1962-04-17

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have two or three announcements I wish to make today. The first has to do with the Northumberland strait causeway. As the house knows, comprehensive studies were authorized by the government in January, 1958, as to the whole question of the building of this causeway. The government has now decided that a causeway will be built between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
Studies to date have involved several government departments, consulting engineers and the national research council. An important part of the work was the construction of a scale model of the area by the national research council. The purpose of the studies undertaken has been to determine whether the project would be feasible from an engineering point of view and justified from an economic point of view. The answer in both cases is in the affirmative. The most economical crossing for road and rail traffic appears to be a combination causeway with navigation locks and a bridge between Jourimain island, New Brunswick, and Borden point, Prince Edward Island. The estimated cost is $105 million.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house on the eve of the election will have welcomed-


Mr. Hees:: Except the Liberal party.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -the announcement of the Prime Minister in regard to the causeway, something that was promised by this government during the last election. It is to be hoped, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of this causeway and other great national undertakings in the future will not have to be paid out of increasing deficits.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that there is an urgent cause for the causeway.



STATEMENT ON LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM- ANNOUNCEMENT OF DISSOLUTION

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I come now to another matter of general interest to hon. members. It has to do with the current session of parliament, the program as yet uncompleted, and the viewpoint of the government in this connection. I held the view generally that an election might take place in September and I had in mind September 12, the date fixed for the by-elections some weeks ago. However, any person who has witnessed the delaying tactics-
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -and the measure of obstruction practised by the official opposition during the present session-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -will recognize, as I think Canadians generally do, that it has become almost impossible to proceed with the business of the house.


Miss LaMarsh:: A broken record.


Mr. Hellyer:: The Pagliacci of the opera
house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I find these interruptions and babblings quite interesting. I am trying to make a completely objective report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In asking for careful attention perhaps it would be well for me to indicate that this period is not one in which debate normally takes place and that depending on the nature of the statement of the Prime Minister the house, I am sure, would be prepared to accept comment of the same character. I say this so that we shall understand where we are proceeding at this stage.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure anything I have said up till now will not be debatable. When I look at the summary of the business of the house as of April 17, the 63rd day, I find that 25 days have been utilized on supplementary estimates, 2 days

Legislative Program
on the main estimates, 8 days on the speech from the throne and 2 days on a supply motion, with only 25 days being utilized for legislation.
I summarize what I was endeavouring to say to my hon. friends opposite before the interruptions by saying that there has been no real effort to deal with parliament's essential business. We have had it on the order paper, but there has been only a pretence of dealing with it. Therefore, the only course open for the government is for me, as first minister, to go to His Excellency the Governor General, request an early dissolution-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -and invite the people to choose a new House of Commons.
Parliament will be asked, however, before we terminate to deal with the following measures; first, the resolution on redistribution, so that the bill may be brought before the house. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, on April 10, stated in effect that the measure to set up a redistribution commission, under all the circumstances, should be left over to the next parliament. It was, of course, not possible to bring it in earlier because if the commission had been set up it would not have been able to operate for the reason that the census is not yet complete.
The second measure that will come before the house today, I hope, is the ratification of the international wheat agreement. The third will be the Customs Act, and the fourth the appropriation bill. Then finally tomorrow, in the event that we proceed to complete the items in question, an application will be made for interim supply for a period of five months. If these matters are completed by tomorrow afternoon then the house, in the regular way, may adjourn, and later in the week I shall see the Governor General. We had also hoped to be able to come back to a consideration of the budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. gentlemen may
laugh, but the Leader of the Opposition will have every opportunity to deliver the speech he would have delivered when we come to consideration of the appropriation bill. The opposition frequently suggested an election, but at all times said that a proper accounting beforehand should be given, and that accounting has now been given.
There is one measure dealing with the other place which I had hoped to have passed, but it would take a very considerable period of time in the House of Commons and also in the other place. This issue, naturally, can be one of those that will be dealt with by the people during the course

of the coming election. It is obvious that if we tried to complete the legislative program we would have months ahead, and I think it has generally been agreed by hon. members that the people expect an early election.
There is one matter to which I should like to make reference and that has to do with a problem with which I have not dealt on previous occasions, namely divorce. I realize there are strong feelings on this subject, but I would hope that those who have expended their money in order to get then-bills before the house, those bills having been passed by the other place following examination, might well expect that their measures would be brought before this house and passed. Therefore, sir, without going into any details or becoming in any way provocative, tomorrow night, or if it becomes necessary on Thursday, this house will, as I said a moment ago, be adjourned.
So far as sitting Thursday is concerned, I find that while the hon. member for Laurier asked me the other day if I realized that it was a holy day, I find that I think it was 1953, when the hon. member was a member of the government of prime minister St. Laurent, the house did sit on the Thursday before Good Friday.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall recommend to His Excellency the dissolution of this house and the holding of the election on June 18.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We on this side, Mr. Speaker, are delighted that the Prime Minister at long last has put an end to the contrived uncertainty surrounding the date of the election. We are delighted that the Prime Minister has once again changed his mind and has moved the date forward from September 12 to June 18.
The Prime Minister has given as the reason for this the obstruction that the government has encountered from the opposition in the discharge of its duties. The Prime Minister, in effect, has said that it was impossible for a government with 207 members in this house to get through its legislative program unless the opposition gave up the exercise of its cherished rights-


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: Of obstruction.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -in carrying out its duties. The Prime Minister, being a student of both history and music, will recall the words of the queen in Gilbert and Sullivan's "Iolanthe", speaking about a prime minister of that time in the nineteenth century. The queen, speaking through music, had this to say:
Every bill and every measure That may gratify his pleasure,
Though your fury it arouses,
Shall be passed by both your houses.

The Prime Minister and his colleagues, however, were not sufficiently strong to prevent us from doing our duty in this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Deliberate obstruction.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister has now agreed, and we are delighted to get the announcement, that the election should be held at the earliest possible date. The country will be glad to get this announcement; not perhaps as glad as the official opposition, but it is high time this announcement were made. The country will in due course declare its verdict on the record of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party are extremely glad that the Prime Minister has at last terminated the state of uncertainty that has existed in this house and in the country for some months. We are also confident that this announcement will be welcomed by the Canadian people. As the leader of a party in this house-


An hon. Member:: Acting leader.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -which has an unblemished record-


Mr. Drysdale:: You have not done anything.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -we look forward to the verdict of the Canadian people on election day.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Louis Fortin (Montmagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the house leader. Would the house leader make sure that a few seats, possibly four or five, are reserved to the left of the Speaker so that just in case a few Liberal members are returned after the next election they may be assured of space in this house?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Such arrogance.



UNITED NATIONS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, Canada was today elected to the commission on human rights, one of the functional commissions of the economic and social council of the United Nations. The commission, which was established early in 1946, now consists of 21 members elected by the council for a period of three years. Canada will begin its term on January 1, 1963.
Inquiries of the Ministry
This is the first time Canada has been elected to the commission on human rights. It is a source of satisfaction not only to the government but, 1 am sure, to all Canadians that Canada will now have the opportunity to participate directly in this important international endeavour to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all mankind, such as we have promoted within our own country.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he cares to comment on a press report of a statement made in Washington this morning by President Kennedy, in which he expressed gratification with a statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada opposing an indefinite, unpoliced moratorium on nuclear testing.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister never at any time took such a stand.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister's stand is the stand taken by this government throughout. We are opposed to nuclear testing-


Mr. Peters:: This is Tuesday.


John George Diefenbaker: -but in so far as what is going on in Geneva is concerned, where they are gathered for the purpose of endeavouring to end this situation for all time by agreement, that is a matter quite aside from our general stand. We believe that any agreement between the U.S.S.R. and the west, any agreement effective with regard to the world, would only be effective and assured of being carried out provided there were reasonable means of verification.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. What steps does he propose to take to clear up this misunderstanding in the mind of President Kennedy?


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure there is no misunderstanding in so far as the President is concerned. As far as the opposition is concerned, 1 have tried for four years to clear up misunderstandings, without success. I cannot furnish intelligence.
3036	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS


REQUEST THAT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH BE CARRIED ON IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I am sorry that apparently he had short notice of the question. In view of the importance of carrying out archaeological research in Canada, and in view of the many fruitful fields at present unexplored, would the minister assure the house that the senior archaeologist of the national museum, Dr. R. S. MacNeish, will be asked to carry out his research in Canada instead of going to Mexico and other countries at public expense for exploration and visits?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Dr. MacNeish is on leave of absence. He is engaged in archaeological research, endeavouring to get information on the origins of agriculture on this continent. I am sure the hon. member will agree that in matters of fundamental research scientists are no respecters of international boundaries.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister aware of the large sums of money spent by the United States government on research into the history of agriculture in Mexico?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Not one of the more urgent questions.


ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Smith (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Has the government selected the shipyards in which the new general purpose frigates will be built; and if so, what are these shipyards? If not, has the government decided on the method by which the shipyards will be selected?
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National
Defence): No, Mr. Speaker, the shipyards have not been selected. As I indicated a few days ago, the first of these ships will not be laid down until next year, and in consequence it will be some time before shipyards for this building program can possibly be designated.


As I stated at the same time, on April 12, I believe, the Canadian maritime commission is charged with recommending where naval ships should be built, and the responsibility of awarding contracts for their construction rests with the Department of Defence Production. All shipyards in Canada capable of building ships of this class will be given the opportunity to bid on contract specifications to be issued by the Department of Defence Production.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he expects to be in a position tomorrow to announce the beginning of the transformation of the railway in Newfoundland from narrow gauge to standard gauge, which he promised on his visit to Newfoundland five years ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has become a kind of Christopher Columbus recently and has gone out attempting to ascertain what promises we had made. When he got his answer he discontinued his search, because he found we carried out our promises.
With respect to the narrow gauge railway in Newfoundland, that matter, I said, would receive consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister aware that there are only four seats in Prince Edward Island and seven in Newfoundland?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is the finest revelation of Liberal mentality I have ever heard.


