needed in the railway picture was the opening up of competition and the freeing of the railways so that they could get into the fight and hold their own against the truckers and all other forms of transportation, and consequently they did not really pay any attention to the briefs that were presented.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a point of order. I do not claim to know too much about the rules but it does seem to me that we seem to be discussing is the report of the commission, which will be open to discussion at another time. It also seems that certain assumptions are being made that the commissioners did not
2920	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council listen to some of the briefs presented to them. I would suggest that we are getting rather far afield.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On the point of order, we may be getting far afield but I suggest to the hon. member for Greenwood that the discussion started a few minutes after eight o'clock and for 35 minutes thereafter it ranged quite widely. I think it will be acknowledged that the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Laurier went into topics very much like this one, so I do not feel I am out of place in making these remarks. Really what I am doing is repeating an appeal to the Minister of Finance. Does he not think there is something bizarre in this whole theme of opening things up to competition and wiping out all these subsidies including the cutting down of some of the maritime subsidies that exist at the present time? The idea is that we are going to get back to competition, and yet at the same time the commissioners turn around and they are going to give the railways new kinds of handouts such as passenger subsidies for a time, branch line abandonment subsidies and so on. To me this is completely inconsistent, almost as inconsistent as the supposedly accurate study of the Crowsnest pass rates.
The other point I want to come back to is the question of the bridge subsidy. I should like to make the point to the minister that if this subsidy disappears it will be quite obvious that the very strong representations made by groups from our area at the hearings at Port Arthur completely failed to impress the commission. One of the factors that is central to defending our position and maintaining the link between eastern Canada and western Canada is the bridge subsidy or a subsidy of that kind; but that is to go out of the window.
As one of our local authorities on transportation matters, Mr. Charnock of the Fort William chamber of commerce, pointed out, this dream of competition is wonderful where you have competition in terms of traffic and in terms of carriers but in an area such as ours this kind of competition is very tenuous. What we are afraid of is something that is actually taking place at the present time in that a great deal of the automobile production of eastern Canada that is being shipped to western Canada, particularly to British Columbia, is being driven across the border, loaded on American rail carriers and shipped through to British Columbia rather than being transported the Canadian way. Will this removal of the bridge subsidy be another sample of the kind of steps that make us even less able to compete? While most of us are pleased at


