1962-03-30

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, following the traditional course I wish to announce the appointment of the under secretary of state and deputy registrar general of Canada in the person of Mr. Jean Miquelon, Q.C., of Danville and Montreal. Mr. Miquelon studied law at Laval University and was admitted to the bar of the province of Quebec in 1934. He joined the Canadian army in 1941, following a period of service as crown prosecutor in Val d'Or. He spent several years overseas and became deputy judge advocate general of the Canadian army occupation force in Germany; returned to Canada with the rank of major and resumed legal practice in Montreal. Mr. Miquelon served as the Quebec representative on the dominion command of the Royal Canadian Legion from 1955 to 1960, and in the latter year was elected vice-chairman of the Legion's dominion command. He is recognized as a distinguished member of the bar, and the government is pleased that a man of his capacity is available to accept this appointment.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton)
presented the first report of the standing committee on veterans affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Huron) presented the fifth and sixth reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and
telegraph lines, and asked for unanimous consent to move that the sixth report be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to present this motion?


Mr. Chevrier:: No, sir.
Motion stands.



UNITED NATIONS


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: No doubt, Mr. Speaker, the house would be interested in having a brief report on the disarmament conference which has now been under way in Geneva for over two weeks.
Canada has been very deeply interested in this disarmament conference. Hon. members know our nation was a member of the 10 nation disarmament committee which broke down in June, 1960. A few weeks later Canada and the United States took steps to bring about a meeting of the disarmament commission of the United Nations. That was held, I think, on August 18, 1960, and after some trials and tribulations, a unanimous resolution was put through calling for an immediate resumption of disarmament negotiations.
As we all know, nothing happened, and at the meeting of the general assembly of that fall and at every opportunity at the United Nations since that time Canada has been, I think I can fairly say, taking the lead in demanding that disarmament negotiations be resumed; also that there be added to any disarmament committee representatives of the unaligned nations, and that any such committee should be more closely under the United Nations.
The conference now taking place at Geneva meets all these conditions and for that reason, if for no other-and of course the main reason for our interest is the vital importance of the question of disarmament and of putting an end to the nuclear weapons race-Canada is very pleased that the disarmament conference has been set up in the way in which it has been and with the way the conference is now taking place in Geneva.
One of the main features, of course, is that we now have the two great nuclear powers,

Geneva Disarmament Conference the United States and the Soviet union, negotiating. They are right there, talking to each other, and in addition they are the joint co-chairmen of this conference. That has never been the case before. In the conference on Laos, where the British and Russians were joint co-chairmen, we thought the results of that particular set-up were excellent, and we pressed before the disarmament conference commenced for a similar arrangement at this conference under which the United States and the Soviet union would accept the joint co-chairmanship; because if they do not reach agreement then there is not going to be any agreement reached that is of any value. I think there is great merit in placing the responsibility right on the shoulders of the representatives of these two great nations.
This was agreed to by the other members of the western five. We also placed the suggestion before the Soviet union and the eight non-aligned countries which are participating, and eventually when the conference met agreement was reached that the United States and the Soviet union would accept this responsibility. So there they are, their representatives talking together every day and many times a day; they have to come to terms on procedure and the subjects to be discussed, and I think this is a very sensible arrangement and one which could make all the difference between the success or failure of the conference.
As we all know, there are eight non-aligned countries participating; India and Burma from Asia; Sweden from Europe; the United Arab Republic, Nigeria and Ethiopia from Africa, and Mexico and Brazil from Latin America. These are all countries which have been very much interested in the question of disarmament. Canada's relations with each and every one of them are excellent, and the foreign ministers or heads of delegations of those countries were in Geneva determined to try to bridge the gap between the so-called western and communist nations.
In my judgment these men and women are doing an excellent job. The head of the Swedish delegation now is a woman, Mrs. Myrdal, who is a member of the Swedish senate, and I am awfully glad she is there. I hope she will tell the men to stop arguing and fighting whenever the need for such advice arises. She will be listened to far more than a Canadian man would be, for example, or a man from any other country. I believe these representatives are there in a spirit of dedication to the cause of world peace. The very fact that these eight non-aligned countries are represented is another very hopeful feature of the conference.
So far as the connection with the United Nations is concerned, the conference was set

up by a resolution of the United Nations. There is a representative of the secretary general there in addition to other officials, and the conference has to report to the United Nations disarmament commission by June 1. This is another extremely important factor, because in this situation time is of the essence. The conference could easily drag on and on, as earlier disarmament conferences tended to do, but it is faced with a deadline by which an interim report must be made to the United Nations disarmament commission. So in all these three respects the conference meets Canada's wishes.
Now the first stage is over. The conference has been organized in a reasonable way. The main objective, of course, is to work out an agreement on disarmament, a disarmament treaty. This is to be undertaken by the conference meeting in plenary session. It is regarded as the main job. Yesterday, for example, the conference met in plenary session and was working on a draft preamble to a treaty. I am hopeful that before too long it will be possible to reach agreement on a preamble. The Russians have submitted a draft treaty with a preamble and the United States has a draft disarmament program which also contains a preamble. Canada has some ideas about what should be in the preamble as well, and I hope that before too long it will be possible to get a small drafting group to sit down and actually write out the terms of a preamble for such a treaty. Then the aim is to go on section by section and, where a section is difficult and agreement cannot be reached, to set it aside for the time being and deal with other sections on which it is more likely there can be agreement. This was the method followed at the Laos conference with greatest success.
Then in addition-and I think Canada can take some credit for this-there has been set up a committee of the whole on initial or collateral measures. We very soon decided that there were some issues which, although not directly related to disarmament-they would not necessarily be in a disarmament treaty-were nevertheless capable of an agreed solution with the result that tension could be reduced. The viewpoint was generally held that it was worth while trying to reach agreement on some of these collateral measures, and this committee was designed for that purpose.
We were a little afraid there would be delay in actually getting that committee working, although it had been agreed that there would be such a committee. So on Monday there was a debate in plenary session council and we suggested that this committee should get to work. In order to give its members something to work on and also to start the

wheels turning we recommended that the committee should first consider the question of outer space. We submitted a draft declaration in the following terms:
The governments of Brazil, the People's Republic of Bulgaria, Burma, Canada, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, Ethiopia, India, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, the People's Republic of Poland, the People's Republic of Rumania, Sweden, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Arab Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, desiring to facilitate the achievement of an international agreement to ensure that outer space will be used for peaceful purposes only, solemnly declare that henceforth:
(a)	the orbiting or stationing in outer space of devices for delivering weapons of mass destruction shall be prohibited;
(b)	they will give advance notification of launchings of space vehicles and missiles to the secretary general of the United Nations, and, upon its establishment, to the international disarmament organization.
We believed and still believe that a declaration of that kind would be of great value, and we see no reason why agreement should not be reached on it. I point out that neither side now has weapons of mass destruction in orbit so that a declaration of this type, if adopted, would be before the event. I suggest it is much easier and wiser to have questions of this kind agreed to before there are weapons of mass destruction out in orbit than it would be after such weapons are in orbit. Once they were in outer space it would be a much more difficult task to reach agreement of this kind.
As I have pointed out, we asked that there be a meeting of the committee of the whole on initial collateral measures and that was agreed to. The committee met on Wednesday. Several other countries had suggestions to offer. The communist countries wanted to consider the question of atom free zones, and there were various other suggestions; for example, the question of surprise attack, and preventing wider dissemination of nuclear weapons. Several other points were also raised. In the final analysis it was left to the two co-chairmen to decide what subject would be dealt with first.
The communists took exception to our proposal on outer space being considered first. They said that it should be considered in the main debate on a disarmament treaty and they raised some other technical objections. Our proposal received excellent support from Great Britain, Italy, Mexico, Sweden and India, and I think all the eight non-aligned countries and the United States would like to have this subject discussed; the question remains whether we can succeed in having it discussed first in this special committee. It will be discussed at some time, but I am not sure at what stage that will be.
26207-1-149
Geneva Disarmament Conference
Another feature of the organization is this. There is a subcommittee on a nuclear test ban set up by the conference comprising the three nuclear powers, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet union. They have been meeting but as yet have reached no agreement. The big obstacle is the question of verification. They are still meeting and may be reporting to the plenary today. We suggested that some of the non-aligned countries be added to the subcommittee of three. That suggestion has not yet been taken up and indeed it may not be, but in any event the non-aligned countries will be drawn into the picture in one way or another.
Arrangements have also been made for informal meetings of the conference, and we have had several already. No record is kept, and there are only three present from each country. You can ask questions, talk across the table and let your hair down to a degree that you cannot in a plenary meeting. This, I believe, is an entirely new feature in disarmament negotiations, and I think a very helpful one.
The atmosphere of the conference to date has been one of moderation. No delegates have made nasty speeches, though some have leaned a bit that way. Generally speaking, however, the statements have been constructive, and I think this is probably one of the outstanding features of the whole conference.
In the early days of the conference general statements were made by representatives of each of the 17 nations. Unfortunately France is not represented, although there is a chair there for her. I believe that the opening statement made by Canada has either been tabled or printed in Hansard so I will not go over it today, but our main purpose was to pinpoint subjects on which there was near agreement between the United States and the Soviet union. There are quite a few of these subjects where it would not take a great deal for the two sides to get together. We believe it is of great importance to stress these first, and this is what we will be doing as the conference proceeds.
In addition, of course, there have been many private talks between the different delegations. Mr. Rusk, Mr. Gromyko and Lord Home have had many such talks. Canada has also had many. We discussed the situation with the representatives of each of the other countries attending the conference, and I think these talks are very useful. They afford a foreign minister an opportunity as well to discuss any subject in which another country represented at the conference is involved. Mind you, I think all the foreign ministers have left now, or they will all be gone by tomorrow. They are like a lot of seagulls;

Geneva Disarmament Conference when one goes all the rest go, and you are considered a bit of a scab if you stay around after the rest have gone. I found it safer to go home at that particular stage. However, the Canadian delegation is in exceedingly good hands under Lieutenant General E. L. M. Burns, who in my opinion is the outstanding expert on disarmament in the world today and who certainly has the respect of the members of all the other delegations.
For a couple of days before the conference met and while it was meeting there were discussions on the question of Berlin among the Americans, the Russians and the British. No one could be expected to solve the Berlin question in a matter of two or three days, but because it was not solved in these talks there has been quite a lot of pessimistic reporting, particularly in United States newspapers. They got the talks on Berlin all mixed up with the disarmament conference, and some of them reported right from the start that the disarmament conference was doomed, that it had been a failure before it began and all that sort of nonsense. That was not a very helpful attitude for those who were trying to get some results in the disarmament conference. Before Mr. Rusk left last Tuesday he and Mr. Gromyko issued a joint statement concerning Berlin, in these words:
In connection with their presence in Geneva to attend the opening sessions of the 18 nation committee on disarmament, the foreign ministers of the U.S.S.R. and the United States have had a series of meetings devoted to a discussion of the German problem and related questions. Their conversations have been both useful and frank, and some progress has been made in clarifying points of agreement and points of difference. They have agreed to resume contact in an appropriate way after reporting to their respective governments and after consultation with their allies.
It is of great significance that these two men, who today carry tremendous loads in world affairs, had the opportunity for over two weeks to meet and consider these issues and discuss them thoroughly. That, I think, has been of great importance. Mr. Rusk said goodbye to Mr. Gromyko at a luncheon I gave, and they parted on the understanding that they would keep in touch with each other.
I become annoyed with this attitude of hopelessness, that nothing can be done, that the world is going to the dogs, that we are all going to be blown up and we might just as well do nothing and get blown up. That does not make much sense to me and I do not think it does to a lot of other people because, for one thing, we do not want to be blown up. I think the leaders of the world today have a responsibility to see that this great tragedy, this tragedy to end all tragedies, does not occur. I cannot promise anything, but I am hopeful and there is no


reason why agreement should not be reached fairly quickly on some of the points.
I am prepared to go back to Geneva at any time provided some of the other foreign ministers return, and if progress is made I think there is a possibility that the heads of state will meet. They could then give the conference further impetus and probably reach agreement on subjects on which the foreign ministers and the other delegates have not been able to agree. The conference has begun very well. Canada will be doing her part to see that its deliberations are successful. The cause is a great one, and we are in a good position in the conference. We are on good terms with everybody, and I know I have the support of the house when I say that Canada at least will do her full part to restore sanity in this fear riddled world.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, on the eve of his departure for Geneva I had the pleasure of extending to the hon. gentleman the good wishes of the house. As the first spokesman today for the opposition, I have the pleasure of welcoming him back to the house. The minister seems to have performed a useful service in outlining to his colleagues at the conference of 17 powers the desirability of noting areas of agreement, particularly among the Soviet union, the United States and the United Kingdom. The minister said that one notable achievement seemed to be the possibility of agreement between the Soviet union and other interested powers on a preamble which would be annexed of course, to an agreement on disarmament.


Howard Charles Green: That would be the first step.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As a first step. The minister did not say if such an agreement would be less than what was agreed on by the United States and the Soviet union on September 20 last at the United Nations in the document known as "Agreed Principles". It is significant that if this is the measure of achievement, then we have an indication of the very great difficulty of arriving, in the foreseeable future, at a comprehensive agreement on disarmament.
The minister indicated that Canada had placed great stress on a declaration or prohibition against stationing nuclear weapon carriers in space. He did not say, but it has been reported, that such a ban would require an exchange of information on launchings. There would be no inspection services required in the sense in which that term has been used in other contexts in disarmament discussions. This would be by way of a declaration, and this is different, apparently, from what the United States wants, namely

that such a declaration should be transferred into an agreement in the form of a convention or treaty. It has been reported that while the eight unaligned states did support this Canadian position, the United States and the Soviet union did not seem to pay much attention to the suggestion and did not give it anything like the same kind of support.


Howard Charles Green: That is not an accurate report.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says that is not an accurate report. It may be that when we discuss his estimates, further details can be given, which are not available under the procedure presently open to us.
The minister also mentioned that there was some hope for a meeting of the heads of states or heads of governments. This was referred to by the Prime Minister some weeks ago when he indicated, as we all understood he would, his desire to go to such a meeting of the heads of state and government of the 18 powers. The minister did not say, however, if such a meeting does eventuate before the conclusion of the present discussions in Geneva, that it would be confined to the three great powers and possibly France, and would not necessarily extend to the heads of government of the remaining countries attending the conference.


Howard Charles Green: I think it would include them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Secretary of State for External Affairs intervenes to say it would include them all.


Howard Charles Green: I said I think it would include them all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says he thinks it would include them all, but that is not what has been reported. Of course the minister is in a better position to say. This would mean, if there was a meeting of the heads of government, that instead of there being 17 foreign ministers in the guise of seagulls there would also be at least a similar number of prime ministers likewise in the the guise of seagulls, who would be flying from their countries some perhaps during a period of great intensification of activity.
The minister did not say anything about the cessation of tests, a problem which we know engages his interest and attention. The minister said nothing about the determination of the United States, as related yesterday by the President, to resume testing unless an agreement is forthcoming with the Soviet union in Geneva during the next few weeks. The minister is reported, however, as having said outside the conference that Canada's position with regard to tests was unchanged and, of course, that puts Canada in opposition to the position taken by the United States.
26207-1-149J
Geneva Disarmament Conference However, as the minister said in a reported statement this morning, it is up to each country to determine the position which it feels it should take.
We hope to have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, when the minister's estimates are before us to go into these matters in further detail. I may say to the minister that all members of the house share the view that any effort toward disarmament is one to which we must studiously direct our fullest attention. We are all agreed that we can remove one of the possible sources of war by miscalculation through an agreement on disarmament, in a manner which does not prejudice the security position of this or any other country concerned.
To the extent that my hon. friend, as spokesman for Canada, was able to make a contribution toward this objective, which in the light of existing difficulties seems to be a long way off, he may be assured that the house is with him as are indeed the people of the country, who want to see the elimination of these dangerous and mischievous instruments of war under circumstances that will not prejudice our security.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we will have an opportunity to discuss external affairs in a few minutes, my comments will be quite brief. However, I must express on behalf of this group a most sincere and warm welcome to the minister on his return. We have followed the course of the conference at Geneva with close interest almost daily, and particularly the minister's efforts at that conference on behalf of peace. We admire his stubborn determination, regardless of the criticism that comes from some quarters, to be undismayed by temporary set-backs. The minister will not mind a sort of personal reference, I am sure, when I say that in the opinion of this group his self effacing, mule-like qualities are of value to Canada at this time and particularly to his office under these trying circumstances.
I was very interested in the minister's report. I have no hesitation in saying it was one of the best, most heartening reports in relation to world conditions we have heard a secretary of state for external affairs give in this house. We were most interested to hear about the arrangements for the appointment of co-chairmen. This is evidently a very worth-while step. I am one of those, and I think the minister would agree with me, who believe it is not always the legalistic approach that gains the objectives; it is getting human beings together across a table. I think the minister has had a good influence in that direction. We were interested also in hearing of the growing influence of the unaligned

Final Wheat Payment
countries. I think that is a helpful development and, from our point of view, Canada has taken a very worth-while stand in promoting that development.
I conclude my very brief remarks at this stage, Mr. Speaker, on the work of the conference and the efforts of the minister at the conference, and I have no hesitation in saying that his efforts have been of value in working step by step toward what we all hope for, world peace. His efforts will raise respect for Canada to the highest level all across the world.


[Stage Direction]
on 1960-61 pool
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: I have great pleasure in announcing the final payment on wheat for the 1960-61 pool. This final payment is the largest of its kind in the history of the operation of the Canadian wheat board. It would not have been possible without accelerated sales to traditional markets, without sales guaranteed by government credit terms, and without the effect of the recent devaluation of the Canadian dollar.
As the Prime Minister reported on February 2 last, the pool account was closed on February 28, 1962. The final accounting has now been completed. Producers delivered 392.8 million bushels to the 1960-61 pool. The 1960-61 pool closed with a surplus of $165,500,284, including the interim payment of $39,282,601 paid to the producers during November last. The final distribution to producers will therefore amount to $125,088,385, after allowing for the Prairie Farm Assistance Act levy, the cost of issuing final payment cheques and after crediting the account with estimated additional interest earnings.
On producers' deliveries of 392,826,011 bushels, the average final payment is 31.843 cents per bushel. This compares with an average final payment on the 1959-60 pool account of 12.001 cents per bushel. Final payments for the principal grades of wheat delivered to the 1960-61 pool are as follows:
Final Payment (cents per bushel)
Red spring wheat grades:
No. 1 Manitoba northern	 29.130
No. 2 Manitoba northern	 29.924
No. 3 Manitoba northern	 32.292
No. 4 Manitoba northern	 34.174
No. 5 wheat	 44.347
No. 6 wheat	 49.450
Feed wheat	 53.069
Amber Durum grades:
No. 1 C.W. amber Durum	 41.155
No. 2 C.W. amber Durum	 41.966
No. 3 C.W. amber Durum	 44.165
Extra No. 4 C.W. amber Durum	47.135
No. 4 C.W. amber Durum	 46.465
No. 5 C W. amber Durum	 44.347
No. 6 C.W. amber Durum	 49.450

The Canadian wheat board will commence to issue the final payment cheques early in April. I might repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this final payment is the largest of its kind in the history of the operation of the Canadian wheat board. It comes at a time when, due to poor crops in 1961, prairie farm income would ordinarily have been at a very low level. Coupled with the adjustment payment on the 1961-62 pool that will follow in May, it is hoped that the main shock of last year's poor crop may have been met.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: This important announcement by the Minister of Agriculture is another demonstration of the very efficient operation of the Canadian wheat board. Even though hon. members opposite may laugh at this remark-


Mr. Jones:: You surely are not laughing.


