1962-03-19

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of a report in the Montreal Star of March 17, 1962 of a speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) reflecting on the conduct of members of the opposition in this house. I should like to read the following extract from that paper:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker in a Montreal address last night criticized delaying tactics which he said were holding up passage of important legislation.
By needless debate of the government's supplementary estimates, he claimed, Liberal members were blocking "legislative enactments we wish to place on the country's statute books."
The Prime Minister laid the blame on a "small group of Liberals in the house-"
That statement is not in accordance with the facts. For example on Thursday of last week, as Your Honour knows, after the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member need not refer to what happened in the house, as that is common knowledge, and furthermore that matter was disposed of at the time. If the hon. member sees a question of privilege affecting members in the remarks as reported, perhaps he could give me some authority or precedent for the proposition he makes.


Lionel Chevrier: First of all I should like to add another statement which substantiates what I have said. Then I shall be glad to give Your Honour some authority. The Prime Minister went on further to say this, and I quote his words:
"Now," he declared, "we have been held up 14 days by fruitless talk designed to delay the country's affairs. I welcome full discussion but not mere repetition. I don't know the reason. I'll leave the answer to you."
That is an inaccurate statement, because they have not been held up for 14 days.
Then, sir, to come to the point which you raised and which affects the privileges of the opposition in this free parliament, it is this. When the Prime Minister seeks by statements outside the house, which are not supported by the facts, to restrict freedom of debate within the house-and according to the 26207-1-121
same press report that is what the Prime Minister was trying to do-I do not think the rules of the house permit the Prime Minister to make these reflections upon the members of the opposition, particularly having regard to the fact that the Minister of Finance indicated clearly that consideration of these estimates should be completed by the middle of the month, the Prime Minister himself said they should be completed by the end of the month, and the house leader said that they-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's discussion of the matter is, I think, ranging unnecessarily widely. The point he makes is that there is a breach of privilege if an hon. member makes statements outside of the house that are critical of the conduct of members in the house. I have no recollection that such an outside speech has been held in the past such as to raise a question of privilege, particularly where it was a general imputation against a group and not critical of an individual; nor is there anything in the report of the speech from which the hon. member has read to indicate that what was imputed to members of the opposition generally was something which would be morally improper or wrong.
There have been a good many instances in the house when members on both sides have accused those on the other side of blocking legislation, and that has not generally been held to be improper even when said in the house. Therefore unless the hon. member can find some precedent for the point he raises, it seems to me that he would have difficulty making out a case of infringement of the privileges of the house. Perhaps the party involved, the Prime Minister, would like to comment on the point raised.


Lionel Chevrier: May I complete my point? Your Honour has asked me to give you a precedent. I think a precedent has been established by Your Honour, because what in effect the Prime Minister was doing was repeating outside the house what Your Honour rebuked the Prime Minister for doing inside the house; because Your Honour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member proceeds, may I say that in my view the circumstances there were quite different. What was objected to there was a remark made following an answer to a question, a

Question of Privilege
remark made in the house that was related obviously to the conduct of the members who were then asking questions-


Lionel Chevrier: Concerning the business of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: -and in my view that charge or imputation then made was not a proper one to be introduced into an answer to a question. If it had been a general observation that the opposition was employing tactics which were obstructing the procedure of the house I would not have found that objectionable because that has been done from time to time, and, although it is not desirable it is not something that has been regarded as a breach of privilege. Unless the hon. member has a further precedent, I consider that to be a distinguishable circumstance.


Lionel Chevrier: May I be allowed to give this additional precedent? The statement made by the Prime Minister outside the house was not factual; it was not in accordance with the facts.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I now give the facts? On supplementary estimates in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the Prime Minister proceeds, may I indicate that what is before the house is a question of privilege, and I do not think the question of privilege is to be disposed of on a verification of the facts as to the circumstances which give rise to the question of privilege. The question of whether what the Prime Minister is alleged to have said actually was said is a fact that is relevant; and if it was said, whether it then raised any matter of privilege. I would not consider it appropriate to attempt to establish the fact of whether or not the opposition has been employing tactics which are delaying.


John George Diefenbaker: With the greatest of
respect, Mr. Speaker, you have allowed the hon. gentleman to make statements that are not in accordance with the facts, and I want to clarify the record so there will be no doubt.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Speak to the question of privilege. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: I think I have the floor now.


Mr. Speaker:: If the point of order relates to what the Prime Minister is about to say I will hear it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, you have made a ruling that the right hon. gentleman may speak to this matter in so far as it

involves a question of privilege. The right hon. gentleman now is about to ignore your ruling and is doing the very thing Your Honour said he should not do.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows more about what the right hon. gentleman is about to say than I do, then. The Prime Minister is at liberty to deal with matters brought forward by the hon. member for Laurier. This is one of the basic rules of debate. The only matter about which I was cautioning the Prime Minister was not to become involved, as I thought he might be from his opening sentence, in an attempt to demonstrate factually what the conduct of the opposition has been.


John George Diefenbaker: Were I to rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, every time I saw a statement the opposition made outside of the house which was not in accordance with the facts, we would not get very much business done. I do not follow that course. However, in view of the statements made by the hon. gentleman, I think I will let the record answer him.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Order. The Prime Minister is now seeking to do what you said a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, he could not do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I recall it, the hon. member for Laurier, in his statement, said that what the opposition was accused of was not true. It seems to me it would be improper to prevent the Prime Minister from replying.


Lionel Chevrier: Your Honour did not give me an opportunity to prove that what was said by the Prime Minister was untrue. I wanted to do that, but Your Honour interrupted me. Now Your Honour is giving the Prime Minister the right to put the facts on the record. I have facts here, and I think my facts are equally as accurate as those which the Prime Minister intends to produce.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Prime Minister proceeds, may I say this. In my opinion there is no question of privilege involved in the facts which have been brought forward by the hon. member for Laurier. However, certain statements have been made, and I think it is only proper that the Prime Minister should have the opportunity to controvert those statements. I would hope that he would keep himself within that category.


Mr. Pickersgill:: On the point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I find great difficulty in putting these facts before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the point of order has been sufficiently dealt with, and the course

should be to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to reply. He has not yet had an opportunity to say what he has to say.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the facts will speak for themselves, and that may be the reason for the points of order that are being raised so indiscriminately. In 1962 the number of days spent on supplementary estimates up to March 16 was 14. I now take a period of time while we were in opposition to set out a comparison in 1952-53, one day-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the Prime Minister has misunderstood me, because if he continued in that vein he would really be debating the issue of whether or not the conduct of the opposition amounts to obstruction. I do not consider that that point is in issue. The question that was raised was whether there had been a breach of the privileges of the house in what the Prime Minister had said, to the effect that he is now endeavouring to substantiate. The substantiation of what the Prime Minister said would, to my mind, be irrelevant. It opens a debate on the conduct of the opposition rather than on a question of privilege. I had only given the Prime Minister the floor to comment as far as was necessary on the charges that were made by the hon. member for Laurier.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know how I can answer the allegations without placing the facts before the house, and I simply want to point out certain facts, that in the period from 1952-53-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled on the point; you have ruled that the Prime Minister cannot continue, and the Prime Minister continues to defy that ruling. He should be the first one in this house to obey your ruling.


Mr. Walker:: You don't want the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must at least allow enough latitude until the tenor of the Prime Minister's remarks is apparent. I had indicated to the Prime Minister that an attempt, by the introduction of other evidence, to demonstrate that what has happened amounts to delaying tactics was irrelevant. I think that is the correct view. The Prime Minister is at liberty to comment on what has taken place here in this house in this session, insofar as it has been raised by the hon. member for Laurier, but I would consider it improper to go beyond that to endeavour to establish, by comparison and debate, that fact which is not really at issue.
26207-1-121*
Question of Privilege


John George Diefenbaker: With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I can answer such an obviously transparent suggestion by the opposition that a question of privilege arises. I point out with great deference, that in the period of five years between 1952 and 1956, supplementary estimates took nine days.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Robichaud:: Defying the Speaker again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We must allow the hon. member reasonable latitude to make his point. He has to express his view.


John George Diefenbaker: The total number of days taken up on supplementary estimates was nine days, for five years.


Mr. Benidickson:: Why not 1957?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I appreciate the position Your Honour is in, trying to accommodate both sides with a sense of fairness, but Your Honour has made a ruling and the Prime Minister has now twice, in my judgment, defied that ruling. If it is felt that there should be a discussion of this matter on the merits there is a procedure open to the house, and that is to allow both sides to discuss the merits of the question. But the Prime Minister, although he is the leader of the house, has now risen for the second time and each time he has risen he has defied your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps the hon. member has some justification for his point, but I suggest to him that he is prejudging the issue. The Prime Minister must be given some latitude to deal with the matter in his own discretion. I have indicated the lines which I think are appropriate, and I am sure the house will give the Prime Minister an opportunity to comment, as he is entitled to do, on what was said by the hon. member for Laurier, without being unduly restrictive and sensitive. If I find that it goes beyond what I consider to be the appropriate course, I shall take the necessary steps.


John George Diefenbaker: On that, Mr. Speaker, I am simply pointing out that the hon. gentlemen's sensibilities axe easily aroused. A statement has been made that I said something that apparently was unfair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; untrue.


John George Diefenbaker: What I did was simply point out that in a period of five years, when we were equally careful in examining estimates, we used up nine days on supplementary estimates, and so far 14 days have been used up by the opposition this session. I can only repeat, having read each

Question of Privilege
and every line of what has been said, that it is very apparent that repetition is not foreign to the opposition. Over and over again they have said the same things. More than that I need not say.


Mr. Hellyer:: Listen to the master calling.


John George Diefenbaker: Compared with what
happened over that period of five years, what is happening in this session of parliament drives anyone who gives it consideration to a conclusion which I am prepared to accept.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether or not the hon. member for Kootenay West wishes to intervene on this point-


Mr. Herridge:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: If not, I will hear the hon. member for Laurier.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: On what subject?


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the merits now. We are going to have a debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has said that he has been accused, by the statement which I raised on a question of privilege, that what he said in Montreal was unfair. That is not what I said; I said that the statement made by the Prime Minister was untrue, and I would like to prove that the statement he made was untrue, since he took time to deal with exactly the same thing by putting on the record some of the facts which he said he had.
We know very well what happened in this house on Thursday. On Thursday there was far more time taken up by hon. members on the other side of the house than there was by hon. members on this side of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Laurier will agree, and I am sure the house has come to the conclusion by this time, that we are engaged in a perfectly fruitless debate. The hon. member for Laurier did, as was his right, raise objection to what was said on the basis that it involved a matter of privilege. In my view it does not raise a breach of the privileges of the house. There has been some debate on both sides as to the merits of the accusation which, as I said, is not relevant. We can go on and have a first class debate on that issue, but it would be entirely irregular and out of order.
If the hon. member for Laurier has nothing further to add except to demonstrate the propriety of the conduct of the opposition, I suggest that he do it by letting us get on with the work of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: I have something more, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has said that 14 days were taken up. That is not a fact. We have been dealing with further supplementary estimates No. 3 since the 8th day of March. That is seven days-


John George Diefenbaker: What about group No. 2?


Lionel Chevrier: -and not 14 days, as the Prime Minister said. As we well know, we were told by the Minister of Finance, first, that these supplementary estimates No. 3 had to be passed and disposed of by March 15. We were then told by the Prime Minister in this speech in Montreal that they had to be completed by the end of the month.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lionel Chevrier: Then the leader of the house felt they were of such little urgency that it was not necessary to go on with supplementary estimates today; he announced on Friday that we should go on with legislation. So that we have three degrees of urgency; that laid down by the Minister of Finance, which was very urgent; that laid down by the Prime Minister, which was less urgent, and that laid down by the leader of the house, which was that there was no urgency at all because we would go on with legislation on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the Minister of Finance. Those other hon. members who wish to speak might send notice to the Chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can contribute to the calm which reigns sometimes in this chamber.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You can do that best by not speaking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What I said last week concerning the urgency of the disposal of the supplementary estimates then under discussion in committee of supply was absolutely correct, as I do not need to say. The carrying of those estimates to a decision is highly urgent. I pointed out the reasons that payments are being delayed because we have no authority to make them, payments to contractors and also payment of wages in certain cases.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not what you said the other day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was the situation. The discussion of these estimates went on an additional day, an eighth day, last Friday, and one item had been passed in that period. In the eight days 22 items have been passed.

The 14 days that were referred to by the Prime Minister were six days spent on supplementary estimates No. 2 and now eight days spent on supplementary estimates No. 3, and of the latter we have so far carried in committee of supply only 22, a minority of them, and there are still many items to be carried.
I have indicated that there will be more estimates to be brought down, the final supplementary estimates for the year. What the Prime Minister referred to as estimates requiring to be passed by the end of the month are all those supplementary estimates including those which I hope to introduce a little later.
And as for the announcement made by my colleague the leader of the house last Friday, in all fairness the house well knows that the only reason the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced on that occasion that we would be taking legislation today instead of proceeding with the supplementary estimates is that he had simply come to the conclusion that it was hopeless to expect to get any of these estimates passed, and he was hopeful, then, that with a change-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member interrupts me when I am seeking to contribute to good will in the chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but we have not disposed of the first question of privilege yet, and I cannot entertain a second one until this is disposed of.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I had nearly finished, Mr. Speaker. I hope the hon. member for Laurier realizes that I was speaking reasonably and trying to contribute to calm and good will in the house.


William Moore Benidickson: What a change.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The announcement made on Friday by my colleague the leader of the house did not subtract anything whatsoever from the urgency which the government attaches to these estimates and the urgency of the plea I made to the whole house in relation to the passage of those estimates when I made that plea last Thursday. It was simply that we had come to the point where we thought it was apparent we could not get any of the estimates passed, and my colleague thought that with a change of business for today there perhaps would be some
Railway Act
sense of order and some sense of desire reestablished to proceed with the business of the house.
This is extremely urgent business, and it is becoming more and more urgent with the passage of each day. I simply renew the appeal I made to all parties in the house last Thursday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think we would be more impressed by what has been said by the Minister of Finance if he had taken some cognizance of the offer made by my friend the hon. member for Laurier, which will be found on page 1900 of Hansard of Friday, that if the minister would indicate in detail what those urgent items were the opposition would be prepared to deal with them immediately and facilitate an appropriation bill which would meet the immediate needs of the government without restricting the rights of the opposition, and that courteous offer has not even been replied to by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: We will proceed with the business of the order paper, and when we reach the item "motions", if there is anything further to be said about the business of the house we will renew the discussion then.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1961-62

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1962, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
March 15-The Minister of Transport-The following proposed motion:-
That the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines be empowered to examine and inquire into a submission which has been addressed to the chairman of the committee by the national legislative committee, International Railway Brotherhoods, concerning the provisions of section 182 of the Railway Act and suggesting changes in the said section which would provide for the payment of compensation to employees affected by line abandonments; or by the closing or removal of any station or divisional point; or by the changing of operating centres or terminal points.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.

Questions



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Have any of the officials of the Canadian National Railways been negotiating with Greyhound bus lines or any other bus lines with a view to a sale, lease, or rent of the bus service presently being carried on by the C.N.R. between Fort William and Longlac, Ontario; and, (a) if not, is the railway giving any consideration to making any efforts to sell this bus route (b) if so, at what stage in the negotiations is the principle being held to by the C.N.R. that the security and pensions of the employees on this line are protected?
2.	Does the C.N.R. consider that this bus service, alone and in unison with express and other truck service, is a profitable one?
3.	Who has been carrying on negotiations?
4.	Does the price for such a sale, and/or the equipment, have to pass the scrutiny of both the board of transport commissioners and the cabinet?


Mr. Martini:: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Negotiations are in progress, and should a sale of the service take place the labour agreement under which the employees operate stipulates the rights of the employees in the particular circumstances.
2.	The bus service was established in the first instance in substitution for train service thereby producing a less expensive operation.
3.	Officers of the department of highway services.
4.	No. *


*CAMPBELLTON-CROSS POINT BRIDGE
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What was the amount estimated by the Department of Public Works for the construction of the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge, including the approaches on the Quebec and New Brunswick sides of the said bridge?
2.	To whom was the contract or contracts awarded, and at what price?
3.	Has the work been completed, and what amount has been paid to date to the contractor or contractors?
4.	Are there any claims outstanding from suppliers or others; and, if so, (a) what are the names of the claimants, and the amount claimed by each (b) what is the name of the contractor from whom such claims are outstanding (c) has the department been informed that one of the contractors on the said bridge had registered a subsidiary company or corporation within the province of New Brunswick; and, if so, what was the name of the said company or corporation, and who were the provisional directors?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer here, but since it is lengthy I wonder whether the hon. member and the house would be good enough to consent to having this answer printed in Hansard without being read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to is as follows:]
1.	$4,339,000.
2.	By federal government:
Ralph Sharpe, Campbellton, New Brunswick, $101,405.00.
Belle Construction Ltee, Isle Maligne, Quebec, $1,261,592.70.
Canadian Bridge division, Dominion Steel & Coal Corporation, Ltd., Walkerville, Ontario, $2,956,224.60.
L. D. Dimock, Campbellton, New Brunswick, $18,100.54.
By province of Quebec:
Quemont Construction Ltee, $410,602.00
Stanley C. McCallum, Gaspe, $26,735.
3.	The work undertaken directly by the federal government has been completed. In agreement with the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec, it has been decided to in-stal lighting, but this work has not yet been started.
Amounts paid to contractors to date are:
By federal government:
Ralph Sharpe, Campbellton, New Brunswick, $50,050.71.
Belle Construction Ltee, Isle Maligne, Quebec, $1,617,553.90.
Canadian Bridge division, Dominion Steel & Coal Corporation, Ltd., Walkerville, Ontario, $3,009,962.31.
L. D. Dimock, Campbellton, New Brunswick, $23,542.53.
By province of Quebec:
Quemont Construction Ltee, $425,520.16.
Stanley C. McCallum, Gaspe, $26,735.
4.	No; there are no outstanding claims by contractors or suppliers against the department.


* SUBSIDY ON CORN IMPORTED INTO NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Robichaud: Has the Nova Scotia government made a request to the federal government for a subsidy to Nova Scotia farmers to help meet the cost of com imported from the United States; and. if so, what decision, if any, has been rendered on this request?


Mr. Charlton:: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows. No request has been received from the Nova Scotia government for a subsidy to Nova Scotia farmers to help meet the costs of corn imported from the United States. However, requests have been made by the Nova Scotia government and by others for measures to bring down the cost of feed grains to farmers in the maritime provinces, and this matter is under consideration.


MEASLES VACCINE
Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	What progress has been made by the Department of National Health and Welfare in the testing of measles vaccine?
2.	Has any testing actually been done by the department; and, if not, when will the testing procedures commence?
Answer by: Mr. Monleilh (Perth):
1.	The virus laboratories of the department's laboratory of hygiene have prepared standard reagents and developed procedures for testing measles vaccines.
2.	As mentioned above, the virus laboratories have developed the necessary laboratory testing procedures. However no application has been made by manufacturers of measles vaccines for a licence to distribute such vaccines in Canada and no such vaccines have been submitted to the department for testing. Although preliminary field trials in the United States, Canada and elsewhere have been carried out by various scientific groups and manufacturers, no measles vaccines have been
Edmonton
Bricklayers	$2.90	(Apr.	19/61)Electricians	
2.95	(Apr.	1/61)Labourers	
1.90	(May	10/61)Sheet metal workers	....	2.85	(Oct.	1/60)Carpenters	
2.65	(June	29/61)Plumbers and	steamfitters	2.80	(Oct.	1/60)
No rates have been established for millwrights, boilermakers (tank), boilermakers' helpers or operating engineers (road builders). The other classifications in question are not
Edmonton
Insulation mechanics	$2.30 (July 1/60)
Boilermakers on construction or erection	 3.05 (Jan. 1/62)
Structural steel workers .. 2.83 (July 5/60) Rodmen (reinforcing) .... 2.30 (June 12/61) Operators (draglines, cranes,
shovels, etc.)	 2.40 (Apr. 1/60)


D.E.W. LINE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Mr. Herridge: Are job opportunities available to Canadians on the D.E.W. line; and, if so, do officers of the unemployment insurance commission give information on these job opportunities to applicants on request, and accept applications for them?
Answer by: Mr. Thrasher:
Concerning recruitment of workers for D.E.W. line sites, job opportunities on these operations are available to Canadians and
Questions
licensed by any government and no such vaccines are commercially available as yet anywhere.


MINIMUM PAY RATES, FEDERAL CONTRACTS, EDMONTON-RED DEER
Mr. Herridge: What are the minimum rates of pay for the following categories of workmen employed on federal government contracts at Edmonton. Calgary, and Red Deer, Alberta; and when did each minimum rate enter into effect; bricklayers, insulators, millwrights, boilermakers (tanks), boilermakers (field), boilermakers (helpers), ironworkers (erection), ironworkers (rod men), electricians, operating engineers, operating engineers (road builders), labourers, sheetmetal workers, carpenters, plumbers and steam fitters?
Answer by: Mr. Thrasher:
The following is a list of the minimum wage rates, with the effective date indicated in brackets, approved for construction contracts at Edmonton, Calgary and Red Deer for those classifications which correspond to the classification titles used by this department:
Calgary		Red Deer	
$2.90 (July	3/61)	$2.60 (Aug.	1/61)2.90 (June	12/61)	2.50 (Aug.	1/61)1.90 (May	1/61)	1.40 (Sept.	1/60)2.75 (Oct.	1/61)	2.55 (May	1/61)2.65 (July	6/61)	2.35 (Sept.	15/61)2.75 (Apr.	1/61)	2.55 (May	1/61)
designated in the same terms in Department of Labour records. The most closely comparable classifications and relevant information
therefor are as	follows:		
Calgary		Red Deer	
$2.60 (Apr.	1/61)	$2.60 (Apr.	1/61)3.05 (Jan.	1/62)	3.05 (Jan.	1/62)2.83 (July	5/60)	2.83 (July	5/60)2.35 (July	1/61)	2.30 (Oct.	1/61)2.40 (Apr.	1/60)	2.40 (Apr.	1/61)
recruitment of workers is done through the facilities of N.E.S. local offices.
In this respect, however, vacancies are not distributed to all offices when it is known that applicants are available in certain areas. The availability of these applicants is determined from N.E.S. records and from results of previous recruitment.
In regard to vacancies which are in short supply, these are made known to all N.E.S. local offices, and information in respect to

Questions
these opportunities is made available to applicants registered in these occupations and to others inquiring about employment prospects on D.E.W. line operations.