the present time to have the kind of competition that exists to a degree between the truckers and the railroaders from the point of view of giving shippers an alternative, in our part of the country we still think that kind of competition in a transcontinental way is a pretty shadowy and insubstantial thing at the present time and that to think of opening it up is fantastic.
Another point I should like to make to the minister about the royal commission on railway problems has to do with the assumption it makes throughout that trucking is a mode of transportation in which it is very easy to get started because it does not require very much capital. All I know is that the C.N.R. has gone through about $15 million in the last couple of years getting into it. We do not know how much the C.P.R. has spent but it is a considerable sum of money. So we have these two big railway organizations going deeply into trucking and being encouraged now to go into it even more deeply, and we are led to believe that this is going to lead to a more and more competitive situation. I fail to see how it possibly can. I fail to see how a small or medium size public carrier on the highways can really compete in the long haul with what must be a monopolistic tendency on the part of the railways as they move into this field. It seems to me an encouragement to the railways that they have certainly welcomed.
I know a great many of the employees have welcomed the idea that at last they are going to be able to get in and compete with truckers, but I wonder if this is the way to do it. Are the trucking lines associated with the railways going to be required to pay income tax? Are Husband, East-West, Kingsway and all these lines now associated with the C.N.R. going to pay income tax? If they are not, then it is quite obvious that they have a competitive advantage over trucking lines that are not associated with the C.N.R.
To me it seems that the royal commission has raised almost as many problems as it solved, and it is for that reason I disagree with the hon. member for Laurier in his plea for urgency in tackling its recommendations. I hope the government proceeds slowly in regard to them, slowly enough so that we can bring a very strong case against the removal of the bridge subsidy until we can see there is some kind of salvation for this in the so-called competitive milieu that is going to be opened up.
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, for being carried away into areas detached from the specific question with which I started. I shall just repeat-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps I can save the hon. member the trouble. I do not intend to make any comment on the acceptability or validity of any recommendation the commission has made. The discussion earlier was on broad aspects of the report, and it would be entirely premature and inappropriate while this whole question is under study for a minister to make any comment whatever on the acceptability of any particular recommendation.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Aside from the acceptability of recommendations, what about the fact that this commission is coming up in volume 3 with figures on the loss pattern in the grain rates? Does the minister not consider this a contradiction of the statements that were made by the Prime Minister over a period of several years? The railways will now claim this to be an accurate picture of the losses they suffer in carrying grain under the Crowsnest pass rates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Prime Minister has stated government policy in clear and unmistakable terms, and that is that as long as this government is in office the grain growers of western Canada are going to retain the full benefit of the Crowsnest pass rates. That is fundamental in the policy of the government.
The railways asked for determinations as to what they regarded as the loss they were incurring in carrying grain under the Crowsnest pass rates and the royal commission, at least in a divided report in this respect, made certain findings and certain recommendations as to how the alleged loss should be borne. But the statement of the Prime Minister is clear and abiding, that no thought will be given at any time to depriving the grain growers of western Canada of their rights in respect of the Crowsnest pass rates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to give an assurance on behalf of the party which will form the next government of Canada-and that probably quite soon-that the Crowsnest pass rates will be retained, as they were restored by a Liberal government after the first world war when they were torpedoed by the Tories.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I appreciate that the minister finds it difficult to deal with particular recommendations of the royal commission at this time. I also assume he would find it difficult to deal with omissions in the royal commission report with regard to representations made by communities about unfair, discriminatory rates, as they saw them, in so far as their competitive position is concerned in relation to other areas.
The community from which I come was joined by farm and labour organizations
Supply-Privy Council in the county of Essex and all through southwestern Ontario with regard to the inequitable freight rate structure which prevails in this area, as compared with other sections in the province of Ontario, notably the area that originates in Toronto eastwards.
The average freight rates between Windsor and Toronto are 25 per cent higher than those paid in the area from Toronto as far as Montreal. This imposes a heavy burden, not only on secondary industry in my section of the province, but also in the farming community. It is possible to ship a bushel of corn from Chicago to Montreal more cheaply than it is to ship a bushel of grain from Windsor to Montreal.
Having in mind the conditions prevailing in southwestern Ontario at the present time, particularly in the city of Windsor with regard to secondary industry and the consequential problem of unemployment that flows therefrom, it would seem to me, as it does to the Windsor industrial commission, to the chamber of commerce, to the labour organizations and others who have made recommendations to the effect that if the government is anxious to do something about these areas that are suffering from heavy unemployment, consideration ought to be given to alleviation of the inequitable freight rate structure which prevails in respect of the communities I have mentioned as compared to other sections of the province of Ontario and elsewhere.
The minister may say he cannot deal with this sort of thing at this time but the executive arm undoubtedly has the power of providing for a removal of these inequities.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the past the executive has acted.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says no but I beg to differ. In the past the executive has taken action to remove these inequities. One example of that was given in the statement made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with regard to the Crowsnest pass rates. The traditional attitude taken with regard to that arises out of executive action, confirmed by various royal commissions, and reflected in the statement of policy enunciated by the minister just now. I do not quarrel with that. As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said, the Liberal party, when in office, took a position with regard to that. What I am now saying is that if the complaint which has been registered by the area from which I come is valid -and I believe it is-it is within the power of the government of Canada, the executive