Hazen Robert Argue: -it is nevertheless correct that the payments announced by the Minister of Agriculture are made possible due to the good work of-


An hon. Member:: This government.


Hazen Robert Argue: -the Canadian wheat board, which has been doing this work for so many years. The minister has announced what he described as the largest final payment ever made. However, I wish to point out that there was only one previous interim payment. This is the final payment, but this "largest final payment" is merely bringing the final price, the total price of wheat received by Canadian producers, back to a position comparable to but somewhat below the price received by the producers for wheat during the years following the second world war and, in context with the very severe increases in costs of production since 1945, the farmer still has a long way to go to the price-cost position at that time.
The total payments announced at this time do not mean that the Canadian wheat producer is receiving anything like special treatment. He is getting the world commercial price for wheat, without subsidy by the government, and with the Australian wheat producer he is still receiving the lowest price for wheat in the world. That is one factor that also must be considered.
The final payments on Durum were about what one might have expected, although I thought they might have been a few cents higher-just a few cents higher. As the price of Durum is very high today, I believe that the final price for Durum wheat sold during the present crop year will undoubtedly be considerably more than the total final payment for Durum which the minister has just announced.

The minister's statement once again demonstrates the wisdom of western grain producers in supporting the Canadian wheat board's system of orderly marketing.


Mr. Churchill:: Has the hon. member for Essex East been demoted?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was an excellent statement.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: On
behalf of this party I wish to welcome the statement made by the minister, but I just wonder why there is this difference; that when something satisfactory is being done the government takes credit, but when difficulties arise the wheat board takes the blame.
I believe the wheat board is to be congratulated. The farmers in western Canada have now received their final payments, and we shall study the matter with a view to seeing whether the government has done an efficient job in the trading arrangements it has made. However, we would like to express our appreciation of the fact that Canada has been able to raise its grades of wheat this year. The standards have been increased over those of recent crop production years despite bad weather conditions and poor farming conditions generally.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) moved:
That the select committee on procedure, appointed on March 26, 1962, be composed of Miss Aitken and Messrs. Balcer, Chown, Churchill, Crestohl, Fulton, Howard, Martineau, McCleave, McGee, Mcllraith, Meunier, Pallett, Pickersgill and Ricard.
Motion agreed to.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the first reading of Bill No. S-19 (from the Senate), to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry National Defence. Has the minister any comment to make on a statement made yesterday by two United States congressmen that the Bomarc cannot provide adequate defence against massive enemy attack?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question has been asked many times before on orders of the day. Whether or not it has again become urgent because two congressmen have made a statement, I leave to the minister; but in my opinion, on its face the question is one which has been dealt with a number of times, and unless the minister or the hon. member feel that there is something new in the question I suggest that there is nothing much to be added by asking it on the orders of the day.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully suggest to you that it has become urgent because of evidence that was given yesterday before the United States house appropriations committee, part of which evidence was given by the United States defence secretary, Mr. McNamara. These statements by the two congressmen arise out of a discussion that took place at that meeting, and it seemed to me that the matter was of some urgency, having regard to the fact that the Bomarc system is one that has been agreed upon between the two countries. I think the minister should at least comment on it.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree that it is a matter of importance, but my problem as your chairman is to decide whether every time there is external comment on a matter of Canadian public policy that has been discussed frequently, this gives it an additional standing and makes it urgent to the point that it should be raised here. I can see that if all these questions were allowed, this period of questioning might be very substantially extended. However, I leave it to the minister to indicate whether he considers that there is something new involved in the question.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of my commenting on statements made by two congressmen of the United States would be the same as Mr. McNamara in the United States commenting on some of the ill-conceived statements made by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) and the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) in regard to matters in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question arising out of what the minister has stated, having regard to the fact that the defence secretary is reported to have made the statement before the house appropriations committee that one of the weaknesses of the

Inquiries of the Ministry Bomarc system is its dependency on an electronic communications system which, because of the fact that it is above ground, is vulnerable to air attack. It seems to me that is a statement upon which the minister should comment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as I am aware no statement of that kind is reported as having been made except by these two congressmen. All I can say is that the ability of the Bomarc B missile to do its job of intercepting aircraft has been demonstrated in a number of tests which have been highly successful. I think it is a proved weapon, and that is accepted by everybody who is an expert in connection with the matter.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In view of the opinion of a United States air force officer that the Bomarc might be 50 to 75 per cent effective, depending on the weight and action of its nuclear warhead, would the minister give the house his opinion of its effectiveness without any warhead?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Surely we should get some indication from the minister. This squadron is the bulk of the Canadian arsenal in defence, and we have a right to have some opinion from the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member bases a question upon an assertion in a statement made somewhere else. It is open to the same objection as the original question.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about warheads being effective. He has not any head at all.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. My question is based on an article in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that a drug called thalidomide contributed to the birth to a Winnipeg woman of a malformed child. The article also states that on March 21 this drug was withdrawn from the Canadian market. My question is, inasmuch as the article indicates that there is still some quantity of the drug in existence, could the

minister indicate what steps are being taken, if any, to ensure that no further use is being made of this particular drug?


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this drug known as thalidomide or kevadon, the new drug submission was cleared on November 22, 1960 and the drug was added to schedule F of the Food and Drugs Act, which meant that it was for prescription sale only. On April 1, 1961 this drug was introduced to the Canadian market after all the usual forms of testing and records had been received and studied, and so on.
On December 1, 1961 the medical representatives of the two companies manufacturing this drug came to Canada to inform us of reports of congenital malformations in newborn infants which had been reported from Germany following the use of thalidomide in pregnant women. The information supplied was statistical in nature, in that the instances of certain malformations in the group of children born to mothers taking the drug were somewhat higher than in a group of children from mothers not taking the drug. A warning letter was sent out to physicians, informing them of this fact, by the two companies concerned on December 4 and 5, 1961.
On March 2, 1962 the department decided that there was now sufficient evidence to warrant a request to the manufacturers that the drug be withdrawn entirely and the manufacturers were so informed on the same day by telephone and letter. A letter was also sent to all physicians on March 5, 1962. Efforts are being made, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that any drug still on the market is picked up.



INQUIRY AS TO COMPLETION OF ACREAGE PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but before doing so would Your Honour permit me to extend to the minister on this special day, his birthday, many happy returns-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Reynold Rapp: -and my best wishes for good health, happiness and a prolonged stay in this house as Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Reynold Rapp: My question is this. Would the minister be in a position to give the house

information as to whether all the acreage payments have now been made, and the total amount of same?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very kind personal remarks. I would inform him that all the acreage payments have been made to those who have submitted permit books, but there are still about 500 permit books under review at the present time on which, if they are accepted, payment will have to be made. The total amount of money spent is something over $39 million; I have not the exact figure with me.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration might I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask the minister whether his parliamentary secretary brought to his attention the plight of certain people on the Prophet river Indian reserve in British Columbia, and whether the minister has any report to make to the house on this matter.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary secretary did bring this matter to my attention at the first opportunity. I understand that the Indian affairs superintendent of the Fort St. John agency visited the Indian band in question, I would say 10 days ago. At that time everything appeared normal. However, in view of the report in the press I have instructed my officials in British Columbia to make an immediate investigation and let me have a report so that the necessary steps may be taken to meet any emergency.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the minister a supplementary question. Has the minister seen the reports in the local press about this matter? If he has not I will be very glad to send him the paper.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I have not. I will
be very happy to see it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could add something to the information already given, as Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and confirm what has been said; that the Indian superintendent at Fort St. John was telephoned yesterday afternoon and he advised that he had visited this group of Indians last week and nobody lacked any food. I might also say
Inquiries of the Ministry that the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson) asked me about this matter this morning, and I obtained this information as a result of that request.
The Indian superintendent, however, was instructed to proceed immediately to Prophet river to see whether any special foods were necessary, and if so to have them supplied at once. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the charges Mr. Boys, the Indian commissioner in British Columbia, was instructed to proceed as soon as possible to this band of Indians, investigate the charges that had been made and report and take immediately, on the spot, any remedial action that was found to be necessary.
On the basis of the information so far received, it would seem that the charges of neglect which have been made are unfounded, in view of the fact that the Indian superintendent visited the reserve just a week ago and found there was no lack of food. We, of course, cannot control the outbreak of epidemics and this, I think, is the aspect which is being looked into now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the acting minister has been good enough to make a statement on this matter I should like to express my appreciation that the department should have acted so promptly, as I would have expected, in this case. I hope that in view of the feeling in the community, which apparently is widespread, there will be a thorough investigation.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: On Wednesday last the hon. member for Kootenay West inquired as to the efforts that are being made to counter oil pollution from ships in Canadian waters.
As I indicated to him, my department is making every effort to control pollution of waters, and in support of that statement I might point out that the masters of Canadian coastguard vessels are now designated as oil pollution prevention inspectors and may report infractions of the oil pollution prevention regulations and lay an information against any offender. Masters of Department of Fisheries vessels as well as fishery officers are also designated as inspectors.
Steamship inspectors of the Department of Transport are designated as oil pollution prevention officers on the east and west coasts, and on the great lakes and St. Lawrence. R.C.A.F. aircraft report oil slicks on the water, both on the east and west coasts, and also the identity of vessels in the vicinity. During
2340	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the coming navigation season on the St. Lawrence it is planned to use one of our helicopters for patrol purposes.
I might add that several successful prosecutions have been made against offenders during the last year.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lamblon West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. This matter also concerns the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As I have not given notice of this question, perhaps they would take this question as notice. Could the ministers bring the house up to date on what has been done in the past few months in co-operation with the United States federal government toward the elimination of oil pollution on the great lakes?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, surely that kind of question has no urgency within the meaning of the rules. The hon. member should put his question on the order paper, as Your Honour has so often directed hon. members on this side who attend the house more frequently.


Mr. Starr:: Liberal closure. Shades of 1956.


Joseph Warner Murphy: May I be permitted to make an observation, Mr. Speaker. May I point out to the hon. member who finds it difficult to contain himself, that the navigation season opens immediately and what the governments are endeavouring to do, I think, is to work jointly with the shipping companies to eliminate this evil.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, as far as my department is concerned, we are considering this matter very seriously. We consider it extremely urgent. I am pleased to take this question as notice, and I shall report back on Monday.
(Translation):



TEXTILES-ACCEPTANCE OF SHIPMENT REFUSED BY U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieite-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it true that Hong Kong representatives are to meet the minister shortly to ask that Canada accept a cargo of textile products which was refused by the United States?
(Text):


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: The short answer to that question is no; there has been no meeting 

with the minister, and certainly no discussion with respect to the admission of any particular shipload of textiles. I might say, however, that in the course of routine proceedings there was a meeting yesterday of officials of the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Finance, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of National Revenue with representatives from Hong Kong to discuss the operation of the quotas which are presently in existence.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Pit Lessard (St. Henry):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport a question. Could he tell the house whether the city of Montreal authorities have been invited to take part in the meeting to be held next Tuesday in Montreal to discuss the removal of tolls on the Jacques Cartier, Victoria and Champlain bridges?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wrote Mayor Drapeau inviting him to send a delegate to that meeting.
(Text):



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if progress is being made by his department in securing suitable armoury facilities in the city of Kitchener so that the present military quarters in the old post office building on King street can be removed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, progress has been made in that regard. The hon. member was helpful in drawing my attention to a number of properties which have been considered by the army, and we have one of those properties now under consideration which should provide suitable temporary accommodation for the militia units there until it is possible to have an armoury built.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A political reply.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES INQUIRY AS TO APPLICATION FOR FARE INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.

Can the minister tell the house whether the air transport board pursuant to its powers under the Aeronautics Act has yet made a determination of the application on behalf of Trans-Canada Air Lines for an increase in its rates which, I understand, is effective on April 1? The minister will remember that he seemed to think, first of all, that this matter was one for the determination of T.C.A., but on a later occasion he indicated that it was one for the air transport board, which is why I have put my question in this form.


Léon Balcer: The procedure followed in this case is along the lines I indicated earlier. Like any other carrier which intends to make any change in its rates, T.C.A. must file the new rates proposed with the air transport board. As the hon. gentleman knows, the board has the power to approve or reject those rates or to call an inquiry or public meeting if objections against the proposed rates have been registered.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, but my question was this. Having regard to the fact that these rates come into operation on April 1, has the board yet made a determination?


Léon Balcer: The rates have been filed and they are under study by the air transport board at the present time. No further announcement has been made by the board.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. and patient member for Halifax.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: For a
moment I was afraid I should have to grow taller so that I could catch Your Honour's eye.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister, and I have given him notice of my intention to ask it. It concerns the detention in East Berlin by the Vopos, the East Berlin police, of Mr. Eric R. Dennis of the London bureau of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, a former member of the parliamentary press gallery here. I would ask the right hon. gentleman if there is any official report on this incident.


John George Diefenbaker: The only information I have on the subject is that which has appeared in the press, a statement on the part of Mr. Dennis which revealed the rather excruciating experience he had of being detained for 26207-1-150
Inquiries of the Ministry some 40 minutes and searched, his alleged offence having arisen out of the fact that he was copying an anti-NATO sign on the border between East and West Berlin. I do not know of any complaint which Mr. Dennis made to the Canadian mission. His statement to the press was given from London. We have had no report from our mission in Berlin on the incident, but have communicated with our representative there to secure whatever information is available.
I point out that Mr. Dennis did say that although he was detained in a small area, some four feet square, or something of that kind, he was not submitted to any indignity other than that of being carefully searched from head to foot.


SUMMIT CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that there may be a summit conference before the end of April-


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, during the present disarmament discussions, and in view of the fact that this may include not only the heads of government of the three major powers but those of all the other powers attending the Geneva conference, may I ask the Prime Minister if that is something which would in any way interfere with plans he may have with regard to events in Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: In the same spirit may I say that for the past two years the hon. gentleman has been asking for an election.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: He is the only one who applauds. The reason, I suspect, is that he hopes he would become leader of the opposition sooner.
But his question is founded on a wrong premise. The Secretary of State for External Affairs did not mention the month of April, though April is a month which is of interest to all of us.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a question of privilege, I regret that the Prime Minister should have made the remark he did, but since he has made it let me tell him that his successor will be the present Leader of the Opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
2342	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Martel: How many flags?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid not. I recognize the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question I wish to put to the Prime Minister relates to the proceedings of this house, and if I cannot do it in any other way perhaps I could put it as a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question of his own it would be quite appropriate for him to ask it when he is recognized, but not as a supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Essex East.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question is this-


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: You are not
recognized. Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the Prime Minister given consideration to following the course which his predecessor followed in 1949 and frankly stating to parliament and the country what are the intentions of the government, in a statesmanlike way?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He would have to know what his intentions are first.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have been watching with some interest the degree to which the opposition have been filibustering.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: It just may be necessary to make a very early announcement that will satisfy the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us have the announcement right away.


Lionel Chevrier: Give us the date. Let us have it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for Laurier will not be here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why wait for spring? Do it now.


MANITOBA-REQUESTED GRANT FOR PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Inasmuch as the end of the 1961 fiscal year is fast approaching, could the minister advise whether any decision has been made on the request of the province 

of Manitoba for a grant of $200,000 under the physical fitness and amateur sport program?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I hope to make an announcement on this matter at the very first of next week.


OLYMPIC GAMES-INQUIRY AS TO GRANT TO CALGARY ASSOCIATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I apologize for not being able to give him notice. Is the minister yet in a position to announce that the federal government will give financial support as requested by the Calgary Olympic development association in their attempt to bring the 1968 winter Olympic games to Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is this an urgent question; 1968?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to announce that a contribution of $35,000 by way of a grant to the Calgary Olympic development association has been authorized.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Could the minister say whether his department is represented by an observer at the meetings in Toronto of the royal commission on organized crime?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the Department of Justice is not represented, how does the minister expect to benefit from the important evidence compiled thus far by this inquiry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may not be aware of it but the Minister of Justice can read, and will be able to study the evidence taken.


Hazen Robert Argue: Progress.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a debatable motion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am rather surprised that one coming from the province from which the

hon. member comes should suggest that we should show an anxiety to interfere in an inquiry which is entirely provincial.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I am much more surprised at the absence of a federal observer from your department.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister never seems to hesitate about interfering in provincial matters.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the allegation that the crime syndicates operate on an international as well as an interprovincial basis-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -and in view of the responsibility-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister raises a point of order. Perhaps the hon. member for Trinity will yield the floor.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I raise the point of order, Mr. Speaker, whether it is proper for hon. gentlemen opposite to be basing questions on the evidence given before a commission of inquiry which is presently under way and entirely provincial.


Lionel Chevrier: Why, then, did you answer the question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I answered a question only with regard to the absence of a federal observer at the inquiry, not with regard to any evidence given or anything taking place before the commission. I dealt only with the area of responsibility of my department. Again I may say this is an extraordinary question coming from an hon. gentleman from a province that has always taken the position that provincial affairs should not be interfered with.


Lionel Chevrier: You do not hesitate to interfere in other matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The fact that the inquiry is taking place would not appear to limit the right of hon. members to ask questions provided the questions relate to the administrative responsibility of the federal minister. I did not fully hear the question, but the hon. member seemed to be making an assertion rather than asking a question. Perhaps if he has a supplementary question he would ask it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister in saying what he has said concerning the provincial sphere is merely demonstrating his ignorance of the allegations.
26207-1-1504
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a supplementary question perhaps he would observe the rules by asking his question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the responsibility of this parliament under the constitution for the criminal law and for the procedures in respect of the criminal law, and in view of the allegations that these syndicates are operating on an international as well as interprovincial basis, does the minister not think he might benefit by having an observer sit in and obtain as much first hand knowledge as possible from the evidence being presented to this royal commission?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member cannot distinguish between an inquiry being conducted by a province and an inquiry being conducted by the federal government, I am unable to help him.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And if the minister cannot distinguish between provincial and federal responsibility he should not be holding his portfolio.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps my hon. friend will contain himself for a moment. The hon. member for Trinity asks questions about the effectiveness of certain missiles without warheads. I can only say my hon. friend thinks he is pretty effective, yet he does not appear to have anything in his head at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the minister's response was somewhat in the same category as part of the question, but I should remind him as I reminded the hon. member for Trinity that while the hon. member for Trinity is privileged only to ask a question, the minister is privileged only to answer it.


Hazen Robert Argue: More arrogance.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Coming from anyone other than the Minister of Justice, I would consider that statement an insult, but coming as it does from that hon. gentleman I feel I need not even request that he withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



THE ROYAL FAMILY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the house whether there have been any changes in the announced arrangements for the visit of the Queen Mother to Canada in June?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: I have no information on that subject, Mr. Speaker. Such plans are made long in advance. However, I know of no changes that have been made. I understand that the hon. member is most interested in that visit and I am sorry that the Queen Mother, according to present plans, is not visiting Niagara Falls. I think some arrangement might be made in that regard, and I would hope that the Queen Mother might decide to go there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now we know when the election will be.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Would he indicate to the house, either orally or by tabling the information, the agendas, if any, prepared for the forthcoming labour-management conferences which are being sponsored by his department?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure when the conference is to take place, but I suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Acting Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Nipissing asked a question about an article that appeared in the Financial Post of March 24. The question of the financing of existing houses under the terms of the National Housing Act has been before the house on a number of occasions. It is a matter for the government to consider and to which the government has given consideration, and when a new policy is determined in this respect it will, of course, be announced in the usual way.
In the article it is suggested by the Financial Post that the subject of the financing of existing houses is one that should be examined by the royal commission on banking and finance. That seemed to be the hon. member's point, and this seems to be an obvious thing to suggest.