*USE OF MAILS FOR LOTTERIES AND POOLS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is the Post Office Department continuing its campaign to stamp out the use of the post for lottery and pool purposes?
2.	If so, to what effect in 1961 in terms of investigations, refusals of mailing privileges, etc.?
3.	Has the department noted that the Toronto evening papers print British football pool results and that one of them prints a "tip sheet" or forecast of probable winners?
4.	If so, has the department any indication whether this newspaper service is for Canadians who play the British football pools through the mail?
5.	Has the department any estimate of the amount of mail from Canada which gets through to Liverpool from Canadians playing the football pools?


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the five parts of this question are as follows:
1.	Since, under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada, the operation of lotteries or sport pools is illegal, the Post Office Department has no alternative but to take all possible steps with a view to preventing the use of the Canadian mails in any way, in connection with such illegal activities. The department is therefore continuing the same practices in this regard it has followed for an extended period.
2.	During the calendar year 1961, letters warning of the prohibited use of the Canadian mails for lottery and sport pool purposes, were sent to 682 Canadian residents. During the same period, mailing facilities were withdrawn from 87 Canadian residents as a result of their having used the mails for lottery or sport pool purposes after having been warned of the prohibited use of the mails for such purposes. Seventy one of these prohibitory orders were subsequently cancelled during the calendar year 1961. During the same year, Canadian mailing facilities were also withdrawn from 1652 persons or firms in foreign countries who were found to be using the mails for lottery or sport pool purposes.
3.	4, and 5. No.


MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	What is the total amount of money dispensed by the medical research council since its inception?
2.	What is the total amount of money requested by universities, individual researchers, and all other applicants from the medical research council since its inception?
Answer by: Mr. Churchill:
The medical research council was established on November 14, 1960. For the balance 
of the fiscal year 1960-61, the council assumed responsibility for discharging the financial commitments of the national research council's division of medical research which had been disbanded. In 1960-61, expenditure for medical research was $2,308,352.
During the fiscal year 1961-62, applications to the medical research council for research grants in various categories, personnel support in the form of postdoctorate fellowships and associateships, and special activities, totalled $4,600,390. Expenditures for the same period have been $3,300,000, the total amount available for the program.
Applications received to date for 1962-63 total $5,552,180. In anticipation of a budgetary allotment of $4,300,000 for the coming fiscal year, the medical research council, at recent meetings, has already given approval in principle to expenditures totalling $4,065,965. Further grants will be considered at meetings of the council in June and November, 1962.
^NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL


REPRESENTATION
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the Prime Minister received representations or complaints from George Burt, Canadian director of the United Auto Workers, to the effect that no representatives of the heavy industry unions were invited to attend the Kingston meeting of the national productivity council?
2.	Did the Prime Minister receive complaints or representations from Murray Cotterill, public relations director of the United Steelworkers of America, to the effect that no representatives of the steelworkers union were invited to attend the Kingston meeting of the national productivity council?
3.	Did the Prime Minister seek the assistance of the Canadian labour congress in selecting representatives of organized labour to attend the Kingston meeting of the national productivity council: and, if not, on what basis were the selections made?


John George Diefenbaker: The answers are as follows:
1.	I am informed that a search of the files has failed to produce such representations or those asked for in part 2.
3.	The Kingston meeting of labour and management representatives to discuss labour-management co-operation and other aspects of productivity was sponsored by the national productivity council. The senior representatives of both management and organized labour asked to attend the meeting were chosen solely by the council and invitations were sent to a broad selection of both sides of industry. I am informed that in choosing the representatives of organized labour to be invited to attend the Kingston meeting, officials of the Canadian Labour Congress were consulted fully.


CONSUMER INDEBTEDNESS
Mr. Maiheson: As of the last available date, what is: (a) the total consumer Indebtedness of Canadians (b) the comparable figure in each of the last ten years (c) the annual rate change in consumer debt?
Answer by: Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):
Questions
(a)	As of December 31, 1961, finance company and retail dealer credit extended to consumers totalled $2,349 million. Chartered bank unsecured personal loans totalled $1,030 million. The total of these items was $3,379 million.
(b)	Comparable figures in each of the last ten years are as follows (in $ million):
	Finance co.	Chartered	
	and retail	bank	
dealer credit	unsecured	Total ofYear ending	extended to	personal	theseDecember 31	consumers	loans* *	items1952 	
1,073	242	1,3151953 	
1,316	308	1,6241954 	
1,392	352	1,7441955 	
1,629	441	2,0701956 	
1,910	435	2,3451957 	
1,968	421	2,3881958 	553	2,5831959 	719	2,9241960 	857	3,1941961 	1,030	3,379
*Source: Bank of Canada.
(c)	The annual rate of change in the totals of the above items was 10.5 per cent.


MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS
Mr. Matheson: What is the total mortgage indebtedness of the Canadian home owner as of the latest available date?
Answer by: Mr. Walker:
This figure is not available but it is estimated at the end of 1959 total mortgage indebtedness, including mortgage debt on nonresidential property, on rental dwellings and on owner-occupied dwellings, amounted to $10.4 billion. Of this amount approximately one half is attributed to home ownership.


* JAMES COYNE
Mr. Fisher: Has Mr. James Coyne, a former governor of the Bank of Canada received any moneys, either on a regular basis or lump sum, from the contributory pension plan of the Bank of Canada; and. if so, how much and on what dates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This answer I give on information from the Bank of Canada.
The Bank of Canada pension fund is a separate and distinct fund made up of past contributions by the staff and the bank, plus accrued earnings thereon. It is not the practice to disclose information regarding the details of payments made to individual retired employees out of the fund.
26207-1-122


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Since when?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am told always.


*BANK OF CANADA PENSION BY-LAW
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What further consideration has been given by the board of directors of the Bank of Canada regarding rule No. 17 of the bank's pension by-law which was suspended pending further consideration? (See Hansard, page 8979, Sept. 27, 1961).
2.	Has any action been taken recently which would affect the pension position of Mr. James Coyne, a former governor?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer is as follows:
1.	Not a matter of public record.
2.	No.
^EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


SMUGGLING BY MEMBERS OF COMMISSIONS
Mr. Herridge: 1.	Have any members of the Department of External Affairs engaged in smuggling while in Indo-China; and, if so, (a) what action has been taken against them (b) were they protected by diplomatic immunity while in Indo-China?
2.	Whether or not they were formerly protected by diplomatic immunity, has consideration been given to returning these men to Indo-China so that they may be prosecuted in accordance with the laws of the country or countries concerned (Viet Nam, Laos, or Cambodia)?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is as follows:
l.(a) Immediately upon receipt of information about improper activities on the part of certain members of the international

Questions
supervisory commission staff, an investigation was instituted and the individuals concerned were brought back to Canada to be questioned by the appropriate authorities. Written confessions were obtained from them and they were suspended from the Department of External Affairs, pending final investigations and dismissal. Under Canadian law dismissal is the extent of the punishment which can be given in the case of these two men.
The Department of Justice and the Department of External Affairs have been considering the extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction over Canadian government employees abroad. Last summer the commission on uniformity of legislation, consisting of the assistant deputy attorneys general or senior solicitors of the provinces examined this proposal, and detailed legislation is now being prepared to amend the Criminal Code in this respect.
(b) There was no question of diplomatic immunity involved in the case of any of the Canadians, civilian or military, who were alleged to have been engaged in smuggling. These activities were discovered by the Canadian authorities and dealt with by them as expeditiously as possible. All those concerned were returned to Canada where a full scale investigation into the allegations made against them could be carried out.
The local authorities made no representations to the Canadian authorities concerning these allegations and therefore the question of their liability under the laws of another country has never been raised.
2.	Answered by answer to 1(b).


SABLE ISLAND EAST BEACON LIGHT
Mr. Morris: 1.	Has an automatic daylight-controlled acetylene valve been installed for operation of the unattended acetylene beacon light at Sable island east lighthouse?
2.	Does the valve extinguish the light during daylight hours?
3.	Does it reignite each evening?
4.	Is there an additional valve and control to monitor the main light at night?
5.	Does failure of the main light cause the second valve to ignite an emergency light; and, if so, at what interval?
6.	How many failures have occurred in the system since it commenced operation, and to what was failure due?
Answer by: Mr. Martini:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes; 2J minutes.
6.	There was one failure of the east light because the department's supply vessel was

delayed in reaching Sable island and replenishment of gas was thereby delayed. In this interval the stand-by acetylene light came into operation automatically.


HOUSING LOANS FOR FALL-OUT SHELTERS
Mr. Pitman: 1.	What has been the breakdown by provinces of successful applications under provisions for National Housing Act loans for new houses for allowances for fall-out shelters to January 31, 1962?
2.	What has been the breakdown by provinces of loans for the construction of fall-out shelters under the home improvement loan provision of the National Housing Act?
3.	How many of these successful applications have come from the Ottawa area?
Answer by: Mr. Walker:
1. Number of N.H.A. loans, for new houses, which included allowances for fall-out shelters,
to January 31, 1962.
Newfoundland	 1
Prince Edward Island	 nil
Nova Scotia	 nil
New Brunswick	 1
Quebec	 30
Ontario	 13
Manitoba	 2
Saskatchewan	 1
Alberta	 11
British Columbia	 3
Canada	 62
2.	Number of N.H.A. home improvement loans for fall-out shelters, to January 31, 1962.
Newfoundland	 nil
Prince Edward Island	 nil
Nova Scotia	 nil
New Brunswick	 4
Quebec	 17
Ontario	 27
Manitoba	 2
Saskatchewan	 10
Alberta	 18
British Columbia	 16
Canada	 94
3.	Number of fall-out shelters in the Ottawa area included in items 1 and 2 above-5.


*BANK OF CANADA PENSION FUND
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What authority has the Minister of Finance or any other minister in the supervision of the pension fund of the Bank of Canada?
2.	Has this authority been questioned in any way or been the subject of any discussion on the part of the government and/or the directors of the Bank of Canada; and, if so, to what effect?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer is as follows:
1.	None.
2.	Answered by 1.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the answers given to starred questions 289 and 298. I am not certain whether I should put a question or raise a matter of privilege. These starred questions were placed on the order paper to bring up to date information given last year by the Minister of Finance. Instead of raising a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would permit me to ask him a question. What distinction does he make between the information that he gave last year on the pension by-law and on the supervision of the pension fund and his answer today, in which he gave no information?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, in the case of the one question I was asked to give an answer concerning payments made to a particular retired employee of the bank. That was the question as I understood it. I referred the matter to the bank for information and I gave an answer on information received. The bank has never followed the policy of disclosing payments made to retired employees.
The hon. member will recall that last summer we were dealing with a particular pension by-law. If he is referring to question 289 concerning the by-law, I may say that again I have given the answer with which I was furnished. The hon. member may know that I had some information on that subject which I gave to the public last summer, to the effect that the board of governors of the bank at its meeting on July 22, 1961 decided to seek a legal opinion on the validity of the bank's pension by-law and in particular rule 17 of that by-law. On the same day the board adopted a resolution suspending rule 17 of the by-law pending further consideration by the board, and it is my information that that continues to be the position.


* DOMINION-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT RESPECTING HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Racine: Under the agreement entered into by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the provinces, does the power of initiative, with respect to the building of hospitals, as well as to the choice of sites therefor, rest with the federal department or with the provinces?


Mr. Monieilh (Perth):: Federal financial assistance toward building of hospitals is provided under the hospital construction grant, which is one of the national health grants made available to the provinces.
26207-1-122J
Questions
The federal government does not take the initiative in connection with the choice of sites, as hospital planning in general comes within the area of provincial responsibility. Although the initial request for a new hospital usually comes from the local community concerned, the provinces generally seek to relate such requests to over-all needs.
^FEDERAL BUILDING, EAST BEAUCEVILLE


Mr. Racine: Has the Department of Public Works acquired a parcel of land in East Beauceville for the construction of a federal building; and, if so, what was the amount of the transaction, with whom was the transaction made, and on what date?


David James Walker: The answer is as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	$16,000.
3.	Lorenzo Mathieu.
4.	Deed dated September 26, 1961.


* DOMINION-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT RESPECTING VOCATIONAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Racine: Under the agreement entered into with the provinces concerning technical and vocational training, does the power of initiative, with respect to the building of schools, as well as to the chsice oi sites therefor, rest with the federal government oi with the provincial governments?


Mr. Thrasher:: Under the technical and vocational training agreements entered into with the provinces, the power of initiative with respect to the building of schools, as well as to the choice of sites, rests with the provincial governments.


MOTION PICTURE PRODUCTION, NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	How many original motion pictures have been produced, by or for, the national film board In each of the last five years?
2.	How many original motion pictures have been produced for the national film board by private Canadian producers in each of the last five years?
3.	How many original filmstrips have been produced, by or for, the national film board in each of the last five years?
4.	How many original filmstrips have been produced for the national film board by private Canadian producers in each of the last five years?
Answer by: Mrs. Fairclough:
1.	1960-61	 84
1959-60	 96
1958-	59	
1051957-	58	
1291956-	57	
992.	1960-61	
11959-	60	
11958-	59	
11957-	58	
01956-67	
7
Orders for Returns
3.	1960-61	 38
1959-60	 36
1958-59	 42
1957-58	 43
1956-57	 44
4.	None.
*cl-41 jet trainer-design delays

Question No. 308-Mr. Herridge:
1.	Has any communication been received from aircraft lodge 712 of the international association of machinists, Montreal, protesting design delays by the R.C.A.F. which prevent the production of the jet trainer CL-41?
2.	If so, are there design delays and what is their cause; when is it expected that the CL-41 will go into production; and what answer has been made to aircraft lodge 712?


Mr. O'Hurley:: 1.	I received a delegation from this union on March 14, during the afternoon.
2.	There are no design delays in this program. As for the last part of the question, I cannot say definitely one way or the other when this program will go ahead, as there is still approval to be obtained.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fisher: Has the government recently received a request from Mr. A. R. Buckler, 90 Park street, Kentville, N.S., as president of the maritime retired federal civil service association, seeking an adjustment in pensions to better meet the present cost of living; and, if so, what was the date of the request, the name of the minister who replied to it, and the substance of the reply?


MILITARY TRAINING EXPENDITURES IN MONTREAL CATHOLIC SCHOOLS
Mr. Dupuis: 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the house leader and ask what conclusion the minister came to with respect to the proposal which was made on behalf of the opposition at five o'clock on Friday evening, and which the minister undertook to consider over the week end?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The proposal made by the hon. member for Laurier was examined. The decision was reached to go ahead with the supplementary estimates in the order in which they stand in the book.


Lionel Chevrier: Having regard to the change of business as indicated by the minister's office to me this morning, namely a change to supplementary estimates from legislation which was announced on Friday, and which was to have been gone on with today, may I ask the house leader what made him change his mind with reference to the order of business?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I agreed to consider over the week end the proposition which was put forward by the hon. member for Laurier at five minutes to five o'clock on Friday. He might have communicated with me earlier in the day with regard to the matter, but he threw it into the house then and issued an ultimatum to the effect that he had to have a decision by six o'clock. This ultimatum I refused to accept. Over the week end we decided to go ahead with the supplementary estimates as we are now doing.


Lionel Chevrier: I would appreciate it if the minister would answer my question.



COLUMBIA RIVER AND NATIONAL GRID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance on a matter that is

of national significance and is causing national curiosity. Has the minister met with the premier of British Columbia with respect to the Columbia river or the national grid, and has he anything to report to the house at this stage?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to inform the house that I had a meeting with Premier Bennett over the week end in order to discuss the Columbia river development. We had a two hour meeting. I think it was a very good meeting. It was a very friendly meeting.


William Moore Benidickson: That is a change.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not one of the
federal ministers attending the dominion-provincial conference to discuss a national power grid in Canada. Premier Bennett is attending that meeting. I had the pleasure of meeting with all the delegates to that conference at noon today and had the pleasure of sitting beside Premier Bennett at luncheon. We hope to have a further discussion on this subject before Premier Bennett leaves this evening for Victoria.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question. From this are we to conclude that the Minister of Finance takes the view now that the premier of British Columbia has not bypassed the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice, and that he does not prefer his pen pal the Prime Minister?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If it comes to the matter of drawing conclusions, Mr. Speaker, I would think it is obvious that the conclusion to be drawn is that the hon. member for Essex East is just about as hopelessly wrong as usual.



CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCES RESPECTING NATIONAL GRID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is any correspondence with the provincial governments regarding the electric grid conference which started today which has not been tabled, and if there is could the Prime Minister make it available to hon. members tomorrow?


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot give the hon. gentleman an answer off the cuff, but I will have the matter looked into and if there are any such letters they will be made available tomorrow.
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



SONS OF FREEDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has he received any further representations from the attorney general of British Columbia with respect to the transfer of troops for a particular purpose?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy
River): Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. First, on the basis of many press reports, including last week's lead article in the Financial Post, would the minister inform the house whether the governor of the Bank of Canada visited Toronto about ten days ago and with some design asked a number of prominent financial persons to meet him? Second, does the minister still deny, as he did when I asked him a question on March 12, that there has been any meaningful change in policy respecting the desirability of Canadian borrowings in the United States of America, since his sermons on this subject in budget speech advice on June 20, 1961 and in December of 1960?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, assuming that you regard this lengthy question as one that is proper on the orders of the day, let me begin by taking up the remark of the hon. member about sermons. I was not aware that I had been preaching any sermons on this subject but believe me, Mr. Speaker, if the time ever comes when I take to preaching sermons there is nobody who could better absorb them than the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.
The answer I gave the hon. member on the occasion to which he has referred is quite correct. There has been no change in policy. After Mr. Rasminsky had taken over his duties last summer as governor of the bank he met with representatives of a number of leading investment houses in Canada and proposed to them that for the time being it would be desirable that they should not undertake financing in the United States market, with the opportunities that existed in Canada for that purpose. It was expected that this would
1924	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry be for a temporary period and, in the view of the governor, that period has now been concluded. All he did was to inform the financial houses that he would no longer ask them, as I am informed, to refrain from doing financing in the United States market if they thought it proper to do so, but he has not suggested to them that they should do so. He has not asked them to do so. He has not suggested that financing facilities or sources in Canada are not adequate. It is a matter for judgment on the part of these institutions. The request made last summer was for a period, and the view is that in all reasonableness that period has been long enough now.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Does this mean that the minister now feels there is no reason why the provinces should not go to New York for their borrowings if they wish to?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The position there is unchanged. The provinces are at liberty to go to New York if they choose to do so. Having regard to what I have said in certain budget speeches, 1 hope they will not overlook the warnings that were given there against the possible consequences of doing extensive borrowing outside Canada in a currency other than Canadian currency. It is a matter for decision on their part, but the warnings that were given continue.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Would the Postmaster General give consideration to the approval of a new post office at Lyndhurst to replace the one recently burned there.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: That question, as the hon. member may know, would be more properly directed to the Minister of Public Works, who constructs post offices, and it should be put on the order paper in any event.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister give consideration to the construction of a post office for Lyndhurst?


David James Walker: Will you write me a letter, please?
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1



The house in committee of supply, Mr Mar tine au in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
Unemployment insurance commission-[DOT]
669. To authorize the Minister of Finance, notwithstanding the Unemployment Insurance Act, to credit to the unemployment insurance fund in the fiscal year 1962-63 sums not exceeding in the aggregate $25 million on such terms and conditions as the governor in council determines, $25,000,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister or his parliamentary assistant a question or two in connection with this item. First, what was the position of the fund at the end of February? As found at the bottom of the second column on page 1886 of Hansard for March 16, 1962, I note that the minister stated that at the end of January the balance in the fund was $135,877,305. What was the position at the end of February?


Richard Devere Thrasher: I will get that information for the hon. member.


Lionel Chevrier: While the officials of the department are coming down, perhaps I could put another question I have in mind. Why is this an item in the supplementaries for the current fiscal year when this advance to the fund will be made, if required, only in the fiscal year 1962-63? Why not have this amount in the 1962-63 estimates? The other question which arises is this. Is this a device to reduce the anticipated budget for the fiscal year 1962-63? I wonder if the parliamentary secretary to the minister would be good enough to give me a reply to these two additional questions.


Richard Devere Thrasher: In bringing this item forward at this time I believe the minister felt we should have the money available in case some unforeseen circumstance should arise.


Lionel Chevrier: Is that why it is in these estimates rather than in the main estimates; because it will not be required until the estimates for 1962-63, will it?


Richard Devere Thrasher: It is not likely that it will be required, if it is going to be required at all, until that time. I believe the idea was to bring the item forward as soon as possible so the money would be available in the event of an emergency.


The Chairman:: Shall the vote carry?