Supply-Privy Council arm of government, to take action to remove these inequities. The minister has that power. This parliament has the power-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Parliament has, but not the executive.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When I say the executive I mean the executive has power to make recommendations which, in the form of legislative enactment, can rectify a situation which is felt to be unfair. If the government wants to do something about this grievance, and I believe there is a crying need, it has that power. I am not saying that the minister should tell us tonight what it proposes to do, but in the unhappy event that the hon. gentleman and his colleagues should ever be in power in the future, and that we greatly doubt, all I am saying to them now is that this is a matter in which the city of Windsor and southwestern Ontario generally are vitally interested. The brief that was presented by the Windsor industrial commission was supported not only by the city of Windsor and other communities in the county of Essex, but by communities all the way to London. This is a matter about which there is keen, and I think understandable, interest. I raise it tonight so that the minister can be forewarned once again of the position taken by these communities.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, if we are going to go into the complaints about the existing freight rates structure from individual communities in Canada, then we are certainly not going to reach item 729 tonight.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That does not alter the fact that a legitimate grievance can be mentioned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact is that for those who will take the trouble to read the Railway Act-and I doubt that the hon. member has for some time-they will find there provisions giving to the board of transport commissioners power to relieve in cases where they find undue and unjust discrimination in freight rates. That is the rule of the act, and anybody, any community or any shipper who feels he is being called upon to pay rates that are discriminatory can go to the board of transport commissioners with his complaint.
I am a little surprised at the hon. member's statement tonight that the railway freight rate on a bushel of corn from Chicago to Toronto is lower than the freight rate on a bushel of grain from Windsor to Toronto.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit me to make a correction. I did say Toronto; I meant to say a bushel of corn from Chicago to Montreal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the hon. member comparing it with now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am comparing it with the rate for shipping a similar amount of corn from Windsor to Montreal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think that on examination it will be found that the determining factor there undoubtedly will be the rates by water transportation. These are elements that enter into the determination of the board of transport commissioners constantly in cases of alleged freight rate discrimination. But this is something that is a far cry from the matter now under discussion, which is the report of the royal commission. These are matters to be considered when parliament is called upon to deal with legislation in the light of the report of the royal commission some time in the future.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, there is one question I would like to ask the minister. I am sure that he, as the minister responsible for finding funds, will remember that a few weeks ago we passed a measure relating to a new line in the Gaspe area requiring the raising of a minimum of $14 million. I wonder if at the time it was being considered by the government any discussions or conversations were held between the minister or any other member of the cabinet and some of the experts or commissioners of this royal commission on transportation before they dispersed, to see whether this line met with the approval of the commissioners, particularly since their recommendations were so strong and so stark against embarking upon any more railway building unless it could be shown that the line was competitive and stood a very good chance of making a reasonable return on its investment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not aware of any such discussion, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
736. Expenses of the royal commission on Canadian magazines and other periodicals-further amount required, $22,800.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, one wonders why we should be voting this money at all. The left hand of the government obviously does not know what the right hand is doing, if indeed they can tell their right hand from their left hand. We read, for example, in last night's Toronto Telegram-which is the sort of Pravda or Izvestia, I am not quite sure which, of this government-an editorial entitled "No action on magazines", which says:
The Minister of Finance will receive high marks-

And I am sure he will be delighted to hear this; he does not get many compliments these days;
-for his decision not to proceed with the O'Leary plan to destroy by an oppressive tax measure U.S. magazines located in Canada.
I might say that this is in a newspaper published by a prominent Tory candidate in Toronto, a favourite of the government who was handed a television charter over all his competitors as a special favour and now is apparently seeking to consolidate his hold on that part of the public domain by becoming a member of this house; but apparently they forgot to tell him what they were doing. His paper pours all this saliva on the Minister of Finance. I think perhaps I ought to read it again just in case every hon. member did not get it:
The Minister of Finance will receive high marks for his decision not to proceed with the O'Leary plan to destroy by an oppressive tax measure U.S. magazines located in Canada.
If that is Pravda, I suppose the Ottawa Journal is Izvestia. It is too bad the government could not keep the two of them in line, but they seem to have terrible difficulty in doing so, though they were completely in line about wanting to end the proceedings of this parliament, in some premature editorials which appeared in both of them in almost identical terms not so long ago. You will remember that too, sir.
My reason for raising this is that there is on the notice paper-it is not yet on the orders of the day, so I am not transgressing any rule of the house by referring to it; and if someone has a copy I could take a look at it-notice in the name of a colleague of the Minister of Finance that these things the minister was congratulated in Pravda for not doing are going, at the bidding of Izvestia, to be done by one of the minister's colleagues.
It has always been a tradition of parliament, one of the most fundamental of our traditions, that the budget is put before this country and tax changes are proposed by the Minister of Finance, and not by some other minister a couple of days after the budget in some back door fashion. I suggest that no minister of finance since confederation would have endured this humiliation that is being heaped by his colleagues upon the Minister of Finance, two days after the budget, when another minister introduces tax changes to correct the mistakes of the Minister of Finance in his budget, or the deficiencies, or the oversights, or perhaps the pages that the minister had that he did not get time to read. Perhaps that is the explanation of it. I apologize to
Supply-Privy Council the minister for not being here, but I understand that he even had a deficit in his budget speech as well as the deficit in the budget of the country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Two of them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I say that the minister should not be here at all. He should not be in this house at all after being humiliated in this fashion, having another minister substituted for him in proposing tax changes. His resignation should be on the Prime Minister's desk and he should not be before us. I would like the minister to explain how it comes about-