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



DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
Administration of various acts and costs of special functions-
Royal Canadian Mint-
707. Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $42,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned last night we were on vote No. 692, and we have now gone beyond the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to item 707, Department of Finance, to which of course I have no objection. However, having regard to what happened last night I think in all fairness, as well as in justice to the request made by the hon. member for Essex East that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs be held up until such time as the minister was here to reply to our questions, I should point out that quite clearly we were entirely within our rights. Not only were we within our rights, but the point we took last night was well taken. I do not wish to get into an argument at this time, but with all respect to those who sit on the other side of the house I say that they should not have raised the objections they did during the whole of the two hours last night, and should not have taken the time and the attitude they took.
I repeat that we have no objection to the procedure suggested now, and having regard to the fact that we understand the minister will be here in due course to carry on the discussion of his estimates there is nothing but commendation on this side of the house in that respect. I understand quite well, too, why the minister cannot be here at this time. He has been on a plane for the last 12 or 15 hours and I am sure he wants to have some rest. We on this side would not want to deny him that privilege so that he can conduct the presentation of his estimates in a more refreshed spirit.
All I want to say is that the whole procedural wrangle which took two hours last night could so easily have been avoided by consenting to the request of the hon. member for Essex East then rather than this morning, and if that had been done last night we would probably be far beyond item 707 now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, just before we get into the meat of these estimates I wish to associate myself and the members of this party with the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier. It is quite obvious that since the parliamentary secretary has had a few hours of quiet meditation he has come to the conclusion that the opposition were correct last night in their representations with respect to the external affairs estimates. We are very pleased that the discussion of these estimates has been postponed. The minister will have

an opportunity to refresh himself after his long journey from Geneva, and will also have an opportunity to prepare a further report to the house and to prepare himself to answer the questions that the official opposition and the effective opposition are anxious to ask on these estimates. Not in many months has the correct approach of the opposition parties been so vindicated as in this instance to which we are now referring.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special payments to provinces-*
709.	Payments to the government of each province, in respect of income tax collected from corporations whose main business is the distribution to or generation for distribution to the public of electrical energy, gas or steam, of amounts computed in accordance with section 6 of The Tax Rental Agreements Act, 1952, as if the last two lines of subsection (1) of that section read as follows "... ending on the thirty first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and fifty nine"-further amount required, $396,559.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think we should have some explanation of this item. It is a substantial sum arising out of the tax rental agreements, and I wonder whether we should not get a detailed explanation.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: There has been a considerable increase in the income tax collected from the utility corporations mentioned in this item. The increase over the preceding year has been from $21 million to $27.5 million, and in order to pay to the provinces their 50 per cent share of the income tax collected from these corporations this additional vote of $396,559 is required.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the government given any consideration to putting these private utilities on the same basis as public utilities with regard to taxation, in view of the great professions of the hon. gentleman's leader that his government is devoted to private enterprise as opposed to socialism? As the hon. member knows, there is no tax on the Ontario hydro but any private company has to pay tax. I know I am asking about policy and I can guess what the parliamentary secretary will be obliged to say, but would he draw to the attention of his leader and his distinguished minister, who is not with us to give us indications about policy because of his attendance at the court of King Cecil the first-


Richard Albert Bell: We are starting out by getting along very well today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -that here is a chance for them to strike a real blow for private enterprise?
Supply-Finance


Richard Albert Bell: This is a matter, of course, which is under continuous consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contingencies and miscellaneous-
710.	To authorize the treasury board to delete from the accounts certain debts due, and claims by, Her Majesty, each of which is in excess of $1,000, amounting in the aggregate to $3,710,688, $1.
Lionel Chevrier: On this vote, which has to do with claims made on behalf of various departments as outlined in the details, I think the parliamentary secretary should give us some indication of how this list compares with those for the last several years. Are these claims mounting? I think the practice has been for the parliamentary secretary to give some of the larger claims so the committee would get an idea as to why they have been erased from the books of the various departments as not being collectable.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, the practice of the present Minister of Finance has been to lay on the table of the house a statement which gives a summary of the debts presented for deletion from the public accounts by departments. I assume I am not in a position to lay it on the table at the present time, but perhaps it might be indicated that when Mr. Speaker is in the chair this statement, which I have in my hand, will be laid on the table. I would be glad to send to my hon. friend opposite a copy of it now so that he may have the opportunity of examining it.
It is not customary, of course, to give the details of the individuals who are involved, although at any time I will be glad to shot" to the financial critic of the opposition any of the particular details. It will be observed that the largest item is that of the Department of National Revenue, taxation, where there is a deletion of 391 debts totalling $3,299,627. This amount represents unpaid taxes of defunct corporations without assets. As I glance down the list, it is evident that most of these debts are 10 or 12 years old and every effort has been made by the Department of National Revenue to collect. The corporations are simply out of business, and collection is impossible. I think there are four individual debts where the debtor died leaving no estate or is in poor health with no income other than the old age security pension. There are four individual debts and 387 debts of defunct corporations.


Lionel Chevrier: I asked the parliamentary secretary if he was able to give some further details as compared with previous years. I think it has been the custom in the past for the minister to compare the items that are

Supply-Finance
being erased or done away with now with previous years, say for a period of five years.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: I am sorry I omitted to mention that, Mr. Chairman. I regret that I do not have under my hand a comparative table for the period of time to which my hon. friend refers. I am advised that the amounts are normal, but I shall undertake to get a comparative table for the period of the last five years and send it to the hon. gentleman.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the parliamentary secretary. I have one further question in connection with the large amount of $3,299,000 related to national revenue. Is the parliamentary secretary able to say how this particular item compares with former years? It is true that he has said that on the whole the total amount is pretty much the same, but since this item stands out so clearly from the others I wonder whether there is some way of getting from the parliamentary secretary a comparison. Perhaps the official who is with him now could provide the information in respect of other years?


Richard Albert Bell: I am told that there is nothing extraordinary about this amount; that these debts of defunct corporations are under continuous review, and the write-off is approximately the same in each year. I do not have under my hand, nor so far as I know is it immediately available, information relating to the actual figures. I will get this for the hon. gentleman. If I can arrange for an official in the gallery to secure the figures by telephone I will do so while we are still on these estimates. Otherwise I will send them to the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is just one question that occurs to me. Perhaps I once knew the answer to the question, but if I did I have forgotten it. What is the reason for not making public the names of these defaulters? After all people who do not pay their debts to the crown are not likely to pay their debts to other people, so it does not seem to me there is any good reason, in the public interest, for being tender with these people.


Richard Albert Bell: I think perhaps it has been a matter of compassion in large measure. The committee, I understand, has never insisted upon it. I have no doubt that if the committee wished to have the information it would be subject to production. However, I should hope that it would not be. There are complex circumstances in respect of some of these cases. In so far as the information being shown to the financial critic of the opposition is concerned, I would be delighted to reveal full details about any particular instance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is just one point in connection with what the hon. gentleman says. As he knows, the details of the remuneration of civil servants are available to everybody who does business with them.


Thomas Miller Bell: Not now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, almost all of them are available. It does seem odd that someone who is presumably conferring a benefit upon the country for which he is getting remuneration should have his private affairs made public, while someone who is not paying his debt to the crown is protected. I do not insist upon disclosure. I was trying to find out whether there was any reason in the public interest, for this lack of disclosure, rather than this private reason of compassion which I can see would arise in some cases.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask one further question along the lines of the one asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, but having to do with the Department of Transport. I too probably should know the answer, but it has left my mind if I did know it. I refer to the $16,000 relating to the overpayment of allowances where services were performed for the Department of Transport. Without giving the names, of course, can the parliamentary secretary give some indication of how and under what circumstances the overpayment of allowances was made?


Richard Albert Bell: Yes. The debts that are involved here resulted from the overpayment of isolation allowances which the department had made to catering employees at Frobisher Bay from October, 1958 to August, 1960. The isolation posts regulations require that the prevailing rate isolation allowances be reduced by the amount that the rate of pay at the base exceeds the prevailing rate at the point of departure. The Department of Transport did not reduce the isolation allowances to the catering employees.
This situation arose due to a decision by a departmental official to offer employment on a prevailing rate basis to cooks on the understanding that after a reasonable period of probation the employees would be given contract employment with retroactive pay from the date they entered the service. Contract wage rates are higher than prevailing rates, and any overcompensation, therefore, could be recovered in the retroactive salary adjustment under the terms of the contract. The department decided to turn the operation of the mess hall over to an outside interest and the transfer of the prevailing rate cooks to a contract basis was postponed. The district personnel officer at Frobisher should then have recovered the overcompensation and

Supply-Finance
lowered the pay to the lesser rate, but did by the defunct corporations comes under not do so on the ground it would have caused corporation income tax, or is it due to their mass resignation.	not remitting the 11 per cent sales tax?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Too many cooks spoil the broth.


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes. Treasury board, while deprecating the action taken by the official, agreed that the likely cost of recovering the overpayment would be prohibitive, since each of the employees argued that he had agreed to work at a rate of pay offered by the department and since action taken by the personnel officer had resulted, in fact, in a saving of public money almost equal to the amount of overcompensation to the employees concerned, in transportation costs that would inevitably have been incurred had the employees resigned en masse. Therefore they recommended the suspension of the collection action.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A clear, brief and lucid comment.


Mr. Regier:: May I ask if the parliamentary secretary has a breakdown of the write-offs under the Department of National Revenue, where I notice there are 391 claims totalling $3,299,627. How many of these claims and in what amounts arose under the personal income tax laws, how many arose under corporation income tax laws, and how much has to be written off because of the sales tax?


Thomas Miller Bell: I indicated to the committee that there were four debts under the personal income tax act; there were three debtors who died leaving no estate whatsoever, and there was one which represented the unpaid tax of an individual in very poor health, with no assets whatsoever and no income except the old age security. The other 387 represent defunct corporations without assets and, as I indicated, they go back a good many years.
Every possible effort is made in the courts and otherwise to collect, but mostly these are situations where it has become quite evident that a corporation is defunct and has no assets, and it is just a useless bit of bookkeeping in carrying the debt forward on the books of the country.
My hon. friend from Laurier asked about the national revenue claims for the last four to five years. I have been unable to get the figures for the last five years, but I have the figures from last year's supplementary estimates. At that time there were 913 claims representing a total of $3,755,086.90. I shall get the figures for the other years for the hon. gentleman as soon as possible and send them to him.


Erhart Regier: Could the parliamentary secretary say whether the bulk of the debt owed


Thomas Miller Bell: My notes indicate that this is Department of National Revenue, taxation. As I believe this is correct, then of course it would apply to corporation tax and not to the sales tax which comes under the Department of National Revenue, customs and excise.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General items of payroll costs including superannuation payments-
711.	To supplement other votes, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for the payment of salaries, wages, and other pay list charges- further amount required, $2,500,000.
The Chairman:: Shall vote 711 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: This is to supplement other votes, etc. Would the parliamentary secretary give examples of how this $2.5 million is dispersed among the various departments?


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the hon. gentleman mind repeating his question? I went one step too far in my book.


Lionel Chevrier: I said this item was to supplement other votes, etc. Would the parliamentary assistant give the house some idea of how the $2.5 million is dispersed among the various departments?


Thomas Miller Bell: This is the general salary vote, as the hon. gentleman knows. In summary the requirements are: salary revisions which have already been announced, $1,227,925; other requirements of a normal character at this season of the year, $2,501,132; and a protection on possible other salary revisions of $750,000. That gives a total figure of $4,499,057. The balance available remaining in the general salaries vote was $1,958,000 and the additional cash requirement then was $2,520,997, which was rounded out to the figure shown in the estimate.


Lionel Chevrier: Is this one of the estimates which can be considered in the nature of urgent in so far as payment of salaries and wages is concerned?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, this is one of those.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the parlia- *
mentary secretary whether any delay in the i passage of this vote, say between now and \ Monday, is going to affect the actual pay of any person?


Thomas Miller Bell: I am glad to be able to say to the hon. gentleman that emergency arrangements have been made by way of

Supply-Finance
transfers so that all payroll cheques have been or are being issued yesterday and today to civil servants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was a story to that effect in the Ottawa Journal, and I am glad to have the parliamentary secretary confirm it. < I commend the treasury on this occasion for ; doing something which, to that extent, re-| moves from the committee a certain pressure 1 which it would have been very improper to ! impose on it.


Thomas Miller Bell: However, the hon. gentleman will realize it will involve delays in payment of some suppliers' bills, but so far as pay cheques are concerned they have all been issued.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The government knows it has a big enough majority that it can get the cheques ready so that all it has to do is post them when the estimates are passed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
712.	To authorize persons who become employed in the public service as a result of the transfer of administration of the Vancouver airport to the Department of Transport and who, immediately prior to such transfer, were employed by the city of Vancouver, to count as pensionable service under the Public Service Superannuation Act, notwithstanding anything contained therein, their service with the city of Vancouver on the basis that the amount required to be paid by them, in respect of such service, shall be determined, in accordance with regulations to be made by the treasury board, as if an agreement had been entered into with the city of Vancouver pursuant to section 28 of the Public Service Superannuation Act in terms similar to those contained in such agreements that have been entered into with other public service employers, $1.
Lionel Chevrier: I think "the parliamentary assistant should first tell us what were the terms under which the Vancouver airport was taken over by the Department of Transport, and also what is included; because I take it this arises out of the transfer. I do not want to read the explanation of the item. There is another question that comes to my mind, but I see it is one o'clock and perhaps we might leave the matter for the moment.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, when the committee adjourned for lunch I was asking some questions in connection with the transfer of the Vancouver airport to the Department of Transport. I will not repeat what I asked because I am sure the parliamentary

secretary is ready to give a reply. However, there are one or two other questions that arise out of this matter.
During the course of his reply I trust that the parliamentary secretary will be in a position to say whether this agreement has been finalized with the city of Vancouver. I understand that under the municipal bylaws or regulations of that city, any agreement made with a federal department has to be approved of by vote; whether it be in the form of a plebiscite or a vote at a municipal election, I do not recall at the moment.
I would like to know, (1) what is the price of the sale or the transfer; (2) whether it has been approved of by the ratepayers of the city of Vancouver, and (3) whether that agreement is now finalized; in other words, is there a signed agreement which is effective between the department and the city of Vancouver?
Following the answers to those three questions perhaps we can enter into a discussion of this item.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I had really intended to indicate the purpose of this item in the first instance, which is of course rather different than answering the questions which the hon. gentleman has asked. However, perhaps I might deal directly with the questions he has asked, which really apply to a transport item but I will be very glad to deal with them now.
First as to the price. The price which was agreed upon and appraised was $2,750,000, which was subject to a number of deductions for previous federal grants totalling $216,250, so the net price payable is $2,533,750.
The hon. gentleman is quite right in believing that it is required that there be the approval of the ratepayers of Vancouver, and I am told that this approval has now been given and the takeover date, which has been agreed upon, is the first day of June next. I assume that this is a bylaw approval in the usual way. My hon. friend and I are members of the Ontario bar, and I assume it is an approval of a bylaw in the same way that we would understand. As I say, agreement has been reached for a takeover date of June 1 and I am assured that all preparations to that effect are in progress.


Lionel Chevrier: Has the agreement been signed?


Richard Albert Bell: I am told that it has. I think the hon. gentleman would perhaps like to know what we are endeavouring to do by this item; that is, we are trying to bring the employees of the Vancouver airport into a position equivalent to that of a civil servant. There is no reciprocal agreement in respect of superannuation between the federal

government and the municipality of Vancouver. There are perhaps fewer reciprocal agreements in respect of superannuation matters than there ought to be generally across the country. Personally I would hope that reciprocal agreements might increase in number and give a greater fluidity of movement of public servants as among municipal, provincial and federal authorities.
The vote in this particular is similar to a vote which was adopted in respect of Quebec fishery inspectors when they were transferred,
I think in the year 1959. The vote will permit the recognition of the pensionable service of each employee on the same basis and to the same extent as if a reciprocal agreement had been included. Consequently, if the amount transferred in respect of a particular employee is insufficient to purchase the full past service credit, the employee will be permitted to contribute the balance of it and in the net result he will be put in the same position as if he had been a civil servant.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just follow that up. There are two points which come to my mind. The first is this. My hon. friend said that the agreement had been signed between the Department of Transport and the city of Vancouver. Does the agreement cover the persons referred to under item 712 which we are now discussing; in other words, was a provision made in the agreement for taking over these employees as employees of the Department of Transport? Second, was a committee established to determine what benefits would flow to these employees of the municipality of Vancouver by becoming employees of the Department of Transport? I presume that these employees will now be in the same category as, for instance, employees at Dorval airport in Montreal or Malton airport in Toronto of the Department of Transport. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would answer those questions.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, to the second question of the hon. gentleman the answer is a simple yes. With regard to the first question, I do not have the agreement in front of me but I am assured that no loss of employment will be involved for any of the existing employees.


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to the second question is yes; that means that a committee was established. That was my second question.


Richard Albert Bell: My understanding of the hon. gentleman's second question was whether they would be put in the same status as public servants elsewhere where the government of Canada had been the owner of the airport for a number of years.
Supply-Finance


Lionel Chevrier: That answers my third question. The second one was whether a committee of government officials had been established to determine the status and the benefits that these people would receive. Then I ask whether all the employees, prevailing rate employees as well as permanent employees, are covered by this vote.


Richard Albert Bell: My information is that all these persons employed by the government of Canada will be assured of employment at the date of takeover, should they so desire. The question of benefits is not one which can be determined by a committee. They are determined by statutes which have been passed by this parliament-the Civil Service Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act, which we are seeking to apply to these individuals through this vote.
I do not wish to become too particular. The hon. member may perhaps have something specific in mind and he may be asking me to make a public pronouncement on the basis of a somewhat limited knowledge. But, certainly, the intention is to take care of each of these employees exactly as if he or she had been employed at one of the airports which have been under the Department of Transport for a number of years.


Lionel Chevrier: I can assure the hon. gentleman that I had nothing in mind when I raised the question, other than this-and now I have to draw on my memory-that when the Department of Transport telephone and telegraph services in British Columbia were purchased by private enterprise, a committee was established to make sure nobody would be unfairly affected by the transfer from one post to another. That is why I wondered whether a similar committee had been established in this case.
I intended to follow that up by asking two questions, first, how many employees are affected by this transfer, and next, how many chose not to become employees of the Department of Transport, to use the parliamentary secretary's own words, and therefore did not seek to take advantage of this agreement.


Richard Albert Bell: I think the hon. gentleman has asked three questions. First, I believe the position of each of these employees will, in fact, be enhanced rather than otherwise as the result of the provision which parliament is being asked to make here. As to the second question, I am sorry but I do not have before me information as to the actual number of employees, neither do I have information as to the number who may choose to enter the federal service on the date of

Supply-Fisheries
takeover. However, I will get that information for the hon. gentleman and try to let him have it before we reach a Department of Transport item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
713.	Estimated amount required to recoup the lobster trap indemnity account established under vote 540 of the Appropriation Act, No. 5, 1955, to cover the net operating loss in the account as at March 31, 1962, $99,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could tell us how this amount compares with the amount required under this vote last year and, if he has the information, what proportion of the lobster fishermen are covered.