Lionel Chevrier: There is still an answer to come to my question, and I take it I will be getting that in due course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was not here on Friday because of preoccupation with constituency matters at home. I did not have an opportunity, therefore, to say something on this item which, as the house knows, has greatly interested me over the years. I have had an opportunity to read what was said in this debate. It is not necessary to traverse in detail the observations that have been made as to the reasons for the fund being in the perilous state in which we now find it, and as indicated by the fact that, the Minister of Finance proposes to extend credit to the fund in the amount of $25 million.
The parliamentary secretary has just observed that it may not be necessary to use even this amount of money. This surprises me because the fund now is down to the proportions that had been anticipated by the unemployment insurance advisory committee in its report tabled on March 3, 1961. I am going to suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he is unduly optimistic. I suggest to him that this amount of $25 million is not going to be sufficient, and that the unemployment insurance commission itself takes the view that the amount which the Minister of Finance proposes to extend is not sufficient.
When the parliamentary secretary has an opportunity to check this question I should like to know if it is not a fact that the unemployment insurance commission has asked for a much larger amount than $25 million. Undoubtedly what the unemployment insurance commission had in mind was the observation made in the report of the advisory committee for the year ending March 31, 1961. In the third paragraph on page 3 of that report we find this observation:
The committee recommends, however, that the government guarantee the solvency of the fund until such time as amendments are made, and given effect to for restoring it to a sound basis, and that whatever sums are required for this purpose be provided for by way of grants. The urgency for such action is made apparent from statements made in paragraphs numbered 26 and 27 of the report of the assistant superintendent of insurance and the senior actuary.
I have not got the report of the assistant superintendent, but I understand that the assistant superintendent of insurance, and this was confirmed by the senior actuary, did point out to the unemployment insurance commission what the situation would likely be between the end of March, 1962 and the end of June of this year. I should like to know from the parliamentary secretary, at some point before this item passes, whether it is a fact the unemployment insurance commission itself has asked for a much larger amount than the $25 million which is being requested in this item.
Supply-Labour
I also wish to make the observation that I believe it is rather significant that the item before us is being piloted in the first instance by the Minister of Labour and now by his parliamentary secretary. I do not quarrel, of course, with the parliamentary secretary assuming that role. However, in other years has this item not been regarded as a financial item? Certainly when questions were put in this house to the Minister of Labour which had to do with the financing of the fund we were always referred by the Minister of Labour to the Minister of Finance. A perusal of our discussions on this item over four years confirms what I have said.
Now, what are we doing here? We are attempting, by way of a supplementary item, to bolster up a fund which at one time stood at almost $1 billion, a fund which is contributed to by the employers and workers of Canada and supported to a lesser extent by contributions made by the general taxpayers through the federal government. We are not doing this by way of a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act; we are doing this by way of an item in the supplementary estimates.
I do not rise to repeat the criticisms made by hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to this procedure. I do rise to point out how serious the situation is when a fund of almost $1 billion in 1957 has been reduced to the extent that it is now a little less than $100 million, and at one time was almost $50 million; and the Minister of Finance now finds it necessary to extend credit to that fund in the amount of $25 million.
I am informed by a reliable source, not a source in the government, that the unemployment insurance commission has asked for a much larger amount from the Minister of Finance. These potential beneficiaries of the fund, those who are contributors to the fund, have a right to know that this fund will always be in a liquid state. Let it not be forgotten that the fund was of the proportion of $1 billion because the money had been contributed not by the government of Canada but by two segments of Canadian taxpayers. We could find ourselves in a situation, particularly in the event of a general election, even more perilous than the one which we now face.
The manner in which the minister has dealt with this item does not explain why the fund is in a perilous situation. The minister has not denied that the fund has been reduced from $950 million to its present proportions because of the high case load of unemployed people in this country who, in the exercise of their contractual rights, have derived means of sustenance

Supply-Labour
from the fund, thereby attesting, if anything by way of attesting was required, to the severe level of unemployment. Someone again says "gloom," but I say if there is anything which represents justification that we on this side have for complaining about the government's failure to cope with unemployment it is the fact that this fund, which stood at almost $1 billion when the government took office, has now been reduced to under $100 million, a year ago stood at about $50 million and, in the words of the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission, will continue to stand in a perilous state until the end of June of this year.
Why has this loss taken place? I have said it was because of unemployment, but it was also due to the bad investment policies of the investment committee arising out of the fiscal policies of the government, particularly the bond conversion scheme which imposed losses on the unemployment insurance fund due to the decision of both the investment committee and the Minister of Finance to compel the commission to invest its portfolio in the new bonds that were the product of the bond conversion scheme. It was also due to the denial by the Minister of Finance to the unemployment insurance commission of the opportunity to sell its securities in the open market at a time when those bonds would have been guaranteed par value because of government policy at that time.
When we are discussing this item introduced by the Minister of Finance to transfer $25 million to the unemployment insurance fund, we must not forget that this fund would be in an even more serious state had it not been that this government

I contend improperly-two years ago got $78 million from the workers and the employers by way of added contributions, imposed on the then existing rate of contributions. We complained about this at that time. The rate of contribution was increased from 25 to 55 per cent. There was no compensation given by way of an increase in the pattern of benefits to any segment of those who were potential beneficiaries under the fund. As I say, the fund would be in a more perilous state than it is now had it not been for contributions-not made by the government of Canada and not loans made by the government of Canada-but contributions improperly and unfairly imposed on Canadian workers and employers.
We all remember this. I say it was a misuse by this government of the trust fund in permitting that situation to arise. There was no obligation on the part of the workers and

employers to bolster the fund under those conditions. That was a responsibility placed on them by the government of Canada-*


William Moore Benidickson: And by pressure from the Minister of Finance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and by pressure from the Minister of Finance, as we know very well from his own admissions in this house. In other words, the workers and the employers were saddled with the responsibility of doing something that the government of Canada should have assumed. The government will not resort to this procedure to meet the present situation because of complaints made by the manufacturers association, the chamber of commerce, the labour congress and other bodies throughout the country, who agree that the policy of the government in that regard was unfair.
The government is dealing with this situation in a piecemeal way. We are not being asked to deal comprehensively with unemployment insurance. I would point out that the unemployment insurance advisory committee said, at page 3 of its report for March 31 last:
The speech from the throne delivered at the opening of the most recent session of parliament on November 17, 1960, included an announcement of the intention of the government to place before parliament for approval, amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to safeguard the basic purpose of the act, to strengthen the fund and to correct abuses which have developed in practice.
We all looked forward then to the legislation that we were going to have placed before us, which would have dealt with the fund and with other substantial matters having to do with the administration of unemployment insurance. But what do we have? Instead of an act of parliament, as we were told and as Her Majesty's representative was caused to utter at the opening of parliament in 1960, we have had appointed by this government, when parliament was not in a position to question it, a royal commission to examine into the whole question of unemployment insurance. That commission is now engaged in hearing representations from various bodies. I simply want to say that again was another example of the way this government holds parliament in contempt.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone said "Nonsense". The leader of the house said "Nonsense", behind the curtain, but the fact is that as leader of the house he should confirm what I am saying. It was only after parliament had adjourned that the government displayed the courage to indicate the

device it proposed to employ in trying to ascertain what should be done about the Unemployment Insurance Act.
That is the situation. I think we must now remind the government ol the composition of that royal commission. I have no quarrel with the competence of the persons who are on that commission, but I join with the labour congress in complaining about the failure to have as a member of that commission someone who represents labour opinion and the labour point of view. After all, this is a royal commission designed to study an act to which the employers as well as the workers contribute. It seems to me it is desirable that the representatives of the trade unions and the representatives of the workers of this country should have someone on it.
Let it not be said that such a person would be a prejudiced party. We did not hesitate, and I think properly so, to appoint members of the medical profession on the royal commission examining into the proposal of medical care insurance. There are employers represented on the royal commission examining the Unemployment Insurance Act, but how this government can hope to justify the kind of remarks made by the Minister of Labour to the labour congress the other day about the way this government consults with labour on matters of interest to it, in the light of its refusal to have a representative of labour on this commission, is beyond me.
Here is what the labour congress said in this regard at page 44 of the brief presented to the government on March 14 last:
Any illusions we still had concerning appropriate appointments were dispelled when you appointed the committee of inquiry into the Unemployment Insurance Act. Here is an act which by its very nature is of direct and immediate concern to over 4 million Canadian wage and salary earners. They and their employers contribute directly to the fund established under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The administration of the act is through a tripartite commission, including a commissioner representative of the employee interest. The act further prescribes the appointment of an unemployment insurance advisory committee, a national employment committee and regional and local employment committees on which organized labour is represented. Presumably here if anywhere organized labour should have been represented on the committee of inquiry. Yet there is not a single member of that committee, however qualified in every other respect, who can claim to represent the employee interest. This act of omission on your part drove home to us better than anything else the fact that the opinions of the Canadian Labour Congress and of organized labour in general are of little or no significance to you-
"You" meaning the government, of course:
-in the determination of your policies. When we ventured to complain that there was no representative of organized labour on the committee of inquiry we were told in very peremptory language that there was no need for one and that to have included such a representative would have injected a sectional interest into the work
Supply-Labour
of the committee. Presumably there is no sectional interest involved when the medical, dental and nursing professions are represented on the royal commission on health services. We cannot help but conclude that the failure to consult the congress for nominees to various commissions, boards and agencies and the appointments made without consultation (such as certain appointments to the national productivity council) indicate a deliberate policy of bypassing the congress wherever possible.
I am not rising here to defend the congress, but the congress of labour is the largest gathering of trade unionists in this country. It seems to me that the submission they have made about the failure of the government to include labour representation on the royal commission is sound. I hope that the government in whatever reply it seeks to give to this point will not say that the reason labour was not represented was that it did not want to have parties with an occupational interest represented on the commission. If that argument is made it will not stand water, because that very course was followed in some of the other appointments to the commission. The employer groups are represented certainly by some of the members of the commission, all of them able, good Canadians. Certainly the government has not hesitated to recognize occupational interest in the appointment of the royal commission on health services.
Mr. Chairman, there are two other points I would like to make based upon observations in the report of the advisory committee for the year ending March 31, 1961. I have asked the parliamentary secretary to tell us whether or not it is the case that the unemployment insurance commission feel that $25 million is not adequate and that it has asked for a much larger amount. If this is the case, why has the government not acceded to the request of the commission? That may be a question that can only be answered by the Minister of Finance, but he is not piloting this legislation. He has done it in other years, but for some reason or another what is a financial matter is now being turned over to the Department of Labour, unlike the practice in other years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Apparently the Department of National Defence, if we look to the treasury benches.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was looking at something a little more agreeable, and that was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour.


William Moore Benidickson: Only one cabinet minister is here; a good one, of course.


Lionel Chevrier: That is debatable.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance, in his budget statement to this house

Supply-Labour
on June 20, 1961 announced, it will be remembered, that the entire portfolio of the unemployment insurance fund would in due course be taken over by the treasury at book values, and in exchange the fund would acquire interest bearing but non-marketable bonds which might be redeemed by the government as required on 30 days' notice. The direct government of Canada bonds held by the fund were to be cancelled, and the government guaranteed that the bonds would in due course be traded to the Bank of Canada in exchange for equivalent government bonds, which in turn would be cancelled.
I presume that this transaction has taken place, and I suspect that the course pursued by the Minister of Finance in that regard averted the loss to the fund of several millions of dollars during the fiscal year 1960-61. It would be interesting, however, to know whether that is the case. We should know from the government what have been the consequences. We are now discussing a means of replenishing the fund, and we should now know what is the consequence of the decision of the government to take over the entire portfolio of the unemployment insurance fund.
The fact is that that portfolio at no time ever suffered unmanageable loss until this government came into power and only after the bond conversion scheme was imposed on it by the debt management policy of the government of Canada at that time. But we should have a report with regard to the consequence of this policy in terms of saving of money, as the Minister of Finance indicated would be the consequence.
The advisory committee made a recommendation. They approved the government taking over the portfolio but suggested that the government should consider establishing a minimum rate of interest on these nonmarketable bonds. Was that done? "What was done about this recommendation? Was it considered by the Minister of Finance? If not, why not? Those are further questions that I would like to ask of the parliamentary secretary at this time. I am sure that the parliamentary secretary, who is replacing the Minister of Labour at this time, will not feel that I have taken undue advantage of him in asking some financial questions, but I believe these are important to the maintenance of the integrity of the fund itself.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, I am a bit surprised that we have the opportunity to speak on this item today. Unfortunately, taking the house leader at his word the other day, I had occasion to cancel three rather important engagements in my constituency over the week end to prepare for another matter that was supposed to be taken up

today. But apparently we should be wiser by now than to take the house leader's word for anything.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think this is a statement which the hon. member will, on reflection, not want to have stand in that form. I think the word of the hon. member who is the house leader is extremely highly regarded. Also, saying that you cannot take the word of any hon. member I think is strictly against the rules.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I reiterate that because of the word of the house leader on Friday I had to cancel three important engagements in my riding to stay in Ottawa to prepare for the bill pertaining to corporations and trade unions. Some 10 minutes prior to the opening of the house today I was informed that we were not proceeding in that fashion but were going ahead with the supplementary estimates.


William Moore Benidickson: A slap-dash government.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I was hoping to hear some comment or withdrawal by the hon. member in regard to the imputation on the word of the house leader. I think the sentiments couched in the language that they are in should not be left on the record.


Murdo William Martin: Out of deference to you Mr. Chairman, I shall make whatever-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Murdo William Martin: -withdrawal is necessary under the circumstances.
We are dealing today with an item the purpose of which is to pump $25 million into the unemployment insurance fund, which is almost depleted. It is rather strange that with the shortages we have in Canada today in the fields of public housing, highway development, water and sewage facilities and other things, the unemployment insurance fund should go broke.
I certainly have no more sympathy for the previous Liberal administration than have hon. members opposite, but it is interesting to reflect that in the 15 year period from 1942 to 1957, when this country was under the mismanagement of the former Liberal government, the fund grew at an average rate of $9 million a month.


William Moore Benidickson: Prosperity in those days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite a contrast.


Murdo William Martin: Since this government has taken over, and in spite of a 33 per

cent increase in premium rates on contributions to the fund, the fund has depreciated at the average rate of approximately $17 million a month during that 59 month period. We are now being asked to pump $25 million into the fund. At the rate that has prevailed since this government took over that amount will be adequate to last only six weeks, approximately a month and a half. Perhaps that will be long enough to see the government through another election. I wonder whether that is what they have in mind.
An important question to ask ourselves is this. What problems will $25 million solve? The Globe and Mail of May 10, 1961 carried an article entitled "Insurance or Relief" which warns the government against subsidizing the fund or abusing it, and points out that what is needed is reorganization. The first paragraph of the article reads:
As the indicator on the unemployment insurance fund swings toward empty, opposition members have called upon the government to subsidize the operation. It is apparent that some action to stabilize the fund is necessary; but outright subsidization would merely perpetuate the evils which have brought it to its present precarious state. What is needed is reorganization.
Those are profound words, and the government should take them seriously to heart. It is clear that the original purpose of the fund is no longer adequate. The original purpose was to serve a rather narrow field. The fund was designed to provide minimum income between jobs. It was assumed at that time that the interval would be of short duration. Almost everyone realizes that is not the situation we have had to face in the last few years. It is true that the fund has been eroded to a certain extent by circumstances. The advent of automation and other things of that kind have had a serious effect on the fund. It is also true that the fund has been eroded by the weaknesses of the Liberal and the Conservative governments, which have been unable to resist exploiting the vote catching possibilities of the fund. So they have brought within the confines of the original idea behind the fund many groups that were not thought of at the time the fund was established, and have thus thrown it completely out of focus.
In any event it is recognized by everyone, except apparently by this government, that something more than the original design is needed now. What we now have is only a palliative for an old disease which is no longer the sickness from which the country is suffering. The fund as originally set up was only for short term unemployment or unemployment of a nature that was capable of rapid readjustment.
Supply-Labour
The original plan adequately covered unemployment of the type the fund was designed to meet. It was not designed for the 12 month period introduced by the present government. At the time that adjustment was made I asked what provision was being made for these extensions. There was none. The original idea did not embrace supplementary payments. All these things really amount to the government offering assistance as a form of welfare and charging it to the unemployment insurance fund. That is why we are getting into so much trouble at this time. That is why today we are faced with an item of $25 million representing an attempt on the part of the government to bolster the fund.
It is true that the fund has been subjected to abuses, some of which have been perpetrated by private individuals. Those are the abuses about which we hear so much. The government tries to create the impression across the country that that is all that is wrong with the fund; that someone here and there is chiselling, and some married women are receiving payments to which they are not entitled. I say there are greater abuses than those of private individuals.
Let me cite an example. In my constituency a couple of months ago a case was brought to my attention. A miner who had been employed in the local mines since 1923 suffered from bad health. This health declined to the stage at which he could not walk from his house to the road without pausing for breath. This man was fortunate in that he had served in the Canadian army for approximately five years and was eligible for what is known as the burnt out pension. Of course he was not really a burnt out veteran but a burnt out miner; but because there was no legislation by which he could obtain assistance in that capacity he was fortunate enough to be eligible for the burnt out pension as a veteran. We commenced an application for the pension. The individual was informed by a government official that before he could qualify he would have to use up all his unemployment insurance. What kind of nonsense is this? As soon as I heard about it I blistered the telephone wire; there was a quick about face, and the application went through for the burnt out pension. How often is this experience or a similar one repeated across the country?
I do not know why we have embarked on this game of self-delusion. I do not know why we think it is smart or adequate to believe that if we pay someone from another pocket, it really does not cost us anything. When we make payments out of the unemployment insurance fund, the burnt out pension fund or any other welfare fund it all

Supply-Labour
has to come out ol the same pocket eventually. It is about time we overhauled the whole social security field. It is time that we began to look at it honestly. It is time to call a spade a spade. We should not bring in items of $25 million such as this, which do not represent a solution to the problem and which only serve to delay the inevitable day of reckoning.


Mr. Pitman:: Mr. Chairman, I am moved to say a few words on this item. It has come to my attention from many sources and directions that there are many holes and gaps existing under this legislation in respect of which this item is being introduced. I think the feeling on the part of many people in Canada is that the unemployment insurance scheme must be definitely revised.
In respect of this fund the government evinces a kind of schizophrenia in the sense that when the matter is discussed there seems to be great urgency, purpose and concern, but when it comes to taking action a means is found to avoid coming face to face with the problem, by some back door or back alley method. For example, in the throne speeches of 1959 and 1960 we were promised amendments to the legislation, and last year a four-man special committee was appointed to review the legislation. I have in my hand a newspaper clipping dated July 17, 1961 in which the announcement is made of the appointment of the special committee.
It states:
Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, in announcing the formation of the committee, with powers of a royal commission to call witnesses, did not indicate when the committee would report, but said he wanted it to be at the earliest possible date.
So we are constantly given the feeling that this government is ready to move, is ready to do something.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It met eight months later.


Walter George Pitman: That is a piece of information with which I was not acquainted, namely that it met eight months later. However, the point is this. It appears that the government wishes to do something but for some unknown reason it does not do anything. Perhaps we should appoint a psychiatrist to the cabinet or something. For some reason they cannot seem to break through this thought barrier and do something about this problem. On July 1, 1961 the public accounts committee viewed with alarm the reduction in this fund. As has already been suggested by the hon. member for Essex East, the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission has suggested something being added to this fund for some time.

It seems to me that there are three areas of responsibility here. There is the responsibility of the employer to contribute, there is the responsibility of the employee to contribute, and surely it is the responsibility of the government to see to it that the legislation is going in the right direction. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the government to provide the kind of economic situation which will allow this particular piece of legislation to work properly. It always makes me smile when people say we cannot have the full employment society, that we cannot have the kind of economic growth which will produce it; and by full employment I mean maybe 3 per cent, 4 per cent or 5 per cent of the working force unemployed. Yet this piece of legislation was put through to work in a full employment society. That is the only kind of society in which it will work.
The reduction we have seen from $900 million plus to the figure at which it stands today, namely $100 million plus, indicates that very point, namely that we must have a full employment society for it to work. This legislation simply will not cover prolonged chronic unemployment. It will not cover extensive seasonal unemployment. When it was passed in 1940 it was simply meant to carry a worker from one job to another. Of course it was assumed that after the war there would necessarily need to be some transitional period in which this might happen and this fund would tide the worker over. We are making this legislation deal with a situation which has no relevancy whatsoever to the intention when the legislation was passed, and it has no relevancy whatsoever to the philosophy behind the legislation and no relevancy whatsoever to the kind of society in which we have been living under this government.
Surely the government has two alternatives. It must either gear the legislation to accommodate itself to the kind of economy in which this government is willing to operate, or it must change the economy and provide the growth which will allow the legislation to work. Those seem to be the only two alternatives. What do we have? We have continuing announcements of concern and of urgency but never any real action. This item we have before us simply outlines what I think is the schizophrenia of this government in not being able to jump the barrier, or to leap through the bulwarks which prevent them from taking this thing in hand.
The reason I am led to rise today is that I think this country demands an explanation as to what is wrong. I find workers who have a kind of inferiority complex because they are collecting unemployment insurance. There

has been a feeling that it is a kind of charity, when in essence it is a form of social insurance. Until we get this thing reorganized I do not think the average worker is really going to have very much respect for this fund and for this particular way of dealing with unemployment. That is why I think it is most necessary, and I think it is an obligation upon this government, to do something in connection with this matter before it goes to the country. I do not think it can go to the people of Canada and justify what has happened to this fund over the last five years and what has happened to this economy without making at least one solid attempt to provide the kind of legislation which this country must have in this area.
I think it is a time to clarify the whole philosophy behind it. We get all tangled up because we are trying to deal with this legislation on an actuarial basis. It really is not insurance at all. We do not expect people to contribute what they expect to collect. It is not based on those principles. This is what has caused a great deal of confusion. I think this government has a responsibility to deal with this kind of confusion. I feel that we cannot raise the rates on those who are most likely to be unemployed, as would be done in an insurance aura. What you have to do is deal with it as a national problem. I think it is a matter of this government accepting responsibility for dealing with this problem, and at the same time recognizing that this has been part of the cost of unemployment, and a tremendous cost it has been.
I saw an article just last September to the effect that the unemployment insurance fund has paid out $3,250 million in unemployment insurance benefits-$3 billion in round figures-since it began 20 years ago. But let us look at the rise. In 1942 it paid out only $37 million. By last year, that is 1961, we paid $85 million in the one month of March. I think that is just fantastic; I refer to the rise that has taken place in what we pay out. I do not think this really is a payment which is related to economic growth or anything of which we can be very proud in this matter at all.
What I am concerned about is the fact that to a large extent we think that because we are not paying out unemployment insurance, because numbers are going off the unemployment insurance rolls, we have dealt with the problem. However, I am sure that all hon. members in this House of Commons know that there are many thousands who have exhausted their benefits completely. In the Goble and Mail of Wednesday, December 6, 1961, there is an article which states that the social welfare department in Quebec
Supply-Labour
is now spending close to $6 million a month in helping workers who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits. If other hon. members have constituencies which are anything like mine, they will know that a great many of the men who last year were standing in front of the unemployment insurance office are now standing in front of the welfare office, and the welfare payments in the various provinces have been going up at a rate that has alarmed those who are, I might say, the least conservative of the people in provincial government circles.
I think some steps must be taken. There must be some great change before this parliament goes to the country. The Canadian Labour Congress has suggested that we should separate financing of the ordinary benefits from the seasonal benefits and that the seasonal benefits might very well be paid out of some kind of consolidated revenue fund.
Another problem, in my opinion, is the fact that monthly unemployment insurance payments, here again because they were geared to see a person over a few months, naturally are not very high. But now they are having to see people over many months and indeed years, and month by month what happens is that the individual finds that he is getting further and further behind, that his debts are rising. I think we need to take a very serious look at what the benefits should be in the kind of situation in which so many of our people find themselves. Indeed, one economist in the United States, for example, suggested that we should pay an amount equal to some fraction of the difference between workers' regular revenue or regular earnings and what his benefits should be, and that they should go up over the period in which he is unemployed. Today, of course, the average weekly benefit is some 30 per cent of the average weekly wage. How can an individual be a consumer and add anything to the economic well-being of the community under such a situation? Therefore I think we should look at this whole area of variable rates.
I am not going to take up any more of the time of the committee on this item, because essentially we are not dealing with the legislation. However, I think the fact that we are facing this item in the middle of March, with the possibility of this being the last session of this parliament, places a special obligation upon the government. I think we have to deal with this whole problem and do so in such a way that we can have the confidence of the workers and the employers; for after all these two groups in my opinion do have a responsibility and they have a right to expect that the government will accept its responsibility.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before this item is carried I think the parliamentary secretary should

Supply-Labour
reply to the questions which were asked him earlier by the hon. member for Essex East. I know he asked him what the balance was in the unemployment insurance fund at the end of February.