Murdo William Martin: Here are the two
missing parts of the budget.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh. Well perhaps they are not strictly relevant.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Read them well.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: You would not let them get on the record.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I find here in Hansard for April 11, the same date as this newspaper which was not tipped off properly or adequately, a statement by the Prime Minister. This appears to have been made early in the afternoon, at about the same time this paper was on the streets:
I might add that the Leader of the Opposition asked whether there was anything else to come before the house. Two resolutions will be placed on the order paper in respect of certain recommendations made by the O'Leary commission. They will be under the name of the Minister of National Revenue.
I do not know whether they are actually on the notice paper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, they are not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Apparently they are not even there yet, so I certainly am not out of order. It is perhaps premature to ask the minister to resign, and perhaps what the Prime Minister promised in the house will not be implemented. It would not be new for the Prime Minister to make these airy-fairy promises and then for nothing else to happen. There are 80 outstanding and I can give the minister a list of them, if he would like them, neatly mimeographed and set out with proper references. So perhaps this matter will never come before the house and perhaps the minister will not have to resign until it does. Or perhaps the minister can get a lot of his friends to send telegrams from all over the country and once more save him from the axe as happened last December. Perhaps we shall have another pilgrimage to Quebec and another dealing of the cards and another joker.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps.
2924	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly it is extraordinary that we should have a budget brought down, presumably giving all the tax changes for the year, and then on the next day the Prime Minister should come in and humiliate the Minister of Finance by announcing that another minister is going to introduce some other tax measures. It is unprecedented. It is clear that we have no more collective responsibility. It means a complete collapse of government in this country, and for that reason I move that this item be reduced to $1.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not too early in the evening to observe that the hon. member is talking through his hat. He was not here to listen to the budget speech but he is discussing now with the semblance of great authority a subject of which he knows little, if anything. It is typical of him that he should talk so freely about subjects he knows little or nothing about.
The hon. member is about 48 hours late in raising comment on this matter. I was asked about this question on Tuesday night.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, not in the
house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Parliament is not told, but you tell people outside.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, I do reserve the right to talk outside the house as well as inside. I was asked about the O'Leary report and I said then, as I am prepared to say now, that this was a large subject in itself and it was more appropriate that it should be dealt with separately from the budget. That is why the Prime Minister said what was indicated in the course of yesterday's review of matters to come before the house. The house will have a better opportunity of dealing with this important and far reaching subject in the way proposed by the government than if it were submerged with many other subjects in the course of a general budget discussion.
When the hon. member portrays with mock grief and sympathy the humiliation which he sees heaped upon the Minister of Finance, let me say at once that I reject his miserable crocodile tears. I want no sympathy from any shedder of crocodile tears. The government has proceeded in a way which is beyond the understanding of those who had their governmental experience in dictatorial days. The hon. member simply does not understand why a government should attempt to follow a course which would give parliament the most effective and fullest opportunity to discuss a subject which is of great national importance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 cannot allow the statement made by the minister and the aspersions cast by the minister to go without reply. However, the reply will be brief, if the minister can contain his impatience, and then the question can be put. The only thing I can find to agree with in what the minister said was his use of the word "submerge" with respect to his budget. He said the government did not want the O'Leary recommendations submerged with the budget. I suggest that that is exactly what the government has in mind-submerging this budget, drowning it without a trace, and they wish they could do it, having heard what the public has to say about it. Perhaps the Prime Minister knowing how badly the budget was going to be received, wanted to associate the recommendations having to do with the O'Leary report with some other minister rather than the Minister of Finance. At no time that I can recall since confederation-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Have you been here since confederation? Who do you think you are?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest to the minister that he can make his reply when I have concluded and when I can hear what he has to say.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, my lord.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Instead of doing the muttering he is doing from his seat-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was standing up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a direct quote from the minister. As I was saying when the minister began muttering, at no time that I can recall has any minister of finance since confederation been humiliated the day after the budget by having the Prime Minister announce that something had been overlooked, or not dealt with, and that some other minister rather than the Minister of Finance was going to introduce tax changes. It is a profound humiliation. I do not say it is an undeserved humiliation, but it is a humiliation which no self-respecting minister of finance would endure for an instant. But we know of the humiliations which the minister has endured in that quarter, and having endured so many others, this, perhaps, is one more cross that he has decided to bear until those many crosses are made on the ballots which will put the minister out of his misery.


An hon. Member:: Are you going to lose?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I say this is a shocking way to treat parliament. The minister talks about other governments being dictatorial. No government since confederation has ever

gone on 12 days after the end of the fiscal year without getting its supply voted for the previous year. And why?