Richard Albert Bell: I can give the hon. gentleman the number of vessels covered but I do not know whether I can give him the proportion covered, by which I assume he means the percentage. I might inform the committee for the benefit of some hon. members who may not be as well informed as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate and I on this subject of lobster trap indemnities that at January 31, 1962, about eight and a half years after the inception of the fishermen's indemnity plan, the excess of cumulative indemnities over premiums in the vessel account stood at $7,875.58. This figure is the result of a cumulative deficit of $17,271.25 as at January 31, 1961, plus an operating surplus of $9,395.67 for the 12 months ended January 31, 1962. An earlier deficit of $30,159 in this account had been recouped through estimates.
In the lobster trap account at January 31, 1962, the excess of indemnities over premiums stood at $79,907.92. Earlier deficits of $378,115.84 in this account had been recouped through estimates, $114,480 of it as recently as in further supplementary estimates (5), 1960-61.
The over-all fund covering both vessel and trap operations has a ceiling of $150,000, and the cumulative deficits of $7,875.58 in vessels and $79,907.92 in traps totalling $87,783.50 leave therefore only $62,216.50 at January 31, 1962 as a working margin against further abnormal losses.
At the end of January 1962 there were 6,010 vessels covered by the plan valued at $19,788,000, an increase of 377 vessels and $2,074,000 during the previous 12 months. The present maximum contingent liability is $13,240,000, an increase of $1,383,000 over the figure of one year ago.
I think that information will, perhaps, give in sufficient detail an answer to what the hon. gentleman has in mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does not really answer my question, very interesting though the information is. All I wanted to find out was what proportion of the total number of lobster fishermen is actually covered. The minister may not have that figure. If the committee might also have the figures broken down as between the provinces, that would be interesting, too. I take it that this figure of $99,000-


Richard Albert Bell: Is the net deficit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is to meet a deficit but it is money in the bank, so to speak. It is paid out in this fiscal year but it is to meet losses in subsequent years.


Richard Albert Bell: It recoups the fund.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was my understanding. But if the hon. gentleman can tell us what proportion of the total number of lobster fishermen is covered by the fund and how it is distributed between the provinces, I should be grateful.


Richard Albert Bell: I am sorry I do not have those figures in the notes which have been prepared for me in relation to this item, but I shall get the information for the hon. member and give to him at the earliest possible opportunity.


Frank Howard: I may wish to go further into this question on the lines indicated by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate once the information is available. I am sure it will be readily understandable that there is some concern-a concern which, I gather, has not been communicated to many people in the department-about the position of crab fishermen with regard to this provision for indemnity. The crab fishermen do not fall within the same coverage structure as do lobster fishermen and I gather, from reading Hansard, that when the administration of the fisheries indemnity plan was dealt with in 1935 the then minister of fisheries, Mr. Sinclair, said no one on the west coast appeared too concerned about crab trap coverage under the plan. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could obtain any information as to the position of crab fishermen with regard to this plan.
My second point is this. I believe it is an awkward way to proceed, by way of a vote of parliament and subsequent statutory coverage, compared with the system of setting up a fund through a separate act.
The Prime Minister was concerned about the former system of appointing parliamentary secretaries and subsequently introduced a system under which parliamentary secretaries are appointed by authority of an act of parliament. In my opinion it would be better to deal with these matters by means of a statute

rather than by means of an estimate with subsequent action by the governor in council to establish regulations.
The system that has been in existence for many years amounts to giving the cabinet a blank cheque to proceed on whatever basis it likes and set up whatever funds it likes under the fisheries indemnities plan. I pass this thought on to the parliamentary secretary to be communicated to the cabinet for consideration.


Richard Albert Bell: I assure the hon. gentleman that note will be taken of his comments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
714.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $75,500.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring to the attention of the committee under this item a matter of serious concern to my constituents. I have been asked to raise it by numerous organizations including chambers of commerce, labour, industry, farm institutes, women's institutes and one Anglican bishop in my constituency who has a great sense of social responsibility. I refer to the recent bombings and burnings that have occurred in the district I have the honour to represent. This is a serious problem. These incidents have occurred since 1923 and according to a qualified official of Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company who has kept a record, the loss to date totals more than $17 million as a result of bombings and burnings, the blowing up of railroads and bridges, the destruction of community halls and houses, and so on. That means that to date the loss averages $1,200 a day. In addition there is an average annual expenditure by the provincial government of over $300,000.
In fairness to the greater body of Doukho-bors I should explain to the committee the distinction between the main body, the Sons of Freedom and the fanatical sect of the Sons of Freedom. I do this also for the members of the fourth estate, who are gentlemen, and others connected with that vocation. The Doukhobors in the interior of British Columbia number somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 and are a hard working, law abiding group of citizens. Then we have the Sons of Freedom group which numbers between 2,000 and 2,500. These on the whole are also law abiding but in that group there is an unrepentant fanatical minority. It is difficult to estimate the number in this group but it is possibly somewhere between 200 and 300. It is the fanatical minority that has caused trouble throughout the years. I hope that hon. members of the committee and the
Supply-Justice
gentlemen of the fourth estate in future will not report these incidents as having been caused by the Doukhobors but will refer to them as the fanatical sect of the Sons of Freedom section.
The latest outrage that has caused considerable uproar in my constituency is the bombing of the power pylon-the largest over-water power line in the west-on the west shore of Kootenay lake causing damage estimated at $1 million which resulted in throwing out of employment approximately 1,000 miners and smelter workers and others associated with the mining and lumbering industries. Some may be out of work for several months, but it is hoped that the majority may be given employment as the weeks go by so the loss in terms of wages will be mitigated to some extent. This has caused strong feelings in the district I have the honour to represent together with the hon. member for Kootenay East who, I am certain, is burning to follow me in this debate because we co-operate in doing what we can in these situations.
Before proceeding I wish to compliment the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers and other unions in the district who have met with the employer, Consolidated Mining and various employers in the forest and other industries affected and have done their best to work out staggered hours of employment and rearrangement of activities so the loss will be lessened as far as planning to that extent can lessen it.
I have received wires, letters and resolutions from the Kootenay and boundary citizens committee on Canadian and Doukhobor affairs, from the mayors of municipalities, labour organizations, chambers of commerce, other groups and numerous individuals expressing their concern about this continuing situation and urging that certain steps be taken to remedy it.
First of all they have asked for the maintenance of law and order and requested that more members of the R.C.M.P. be made available in the district. I understand the minister made available additional members of the force from Alberta and to that extent the situation has been remedied. Naturally, those who are proved guilty must be punished and law and order must be maintained.
Second, various mayors and municipalities and other organizations have urged the sending of troops into the district by the Department of National Defence, not to be used against the unfortunate people who are being misled by certain leaders who in the past duped them out of large sums of money, but as a protection to all citizens including members of the Sons of Freedom group against

Supply-Justice
whom there was a large degree of resentment for a few days, as a protection for property and as a stabilizing influence.
I have raised this question in the house. The Minister of National Defence has taken a somewhat niggling point of view in suggesting that the attorney general should apply to the officer commanding in the area to see whether he can maintain law and order. That is not the purpose of this request. It is possible to have a company there in training available to protect property. That is their opinion. I am not suggesting it is a complete remedy to the situation. The people of the district cannot understand why it is not possible to train a battalion or company in the Kootenays. It is magnificent country for certain types of training such as mountain climbing, skiing, building bridges, swimming, and other water sports, and there are adequate unusual natural obstacles. The people cannot understand the position of the department, especially when they learn that the Department of National Defence is going to send 600 troops to the world's fair at Seattle for a week. Sending troops to the Kootenays will cost the taxpayers of Canada money, and if it is a matter of expense I cannot see the argument because these troops have to be paid and so on. In any event, that is a matter that is being decided between the Minister of National Defence and the attorney general of British Columbia, but I mention it because it has been brought to my attention by these organizations.
I have also had resolutions from various organizations, including the Kootenay and Boundary committee on Canadian and Doukhobor affairs, urging these matters and also suggesting that the losses suffered by corporations and individuals should be shared by the federal and provincial governments. I put that forward as another suggestion to those on the government side of the house who, I trust, are listening to my pleas.
Then there is the question of rehabilitation. A good number of people have written to me urging that consideration be given to the problem of rehabilitation. Mind you, this is the most difficult social problem in Canada related to one particular group. It is of the longest standing and is one of the most difficult ones. I know these people. I have talked to them. In fact, I am getting letters daily from some of them who are in jail. I had two this morning, one from one of the former leaders in which he explains the circumstances. He is not complaining and, as a matter of fact, seems quite happy, but he is giving me his views.
On the whole these are simple people who have been misled throughout the years and
[Mr. Herridge. j
who have been bled financially by some leaders. In the past governments have seen fit to pass the buck from one to the other. They have taken a purely legalistic view of the problem. The federal government has said on many occasions that the maintenance of law and order, property and civil rights, etc. are the responsibility of the provincial government.
I am trying to be as brief as possible, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to take the time of the committee unduly but this is a serious problem to the people I have the honour to represent.
It so happens that 10 years ago this month the consultative committee tabled its report on its research into the whole problem and it made some excellent recommendations. At that time the people of the Kootenays looked forward to co-operation between the federal and provincial governments toward a final solution of the problem, but nothing happened. I have some correspondence here. In 1950 the matter was discussed between the attorney general of the province at that time, Mr. G. S. Wismer, and Mr. Stuart Garson who was minister of justice, and the situation is described in the same terms as I am describing it today. But nothing happened.
I also have copies of an exchange of letters in 1953 between the Hon. Stuart S. Garson, Q.C., minister of justice and the Hon. R. W. Bonner, Q.C., attorney general of British Columbia, relating to the British Columbia Doukhobor problem. Once again may I say that I do not like the word "Doukhobor". "Doukhobor" is a Russian word meaning spirit wrestler. The matter should be referred to as the Sons of Freedom problem and I want to impress that on the authorities.
I wish to read briefly from one letter in the correspondence. One would judge that at that time the governments were co-operating very closely to meet the problem. Mr. Bonner wrote to Mr. Garson on May 20, 1953, and I quote part of the letter:
A complete solution to the problem posed by the Sons of Freedom sect of the Doukhobor community lies beyond the constitutional competence of the provincial government and requires the closest co-operation of the federal and provincial governments which jointly share the sum total of constitutional competence to deal with this problem. We ask, therefore, that the federal government recognize this basic position.
I am asking this federal government to do exactly that. Then Mr. Bonner went on to make several suggestions. I might say that I discussed this problem with Mr. Garson at some length because I have lived with it for over 40 years. Some of these people have worked on my ranch and when they are away from the influence of their community you could not have better or more industrious

workers or more kindly people. I know the whole circumstances. In any event, Mr. Garson to his credit did make an offer of co-operation. He discussed the question of relocation in the Slocan valley, the rebuilding of the communities and so on; but unfortunately Mr. Garson did not get a reply to his letter to the attorney general of British Columbia and the matter was left more or less in the air. Nothing was done. No action was taken in 1950; no action was taken in 1953.
What do I suggest? I suggest in broad outline the recommendations of the consultative committee on Doukhobor and Sons of Freedom affairs which made its report 10 years ago this month. First of all, I urge that the government abandon the strictly legalistic approach to the question and that they approach the government of British Columbia and offer their co-operation. Let them take the initial step and offer their co-operation in any way possible.
I suggest that what is required is a commission that can make a quick report. The basic facts are there. The consultative committee's report was the result of a great deal of research and it is the foundation upon which any later report could be made. First of all, federal-provincial co-operation is required and I suggest that the federal government offer to co-operate. Then a commission is required to make a quick examination of the problem, based on previous material which is available and on interviews with the people of the district. I suggest that the commission go to the Kootenays and meet representatives of the churches, labour, industry, the chambers of commerce and the farmers' and women's institutes. I am sure they will find that the representatives of these organizations and their members are willing to extend their co-operation and accept their responsibilities as organizations and individuals in working toward a solution. I suggest that after that committee reports there should be co-operation between both governments and the recommendations should be given effect as a result of co-operation between the governments, the organs of the people in the district concerned and the people.
I have had a lot of people write me who are most interested and concerned and there are many very capable persons available who could make a great contribution. I had a letter from a very well known bishop in my constituency just two days ago in which he deals with the whole question. He is a retired man of means, a man of outstanding intellect, and he knows these people. There is one man who would be able to serve on the committee and would make a great contribution because
Supply-Justice
of his contacts with the Sons of Freedom, the Doukhobor people and the balance of the community and because of the respect in which he is held by all communities. I am sure there are leading people in all the churches who could make a contribution in that respect. The country is simply alive with talented persons who are willing to do something if there is some mobilization of government forces and of the local people's capacity to meet the problem. I suggest that we should meet it head on.
We hear about immigration. I have a letter here from the Brazilian embassy. Some of the representatives of the Sons of Freedom, who now have written me to say they are in the penitentiary, went to Brazil and made arrangements to buy 5,000 acres of land; but the question of the Brazilian government permitting them to enter the country had to be considered. I received a letter dated March 8 from the charge d'affaires of the Brazilian embassy which reads as follows:
In reply to your letter dated March 7 concerning the Doukhobor question. I would like to advise you that the Brazilian government is still studying the request for the group to migrate to Brazil. As soon as I receive any information on this question, I will be very pleased to contact you.
I am not very hopeful in that respect, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that recent events would not cause any country to welcome some of these people with open arms. I think we have to face this question head on. We have other people who are suggesting that these Doukho-bors should be sent to other parts of Canada. As soon as you suggest that, the people in the other parts of Canada hold meetings of protest. While we have to punish the guilty and maintain law and order, we have civil rights in this country. I have heard people suggest that the whole group should be moved to some other part of Canada. However, we have a bill of rights and you cannot take a group of people who have not been proven guilty of any crime and move them to another part of Canada. This is against our bill of rights, our democratic principles and so on.
I say to our people in the Kootenays, let us face this question head on. You know, we have thousands of acres of good land there. We have a valley 30 miles long with a paved highway right through it and with electricity to light every farm. We have a large river flowing through this valley. This land would provide the opportunity for resettlement, reeducation, vocational training and social rehabilitation. What we require is co-operation between the federal and provincial governments and then co-operation between agencies such as the P.F.R.A., the Veterans Land Act administration, the Farm Credit Corporation and the provincial agencies directly concerned.

Supply-Justice
I might say that when I discussed this matter with Mr. Garson, he was prepared to recommend to the cabinet that we go along with such a scheme as that, utilizing the P.F.R.A. At that time I suggested these people be resettled, re-educated and sent to vocational training schools. There are some bright aspects of this problem, regardless of this recent catastrophe which resulted in the destruction of this pylon and the damage that flowed therefrom. However, the young Douk-hobor women, the Sons of Freedom women, have continued to send their children to school. These are the young women who could have a big influence in the future with regard to the community, and they are the persons with whom our organizations should be dealing. I suggest that having the land, the roads, the power, the public facilities and the capacity in the district, we should mobilize all these forces. I suggest the government could rebuild the jam factory. You know, the finest jam in the country was manufactured by the Doukhobors in this area. Do you know why it was the finest? It was the finest because nothing but plain sugar and the finest fruit were used. There was no jiggery-pokery about it like there is with a lot of monopoly capitalism. This jam was known throughout the whole country and they could not supply the demand. I have been in the factory many times. I think government action through these various agencies could rehabilitate these people. I say let us face it together; let us work at it together and give the local people an opportunity to do something as the result of government action.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I have tried to be as brief as possible on a question of great importance to my constituents. I do urge this government to offer its co-operation to the provincial government in an effort to find a long term solution to this problem. Let both governments work together with the people of the Koote-nays and let us accept this challenge in the spirit that we intend to succeed and end for all time this social disability.


Mr. McFarlane:: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the rare occasions in this House of Commons upon which members of opposing political parties join hands for the benefit of the people in general. I certainly agree with many of the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Kootenay West. During a period of many years-I am going back now about 40 years-we have had similar conditions in the Kootenays but not quite so serious as the recent outbreak. I have had a certain amount of personal contact with many of the Sons of Freedom sect, as we call them, and generally speaking I have found them to be very good people.

They have been actively concerned with local civic projects and the average member of the sect has been a credit to the district in which he has lived. Of course, you will find radicals in any organization or in any group of people.
I have also received wires and letters from the chambers of commerce, cities and villages in the area. I will eliminate the women's institutes in the area because I think they have other things to consider. The latest bombing has affected part of my area. Not long ago we had a grain elevator blown up twice and this radical sect also endeavoured to blow up a little church in this area. It was fortunate that the time bomb did not go off. The men who were sent in to defuse the bomb had to be very careful, but they were able to eliminate this danger without too much difficulty. This latest bombing is something that has affected my area. It has thrown a considerable number of men out of work as the result of the closure of the fertilizer plant and the iron plant, which were working to full capacity at this time of the year. Electrical power, which we need in the area, was reduced to the point where it was barely sufficient to carry on the essentials.
Prior to this time, and over a period of 40 years, we have experienced many of these bombings and possibly we have treated them a little too lightly. We have accepted them as a matter of course. It was nothing to pick up the paper in the morning and find that the Sons of Freedom had blown up part of the railway track or a power pole. We did not take the matter too seriously. It was not a major subject of conversation. The situation has reached the point now, Mr. Chairman, where something must be done. We cannot go along living in danger of our power plants being destroyed, our theatres blown up or places of business destroyed with a possible resultant loss of life. Something must be done now.
It has been said that the provincial authorities neglected to request help at the time they should have asked for it. As soon as the extent of this bombing was known, a wire or telephone call from the provincial authorities should have been made requesting the proper assistance. I should like to read from Hansard, page 1593, March 8, 1962. A question was asked of the Minister of National Defence, and he replied as follows:
The responsibility for maintaining law and order in the Kootenays, as indicated by the Minister of Justice, is with the provincial authorities. It would appear to me that until they have exhausted their capabilities in that direction there would be no necessity to call upon the members of the Canadian army to assist them in that regard.

The point I want to bring out, Mr. Chairman, is that the provincial authorities did not accept their responsibility and request assistance from the federal government which, we have been assured, would have been supplied. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we must have the co-operation, of the federal and provincial governments as well as the small municipalities concerned in order to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.


Mr. Roberge:: I fully appreciate the contribution made by the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Kootenay East on the Doukhobor question. However my purpose in rising is entirely different and I would like to restrict my remarks to the item under discussion.
On studying these estimates, I find that according to page 18 the government is asking for a sum of $5,000 to cover travelling and living expenses for the committee on juvenile delinquency. I do want to deal at length with that item because it was the subject of discussion the other day and was fully ventilated. However the government is asking for a further amount of $75,500; but on examining pages 239 and 240 of the blue book I find these special sub-items dealing with professional and special services, travelling expenses, telephones, telegrams, publications, departmental reports and other matters, amount to a total of $180,000. Therefore this further amount represents over 60 per cent of the original estimate.
To me that is a tremendous amount of money by comparison with the original estimate, and there must be good reasons for it. Offhand I cannot discover any and I wonder is it due to lack of foresight on the part of the department, or what special reasons have brought it about. I ask the parliamentary secretary why these further amounts are required? Is it due to lack of foresight, or what?
I have a special interest in the last amount which deals with publication of departmental reports and other material. The original estimate seeks $2,500 but this last supplementary is asking for $15,700. That is an increase of over 600 per cent. I find it hard to understand and I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain why that amount is required.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words only on this item, following the question I put this morning to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), on the orders of the day, when I asked him whether the government had sent an observer to the inquiry on organized crime in Ontario.
Supply-Justice
The minister seemed rather surprised at my question. I must say I was much more surprised at the reply he gave me. The Minister of Justice has taken the ridiculous position that, since it is a case of a provincial inquiry on organized crime, we should keep aloof from it to respect provincial autonomy.
That a minister of justice should take a certain position for sound reasons, that is his own responsibility; but to justify on such childish grounds the absence of a departmental observer in so serious a matter as the royal commission on organized crime in Ontario, I say is inconceivable.
The minister is then of the opinion that organized crime knows frontiers in Canada. Nothing is more contrary to the facts, and all those who have any experience in the matter will find that the argument of the Minister of Justice does not make sense.
Crime, especially organized crime, knows no provincial frontiers, especially when we know that the inquiry on crime in the province of Ontario has been decided on account of the infiltration from the United States.
I submit it was the responsibility of the government, and especially of the Department of Justice, to be represented by an observer.
Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. But I do not want to leave on the record the impression which might have been created this morning by the reply given to my question by the Minister of Justice, because, at the time, on the orders of the day, the rules forbade me to do so.
Surely the Minister of Justice is not trying to make us believe that just by reading press reports he will have all the information and that he will be posted on the extent of the activities of organized crime, as uncovered by the inquiry. Coming as it does from people who have so often complained in the past three or four years that they are misquoted by the press, that statement is even more fantastic. Now they are saying: "Well, we will rely on press reports". We know very well that in a matter of this kind, newspaper accounts are necessarily incomplete since the press cannot give all the information an observer would be able to pick up if he were present.
All those who are interested in this matter -and they are much more numerous in Canada than one might think-feel that major amendments should be made to the Criminal Code in that regard. They will deplore not only that there is no observer at the inquiry but especially the apparent lack of interest which the Minister of Justice shows concerning that inquiry.