Lionel Chevrier: That was my question.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to correct myself; it was the hon. member for Laurier. In addition, what was the number of claimants receiving benefits as at the end of February?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to answer any questions at the conclusion of hon. members' remarks. The balance in the fund at the end of February was $104,618,000. Unfortunately the figures regarding applicants are not yet available for February.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before this item carries, Mr. Chairman, there are one or two observations I wish to make that I did not have the opportunity to make the other day. I said the other day that we would never have been asked to vote this $25 million if the government had shown any sense of responsibility or any appreciation of the fact that there was a problem to be solved. I was very much interested to hear the hon. member for Timmins trying desperately to support his party's favorite thesis that there is no difference between the way the Liberals managed this affair and the way the Tories have, but he made a pretty poor job of it because he had to admit that there was $928 million in the fund when this government took office. We have now been told that at the end of February last there was only $104 million, which I think dramatically demonstrates the difference.
I think the hon. member for Peterborough, who did not attempt to square the circle perhaps because he is a little wiser even though younger, put his finger on the point right away when he said this legislation was not designed for a period of prolonged and chronic unemployment. Rather it was designed for a period of full employment and, of course, that is what we had in this country up until 1957.
I think it might be useful to illustrate that it is not Liberal propaganda when I say that we had full employment up until 1957. I have in my hands the proceedings of the dominion-provincial conference which met on the 25th of November, 1957. To that conference the Prime Minister gave an appraisal of the unemployment situation in Canada. Remember, sir, that this was a formal appraisal given to the premiers after this government had been in office for five months. They no longer had any excuse for not knowing the facts. Oh, I know they pretend-the Minister of Public Works in that helpful spirit he always shows

in the house brought it up the other day- that the Liberals knew away back in March of 1957 that there was going to be heavy unemployment, but these bright gentlemen after five months on the treasury benches had no such idea. They were not bright enough to see the facts.
Here is the Prime Minister's formal opinion as to the state of unemployment in November, 1957, five months after this government took office. It has been put on the record before, but it is very relevant because it shows why we are in the situation we are in now. It shows the refusal of the government at any stage to treat the problem seriously. What the Prime Minister said to the premiers was not an off the cuff statement. I was present as a spectator at that conference, and I remember that the Prime Minister read from a document that had obviously been very carefully prepared in advance as his judgment of the unemployment situation in November of 1957. He said:
I wish now to say a word or two on the question of unemployment. In many countries of the free world there has been a pause this year-[DOT]
Mr. Pallet!: Is that the dominion-provincial conference?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In 1957. If the hon. member had done me the honour of listening he would have heard the reference when I first gave it.


Mr. Pallell:: The hon. member said 1957, but he did not indicate the document.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said I was going to refer to the proceedings of the dominion-provincial conference of 1957 which began its sessions on the 25th of November, and that these words are from the opening address by the Prime Minister to the premiers. This was the first time the Prime Minister gave an official appraisal. He had been in office for five months then, and at that time he gave an official appraisal of the unemployment situation as he saw it after five months in office. This was the Prime Minister's judgment after having had five months to study the problem:
I wish now to say a word or two on the question of unemployment. In many countries of the free world there has been a pause this year in the rapid pace of development and, as in 1954 and 1955, an increase in unemployment. You will remember in those years that while the percentage of unemployed in Canada in relationship to the number employed was much higher than it is today-
This is the Prime Minister saying that, not I.
-that fact and those circumstances did not herald the beginning of depression. What actually happened was that there was a levelling off process which subsequently led to an even wider development and expansion program. When I say that, of course, I do not mean that prompt action must

not be taken to meet what I believe to be a temporary situation this winter. This government has taken active measures to meet this short term situation and is taking additional ones.
After five months in office, after plenty of time to acquaint himself with all the information that was available, this was the considered judgment of the Prime Minister.
The other day the Minister of Public Works challenged me to say something about the hidden report. I am going to say something about it in relation to this matter, and what I am going to say is this. No one in this house believes that the Prime Minister had not already seen the hidden report when he made that statement. Certainly the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who was then minister of trade and commerce, would not say that he had not had that report drawn to his attention before the 25th of November, 1957. Therefore when the Prime Minister made the statement that this was a pause, that unemployment was less serious than it was in 1954 and 1955, that it was a temporary thing for that winter only, he made it in the light of the information that was available to him from all the files of the government including this so-called hidden report.
I think it is useful to have that perspective, because it has been the fashion for hon. gentlemen to say that they were too stupid-I am paraphrasing them-to see things for themselves that the Liberal government with its much greater foresight had foreseen months before. But the fact of the matter is that all the information that was available to the Liberal government was available to these gentlemen, and a great deal more; and the judgment of the Prime Minister in November of 1957 was that this was a pause and a levelling off from which we would rise to greater heights.
The fact is, of course, that this was the beginning of a recession, not a very deep recession but one which went on through 1958 and which the government claimed was over in 1959. They did not see that there were any chronic elements in it. They claimed it was over, and they have claimed it has been over two or three times since. In other words, they simply failed at any time to pay any attention to the facts.
These are not the only facts they ignore. They publish propaganda literature designed to impress the electorate which is filled with statements-there is only one word for it- that are patently false. Here is one, for example, from this little booklet to which I referred the other day in which the government boasted it had increased relief payments by 847 per cent. Just imagine any government in the world boasting that it had increased relief payments 847 per cent. What a topsy-turvy kind of government, to boast
Supply-Labour
about increasing unemployment relief and then to say that unemployment is not serious. You know, it passes comprehension, sir.
Here is another statement from this booklet entitled "Still more action for Canada and Canadians":
For the first time,-
This was after this government had come into office.
-fishermen and other seasonal workers are included under its coverage.
This statement is false; it is completely and utterly false. So far as I am aware, there has not been a single seasonal worker put under unemployment insurance since the present government came into office. There has been no change in the unemployment insurance legislation since the present government came into office except an increase in the contributions by about 30 per cent. This is the only change they have made. The seasonal workers, rightly or wrongly-there are some people who condemn it-were included under the legislation by various changes in the years before the change of government. The fishermen were included in the spring of 1957 by an act of this parliament, an act which was praised by all parties in the house. The legislation came into effect on April 1, 1957, just about three months before hon. gentlemen went over to the treasury benches.
They had persistently and consistently made these false statements ever since. It is all of a piece with what they do, and whether it is deliberately false or whether it is done from ignorance, I do not know. I do not know which I would be prouder of if I were in the shoes of hon. gentlemen opposite. Do they want to boast that they are so ignorant they cannot produce the facts or are they deliberately trying to fool the people? There is no third possibility.


An hon. Member:: You said that last year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And it deserves to be said again. It seems to me that either they are using a deliberate campaign of falsification to get the support of the public or they are so ignorant of the law they do not know what they are talking about.
In order to give you an idea of how ignorant they can be, and here I feel I must use the word "ignorant"-


Mr. Jones:: Your language is certainly
limited.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman will perhaps wish to say something when I have finished this quotation. I have here, from the Prime Minister's office, a copy of a document entitled, "Notes for a Speech by the

Supply-Labour
Prime Minister, the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, P.C., Q.C., M.P., at a Meeting of the New Brunswick Progressive Conservative Association, Fredericton, N.B., October 21, 1961." What did the Prime Minister say in these notes that were given to the press? This was not something that was casually said off the cuff. These notes were given out for the guidance of the press in writing stories for the people of Canada. Here is what it says, and it staggers the imagination:
Then there was unemployment insurance. We contended that the St. Laurent administration had failed to have unemployment insurance do the job it was intended to do. At that time, Canadians in only six of the ten provinces came under its provisions.
Here is the Prime Minister of Canada so ignorant of the law, so ignorant of the administration that he had been carrying on for over four years at that time-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would you repeat that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I certainly will repeat it. I thought it might be a misprint because it staggers the imagination.
Then there was unemployment insurance. We contended that the St. Laurent administration had failed to have unemployment insurance do the job it was intended to do. At that time, Canadians in only six of the ten provinces came under its provisions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Amazing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the kind of thing the Prime Minister goes about the country saying at political meetings. Of course, that statement is false, as every member in this house knows. It is completely and utterly false. I am not accusing the Prime Minister of having made it up. It was obviously made up in the boiler factory where the Prime Minister gets his speeches. All he does, apparently, is to use this stuff. He does not bother checking it. He does not bother to find out whether what he says is fact or, to use one of his favourite words, fiction.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: May I ask
the hon. member a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is absolutely appalling-


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, certainly.


William Joseph Browne: Was the
reference to unemployment insurance or to hospital insurance?


An hon. Member:: He is referring to unemployment assistance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is referring to unemployment insurance. I shall read on a bit
[Mr. Pickersgill.)
if the hon. gentleman says it was unemployment assistance. If it was unemployment assistance, the Prime Minister is even more wrong. I quote:
Today, its benefits are enjoyed by Canadians in all ten provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know hon. gentlemen do not like this revelation of what the Prime Minister is doing. They are trying to create a diversion. I quote:
Today, its benefits are enjoyed by Canadians in all ten provinces.
The Prime Minister was elected to this house for the first time on March 26, 1940. He was here when the amendment was made to the British North America Act to place unemployment insurance under parliament. He was here when the act was put on the statute books. He knows quite well that from the day that act came into operation it applied to the whole of Canada and yet he goes down to Fredericton and has the gall to say that, at that time, when his government came into office, Canadians in only six of the ten provinces came under its provisions.


William Joseph Browne: What is the text from which the hon. member is reading?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am reading from a release from the Prime Minister's office, the title of which I gave fully if the hon. gentleman had taken the trouble to listen. These are notes for a speech by the Prime Minister at Fredericton, and I am not going to repeat the full title.


John Cameron Pallett: There is no suggestion the speech was delivered in that form?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know whether or not it was. I do know this document was issued to the press by the Prime Minister's office. I know that this was one of the things the Prime Minister felt it was quite proper to use. He would not have put it in the notes and given them to the press if he did not.
When you go on and read the next paragraph, it is quite clear that he was referring to unemployment insurance.
We said that its coverage should be extended. As a result of action we have taken, its benefits are now available for 52 instead of 36 weeks.
It is obviously unemployment insurance about which the right hon. gentleman was talking. This just illustrates that careless attitude with regard to public business that has characterized virtually everything this government has done. It is the same sort of thing that makes them say:
For the first time, fishermen and other seasonal workers are included under its coverage.

Since this is party literature no one in the house accepts the authorship of it, and I can refer to that statement in the words of the Minister of Finance by saying, "That is a blatant lie." I want you to understand, Mr. Chairman, that is not the kind of language I use. I simply use the language of the distinguished Minister of Finance. Or is he the real Prime Minister?-we do not know. We have not known since Quebec. What we do know is that this gentleman is a leading member of the government that publishes this kind of false propaganda, intentionally or ignorantly-they can have their choice as to which particular adverb they wish to use-


Paul Joseph James Martin: And distributed by all Conservative members in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Distributed undoubtedly largely at public expense to thousands of people all over the country, to mislead the Canadian people. This document is staggering. It is unbelievable that anyone who is Prime Minister should be so careless of his public utterances, so indifferent to what he was saying as to say that this act, until the present government came into office, had been in operation in only six provinces. It is incomprehensible, sir. I just cannot understand what they were thinking about.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Unemployment assistance, obviously.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the Prime Minister did not know any better, or he would not have circulated it when the speech writers produced this kind of thing for him. Make the most charitable interpretation you like of it. I could go on and find a lot more things in the document "The record speaks" which my hon. friend from Leeds has handed me, but since it relates to another statute I shall not use it at the moment, because I intend to deal with the act we are now considering.
I ask, when you have such appalling ignorance manifested, displayed, advertised by the Prime Minister, is it any wonder that nothing is being done about this legislation? Is it any wonder they have persisted, like ostriches, with the view that nothing needs to be done? After five years of watching this fund gradually melt away they still have no remedy. They have remitted it to a commission-


Mr. Henderson:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: and I agree with what the hon. member for Essex East said about the commission. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a disturbance in the house. I hope it
Supply-Labour
will subside as it has arisen in a kind of volcanic fashion, and with about as much benefit to the public generally.


An hon. Member:: About as much benefit to the people in your riding as you are.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I was saying before I was interrupted, a government which has had so little knowledge of what is going on-


John Cameron Pallett: You have said that many times.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have said it a number of times but I know that hon. gentlemen opposite, especially some of the more notorious ones from a certain province in this country, need to have things repeated a great many times before there is any penetration.


John Cameron Pallett: That was Goebbels' philosophy too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the hon. gentleman make any observation?
Mr. Pallet!: I merely said that the repetition of such statements was Goebbels' philosophy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. The repetition of false statements was Goebbels' philosophy. The repetition of truth was not. The repetition of false statements-this is a good example:
For the first time, fishermen and other seasonal workers are included under its coverage.
-this is the kind of thing Goebbels said. I did not introduce this note into the debate, Mr. Chairman. It was the chief whip on the government side. I was attempting to put the truth on the record, the truth about this kind of false propaganda and I am very glad that the hon. gentleman should have seen fit, as the Minister of Finance has also done, to brand this kind of thing in the way it should be branded.
When a political party descends to this kind of thing, descends to deliberate, calculated, false statements which they do not think will be found out, such as this-
For the first time, fishermen and other seasonal workers are included under its coverage.
-then I think it deserves to be described in the way that the chief whip has described the propagandists of his own party, using a word I would not use to describe them, but a word he has chosen to introduce into this debate.


John Cameron Pallett: It describes your statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman says he is describing my statements, then I am sure Your Honour will ask him to withdraw such a statement about a member of the house. I have made no such statements about any hon. member of the house. I have made statements about these anonymous propagandists

Supply-Labour
who are publishing this anonymous propaganda, but I am sure the chief whip does not intend to apply that word to any hon. member of the house. At least I hope he does not, if the hon. gentleman wants to suggest that any statement I have made is not true, then let him get up at once and say precisely what is untrue. If he can demonstrate it is untrue I shall withdraw it, as I have done on one or two occasions in this house when I inadvertently said things that were not strictly accurate. I think that has been my record in this house and I hope it always will be, because it seems to me we cannot have any decent management of our public affairs unless the words of members of parliament can be relied upon.
That is why I did not think for one minute, or suggest, that the Prime Minister deliberately did this. I do not think he did. I just say it is careless, but the fact that it is careless is inexcusable. Why are these speeches made? They are made to influence the public in deciding what government they should have in this country, and surely there is enough that is right to be said to influence the public without distortions and plain falsehoods being used for that purpose, as this statement is in this little blue booklet.
I have said these things because it seems to me that behind them is the attitude the government have taken about this whole problem. They have refused to admit that this was a serious problem, and that is why it continues to become more serious. A government that grappled with problems would have done something about it long ago, and that they have failed to do.


Mr. Carter:: Before the minister replies to the questions that have been asked I should like to put one simple question regarding the administration of the fund. I understand that the act provides penalties when claimants do not meet the proper requirements, that is, if they leave their jobs voluntarily or if they lose their jobs for cause or various reasons. In determining the extent of these penalties does the person adjudicating a claim have discretion?
I ask this question because some very great discrepancies have come to my attention in parallel cases. In some cases where the infringement has been a minor one there has been very heavy disqualification, and in other cases where there was quite a strong infringement, which I think would merit a big disqualification, the disqualification period has been very short. I would like to know whether that sort of thing arises out of the act itself or out of the discretion of the person adjudicating a claim.
[Mr. Pickersgill.)


Richard Devere Thrasher: I see it is now seven minutes to five o'clock and I am hopeful the committee will see fit to pass this item before five o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, we have some questions.


Richard Devere Thrasher: There were a few questions put to me, but first of all I would like to say that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate showed a great deal of concern about the truth. He was criticizing those whom he said were publishing false statements, and he said if he inadvertently made any statement that was not correct I should remind him of it.
I would point out to the hon. gentleman that in his remarks he said the only change in this legislation had to do with increased contributions. In reply to the hon. gentleman I indicate that there were other changes increasing the benefit period to 52 weeks; there were amendments extending the seasonal benefit period, and there were changes in the regulations putting married women on the same basis as the other contributors to the fund.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I readily acknowledge that the hon. gentleman is right about those things that he specified.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And that you were wrong?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, some of those things were done by regulation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, go the whole way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. Look here, I certainly was not strictly right, that is quite true; but what I was referring to was the inclusion of any new groups, and I think I am right in that. However, I think the hon. gentleman is certainly right about the other points he raised.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East asked whether it was a fact that the unemployment insurance commission sought a larger amount than the amount now before us. May I say to the hon. gentleman that I am not aware of any request on the part of the unemployment insurance commission for any larger amount than the amount now before us. I understand that there was discussion between the commission and officials of the Department of Finance and that this figure of $25 million was arrived at as one being proper for these purposes at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My information is that they asked for $75 million.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Unfortunately I do not
have the same sources of information as the hon. gentleman; I get my advice from the

officials of the department and the unemployment insurance commission. The hon. member for Essex East also asked about the government bonds that were exchanged for the bonds previously held by the unemployment insurance commission. May I say that I am not able to give him all the information he desires in this respect as I speak only for the Department of Labour and cannot speak for the Department of Finance. However, the exchange has been made; the government has exchanged new bonds for the old bonds on the basis of the book value of the old bonds, which would mean what the commission actually paid for those old bonds. The government pays interest on the new bonds and the interest rate, I understand, is established every six months based on current rates. 1 am not able to give the hon. member the exact formula that is used for arriving at this rate.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall	vote	669
carry?


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get a reply to the question I asked.


Richard Devere Thrasher: May I say to the hon. member that there is a maximum of six weeks. A man may be disqualified for a period up to six weeks, but if there are any mitigating circumstances the disqualification period may be less, in the discretion of the officer.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall	vote	669
carry?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I asked the parliamentary secretary what was the total number of claimants receiving benefit at the end of February.


Richard Devere Thrasher: I advised the hon. member at the time he asked his question that that information was not yet available.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the end of January? Would the hon. gentleman give us the latest figure that is available?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will you accept that in a letter and pass the item now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We will pass the item before five o'clock.


Richard Devere Thrasher: I do not have that information here but I will be glad to secure it for the hon. member.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I believe this information should have been available in this debate because it is quite relevant to the arguments which have been raised this afternoon. In reviewing the figures for the last few years I find that from January to February, 1960 the fund was reduced from $445 million to
Request to Increase Members' Indemnity $408 million, a loss of $37 million, when we had 620,000 claimants receiving benefits. I have every reason to believe that the figure at this time is in the vicinity of 620,000 claimants receiving benefits. From January to February, 1961 the fund was reduced from $283 million to $240 million, a reduction of $43 million, with 672,000 claimants receiving benefits.
A few minutes ago the parliamentary secretary stated that the fund was reduced, from January to February, from $135 million to $104 million and he admitted that this last figure is only a tentative one. In view of past experience with the final figures-


Richard Devere Thrasher: No, Mr. Chairman, I did not say that was only a tentative one; I said that $104 million was the figure.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You can assure the committee that this is the final figure?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Yes.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Well, that is not according to past experience. Around this date in previous years the figure has been released, and I believe it was suggested that the figure would be in the vicinity of $3 million or $4 million lower than the figure quoted by the parliamentary secretary at this time. In view of those figures, with the months of March and April ahead we have every reason to believe that the amount of $25 million will not be enough to carry the unemployment insurance fund until the end of May, when the fund may start to increase if employment is sufficient to do it and if unemployment has decreased enough to permit an increase to the fund.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Canadian Army-
644. Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $35 million.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 664 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Five o'clock.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN INDEMNITY OF MEMBERS

Douglas Mason Fisher: That the government give immediate consideration to the need for increasing the income of members of parliament.