Some hon. Members:: Obstruction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Notwithstanding the biggest majority in history the Prime Minister goes on the air weeping crocodile tears and saying that he cannot control the House of Commons-that he cannot carry on the government; that he is paralysed by a handful of people in the opposition. That is the kind of self-confessed incompetence with which we have to deal, boasted about on the radio and on the television. If the Prime Minister believes he is incapable of getting the business of the country done, the sooner he ceases to try the better it will be for Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall be brief in my comment on this latest hysterical outburst. The hon. member speaks with great authority on things which have happened or have not happened since confederation. This, I suggest, is just one more of his indulgences in an arrogant type of boasting, but I will follow him in this-that I am sure that since confederation this chamber has not heard a more crocodile speech than that one.
We have an opportunity, now, to judge the earnestness, the genuineness, the sincerity of those protestations that we hear from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and others among his colleagues as to their eagerness to get on and debate item No. 729. This was the important item, they said, and they could not get to it fast enough. But you see what has happened, Mr. Chairman? We have been debating tonight for one and a half hours and we have passed one item. And here is the hon. gentleman prolonging this discussion by inviting a vote when he knows perfectly well that what is at stake here is whether the expenses incurred in the appointment and inquiries of the royal commission should be paid. This is what he is now proposing, that these expenses should not be paid. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that no crocodile could propose anything more irresponsible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am suggesting to you, sir, that this royal commission was totally and completely unnecessary, that any government that had even the most elementary capacity for decision would not have required any royal commission to go into this matter-


John Ferguson Browne: You
would have done nothing; just like the Liberal party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This government has done nothing and it will do nothing. If the rumours that still float around this town are correct, there will be nothing whatever done by this
Supply-Privy Council parliament about the recommendations of the royal commission except to put things on the order paper that will never be implemented unless this session is going on a lot longer than most of the backbenchers supporting the government want it to. As the hon. gentleman said, nothing will be done about this matter.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Irresponsible opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no earthly reason why many thousands of dollars should have been spent on this royal commission. The problem is a simple, obvious problem. It was dealt with by the previous government in a definite manner. Speaking of crocodile tears, I have never seen a crocodile shedding tears-


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have, tonight.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -but there never was such a flood of phony tears shed about anything as was shed by the hon. member for Eglinton when he was sitting over here denouncing a government that did something about Canadian magazines, instead of appointing expensive royal commissions to write reports about them that are ignored. Therefore it seems to me we might as well salvage a little out of this by not paying this bill.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am very hesitant to speak at this time for fear the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will accuse me of being Ilya Ehrenburg or some other Russian figure.


An hon. Member:: He is a great authority on Russians, too.


Douglas Mason Fisher: With respect to the hon. member's amendment let me say we do not lightly introduce amendments, and since support of this amendment would indicate that the commission and its recommendations are completely in disfavour with our party, which is not the case, we will vote against it.
Amendment (Mr. Pickersgill) negatived: Yeas, 15; nays, 56.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I put a question on the order paper last week concerning the loss of production in paper mills arising out of the recommendations of this commission. The reply I received was that no loss of production has been anticipated. I feel this is a valid question on this item. By that answer is it meant that the government has considered the possibility of loss of production in Canadian paper mills and has concluded that there will be no loss?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, that would depend entirely on the direction in which the consequences flow. It has been contended by at least one publisher in Canada of a so-called Canadian edition of a foreign periodical that there would be a reduction
2926	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council in the requirement lor coated paper. This is on the theory that any withdrawal from their circulation would not flow to the advantage of Canadian periodicals and be reflected in increased purchases of coated paper on their part.
The correctness of the view of the publisher that I referred to again depends on whether he is right in saying that the result would flow to the advantage of different media of communication. That is the question. This is a matter that will have to be discussed in due time when this house takes up the proposals that arise out of the study made by the royal commission. I do not think we can pursue it here in this committee at this time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On an item such as this 1 dislike bringing up an issue that involves my riding, but the Provincial Paper Mill in Port Arthur is the mill that provides paper not only for Reader's Digest and Time but also for most Maclean-Hunter publications. The minister is probably aware that the unions in that plant supported by other related groups have made representations to the government with regard to the likelihood of a loss of a minimum of 75 or up to 120 days work in a very busy mill.
The dilemma is this, and I wish to present it to the minister for a bit more information. If the recommendations of the O'Leary commission are not carried out we have an indication from Maclean-Hunter and other Canadian publishers that they will be forced to fold Canadian magazines such as Maclean's and Chatelaine and therefore out would go that part of the production of Provincial Paper Mills. On the other hand Reader's Digest and Time say that if the government proceeds with the legislation they will have to withdraw to the United States and out will go that part.
In a small way we have a problem for Solomon here. No matter which way the thing moves there is the likelihood that this particular paper mill, which is the largest producer in Canada of coated papers, is going to get it in the neck. I am sure the minister will appreciate why I am so anxious to know, as the representative of the people of that area, what negotiations the government has carried on with the various people involved so as to obtain some idea how much truth there is in the threat of Reader's Digest and Time that they are going to go back to the United States. For this reason I shall be very interested in the legislation when it is introduced to see to what extent it will come to bear on these companies.
I know the minister really cannot give much more information than he has but I