Su-pply-Justice
(Text):


Thomas Miller Bell: I have just two or three comments to make. Naturally all of us were interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Kootenay East in respect of the very difficult problem which exists in their area. Of course it is not a new problem. I well remember sitting as an observer in the gallery listening to a man who was a dear old friend of mine, Billy Esling, then member for Kootenay West describing the situation as it existed long years ago. Most regrettably it has not been possible to solve the problem that has existed since these people emigrated to Canada.
The remarks made by the two hon. gentlemen will be carefully noted, but I may say that the same representations made to them by public bodies have also been made directly to the Minister of Justice and the government generally. I can tell them the government remains ready, willing and anxious to cooperate with the provincial government of British Columbia and the local bodies in bringing a sane and rational solution to what is a really difficult problem.
The hon. gentleman from Megantic asked a number of questions in respect of this particular item. From the details given he will observe that professional and special services have increased, principally due to an unusual number of prosecutions of counterfeit cases in the province of Quebec.
Travelling expenses have also increased and this has been due to a need for travel which was not contemplated at the time. I may give an example of one of the items before me. It relates to the travelling expenses of an officer of the department while attending a United Nations consultative group on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders, which met in Geneva, Switzerland. The hon. gentleman himself mentioned the item of $5,000 which applies to the special departmental committee on juvenile delinquency which the Minister of Justice has established.
The item for telephone and telegraphs was underestimated having regard to last year's full expenditure for this item, which was in fact $18,359. This undoubtedly was an underestimation having regard to previous experience.
In the matter of the publication of departmental reports and other material, the department, as I think the hon. gentleman knows, has found it desirable to publish four
[Mr. Deschatelets.l
pamphlets which outline and cover the various functions of the Department of Justice. I am sure these pamphlets will be useful and that they will meet with the approval of the hon. gentleman.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont has raised again the question which he raised earlier in the day. As to the matters which were then in issue between himself and the Minister of Justice, I do not seek to intervene. I can assure the hon. gentleman that all aspects of any evidence which may be presented to any commission which relates to the enforcement of law under the jurisdiction of the federal government will be most carefully considered by the Minister of Justice and by the officials of the Department of Justice.
With regard to the question of the correct technique, the hon. gentleman appears to believe that it is wise for counsel on behalf of the dominion government to appear before provincial royal commissions. If that is his opinion, as I think it is, he is entitled to it. However, I suggest there are other techniques whereby the same objective can be achieved without an intervention on the part of the federal government in royal commissions which may be appointed by the provinces. I am sure the hon. gentleman and the Minister of Justice will have another occasion on which they can discuss this matter, and in such argument as they may put forward I would not seek to intervene.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the item carry?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I would not like this item to be carried without reminding the parliamentary secretary that I did not mention or suggest any intervention; I just suggested that an observer should go there and report to the Minister of Justice here. Also, the minister in his reply this morning made it very clear that his only interest in this matter is in the reading of papers. I have no doubt whatsoever that the minister is able to read. Has he got time to read fully? I do not know. Do these newspaper reports cover all the field of the inquiry? I am sure that this question is answered in the negative. Therefore the answer just given by the parliamentary secretary does not meet the point I made; but I am very hopeful that one of these days the Minister of Justice will be able to answer adequately the suggestion I have made.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, of course the hon. gentleman appreciates that the enforcement of the Criminal Code is under the jurisdiction of the provincial attorneys general. I believe that the provincial attorneys general will do their duty in the enforcement of the code. If there should come

to the attention, through reading, listening or otherwise, anything wherein the Department of Justice can help in the proper enforcement of the law, my hon. friend can be assured that it will be done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just a word. I am really rising to say a word about what was said by the two hon. members from Kootenay, and it will be a very brief one I assure the parliamentary secretary.
Before doing that, in view of what has just been said I must say that the attitude of the Minister of Justice this morning and the parliamentary secretary this afternoon is very astonishing to me. That having an observer at a provincial royal commission should be an intervention in provincial affairs is certainly a new and strange doctrine in this country. After all, hon. gentlemen were just recently criticizing the premier and provincial treasurer of British Columbia because he did not appear before a federal royal commission on banking and commerce, which is exclusively under federal jurisdiction; and this government recently called a conference on a matter that is of purely provincial concern and took great exception because the premier of Quebec did not send a representative to it. In the light of those precedents-and I could mention a good many others-it does seem to me an attitude on the part of the government of straining at a gnat after it had swallowed, as the little girl once said, a saw mill.
It is not that about which I rose to speak, but I just could not resist saying a word about how really silly the Minister of Justice had been this morning. I do not blame the parliamentary secretary; he just had to repeat what the minister had said, because that is party solidarity. The parliamentary secretary would not have made such a ridiculous observation on his own. But I did rise to say just one word on and join with the hon. member for Kootenay West in the plea that everybody who refers to this unhappy and regrettable problem in the Kootenays should make a clear distinction between those people who are involved and the great body of Doukhobors who are descendants of the people who came to Canada in 1898, most of whom are just as good, law-abiding citizens of Canada as any other citizens of Canada and whose feelings must be injured every time these loose references are made. I do not criticize people too much for making them because most people are not as familiar with the problem as are the hon. gentlemen who spoke about it. Most people are not familiar enough with the problem to make that kind of distinction, but as it has been brought
Supply-Justice
to our attention I think it would be very desirable that we should make this distinction.
I also feel, like the hon. member for Kootenay West, that it is rather unfortunate- and I do not want to be unnecessarily critical about this-that the rather narrow and legalistic view was taken by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Justice regarding the request of the attorney general and the premier of British Columbia. I have not any great admiration for the government of British Columbia, any more than has any other hon. member of this house that I know of, but I do think that the suggestion made by Mr. Bonner in this instance was a very sensible one indeed.
When you think of the tremendous amount of money we are spending on defence in this country it does seem to me that to have a small group of troops engaged in that area in some useful exercise might have had the very salutary moral effect that Mr. Bonner was hoping it might have, without having the invidious suggestion the troops were called in because the police could not do their job. I think it would have been the part of statesmanship on the part of the government of Canada to accept that suggestion in the broad spirit in which it was made and I rather regret what I think was a rather hasty and snap judgment.
I do not blame the federal government very much for being rather touchy and irritable about the government of British Columbia; heaven knows they have had to endure an awful lot of humiliation of one kind and another from them, including the absence of the Minister of Finance at the present time. Notwithstanding that fact, even the attorney general of British Columbia can occasionally be right about something, and in this instance it seems to me that he was right and was taking a broad view of this matter, and it is rather unfortunate that the government of Canada did not join with him in taking that view.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I only want to make one comment. If I thought that anyone in the committee would take seriously the use of the word "silly" in relation to any comment which has been made by the Minister of Justice, I would intervene further in the debate. The reason why I refrain from doing so is obvious.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary speaks for himself. The Minister of Justice, like the rest of us, is quite capable of being silly at times, and quite often more silly than some of the rest of us.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Justice Northwest Territories-
715.	Administration of justice in the Northwest Territories, including the Northwest Territories territorial court-further amount required, $47,000.
(Translation):
Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, concerning this item, I should like to ask about the same questions I asked earlier in respect to the previous supplementary estimate.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell us why this item is almost 50 per cent higher than the item in the main estimates? In addition, could he tell us if it was possible to foresee that such a high additional amount would be required?
(Text):


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, the first item, as the hon. gentleman from Megantic realizes, involves legal fees, court costs and payment for the maintenance of prisoners and juvenile delinquents in the Northwest Territories. An amount of $65,000 was included in the main estimates for these purposes and an additional $35,000 is required. The allotment was underestimated, as expenditure for the year ended 1961 amounted to $88,996. Expenses to February 28, 1962, total $92,070. As the hon. member, with his career at the bar, knows, it is a difficult matter to estimate from one year to the other what costs may be incurred in court fees and the maintenance of prisoners. There was an additional amount in respect of travelling expenses to members of the territorial court and the court staff while the court was on circuit. Much of this travelling was done by chartered aircraft and involved distances between places such as Yellowknife and Frobisher Bay and intermediate points. There was an underestimation of the amount required.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yukon Territory-
716.	Administation of justice in the Yukon Territory, including the Yukon territorial court- further amount required, $41,000.
Gabriel Roberge: This item has to do with the Bankruptcy Act. Before I continue I should like to put a formal question to the parliamentary secretary. Does he know when the bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act will be introduced in the house? Will it be before dissolution? In the further supplementary last year, the parliamentary secretary may remember there was an amount of $52,000, I believe, having to do with special inquiries in relation to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, in the Montreal district particularly. These inquiries concerned trustees and I suppose this item represents an additional amount to cover expenditure of this kind.


Richard Albert Bell: It is seldom that the hon. gentleman asks a loaded question, but
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
his first question was definitely a loaded one and I think he will forgive me if I do not reply to it, except to say that I am not in a position to inform the committee when a revised and consolidated Bankruptcy Act may be presented to parliament.
The hon. member is quite right with respect to the second matter he raised. This is the result of investigations into the administration of bankruptcy trustees in the province of Quebec and also in the province of Ontario. This investigation has resulted in the cancellation of the licences of several trustees and in some cases criminal prosecutions have been instituted. In dealing with this situation it has been found necessary to obtain legal advice, retain the services of the solicitors and so on. Accountants have been required to audit the books and to testify in the courts when necessary. With the authority of treasury board, the superintendent of bankruptcy entered into an arrangement to subsidize the work of a trustee in bankruptcy in Montreal to enable him to take over approximately 280 estates which were previously being handled by two trustees whose licences were cancelled.


Gabriel Roberge: I wish to thank the parliamentary secretary for that information. I am sure the trustee in Montreal, whom I know personally, will be able to handle those cases effectively.
I realize my first question was loaded but I refrained from putting it to the Minister of Justice earlier this afternoon on the orders of the day because I thought I would have the opportunity to ask the question on these estimates. However, I suppose I shall have to ask the question on the orders of the day on some other occasion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish briefly to comment on this item. I must say we had hoped that the government would have introduced amendments to the Bankruptcy Act before this because the need is obvious and urgent from my point of view and from the point of view of a good many of the people I represent.
We have had citizens and companies from the United States coming into the district- I can speak of one man, and I can mention his name, because he is a rogue, a man named Pidge. He comes in and fleeces people of half a million dollars and then goes bankrupt. He does not pay wages; he does not pay for supplies; he does not pay income tax; he does not pay provincial taxes; he does not pay unemployment insurance contributions and he does not pay workmen's compensation. He goes bankrupt and clears off, leaving the employees and the tradesmen holding the bag.

There should be a strengthening of our bankruptcy laws to avoid any repetition of conduct of this kind.
Recently I heard that this bloke was coming back. I went to our immigration officer and said: "Do you have to let that bird into the country again?" He said: "Mr. Herridge, if he comes to the border and asks for admission I shall have to admit him. We all know he is a swindler but he has committed no crime in the ordinary sense of the word; he went bankrupt in the usual way and he can come back into the country." This kind of thing is happening all over the interior. There have been numerous instances, one just over three months ago. I hope there will be amendments to the Bankruptcy Act and to the Immigration Act which will net these birds before they come into our country.


Thomas Miller Bell: Without necessarily agreeing with the hon. gentleman as to his assessment of any particular individual, of whom I know nothing, I should like to say that the comments which he has made on this and earlier occasions have been duly noted.


Gabriel Roberge: I see the Minister of Justice is now in his place. I am glad to have an opportunity to ask him the question which I put earlier to the parliamentary secretary. Is the minister able to tell us when he expects to bring down a bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the principle is well established that questions of this sort are not in order on supplementary estimates and that if asked they are not answered.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons-
721.	Canada's share of the expenses of the commonwealth parliamentary association including subscriptions to publications of the association- further amount required, $1,000.
722.	General Administration-estimates of the Clerk-further amount required, $148,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Would the parliamentary secretary explain to the committee the nature of these two items? Perhaps he would deal with the first one. Is it an annual expenditure?


Richard Albert Bell: 
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this group I wish to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by this item-


Mr. McGee:: What group is that? Look behind you.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The unseen hosts surround me. I wish to take the last opportunity of this session to express our appreciation of the good work our Speaker has done, and his courtesy, and to express appreciation of the splendid services of Mr. Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of committees, and the house staff, the Clerk, the Clerk Assistant-I consider them the rubies surrounding the Speaker's crown, as it were-and the reporters and the Hansard angels. I include also the protective staff which is the nearest thing we have to a metropolitan police force in Canada-magnificent physical specimens, good looking, courteous, well informed and efficient -and the messengers and the elevator operators who provide valuable service every day, and even the cleaning ladies. Without these services we could not carry on the work of parliament and I think we as members of parliament should recognize this and express our appreciation.
I have had an idea in mind for some time. I think we in a fitting way should do something so that the lady members of the house will go down in posterity and be remembered far into the future. I got an inspiration the other day I wish to share with the committee. A creative member of the staff of the parliamentary restaurant has come up with an exciting creation called cream of chicken soup Judy. I feel this is one way in which we as members of parliament may ensure that the hon. ladies among us will be remembered for all time. If we could name dishes for them in the parliamentary restaurant their names

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys would go down in history. For instance, we could have haggis Margaret Macdonald and Jean's angel cake and Margaret's Formosa chow chow. But the women who are elevated to cabinet rank should receive special attention and I would suggest that the breakfast menu be left for them. What better way to recognize the splendid contribution the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has made to the development of the country than by having our breakfast menu headed in the future, "start the day with Ellen's mess of pottage". I just put this suggestion forward as a suitable way of commemorating our lady members, and although the suggestion is rather novel I trust it will commend itself to all hon. members.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OP MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS A-Department-
General-
723.	Polar continental shelf project-further amount required, $103,565.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think the parliamentary secretary should tell us who now has the contract for the helicopter work on the polar continental shelf, whether or not this contract was obtained by tender or by submitting tariffs to the board of transport commissioners, what the amount of the contract is and what is the total amount that it is expected will be expended on the polar continental shelf for this purpose.


Richard Albert Bell: Perhaps I might give the committee an indication of the nature of this item. This supplementary estimate, as the committee sees, is for $103,565. It is to provide for expenses arising out of the planned field program for 1962 and as my hon. friend well knows, because of climate, the program must commence in March of each year. In viewing the main estimates for 196162 the decrease in the vote of $100,000 was made on the understanding that the board might be prepared to approve a supplementary estimate should it be impossible because of the reduction to maintain the planned program. This is what has happened and it has been necessary, really, to reinstate the amount.
My hon. friend asks me the name of the present contractor. In respect of this I am advised that there is no general contract. There may be some subordinate contracts. This is a field program. I am sorry that that is all the information which I am in a position to give the hon. gentleman at the moment. I shall try to obtain some additional information.


Lionel Chevrier: Having listened carefully to what the parliamentary secretary said, in
(Mr. Herridge.]
the breakdown of the vote it is quite clear this has to do with the contract work in the polar continental shelf and since it has to do particularly with the planned field program which cannot be carried out unless there is helicopter service, I think the committee is entitled to know who the contractor is.
I understand that pursuant to the practice that has been adopted since this government has been in office a contract has been awarded-this I saw in the press-for the polar continental shelf fairly recently. This is for helicopter services. I think the committee is entitled to know who the contractor is, the amount of the contract and how it was awarded.


Richard Albert Bell: I am advised that no contract has been let in respect of this.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the parliamentary secretary tell me who held the contract last year for helicopter services in the polar continental shelf?


Richard Albert Bell: Yes. They were friends of the hon. gentleman, Autair.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I thank the parliamentary secretary very much for that information and for the adjective he used in describing my relationship with the company. Do I take it that this answer means that Autair Helicopter Services now have the contract for the 1962 services provided on the shelf only?


Richard Albert Bell: I am informed that a letter of intent has been issued covering the services of Autair from March, 1962, until approximately August, 1962.


Lionel Chevrier: For how much?


Richard Albert Bell: Approximately $275,000.


Lionel Chevrier: Does that cover the period for the whole services to be performed on the continental shelf?


Richard Albert Bell: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Could the parliamentary
secretary tell me how the letter of intent was given? Was it given pursuant to a demand for tenders in the usual way?


Richard Albert Bell: My information is that the normal action is to ask certain companies, certified by the air transport board as being competent in this field, for tenders of services. In this particular case all the major companies were asked to indicate their tenders of services. That having been done, an assessment is made in the department of the total cost likely to be encountered by the government. The hon. gentleman will know, of course, that with this vast area to be covered

the location of the helicopters is very important and that there are many complex factors to be considered. On the basis of the assessment which was made of economy and efficiency, the letter of intent of which I have spoken earlier was issued.


Lionel Chevrier: Could I obtain from the parliamentary assistant what other contracts this company received in the past? For instance, my hon. friend has told me that for the period March, 1962 to August, 1962, a letter of intent has gone out for a contract covering services in the amount of $275,000. What was the period in the year 1961 and what was the amount? What was the period in the year 1960 and what was the amount?


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. member will appreciate that the figures I am about to give are approximate only. In 1961 the amount was approximately $231,000 covering a period extending roughly from March to August, and in 1960 the amount was $170,000 for approximately the same period.


Lionel Chevrier: I have just totalled these amounts and if the amounts given by the parliamentary secretary are correct the total is $676,000, close to $700,000. I take it that covers all of the contracts that have been awarded to this company. There are none prior to 1960, are there?


Richard Albert Bell: That covers all of them for this project.


Lionel Chevrier: The question that comes to my mind at once is this. A moment ago the parliamentary secretary stated what the normal action was in the tendering of these services. Does it appear normal to him that it is always the same company that obtains the work notwithstanding the fact that all companies have been asked to tender in connection therewith? Has the parliamentary secretary any comment on that point?


Richard Albert Bell: The only comment I would make is that location is a very big factor in relation to this matter, and it is my understanding that the department has been satisfied generally with the services that have been rendered. There are two aircraft positions in Resolute bay which constitute a very important factor and perhaps a capacity to give expeditious and efficient service in relation to the project.
The fact that this company possibly does not commend itself entirely to some members of the house does not necessarily indicate that it has not done an efficient and competent job in the work that has been undertaken.