Request to Increase Members' Indemnity
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a most succinct resolution, I believe the shortest one on the order paper, and I will try to keep my remarks with regard to it as brief as possible. There is an old verse which goes back to the 1880's on this subject. I believe it goes something like this:
It Is plain to be seen as you sit in the gallery,
That they agree on just one thing, and that is more salary.
I do not know whether such unanimity will be forthcoming here but I know this is a subject that interests every member of the house. Hon. members may remember that some three sessions ago I raised the matter one evening at a grievance time. The response from several hon. members of the house was favourable and the whole matter of more pay for members of parliament got rather wide publicity.
At that time I became very much aware that whatever those of us in the house might feel about more pay for members of parliament, there was a considerable body of feeling outside that felt we were either overpaid or we were well looked after. I thought I might put on the record two samples of this kind of point of view just to indicate in a sense what we are up against in this consideration. This letter was addressed to me from a Mrs. Brewer of Calgary, dated May 6, 1959. It was addressed to "Mr. Douglas Fisher and other backbenchers" and reads:
Enclosed find newspaper clipping that caused this letter. If you men cannot live on $10,000 a year, how do you expect the old age pensioners to live on $55 a month?
Yours very truly,
The other letter I should like to read to the house was a bit more extensive. It was sent to the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown) who, with the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith), joined with me and in some way has given leadership in collecting data on the relative incomes of legislators in various parts of the world. This letter came from Ladysmith, British Columbia, dated January 18, 1960, from M. A. Alton, addressed to the hon. member for Winnipeg South, and reads:
Sir: The Victoria Colonist, Saturday, January 16, carried a news release as a memo coming from your desk regarding pay increases for members of the House of Commons.
I can't help but think that you and all members knew, when you offered for election, that the remuneration was so much and all the details. Yet last year Fisher from Ontario-Port Arthur area-immediately asked for a raise after election. To me, you and the rest just lack plain guts to include that item on your platform and electioneering program. The civil servants work 12 months in the year, while you characters reach Ottawa and try to find out how many sessions of parliament you can miss, as evidenced last year when the house was in session and only 38 members

were present. Oh, yes, you will say that you were attending meetings elsewhere-which happens seldom. A record of those meets is kept also and it is very noticeable how many you attended-I think that you are overpaid now-
I shall leave out a section here because it becomes quite sulphurous about several of my colleagues in the house. It then picks up:
Further, I think you have a nerve suggesting that you are in a favorable position with an American Congressman-the States and their congressmen serve 170 million people and they work at it-as a member of parliament you might do actually 30 days work in a year-not a session- but a year. So I repeat-you and . . . and the like are overpaid.
I put those two on the record as typical of the kind of reaction that appears whenever the subject of more pay for members of parliament comes up for discussion. I do not wish to make this personal but there may be other hon. members who have had the same experience. I know that I have been confronted with the following reaction in my own constituency and region by both friends and enemies. My enemies say, "keep right on talking about more pay for members of parliament," and my friends say, "do not bring up the subject at all; it must be a form of death wish on your part to even touch on it."
I do not want any hon. member to conclude from that that I feel I am being either brave or foolish in bringing forward this resolution. The reason I brought it into the house this session is that I received some prodding. Before the session started I had the opportunity to speak to an informal meeting of civil servants-largely senior civil servants-in this town. When the discussion got around to the performance of members of parliament I was very surprised to discover that without exception the people there were unanimous in thinking that there had to be higher pay for members. One very senior man in the government said, "You are a bunch of mice up there on the hill to put up with the situation as it is. Not only are you mice but the leading people in the parties are, too, because I am convinced, as many of my colleagues are, that a great many able people in this country do not offer to run for parliament and in fact will not consider it because of the expenses and debts that can be involved." Because of that prodding I received that evening I thought it would be well to put this resolution for discussion before the house.
I must say that shortly after the resolution appeared on the order paper a news release went out through the Canadian Press and the invective began to fly again. I will not read any more of the letters that came to me but I will say I received a considerable volume of mail from right across the country

and particularly from British Columbia. I must say to my colleagues from British Columbia that you somehow have managed to convince a lot of people out there that $10,000 is a lot of money for your services. I express that with amusement on my face, but there is obviously a serious foundation for this in British Columbia judging from my mail because it is very critical.
As a result of the latest resolution and some statistics and information circulated by the hon. member for Winnipeg South, we have noted that the press of this country is much more favourable this year than just two or three sessions ago to the idea of more pay for members of parliament. I do not wish to place evidence of this on the record but I can tell the house that in 1962 almost all newspapers in Canada have commented favourably. I have in my file extracts from almost all newspapers with fairly substantial circulation from every province of Canada expressing support of this idea.
Included with the support of the idea, of course, is a certain amount of criticism. I wish to place on record a brief portion of an editorial which appeared in the newspaper in my home city, the News-Chronicle of Port Arthur, issue of January 22, 1962:
Everyone is aware that the ordinary member of parliament receives $10,000 a year for his services. Of this, $2,000 is a tax free expense allowance.
To many who work for a great deal less than this over a full 12-month period it sounds like an awful lot of money.
To a member of parliament it is a different story. Representing a place like Port Arthur which is so far from the seat of government entails a great deal of expense in travelling to and from the constituency and in maintaining accommodations in two cities for almost eight months of the year.
Besides this, a politician who tries to do his job as well as possible has to do a lot of supplementary travel. There are many incidental expenses that also add up to a large slice of that $10,000.
No politician can afford to be tight-fisted in his everyday dealings with people and with charities.
There is an inequality involved too. Some members represent areas in and around Ottawa and still receive the same allowance although their expenses obviously are not going to be as high as those from more distant points. Often they are able to look after their businesses and their parliamentary duties without hurt to either.
A reasonable sacrifice can be expected of anyone dedicated to serving his country. It is not necessary that a sacrifice be demanded, but that seems to be the tradition.
The editorial goes on to comment on the amount of money that should perhaps be added to both the expense allowance and the salary to make the position more attractive. I do not intend to quote much more, except to indicate that the newspapers in Quebec including the Nouveau Journal and he Devoir in a recent series of articles I have seen have also indicated that in that province there
Request to Increase Members' Indemnity is an increasing understanding that members of parliament to carry out their chores, for the position to attract good people, because of the lengthening sessions and the greater responsibilities that devolve upon members, should enjoy an increase.
Now, as to what that increase should be I cannot suggest with any assurance. I know that there will be criticism no matter what is suggested and no matter what action the government may take upon the suggestion, but it seems to me the government should accept this motion and that it should make arrangements to call together representatives of the three parties in this house in an effort to strike some sort of figure. Incidentally, at least the two opposition parties I understand both are on record through resolutions coming out of their conventions as advocating more pay for members of parliament.
After a figure has been struck then I think this parliament should introduce that measure, not to go into effect in relation to this parliament but in relation to the next. I also feel it is unfortunate that this was not done before we got as close to an election as we probably are. As I said, I think a higher stipend would have been an attraction to more people to enter the lists.
Within the last few weeks I have had the opportunity to interview the national organizers of the Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic parties. All in effect told me the same thing. I do not think I am being unfair in paraphrasing them. They have said there is considerable difficulty in getting candidates to try for the position of member of parliament and particularly young men in their thirties, forties and early fifties. They often find this quite discouraging. They are also aware that there is some discouragement among members of this House of Commons because of the way expenses have piled up.
In taking advantage of this opportunity to present my views I have not wanted to go into personal detail. I think any one among us who has a family could make a case for an increase by quoting figures of the costs involved. I also know it is very easy to point the finger of scorn at almost any of us, if anyone wanted to do this, in terms of our performance as individuals. But thinking of the institution, thinking not of us as members but of the members to come, we must make service in this chamber more attractive and less burdensome than it is for many hon. members at this time. When I was approached on the subject of the figure I suggested that, from my own experience, it should be approximately $3,000 more a year. Moreover, it could be added in the form of expenses, because there is no

Election Campaign Expenditures question that we spend tar more than $2,000 on expenses. That amount would keep me personally from getting into debt.
I do not know what the experience of other members may be. I certainly know there are many members in this house who, through their vocations, their constituencies and their family situations, have greater burdens than I myself have. However, I am certainly much more aware now than I was when I entered political life of the financial demands made upon a member of parliament. I certainly know that there is only one way in which I and others like me can survive in politics at the present time, and that way is to find some other source of income, using what talents we may have. It seems to me this method might be arguable as a good thing but in the long run I cannot see it.
I think the situation today is that a member's primary responsibilities are to this chamber. For that reason I would hope that the members of all parties in the house would join with me in impressing this brief resolution upon the government, in the hope that they would do something with it this session in order to indicate that in the parliament to come, the one that succeeds this one, the members could count on a higher stipend.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
Mr. John Pallet! (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, as no one appears to be rising, and as I know that some members who have indicated interest in this matter are not able to be here today, I move that the debate be adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Pallett the debate was adjourned.



STUDY OF MEASURES TO LIMIT ELECTION CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

John Whitney Pickersgill: That a special committee, consisting of sixteen members to be designated later, be appointed to consider and recommend means of assuring greater independence to members of parliament through more effective measures to limit and control expenditures in the campaigns for the election of members of the House of Commons, and that standing order 67(1) be suspended in relation thereto.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion I am now making is that a special committee of the house be set up. I considered rather carefully whether it should be a special committee or whether it should be the committee on privileges and elections. I may say quite frankly that if someone wished to move, by way of an amendment to my motion, that the matter be remitted to the committee on privileges and elections, I would have no

objection. My experience with that committee in 1960, when we were considering the elections act, was that on the whole it was an excellent committee which, in view of the fact that we were considering the elections act, did its work in an extremely objective and non-partisan way most of the time. Oh, I will admit that there were times when we did not forget that we were party politicians. However, the atmosphere in that committee was as agreeable-and I am sure that many others who served on it can say the same thing-as that in any committee on which I have ever served in the House of Commons. At the time we were considering the elections act, both in the committee and in the debate on the act in the house, I made a few observations along the lines of those I am going to make today. I make my observations today, of course, with a great deal more confidence and, in a sense, with a good deal more authority than I made those of two years ago. The views which I expressed two years ago were just my own views. The views I am going to express today are views that have been formally accepted by the political party to which I belong as a part of its program for action when it is once more called upon by the people of this country to form a government.
It is very simple indeed to put to the house the proposition which I should like to have considered by this special committee and I do not need to take a great deal of the time of the house in order to do so as I should like to have other hon. members express their interest in this matter. I think the real debate and discussion should take place in the special committee itself where we could really get down to cases.
Stated briefly, the proposition relates to two things which are absolutely interconnected and interdependent. Of course, the first one could be done without the other but I doubt that it would ever be done effectively in that way. On the other hand, no responsible parliament would ever do the second one without doing the first. The first is the limitation of the total expenditures permitted both candidates and political parties in general elections and presumably also in by-elections. The second is the payment of the greater part of these expenditures-possibly all of them but certainly the greater part of them-out of the public treasury.
The first proposition I think would meet with almost universal acceptance as a desirable thing in itself. I do not think there are many people in this country who could honestly say they think it is a good idea to have unlimited money spent on election campaigns. However, there are many people who are dubious about the possibility of policing

expenditures. Once you start in this field of prohibition, as everyone knows, difficulties are encountered. It is a very difficult field in which to legislate unless there is a really genuine consensus in the community in favour of prohibition. However, this would not really be complete prohibition. It would be a prohibition of only more than a certain amount of expenditures. What it would really be is temperance rather than prohibition. Of course, everybody is in favour of temperance.
It is true that in the elections act we defined things precisely and we made many changes in the definitions in this parliament in 1960. We defined carefully those things on which money cannot be spent by candidates. However, our constitution really takes little account of political parties. It does so in a few respects in the elections act, but not many. It is, of course, perfectly fruitless to limit the expenditures of individual candidates so long as party expenditures are not limited, in certain fields at any rate. I think this problem has become an urgent one. I think it is much more urgent than it ever was previously and that, with the advent of television, it is much more intractable than it ever was previously. We all know that television is extremely costly. We all know that some measure of use of television is essential if political parties are to compete with all the other demands upon the time and attention of the electorate. Perhaps it would be nicer if that were not so. Perhaps it would be nicer if there were such an ardent flame of patriotism burning in all our people that they would deny themselves all amusements and all other avocations to listen to politicians. But we all know they will not do so; we all know that we will not be listened to or looked at unless we compete with the other shows. With television this becomes increasingly difficult and also increasingly costly.
There is another aspect, of course, of this problem of limitation that is also very important. I think it is impossible to have voluntary limitation. If it were left entirely to the party managers right after each election when they are faced with the cold, hard facts of the bills they have to pay and the difficulties they have in paying them, I feel sure they might reach an agreement about how much they would do, but there would be no sanction to it and in the heat of an election campaign one would always have one's doubts. I frankly confess that in those circumstances 1 would not have enough faith in human nature to believe that it would really work. I think it is like disarmament. I think it has got to have a sanction and the sanction must be the sanction of the law. I believe of course, that if the right kind
Election Campaign Expenditures of penalties and the right kind of enforcement machinery are provided there will be such an enormous incentive to all political parties to abide by the law that in fact it will not be nearly as difficult to enforce as many people think.
A much more revolutionary idea of course, under our system of government is the idea that the expenditures or a large part of them should be paid out of the treasury. Why would anyone advocate that? Why would anyone suggest that this should be done instead of following the present system of raising voluntary, quasi voluntary or perhaps some involuntary contributions from certain sections of the community that want to support a political party or feel impelled for one reason or another to support a political party? In the days before 1900 political campaigns really did not cost very much. If the average candidate could raise a few hundred dollars he could buy a horse and buggy, get around his constituency and attend a few meetings. A free show was being put on and it was fairly easy to raise the necessary funds among the neighbours. But today we are all conscious of the fact that very large sums of money have to be raised for what are perfectly legitimate and proper expenditures and what would be, even with the most rigid limitation, perfectly proper, legitimate and, I think, necessary expenditures if we are to have an informed public exercising the franchise. I do not think anyone would argue seriously that, with the state of the world today, that is not a desirable objective.
Of course, it is easy to enunciate the general principle, but how would this principle be worked out in practice? I have no fixed views upon that. I would be glad to put a scheme forward at any time. I would be happy to put a scheme forward for discussion in the committee but I would not think that I had the final word on this any more, I am sure, than any other hon. member would. I think there are half a dozen ways in which this could be done and fortunately, of course, we are going to have some practical guidance in this matter. As hon. members know, there is a bill before the legislature of one of the provinces to do precisely what I am suggesting we in this house should merely study. There is an actual bill before the legislative assembly of Quebec at the present time having as its objectives what I am suggesting here. I am sure that bill will be changed before it is finally enacted and I am sure any scheme I might put forward in the committee would be changed.
But perhaps, sir, I should indicate the broad general lines on which I think this could be done practically. Basically the amount of

Election Campaign Expenditures money would be in proportion to the number of electors. If another reform which is mentioned in the speech from the throne actually does come about, the number of electors in each constituency, of course, is presumably going to be somewhat less uneven than at the present time. But it would be quite absurd to give someone who represented
18,000	people the same amount to spend as someone who represented 225,000, except perhaps in the Mackenzie River or Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador constituencies where someone representing a very small number of people would perhaps need to have more to cover the area effectively.
So I think two factors would have to be considered. The basic factor would be so many cents or dollars per elector with a division of that sum between the parties and the candidates on some prearranged formula. But I think we would also have to take account of these hinterland areas and there would have to be some special provision made so that candidates in those areas could in fact have the same reasonable access to the electors as candidates in more densely populated areas.
It also seems to me that there would be relatively little difficulty in doing this if there were only two political parties, but I would not argue for a minute, that there should be legislation for only two political parties. I agree with Mr. Stanley Knowles, who was once a very distinguished member of this house, that parliament functions best-I was rather surprised that Mr. Knowles should say this in his book-when there are only two parties; but while we may be approaching that state, though not exactly in the way Mr. Knowles expected us to approach it, we are not going to reach it very quickly. Certainly no member of my party that I have ever heard of, and I would hope no other member of the house, would ever suggest that we should try to limit the country legally to only two political parties. I believe that would be a restriction of liberty that would be quite un-British, if I may put it that way.
It seems to me that if the electors of a country feel they cannot express themselves properly or get representation within the scope of existing political parties they should, if self-government means anything, have the freedom if they want to, to elect people who do not belong to those parties or do not belong to any party. That means that some kind of equitable formula has to be devised in the case where there are third and fourth parties in order to make provision for these parties and also for their candidates. Candidates are much less difficult than parties, I agree, but I do not think this is an insuperable problem.


There is another problem, of course, which exists perhaps more in some provinces than in others, but does exist. I refer to what might be called the nuisance candidate, the person who presents himself for election to advertise his business or just out of sheer exhibitionism, or is perhaps somewhat stimulated to do so because his name is exactly like the name of one of the other candidates and it is felt that if he is encouraged to offer himself as a candidate he may deform the results of the election. Of course, I think there are two things that ought to be done about that situation. One of them is that we should require more real electors to sign the candidates' papers and the deposit should be increased. I advocated this change in the committee on privileges and elections without success, though I think there was a lot of sympathy for the view I expressed.
It seems to me that these exhibitionists of one sort or another perform no useful function at all in our society. I certainly would not be in favour of giving them a free ride. I am sure a formula could be devised. I have suggested once or twice it should be 20 per cent of the total vote or 20 per cent of the vote of the successful candidate. I do not think there is anything sacrosanct about 20 per cent. All I say is that no candidate should have his expenses paid unless he gets what you might loosely call a respectable vote, and I would accept almost any definition of any reasonable man or woman as to what that might be. As I say, that is a difficulty. This procedure would certainly make it possible for someone who was an independent candidate, entirely independent of any political party, to represent, as we have seen members in previous parliaments do for long periods of time, important groups of people in this country. No one would want to see them excluded.
I realize that in a very brief explanation of this kind I cannot do any more than give a general idea of what I have in mind. There are just one or two words I have to say in defence of the idea that these expenditures should be paid out of the treasury. I have had some experience in these matters and, although I have never actually collected campaign funds I do not pretend I am entirely unaware of their existence. I am not one of those people who believe that most of the contributors to campaign funds of all parties, with the possible exception of one that is not represented in this house, and I do not mean the Social Credit party, contribute because they really want to further the party and not because of some advantage they are hoping to get for themselves. There are a lot of people who would not agree with that view.

There are many insinuations made about this matter to the effect that contributors to campaign funds really control the party. They are made, I think, by supporters of all parties, but never about their own party. I do not believe really that most of the contributors have that feeling. I am not sure that some of them do not feel they are going to get something out of it for themselves that is not necessarily in the public interest. My point is this: We all know that these expenditures are necessary. We all know that if we are going to have a parliament that is decently representative of the people, these expenses have to be made by candidates and parties. They are really part of the cost of self-government, just as much as the election machinery itself is. It seems to me it is like many of the things that used to be done long ago by charity that are now done by the social services. In this case, we are getting past the point where election campaign funds can be raised solely on a voluntary basis.
Surely, if self-government is worth having, it is worth all of us paying for. It would have this other and final advantage, sir. Every member elected to this parliament, if practically all his election expenses were paid out of the treasury, would undoubtedly have a greater feeling of independence of everyone except his own electors than, at any rate, seems to be the case at the present time. It would remove any suspicion, which is just as important in many ways in these public affairs as anything else, of any member being beholden to any individual or any group in any kind of way except the electorate of his constituency and the people of Canada generally. Well, I think, sir, I have exhausted my time and I have said really all that needs to be said.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I must first deal with one of the points raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) in relation to the committee on privileges and elections which sat in 1960 to revise the Canada Elections Act. I must say that I felt that was the most useful and non-con trover-sial committee of which I have been a member in quite a number of years. It is true that we did not all agree on all the subjects that were brought up for discussion. There was, I believe a very definite effort on the part of every member of the committee to approach the problems of the Canada Elections Act in a non-controversial and nonpartisan way. I do feel that the committee's work was well done, and this will show up when we next have the act before us.
I have been searching through the minutes of the committee in an effort to ascertain 26207-1-123
Election Campaign Expenditures whether or not the hon. member did raise this particular point in the committee. I am afraid I still have not been able to find out whether or not he did. I rather think it was raised, but it was decided not to take any action on it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member would like, I can clear that up. I think I raised it as a point of interest but not one that was before us at that time. I did the same thing in the house.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I appreciate that remark, Mr. Speaker, because I was not sure. I was sure that we had not taken a vote on it.
By way of indicating the common approach to problems by members of that committee, I note that on page 41 of the minutes a motion is recorded as being put by the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) and seconded by myself, and agreed to. Farther along, on the same page, there is recorded a motion put by myself and seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa East. Then, I notice there was a motion moved by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). So, as I say, we did have co-operation in this committee.
I do want to say there is some merit in the resolution we are discussing. However, in view of the fact we so recently overhauled the elections act and we are now trying it out, perhaps we should not consider any large revision at this time. We all agree, I think, that we are very close to an election, and I think it is rather late in the day to be suggesting the government should put up some money for the forthcoming election. For that reason, I do not feel we can reasonably approve of this resolution at the moment.
One of the interesting things about this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is that it comes from a member of the official opposition and not from a member of another party. I noticed in going back over the record of Hansard for a number of years that the members of the C.C.F. party, up until this year, have been putting forward similar suggestions. They have been decrying the fact that the Liberal and Conservative parties were being supported by big business and were saying, in effect, that he who pays the piper calls the tune. I should like to refer to Hansard for July 22, 1958, where the hon. member for Skeena is recorded as saying:
We all know, I am sure, of the Bible phrase, "Where your treasure lies there lies your heart also."
Then further on he says:
I am not saying because they make these contributions that any particular party will perform some sort of skulduggery to ensure that legislation passed is in the interests of the people who

Election Campaign Expenditures make such contributions, but it naturally follows that the party concerned will look upon those who contribute to it as friends and that the legislation it passes will be drafted with this in mind.
Then he goes on:
The general public, in the long run, pays for every political contribution made, whether it be to the Tories or to the Liberals.
I notice that at that time he did not mention his own party.
Later in 1959, when discussing a very similar measure the hon. member for Port Arthur was dealing with the question of contributions to members by political parties and at page 5305 of Hansard of June 30, 1959, he is recorded as saying:
If a political party must count upon secret donations of various kinds I think the thought will always remain in the minds of many people that there are possibilities of undue influence.
We also have other examples of this kind of statement. In 1959, when speaking of the Canada Elections Act, the hon. member for Skeena as reported at page 1953 of Hansard said, and I paraphrase, that we are entitled to know what elements of society, if any, are attempting to subvert political parties. I just point this out to indicate this is an issue that has been pressed for a number of years by the hon. members of the C.C.F. party, that there should not be any contributions, or at least that contributions to party funds should be small. This principle was carried forward into a bill which was presented year after year, until last year. Now it has mysteriously lost favour with the members of the new party, presumably in view of the fact that they are planning and definitely working towards receipt of contributions through a check-off on union dues.
I just mention that in passing because it indicates that a great deal depends on where you sit in how you view these things. A great deal depends on whether you are the recipient of such contributions or whether you cannot get them.
I agree there should be some limitation on what is required by an hon. member to run an election, but if you start drawing a line where will it end? Where do you draw the line in terms of money figures? Every party has a different approach to every campaign in every riding. Every party has a different approach; and you cannot draw a rule for one candidate in a riding which would apply to another candidate in the same riding. If you tried to do that, instead of helping an hon. member you might be restricting him.
You may have an hon. member who has to contend with an opponent who is very well supplied with money. Maybe the money comes legally, maybe it comes illegally; maybe it is spent one way, maybe it is spent another


way; but if large sums of money are being spent to defeat a candidate surely that candidate, if he can, will secure funds to spend an equal amount to hold his seat and try to defeat his opponent?
There is a great deal of merit in the suggestion that is put forward, but I say that for the two reasons I have mentioned, the first being that in such a situation you do not know where to draw the line and the second being that we are shortly approaching another federal election, this would not be a satisfactory time to deal with the matter.