George Harris Hees: Any other questions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is cold blooded Liberal expediency.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I have several more.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



WELLAND CANAL-INQUIRY AS TO ABOLITION OF TOLLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the government come to any decision as to the abolition of tolls on the Welland canal?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is still under study.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Since the Olympics of Montreal will represent eastern Canada against the western champions for the Allan cup, is the minister in a position to say whether these games, which are of national interest, will be televised in the east?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, there are so many games being played around this place at the moment that I have not had time to concentrate on deciding in my own mind which is the most important. However, I shall give the matter due consideration and will consult with the corporation. In due time, if the hon. member still has more than an academic interest in the matter, I shall bring forward the answer.
(Translation):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport.
Does the minister intend to deal with the petition submitted to him by the city of Joliette and the junior chamber of commerce in the same city, to the effect that a satellite airport of the international airport of Montreal be built in Joliette?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, my department is now making a full examination of the possibility of building a satellite airport for the airport at Dorval. Considering the proximity of the Joliette area and also the determination shown by its distinguished representative, I want to assure the hon. member that Joliette will be considered when this question is studied.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Thank you.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
26207-1-193
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could the minister tell the house whether it is his intention, following the desire recently expressed to him by his worship the mayor of Sherbrooke, to invite Trans-Canada Air Lines authorities to inaugurate an air service at the Sherbrooke municipal airport within the next few weeks, which would give several members opposite the opportunity to make a last and quick political trip in my area before June 18?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, following the representations of my hon. friend from Sherbrooke and of the mayor of that city, I got in touch with Trans-Canada Air Lines authorities and asked them to conduct, as quickly as possible, a full inquiry as to the economic feasibility of an air service in Sherbrooke. I also asked officials of the air transport board to conduct a full economic inquiry into this project within the shortest possible time. I should receive the results of these two inquiries any day now.
(Text):



INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question is based on a report in the Times of London of April 13 to the effect that 80 nations are taking part in the Milan trade fair, which is considered the largest Italian trade fair. Could the minister inform the house whether Canada is going to be represented and, if so, could he tell us what principal Canadian exhibits will be shown?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that is a proper question for the order paper.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he expects to be able to announce during this session of parliament the signing of the uranium agreement with the United Kingdom?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have every hope that the negotiations are drawing to a close. We hope to reach a conclusion very soon.

Inquiries of the Ministry MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS



RESEARCH INTO NON-NUCLEAR USES OF URANIUM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jacques Flynn (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the Leader of the Opposition asked whether I could confirm a statement reported to have been made the other day in Elliot Lake by the chief of research for my department, Dr. John Convey, to the effect that in two years the department's research into non-nuclear uses of uranium could approach a state at which sufficient uranium could be needed to keep all mines at Elliot Lake in production.
My answer is as follows. On April 5, 1962 Dr. John Convey, director of the mines branch, was guest speaker at the annual banquet of the chamber of commerce in Elliot Lake, at which time he discussed the research work of the mines branch in the development of non-nuclear uses of uranium. As my hon. friend possibly knows, this research program began in 1959 in co-operation with the Eldorado Mining and Refining Company Limited. During the past year, 1961, the Canadian uranium producing companies have contributed toward the support of the program.
In reporting on the results of this experimental work on the use of uranium as an alloying element in ferrous materials, Dr. Convey mentioned that several of the fields of study had shown promising possible uses. He suggested that the program should be more vigorously pursued by both government and industry. Such a vigorously pursued co-ordinated program, he intimated, might possibly provide results within two years which could prove of real assistance to the Canadian uranium industry. From there to state that sufficient uranium could be needed within two years "to keep all mines at Elliot Lake in production" is pure speculation; and I am informed that no such specific statement was made by Dr. Convey.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he can inform the house what steps are being taken to get in touch with the steel companies to encourage them to use this process in the manufacture of steel by hardening through uranium, to which the hon. gentleman referred.


Jacques Flynn: Mr. Speaker, I could not describe in detail this program which has been going on for two years. However, I may say we have received full co-operation from the industry. As I said earlier, the results of the research program to date have been highly encouraging, although we cannot draw any definite conclusions as yet.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister advise the house whether there is any particular reason why the army and navy have been unable to recruit the additional men authorized last fall, and whether he expects they will be able to come up to their new limits soon?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, both the army and navy have been recruiting men at the rate at which they anticipated getting them. The recruiting has been going very well indeed. The navy has had a definite quota of men. The maximum they would take in any monthly period has been met.
The army, as I said, has been recruiting men at about the rate they expected to recruit them. They have recruited sufficient men, as a matter of fact, to overtax the training depots.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State stemming from a report in today's Globe and Mail to the effect that the head of the civil service commission, Hon. S. H. S. Hughes, Q.C., is reported to have expressed the view that the reform movement in patronage may have gone too far. My question is, could the Secretary of State indicate whether the government has also revised its views on patronage along the same line?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article to which the hon. gentleman referred. I shall examine it and endeavour to bring in an answer tomorrow.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, but in his absence may I direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Is the parliamentary secretary now in a position to answer the question which I put to him on April 10, to be found in Hansard at page 2663, about

the complaint that helicopters have been used in the theft of seal pelts from Canadian sealing ships?


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: We are
still waiting for a full formal report on this matter. For information purposes, however, I might say that the 3,000 pelts seized at Souris, P.E.I. by the R.C.M.P. are being kept in cold storage under expert care.
(Translation) :



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON INVESTIGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State? Can the minister tell the house whether the investigation by the R.C.M.P. into the activities of his executive assistant and the electoral officer for Bellechasse has been completed? If so, could he report to the house on the result of same?


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I asked the chief electoral officer whether he had received any report, and he replied that he had not, as yet. Should he get that report today my good friend will be informed and I shall consequently make a statement in the house.
(Text):


Azellus Denis: May I address a question to the Postmaster General?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Sherbrooke.



CHARGE FOR USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT BY MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Transport whether his department has made any charge for the use of government aircraft by the Prime Minister or other ministers of the crown when attending political meetings?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, a similar question was put on the order paper, and at the time my parliamentary secretary asked in the house that this question be made an order for return. As soon as the return is ready we will table it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Stalling until after the election.
26207-1-193J
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister facilitate that return so it may be available while this parliament is still alive?


Léon Balcer: I am doing my very best. (Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question. Can he tell the house whether he expects soon to announce the exact date when tolls will be abolished on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges?


An hon. Member:: June 17.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, our discussions with the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal are still going on and providing the federal government's proposals are accepted, tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges will be abolished next June 1.
(Text):



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask the Minister of National Revenue whether it would be possible for him to facilitate the return to a question which was made an order for return on March 5, having to do with power lift trucks?


George Clyde Nowlan: I will check on that matter and advise the house tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be desirable if the minister could do so before tomorrow.



PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Ottawa West):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Has his attention been drawn to the rumours which are being circulated very widely, and which have resulted in many phone calls coming to me, indicating that the staff of the trans-Canada highway branch are being employed in sending out campaign literature and not on public work?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: The only helpful contribution I have ever received from the hon. member for

Electoral Boundaries Commission Ottawa West was the retailing of rumours. Unless he can come up with something better than rumours I do not intend to investigate.


George James McIlraith: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister check into the matter and ascertain whether these employees who are being paid out of public funds are spending their time on public work or on election campaign work?


David James Walker: If the hon. member can produce any proof with regard to these rumours, I should be very happy to do so. My office is always open for such information.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell us if he has received a reply from the Quebec minister of game and fisheries concerning the Soulanges canal?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I have received no reply yet.


Mr. Ricard:: They are in no hurry.
(Text):



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask whoever is Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether there is yet available an answer to the question I put on Thursday of last week about the Doig river Indians.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to have this matter looked into.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And have an answer for tomorrow?


George Harris Hees: We are always ready to do our best.



ESTABLISHMENT OF ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 10, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Diefenbaker-Mr. Martineau in the chair:
[Stage Direction]

That It is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the establishment of an electoral boundaries commission for the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons; to provide that certain members of the commission may be paid such per diem allowance as may be fixed by the governor in council; to provide for the payment of reasonable travelling and living expenses for the members of the commission; and to provide also that the commission may engage the services of such technical advisers and other staff, including a person to act as secretary to the commission, as it deems necessary.
The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman; there are a few more observations that I should like to make about this resolution. I realize that anything I may say now is very much of an anticlimax after the announcements made on the orders of the day, but perhaps those hon. members who are not interested in listening to the proceedings of the house might find some other way to occupy their time; because we are dealing with a pretty serious matter.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I would ask all hon. members to listen very attentively to the remarks that are made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: While you are very flattering, Mr. Chairman, in suggesting that all hon. members should listen attentively, I would not ask that at all. All I ask is that I be allowed to make myself heard by those who want to hear.
In the course of the statement the Prime Minister made announcing the forthcoming general election, he did participate in this debate and made an observation about this measure which I simply do not think can be allowed to go unchallenged. He made the statement that this commission could not be set up until the census was completed.


John George Diefenbaker: Not be operative.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not be operative. In my view that statement is not a correct view of the situation if this commission is to do its work seriously; because long before it can possibly hope to start redrawing the boundaries on the basis of the latest census returns, it will have a tremendous amount of preparatory work to do. As I indicated the other afternoon, I think it was, the second time this matter was before the committee, when Mr. Harris explored the subject with the chief electoral officer in 1950 and 1951 the conclusion he reached, and I remember this very well, was that one to two years' work by the commission would be required before it could possibly begin to delimit the boundaries. When Senator Power was in this chamber he spoke on this subject in 1947, and gave the same kind of indication as to the