Lionel Chevrier: On that point may I say that I had not entered into that argument at all. However, the parliamentary secretary has
30.	1982	2361
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys brought it up and I would remind him that when the company applied to the air transport board for a licence the board turned it down and decided against it in a formal judgment. It was only on appeal to the minister that the decision of the air transport board was reversed. I mention that only because the parliamentary secretary brought up the matter.
The point in which I am interested is the manner in which these submissions are obtained. Because of the method by which this is being done I am not satisfied in my own mind that the companies to whom offers of submission are sent are given a fair opportunity to submit a price that is acceptable to the department, and I would remind the parliamentary secretary that though there are not many there are certainly several helicopter companies in our country that can do this work efficiently. These companies have done similar work before elsewhere, have done it before on the polar continental shelf and are equipped so to do. What I am saying is that if the submission is one which asks the various companies to submit tenders, and they do, and an assessment is made by the departmental officials of what the costs are likely to be in the manner in which the former minister of mines and technical surveys made it, then, as I stated in the house before, that is not the acceptance of a tender. It is simply handing out a contract to one rather than another helicopter company. Along that line I would ask the parliamentary secretary to inform the committee as to the date of the letter of intent which gave this company the contract for the March-August, 1962 period.


Richard Albert Bell: March 2, 1962.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few observations about this matter, and since this is precisely the same item as we had in supplementary estimates No. 3 I would draw the parliamentary secretary's attention to what was said by the minister, whose absence at the moment is conspicuous, about this very matter. As found on page 2028 of Hansard for March 21, I asked the minister whether this company had a contract and this was his reply:
The only thing I can say is that I have no information that it has anything to do with the $16,400 mentioned in this item.
That is no doubt correct or probably correct.


Richard Albert Bell: That is correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not questioning that particular statement. Then I said:
The minister surely knows whether they have a contract. They might carry the materials to build this building. They might have something to do with it. Can the minister say whether they have a contract at the present time?
2362	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Mr. Flynn:: Do you mean in a field other than the one governed by this item?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the continental shell program.


Jacques Flynn: I do not know. I would have to check. I am not in a position to give an answer now. I think this question was fully discussed last year. Perhaps a rereading of Hansard when the main estimates were discussed would provide an answer.
The minister told us this letter went on March 2. As the parliamentary secretary knows, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys was the product of that great cabinet reshuffle, that took place on December 29. He had been in the department for two months and he had been in the house, as his answer here indicates, during the previous debate that had taken place in connection with Autair. He knew that this was not a routine matter or he ought to have known it. I wish the minister were here because I am not seeking to use, in his absence, extreme language. It does seem to me that for the minister to say on March 21, having given a letter of intent on March 2, when he is asked whether or not these people have a contract-I am sure that the parliamentary secretary would not want to quibble about the difference between a letter of intent and a contract or indulge in that kind of sophistry-


Thomas Miller Bell: I would not agree that was sophistry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister says:
I do not know. I would have to check. I am not in a position to give an answer now.
He either did know or he did not. If he wanted to say that a letter of intent was not a contract, he should have said, no, they have not a contract. This would have been a misleading answer, but literally a correct one. On the other hand, he could have said, yes, they have what is in effect a contract; they have a letter of intent. We know from experience with this company that if they get a letter of intent it is not revoked. This has not been the experience of some other companies in this field who have sought to get business from this government.
It seems to me, sir, that is a shocking thing for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to have done on supplementary estimates No. 3. He ought to be here now to explain these estimates to the committee. Certainly, this company, with its very questionable past, this company that was rejected by an independent tribunal set up to consider the matter, as my hon. friend has just pointed out, should not be preferred over all others. Then, the minister sought by a statement that is a good deal less than frank to give the impression that nothing had been done about


this company. If you go on, sir, to read the next few exchanges, you will see that is what he did. He said:
Perhaps a rereading of Hansard when the main estimates were discussed would provide an answer.
At that point I said:
That might well be. But before the item passes- I do not want to delay it-may I express the hope, since we have a new minister, that the new minister is not as much associated with the past as some other ministers may have been. If he has any contracts to let for air services to the north may we hope that proper, competitive tenders will be called and that all competing companies will be allowed to compete for the business.
Here is the minister's reply:
I will give an assurance to the hon. member that my department will always proceed in this respect on the basis most economic for the department. But I am sure he will not quarrel with me if I do not go further at this time, because the whole system of asking for tenders in this field is not as simple as in other departments.
I think that my retort to that is rather eloquent:
We have found that out already.
I say this is an outrageous way for a suppliant government to be treating the committee of supply. The minister is not doing the job in his department; if he let the deputy or someone else give this letter of intent without telling him about it, he does not deserve to be minister. If he knew of that letter of intent and did not tell the committee about it in the face of these questions, it seems to me that he does not deserve the confidence of the house. It is conduct that is not becoming a member of the ministry.


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. member has used extravagant language-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite the contrary.


Richard Albert Bell: -in relation to this, and I think when he has time to consider he may perhaps wish to modify it somewhat. The fact is the answer of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys was completely accurate. The same statement could be made today. Autair, as of this hour, do not have a contract. A letter of intent was entered into and the formal terms of the contract, I am advised, are under negotiation at the present time. The statement which the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys made and which has been read to the committee by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate stands. He said, and I quote:
-my department will always proceed in this respect on the basis most economic for the department. But I am sure he will not quarrel with me if I do not go further at this time, because the whole system of asking for tenders in this field is not as simple as in other departments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It certainly is not.


Thomas Miller Bell: Along the polar shelf, where you are dealing with vast distances, of course it is not as simple as it is in other departments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You get the company with the biggest accident record.


Thomas Miller Bell: My hon. friend is speaking of other factors. I have heard this argued back and forth in the house, but I am not prepared to speak in relation to it one way or the other. I am only prepared to say that I am advised that, in fact, the most economic contract for the government of Canada was that which was entered into. If the letter of intent is succeeded by a contract for the coming year, it will be the most economic one for the government of Canada.
Now, I am advised that of the three proposals received, taken on an over-all basis, there is no question but that the lowest was that of the company to whom the letter of intent has been issued, but in respect of which company no contract has yet been entered into, and the formal terms are still under negotiation. The statement made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, in fact, is totally accurate.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do
not believe I can sit here and listen to what the parliamentary secretary has said without making the kind of retort that the answer deserves, and that is that the statement made by the minister is wholly inaccurate. I will give you an example of why it is wholly inaccurate. When the minister's predecessor was in office I put on the order paper a series of questions, one of which had to do with this very matter. The question was whether or not a contract had been entered into in respect of helicopter service for the polar continental shelf. The reply was, no, but that a letter of intent had been given. This being the case in so far as the predecessor of the present Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys was concerned, why did we not get the same answer from the present minister? The answer which the minister has given is not only inaccurate but it is not in accordance with the facts. Once a letter of intent has been given that is, legally at least, tantamount to a contract. There have to be some very strong extenuating circumstances if a contract is not awarded, particularly if money is spent on behalf of the contractor arising out of the letter of intent. I presume the contractor is always in a position to say that, because in this case almost 27 days have elapsed since the letter of intent was given. Surely, the letter of intent has been acted upon and it is equivalent to a contract.
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Thomas Miller Bell: I would have difficulty in agreeing with that. I know in my own law practice there have been many cases in which letters of intent have been given which were not followed by contracts. Certainly to suggest that a letter of intent is equivalent to a contract is, with respect for the learning in the law of my hon. friend totally erroneous.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend, in the first place, did not allow me to complete what I was about to say. In the second place, I thank him for his lecture on the law. This morning, he told me that my law was pretty good. He prefaced his remarks by saying that as a member of the bar I would know that, under similar circumstances to these, this is the position and this is the law. Apparently I knew the law this morning but this afternoon I do not know anything about the law so far as the granting of tenders is concerned.


Thomas Miller Bell: It may be another field.


Lionel Chevrier: But the point that is at issue is whether a letter of intent that has been acted upon-and that is what I am saying-is not tantamount to a contract. Certainly if it is not, I am sure the hon. gentleman will agree with me when I say it is the basis for an action in damages. It is the basis for a quantum meruit in so far as a contract may or may not have been completed.
However, that is getting away from the point and I shall not allow my hon. friend to divert me, as perhaps was his intention. The point I was trying to make was simply to confirm what had been said by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, namely that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys did not give the house accurate information and, if he did not, then he should be here to tell the house why he did not. It is possible that he did not have the information, that it was not given to him by his officers. But knowing him as I do, and particularly as he made reference to original discussions which had taken place about this matter, I feel confident in my own mind that he was aware of the circumstances, or should have been aware of the circumstances; yet he gave information on March 21 which indicated that there was no contract. What he should have said, as his predecessor said in a written reply to a starred question, was that while there was not a contract there was a letter of intent, and that kind of answer indicates that there is quite likely to be a contract entered into in the not too distant future.
It is unfortunate that the minister is not here to explain the position. I see from time to time he does not hesitate to raise points
2364	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys oi order and he would be much better off to be here and explain his position with respect to this item.


Richard Albert Bell: There is nothing I can add to what has already been said, other than the fact that this letter of intent has not been acted upon in the sense that there is no aircraft flying pursuant to the letter of intent. The terms of contract are under negotiation at the present time, but I do not want to say to the committee that we have a letter of intent which will result in a formal contract, because as the hon. member well knows, there is many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip in regard to letters of intent.


Lionel Chevrier: I feel satisfied that there will not be a slip on this occasion. I know that on two previous occasions, one involving an expenditure of $170,000 and the other $231,000, letters of intent went out in the same manner as in this case, if my memory serves me right, and again for the period March to August, 1962, there is a letter of intent involving the sum of $275,000. Therefore in my mind there is not the slightest doubt but that a contract will be finally entered into between the company and the department. I have no doubt about it, having regard to what has taken place in the past; but I do have a great deal of doubt about the manner in which these contracts, in these three separate instances, have been awarded.
I am satisfied in my mind that they have not been awarded in accordance with the practice that prevails in other departments, and it is not an excuse to say that the circumstances in respect to the polar continental shelf are such that we have to adopt other methods. These contracts should be given on a tender basis, in the same manner and to the same extent as contracts are given in any other department of government.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the vote carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No sir. In view of what the parliamentary secretary has said I do not think we can let this matter pass quickly. I think the minister should be sent for and should come in here to tell us what he meant by saying "I do not know."
It is true that if you take the literal meaning of the words, the question I had posed to him was, had a contract been entered into, and he said "I do not know." Either he does not know what is going on in his department or he did know that the contract had not been let but that a letter of intent had gone.
Before we vote more money for this gentleman to squander on this disreputable company we are entitled to know whether the minister is in charge of the department or whether it


is just being run by bureaucrats. If the minister told us the truth when he said he did not know, that meant he did not know whether or not there was a contract. So, if he did not know he is not doing his job, and if he did know he was seeking to deceive. There is no third possibility. There are only those two alternatives. He said "I do not know." It seems to me the minister cannot be very far away. He is always in here trying to interfere with other people's estimates, and he wasted two hours last night on raising points of order. Why is he not here now when the affairs he is charged with are before the house?


Henry Frank Jones: You wasted the time last night.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The committee was held up while he was trying to usurp the place of the Chair for two hours last night, and now when his own department is before us he is absent. He has flitted. He is away somewhere. Perhaps he has gone to Quebec on another trip. It is really a disreputable way for the minister to behave or it is an indication of a deplorable lack of knowledge of his department. It is either one or the other. I would say it is in line with the slipshod way this whole government treats parliament-


Richard Albert Bell: I suggest that the hon. member get back on the item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am on the item.


Richard Albert Bell: I do not want to have to reply in kind, since we have been getting on very well today.


Lionel Chevrier: Until we got to this item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The parliamentary secretary is apparently now developing the same admiration for this Autair company that other people on the treasury benches seem to have. Incidentally I might say that I noticed in the press that Autair has moved from the province of Quebec to the city of Winnipeg, no doubt to be closer to the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite since their erstwhile friends in Quebec have been sent into the wilderness.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: When I have finished. The hon. gentleman's interventions are always so helpful to me and other hon. members that I would not like to discourage him. I say we should have the minister here to explain to the committee these evasive or untrue answers that he gave the other day.


Grant Campbell: Does the hon. member not think it is rather shameful to describe as bureaucrats his former colleagues

and friends who are not in the house to defend their reputations? Is that not thoroughly discreditable? I consider it as such.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have never used the word "bureaucrat"-


Grant Campbell: You did use it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman could wait until I have finished my sentence. I have never used the word "bureaucrat" in the derogatory sense in which his leader uses it to attack civil servants. I was a bureaucrat myself for 16 years and I am not ashamed of it. I have referred to myself as a bureaucrat and I feel no shame about it any more than I feel shame about being a politician. I merely indicate that I did not apply any adjectives to them. I merely implied that this letter of intent had been sent by bureaucrats without the knowledge of the minister or that the minister knew about it because if it was sent without the knowledge of the minister, he is not doing his job in his department; if it was sent with his knowledge, he was not telling the house the truth when he said he did not know whether or not there was a contract.


Grant Campbell: Has the hon. member answered my question now? If so, may I ask him another question? Does he not know that the term "politician" is descriptive, while the term "bureaucrat" is derogatory? Does he not realize the difference?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say, Mr. Chairman, that if I sought to educate the hon. member for Stormont this session would last a lot longer than it is likely to last.


Grant Campbell: I was not asking to be educated; I was endeavouring to cure the invincible ignorance of the hon. member.


Lionel Chevrier: Is not the parliamentary secretary going to reply to those questions?


Richard Albert Bell: I do not want to get involved in this cross-fire.


Lionel Chevrier: Why not?


Richard Albert Bell: Well, I would like to get finished by five o'clock and get the appropriation bill through.


Lionel Chevrier: If you keep some of your colleagues quiet, you might.


Richard Albert Bell: All I would like to say in relation to this, Mr. Chairman-I do not want to pursue it further-is that I think anyone who reads the normal and natural meaning of this language and the explanation I have given to the committee will understand the matter fully.
26207-1-151
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, is the parliamentary secretary not going to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to come into the chamber, because after all I think he owes an explanation to the committee in relation to these matters.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I think I have explained as fully as I can what has been the practice in supplementary estimates in the past and I do not think I can go any further. I simply say to my hon. friend that I think on the normal and natural meaning of the language, the fact is that there is not a contract today. When a contract may be entered into, I am unable to forecast; I have no information on that. The normal and natural meaning of the words speaks for itself.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has a very catching smile, particularly when he feels that the item is about to pass. I really commend him for the manner in which he proceeded to answer the last part of the question, but I would remind him that, while we have been dealing with the last supplementary estimates for some few days now, there have been ministers in their seats who have come and replied to questions. I think particularly of the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who replied to a number of questions that were put to her by the hon. member for Niagara Falls, and there were other ministers who came in. That having taken place, I do not see why, under these extraordinary circumstances, where a minister has certainly been caught in serious default, he should not be asked to come in-


Richard Albert Bell: With that I do not agree, of course.


Lionel Chevrier: -and explain the contradictory position taken, having regard to the information which we received today compared to that which the minister gave on a former occasion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to say anything more about the minister coming into the chamber. I am sure that any minister who had any regard for his reputation would insist upon coming in and defending it after the allegations that have been made this afternoon. If the minister does not want to do that, if he wants to leave these allegations on the record unanswered, I suppose, since this favourite of the government has to be given another contract, it is going to be done anyway without any regard to the public interest, and perhaps we are taking up an unnecessary amount of time over the reputation of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys who, having
2366	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys been caught out in this evasion or ignorance, whichever it is, will be judged perhaps by another jury before too long.
But one thing I will not let pass, sir, is these repeated and erroneous references of the parliamentary secretary to the practice in the past. We demonstrated last night, by reference to the very last day of supplementary estimates under the previous government, that most of the afternoon of that day was taken up, not by Mr. Harris answering questions through his parliamentary secretary while he was off in British Columbia, because Mr. Harris stayed in the house and attended to his job here, but what happened on that occasion was that because there were some very controversial questions about the Department of Citizenship and Immigration the then minister satisfied the committee by answering those questions at considerable length. Then in the evening of the same day, as my hon. friend from Laurier pointed out last evening, the minister of agriculture answered questions for two hours.
So it is all misleading nonsense to talk about the practice of the house; and the Minister of Justice, I believe, earlier this afternoon even went further and said "the rules of the house". There is no such rule, and that observation should not be left uncontradicted on the record. We have not taken any exception in regard to the more or less non-controversial items, for which we do not expect the minister to be here, but when something of this magnitude comes up, when there is a question of whether the committee has been misled, surely it should not be left to the parliamentary secretary, however able he is, to have to defend ministers. It is the ministers, not parliamentary secretaries, who are responsible to this house, and a responsible minister would be here to defend his good name and his reputation, which is certainly under very serious question as a result of the answers given on March 21 and in the light of the fact that this letter of intent had been given on March 2 and to all practical intents and purposes this company had been told it was going to have this business.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I only want to say that the good name, reputation, and character of the hon. gentleman for Quebec South, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, speaks for itself and, I am satisfied, will be vindicated by the jury to which the hon. gentleman referred.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hansard speaks for itself too.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I would not like the discussion to be left at this point


without adding that Hansard will also speak for itself, and it speaks with great emphasis.


Richard Albert Bell: Then we will have to leave it to the jury.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Royal Canadian Navy-
724.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $3,500,000.
Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall vote 724 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly not, Mr. Chairman. This item is for $3J million. Is the parliamentary secretary going to deal with this item, without any minister to explain it, not even the distinguished Associate Minister of National Defence, who I suppose may have gone to Argentina? Surely either the minister, the associate minister or the parliamentary secretary should be here. Not one of them is in the committee, and we are dealing with an item asking for $34 million. This is a disgrace, sir.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, what has happened to change the mood of the hon. gentleman in the last half hour, I am not sure. The hon. gentleman was in an agreeable frame of mind, we were proceeding readily, and he suddenly got back into the frame of mind in which he was last evening. Whether it is that there is an item ahead that he does not want to reach before five o'clock, I do not know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is an item about Arizona Charlie that I would like very much to reach.


Richard Albert Bell: Then perhaps I could just sit down and we will get along to Arizona Charlie.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall vote 724 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman; we want to know why $34 million more is needed.


Mr. Tardif:: Yes, tell us that.


Henry Frank Jones: Goodness, the hon. member for Russell is back in the house today.


An hon. Member:: It must be the end of the month.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I seem to be experiencing some interference because of a welcome being extended by the committee to my distinguished friend from Russell.


Paul Tardif: They should do that every day; I am here every day.


Thomas Miller Bell: I observed that the hon. gentleman said that in his nomination speech. However, the hon. gentleman and I are good friends, as well as neighbours. This item is, of course, for the operation and maintenance of the navy alone. The breakdown shows that miscellaneous materials and supplies require an additional $1,200,000; repairs and upkeep of buildings and works, including land, an additional $1 million; and repairs and upkeep of equipment, $1,300,000. A substantial part of that is in connection with current commitments on winter works projects.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
National health branch-
Health services, including assistance to the
provinces-
725.	To authorize hospital construction grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $2,000,000.
Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, on page 20 it says, in regard to this vote:
To restore a portion of the amount deducted in the main estimates, 1961-62, representing the difference between the commitments which it was estimated would fall due in 1961-62 and the actual cash requirement.
Are there more to come in after this, on top of this $2 million vote, or does this represent the estimated total for the year?


Richard Albert Bell: The position can be described very simply by saying that the program is governed by commitments which are made some time in advance. When progress is made more rapidly than is contemplated at the time of the estimates an additional amount such as we have in this item is required.


William Hector McMillan: Yes, but the hon. gentleman says this is to restore only a portion of the amount deducted. Is the government not restoring it all?