Walter George Pitman: I should like to say a few words on this motion. First of all, may I set the mind of the previous speaker at rest. I do not think it is a very telling argument to suggest that because the party does not put forward a motion it has lost interest in this particular aspect of the problem. I can assure him that the group I am part of would stand by the words he quoted of the hon. member for Skeena and the contribution of the hon. member for Port Arthur. We would still suggest that secret contributions are not the best way of dealing with election expenses.
We still believe in the revelation of all the workings and the financial structures of parties. We still believe this as much as we did before, and therefore I can certainly lend my support to this particular motion. I think it is a good motion and I believe all of us can support it in the sense that it does not suggest any particular change. It simply suggests a consideration and a recommending of means to ensure greater independence to hon. members.
Although it is a little surprising to me that this motion has come forward, nevertheless I think it is perhaps rather interesting and symbolic that it has come forward on the day when elections to the supreme Soviet were announced in the news media. Of course we share popular opinion about this so-called facade of an election whereby people go to the polls to record a ballot for people who have already been hand-picked. It is not so much an election as a verification of candidates; but on the other hand I think we should be concerned that our western, democratic elections should not be in the form of dictatorship. They should not be in the form of dictatorship through news media or control of certain forms of changing opinion in the sense that money does not decide. It is knowledge, integrity, policies and ideas that should really motivate people in recording their votes.
I think we all recognize that an election can be the highest point in our system of

democracy, or it can be the lowest point in that system. All of us are not so naive and completely ignorant of some of the less respectable aspects of our elections, and I think that statement leaves no doubt in any mind as to what is meant by it. Someone has said that we have a parliamentary system which is a good system in spite of, rather than because of, the way we carry on our elections and I believe this is a matter of some concern to a great many people in Canada.
I notice there has been some concern shown over elections and election expenses in the public press, especially in the national magazines. Just last year Mr. James Scott, the former organizer of the Liberal party, wrote a series of articles in the Globe and Mail in which this problem was highlighted.
I do not think this is any time to argue about whose expenses are being gained in a certain way, or who is wrong. The point he made is that all parties should be concerned about this problem of expenses and I believe that the committee proposed would have the advantage of revelation. I do not think there is anything filthy or dirty it is going to reveal. Instead it is going to reveal something very realistic.
I well remember a preacher who once a year would give a sermon, what he called the gospel of gold. He gave this particular sermon every year because he did not want to confuse people with the idea that prayers keep the lights going and fill the furnace in the church. In effect what he was saying is that they had to have money to run a church, and we have to have money to run an election. I think a committee of this sort could put forward some very realistic points which would clear up the misconceptions of people who think that $8 million, $9 million, or $10 million suddenly drop from the heavens in an election year, and we spread this across the nation and elect our candidates. This is an unfortunate misconception which people have. I think it would help all of us in the sense that I am sure everyone of us would like to believe that our parties could be supported by-I am not going to argue this contention today-money coming from government sources. If this were the only money to be used I think this scheme would have some very great merit. Or if it were by contributions openly given by individuals, that would be fine.
I think all of us would like to see our parties run this way. Over the last couple of years there have been a number of articles written on this subject. I do not contend that they are true or false. One was written by Mr. Blair Fraser, and more recently one was 26207-1-123i
Election Campaign Expenditures written by Mr. Peter Newman, indicating where the money was coming from which went to major political parties, to the party that I represent and to the party which is not at this time in the house. In that article he indicated that large corporations were giving very large donations to the same party. Here again there was nothing dirty about it; he simply said that it was there, and really what they were doing was perhaps paying to establish the status quo, or perhaps they were being blackballed into paying for something they did not really want to pay for. However when we get down to it, you and I and every other taxpayer in the country really pays for the election.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Peterborough would permit a question.


Walter George Pitman: Certainly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member has already made some comments with regard to how money is raised for elections. Perhaps I do not understand this, but would he deal with the manner in which the party he represents, the New Democratic party, was raising this money. Would he explain that to the house, because I have heard different versions and I may have the wrong understanding.


Walter George Pitman: I will be very glad to explain it to the hon. member. We have been allowing unions which wished to affiliate-locals, not the Canadian Labour Congress-to affiliate by democratic vote within their locals, and any member within the local who wishes to contribute five cents a month can contribute through the means which the union itself decides. This is the method that has been followed. It is completely open; there is nothing to hide about it. That is, as I understand it, what happens. Of course, all memberships of other political parties also collect their funds by this method; that is, by paid memberships to local constituency organizations. I do not think there is anything secret in this; it has been stated many times. To get back to the resolution here-


Mr. Maclnnis:: Would the hon. member permit another question? Would he not agree that the answer he has just given the hon. member is only a partial one and it does not fully explain the situation in respect to local unions paying into the New Democratic party? I think the situation is in no way democratic, in that the members of the local unions who do not wish to pay into this political party must contract out. If it is democratic, why are not they contracting in?


Walter George Pitman: I think as far as party policy is concerned there is no intention of their

Election Campaign Expenditures contracting out. I think you will find that each local decides how it will be done. Perhaps the hon. member has a particular beet in his particular part of the country, but it has not come to my attention in my part of the country. Perhaps the hon. member knows more about it than I do in that particular area, but as far as I am concerned I have given the explanation as I understand it.
I come back to the motion again. I do not wish to delay this motion. We are dealing with a period of time when expenses for elections are rising at fantastic speed. The whole area of television and party gimmicks is almost leading parties to bankruptcy, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has suggested. I would very much support the setting up of this committee. I would support its attempts to bring witnesses to the committee to discover any other way in which our whole political electoral system could operate.


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the hour has become so advanced before I have been able to get the floor. This is a subject that I came here four years ago anxious to discuss, and I have not on any previous occasion been able to do so. I would like to say at once that what I take to be the nub of this resolution, to limit and control expenditures in the campaigns for the election of members to the House of Commons, has my complete support.
I have been involved in a number of elections and I can think of a number of instances where I would like to have seen efficient methods of controlling and limiting the expenditures in campaigns. As the hon. member who moved this motion has said, in the province of Quebec his party has now put forward a bill to amend the electoral act. I believe it is bill No. 51. I have not had the opportunity of reading that bill, but in my view it is amending an act that is already better than the federal one, and while I give whatever credit may be due to the committee that has amended our own act, in my view they did not go nearly far enough.
One of the methods of paying for election expenditures that I should like to see controlled was epitomized by a gentleman who worked for me in a by-election in 1954 and whose name I will give as Kelly because that was not his name. He became very indignant with me about the method by which I was running my campaign, because he said, "I voted seven times against you last year. Why don't you let me make it even this time?"

Mr. Speaker, he did not do it for nothing. This is the area into which I think we should look for the limiting and controlling of expenditures.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour for consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, could I make a request of the house at this time. I think interesting progress is being made in the consideration of better methods of handling divorce bills and could I ask the leave of the house that those bills listed in my name not appear on the order paper this week.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house concur in the request of the hon. member of Halifax that divorce bills be not listed this week?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Canadian Army-
644. Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $35 million.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, without explanation it might be thought that this vote and the succeeding one would mean that the estimated total expenditures for the Department of National Defence for the current fiscal year were being increased $66 million. This is not the fact. There has already been voted for the Department of National Defence $1,615,637,000. The expenditures for the present fiscal year are actually being estimated at $1,631,857,000, an increase of $16,220,000 over the appropriations already voted. However, because of deficiencies in the vote relating to army operation and maintenance and in the R.C.A.F. capital vote, although there are considerable amounts which would not be spent in other votes, they cannot be applied as far as these two votes are concerned. That

Supply-National Defence is why it is necessary to request these further amounts as far as these two particular votes go.
I should like to make it very clear that the total estimated increase in expenditure is $16-odd million rather than $66 million as would appear from a casual look at the estimates. The vote under consideration, operation and maintenance for the army, chiefly is required to cover pay and allowances. It arises because of the fact that in August 1961 cabinet decisions were taken which authorized, as already announced to the house, an increase of approximately 10,600 men in the strength of the regular army in Canada. Second, the vote arises as a result of an increase of approximately 1,100 men in the strength of the Canadian army brigade in Europe. The third reason is a special militia training program for training up to 100,000 militia men during the winter of 1961-62, a program which is currently going forward. The fourth reason is the acceleration of various aspects of the national survival program.
Based on an army estimate made in September, which I have previously given to the house, the estimated cost of implementing these decisions is $37,742,000; but because of the surplus which exists in certain other items in this vote it is now estimated that a net addition of $35 million as provided for here is what is required, and that that will be sufficient to complete the expenditures under the army operation and maintenance vote for this present fiscal year.
The present primaries which require supplementary funds are shown on page 14 in the printed details and it will be noted that the major item is pay and allowances which requires $27,120,000 of the total amount required.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the minister could say out of the $1,631,857,000 that he now estimates will be the total requirement for the department for the fiscal year ending March 31, what amount has been or will be spent for pay and allowances and maintenance and how much of that will have been spent for equipment by the year end.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would have to make that computation. I can obtain that information very shortly for the hon. member. I believe there are some officials in the gallery who will come down and provide me with that information in the course of a few minutes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Another question in the
meantime. Could the minister advise the committee what items were in surplus and from what items the funds were taken to make up the survival training course?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as this particular vote is concerned there is a surplus in respect of professional and special services, corps of commissionaires and other services of $225,000. Also, under the item relating to telephones, telegrams and other communication services there is an amount of $902,000. Under the item dealing with materials and supplies, fuel for heating, cooking and power generating units there is an amount of $200,000. Under the item relating to medical and dental supplies there is an amount of $125,000. Under the item relating to repair and upkeep of equipment there is an amount of $453,000. Under the item relating to municipal and public utilities services there is an amount of $200,000.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What I cannot understand from this reply is where the $45 million is coming from which would be required if that amount was not being transferred from other budgetary expenditures.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I thought the hon. member wished to know where the surpluses were in this particular vote. As a result of the surpluses in this vote, instead of having to ask for $37-odd million we need only ask for $35-odd million.
As far as the over-all picture is concerned the surplus is chiefly in the navy and the army capital programs and in the vote relating to R.C.A.F. operation and maintenance. Those three votes constitute the great bulk of what we estimate will be surplus to what we thought we would require when the estimates were prepared well over a year ago.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: When the minister refers to capital programs he is referring to equipment programs, is that correct?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The acquisition of equipment, construction of buildings, acquisition of land, and so on.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is it correct to say that the acquisition of new equipment has been reduced in order to make money available for pay and allowances and housekeeping?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman, and we cannot transfer one from the other. That is why we are here asking for this vote at the present time. If we were able to transfer from the capital vote to the operation and maintenance vote what we would be asking for at the present time, instead of the $66 million that is provided between the two votes is $16 million.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is correct, but of the total defence appropriation for the year the proportion which is now going to be spent for equipment is considerably reduced over
1948	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence that which was indicated last September, and the proportion which is being spent on pay and allowances and housekeeping is being materially increased. I wondered whether the minister could now indicate just what the strengths of the forces are and how close they are to the new ceilings which were authorized last fall.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In regard to the first point I think I should make it clear again, Mr. Chairman, that the bulk of the shortfall, we will call it, which is now estimated, is in the three votes, namely in the operational maintenance vote which is not equipment for the R.C.A.F.; in the capital vote for the navy, and that is due to a considerable extent to slower deliveries, as far as naval vessels are concerned, than it was estimated would be the case; and finally in the capital vote as far as the army is concerned. A good deal of this or-perhaps I had better wait until I get the figures-a proportion of it at least is due to smaller spending on the acquisition of land and construction of buildings than we had estimated would take place.


Mr. Winch:: I should like to ask a question on vote 644. In the details on page 14 I note there is an item for food supplies. I should like to ask the minister whether he would mind giving the committee the understanding with regard to the supplying of food to the Canadian forces overseas. I understand that all the food supplies for our forces overseas come through British ordnance. I should like the minister to tell us whether there is any kind of understanding or agreement with British ordnance which supplies our troops as to the food in any respect whatsoever. I ask that question for this reason. In going through the ordnance depots of our military establishments last fall in France and Germany I must say that I was rather intrigued when I noted that the butter came from Belgium, the meat from Australia and New Zealand, the powdered eggs from Formosa, the canned vegetables and fruit from the United States, the canned salmon-horror of horrors-from within 50 miles of Vancouver it is true, but from Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A. Then, the Cheddar cheese, of which we have a few million pounds in Ontario, came from South Africa. I could just keep on and go down the list.
However, in the ordnance plants you could see all this. When I thought of the hundreds of millions of dollars this House of Commons votes in subsidies for agriculture produce and of the need for markets; and when I thought of all our butter, the plight of our poultry producers and that of many of our growers,
I just could not help wondering whether there were not some arrangements with the 

British ordnance supplying food for our troops as a result of which they might perhaps get some of the high quality production of Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I think is well known, our army brigade group in Germany is on the British supply line. We draw all our supplies of food from the British base units line of supply and so on. They secure all their supplies, as I think the hon. member is aware, by what you might call competitive marketing in all of the markets of the world. Naturally, they get these supplies at the cheapest rates at which they can get them. This of course is one of the ways in which Britain has maintained herself as a trading nation for so long. For us to set up a separate supply line of our own would be a completely uneconomic proposition. We have not a sufficient number of troops to justify the whole supply set up which would be required and it would cost enormously more to try to supply our troops with Canadian food products in that way than it costs by taking supplies from Great Britain. As I stated before Great Britain buys in all parts of the world and at the cheapest prices. This lack of Canadian agriculture products in that British supply line is a reflection really of the fact that Canadian prices for agriculture products are higher than those in most other parts of the world, practically. The farmer here is getting higher prices for his butter, eggs, hogs and so on, by and large, than is the farmer any place else in the world. For that reason you find in the British supply line very little in the way of Canadian agriculture products.


Harold Edward Winch: All I saw was canned peas. That product was the only thing I could find.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member went through the Maple Leaf service store he would find in it a good proportion of Canadian canned goods. That store, of course, is a non-public funds operation and the particular taste requirements of the Canadian personnel are taken into consideration in that store. You have a good range of Canadian products in the Maple Leaf service store, but in what we draw for general rations there is very little, for the reason I have indicated.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the minister now have the answer to the question in respect of the percentage of the total allocation for equipment?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. There is an estimated shortfall of $20.8 million in the air force operation and maintenance vote, a shortfall of $19.82 million in the navy capital vote

and a shortfall of $5.8 million in the army capital vote. In D.R.B. there is a shortfall of $3.4 million. Then there are other smaller amounts. I gave the hon. member what the shortfall was in the particular vote we are considering.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister now say what the strength of the army was in September 1961 and what it is at the present time?


Douglas Scott Harkness: My officials are just working out those figures for me and I have not obtained them yet.


Harold Edward Winch: This vote is the only place that I can ask this question. May I ask the minister to inform the house what the agreement is between his department, or the government, and the United States or NATO having regard to the fact that this year construction is to go ahead on the building of the ammunition dumps for nuclear warheads on the Canadian bases, with American guards, according to the information we have received. Can we have any information from the minister on that matter? I understand that construction is to be proceeded with this year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as the army brigade area in Germany is concerned, the hon. member has been there. He knows that these camps are placed close to German towns and in the German countryside, with a considerable amount of space between the different camps. In that area certain of these facilities are being built. Of course, none of this land belongs to Canada or anything like that.


Harold Edward Winch: Just at our bases?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as I am aware, they are not being built actually where our barracks are, although they might be fairly close to them. I do not know the exact locations. However, my understanding is that they are not being built in the actual barrack areas that we are occupying.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Now that we are into this subject, will the minister tell the committee whether, in his opinion, it was a military necessity that Canada equip and send an Honest John missile battery to the brigade group in Europe?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was considered the wise and prudent course to follow. It certainly was in accordance with the requirements and desires of NATO supreme headquarters.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is it not a fact that the Canadian brigade group will be fighting-if fighting occurs-with a larger unit, and that the larger unit includes certain elements of the British army which could supply nuclear reinforcements if necessary?
Supply-National Defence


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are various ways in which the army brigade group may be employed. In fact, a variety of plans exist, and in some cases they would be employed with units of the British army and in other cases not.


Harold Edward Winch: While we were visiting the camps, and I appreciate the courtesy we were shown, we were given to understand that in all probability the air force will have the CF-104 late this fall and the minister has also mentioned now one group which is trained in the use of the Honest John. Is this equipment being supplied? Are these men being trained without any official decision as to the ammunition to be used by these weapons?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The S.S.M. battery, of course, has received quite a long period of training. A considerable number of men from that battery went to the United States to take courses there and then they came back and trained the remainder of the battery here in Canada. That training is continuing in Europe. The operation and possible employment of the battery are being integrated in the general brigade training which is now taking place.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, but they are in Europe and they have this equipment. They are there for a certain purpose. Is there an understanding that they can make use of these weapons if the necessity arises or are they just sent over there with the weapons but no ammunition?


Douglas Scott Harkness: They are over there, as I say, in order to be integrated into and carry on training with the brigade group and thus to be in a position if an emergency develops so that they could be employed.


Harold Edward Winch: In other words, actually what all these words mean is that they will be supplied with nuclear warheads or equipment? That decision has been reached?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I did not say anything of the kind.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister said that in his opinion it was prudent that the Honest John battery should be there. Does he not then feel it is prudent that the weapons should be equipped with nuclear warheads so that the battery would be of some use if required? I am sure the minister is not trying to create the impression that our troops are there merely for training purposes, although that is part of their duties. They are there to resist aggression if required, and surely if nuclear weapons were to be used in order to resist aggression it would be necessary to have the warheads immediately available. Has a decision been made to use them under those circumstances?
1950	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence Mr. Harkness: We consider the situation to be quite satisfactory as it is in view of the general situation in Europe at the present time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is there any agreement? Is there any commitment? When these forces are to be at the disposal of the NATO command, surely there must be some understanding or agreement, implied or otherwise, which is the basis for their being there. Would the minister explain to the committee what it is, because I think the committee is entitled to know, when it is being asked to vote funds?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are no funds being asked in this particular vote for the purpose just indicated and, as the hon. member well knows, the general situation with regard to nuclear arms as far as NATO is concerned is a matter which has been under discussion now for some considerable length of time and no agreement has yet been reached in that regard.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If I may deal with the second point first, if it is true that no agreement has been reached, how soon does the minister feel it is necessary that an agreement be reached? With regard to the other point, that no funds are being sought for the brigade group in Europe in this vote, surely the minister is not informing the committee that no part of these funds will be used for the pay and maintenance of army personnel serving overseas.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not what I said. What I said was that none of the funds being asked for here are for nuclear weapons or anything along that line. This is a straight operation and maintenance vote and naturally some part of it would have to do with the pay of the some 220 odd members of the S.S.M. battery.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think that is quite correct; but surely that is the reason that we are entitled to ask these questions. Why should we pay troops overseas to maintain a battery which is ineffective? The minister should tell us what plans he has for this particular unit. Does he intend to make it effective by providing it with warheads for its missiles or does he intend to leave it there in perpetuity and expect this committee to provide funds year after year for the maintenance of an ineffective and useless battery?


Harold Edward Winch: I wonder whether the minister would comment on what I understand to be the situation. My information is that since about the middle of last summer there has been a decided change in viewpoint among many of those who are in control of defence 

policy, including the supreme allied commander of the NATO forces and NATO headquarters itself. From all I have heard, and I have heard quite a bit from SHAPE and SACEUR, there is to be a concentration more than ever before on highly trained mobile forces with conventional weapons, and the NATO analysis of any possible conflict in Europe is that it would arise by the probing of conventional forces which would have to be met by highly mobile and highly trained conventional forces. In view of the fact that these are the opinions which have been expressed now for almost a year by the supreme allied commander and NATO headquarters in Europe, could I ask the minister if this is the field of defence activity that he envisages for the Canadian forces operating under NATO. If he agrees with these pronouncements and that analysis, then why do we have this Canadian rocket force in Europe?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Contrary to the opinions expressed by the hon. member, there has been no basic change whatever as far as SACEUR's general plans and concepts are concerned. The NATO shield force, SACEUR has been saying for years, needed to be improved in strength and mobility, and his aim has been to have as highly mobile, flexible and strong forces as possible. In public speeches for several years past he has been urging all of the countries in NATO, who were behind in their commitments as far as his forces in Europe were concerned, to bring these forces up to what are known as the force goals. There has been no general change whatever in the concept that I am aware of. It remains essentially the same as it was. There has been an increase in the strength of the forces and in their mobility because of the fact that the United States has moved in considerable numbers of troops. The German army has also come along fairly rapidly in the last year or so and there are now more French troops than there were. This has all increased the general strength. Some of these troops have received a good deal of new equipment which has increased their mobility and their hitting power.


Harold Edward Winch: If that is correct, then all I have to say is that it certainly strikes me as being different from all the briefings that the Canadian delegation received when they were given the privilege of being briefed by Canadian, United States and West German officers. In particular, statements were made in public, not in camera, in Paris at the opening of the NATO parliamentary conference. There was no hesitation whatever in stating that stress should now be placed on highly mobile, highly trained brigade forces

equipped with conventional weapons. I am certain that I can listen to what an officer says and understand it. This is not only what we received from military sources, but was the point of view expressed by the leaders of almost every delegation from the various countries represented at that conference. I do not think I am too far wrong in my expression of that view.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member has misinterpreted the briefings he received. As I said a few minutes ago, SACEUR and the NATO council for several years have been putting on the pressure for all countries to bring their forces in Europe, both conventional and other forces, up to strength. In the last year or two years, there has been a considerable increase in these forces. Therefore, SACEUR, the supreme commander in Europe, is not so completely dependant on nuclear weapons to stop any attack as he was two years ago. But this has always been the aim; there has been no basic change whatever.