length of time that would be required for the preliminary work in connection with this matter.
It is perfectly obvious that this would be the case to anyone who looks at the map of Canada, to anyone who considers for a moment the disparity in geographical circumstances, the disparity in population between one part of Canada and another, the natural features that bound the provinces and, particularly in the case of the first redistribution to be done by such a commission, the historical background of the whole matter; because I cannot conceive that any commission could ever bring in a report that would be acceptable to this house unless some account was taken of the historical background. Mr. Power, as he then was, gave a similar indication in this house as recorded on page 700 of Hansard for February 21, 1947. I am only going to give one or two brief quotations because I do not want to take a lot of time:
-I would think, without having inquired into the matter from anyone, that parliament would be loathe to give to any commission or any committee the right simply to bring in an electoral map for the whole of Canada which would have to be accepted willy-nilly by the members of the house. I do not believe that any democratic house would so abandon its rights and privileges as to allow itself to become only a rubber stamp for any commission.
Given that, I fear that the report of a commission would take a considerable time in its preparation and a considerable number of years before it would be adopted. We had all these things in mind, and we had one other thing in mind.
He was talking about some studies he had made before the second world war.
We believe that there would be time enough before another election to unscramble and level off any difficulties. That was the position in 1940. The election took place in March, 1940, and it was proposed to introduce a redistribution bill in May, 1940.
I draw that to the attention of the right hon. gentleman. Mr. Power, who had made a very great study of this matter, suggested that it had been the intention to introduce a bill in May, 1940, which is precisely parallel to what I suggested the other evening; that if this matter was to be proceeded with in a proper and orderly fashion it should have been introduced in 1960 in order to provide adequate time, so that when the census returns did become available the months and months of preparatory work would have been done and the commission could then start immediately upon the actual work of delimiting the boundaries.
We know that the Prime Minister is not naive, especially about these matters, but I am sure no one in this house is so naive as to think that one can appoint a commission on Tuesday and expect it to start drawing
Electoral Boundaries Commission these boundaries on Thursday. Even to suggest such a thing is quite ridiculous. The people who will be appointed to this commission, with the possible exception of the chief electoral officer, are unlikely to be people who have had any previous experience. I believe there are only three people in the country who have had any experience in this field, and they are the three members of the commission in the province of Manitoba. Unless those three people were to be appointed, the members, however great their other capacities, would be people who would be quite inexperienced and who would have a very big task to undertake before they came to the final job of drawing boundaries.
That is why I say again, as I said the other day, that if the government had any really serious intention of making this reform and making it effective at an early date after the census of 1961, the legislation would have been brought forward long before this. But having been brought forward at the time and in the circumstances it has been, I am glad that the government has abandoned the idea of attempting to rush it through at the very end of a parliament. I agree that it is a good idea to see the bill, because we will then see what is envisaged by the government. Those who are particularly interested outside the house, as well as the 260-odd members of the house, who I am sure will be very greatly interested, will have an opportunity of studying it; and in another parliament, in an atmosphere which may be calmer and less "obstructive," especially if it is done early in the new parliament as it will be done if there is the change of government we all anticipate, it should be possible to deal with the matter in an atmosphere as conducive to objective study as is ever reasonably likely to be achieved in a parliament in which partisan activity is the essence of the life of parliament. I have never made the slightest apology for being partisan. If I were not, I would not be in parliament.
I come now to the other point that I think needs to be emphasized once more. It is that the members of this commission, if it is to be satisfactory to us on this side of the house, must be named in the bill, and when substitutions are made those substitutions must be made by parliament. We on this side of the house are not content to trust any prime minister or any government, of our own party or any other, to make these appointments by order in council. Even if the wisest of appointments were made they would be open to imputation; and, the power being in a statute, no one can say what a future government might do in substituting one for another. Therefore I say what should be done is that

Electoral Boundaries Commission all the members and, if necessary, alternates should be named in the legislation itself by this parliament and not by order in council.
I think that is a most important point, because however pure the motives might be, however good the appointments might be, politics being what it is I am sure the imputation would be made that these appointments were being made from a partisan point of view. If they are made by parliament, any member of parliament could get up and object by moving that such appointment should be struck out. Then at least, there would be a debate about it and these matters would be aired in the open.
This brings up another matter for consideration. This commission is going to be charged with the task of determining these boundaries about which after every redistribution in the past there have been charges of partisanship, favouritism, gerrymandering, and so on, whether or not they have been deserved. I cannot believe that these charges will not be made in connection with any report made by any commission. There will be suggestions, no matter who the commissioners are, human nature being what it is. I would hope such charges would not be made from the front benches or in the house, but they will be made. I have not the slightest doubt about this; therefore I question the wisdom of having the commission composed of judges. It might be desirable to have a judge preside over the commission, but to have a commission composed exclusively of judges would be to drag judges into politics. We would run that risk. I am sure there would be a tendency, in the heat of party conflict, for such charges to be made, whether or not the charges were fair. I would hope that other persons with independent and objective minds and in other occupations would be chosen, as for example in Manitoba, where the president of the university was one of the commissioners. We must beware lest we bring the courts into politics in this endeavour to do something which, in itself, is very worthy.
With these observations, sir, I have relatively little more to say about the measure at this stage except to express regret that in this case, as in nearly every other case in the past four years, it has seemed to be impossible for the government to address itself to the business of the country at the time it should have been done. The more one looks back over the record of these past five years, the more one is struck with the fact that it has been progress from one blunder to another. This is not a major blunder but is more an omission than a blunder.
I was struck the other day, sir, by the extraordinary parallel between the situation in the last five years and the situation in the two


years preceding the election of 1896. I ran across a reference in Sir Joseph Pope's diary to those days which confirmed the parallel, and which I am sure it would be unfair of me not to share with hon. members.


Mr. McGee:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point
of order. My point of order is one of relevancy. I am sure we are all fascinated by the hon. member's anecdotes, but there are others who would like to say a few words on this measure as well as other measures that might come before us. Perhaps the hon. member might be reminded that he is away out of order at this point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order, which I am sure Your Honour-


John George Diefenbaker: We would not want to deprive the house of this gem found by the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister is quite right in describing this as a gem; that was exactly my reaction to it when I found it. This paragraph describes the advent on the political scene of Mr. Mackenzie Bowell, one of the great Conservative prime ministers of this country and one of this Prime Minister's predecessors. There are only two sentences I wish to quote, sir, so the hon. member for York-Scarborough will soon be in a position to start obstructing, to use a word I would not use but a word the Prime Minister uses in describing speeches in the house by members who are not on the treasury benches.
Sir Joseph Pope was, I believe, assistant clerk of the privy council at this particular time and describes those days. This was after Senator Mackenzie Bowell, as he then was, became prime minister of Canada. A lot of people do not realize that in those days senators could aspire to be prime minister and not to sudden and unexpected retirement. Senator Bowell became prime minister, and Sir Joseph Pope describes what happened in these words:
Then followed days which I never recall without a blush, days of weak and incompetent administration by a cabinet presided over by a man whose sudden and unlooked for elevation had visibly turned his head, a ministry without unity or cohesion of any kind, a prey to internal dissensions until they became a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men.
This, sir, was before the pilgrimage to Quebec at the end of 1961.
At one period during the summer of 1895, I remember it was almost impossible to get public business transacted at Ottawa.
How like 1961.
The session sat late. As soon as parliament rose, the ministers scattered.
History seems to repeat itself. The description in this paragraph seems to epitomize this

progress from blunder to blunder which has characterized the past five years.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to answer several points raised by the hon. gentleman. The first was that this commission should have been appointed a long time ago because, in his opinion, it would take a year or two before it would be sufficiently cognizant of the history of Canada and of redistribution to enable it to commence the actual work. He also stated on an earlier occasion that it would take two years before this commission could bring in a report. Whether this commission was set up or not, it would still take approximately two years' work in order to bring about redistribution. As the hon. gentleman knows, under the law our redistribution cannot start until the census has been completed.
The second point that he made was in connection with appointments. He wants a completely unbiased commission. He wants the commission named in the statute, and he does not want more than one judge on this commission. Well, if one judge would be proper for the commission, then his argument that several judges would be improper fails, because one judge would be regarded similarly as improper if there were any suggestion raised of a political nature in connection with the commission.
Indeed, I cannot believe it would be possible to bring about a more independent commission in order to ensure that the kind of gerrymandering which took place twice during the administration of the previous government will no longer be tolerated in this country.
When the hon. gentleman speaks of the traditions of parliament, of how parliament should operate and what consideration should be given to members, it is of great interest to recall that Mr. Power stated it was the intention of the then Liberal government to set up some kind of independent body in May, 1940. That brings to mind the cavalier treatment accorded parliament in the last days of January, 1940, when Mr. Mackenzie King, in pursuance of his promise that there would be another session of parliament, called parliament together. The speech from the throne was read by his Excellency the Governor General. There was a bit of debate in the house for an hour or so, and then Mr. King made a pilgrimage, not to Quebec but to Rideau Hall. The same day members commenced work was the day they left here without any opportunity to deal with the affairs of the nation.
That is something which should be recalled. At that time the hon. gentleman occupied a position of some responsibility.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was a third secretary.
Electoral Boundaries Commission


John George Diefenbaker: I recall that when the hon. gentleman was appointed to the cabinet, Mr. St. Laurent said of him that in his position as clerk of the privy council "he has not been able to assist me in many of the things I would like to be assisted in, to the degree I would like". That is my interpretation of his words. Therefore he appointed him a minister so that he would be able to carry on and do all the things he said he would like to do. I shall not go into particulars because I know there are things the hon. gentleman would not want me to refer to at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no objection.


John George Diefenbaker: He also said he was going to keep judges out of politics. I wonder when he developed such a solicitude for the bench. I recall the days of the appointment of the chief justice of Canada to the Hong Kong commission. I recall very well some of the debates that took place at that time, debates of a very political and partisan kind. The government of Mackenzie King appointed the chief justice of Canada, and apparently the views of the hon. gentleman did not receive any more attention then than they are receiving today.
I shall not enter into any discussion regarding obstructions. We have dealt with that already, but I was interested in the hon. gentleman's reference to Mackenzie Bowell. That matter, of course, is known to all of us, and the quotation is not something that has not been heard before.
I simply rest my case by saying that the party to which the hon. gentleman belongs promised over and over again when in opposition that a non-political body would be set up to look after redistribution but, as conveniently as it was possible, the members of that party forgot their undertaking whenever they were in office. We gave this undertaking, and we do not endeavour to secure the support of the people of Canada on the basis of principles that were accepted as appropriate in the past. We have given leadership and have given hope to the country of a scientific redistribution that will not deny the maintenance of the principles of the past, so far as population and the like are concerned, but which will ensure that a map for electoral representation shall be created based on fairness and justice.
I do not think there is anything more I need add. The hon. gentleman has said that when the bill is forthcoming an examination can be made of it. That is so, but I can say to him that the names of those to be appointed do not appear in the bill. I know of no example in history where such a practice has ever been followed. However, we intend to

Electoral Boundaries Commission disclose who the appointees will be. We intend to place their names before this house, and our present purpose is to see to it that four of them will be superior court judges and one the electoral commissioner. We hope that one of the judges will be a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. Another will be a chief justice of a province, a man who in years past participated in public affairs. Another member will also be a chief justice who has participated in public affairs, and two others will be chief justices who have not participated in either parliament or legislature. We want to ensure that when their work is done no one will be able to say that there has been domination in any way. Indeed, so far as the appointment of the judges is concerned, some of them will be judges who were appointed by the previous government and some will be judges who were appointed by this government. When men go on the bench they forget their partisanship, no matter how strongly they may have contended during the days they represented their areas in parliament or legislature.
We are trying to assure that there will be fairness, responsibility and justice. That is the purpose of this measure, and I hope the house will accept it so that the bill may be seen. Then after the bill has received consideration and after suggestions have been made by interested people across Canada, I am sure changes will be made in keeping with the representations that may be made.
It has been very difficult to draw this bill. We have not had any experience in the past of anything like it. It has been difficult to apply the principles followed in the United Kingdom and Australia, but what we have tried to do, as in all our administration, has been what is honest and fair.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the Prime Minister a question. From what he has just said, is it his intention when the bill comes forward to announce the names of the appointees and then leave them on the hook during the long election period?