wish to ask him whether negotiations or discussions have taken place recently-by that I mean within the last three or four weeks- with the representatives of Reader's Digest and Time as to their likely course of action should the government implement the recommendations of the O'Leary report.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
questions as to what action may be taken on the report are, I think, quite extraneous to the item now before us. The item is related to an amount required to pay the expenses incurred by the royal commission. As to what is proper discussion in relation to action to be taken on the report, of course, that will come before parliament in due course. The question is perhaps quite understandably anticipating discussion of that kind and I think it would be altogether premature.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Minister of Finance a question. I listened to what he had to say a few moments ago rather heatedly in reply to the interesting observations made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. My recollection is that when the minister spoke outside of this chamber over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television facilities and perhaps also over the private television facilities, with regard to the question as to why the O'Leary commission recommendations were not included in the budget he said not what he indicated a few moments ago but that there was no intention to deal with them and he gave no indication that the government was going to bring in legislation dealing with those recommendations in another form. Certainly so far as my memory serves me the minister-and I wish to be fair to him-that night indicated that there was no intention to deal with the O'Leary commission recommendations and that there was not anything unusual about that matter; that it was the government's policy; and that if it had been otherwise, it would have been provided for in the budget.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member is entirely mistaken. I did not say whether the government was going to take action or was not going to take action. That was not the question that was put to me. The question was in relation to there not being any reference to that subject in the budget. I made the response that I indicated here earlier this evening, namely, that the subject was such that it would be much better that it be dealt with by itself rather than be included in a budget with a great many other subjects.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is not the real fact that the government had decided not to deal with the O'Leary recommendations and

that this decision was represented by no reference to the O'Leary commission in the budget report, but that the next morning the Prime Minister received a delegation of certain proprietors of certain periodicals and that it was as a result of the representations made there, in the light of coming events having to do with a general election, that the government changed its mind and the minister was put in the humiliating position in which he found himself the next morning?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman. There is not one word or tittle or trace of truth in what the hon. member has just said. That is a piece of Martinian conjecture from start to finish and there is no truth in it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister say I was justified in saying that there was a certain representation from certain proprietors of certain periodicals-certain instruments of mass media of the written word-the next morning that called on the Prime Minister? Or perhaps it is a fact that the Prime Minister did not advise the Minister of Finance that there was such a delegation that called on him the day after the budget had been delivered. Is that a fact?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman. Apparently the hon. member does not know what facts are.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the hon. gentleman the exact words of what he said on television? Has he the text there? This matter may prove to be very important.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have in my office the text of the answers given on the French television.


Lionel Chevrier: That was wonderful.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you very much.


Lionel Chevrier: Boy, was that good.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it would be very helpful, and I am seeking to be helpful-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -if the minister would do this. I should not want to hold up the item now that my amendment has been defeated. However, I think it would be helpful if the minister would undertake to get the exact words as there would have been a tape recording made for reference purposes of what the minister said, and we know how much attached this government is to tape recordings. Would the minister give us the precise words that he used outside the house to the public about the omission from his budget speech- on television in English-of any reference to the O'Leary report?
Supply-Privy Council


Gordon Campbell Chown: I recognize the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This was a statement to the press in the press conference which the Minister of Finance always has the honour of having with the press gallery after the delivery of the budget.


An hon. Member:: They always misquote him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is very mysterious.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just wanted-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Essex East is very mysterious himself most of the time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is getting angry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, the minister is not getting angry. The fact is that I just cannot bear cant and humbug.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I recognize the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wish to take up the point raised by the hon. member for Essex East and perhaps phrase it a little bit differently. Will the minister not agree that, if we do not have before this house dissolves the legislation indicated by the Prime Minister in his statement yesterday morning there will be a natural restriction or at least a very human restriction upon the editorial comment in the coming election campaign, in view of the fact that the whole matter will be up in the air and not only these United States publications which have their influence but also all Canadian publications that have a selfinterest in this measure will be walking a very careful line?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 736 carry?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Since the minister was so extensive in his answer to the hon. member for Essex East, I wonder whether he would answer my question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Extensive but not altogether complimentary.	*