John Ross Matheson: I share the views of the hon. member for Vancouver East, and I suggest that to some of us it is inescapable that there has been a major change. I should like to ask the minister if he would consider, for example, the article appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of January 22, 1962 carrying the headline, "United States Shifts Defence Policy." Now, let me touch on that defence policy for a minute. There was a statement made by secretary of defence Robert S. McNamara-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We are dealing with a specific item here concerning the operation and maintenance expenses of the Canadian army. If we begin to talk about United States defence policy and defence policy in general, then I submit we are completely out of order. The debate should be confined to the item on which it started, the item which is under discussion.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, I understand that we are debating the estimates for the Canadian army and it is in that that I am precisely interested. I point out to this committee that on January 19, 1962, one of the experts in the field, Robert S. McNamara, appeared before a Senate committee on the armed services on the fiscal years 1963-67 defence program and 1963 defence budget. At this time he announced major changes that affect us and affect our army.
One of the things that he said was that there has been a major defence-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Perhaps the hon. member would speak to the point of order first raised by the Minister of National Defence.
26207-1-124
Supply-National Defence


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to speak to the point of order. I should like to bring this to your attention. I say respectfully that the minister is completely out of order in making the suggestion he has. After all, what the member has a right to do is to say what the policy in the United States is and what the policy of the United States secretary is in so far as those policies affect Canada. This is what the hon. member for Leeds is trying to do. It may well be that the statements which he will make will be embarrassing to the minister in some respects. Of course, that is not our fault if that be the case. Surely, the hon. member is bringing other witnesses to his assistance, and that is done every day during discussion of the estimates. I submit to you, respectfully, the hon. member has a right to do what he is doing now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that a general debate on defence, so far as these estimates are concerned, has already taken place. What we are calling for is further sums for a particular purpose and the debate should be confined to what those particular sums are and the purposes for which they are being asked. There should be no revival of the general debate on defence which I maintain would be completely out of order.
As a matter of fact, if in the consideration of these estimates and all the other supplementary estimates, there is going to be a general policy debate on all the departments concerned, then it would rapidly become impossible to carry on the business of this parliament. Parliament would cease to be able to operate if, during the consideration of every supplementary estimate, a general policy debate took place. This is the sort of thing we have had here for the past 14 days. If this sort of thing is allowed to continue, then I submit it will destroy the usefulness of parliament. Parliament would not be able to operate under those circumstances.


Lionel Chevrier: I just want to bring to your attention the point which the Minister of National Defence has brought forward. Apparently the minister was not here the other day when a disposition was made of that point. We were discussing, under item 636, vocational training under the Department of Labour. One of the ministers, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, raised exactly the same point as the Minister of National Defence has raised in respect of this item. I think I am safe in saying that on the question of principle it was clearly determined, clearly decided, that on an item of this kind we had a right to discuss the question of principle, and the Chair so held.

Supply-National Defence
We went on to discuss it because, not only did hon. members on the other side of the house introduce the debate, but it was continued by hon. members on this side of the house. It would be contrary to equity, in my opinion, if it were not possible to determine and discuss on a supplementary item the question of principle; and that is exactly what is being asked here.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I speak to the point of order? If the minister thinks we are going to pass lightly the authorization for $60 million without going into the pros and cons and the use to which the money will be put, he is sadly mistaken. Just about every principle having to do with defence and defence policy or lack of defence policy on the part of this government is raised by these items. The discussion includes the training of people for national survival, and we have to find out what the relationship is between these people after they have finished their training and the Department of National Defence or whether, in fact, it is just a make work program to bring down the unemployment figures in this country. The item raises the question of nuclear and non-nuclear forces in Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It has nothing to do with that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It certainly does have, because you have committed millions of dollars in these estimates for the acquisition of equipment which only reaches its maximum potential when armed with nuclear weapons; that is what you are asking this committee to do. You are asking us to go along with the drift of your department or your government. You want more funds for atomic carriers when you have not even made up your mind as to whether or not you are going to use them, and that is quite a bit of nerve on your part. You should listen very carefully to the debate and try to give a little additional information so that we have more light on the subject and we can judge intelligently as to whether or not these funds should be voted.


Egan Chambers: May I refer you to citation 239 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, Mr. Chairman? It states:
The whole management of a department may be discussed in a general way when the committee of supply is considering the first resolution of the estimates of that department which reads as follows: "General Administration"-


Paul Raymond Martineau: What page is that?


Egan Chambers: Citation 239 on page 201, Mr. Chairman.
If however the words "General Administration" cover all the expenses to be incurred during the year, as shown for instance, in the Post Office estimates, it is relevant then to criticize every

phase of the department totally or in detail without evading standing order 59(2) which sets forth that speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
We considered the item of general administration for the Department of National Defence when the main estimates of the department were before the committee.
According to this citation and standing order 59(2), this not being the item of general administration but a particular item, it is not permitted, as I read the citation and the standing order, to enter into a general debate and the discussion must be strictly relevant to the items listed in the vote.


John Cameron Pallett: The hon. member for Laurier suggested that a ruling was made on this point just the other day. So that there will be no misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman, I would refer you to page 1792 of Hansard of March 14 in which your ruling was given at that time. You said at that time, with relation to a point of order raised by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, that the debate should be on the item listed and that the hon. member for Essex East, who was then speaking, was merely laying the foundation. There was no suggestion by you, Mr. Chairman, that this item of a particular nature enabled a broad policy discussion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Read the whole thing and you will see where you are wrong.


John Cameron Pallett: The hon. member for Essex East is supposed to be able to read.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The parliamentary secretary read the wrong citation. I would refer Your Honour to citation 240, at page 202, which I would like to read.
Supplementary estimates, when treated as customary and as a matter of course, instead of being restricted to occasion of unforeseen contingencies, do more to destroy effectual parliamentary control than any other indirect method that could be devised. They are, however, for one service or another annually recurring necessities. They may be presented either: (I) for a further grant to a service already sanctioned and voted for, or (II) for a grant for a further occasion of expenditure arising where the estimates were presented: (a) for expenditure newly imposed on the executive by statute; (b) to such an unexpected emergency.
It is extremely difficult to make a close forecast of the amount which will have to be provided.
The introduction of supplementary estimates of any considerable amount is really a breach of contract between the government and parliament, for when this is done the budget statement is destroyed, and in effect a supplementary budget is set up.
I contend this is a breach of contract on the part of the government. These are substantial expenditures, $60 million on these two items alone for national defence. I contend that in effect a new supplementary

budget is set up, and in accordance with the traditional practice of parliament, both in Westminster and this house, when a supplementary budget is set up debate is unlimited and can range through the whole course of policy relative to and related to the items under discussion.


Paul Raymond Martineau: 
Harold Edward Winch: May I have a word on that very point, Mr. Chairman. If you will just look over what you have referred to, that is vote 644, you will see under that "pay and allowances," "food supplies," and "travelling and removal expenses." It was stated by the minister that one of the reasons he had to bring in the supplementary estimates was because of the additional forces that have been sent overseas under the NATO command. Therefore if the money we are asked for now is due to the additional cost of sending these extra men over under NATO, surely the question of their equipment and role under NATO is a matter which is pertinent to this very supplementary vote.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East in so far as that goes, but I do not think the whole matter of nuclear policy is pertinent to the vote.


Harold Edward Winch: One gun is policy.
26207-1-1244
Supply-National Defence


John Ross Matheson: In the pamphlet distributed by this department, called "Canadian Defence Policy, 1960," we have this statement:
Therefore, we must not consider our defence effort in isolation but, rather, one should look at the general effectiveness of the defensive alliances-
I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that one cannot sensibly and realistically consider any vote to our Canadian army as a vote to that army alone without thinking of where it fits in with these defensive allies. I put it to the committee that if a major change has in fact taken place in the official thinking of some of our chief allies on this matter then it is important, it is germane to the vote under discussion at the present time, that we consider what kind of army we are maintaining.
Some of us wonder how much of an overhead we have for four brigade groups and, in fact, the number of groups we have scattered in different places. I have been told that there are 13 headquarters and I would like the minister to tell us how many people are actually on headquarters staff. So far as I know there has not been an army list published since 1939, and it is incredibly difficult for us in the opposition to get any kind of answer from this department with respect to where troops are and what they are doing.
We understand the importance of security in these matters, but there are some other things that are also important. We are part of the NATO alliance. That means we have certain strong allies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, West Germany and so on. We know that some of them are equipped to take on certain tasks, and our largest and most powerful ally, the United States, has come to some profound change in its thinking, a change which very definitely affects us. We also understand that there are no two countries going to do exactly the same thing in this NATO alliance, and it is meet and proper that they be different.
We have the nuclear power of the United States, United Kingdom and France, and we know that two of these countries have had certain relationships with other countries that were formerly colonies. That puts them in a special position with respect to so-called neutrals at the present time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On the point of order I raised previously I must direct your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the details of this vote which we are considering which are to be found at page 14.
You will see that they do not have any relationship to all these matters of general defence and foreign policy which he is attempting to debate. All that is dealt with here

Supply-National Defence are civil salaries and wages, pay and allowances, professional and special services, travelling and removal expenses, exhibits, advertising, films, and so on, materials and supplies such as clothing and personal equipment, food supplies, and the repair and upkeep of buildings and works.
Those are the sort of things that we are dealing with. We are not dealing in any way with general defence policy and general foreign policy, which is what the hon. member is talking about. I maintain that discussion of that kind on these particular items is completely out of order and completely contrary to the rules.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question. Does the provision "pay and allowances $4 million" apply in part to Canadian forces serving under NATO?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well surely that answer should conclude this whole matter.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That has got nothing to do with general defence policy or foreign policy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why not?


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the point of order was determined at least two days ago. I tried to bring that to Your Honour's attention a moment ago. On vote No. 636, technical and vocational training, after there had been a discussion for a long period of time by those of us who sit on this side of the chamber on the question of education in the province of Ontario and in other provinces, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys rose to try and stop the hon. member for Levis discussing a matter which concerned the province of Quebec. He said exactly what the Minister of National Defence said just now, that on a question of principle it was too late to discuss these matters. I do not know whether or not Your Honour ruled on that occasion-I thought Your Honour had ruled-and we went on and discussed it afterwards for quite some time. So having decided, in effect, if not by a formal decision, that this could be done on another vote, surely it can be done on this vote. That is my respectful view.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely the question of alternatives is relevant. The minister, for example, would not contend that the opposition has no right to suggest that some of the fat should be trimmed off the army; that perhaps we have too many headquarters, too many brass-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not suggesting anything of the kind.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -and that some of the money could be saved for some of our needed equipment for our fighting men. Surely the minister does not suggest that. If he does suggest that, he has changed so much from the time when he sat on this side of the chamber and before he moved to the other side of the chamber that he is scarcely recognizable. At that time he said he thought it was extremely pertinent to discuss the top heavy personnel of the army structure and ways in which the top fat could be trimmed off so that we could save money. With this in mind, I think the minister is quite out of order in suggesting that we do not have the right to discuss alternatives as to how the money should be spent.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Again I must remind the committee that we are not on item No. 1 of the department, general administration; we are on a subheading concerned with particular sums that are being used for particular purposes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: For the army.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The rules of this house are quite explicit on that. Rule 59, subparagraph 2 deals with it. There are citations in Beau-chesne, there is the quotation that I have given from May, and the hon. member for Laurier referred to the practice that was adhered to last week in this committee. In making my ruling then I did mention that I would caution the hon. member that-


Lionel Chevrier: What page?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Page 1861 of Hansard.
-as the minister has well pointed out, the rules of relevancy must be adhered to and he must correlate his remarks to the particular item.
I allowed the debate as a premise to discussion on the item and I directed the discussion toward the item. I think the same ruling should apply again and that the hon. member who has the floor could correlate his remarks to the particular item in a manner that is precise and specific, and he should not embark on a discussion on general policy. That, I think, is the only ruling I can give in regard to the rules and the practice of this committee.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure I do not need to draw your attention to the importance of this item as a supplement to perhaps the largest item for the whole year in the main estimates. I refer to page 46 of the estimates of 1961-62 which concern the Canadian army operation and maintenance. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that you would not

want to cut off any discussion that was supplementary to a parliamentary vote involving $359 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now being increased by 10 per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: This is a supplementary item increasing the amount of the vote by $35 million. I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that, unlike most items in the estimates, we have under the Canadian army in the main estimates only two items, but they total $420 million and here we are asked many, many months after we have observed government policy, to vote an additional amount of $35 million for the Canadian army.
Surely in a democracy, having regard to this percentage of our total demands on the taxpayers of this country, we are entitled to have a fairly wide discussion about expenditures particularly concerning the Canadian army. I am sure that in your fairness, Mr. Chairman, you would not deny that.
If one goes to the details on page 14 of the supplementary estimates No. 3 he will see the reason for the observations that I am making at this point. I say that there is nothing more important at this time, having regard to the concern on the part of the taxpayers that we are not doing our duty in scrutinizing some of these expenditures, than looking at these items when they involve vast expenditures amounting to $359 million, in the main estimates and another $35 million in this supplementary estimate attached to the main estimate.
I say that having regard to that and looking at all the other smaller estimates in supplementary estimates No. 3, surely the tolerance of the Chair will be given to the committee to make sure that the taxpayers' rights are properly taken care of in this matter.


Mr. Mafheson:: Mr. Chairman, on March 15, 1962 when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was speaking, the chairman made his ruling. I am reading from page 1861 of Hansard:
-with regards to the remarks upon which the hon. member lor Levis was embarking I would point out that he was speaking about the principles of joint programs. This Is a joint program and if he relates his remarks on joint programs generally to the joint program that is now under study, then to my mind he is fairly well within the realm of relevancy. I do not feel inclined to stop him at this stage-
Mr. Pallet!: Would the hon. member read the rest of the paragraph, to complete the ruling the chairman gave at the time. He would not want to leave it up in the air, half finished.


William Joseph Browne: He should finish the sentence anyway.
Supply-National Defence
Mr. Pallet!: He should finish the sentence at least.


Lionel Chevrier: His Honour has just read it.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, my time is limited and I would like to address myself to the operation and maintenance of the Canadian army particularly as it applies to a joint program with particular NATO nations when certain circumstances have materially altered since our last deliberation with respect to defence. I think it is proper and germane that we mention this when we have additional pay and allowances of $4 million, and further pay and allowances totalling $23,120,000 together with travelling and removal expenses of $1.5 million. Our Canadian army is obviously not an army by itself. We on this side of the house have tried over a period of months to elicit the facts about the army from hon. gentlemen opposite. We do not know much about it. There is much information known only to the minister and his parliamentary secretary and probably not to many others. I suspect that for the number of fighting troops there is a grossly overweighted headquarters. We do not understand why there are so many headquarters in our military establishment. We do not know all the facts nor can we find them out. Searching the parliamentary library we find ourselves limited, naturally, with respect to the literature published by the department although we have not been at war for several years on a large scale.
I put it to the Chair that there have been substantial changes of policy on the part of our principal allies, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom. These announcements have taken place particularly since January, 1962. These changes compel us to ask the committee to consider whether or not the expenses which at one time we were appropriating are now applicable. I ask the Minister of National Defence whether in light of the fact that our two most valued and trusted allies indicate the need for a substantially stepped up conventional army it is necessary in these circumstances that we review whether or not the expenditures in the direction of nuclear deterrents are proper and relevant.
Recently in the United States the statement was made that there must be greater emphasis than in the past given both by ourselves and our NATO allies to non-nuclear forces. Mr. McNamara speaking with the confidence of the president-and at a number of conferences President Kennedy has repeated virtually the same thing-


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
1956	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Peter Francis Martin: What is wrong with this?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will tell the hon. member for Essex East, who should be an upholder of parliamentary usage and custom rather than one who is tearing it down, what is wrong with it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is trying to impose closure.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My colleague is speaking on a point of order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Essex East on a question of privilege.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Chairman, the minister says that instead of joining in this chorus of what he calls destruction I should be an upholder of the rules of the house.


Henry Frank Jones: You certainly should.


Peter Francis Martin: The hon. gentleman has given expression to an observation that he should be asked to withdraw. The minister said that I have engaged in a course of tearing down parliamentary usage and custom-


Douglas Scott Harkness: And so you have.


Peter Francis Martin: The Minister of National Defence accuses me of this, too. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that the people who are tearing down parliament are those who are sitting on the government side of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Trying to impose closure.


William Moore Benidickson: The taxpayers want to know how the money is spent.


Peter Francis Martin: We have heard an observation which we might have expected from the Minister of National Defence, but it is surprising to hear from the leader of the house who is supposed to guide us in procedural matters a statement to the effect that I have contributed to the tearing down of parliament. I ask you, Mr. Chairman to invite the hon. gentleman to withdraw that remark and in asking Your Honour to do that I would ask the minister to look at my record alongside his and see who is tearing down the parliamentary institution.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All we have to do is look back at 1956, if you like.


Peter Francis Martin: Will the minister not be seated? Will the Chair not be allowed to say something?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I will now hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs on a point of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, if the hon.
member for Essex East has become supersensitive over these expressions I will gladly withdraw that comment about tearing down the institution of parliament. But I would say that the hon. member is not contributing to the maintenance of the procedure of parliament and the usage and customs which prevail here.
My point of order is this. The hon. member who was just speaking on this item was wandering far afield. That is what is destructive of the consideration of the supplementary estimates. Although Your Honour has read-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read the debates of 1956. And you dare to get up and say that?


Henry Frank Jones: I truly hope you remember the debates of that year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope hon. members opposite will remember black Friday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We had black Friday last Friday, and you moved the motion.


William Moore Benidickson: Black Friday again.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I think it would be interesting to hear the minister on the point of order, which is the only question before us at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it is important that we observe the rules. Only by doing so can the affairs of an institution like this be properly conducted. I believe it is important to record these words which are to be found at page 738 of May's sixteenth edition on parliamentary practice. They are to be found approximately three quarters of the way down the page:
-if the supplementary estimate is merely to provide additional funds of a relatively moderate amount required in the normal course of working of the services for which the original vote was demanded, only the reasons for the increase can be discussed and not the policy implied in the service which must be taken to have been settled by the original vote-
It is just common sense on supplementary estimates to restrict our discussion to the matter which is concerned with that supplementary estimate and not to debate the general policy of the whole department. Otherwise we would spend our time here engaging three or four times during the course of a session in repetitious discussion of policy matters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not if you had good estimating.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would request the Chair to invite the hon. member who was speaking to restrict himself to the supplementary

estimate which is before us on the basis of this rule of procedure which I have read from May.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I wish to reply to the leader of the house on the point of order. As I wrote down his remarks I believe he referred to a relatively moderate amount. We are dealing with an amount of $35 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What percentage is that of the total vote?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ten per cent of the original estimate.


William Moore Benidickson: In disdain the Minister of Veterans Affairs who is leading the house asks what percentage is that of the total amount of $7.4 billion that the government is asking the taxpayers of this country to pay. I wish to remind him that the minister often chided one of his eminent Liberal predecessors, a man who vastly increased the economy of this country, for having said off the cuff, "what is a million compared with receiving another $10 million or $20 million out of it?" The minister disdained that. He says $35 million is a relatively moderate amount.
At page 15 of supplementary estimates No. 3 which are before us we see reference to pay and allowances for the army. Referring back to the current item in the main estimates for 1961-62 we find under the item relating to the Canadian army a tremendous amount appropriated for operation and maintenance and pay and allowances. I say we are entitled in this committee to deal with any operation of any employee who will be paid under this vote. The sum of $35 million is involved in this vote for pay and allowances of members of the army. I say we may discuss policy and have the right to say that certain people are not properly employed.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Before the hon. member for Leeds continues I would like to recall to hon. members that, after all, the rules are made for our guidance. I believe it was the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who recently said this is a free parliament. Our rules were made by a free parliament and they have been accepted. It is only by all members accepting the rules that intelligent discussion can take place and progress can be realized.
I believe there are 96 items listed in the supplementary estimates. I think all of us understand that if every item listed in the supplementary estimates were to give rise to a discussion of policy and general affairs we would not be devoting our time to the business for which this committee has been set
Supply-National Defence up. I would therefore ask the hon. member for Leeds, who has tried to co-operate, to continue to correlate his remarks and not to get into the subject of broad policy. There is a distinction between broad defence policy, nuclear policy and so on and the more restricted interpretation of policy inasmuch as it applies to the pay and allowances of Canadian military personnel. I think that within that frame he can validly and completely discuss the item under consideration. I should very much like him to restrict his remarks.


William Moore Benidickson: What about the much misjudged civil defence?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Go ahead and talk about that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. We cannot do that.


John Ross Matheson: The minister has referred to a relatively minor vote of $35 million. In my innocence I felt that with a population of eight and a half million, this is a relatively substantial item.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member means eighteen and a half million people.


John Ross Matheson: Yes, eighteen and a half million people. May I say ffiarthe really serious situation that we see is that Canada can spend in the wrong direction such large amounts that actually we lose for our army any flexibility, any opportunity to develop, change, expand or keep up with the times or actually fulfil this very special purpose which our NATO allies would assign to us if we had a government that could sit down and enunciate policy and be able to indicate where we would be able to fit in, maybe with the Norwegians, Danes and so on, for special conventional purposes. Obviously, from the remarks of the Chair, it is the wish of this committee that we not discuss policy at all.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John Ross Matheson: But when we take the position that we are paying about $1.6 billion for a gigantic shotgun blast that hits nothing and makes nobody happy we are concerned because our little army which could be vitally significant for the objects of the NATO alliance and indeed in other roles, perhaps under the United Nations and so on, is not fulfilling its purpose and function for which it is naturally best adapted.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


John Ross Matheson: The hon. member has asked how do we know. We talk to military people also. We have talked to a number of military people. I am not going to mention some of the military people who would like to have some of these ideas passed out to the country
1958	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence and to this committee. We are trying to find out some facts from this minister. No one knows the facts. No one knows what army we have at all, where we are going or what its purpose is. No one knows at this stage whether we are prepared to do our job in the NATO alliance or whether we are unable to do it by virtue of other commitments. After all, we represent in this House of Commons a party that has had something to do with war. It was Laurier who took us into the South African war. It was King who took us into world war II.