John George Diefenbaker: That is a rather novel way of putting it, but if hon. gentlemen feel that under the circumstances the names should not be made available now, and that is the general feeling of the house, then I certainly do not want anybody left on the hook.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Habel:: Although I did not have any intention to take part in this debate-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I wonder if the hon. member for York-Scarborough would give way. The previous speaker was a government speaker.


Frank Charles McGee: Certainly.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: The Prime Minister referred to the dissolution in 1940 and, although I had not intended to take part in this debate, I believe the whole story should be told. I understand that in 1940 dissolution took place not long after the reading of the speech from the throne by the Governor General. Hon. members will remember that just a few days previously a motion of censure was passed in the Ontario legislature condemning the government of the day for its war efforts. In fact, at the same time there was a committee of 200 campaigning from one end of the country to another and stating that we needed a national government to carry on the war effort. The very night before the prime minister dissolved parliament-


George Clyde Nowlan: Which government were you supporting?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Wait just a minute and I will tell you. Just be patient and you will learn something you may not know yet.


George James McIlraith: He made it very clear.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: In fact, the night before dissolution of the house the premier of Ontario, who at the time was Hon. Mr. Drew, went to Hamilton-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I should say the leader of the opposition in the Ontario house, who was at the time Mr. Drew, went to Hamilton and made a daring speech challenging the federal government to call an election on this issue. The prime minister of the day, Mr. King, accepted the challenge. On that motion of censure, for the information of the Minister of National Revenue, I must say that I was one of the 10 who voted against it, and I am proud of it.
This is to explain to the committee that in fact there was a very good reason for the then prime minister having a swift dissolution of parliament, and in fact he did call an election. Members of the actual government got their answer in March, 1940, when the Liberal government was returned with a very substantial majority.
Mr. Pallet!: That will happen this time, too.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make my remarks on this subject as brief as possible. It seems extraordinary to me that I should rise in this house, representing the number of people I do, and be accused

in advance by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate of some form of obstruction. The fact of the matter is that this country is about to make a selection between two parties and examine the relative records of those two parties in a number of matters. When the matter of redistribution and the record of this government and the previous government are examined, the record of the previous government being one of bungling and political jiggery-pokery and the record of this government being progressive action and promises kept in this field, there is no doubt what the decision will be as far as this particular matter is concerned.
Mr. Chairman, the sole point I wish to make at this stage in the discussion of this resolution has to do with matters which have been raised by hon. members, to their credit in a very non-partisan way, and with the relationship between urban and rural representation. There have been cases put before this house, notably one by the hon. member for Port Arthur, who nearly had us all in tears describing the difficulties which he encountered in making and keeping contact with his constituency, involving as it does a large geographical area. The problem confronted by the rural constituencies generally has been placed before this house.
I have sympathy and consideration for the dilemma of these hon. members, but I would direct these remarks to the members of this commission and suggest that before they become too sympathetic about the remote areas and the rural constituencies they should give consideration to the people who consistently have been most abused as a result of redistribution in any form whatsoever. I have reference to the suburban dweller, particularly in the last decade and particularly surrounding the larger cities in this country. A quick look at the population figures produced a short time ago shows clearly that the growth in the perimeter of these cities has been spectacular. It was something that should have been considered and anticipated by the Liberal government which took responsibility for the redistribution bill that they placed before this house.
I suggest to the committee that the problem of the suburban voter in this country was callously ignored by that government. The fact of the matter is that as at the present time, at the time of the previous redistribution there were figures, zoning plans and anticipated areas of development which everybody else concerned with the problems of dealing with people had taken cognizance of in terms of industrial development and in terms of the various service industries in this country. Plans had been laid out at that time to expand into the shopping centre type of 26207-1-194
Electoral Boundaries Commission operation, and the major companies in this country dealing in retail merchandising had purchased land and made plans to move into these areas, when in fact at that moment of time the population had not developed as it did later on.
I suggest, again, that ignoring these clear and unmistakable signs at that time and bringing in the kind of bill which they did dealing with redistribution was a flagrant abuse of the democratic processes in this country. I suggest that the commission should address itself to the problem and recognize the fact that there has been and will continue to be a movement from the urban areas into the major cities in this country, and when they are setting up a population base in the perimeter ridings consideration should be given to the obvious areas of growth and expansion and not, as they did in York-Scarborough in 1950, add bits and pieces to that constituency, obviously designed for the political advantage of the Liberal party and coming up with a figure of 72,000, I think it was, for one of the largest constituencies in this country with potentially the largest and greatest expansion area. The suburban voter, I repeat, in every redistribution through the last 25 or 30 years has been penalized and has lost the effectiveness of his vote and representation in this house.
I submit again that this is the major problem and consideration which the commission should bear in mind in designating the boundaries in future. It is manifestly unfair by any standard or criterion one may attempt to apply to expect a single member in this House of Commons to perform, or attempt to perform, the job of representing, in the case of York-Scarborough, some 267,000 people as at last June. If the annual increase carries on in the way in which it has developed in the past five years, with a consistent increase of 20,000 people a year, the number of persons in the constituency of York-Scarborough will be closer to 280,000. This is unfair.
I suggested some years ago in my maiden speech, and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will remember giving me an assist at that time, that the constituency of York-Scarborough was not adequately represented in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree.


Frank Charles McGee: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate has just said, "Hear, hear" with another meaning in mind than the one I intended. The fact of the matter is that we have to find some practical, long term method of removing this kind of disparity or preventing it developing in the future. I urge the commission and the commissioners to address themselves to this problem, and I wish them

Electoral Boundaries Commission well with one of the most important tasks undertaken by any commission in the history of parliamentary government in this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few very brief observations to make about the remarks of the Prime Minister. I do not wish to introduce any new subject. I regret that the Prime Minister's other duties have prevented him from being here to hear my observations. First on the question of judges, I think the Prime Minister and the committee will find when they examine my words that I said I had my doubts about the wisdom of appointing judges. I did not say judges should not be appointed, but I have the completest doubt about the wisdom of having judges appointed by order in council. If the names of the judges are in the bill, if it is debated here and agreed to on both sides of the house, that is one thing; then nobody has any complaint.
But if the government is given a blank cheque that is something else, even if it states which judges it is going to appoint in the first instance, judges are not immortal and governments are not immortal either, as this one is soon going to find. We do not know who the next appointments will be. This statute will not be just for one time only; it will be a permanent thing.
Whatever government brings forward the bill that is passed-and I do not think it will be this government-and whoever the members are, be they judges or anyone else, I hope they will be specified. Possibly it will be necessary to specify one or two alternates. However, they should be appointed by parliament and replaced only by parliament, because this is not the government's business but the business of parliament.
In the past it has been complained that the government used its majority to influence these things. It would be far worse to let the government do this without even the support of its majority. It may well be that some of the appointments will have to be judges, and I do not rule that out. If we could find other independent and objective persons about whom there would be agreement, I say that would be preferable. I do not go beyond that. I feel that a real search should be made to see whether we need to take the risks with the courts; and there are many risks involved. The Prime Minister himself indicated that when he referred to Chief Justice Duff and the Hong Kong inquiry. I was rather surprised that the Prime Minister should have referred to that, because a bitter and partisan attack was made on Chief Justice Duff by the Prime Minister's erstwhile leader, Mr. Drew, in my opinion a totally unjustified attack. We wish to avoid the occasion for that kind of
IMr. McGee.l

thing happening to judges as much as possible. In fact I thought the Prime Minister gave the strongest support to my contention in that very example he cited.
The Prime Minister wished to contrast his record in this matter with that of the Liberal party. It is quite true that it was a part of the program of Mr. Mackenzie King at one time to establish a commission such as this, and he did not do it. I admit that at once. It was also a promise made by the right hon. gentleman in Carman, Manitoba, in May 1957, and he is now going into his third election not having done it. He has no more kept his promise than Mr. King kept his. Both of them introduced legislation which was not passed; that is all that happened. In other words, the right hon. gentleman is going to try to use this promise for a third election, because until the statute is there it is only a promise; and should the Prime Minister be returned-and we say he will not be-if his performance in another parliament is at the snail's pace it was in this one, this may be used for a fourth election.
As a matter of fact the Prime Minister made a number of promises about changes in parliament. He promised to call a dominion-provincial conference to discuss Senate reform. Five years have passed and nothing has been done about that conference; it has not even been suggested. He promised legislation to reduce the length of election campaigns. We never heard about that once the promise was made and the election was over. I have in my hand a list of all the promises. He also promised to make the Senate more independent of the government. How does he propose to do that? By removing Liberals so he can appoint Tories. But he has not even done that. He has not carried out any of these promises; they are still promises.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I did not introduce
this question of promises; it was the Prime Minister who did. I said nothing about them until the right hon. gentleman brought up the subject.
Mr. Pallet!: He referred to only one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to comment for one moment on the remarks made by my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He has talked about the third election in which the Prime Minister has made promises which, in the contention of the hon. member, have not been carried out despite the fact that this is the third election. When was the first election? The first election was when the right hon. gentleman was leader of the opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not dealt with the promises he made then.


George Clyde Nowlan: I know that the government of which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was a member was weak, impotent, doubtful, shuffling, ineffective, vague and all the other adjectives which could be applied; but be that as it may, surely it could not be expected that the then leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister, could have implemented legislation, so the fact of the first election has nothing to do with implementing his promise.
How many months intervened between the first and second elections? I remind the committee that we were in a minority position all the way through. Does anyone suggest that in that minority position we should have brought in legislation establishing an electoral boundaries commission? That disposes of the second election.
The third election, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, is in the very near offing; I think he said it would be some time within the next few weeks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He said June 18.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the Minister of National Revenue not know the date of the next election?


George Clyde Nowlan: Well, there have been so many prophecies made by other people-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister announced it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Has the Prime Minister not told the cabinet yet?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely the Prime Minister takes the Minister of National Revenue into his confidence.


George Clyde Nowlan: Shuffling Paul has become so exhausted that he now sits at the rear of the chamber and interrupts from his seat instead of rising to his feet.
26207-1-194J
Electoral Boundaries Commission


Paul Joseph James Martin: Having returned to my place and standing on my feet let me say to my amiable hon. friend surely he knows that the Prime Minister has already decided on the election date. Surely the Prime Minister discussed that with all his cabinet colleagues before he came into parliament.