Richard Albert Bell: This is due to an actual speeding up of operations. The progress of construction requires the restoration of this particular amount of $2 million.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Could the parliamentary secretary inform us if there is any assistance to the province of Quebec involved in this special item of $2 million?


Richard Albert Bell: No, there is not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
26207-1-151J
Supply-Health and Welfare Welfare branch-
726.	To authorize payment to the government of the province of Prince Edward Island in respect of the month of January, 1961, on account of claims submitted under an agreement entered into with that province pursuant to the Unemployment Assistance Act notwithstanding that claims were not made within the time required as provided in paragraph 13 of the said agreement, $15,708.
William Hector McMillan: In connection with this vote, was the unemployment assistance contribution paid to all the provinces up to the end of June?


Richard Albert Bell: This is a special situation and it applies only to the province of Prince Edward Island. It arises out of an error in that province as a result of which the provincial claim for the federal share of unemployment assistance was not submitted within the period of time which is required, the specified six months. This was due to a misunderstanding which arose between the offices of the provincial deputy minister of welfare and the provincial auditor, the latter being a new official. It was felt by the federal government that since this misunderstanding had occurred on a local basis it would be unfortunate for us to take advantage of a technicality not to pay. However, it would be impossible under the law as it stands to pay this amount without authority and that is why this item is required.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are these payments made on the basis of the calendar year or of the fiscal year?


Richard Albert Bell: Claims for reimbursement are submitted monthly. Estimating, of course, is on the basis of the fiscal year. Claims must be submitted within six months of the expenditures being incurred. In this case, because of a misunderstanding in the public service of Prince Edward Island, the claim was not submitted within the six month period. Technically, the federal government could say: We owe you nothing under the legislation. However, it was felt the government should not stand on such a technicality. However, I am bound to say we all hope that this will not become a practice among provincial governments. If provincial governments do not submit these accounts in time, the federal government may have to say: obey the law and get your bills in within six months, or else.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES National parks branch-
National parks and historic sites and monuments-
727.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $163,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Northern Affairs
William Hector McMillan: In connection with this item, I wonder if the minister would give us a full account of the expenditures as far as the celebrations at Dawson city are concerned. I know the other day the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources admitted there would be an expenditure of $200,000, I think, for the restoration of Arizona Charlie's place. However, according to a recent issue of Maclean's magazine, federal expenditures amounting to $400,000 have been approved by this government for the restoring of a hardware store, a mortuary and two saloons.
When the subject was under discussion the other day the minister should have told us this. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can give us some information, now, about this expenditure.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am told the commitment is a little over $300,000 to date. I confess I am not such an expert on the doings at Arizona Charlie's as the two hon. gentlemen on the other side of the committee may be, but I would point out that this is a significant matter for the people of the Yukon territory.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And for the taxpayers of Canada.


Richard Albert Bell: I have the figure here. It is $385,000, approximately.


William Hector McMillan: It is approximately $400,000. In other words $400,000 has been approved.


Thomas Miller Bell: It is $15,000 less than $400,000.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary has taken cognizance of the article to which my hon. friend from Welland has referred.


Thomas Miller Bell: No. The hon. gentleman has kept me too busy during the last three days for me to have time to read the magazines.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, apparently the information in this magazine is accurate, because the hon. gentleman said a moment ago, after some hesitation, that the expenditure was a little over $300,000. The article in Maclean's indicates that it is close to $400,000. After he had reconsidered, the parliamentary secretary gave the exact figure as being $385,000. So the article is correct.


Thomas Miller Bell: I wonder if I may correct myself? The figure for commitments to date is $300,000 but it may run to approximately $385,000. I was in error when I said it was actually $385,000.


Lionel Chevrier: My interpretation of this article indicates it is close to being accurate. When the parliamentary secretary says it may run to $385,000 I take it the expenditure

probably will run to that unless cognizance is taken of the remarks which have been made in the past and which may be made in the future concerning this item. I think we must ask ourselves in connection with the spending of such large sums of money on the saloons whether the sums are properly expended and whether this is being done in part to satisfy "the vision"-the great vision of the north which the Prime Minister likes to talk about so often and which many of his followers like to talk about as well. Is this going to be a part of that vision of the north? Will it be possible to say in the future that this is a vision which has gone from saloon to saloon, for instance? One would think this is likely to be the case having regard to what is contained in this article, because far more information is given to us in this article than we have been able to obtain from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or from the parliamentary secretary. I think we deserve some explanation of whether this is, in fact, as stated here, only a question of resurrecting two saloons, together with a mortuary. If that is the case we shall be going not only from saloon to saloon but also from saloon to mortuary. I think this committee is entitled to an explanation of these large expenditures and of the circumstances in which they are being made.


Richard Albert Bell: This particular subject was discussed at some length only a matter of ten days ago. The hon. member speaks of going from saloon to saloon and he is drawing from the other expression, igloo to igloo, which represents a philosophy he apparently endorses. The fact is that this item-


Lionel Chevrier: I prefer the latter.


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. gentleman is confirming his endorsation of the igloo to igloo philosophy.


Lionel Chevrier: I prefer that philosophy. I much prefer it to the saloon to saloon philosophy.


Richard Albert Bell: My hon. friend now says he prefers igloo to igloo. Let me say to my hon. friend that this vote is an important factor in developing tourist trade for the north country. I hope that as a result of this tourist trade which may be increased this year because of the world's fair at Seattle which will bring people into the north country, they will see the very vision that the hon. member derides and they will invest in the north country and share with all hon. members on this side of the chamber in assisting to develop it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More saloons and more mortuaries.


Thomas Miller Bell: Of course, this is a matter which properly would come under the jurisdiction of the provincial government; but the territorial government is unable to finance this sort of thing. This is being done not for the purpose of restoring saloons but for the purpose of improving the economic well-being of an important part of Canada where the very future of this country may rest.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I listened carefully and with interest to the remarks of the parliamentary secretary in which he indicated this was a basic part of Canada's tourist development policy.


Richard Albert Bell: It is of assistance.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: However, I am not prepared to treat the Yukon in a different manner from the Kootenays. The chamber of commerce in my district and other organizations have been interested in developing tourist trade in the area and have asked me to bring to the attention of the government at every opportunity the opportunities that prevail in the Kootenays for the enjoyment of tourists. Our important attractions are hunting, fishing and beautiful scenery. We also have some historic sites that could be developed along the same direction indicated by the parliamentary secretary. We certainly have had some famous and historic characters and dance halls in the area. We did not have Charlie but we had Whisky Lil, Brimstone Annie, Broken-Back Rae and Yukon Iola who came from Dawson city. I knew her when I was a young man-that is, I knew of her.
The Kootenay historical society has recently been housed in what is known as Rosie's Retreat. I have been asked by a constituent to ask the government if they would consider a grant to its development to benefit the tourist industry of the Kootenays and also contribute to the development of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Restoration.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, restoration. I think it is unfair to have this policy apply in only one area. I am not opposed to the policy but feel it should not be confined to only one area. The hon. member for the Yukon should not be the only one to reap this advantage.
Would the minister tell us whether it is the plan to apply the policy on a national scale? I am sure there are many districts where it could be well applied. Kootenay is an old mining district with a glamorous past where funds could be devoted to the restoration of similar institutions to Charlie's, to the advantage of the tourist industry and Canada generally.
Supply-Northern Affairs Mr. Bell (Carleton): Mr. Chairman, I fully share the hon. member's appreciation of the beauties of the Kootenays. In fact, they are so beautiful I wonder why the hon. member should bother coming back to Ottawa again. However, I shall resist the temptation of making the suggestion I was about to make.
The hon. gentleman will appreciate that the responsibility of the federal government in the territories is somewhat different from that of the federal government within the provinces. I would not be able legitimately to make the plea on behalf of my constituency that we should be put in exactly the same position as one of the territories.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You had better not.


Richard Albert Bell: Hon. gentlemen will appreciate what is being done generally by the federal government in endeavouring to promote the tourist industry across the country. The projects that are being undertaken in the territories are being undertaken because the territorial government has not the financial capacity of a provincial government and is unable to assume responsibility.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there is one brief observation I should like to make about this. In the days when these saloons which are now being restored in quantity flourished- back in '98-they were private enterprises-


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is misleading the members of the committee when he says that saloons are being restored. Not a single saloon is being restored. It is a theatre that is being restored.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The unpaid parliamentary secretary is always rising and interfering when other hon. members have the floor.


Erik Nielsen: Just setting the record straight.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The point I was making was that in the old days when these saloons did flourish they were private enterprises that paid taxes to somebody no doubt-perhaps not all they should have, but they paid taxes- but this new policy of having socialized saloons is, I suggest, a bit strong for the Canadian people.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words following the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). If houses of that kind are to be restored in some regions of the country,

Business of the House I wish to point out that Montreal has also a number of historic houses, in particular one called "Taverne de Jos. Beef".
I do not think we should adopt a discriminatory policy, that is restore houses in certain cities and not offer the same advantages to Montreal.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. It is now five o'clock. So that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the parliamentary secretary wishes to table a document.


Richard Albert Bell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. When the house was in committee of supply I made reference to a document relating to vote No. 710. This is a summary of debts presented for deletion from the public accounts. I should like now the permission of the house to table it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, leave of the house to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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, public bills and private bills.


Mr. Murray Smith (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the indulgence of the house to proceed with a bill under private bills standing in my name, namely Bill S-15, an act respecting the Canadian Indemnity Company and the Canadian Fire Insurance Company. It is quite important to this company that this matter be proceeded with as quickly as possible and if the house would give unanimous consent to proceed with this item first it would be appreciated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the request made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North that this private bill be considered before public bills as listed on today's order paper?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no objection from this side.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: None from here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I take it that there is unanimous consent and the bill may be proceeded with.



PRIVATE BILL


William Murray Smith: the second reading of Bill No. S-15, respecting the Canadian Indemnity Company and the Canadian Fire Insurance Company.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. S-15 is not in my file and I take it that it is not in other members' files of Senate bills. I wonder whether we could have it on the table?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am informed that the bill is being brought to the house.


William Murray Smith: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the amalgamation of two insurance companies, namely, the Canadian Indemnity Company and the Canadian Fire Insurance Company, each of which has its head office in the city of Winnipeg. The amalgamation is being made under the provisions of section 108 of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act by virtue of an agreement between the two companies entered into on July 26, 1961. As well as effecting an amalgamation, it would also create a new corporation referred to as the continuing corporation under the name of the Canadian Indemnity Company and, in French, L'lndemnite Compagnie Canadienne.
The two companies in existence are owned by the same owners and this is just an amalgamation in order to facilitate the carrying on of business. The bill has received the approval of the other place and was reported from their committee without amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Frank Charles McGee: the second reading of Bill No. C-34, to amend the Canada Elections Act (campaign contributions).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the matter of campaign funds, if one can believe the indications we have heard from the benches opposite, is a particularly appropriate one for discussion

at this time. I am going to begin by taking issue with the proposals that have been put forward for changes in this regard by both the Liberal party and the New Democratic party. In particular, I take issue with what presumably is now Liberal party policy as set out in the house by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) on March 19 when the resolution which stood in his name was under discussion.
The proposals put forward by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate were, as he said at that time, in two parts. The first had to do with the limitation of total expenditures.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not seeking to interrupt the hon. gentleman in any way except that I think there is a point of order involved here that we should consider for the whole house in this debate. I think that probably what the hon. member is seeking to do in this particular and peculiar circumstance is all right, that is, to refer to a debate on a motion that took place in the house in this session. Normally that would be against the rules. I am not seeking to take an exception to it. I merely felt that the Chair should take note of this at the beginning so that all hon. members would feel equally free to refer to that motion, which was merely a motion to establish a committee to consider something, which I recognize is closely related to the subject matter of the hon. member's bill. All I am concerned about is that we should have an understanding at the outset that equal privileges will be accorded to all hon. members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think in this particular instance the difficulty does not arise as no decision was taken on the motion, and all members, of course, will receive the same treatment.


Frank Charles McGee: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, before I continue with my remarks, surely the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would not seek, directly or indirectly, to deprive the house of his pearls of wisdom.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite the contrary. I just wanted to be sure I could reply in kind.


Frank Charles McGee: If it will satisfy the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I can refer from memory-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no. Go right ahead and quote it.


Frank Charles McGee: -to that momentous occasion one recent Sunday afternoon when he jousted with the newly elected leader of the New Democratic Party with one of history's most impartial chairmen adjudicating the debate.
Canada Elections Act
Whether I read or paraphrase does not really matter. The proposal he put forward had two parts, the first being a limitation on the total expenditures allowed to any particular candidate or political party. His second proposal, and the one to which I take particular objection, had to do with the payment of possibly all but certainly the greater part of these expenses out of the public treasury.
To deal with the first question first, I do not think there is any disagreement among the parties or among the various members of the house that some means must be found to apply some reasonable limit. One can argue that there is a natural law or natural correcting process in force in that if a political party or an individual candidate in a constituency is clearly spending a great deal of money in an attempt to win an election the public becomes aware of the wide disparity between individual candidates or parties, and the good common sense of the Canadian people is very likely to counteract that. I offer in support of that view an incident which occurred in the electoral history of this country where a candidate spent a total of $75,000 and the reaction of the electorate in that constituency was precisely that which I have indicated. They were offended at the suggestion that someone with a great deal of money could come into that constituency and expect to be elected simply because he had more money than anyone else. I do not recall precisely, but if my memory serves me correctly the gentleman in question, having expended that amount of money, lost his deposit. That there should be some limit applied and some practical method followed to make that limit effective no one will deny.
I do suggest to the hon. member that there are prodigious difficulties in connection with any attempts that have been made to apply this limit. The difficulties I mentioned before in this house involve such things as the evaluation of various services which are rendered to individual candidates. I have in mind the value involved in a person who leaves his normal form of gainful employment to devote his entire energies to the support of a particular candidate. This is an expense in the true sense of the word. The man is foregoing the opportunity to earn money and is, in effect, making a contribution to the candidate of the amount of money he is not earning at that particular time.
Then, too, in my constituency certain of my friends and supporters make available their recreation rooms for committee rooms. While these items of expense never appear and will never appear on my election expense list, there are elements of value in placing a recreation room or an empty room in an office building at the disposal of a candidate

Canada Elections Act
because these places could be rented to others. There is value involved. You can go through the various components that make up an election organization and you find these difficulties that I have mentioned before. I mention, too, the situation which arose in one constituency where labour organizers from all sections of the country were mobilized in that one constituency. Clearly, there was value involved. These men were not doing what they were being paid to do by the organization which normally pays their salaries. These are some of the difficulties that the hon. member is going to encounter in connection with this proposal.
Legislation has been enacted in various countries and jurisdictions in an attempt to accomplish this end. In fact, complete control or anything near complete control in this field has escaped those pursuing this goal. I am not suggesting for a moment that simply because there are prodigious difficulties we should not proceed, but it seems to me that we can reasonably expect little effective action in exploring this area. According to the statement made by the hon. gentleman which I read to the house a few minutes ago, he felt that all campaign expenses should be paid by the public treasury. In this connection, there was an article published recently in the Star Weekly written by a gentleman by the name of Rae Corelli in which this question was discussed in general terms. The article quotes an hon. member of this house, as follows: Skeena's Frank Howard opposes a treasury subsidy on the grounds that political parties would "tend to lose contact with the people".
Then, later, there appears a more interesting comment from a person described as a high level civil servant, and I quote:
A high-level civil servant who has watched the Ottawa scene for 30 years goes further and attacks the treasury plan: "This would be a crime against the people of Canada; that's all we need-a welfare state for politicians."
These views are certainly not my precise views on the subject, but do represent some of my thoughts. The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) went on to describe how he would manage his proposal to have the election expenses of all candidates paid by the treasury. Apparently all candidates would be given a certain amount of money, depending in part on the number of constituents involved and having regard also to certain other factors such as those encountered by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and other areas where transportation difficulties are the overriding factor, rather than the number of voters. He suggested that in order for a candidate to qualify for this grant or handout from the 
government, he would have to poll a certain percentage of the vote. The hon. member suggested that it should be 20 per cent of the total vote or 20 per cent of the vote of the successful candidate. He goes on to talk around the subject a bit and finally settles for what he calls a respectable vote.
It seems to me that the difficulty which would evolve here would be the impact on splinter groups or independent candidates, parties other than the Liberal or Conservative parties in this country. I suggest to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that he is on sound ground when he advocates the proposition that the two party system is the most desirable form of parliamentary government. I might even go along with him in the suggestion that splinter parties impede the procedure of the house to some extent, although they provide comic relief from time to time and as a recruiting ground for the Liberal party they presumably perform some useful function for the Liberals as well.
I am wondering, however, if the hon. gentleman is not in difficulty with this 20 per cent suggestion in that it will, in effect, penalize minorities in our system in the name of encouraging broader participation in politics. If he is going to do this at the expense of weakening the potential position of minority parties, he ceases to stand on strong ground. I am surprised at this attitude-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question? Does he see any difference in principle in saying that if a candidate cannot get a percentage of the vote he would not have his expenses paid and the present law which says that if a candidate does not get a certain percentage of the vote he loses his deposit? It seems to me that, in principle, both of these propositions are discriminatory against the minority, if that is the way the hon. gentleman wants to describe it. There is no difference in principle between the two.


Frank Charles McGee: Perhaps that illustrates the difficulty in arguing solely on the basis of principle. Clearly, the difficulty that would evolve here would be that a candidate presumably would be given an undertaking that he would be entitled to a certain amount of money at the end of the campaign. If he did not get the 20 per cent of the vote, he would not get that money. The money would have to come from somewhere. I am quite certain the hon. gentleman had in mind a great deal larger sum of money than the $200 which is the amount of the deposit at the present time. When this matter was under discussion in the privileges and elections committee a few years ago, the question of increasing the amount of the deposit was discussed. If my memory

serves me correctly, the feeling of the committee at that time was that no useful purpose would be served by increasing it substantially because the $200 would prevent nuisance or frivolous candidates from participating in the election.
I shall come back to the point I was dealing with before the hon. member interrupted me. This question of discriminating against minorities is not new in the broad political scene. I saw an article in a newspaper the other day which indicated it is common practice within the hon. gentleman's own party. The report said there was a new practice these days in that great democratic Liberal party that unless you have $75 to put on the table at a nominating convention you cannot even stand for nomination. That is a great stride forward within this party which has all the answers-all the answers, indeed. In effect the hon. gentleman is not only burdening the already overburdened public treasury in this matter but is, I suggest, effecting a form of discrimination which seems to be becoming typical of that party.
My solution, and the principle involved in this bill, have to do with a solution which will remove some of the possibilities giving rise to areas of abuse inherent in this whole question. It is my contention that it would be a far healthier thing for our democratic system if we could obtain participation on the part of a much larger percentage of our population than we have now. It is my contention-and I offer some factual basis for it-that a great many people would be willing, and in fact are anxious to participate in helping with the campaign expenses of individual candidates and political parties, if only they were approached.
Evidence of that is shown in the result of a Gallup poll which was taken a few years ago in the United States when a very interesting experiment took place in the elections of 1958. A number of people in that country had become concerned about estimates which indicated that 90 per cent of political contributions were being made by 1 per cent of the population, which indicated an obvious disparity and clearly recognized opportunities for abuse.
They gathered together to discuss the question, a question which has been discussed ever since elections were first held, and they decided to take some positive step to find a solution. The Gallup poll came up with impressive evidence that millions of voters are ready to contribute to the political party of their choice, but they have never been asked to do so. It showed that some 17 million families in the United States would be willing to give at least $5 each, making a total of $85 million, if somebody would just ask them, if some machinery could be set up 26207-1-152
Canada Elections Act
whereby these people could be approached and assured that their contributions would find their way to the person or party designated by them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does he feel a confidence in Gallup polls that is not reflected in the editorials of his favourite newspaper?