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have respect for the freedom of the press and of views expressed in it. However, I do not think that the hon. member in making his conjecture expects me to agree with him. I certainly do not agree with him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have just had another remarkable example of cabinet solidarity. We know that the Prime Minister refers to the press as the servile press. We now have the
2928	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State minister boasting about our having a free press. Which of the heads of government speaks for the government?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
739. Distribution of official documents-further amount required, $35,500.
Mr. Maiheson:: I will try not to be long. I should like to comment briefly on this vote. Recently members received the publication "Canada and the United Nations, 1960". It is published by the Queen's printer under the auspices of the Department of External Affairs. This is the kind of document which has the story of the development of the United Nations and particularly Canada's part therein within recent years. At the beginning of this booklet there is a picture in which I think all Canadians will take pride. It is that of the Prime Minister of Canada addressing the 15th regular session of the United Nations general assembly. There is also an attractive portrait of Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs presiding over a plenary meeting of the general assembly as one of the vice presidents of the general assembly. We all recognize the fact that a government in power will be publishing this kind of material. We welcome this kind of publication as being a part of their responsibility and adding to our knowledge of what its various departments are doing. Now, by way of contrast, I wish to mention something that has been disturbing a number of people.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Neil Alexander Matheson: I have been asked by an hon. member in his seat to name them. I shall mention one person by name who brought this matter to my attention very recently. It was Dr. C. P. Wright who is British, who holds a Ph.D. degree and who has scholarly background in juridical matters and British constitutional procedure. Some time ago I placed on the order paper question 359 relating to the printing and the distribution of the bill of rights or the so-called bill of rights, since, when we examine the document in question of which 20,000 copies have been distributed all over Canada, we find that it really is not the bill of rights at all but is only a part of the bill of rights.
It actually appears to be part I but it is not that alone. The art work is of the finest. It is a tribute to the abilities of the artists on the staff of the Queen's printer, particularly Yvonne Diceman. If we take the answers given by the Secretary of State the other day it would appear that the idea was that of Yvonne Diceman and the Queen's printer alone.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l

Here is a document which has gone all over the country in volume. It has gone to many schools and many areas where there are new Canadians and people with very limited knowledge of legal and constitutional matters and civil liberties. Here we have a part of the act with the most beautiful art work possible. The heraldic work is excellent. But with part I of the act there is also an extract from the speech of the Prime Minister, with the words underneath, "The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, House of Commons Debates, July 1, 1960". In ink of another colour is the signature of the Prime Minister and it would appear as though he had signed each individual copy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Mr. Chairman, I thank the supporters of the government for their applause but I think there is a principle involved here and we have to have courage enough to stand up and say that under these circumstances this is not a proper expenditure of the public printing and stationery branch. I would ask hon. gentlemen in this house, and we are all gentlemen-


Mr.   Marlel@: Except the ladies.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Yes, except the more beautiful and talented members of the house- to consider what they would think if, for example, when old age pensions were introduced or the veterans charter or legislation relating to NATO or family allowances or the St. Lawrence seaway, the Queen's printer and the heraldic artist had produced a document of this kind over the signature of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent or the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. There would have been outcry from coast to coast.


George James McIlraith: And properly so.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Actually many lawyers were concerned about the bill of rights. We know that the dominion council of the Canadian bar association urged the Minister of Justice to withhold the legislation because it was in many respects misleading and because it was not clear what liberties if any it was intended to alter or enlarge. I do not intend to touch on that aspect but I do intend to touch on the fact that this particular document with all this art work which has been distributed at public expense has been used deliberately to convey the false impression that this country has received new liberties and that these are the gift of the gentleman who now presides as Prime Minister of Canada.


John Ferguson Browne: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Neil Alexander Matheson: I would refer to a recent issue of the Toronto Telegram-


John Ferguson Browne: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely the business of the house at the present time does not justify the hon. member getting up and arguing against the bill of rights which was properly passed by this house and badly needed by the country after the Liberal administration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is dealing with a particular publication. I would be very pleased to have the opportunity of commenting on his remarks but I must observe that the item now under discussion has nothing to do with the matter he is discussing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Distribution of official documents.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This item has to do with several specific matters. There is an increase of $20,000 required to meet the cost of extra charges resulting from the establishment of Queen's printers bookshops in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, an item of $10,000 which represents an additional commitment authority on advertising to promote the sale of books printed in this fiscal year, and an item of $5,500 for freight, express, cartage and postage.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, there have been a number of questions asked of the ministry concerning the matter that my hon. friend is discussing now, more particularly of the Secretary of State who answered some in part and did not answer others. I submit that under the title "Public Printing and Stationery, Distribution of Official Documents" the hon. member is surely entitled to make the points he is making. Perhaps the point has been raised by the Minister of Finance because he is so sensitive about what is being said that he does not like the argument that is being made. I suggest that the hon. member is perfectly in order.