George Clyde Nowlan: Again my hon. friend in his usual rude way is speaking out of order and without any justification whatever; but that is neither here nor there.
Something has been said about the fact that this bill is being introduced too late. My friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate admitted that a measure of this kind was in a program of his leader Mr. Mackenzie King at one time. Of course that right hon. gentleman had so many programs at one time and another I am not sure which was what. In 1951 I believe Mr. St. Laurent was prime minister. Let us suppose that he had brought in a redistribution bill at that time, following the decennial census. Let us suppose that parliament had enacted it and it had become the law of the land. What would be the situation today? The commissioners who might have been named in the bill or appointed by the government of the day at the time of the census would not have been able to start operations because the census returns would not yet have come down. It is all right for my hon. friend to talk about preliminary measures and preparatory steps. Surely these are taken. As my hon. friend knows very well, the electoral officer has maps for every constituency in Canada; but they can be of little practical use until such time as the census returns are in and the commission has been set up. I say again that if this legislation had been passed ten years ago and was on the statute books, and a redistribution commission had been appointed following the decennial census of 1951, the commission would not be in any better position to carry out redistribution than will be the commission that is to be created under this legislation.
Due to the exigencies of the occasion it may be that this commission will not be appointed and will not be able to start operations in the immediate future; that depends upon parliament and the time that is left to parliament to consider the various matters with which we are confronted. But whatever the time may be, and whatever the exigencies of the present moment may be, it is idle to say that this measure should have been brought in last year or the year before, or to say that one parliament has gone by or two have gone by without action having been taken.
I do not wish to trespass on the time of the committee. I suggest we have spent considerable time discussing this matter. I think this

Electoral Boundaries Commission is now a sort of shadow-boxing affair. I believe that every hon. member who has participated in this debate, including the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Port Arthur, has spoken in favour of the principle. All we have in the resolution before us is a principle approving the establishment of a commission. I suggest we defer further debate on the matter. There is a delightful degree of unanimity among us concerning the establishment of a commission. That being the case, let us see the terms of the bill.
I will tell my hon. friend this immediately, as I think the Prime Minister did. There are no persons named in the bill. There are persons designated, such as the chief electoral officer. Speaking of making-and I do not think I need to refresh my memory on this; my hon. friend can correct me if I am wrong -I doubt whether the act which sets up the office of chief electoral officer, the chief officer of this parliament, names Mr. Nelson Castonguay as the chief electoral officer. I should like to know when we have had an act which named officials or designated their names. We do not propose to name the commissioners in this act. I am perhaps violating the rules in saying this. Unnamed but designated is the chief electoral officer, who is to be one of the commissioners because of his experience as an officer of the House of Commons.
So I would say again that, if we did name them, as time intervened what happens, even if we named alternatives? That would be rather a loose way of dealing with a situation such as this. I think it is much better to have the government of the day come forward and say that if enacted it proposes to name Mr. A, Mr. B, Mr. C, Mr. D, and Mr. E, that these are the gentlemen they propose to name and to have parliament then act, rather than to incorporate their names in a bill and then possibly having delays, possibly with the bill being delayed in passing or, possibly, death, illness or sickness intervening in the meantime. Then what do you do? Do you have the matter stultified? Do you go on with a minority commission? You could name three or four commissioners and then as the result of a motor accident they might be killed overnight and the whole thing comes to a stop and you have to start all over again.
These are all possibilities. When the bill is before the house or before the committee I think you will find there may be points to criticize it in; there may be legitimate matters of criticism. However, I suggest that the time has come when the committee should approve the resolution in order that the bill 

may be introduced, so that it may be read by hon. members of the house, and consideration may be given thereafter.


George James McIlraith: There is one brief remark I should like to make arising out of the remarks of the Minister of National Revenue. The point at issue and the suggestion being made was that the persons to be appointed to this commission be appointed by parliament as opposed to cabinet appointment or government appointment. In his references to the chief electoral officer the minister indicated that the name was not given in the act. I believe that to be the case. However, his argument fails from that point on. As I understand it the chief electoral officer is not appointed by order in council. He is appointed by a resolution of this House of Commons. In other words it is perfectly clear that he is appointed by parliament and is an officer of parliament. The argument made earlier in this debate was that appointment to this commission should come from parliament as opposed to being a cabinet appointment, and not that the surname and the first name of the individual should necessarily be included in the act. I think that is the distinction. I am sure the minister would not wish the matter to be left without clarification.


George Clyde Nowlan: I agree with the hon. gentleman and I would make this suggestion to him; I think he will agree with me. In general let us suppose, as the Prime Minister said, the bill receives second reading and when it is in committee stage following reading, the government says "We are going to name A, B, C, D, and E to be members". I will go further. If in moving second reading the government announces it is going to name A, B, C, D, E and F, then if parliament, having heard the names not incorporated in the bill but having been announced to parliament by the Prime Minister, subsequently proceeds to enact the legislation, then certainly parliament is passing the legislation knowing the names of the commissioners and actually as well as tacitly approving of the persons who are to be named to the commission. If by some accident or some intervention changes must be made in the personnel afterward, as a result of accident, death or illness, then you certainly have more flexibility by dealing with it in that way than by naming them specifically in the bill.


George James McIlraith: At the resolution stage we are dealing with the question of whether the government should have permission to present the legislation. I think the point is being made that they should only have permission to introduce the legislation on the premise that

the appointment of the personnel remains with parliament as opposed to being transferred to the cabinet. I think that is the point. I do not wish to pursue the subject further, but I thought it should be clarified.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to say just one word, as I think the hon. member for Port Arthur is being unduly modest. Every year the hon. member for Port Arthur gave the Prime Minister an opportunity to carry out his promise. After all, this parliament has gone on for four years. If the Prime Minister had been genuinely anxious to establish this commission and not merely to use it as another promise for a third election, this legislation would have been introduced in plenty of time to be passed and not at the last moment when it was sure not to be passed. That is why I say this promise has not been kept. The mere introduction of legislation and the making of excuses are not keeping promises.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am going to accept the argument of the Minister of National Revenue and allow this resolution to move on. However, I wish to say that there has been a great deal of hogwash in this debate, including a bit from the Prime Minister. For the benefit of anyone who reads Hansard I should just like to put on record the statement that at the next stage of the legislation I hope to take up some of these points that seem to me to be rather nonsensical.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


George Clyde Nowlan: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-87, respecting the establishment of an electoral boundaries commission for the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next parliament.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



APPROVAL OF INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture) moved:: International Wheat Agreement
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the international wheat agreement to be opened for signature at Washington, D.C., on April 19, 1962, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on March 12 the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill), acting on my behalf, announced to the house the successful conclusion of negotiations in Geneva for a new international wheat agreement. The new agreement is to be opened for signature in Washington from April 19 to May 15. The other house has already approved this resolution, and if this house also approves the agreement the Canadian ambassador to the United States, Mr. Heeney, will be signing the agreement on behalf of Canada and will formally deposit Canada's instrument of acceptance in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
There are only a few points that perhaps I should make at this time. The first is that the agreement has the support of the heads of all the producer organizations in western Canada who, as members of the advisory committee to the Canadian wheat board, were part of the Canadian delegation to the wheat conference. I think it would be appropriate for me to list once again the names of these producer advisers: Mr. A. W. Runciman, president, United Grain Growers Limited, Winnipeg; Mr. J. S. Stevens, director, United Grain Growers Limited, Winnipeg; Mr. G. W. Gibbings, president, Saskatchewan wheat pool, Regina; Mr. A. P. Gleave, president, Saskatchewan farmer's union, Saskatoon; Mr. Gordon L. Harrold, chairman, Alberta wheat pool, Calgary; Mr. W. J. Parker, president, Manitoba wheat pool, Winnipeg.
I should like to say that from the Canadian point of view the 1962 agreement represents an improvement over the 1959 agreement by reason of the higher price range, the maximum being $2,024 to a minimum of $1,624 compared with $1.90 and $1.50 respectively in U.S. currency per bushel. Another reason for considering it an improvement is the heavier obligations of the importing countries and the improved safeguards for commercial marketings. In addition, there is the prospect that the U.S.S.R. will ratify the agreement and widen the membership to cover all important exporting countries.
Perhaps I might emphasize here the significance of the current discount on the Canadian dollar as far as producer wheat prices are concerned. In Canadian currency the new maximum and minimum prices will be almost $2.14 and $1,714.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution will go through expeditiously so that we can be one of the first countries to affix its signature in Washington to this very important agreement.

International Wheat Agreement


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will bear with me if at the outset of my remarks I express pleasure at the minister being able to pilot this resolution through the house. I believe it is the first major item of house business that he has undertaken since his illness, and I think I express the feeling of all here when I wish him a continued rapid recovery and good health.
The minister has expressed the hope that the resolution will not take an undue length of time in view of the government's wish that Canada should be one of the first countries to accede to the agreement. I for one think that is a very proper request because of the tremendous interest Canada has in this agreement. It is most appropriate that we should do so, and for my part I do not propose to take any considerable time in dealing with this matter. However, I must say quite frankly that if it had not been for the interesting announcement of the Prime Minister earlier today on motions, in which he made it perfectly clear that we are on the eve of the dissolution of parliament, I should have liked to ask that this agreement go before one of the standing committees or a special committee of the house for examination.
There is a tremendous amount of information about the agreement itself and with respect to developments since the four previous agreements were signed, the changes throughout the intervening years and the prospects for the future in the world wheat trade that should be made available to and examined by a committee of the house. However, I will put hon. members at their ease at once by saying that in the light of the Prime Minister's announcement earlier today about the imminence of dissolution I have no intention of making such a request now. Notwithstanding the fact that the house will have approved of this agreement, I do express the hope that in another year it will be possible to have the agreement examined, perhaps when the report of the board of grain commissioners is under study. It has been suggested to me that I should give such an undertaking. I would be quite happy to do so but it might be that some hon. members on the other side would not want to accept such an undertaking. In any event, I think this is a subject that deserves study by a committee.
The bringing of an ever larger proportion of the international trade in wheat under this agreement has been a most interesting development since the first agreement was entered into in 1949. Under each of the five .agreements since then the percentage of