An hon. Member:: What about the one in
New Brunswick?


Frank Charles McGee: The hon. member has twice tried to steer me away from my objective and I am going to forgo the opportunity to offer the kind of reply which I think he expects to that question. The indications are that the same situation would be evident to a similar extent in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Frank Charles McGee: May I ask if allowance was made for the interruptions and questions of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes; there was a minute or two added to the hon. member's time.


Frank Howard: The value to be placed on this bill-not the value to be placed on the explanatory note accompanying it-is evidenced by the amount of time which the hon. member spent dealing with it. Some 17 minutes of his time limit were spent in a negative approach to something else, and the balance of three minutes to advocating support for the bill now before us. He had no refuting remarks to make about the proposals which we have been putting forward for quite a number of years.
We should differentiate between what the explanatory note says the bill will do and what the bill itself will actually accomplish. The explanatory note says it is "as a convenience in making campaign contributions". The title refers to "campaign contributions" but the substance of the bill itself has nothing to do with this particular question. Were the bill to become law it would be nothing more than a smokescreen to cover up for the pork barrel artists who assist the two old line parties now represented by the government and the principal party in opposition.
There was an article in Maclean's magazine a few months ago in which a former Liberal organizer, campaigner, or something of that nature, made comments about things which existed within the party so far as campaign contributions were concerned. He wrote that it is the general practice for large corporations to divide their campaign contributions on the basis of 60 per cent to the party in

Canada Elections Act
office and 40 per cent to the party in opposition. The article referred to by my hon. friend from York-Scarborough, which was written by Rae Corelli in the Star Weekly, gives a similar indication. I do not know where Mr. Corelli got his information. I do not know if his article is as authoritative as that I referred to earlier, but nevertheless he gave the same indication with regard to campaign contributions by private corporations.
Obviously they operate on the principle that if you have two horses in a race and bribe both the jockeys, then your chance of winning is pretty good. This bill deals only with candidates, and only requires a candidate to file his source of income and method of expenditure. It does not require the same information to be provided by political parties, and our major concern should be for the interest and welfare of the general public.
In my judgment this bill will not take one step towards protecting the public against encroachments that may be made upon their property and rights of freedom by political parties. It does nothing to make sure that secret contributions will come under public scrutiny. It does nothing to deal with the question of whether there should be a limit placed upon the amount of money that can be spent by a candidate and a party. It does nothing whatsoever to deal with the possibility, remote or otherwise of a recurrence of something akin to the Beauharnois scandal that existed not too many years ago, and it does nothing to prevent a recurrence of the awkward situation in which Sir John A. Macdonald found himself with respect to party contributions. It does nothing whatsover to prevent a recurrence of something similar to the Somers scandal which existed in the structure of the provincial government of British Columbia not too long ago. All it will do is place more work upon the shoulders of the returning officers because they are required by one of the provisions of the bill to give to the various postmasters a list containing the names, addresses and occupations of the candidates and the official agents.
It will overload the postal employees, who are overloaded in any event at election time. Its sole purpose is to disseminate by householder mailing system the name, address and occupation of the candidate and the official agent. I submit that if one wants to accomplish this sort of thing and if, as the hon. member for York-Scarborough says, there are a number of people who would like to contribute to the party of their choice but who have not done so because they have not been asked, this is valuable information for the parties themselves and for the candidate, and I think it would be a worth-while expenditure for the

candidate, his official agent or his campaign committee to invest some money in a householder mailing system and in effect say, "This is our candidate. This is what we believe in. If you would like to contribute, this is the address to which you can send your contribution". This would be a far better way of approaching the question of asking for campaign fund contributions from the individual citizens of this nation than by overloading the returning officer and the public treasury by having to pay for the householder mailing system.
I have other thoughts about this matter which apply to candidates themselves, but these are not connected with the question of campaign fund contributions. We have made suggestions and proposed ideas in years past on this question, and will continue to do so. I think it is an excellent system which exists at the moment, where all three parties are represented in the House of Commons, each expressing ideas and making suggestions and proposals as to how we can deal with the question of campaign fund contributions and how we can ensure that parties remain in close liaison or rapport with the general public.
I doubt very much that we will come to any agreement on what approach should be made before that time arises to which the Prime Minister made reference today, but I hope we will be able to keep alive in the minds of the parties themselves, no matter which one is in government or which parties are represented in the house, after the election this idea that we should be tackling this problem in more than a casual way. I hope these proposals which are being made are not merely election gimmicks to present a picture of purity to the general public before the election takes place.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question before he resumes his seat?


Frank Howard: Yes.


Frank Charles McGee: Is the hon. member saying, in his critical remarks concerning this proposal, that he is in effect opposed to a mailing system giving this information to the electors, and a nation-wide campaign encouraging citizens to acknowledge their responsibilities in this matter and contribute to the individual candidates? Is the hon. member expressing opposition to that notion, which is the working basis for this bill?


Frank Howard: What I said right from the outset, Mr. Speaker, not directly to the hon. member but to the house-and perhaps I could say it again now-was that I am not

indisposed to the explanation given in the explanatory note of this bill, which I will read again:
The purpose of this bill is to inform electors of the candidates and their respective official agents as a convenience in making campaign contributions.
That is a decent thought to have. What I do say is that the bill has nothing whatsoever to do with that. It provides for the first part, giving information to the electors by householder mail as far as the name, address and occupation of the candidate is concerned, but it makes no reference whatsoever to campaign contributions.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me a question. Does the hon. member still believe, as he did a couple of years ago, that the possession of a reasonably substantial sum of money is likely to subvert the candidate in favour of those who provide it?


Frank Howard: My position is that the possession of a reasonably large sum of money in the neighbourhood of perhaps $8 million to $10 million, contributed secretly to political parties by private corporations with axes to grind, is likely to subvert a political party, as it has subverted political parties in the past.
(Translation) :


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make some brief remarks on this bill. It is not very complicated. Its aim is to inform electors as a convenience in making campaign contributions.
One of the provisions of this bill stipulates that the returning officer shall prepare a list setting out the particulars of the name, address and occupation of each candidate, together with the name, address and occupation of the official agent, the said list to be sent to all householders.
Mr. Speaker, I rather think that the adoption of this bill would entail considerable expenses. The mover, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee), did not touch upon that fact, but I am of the opinion that the expenses would be too high with regard to the practical advantages that would be gained.
If you want to let the public know the names of the candidates, it is quite proper to prepare a list. And I have no objection to adding the name, address and occupation of the official agent, but I think things could be arranged so that the public treasury would pay the cost of such advertising in the leading papers in the country, English as well as 26207-1-152J
Canada Elections Act
French. Thus, all the electors could know, within a certain period of time before the election, those who solicit their support or their votes. The expense would not come very high for the public treasury. In fact, it would cost even less than the method proposed by the hon. member for York-Scarborough.
Mr. Speaker, if one examines this bill one finds that its purpose is to facilitate the making of contributions. I fail to see how such contributions can be included in the amendment proposed by the hon. member. I fail to see also how the fact of sending the list of candidates to each elector would encourage them to contribute to the election campaign of a candidate.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in politics for a rather long time, having been first elected to the house in 1953. I have acquired some practical knowledge since and, frankly speaking,
I cannot see how the public can be led to participate in the election campaign of the candidates simply by being informed by the returning officer that Mr. so-and-so is the candidate in a given constituency.
Mr. Speaker, I readily admit that some important amendments are required with regard to the Canada Elections Act, and even that they are urgently needed. That is why I am somewhat surprised that the government have not taken a definite stand on the matter in the last four years, because it was their responsibility, I think, to introduce a bill for election reform in the light of today's needs.
I should like to point out to the hon. member that we, on this side of the house, as he knows-for he mentioned it a little while ago -are in favour of limiting election expenditures. In fact, I even had the pleasure to support a resolution to that effect moved by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Piekersgill) to the recent Liberal convention held last January, where similar resolutions were adopted.
I think the high costs which would result from the passage of this bill could be put to better use, especially if the government should consider that certain expenditures are necessary to help a candidate. I think it would be much more practical to use that money to help a candidate cover necessary expenses.
I would also be in favour of the government spending money on the eve of an election, during an election period, in order to urge the public to exercise its franchise.
Of course, all candidates urge the electors to exercise their franchise; but if the electors were urged by the state itself, or by some supra-political body, there could be more voters than is the case at present. I was saying a moment ago that electoral reforms

Canada Elections Act
are necessary. I know the hon. member has studied the matter and that he knows all the difficulties involved in the application of those reforms. In the province of Quebec, the head of the government in power has proposed this year important reforms to the elections act, in order to simplify and reduce the cost of election campaigns.
The bill introduced in the Quebec legislature not only limits election expenses, but will help each candidate find the required amount of money to successfully manage his election campaign.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to press the point too long, because I want to afford other members the opportunity of saying a few words; but, to put it briefly, I think electoral reforms are necessary.
I hope that as soon as we have won the next election, we shall be able to propose legislation similar to that introduced by the premier of Quebec during the present session.
Before concluding my remarks, I should like to say a few words to my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Howard).
(Text):
This is not the first time the hon. member has spoken in the way he did about electoral funds and it is my opinion that he has obtained his information from certain bedtime stories. Reality is much more simple than that. I want to tell him that personally I found campaign funds so limited that I was obliged to pay an additional amount myself through personal loans and to try to get voluntary workers. As far as I and my colleagues are concerned there is no such thing as tremendous spending in electoral campaigns.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, in other words, however praiseworthy the aim of this bill may be, I do not believe that the procedure stated therein, will enable us to reach it.
(Text):


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: The last two speakers have, in effect, found nothing wrong with the principles contained in this bill but they have made certain suggestions which indicate that they look askance at the methods employed. It is elementary that if there is a good principle we can always modify the legislation to suit the circumstances. When one looks at the bill together with the explanatory notes it seems to me to
IMr. Deschatelets.l
be based on excellent principles and if the house were to decide to pass the measure it would be simple enough to add a section or a subsection saying it is the intention that those voters who desire to participate by making a contribution to a party or candidate were receiving a sheet, or information, for that purpose.
If it were decided that it would be good for a form to be used, it would be elementary to put at the bottom of the form a statement that those desiring to make a contribution to support a party or candidate whose names were shown might do so. This would achieve the result which the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) wishes to achieve.
A bill of this kind is probably a considerable improvement over the existing practice and I think we should support it because it is substantially better than an alternative which has been offered and which has been the subject of some discussion in an earlier debate, namely that all this should be done through what is, in effect, a government expenditure. I submit that government is too much with us now.
There is a tendency on the part of many voters to consider themselves as having little or no part in government. They think of themselves and of the government as being completely distinct. If a democratic system is to flourish and improve it can only be with the participation of those who comprise the electorate. I submit that the effect of putting into the hands of the government all the campaign expenses would remove from the people a considerable incentive to participate. It would add to the distance which all too often separates the voter from the government. We saw too much of this in years past. Until 1957, as a result of the war and conditions following it, there was a system developing of government by revelation, government by a few favoured individuals who thought they had this divine right. In 1957 and 1958, the people of this country ended that phase and restored control to members of parliament. They will confirm and endorse that decision at a certain date which I hope is not too far removed. To that extent, the greater participation which will inevitably result from the adoption of the bill would be all to the good. I think of a statement made by a very eminent young man, who now holds an important position in the free world, when he was faced with accepting great responsibility. That statement may very well be applied to the principle of the bill we are now considering. He said: Think not of what your country can do for you, but of what you can do for your country.

I think this is the spirit in which people should approach the question of government and the election of members of parliament. Not everyone has the time or opportunity to participate in the administration of the country. All cannot be members of parliament or returning officers. However, if people had the opportunity of making these contributions and felt it was the thing to do they would have a sense of participation and would have a definite interest in election campaigns and their results.
In my limited experience I have found that when we return to our constituencies we encounter a great reservoir of common sense, good judgment and sound understanding. Certainly this was demonstrated in March of 1958 as I am sure it will be again.
I know that others wish to participate in this debate and although there is more I should like to say I will conclude my remarks. To the extent to which I am certain this measure will tend to result in more people becoming interested in political campaigns I am glad to endorse the principle behind the bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I commence by paying a massive tribute to the sponsor of this bill, the hon. member for York-Scarborough. When he made reference to history's most impartial chairman in the debate between the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the future defeated N.D.P. candidate in Regina city, I think the hon. member for York-Scarborough with that reference paid one of history's greatest compliments to a father-in-law. The Ottawa Journal please copy.
I do not share the feeling of my colleagues in the Conservative party who have previously spoken in this debate. I would have a natural reluctance, I am afraid, if the taxpayers of this country should be asked to pay the costs of sending the names of candidates and official agents around from door to door, even though I realize, as the bill sets out, all the candidates in a particular riding would be lumped together.
I look upon this matter very much as I think I would if I were a bachelor to whom someone sent a list of all the eligible young spinsters in the neighbourhood whom I might court. I think politics should be approached very much on the same basis as romance in that one should seek out, look around, hunt and woo as best one possibly can and the road should never be made too easy.
Further, I suggest I do not think the public would give general acceptance to a bill in which they would be asked to pay part of the expense of a political campaign. No matter how highly we regard ourselves in this honourable chamber, outside I think people
Business of the House
would entertain a certain suspicion-and probably a well justified suspicion-if we should adopt the measure that is proposed by the hon. member.
May I point out a fallacy in the sponsor's argument. This concerns the reference to the Gallup poll in the United States in which apparently some 17 million people-I presume this would be a projection from their interviews with a few hundred thousand people or families-would favour giving $5 apiece to their favourite political party if only machinery could be set up to collect that money. Presumably those 17 million at one time or another in the last United States campaign heard of Mr. Nixon or Mr. Kennedy, and presumably there were enough advertisements everywhere to show where these donations might have gone. I would therefore ask the hon. member why at least part of the 17 million, a substantial number-say over half-did not make those $5 donations. I think the measure he proposed for this country would have very much the same result.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the house leader what the business will be for Monday and the rest of next week, if there is a "rest of next week" so far as this parliament is concerned?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hon. gentlemen opposite are getting nervous.


Lionel Chevrier: Not in the slightest.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are not the nervous ones.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On Monday, Mr. Speaker, we will proceed with legislation. The first item will be No. 13 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister to establish an electoral boundaries commission. Item No. 2 will be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice dealing with the appointment of additional judges. Item No. 3 will be second reading of Bill No. C-38 in the name of the Minister of Justice dealing with the reporting of financial and other statistics. Item No. 4, if we get to it, will be Bill No. S-19, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act. I think that would be the order in which we will take the items. If there is a change I will notify the other side before the house opens on Monday.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to understand the attitude of the other side of the house having regard to the debate which took place for two hours last night, the argument being advanced that

Supply-Items Passed
we were holding up these estimates and that they had to be put through before a specific time. We were told by the house leader that these estimates had to go through in three days.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I suggested that as an objective.


Lionel Chevrier: And now, notwithstanding the urgency which these final supplementary estimates have, we are going to proceed with legislation on Monday. This is a clear proof, in my mind at least, that these estimates were not in the slightest degree urgent.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I cannot allow that statement to go unanswered. The estimates are important and urgent. In other years the final supplementary estimates have passed this house sometimes in part of a day, sometimes within two days and always within three days, at the outside. The opposition on this occasion has elected to filibuster on the final supplementaries.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege particularly having to do with the word "filibuster", there has been no filibustering from this side of the house, but for two hours last night we had a filibuster consisting of points of order coming particularly from the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following Items were passed In committee of supply on Thursday. March 29]:

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
690.	Care, maintenance and custody of stand-by defense plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling-further amount required, $100,000.
B-Crown companies-
Canadian Arsenals Limited-
691.	Administration and operation-to extend the purposes of vote 74, main estimates, 1961-62, to reimburse Canadian Arsenals Limited in respect of outstanding balances of previous years' operating deficits, $1.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Administration of various acts and costs of special functions-
Royal Canadian mint-
707.	Administration, operation and maintenance-further amount required, $42,000.
708.	Construction or acquisition of equipment- further amount required, $13,000.
Subsidies and other payments to provinces- Special payments to provinces-
709.	Payments to the government of each province, in respect of income tax collected from corporations whose main business is the distribution to or generation for distribution to the public of electrical energy, gas or steam, of amounts computed in accordance with section 6 of The Tax Rental Agreements Act, 1952, as if the last two lines of subsection (1) of that section read as follows: "...ending on the thirty first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and fifty nine"-further amount required, $396,559.
Contingencies and miscellaneous-
710.	To authorize the treasury board to delete from the accounts certain debts due, and claims by, Her Majesty, each of which is in excess of $1,000, amounting in the aggregate to $3,710,688, $1. General items of payroll costs including superannuation payments-
711.	To supplement other votes, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for the payment of salaries, wages, and other paylist charges- further amount required, $2,500,000.
712.	To authorize persons who become employed in the public service as a result of the transfer of administration of the Vancouver airport to the Department of Transport and who, immediately prior to such transfer, were employed by the city of Vancouver, to count as pensionable service under the Public Service Superannuation Act, notwithstanding anything contained therein, their service with the city of Vancouver on the basis that the amount required to be paid by them, in respect of such service, shall be determined, in accordance with regulations to be made by the treasury board, as if an agreement had been entered into with the city of Vancouver pursuant to section 28 of the Public Service Superannuation Act in terms similar to those contained in such agreements that have been entered into with other public service employers, $1.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
713.	Estimated amount required to recoup the lobster trap indemnity account established under vote 540 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1955, to cover the net operating loss in the account as at March 31, 1962, $99,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
714.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $75,500.
Northwest Territories-
715.	Administration of justice in the Northwest Territories, including the Northwest Territories territorial court-further amount required, $47,000.
Yukon Territory-
716.	Administration of justice in the Yukon Territory, including the Yukon territorial court-further amount required, $41,000.
Combines Investigation Act-
717.	Restrictive trade practices commission-further amount required. $5,000.
718. Bankruptcy Act	administration-further amount required, $25,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
719.	Gratuities to the widows or other dependents of judges who die while in office-further amount required, $9,000.

B-Penitentiaries-
720.	Reimbursement of the industrial revolving fund established by vote 628 of the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1955. for the value of materials which were destroyed by fire, $14,145.

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons-
721.	Canada's share of the expenses of the commonwealth parliamentary association including subscriptions to publications of the association- further amount required, $1,000.
722. General administration-estimates of the clerk-further amount required, $148,000.
DEPARTMENT Or MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS
A-Department-
General-
723.	Polar continental shelf project-further amount required, $103,565.

[Stage Direction]
Royal Canadian Navy-
724.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $3,500,000.
Supply-Items Passed

[Stage Direction]
National health branch-
Health services, including assistance to the provinces-
725.	To authorize hospital construction grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $2,000,000.
Welfare branch-
726.	To authorize payment to the government of the province of Prince Edward Island in respect of the month of January, 1961, on account of claims submitted under an agreement entered into with that province pursuant to the Unemployment Assistance Act notwithstanding that claims were not made within the time required as provided in paragraph 13 of the said agreement, $15,708.

[Stage Direction]
National parks branch-
National parks and historic sites and monuments-
727.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $163,000.
[Stage Direction]
i	*
<
[Stage Direction]

[DOT] " : :*< :.J' '*
.
[Stage Direction]


Monday, April 2, 1962