An hon. Member:: Give us something new.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Those are facts that might well be remembered. Some of these comments which have come from the other side of the chamber and which suggest that the only loyalty in this country comes from the front benches of the government are not fitting and are not proper.
I wish to tell the hon. member that if he wishes to consider records, he can take a look at the record of our own leader who knows something about war. At 17 years of age in 1915 he served in three battle zones, namely Egypt, Gallipoli and the Balkans. He was not in university. He was doing what he has done all his life-serve Canada. We are just a little bit sick of this suggestion that we are not interested in defence, not concerned about the security of Canada and NATO which we had a real part in forming and which we intend to keep strong. In view of the fact that the Chair considers that any discussion of our policy or our military task is out of order, I will sit down. But I think many questions remain unanswered and we are upset about the matter. We are upset about the fact that these large votes come up for consideration without answers. We wonder what chance a young military man has by way of career. There are young military men in our army who are greatly concerned about the line of our defence policy. I could spend some time reading into the record what some of the junior officers of high training have been saying with respect to what kind of army we have. The Montreal Star of January 27 says this:
There are a number of younger officers who think it should not-
I am sorry, but I think I had better start at the beginning.
Whether the Canadian forces should have nuclear warheads has been fairly well debated by now on moral grounds. A parallel question has hardly been aired in public at all. It is whether the Canadian army should have them on practical grounds.
There are a number of younger officers who think it should not, because they believe nuclear armament would produce the wrong kind of army for this country.


With its limited population, Canada cannot, in peacetime, field a mass army. It has to produce a specialized force, highly trained for a limited number of functions.
We believe in an elite army. We want to have each and every dollar of the moneys that we have in Canada-in a time of depression, unemployment, and record debt-spent in a way that is going to produce an army of which we shall be proud. In the past we have misspent money and we know it. If it is possible for this government, at the snap of the fingers in a matter of a few days, to decide to scrap a project like the arrow, it is quite possible for them now to pursue a new course with respect perhaps to a wrong line of direction which has been established by some of the defence department. We have, for instance, people like Kissinger, Alastair Buchanan and people like them and some of our own people like John Gellner. What do they say? They say that for the number of troops we have in the field, we have too many at headquarters. They say that with the expenditures that we are voting for Bomarcs, we are not going to have available money with which to develop an elite army. These things we are interested in and that is why I wished to make these few comments.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall vote 644 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Oh, no, Mr. Chairman. I am sure you would' not expect the opposition not to continue its investigation into this matter. We can recall when hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the chamber were so greatly concerned over $1 million in relation to an item of $1,700 million that they fought a whole election campaign on it and used it to try to smear the reputation of one of the greatest Canadians who ever lived, namely the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe.
Surely we on this side of the chamber have a responsibility to look carefully into how $35 million should be spent. Also, Mr. Chairman, the matter has a relationship to policy. The whole policy of the Canadian army is actually affected by the whole expenditure of funds under this item. Recently at Edmonton the Prime Minister made this statement: Should war come we must have available the necessary instruments. In the context he was referring to nuclear warheads. I wonder whether the minister would explain what steps have been taken to implement the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister at that time: Should war come we must have the necessary instruments available.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, you have already ruled that a general debate on defence policy is not proper and not in order on this particular item. I therefore do not propose to get into a general discussion of defence

policy. I should be very glad to answer any question in connection with any of these matters which are outlined in some detail in the details on page 14, and which, as I have indicated previously, deal entirely with salaries, pay and allowances. As a matter of fact, as I indicated previously, over $27 million of this $35 million is for pay and allowances. I do not think the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was here when I made a brief statement at the start of this debate, and I think that perhaps I had better make the point again that the total additional amount of money which we are going to require for the Department of National Defence this year is $16 million, not $66 million as would appear from a casual glance at these estimates. We have a shortfall in various other items so that the total additional amount required is not $66 million but actually $16 million. As I say, I do not think the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was here-


William Moore Benidickson: You want $35 million for a specific purpose.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -when I dealt with that and explained it in detail. I also explained why we needed in this particular vote some $35 million more than was voted when the main estimates were put through. As I indicated in the house last September, we estimated at that time that to increase the strength of the army, to put into effect the various accelerated survival measures and to carry on the training of up to 100,000 men in the special militia training course we would require some $37 million extra. That was stated at that time. The actual amount required is $35 million because, as I have already explained in detail, there is a shortfall in some of the other items in this vote of some $2 million odd.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I understand your ruling, Mr. Chairman, it is that under this item we may discuss anything having to do with the operation and maintenance of the Canadian army either in NATO or here at home. I wonder whether the minister would tell the house if it is the policy of the Canadian government that before we can accept nuclear warheads for our forces we must obtain them under sole Canadian control?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I have already said on three occasions that I am going to abide by your ruling and not get into a general discussion of nuclear weapons, nuclear policy and so on, which has absolutely nothing to do with this item.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, we have an item of over $23 million for pay and allowances. Although the Minister of National Defence and the Secre-
Supply-National Defence tary of State for External Affairs do not seem to have ordinary cabinet solidarity so far as policy is concerned, can I get from the minister the assurance that if the committee passes this item no person in the army is going to be employed or paid or given an allowance under circumstances that would enable him to be familiar with nuclear weapons and their employment, if and when the confusion of the government is settled and these men are given some responsibility in this field? Are we assured that in 1961-62 we have not paid people who have been given some preliminary training in the use, if provided to them, of nuclear weapons, and can I be assured by the minister that in his forthcoming estimates we will not be obliged to debate this again, because expenditures are being made with the thought that there is the prospect that our army personnel may have to know something about such weapons and therefore parliament is being asked to expend money in the meantime for the purpose of giving them some advance training in this type of warfare?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have already dealt with this matter, and again I think the hon. member was not here when I did so.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I think we have come to a blank wall in this whole matter of nuclear weapons and possibly we might turn off in some other direction. I believe the minister will agree that a discussion of national survival would come within the limits of this vote.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Walter George Pitman: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, with your permission I think I will move in this direction and see if we can discover something about the purpose and the future of this program.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And come back to the other question later.


Walter George Pitman: The hon. member for Essex East says that we will come back to the question later. I can assure all hon. members that we in this corner are just as concerned about the problem of nuclear weapons for Canadian forces in Europe as I am sure other hon. members are to the right and left of Mr. Speaker but, quite frankly, we have spent almost an hour and a half on that subject tonight and I do not think we have got very far. Therefore I think we might move away from that subject and come back to it later.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister denies us information which we should have.


Walter George Pitman: First I should like to congratulate the minister on the job that was

Supply-National Defence done in connection with the national survival course. I am not going to congratulate him with respect to the purpose of the course particularly, but simply for the work which was done with some 50,000 to 75,000 men who have been given some survival training.
I assume that this course has given some work to a great many people who had no work. I am not at all sure what the over-all effect is going to be from the point of view of the purpose of the course. The first thing I am concerned about is the concept of the course. As the minister suggested, I believe it was to try to encourage people who have employment to take the course, and the expectation was that possibly business or industry or the area of employment in which the person worked would contribute something to the maintenance of the individual while he was taking the course. That was my understanding of the whole program as it came to fruition last fall.
I am not at all sure that very many people actually left their jobs. Possibly the minister can say just how many people fit into this particular box. How many took a six weeks leave of absence and were paid by their employers? I think this is important because it seems to me that the whole justification for paying these men on the basis of single recruits, as they were paid, was that the rest would be made up by the business institutions with which they were at that time employed.
If I may take the first survival course, I think the figures indicate to what extent this did not come about. The reason I am concerned about this matter is that I would certainly feel, as I am sure the government would feel, that any time a man signs up for any kind of government employment the government should surely assume its full responsibility to that individual. Many of these people were married and the majority were not in a position to receive additional income from employment. Of the 20,523 who started the first survival course 14,000 or nearly 75 per cent were unemployed. Some
10,000	of the 17,000 who finished were unemployed. There were 1,234 of those who started who were in receipt of welfare assistance and 828 of those who actually completed the course were in that category. Actually the situation was that some of them were making more money from welfare payments than they were from the national survival course.
To me this is a situation which should not be tolerated. In many cases it happened that because the course started shortly after the beginning of the month and their welfare payments covered part of the period in which they were actually on the survival course
[Mr. Pitman.J

some of them did come out even, or a little better than even. But it seems to me that when the government takes over the life of a person for six weeks, they have a responsibility to that person.
Out of the 20,523 people on this course, 6,798, nearly 7,000, were married. About 4,406 of those who completed the course were married and a good many of them, I am convinced, were married and unemployed and on welfare. I think that this-


An hon. Member:: I don't believe it.


Walter George Pitman: I am sorry; I did not hear that comment which came from the back of the chamber. I may say if you do not believe it, I am only quoting figures from a report which was sent to me by the Department of National Defence. I am sure you would believe the figures which came from your own sources.
Now, that is one problem. I do not want to go into that problem or the mess that occurred near the end, when the pay cheques came out and a great many people found they had not made as much money as they expected. I am sure the minister is sorry about that. A pamphlet was printed, which was later destroyed, at a cost of some $5,000-


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


Walter George Pitman: I stand corrected; I understood from a return I had that that was-


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the total cost.


Walter George Pitman: The total cost of the pamphlet? I understand the pamphlets were destroyed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, quite a large portion of the pamphlets were put out.


Walter George Pitman: I am sorry, I am mistaken. I base that mistake upon a misreading of the return I received from the minister. It is unfortunate that something could not have been said to those men so that this thing would not have happened. So many of them were enthusiastic about that course right up to the last day, and I think it was very unfortunate.
There is a final matter about which I am concerned. I cannot feel that there is any real connection between these survival troops and the emergency measures organizations in these various areas. For example, one coordinator of an emergency measures organization did not have the names, addresses or any real concept of how these men were going to fit into his emergency measures organization.
Of the 17,000 men who completed the first course, some 6,857 have been recruited into the militia. Surely, if there is a nuclear attack, the militia are going to have a certain job to do. Will it not be different from the job of those people who were trained in

survival? I cannot help but feel there has been no over-all picture conceived as to what these men are going to do, how they are going to fit into the whole pattern of our emergency measures organizations, the whole effort we have been directing towards some kind of planned approach towards survival.
I feel there should be a clear idea of what these men are going to do. Here we have over one third of them who are actually in the militia and have gone there from this course. I am sure this course was not set up as a means of bringing men into the militia, and yet this is what has happened. I am sure this course was not set up as a means of getting people off the unemployment rolls- at least, that certainly was not the impression with which we were left. However, 75 per cent of the men who took the course were unemployed and the government failed to take this into account by providing a living wage for those who were married and on relief at the time they took the course. At least, they should have been able to survive themselves for the six weeks they took the course.
I have seen people who were on relief and married, who had nine children and had to try to keep those nine children on $40 a week. I do not believe any member in this house would believe that could take place. It is for this reason I think this is something that should be explained. I wish the minister would try to indicate whether or not this first survival course proceeded in a manner different from that which he expected and, instead of having married men with jobs who were receiving some kind of subsidy from their company, he found himself faced with the fact that 75 per cent of the men were unemployed and were being sent over from the welfare offices. Perhaps he could explain why the government has taken no steps to supplement the payments to these men who are now being subsidized by the various welfare departments in various parts of Canada. Surely, this is a matter of some concern to this committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member indicated at the start of his remarks, this has been a very successful program. I believe the people connected with it are of that opinion. The militia unit commanders and the members of the militia who have been concerned with carrying out this program in all parts of Canada I have visited have all expressed satisfaction with the calibre of the men who took this training, with the interest they took in the course, the progress they made and the skills which they attained. The hon. member seems to have some idea that the program was designed as
Supply-National Defence a relief measure and so we should have taken into account the fact that some men would have large families-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Was that the purpose?


Douglas Scott Harkness: -and so provided funds to support them. The program was never designed as a scheme of this sort. The purpose of the scheme was set out quite clearly and definitely at the time it was undertaken, as was the amount of pay which would be received by the men taking the course. The rate of pay was set out as that of an army private plus the ordinary living out subsistence allowance of $65 per month. It was quite clear that that was all that was to be paid to anybody who took the course and that is what was paid.
In so far as the people who took the course are concerned, upwards of one third of the people who have enrolled in the course so far had jobs of some sort or another. A little over two thirds of the men did not have jobs at the time they enrolled. Now, I do not see why anybody should hold that against these men. The general purpose of the course, as I indicated at the time it was announced, was to produce as large a body of men as we practically could who were trained in survival skills. Of the men who have taken this course, a considerable number who were released from their normal employment by their employers, who in some cases were provincial or civic governments and in some cases private firms, for the express purpose of helping to organize survival methods in their organization, have been employed in that sort of activity since taking the course.
The hon. member asked what was happening to these people, how they were going to be used. Well, there are quite a number of them who are putting what they learned to use in that way. One of the purposes of the course and one of the hopes I expressed at that time was that a good proportion of the men who took the course would join the regular militia units. The hon. member seemed to indicate this was not the purpose of the course, but it was one of the purposes of the course to have as many of these people as possible join the regular militia units.
The reason for this hope was that survival operations are the responsibility of the army in Canada. The matter of rescuing people and so on is the direct responsibility of the army, both the regular army and the militia. The number of people in the regular militia units is not sufficient and has not been sufficient to properly carry out the rescue and survival operations with which they were charged.
!962	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence We hoped, and our hope has been met, that a good proportion of the people who took these courses would become interested in these matters and would join the regular militia, whose primary duty at the present time is rescue and survival operations. This type of activity for which they have been trained they can carry on better in a militia unit than the regular army, and the more of them we can get the better our survival operation is going to be.
In fact I have been delighted with the very large proportion of men who have joined the regular militia units. From the first two courses there were about 14,000 men, quite a high proportion, and I hope there will be just as high a proportion from the course going on at the present time and from the final and fourth course. I trust that has possibly answered some of the questions which the hon. member has in mind.
As I indicated I regret very much that a mistake was made in this pamphlet, but the number of people misled by it was very small. The amount of money involved was around $10. To people who had to live entirely on this amount it might have loomed up as quite a large sum. I am not saying it would not be to them, but it is not a large sum which was involved and the number of people misled by this was very small indeed. Of course when the mistake was discovered the pamphlet was withdrawn and the remaining copies were destroyed. The total cost, rather than being the $5,000 suggested, was around $3,000.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the minister could help very much to clear up this matter if he would read to the committee the contractual arrangement which applies between the graduates of these classes and the Canadian army, once they have graduated.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no contractual arrangement unless a man joins a regular militia unit and, as I have just indicated, a very fair proportion have done that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What proportion?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the number was
4,000	all told, who volunteered for the regular forces. Some 2,600 odd applied to join the regular forces and of these we have accepted 1,410. So we have had really a very good response from both those points of view to the six weeks' training that these men, who for the most part were young, undertook.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the minister advising the committee that there is no relationship presently existing between the army and the graduates, that there is no chain of command which provides the terms under which they will serve in their civil survival role once 

they have graduated? If not, what is the purpose? Is it just a school for unoccupied people, or what is the purpose for the expenditure of the money?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I have explained what the purpose was but for some people it is very hard to come to grips with any explanation, particularly if they do not want to grasp it. It is quite evident that they cannot have any contractual arrangement. There was no idea that when a man joined for this special militia training he was going to be obligated to serve for any longer period than six weeks. That was part of his term of engagement.


Walter George Pitman: I thank the minister for the long explanation he has given. I must admit that $2 and $10 do not mean very much, but they did the week before Christmas. I want to come back to the problem of what happens to these people who do not join the militia. Is there any way they can be co-ordinated into civilian E.M.O. programs? Is there any way in which they can be directed into some area of activity being carried on in every community under these various E.M.O. co-ordinators throughout the country?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This varies a great deal from one part of the country to another. A record is kept of the names of these people and it is made available to many of the civilian organizations dealing with the emergency measures organization. Of course the thing you have to keep in mind is that in the event of an attack on this country the military forces that exist would not be sufficient to form more than cadres or organizational centres, and they would have to pick up a large number of the civilian population if they were going to be able to carry on survival and rescue operations at the speed and to the extent that would be necessary. Therefore the larger the number of people in the general population you have trained in these survival methods the better will be your position. If we could have every civilian trained that would be ideal.


Miss LaMarsh:: There is one thing I would like to inquire of the minister in regard to what he said very decisively about the unemployed taking these courses. I would like to inquire exactly how far in advance of the announcement of the first course was the plan conceived? I have reference to my own riding in Niagara where a very large armoury, admirably suited for such training, was sold off within a matter of three or four months before there was notice about training these troops. It was then necessary to take over an empty church from the Department of Public Works in order to have this training go on,

which apparently indicates that the Department of National Defence did not plan ahead for any considerable period of time.
The other question I wish to raise, and unfortunately I do not have the reference with me but I have seen a number of comments in the press, is that officers in the survival exercise are unable to say exactly what would happen following a nuclear attack on Niagara Falls, which is one of those centres admitted by the Prime Minister in this house last fall to be a prime and primary target. If it were a primary target all its people, and certainly its survival group, would be completely destroyed; yet no arrangements have been made, as I read the press, for moving survival troops over destroyed highways from one centre to another.
I would ask the minister whether, in the interval from the first survival course, he has conceived any plan which would assist an area like Niagara Falls which would be largely decimated in the event of nuclear attack?


Douglas Scott Harkness: First of all I am sorry to have to inform the hon. member that the department of defence does not postulate its policies on the armoury situation in Niagara Falls. In actual fact the armoury to which the hon. member referred was an old building, very expensive to maintain and not an economic building to keep in operation.
So far as rescue operations in Niagara Falls are concerned rescue columns would come from various places at a distance of anywhere up to 60 or 80 miles from Niagara Falls. There are quite definite plans in connection with bringing rescue columns into any particular area which has been hit.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to raise a question that was put forward first by the hon. member for Trinity and then in another form by the hon. member for Peterborough. It has to do with the continuity of contact between the emergency measures people and the persons who have been trained. Although I do not know what percentage is involved it has been brought to my notice that among the persons who were trained there were quite a number of drifters, people who move from one place to another. They came into a city, took the course, and then went on again. I am told that there was quite a percentage of this type who certainly would lose all contact with the persons who had trained them, as against those resident in the district. Has the minister any idea of the percentage trained who were, shall we say, drifters or floaters and were not permanent residents of the district in which they were trained and available for service there?
Supply-National Defence


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I have no record of that. I would merely point out to the hon. member that working under a voluntary system, as we do in this country, both for the regular forces and the militia forces, and this special militia force, we enlist people without regard to their race, religion, job, complexion or anything else along that line; as long as they meet the mental and physical requirements they are enlisted.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On enlistment there was no requirement that the person who sought training was a resident of the district?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister can say whether he plans to carry on with this program next winter as well.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is a matter to which we are giving consideration, but no decision has yet been reached as to whether or not we will carry on with it next year.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking from memory, but as I recall it last September the Prime Minister used his usual superiority by announcing a major program over the head of the minister, and I think he said that 15,000 additional people would be recruited under the national defence program. I do not recall what the purpose was for this additional recruitment of 15,000 people, but I assume this vote has some relationship to it. How many of the 15,000 people that the Prime Minister spoke about in September, 1961, have been recruited, and what are their duties?
The minister passed me off when I spoke earlier by saying I had not been in the committee when he gave some information with respect to the relationship of this vote of $35 million to the training of people who might conceivably be engaged in nuclear training, or who might be engaged in the aspect of rescue and survival training that has been discussed recently. Could the minister break down, in these three aspects, how much of this vote relates to recruiting of
15,000	people under the defence program mentioned by the Prime Minister in September, how much relates to the rescue and survival program-which of course reduces expenditures in large part in connection with unemployment insurance payments-and how much involves people who may be wasting their time if the Secretary of State for External Affairs rather than the Minister of National Defence has his way and we do not need to know anything about nuclear weapons? Could we have a breakdown of these three categories?


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member will look at the details on page 14 he will find just

Supply-National Defence such a breakdown as to the expenditures tor the various purposes. He will see pay and allowances for the Canadian army, regular, $4 million. Then on the next page, still under the same vote but listed separately as pay and allowances for the Canadian army, militia -that is actually the special militia training program-the amount is $23,120,000. He will also see civil salaries and wages for the Canadian army, regular, $200,000. Then there are the rest of the items upon which the vote is based.
As far as the recruiting is concerned, since this program came into operation around September 1, up to March 12 we had increased the strength of the regular army-as the hon. member knows, people are leaving every week due to their having served their time, sickness and so on-by 4,338 all ranks. This figure is increasing, as a matter of fact, at a rate of about 600 a month and by the end of this current year-in other words, a period of approximately 18 months-we will have recruited at this rate up to the full strength that was authorized, which was an increase of 11,600 and some odd, I think, as far as the army was concerned.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the minister say what he is spending half a million dollars for to get another 11,000 men into the army?


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the question?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am looking at page 14, to which the minister kindly referred us, and the item "exhibits, advertising, films, broadcasting and displays".


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will be very glad to give a breakdown of that figure.


William Moore Benidickson: This is apart from the main estimates of last March.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This $436,000 was for extra advertising. In order to secure the men for the special militia training program, $151,000; and to secure the increased enlistments in the Canadian army, regular, $285,000. I might say that with these increases the item is still considerably less than it was some five years ago.


William Moore Benidickson: Who was employed by the minister as his agent for this advertising?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps the minister would tell us who is the advertising agent concerned in this figure of $151,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think we have three advertising agencies who do the work for national defence. Instead of giving it all to one person, as was the custom under the previous administration, we have shared this around so that more people get some of the business.


Lionel Chevrier: You cut the melon, in other words.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Now perhaps the minister will answer my question by telling me who the three are.


An hon. Member:: Write her a letter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We will give you until tomorrow to look up that information.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will get that information; 1 have not got it with me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister might also tell us at the same time whether tenders were called.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Did you do that?
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that the supplementary estimates tabled today amount to $138 million, which added to those that are now under discussion make a total of close to-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are out of order, but go ahead.


Lionel Chevrier: I want to ask a question based on that, if I may-which added to those now under discussion amount to practically the total budget of Canada before the war, will this group of supplementary estimates No. 4 be taken continuously and considered after we have disposed of supplementary estimates No. 3?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, the ones tabled today would be the final supplementary estimates for this fiscal year.


William Moore Benidickson: Are you sure it is final?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will continue with the supplementary estimates tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


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

[Stage Direction]
B-Unemployment insurance commission-
669. To authorize the Minister of Finance, notwithstanding the Unemployment Insurance Act, to credit to the unemployment insurance fund in the fiscal year 1962-63 sums not exceeding in the aggregate $25,000,000 on such terms and conditions as the governor in council determines, $25,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 20, 1962