wheat traded under the agreement has increased. I have no means of verifying the estimate I have been given, but I have been informed there is a good expectation that 85 per cent of all wheat traded will come under this agreement, whereas under the agreement now current the figure is 65 per cent.
There have been some other interesting developments as each agreement has been succeeded by a fresh one. In 1959 quite a change was made, in that machinery was set up to provide for an annual review of the trading in wheat. These annual reviews have been of great benefit and have provided the kind of information that has improved conditions in the international wheat trade. They have, indeed, provided the kind of current background information that in my view is necessary if the objectives of the agreement are to be carried out.
In listening to the speech of the minister I noticed that he did not put the objectives on Hansard. I should like to take a moment to do so. They are contained in article 1, which reads as follows:
The objectives of this agreement are:
(a)	To assure supplies of wheat and wheat flour to importing countries and markets for wheat and wheat flour to exporting countries at equitable and stable prices;
(b)	To promote the expansion of the international trade in wheat and wheat flour and to secure the freest possible flow of this trade in the interests of both exporting and importing countries, and thus contribute to the development of countries, the economies of which depend on commercial sales of wheat;
(c)	To overcome the serious hardship caused to producers and consumers by burdensome surpluses and critical shortages of wheat;
(d)	To encourage the use and consumption of wheat and wheat flour generally, and in particular in developing countries, so as to improve health and nutrition in those countries and thus to assist in their development; and
(e)	In general to further international co-operation in connection with world wheat problems, recognizing the relationship of the trade in wheat to the economic stability of markets for other agricultural products.
Those are objectives that I think will commend themselves to the house. Indeed, I think I should say that as nearly as I can find out, all producer and farm organizations in this country concerned with wheat production have indicated their approval in the main of this agreement, and that is the general atmosphere in which we are considering this matter today. The information being built up by the wheat council is of a continuing nature, and the distribution of it is being made to an ever increasing number of participating countries. When you look at the list of participating countries you can readily see the extent of the interest in this matter throughout the world. As a matter of fact, an indication of the importance of this

subject is the fact that it is one of the few areas in which there is every indication the U.S.S.R. will be participating in the ordinary way, as it now does in the postal field but in very few other fields today. This is of some significance.
It is regrettable that since this wheat meeting took place under the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations that communist China is not a participant in the discussion. The magnitude of the recent sales to that country indicates that it is quite a factor in international wheat trading. It is regrettable that the circumstances are such that they have not participated in the discussions on this subject. Perhaps it is idle to foretell what the future holds in this case, but if that volume of wheat was included under the agreement it would make a very material change and would mean the wheat agreement would be more nearly allembracing than anyone thought possible at the time the first agreement was entered into.
There are other minor improvements in the articles of the agreement. Perhaps it is not germane to deal with them here. Perhaps they are of a nature which would enable us to deal more properly with them in committee. Since they are not controversial so far as I am concerned, there is no need to develop the discussion of them at this point. There is one part of the agreement that I should perhaps mention. Article 3 deals with commercial purchases and special transactions, and provides a better definition, greater clarity in defining what is a commercial purchase and in delineating between commercial purchases and special transactions. This is a very useful thing and it is fortunate that so much agreement has been achieved on this point because for a period, particularly under the current agreement, there was great concern over special transactions of one kind or another, sometimes referred to as surplus disposal programs, particularly by one of the major exporting nations of the world. These programs were upsetting the possibility of getting any stability in this international wheat trade. The improvement in article 3 will, I think, help to remove this fear, and the provisions of the agreement give the wheat council a degree of control on this point that can only be helpful in solving the whole problem.
Since we are in accord generally that this agreement should be signed by this country, Mr. Speaker, and since the smaller points are not controversial but are of a nature that could be dealt with better in a committee, and since this is not practical in view of the
Customs Act
Prime Minister's indication of imminent dissolution, the appropriate thing to do is to indicate our concurrence in the resolution and not pursue the matter further at this stage.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to join with the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) in wishing good health -I was going to say good luck to the minister but I do not know that he may need it -to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton). Any agreement about wheat has to be of some interest to any member from Port Arthur, since it is very easy to make the claim, which is a truthful one, that there is more wheat in the constituency of Port Arthur for most of the year than in any other place in Canada. This statement is certainly true at the moment because the elevators are coming close to the full position as we wait for the opening of the shipping season.
It is of interest to note, in connection with the agreement before us, that I just happened to be looking at the Searle Grain Company bulletin the other day. This bulletin notes that the agreement has been variously hailed in Canada on the one hand as a necessary and desirable measure to ensure equitable and stable wheat prices to both exporters and importers and, on the other, as more or less a meaningless pact, so much window dressing. Our party, with its roots for so many years in western Canada, has always put to the fore the idea that anything that will improve and increase the price and orderly marketing of wheat is of importance. As I look at the agreement, and at the comments that have been made about it, it is certainly questionable just how effective this agreement will be, just as it is questionable how effective the last one was. Since it is an attempt in the international field to obtain recognition of the fact there must be orderly marketing and some kind of stable pricing mechanism, maximum and minimum prices, to afford some kind of security to the farmers of the world, we think it is an excellent move, and without any great contradictions or criticisms or suggestions we intend to support it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


George Clyde Nowlan: the second reading of Bill No. C-79, to amend the Customs Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister not going to give us a brief explanation of the bill?

Customs Act


George Clyde Nowlan: I gave an explanation of this bill when it was introduced for first reading. There is very little more I can say at this time in addition to what I said on that occasion. This bill deals with various sections of the Customs Act in so far as procedure is concerned. It extends the time for various steps to be taken under the Customs Act, and I believe that the individual matters dealt with in each section would be easier to deal with when we are in committee than when we are in the house.
All I can say about the general principle of the bill is that it is a relieving measure. In every case it increases the time given to importers for taking certain steps which are necessary under the Customs Act, and this has been requested in briefs submitted to the government over the past several years by various associations such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Bar Association and others. We have adopted certain of these proposals and are asking that the times mentioned in individual sections of the present act be extended to the times set forth in the bill.


George James McIlraith: I think I am justified in saying that the Minister of National Revenue is in a most conciliatory humour this afternoon.


George Clyde Nowlan: Surely he is always?


George James McIlraith: I do not know as I would agree on that point. In any event, perhaps it is due to the announcement made earlier this afternoon by the Prime Minister and, if it is, then it is all to the good. I might add that the announcement was most welcome to me. I hope the minister's conciliatory mood is contagious and will influence his hon. colleague on his immediate right at the moment.


George Clyde Nowlan: He is influencing me.


George James McIlraith: I would say at once to that, heaven forbid. Dealing with the bill, it is not my intention to develop an argument at length on the second reading. There are some particular questions I wish to ask the minister about different clauses in it and about different representations that have been made, and I can properly do that on committee stage. This is simply an amending bill changing the periods of time stipulated in certain sections of the act within which either importers or the departments may do certain things.
It is very difficult to discuss a question of principle on a bill of this kind because basically it is not a matter of principle that is involved. Rather, it is basically a matter of administrative practice. The principle has already been dealt with, that there should be certain rights of appeal and so on, and certain
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
rights to refund overpayments and that sort of thing. Therefore the principle is not really in issue, but I believe it is fair to say with regard to these extensions of time and the changes in the periods of time allotted, that there has been a great deal of friction between importers and the departmental staff. Indeed, if it is fair to use the term, I would say there has probably been more friction and more difference of opinion on that than on any other matter contained in the act. I believe I am justified in going that far.
As I recall it, this matter was debated very strenuously some six or seven years ago.


George Clyde Nowlan: 1955.


George James McIlraith: Yes, and I recall in that debate the Minister of National Revenue was his amiable self but some of his colleagues, who have since been promoted to ministerial rank, were anything but amiable. Indeed, on reading the debates it would seem they went to extraordinary lengths in attacking the government of the day for what it was seeking to do. The government was seeking to improve the act as it then stood, and to improve it in the same general direction as the minister is now seeking to improve it. However I must say those debates were anything but helpful and I hope any remarks I make on second reading or on committee stage may prove to be more helpful than they were. The remarks made at that time were certainly notable for their severity but were not so notable for their real appreciation of the problems and how they should be handled.
During the few minutes at my disposal today I was able to turn up some of the representations made by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in 1959, and I shall read a paragraph from them to indicate the nature of the problem. It reads:
It will be noted particularly that the time allowed an importer in which to apply for refund of duty overpaid under an erroneous construction of the law has been reduced to sixty days from three years previous to 1951, and from two years between 1951 and 1955. Sixty days is considered to be entirely inadequate for companies whose business is conducted on a national scale and whose customs transactions are reviewed at head office. Moreover, if through an error in interpreting the very complex customs tariff law, or from lack of knowledge of a departmental ruling or a tariff board finding, an importer overpays duty, it would seem only equitable that he should be allowed a reasonable length of time in which to recover the amount overpaid.
The association believes that this period should not be less than six months.
I take it that the bill before us provides 90 days, one half the time they requested. Their representation continues:
There is another serious objection to the provisions contained in the new Section 43. This is that

only dominion customs appraisers can make a redetermination of tariff classification or a reappraisal of value.
There are many instances in which the port appraiser can adequately deal with refund claims due to errors in rates of duty or valuation. Therefore, the necessity of referring all such cases to a dominion customs appraiser is not apparent, particularly in view of the fact that all refund claims are subject to departmental scrutiny before payment is finally authorized. Referring every such case to a dominion customs appraiser no matter how simple the problem involved or how small the amount of refund claimed, must result in a tremendous volume of unnecessary paperwork and in delays in the payment of refund claims. Of no less importance is the fact that much of the time of dominion customs appraisers is now spent in the review of refund claims which should never have been submitted in the first place.
I put that on record to indicate the nature of the problem, and perhaps I do not need to develop the subject further because we can take each clause and deal with the point raised in it, in committee. The minister may reply that the former government made similar changes in the time allowed to apply for a refund of overpayment, but the proposal here that the time limit should only be limited number of days has to be examined in the light of the fact that these matters are dealt with all over the country at customs ports, but the claims for refunds have finally to come to the head office for decision. From the point of view of an importer, that presents all kinds of administrative problems and works hardship on him.
I should like the minister at the earliest possible stage in committee to indicate why, in the light of the claim of the manufacturers' association that the period of time for the refund should be six months, he arrived at the period of 90 days in which a refund could be claimed, and similarly with other points in the other clauses of the bill.
As I say, I do not propose to deal with this at length. I think I have made the point that is concerning me. At least I hope I have made it reasonably clear so that it can be adequately dealt with later. There are perhaps a good many other things about the submissions which have been made from time to time. I happen to have the 1959 one readily available. I assume there are later ones and there may indeed be changes in them; I simply have not checked that point through. If I have not been up to date in referring to the representations, I wish the minister would correct that in his closing remarks.
There is one other matter, and perhaps this is the place where I can appropriately raise it. I have always felt that the customs head office here was probably as inadequately housed as any of the working departments, bearing in mind the nature of the business it has to do and the fact that these various officials, customs appraisers and others having
Customs Act
to do with value for duty purposes, and so on, have to interview clients or importers about very technical matters on occasion which, if disclosed to competitors, would be of real significance. The accommodation has not been adequate. I am aware of some improvements in it, but I still feel that bearing in mind they are the ones who have to conduct this type of interview about information that is of real significance to a competitor, they should be much more adequately housed for their tasks.
I hope this point will be borne in mind by succeeding governments and that adequate provision will be made in this regard. In wartime it simply was not possible to set aside money for the development of this kind of public works, but I would hope that now succeeding governments would see to it that there is adequate provision so these customs appraisers and other officials of the department having to do with the administration of this bill could have accommodation more suitable to their task. I should imagine the minister would agree with me on that point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order. It is my duty to inform the house that if the minister chooses to speak now he will close the debate. Is the house ready for the question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We all hope the minister will speak.