Gordon Campbell Chown: If I may intercede for a moment, may I say I would feel a little more comfortable if the hon. member for Leeds would discuss what he is bringing to the attention of the committee under the next item which has to do with printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public. Perhaps if we could pass this particular item we could go on from there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Secretary of State 740. Printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public -further amount required, $200,000.
Neil Alexander Matheson: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to belabour the point I have been making and I do not wish to speak at length. I think I have made my point. It is one which is rather important to some people. May I summarize my remarks by saying that any act passed by the House of Commons is an act of the parliament of Canada and if any person is to sign such a document surely it should be the Governor General.


Murdo William Martin: Have you never heard of King John?


An hon. Member:: We have heard of Mackenzie King.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: That is why we needed a bill of rights.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Before bringing this matter forward, I followed the suggestion of this gentleman who taught political economy at British universities and I did a little research on the matter. As a result I think I can say with confidence that never before has a document of this character been published by a Canadian government and I believe this is a misuse of public funds.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: We never had any rights under the Liberals.


Neil Alexander Matheson: I think I can say with authority that never before has there been a prime minister who has used his office in this particular way. In my opinion the answers that have been given by the government and their failure to answer other questions indicates their acknowledgment that really this document should have been published as Progressive Conservative party literature. If we are going to have a bill of rights in which all Canadians take pride as something resulting from the deliberations of parliament, then I believe we should think of it in that capacity only and not in a political sense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to make this observation with regard to the bill of rights. This was something which was introduced into this house by the Prime Minister. It was a cause in which he led the fight for years and the bill was passed in the face of derision from hon. members opposite.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not true at all.


Murdo William Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the bill of rights was not passed with derision-


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a continuation of the same kind of sabotage.

Business of the House


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, since you allowed the minister to go on may I complete my sentence?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have a sentence or two to complete myself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The bill of rights was improved as a result of suggestions made by members of the Liberal party and over the opposition of the Conservatives.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will you allow me to say this-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.
Item stands.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the acting house leader, the sub-acting house leader, what the business will be for tomorrow and, while he is stating it, could he direct his attention to next week as well?


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, with the speed we made tonight I do not think there is much necessity of dealing with next week. We had better deal with the business from minute to minute and hour to hour. The business for tomorrow will be continuation of the debate on the supplementary estimates which we have been considering this evening. When that is concluded we shall proceed with the legislative items which were announced by my colleague, the house leader, last evening. If by any chance there should be any change in the order with which they are to be dealt with tomorrow, I am sure there will be sufficient time in the morning to announce such change so that all hon. members-who are perfectly conversant with the items because they have been on the order paper day after day and week after week-will know about it.


Lionel Chevrier: I am very grateful to the acting house leader for his enlightening remarks but I wonder could I ask him if, during the course of the time that will elapse from now until the hour we meet tomorrow at 11 o'clock, the government does change its mind, he would at least have the courtesy to advise us half an hour before the house meets.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have sat in opposition for nine years and no opposition has ever been treated with the courtesy which the present opposition has received.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow that remark to go unchallenged because that is not a fact. It is not a fact simply because

this government has not been able to make up its mind with reference to the orderly conduct of business, and has had to change it on several occasions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: I have not had a chance to conclude.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is no semblance of order on the part of the opposition.


Lionel Chevrier: I was trying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think further debate would not add to the clarity of the situation-


Lionel Chevrier: It is foreclosure.


Mr. Speaker:: -and I declare that this house stands adjourned until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.


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

[Stage Direction]
Northern administration branch-
Education division-
730.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $200,000.
Welfare and industrial divisions-
731.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $202,000.
Yukon Territory-
732.	Operation and maintenance-to extend the purposes of vote 302 of the main estimates for 1961-62 to include the contributions detailed in these estimates, $51,020.
Northwest Territories and other field services-
733.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $220,000.
National museum of Canada-
734.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $50,000.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
735.	Expenses of the royal commission on railway problems-further amount required, $34,462.
736.	Expenses of the royal commission on Canadian magazines and other periodicals-further amount required, $22,800.
737.	Expenses of the royal commission on health services-further amount required, $123,000.

[Stage Direction]
Public Printing and Stationery-
738.	Purchasing, stationery and stores-further amount required, $60,000.
739.	Distribution of official documents-further amount required, $35,500.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 13, 1962