George Clyde Nowlan: All these matters come under the clauses of the bill. I do not know how long the house would like me to deal with them. I can deal in committee with them under the clauses.
All I want to say at this stage is that I appreciate the objective manner in which the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mc-Ilraith) has discussed this matter. I quite agree with him that our accommodation has been very crowded, but I think there has been a substantial improvement therein. As he says, when businessmen from across Canada come to consult appraisers they do not want to be sitting almost in the veritable laps of their competitors who are discussing the matter with the adjoining customs appraiser at the next desk. We have tried, and succeeded to a substantial extent, I think, to ameliorate this problem. I will be prepared to deal with matters of time when we deal with the clauses of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Customs Act
On clause 1-Finality of classification or appraisal.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could now deal with the questions I asked.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I think I would agree that clause 1 is the most important clause in the bill. It deals with appeal procedures and, as the hon. member for Ottawa West said a moment ago when we were in debate on second reading, the present section was introduced in 1955. There had been a two year period from 1951 to 1955. In 1951 the preceding government reduced the period to two years, and in 1955 they changed the section entirely and brought in the 60 day procedure. That bill caused a great deal of discussion among importers. I would not argue either side of the case, but the fact is that the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue, so I am told, took great exception to the provision in the preceding bill which was in effect up until 1955. It was provided that an importer could revive a claim and ask for a refund on goods which he had imported four or five years before. I think the popular term was that there were conventional gravediggers who would undertake an appeal to the fullest extent allowed and would go back through the records of scores and scores of claims involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the treasury was involved in terrific drains.
Then the new procedure was provided for and 60 days was established. Importers raised rather emphatic protests and asked that the time be extended. It is true that they asked for six months, but my officials think that with modem methods of communication, telecommunication, air mail and so on, 60 days would cover the great majority of cases and is probably as long a period, speaking comparatively, as a few months would have been 10 years ago. Having reviewed this matter with my officials, we felt that a satisfactory compromise would be in extending the time as we are proposing in the bill and that would meet any reasonable requirement. That is why we are amending the bill to this extent.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I think I should point out to the Minister of National Revenue that the reason he has given for the reduction in the period of time is the same reason as was given by his predecessor in office. His colleague, now the hon. member for Greenwood, in answer to that went on to say:
I suggest that the minister has given very inadequate reasons. In the first place I repudiate the idea that this section is being passed in order

to prevent sharp practice, or something almost worse than sharp practice, on the part of certain businessmen. That seemed to be the argument.
And so the hon. member goes on. I could take a great deal of time of the committee in pointing out similar remarks by others of the minister's present colleagues on this point. Perhaps I am not at the moment permitted to do so because of the hour; but it would at least be entertaining. I am afraid I cannot say much more; at least, to be truthful I cannot say much more for them. They did not seem to have any real appreciation of dealing with the problem.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have been told that by my officials.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 1 carry?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I am in the hands of the committee. I wonder what the attitude would be if a few more minutes were permitted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really believe that the business today is of a very important character. We will not be long.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed with the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Clause 1 stands.
Progress reported.


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



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-18, to incorporate Greymac Mortgage Corporation-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, through you I wish to pose a question to the sponsor of the bill. In my file I have two bills numbered S-18 both entitled "an act to incorporate Greymac Mortgage Corporation" but one bearing the legend "read a first time Tuesday, March 20, 1962" and the other bearing the legend "as passed by the Senate, March 28, 1962".
I have read hurriedly through them and can see no difference. Can the sponsor advise which bill we are considering, whether there is a difference and of what it consists?


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time this has been drawn to my attention. I presume the bill before Your Honour

is the one passed by the Senate. I believe there was no change in the one passed by the Senate but I cannot really assist the hon. gentleman because this comes as a surprise to me.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, can the hon. member enlighten us as to which bill we are dealing with?


Gordon Campbell Chown: The Chair has no way of definitely ascertaining that because we deal with these bills only after they are passed by the other place. I shall be glad to show the hon. gentleman the bill I have before me if he wishes to make a quick comparison.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Mr. Chairman, I have only one copy of the bill in my file, the one referred to by Your Honour bearing the legend "as passed by the Senate, March 28, 1962". There is no other copy on my file.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Provisional directors.
William Arnold Peters: Under the loan company legislation the majority of the directors of a company must be Canadians ordinarily resident in Canada. It is of advantage to Canada and the development of the country if all directors are Canadians. Can the sponsor say whether any consideration has been given to that matter in relation to this company on the basis of the problem having been discussed in the house on a number of occasions in relation to other bills?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I believe the question referred to by the hon. gentleman is covered by section 19 of the act to which he referred. From talking to the incorporators it is my understanding that all the share capital will be held in Canada and that all the directors will be Canadians. It is true that this company hopes to influence foreign capital to move into Canada to help in housing development but none the less the intention of the company is to remain an all Canadian operation. Is that what my hon. friend wants to know?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are aware that under the terms of the small loans legislation it is mandatory that the majority be Canadians ordinarily resident in Canada.
My question is this. Has the sponsor any indication from those applying for incorporation that they would be willing to amend this clause to provide that all directors be Canadians ordinarily resident in Canada?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have not taken up that matter with the incorporators. This bill was before the banking and commerce committee the other day and the matter was not raised
Private Bills
there. I do not think it would be possible for me to contact the incorporators this afternoon to determine whether that change would be acceptable, but I believe I can assure the hon. gentleman that this will be an all Canadian show and that I know of no reason why that should be changed.
The main funds the company will be using will be placed by various people in its hands and it would be operated similarly to, let us say, mortgage corporations such as Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation, Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company, and Eastern Trust Company. It is not necessary to alter the share structure of the company to achieve these aims.


William Arnold Peters: I thank the sponsor for that information. I raised the question because I believe we should bend our efforts toward assuring that the majority, at least, if not all directors of these companies seeking incorporation should be Canadians ordinarily resident in Canada. This should be brought to the attention of those applying for incorporation.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I agree with the objective expressed by the hon. gentleman but I do not think it has been the custom to single out particular companies in an effort to carry it out. I believe the best approach would be to change the overriding act governing such companies to ensure that this objective, with which I agree, is carried out.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Undoubtedly the best course would be to introduce general legislation or to amend existing legislation to provide that the majority if not all directors of the company are Canadians ordinarily resident in Canada.
Pipe line companies are required to be incorporated by way of petition for a private act. To my knowledge there is no general overriding legislation. Perhaps the National Energy Board Act would be the proper place for an amended provision governing directors. If there were general legislation in existence I am sure that it would have come to the attention of the government when the Aurora Pipe Line Company was singled out last year as was another earlier this year.
The sponsor of this bill and I are in agreement about the desirability of there being general legislation or a public statute. We must appreciate that the government has control of the order paper and should introduce the required amendments or overriding legislation. We all know what happens to public bills introduced by private members. Invariably they do not come to a vote to determine whether or not the house endorses the principle.

Divorce Bills
The government should take the initiative in this field thus helping to ensure that we maintain control of our own economy by requiring that at least the majority if not all directors of such companies be Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to group the four bills which stand for consideration in committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I would suggest that they be taken separately.



MADELEINE FRANCOISE HANKOWSKI

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-1, for the relief of Madeleine Francoise Hankowski.
On clause 1.
Charles Benjamin Howard: We do not have with us, and I do not think we have ever had, the bill itself as a separate document before us. However, the reproduction of it is contained in the report of the committee on divorce which contains the evidence received by the committee of the other place. This is what is before us at the moment. Clause 1 of it reads in the following terms:
The said marriage is hereby dissolved, and shall be henceforth null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.
I believe that at the last session in September-I cannot remember the date right off hand but I believe it was September 25- we had great hopes, as I am sure had everybody in this house of parliament and in the country that, upon the promise given, there would be introduced into the house some legislation which would make arrangements whereby the necessity would not arise for our having to deal again or in the future with divorce bills as we are obliged to do at the present time. As I say, it is regrettable that we are obliged to do so. If the government had applied itself fully and properly to this particular question I am quite sure that it could have come up with a simple solution to the problem and that we might have had before us, and have already considered and passed some proposal to deal more expeditiously with these particular divorce bills instead of finding ourselves in the position of being obliged to go into all the details with regard to the marital difficulties of the individuals concerned and thus

to carry on the tradition which has been in existence in this parliament for many years.


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


Charles Benjamin Howard: We still live in hopes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member said that had a bill been introduced he felt sure it would have been discussed and passed in this house by now. What is the reason for his assurance, on a problem as difficult as this one, that any bill introduced at any session would be sure of passage? Why does he make that statement now?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I must apologize, Mr. Chairman. I should have known better than to attribute anything to this particular government. I just assumed that if the Minister of Veterans Affairs had carried out his promise made to the house last year and if he had conscientiously tried to reach agreement on a bill and to introduce it that would have been the result. I myself feel sure that the house would have given passage to it for the purpose of dealing with this particular question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are certain that no conscientious effort was made to deal with this matter?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I beg the minister's pardon?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you so certain that no conscientious effort was made to deal with this matter? You are making some wild statements this afternoon.


Charles Benjamin Howard: So far as the Minister of Veterans Affairs is concerned, I am never sure about anything he says or does, particularly after his promise of last last session which he has not kept. So far as I am concerned, on the occasions on which I have asked him publicly in the house about the matter, he has made no comment. The last time I asked him about it he made a very offhanded and, I thought, rather undignified remark, namely that he would study the question and that if it was one that he thought should be answered, he would probably do it the next day. We have heard nothing more about it. I do not wish to get into a cross argument with the Minister of Veterans Affairs with respect to the breaking of the promise which he gave during the last session and which is to be found in Hansard.
I only state, as a matter of my own personal feeling on this matter, that it is regrettable that the government did not get around to introducing that which it promised at the last session to introduce at this session so that we might be in a position to deal with this matter

in a better manner. We all know that this is not the forum in which we should deal with these questions.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think the hon. member will admit that we are at the committee stage of this bill on clause 1 and that, in order to be in order, he must discuss clause 1 as it is and that he must not get into a discussion of procedure and other matters that are widely outside the range of the clause.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is quite correct, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for wandering astray there. However, I was only attempting fully to answer the question or series of questions posed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You raised the whole thing yourself.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It needs to be raised. It is obvious that you are not going to do anything about it. It is obvious that your whole concern is to carry on in degrading parliament day after day with this sordid business.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are making false statements.


Charles Benjamin Howard: For two or three years now this government has promised action on this particular question. Last year it made that promise publicly; and promptly, as with so many other promises, forgot about it. That is why we are in this present situation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a false statement.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The minister is a false minister if he says that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You had better withdraw that statement.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That is shameful.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You have not enough courage to withdraw that last statement.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Which last statement? The statement that you are a false minister?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I think this discussion is going a little bit too far afield. It would probably assist matters if the hon. gentleman would address his remarks to the Chair and would also address himself to clause No. 1.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have enough guts to withdraw that statement or that reference to the minister being a false minister. I hope he has enough intestinal fortitude to withdraw the accusation that the things I said were false also. However, this is perhaps too much to expect in this situation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Continue your filibuster.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I beg the minister's pardon?
Divorce Bills


Gordon Minto Churchill: Continue your filibuster.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Oh, yes; this is the sole contribution the government has offered to make with regard to this very vexing problem, namely to sit back and to make snide remarks in an attempt to cover up their deficiency in refusing to carry out conscientiously the promise they made last year.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If I may, without these other interruptions, get on with the subject before us which is clause 1 of the bill, I shall do so.


An hon. Member:: It is about time.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have been interrupted again, Mr. Chairman. I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if you would tell hon. members that they may participate in the debate in the proper way so that these interruptions will not continue. Clause 1 of the bill provides that the said marriage is hereby dissolved. I think we are entitled to find out whether or not there was a marriage to dissolve in the first instance. The petition is reproduced here and it shows that on the 15th day of October, 1955 the petitioner, giving the name of the petitioner, of Montreal, province of Quebec, was lawfully married to-and then it gives the name of the husband or respondent in this instance.
I refrain from mentioning these names, Mr. Chairman, because I think it is bad enough that we have to search through these things without giving the names of the individuals and scattering them all over Hansard. The testimony was given on January 29 and the testimony of the petitioner given under oath is found on page 9. She was asked certain questions by the clerk of the committee. Those questions had to do with her name, her age, her domicile and her occupation. Then this question was asked:
Q. Are you married, and if so to whom?
Her answer given under oath was:
I am, to-
Then she gives the name of her husband.
Q. When were you married?
A. October 15, 1955.
Q. Where were you married?
A. Montreal.
Q. By whom?
Then there is an indication of the religion.
Q. I show you a document. Do you recognize it?
A. Yes, it is my marriage certificate.
She says that the names and dates are correct and the certificate is filed as exhibit No. 1. So we can take it that she was married in the first place and proceed to determine now whether or not it is desirable that this committee should dissolve the marriage and, if so, for what reason. The ground upon which

Divorce Bills
the petition asks for dissolution of the marriage is contained in paragraph No. 7 of the petition which reads as follows:
That on or about the 8th day of March, 1961, at room-
Then there is a room number and a street number in Montreal, province of Quebec.
-the said-*
It recites the name of the husband or respondent.
-committed adultery with-
It gives the name of another person, the corespondent, and her address. They are all of Montreal in the province of Quebec. To proceed not to the preliminaries, such as the marital relationships before the alleged adultery, in which the committee of the other place invariably becomes involved, but rather to the question of the adultery itself, we find that certain evidence is given by a person by the name of Roger Ferland. He gives his age as 38 and his occupation as investigator, as shown at the bottom of page 12 and continuing on page 13. There is a point I should like to make here. I assume it is the duty of the clerk of the committee to elicit general information about the status of the individual who is going to give evidence and it is then the duty of the lawyer representing the petitioner to bring out other evidence. The clerk of the committee asks four questions, his name, age, where he lives and his occupation, and they are answered as I indicated before. The occupation given is that of investigator.
Before we proceed further I think we might, on the basis of general principles as they have been outlined to me, wonder about the status of this person as an investigator and whether in fact he is an investigator licensed as such under the relevant statute of the province of Quebec or whether, as happens in many instances, he is someone who merely labels himself as an investigator but is in fact not such under the applicable legislation in the province of Quebec.
I have here a photostatic copy of certain information with reference to the private detectives act of Ontario. The information is taken from 1961 Ontario Weekly Notes and I read from page 15 in the case of LaMarche v. LaMarche in which Mr. Justice Spence said:
A rather startling situation was disclosed at the trial. Four persons gave evidence, one for the husband and three for the defendant, and all four were carrying on the business of private detectives, or, in one case, the assistant to a private detective, without the licence required by the private investigators act.
Then he proceeds to give other references to show what reliance the courts can place upon evidence given by people who classify themselves as private detectives but in fact

are not licensed as such and who are in one sense looked upon as paid witnesses. He makes reference here to Latey on Divorce, 13th edition, page 69, and quotes these words:
Evidence by paid witnesses, formerly called testes lupanares,-
They would be persons not licensed under the relevant act of the province.
-private detectives or inquiry agents, and women of evil repute, is subject to special scrutiny.
Then Mr. Justice Spence goes on to say:
It is my view that an extra degree of scrutiny must be accorded to those who perform such services without complying with the provisions of the statute requiring that they be licensed and bonded despite the fact, and I find it as a fact, that all three of the principals were quite cognizant of the requirements of the statute. I am not ready to accept such testimony unless it is fully and strongly corroborated and the defence fails to adduce convincing evidence to refute the charges.
In this instance Mr. Justice Spence said in effect that if a person is a private investigator or private detective and wishes to have full weight given to his testimony he should be licensed as a private investigator or detective under the applicable statute. On January 25, 1962, my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming, and I wrote Senator A. W. Roebuck, chairman of the Senate divorce committee and pointed out to him the material I have just read from the decision of Mr. Justice Spence. I quote part of the letter which we wrote to him on January 25 of this year:
In reviewing the evidence in past divorce cases heard by the committee under your chairmanship we find that no attempt has been made to determine whether or not those witnesses who appeared and classified themselves as investigators or private detectives were in fact licensed as such under the private detectives act of Quebec.
We went on to suggest that perhaps in the future this course should be followed.
The hon. senator replied under date of January 29 to myself and the hon. member for Timiskaming as follows:
Dear Sirs:
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your joint letter of the 25th instant.
We thought, from the discussions we have had with people in the legal profession, that this would be the proper course to follow. You should determine whether or not those individuals who classify themselves as investigators were, in fact, licensed as such under the private detectives act of Quebec or whether they were nothing more than paid witnesses.


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


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes.


Leon David Crestohl: Does the hon. member pretend there is something in the Senate act that makes it compulsory for a witness to be a licensed investigator?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not know to what Senate act my friend is referring.


Leon David Crestohl: The act under which these divorces are dealt with by the committee.


Charles Benjamin Howard: No, I do not know if there is anything in the Senate rules governing this particular matter. I would assume if there is anything in the Senate rules relating to the divorce committee it would be followed and this information would be elicited. I can only assume that there is no requirement in the Senate rules which says that a private investigator must be licensed as such under whatever statute happens to exist in the province.


Leon David Crestohl: Then why does the hon. member belabour the point that these witnesses were not qualified because they were not licensed, apparently?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I gather my friend is a member of the legal profession and perhaps is able to answer that question better than I am. I have been told by a number of gentlemen in this chamber that we are, in fact, a court dealing with these matters. I disagreed with that contention, but people in parliament do insist that this is a court for dealing with these matters, regardless of how incompetent we might be as a court. I assume that, such being the case, we should follow the normal procedure of these courts.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a question of privilege to answer statements made by the hon. member for Skeena a little while ago. He accused me of making a promise to the House of Commons last year which he said was not kept. Then, he accused me of not making any attempt to solve the problem which has confronted us with regard to divorce. I said that his statement was false, and I repeat it. I will give the evidence now from Hansard. at page 8865, September 25, 1961. At that time I asked permission of the house to make a statement concerning the question of divorce, and my statement was as follows:
The house has before it a number of divorce bills which could perhaps be dealt with promptly within the next two days if we take certain action now.
This has been a difficult problem for parliament to resolve, that is, the method of dealing with divorce bills, and over the last two years a great deal of time has been spent in attempting to reach a solution. On some occasions we seem to have come very close to doing so, but not with the
Divorce Bills
unanimity that is desirable. However, in view of the fact that the people who have made application for divorces have done so bona fide as far as we know and have complied with the law of the land it might seem wise to the house to deal with these bills this year and to continue to search for what some people consider would be a better solution to this entire problem. I am prepared to make this statement for the record which, if agreed to by other parties in the house, might permit us to proceed with the divorce bills on this occasion. I should like to make this statement: the question of procedure with respect to parliamentary divorce is under study, and the government has hopes of being able to present to the house at the next session some proposals in this regard.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that was my statement in September, 1961. I did not say that the government was going to bring forward a bill at this session in order to solve this particular problem. I did say that we had hoped to be able to present to the house, at the next session, some proposals in this regard. This is precisely the situation: we had hopes. I entertained hopes until yesterday that we would have something to place before the houses of parliament in regard to divorce legislation. The hon. member for Halifax will confirm the fact that hundreds of hours have been spent attempting to reach a solution to this problem. The hon. member for Skeena, and others of his party, have been apprised of the difficulties that have faced us in this regard. The Minister of Justice and members of his department, colleagues of mine within the cabinet have given attention to this particular problem. We have consulted members of the other place concerning this matter.
What more could be done? It is one of the most difficult problems of solution that faces the people of this country, and for the hon. member for Skeena to carelessly get up in this house and accuse me falsely of having made a promise which I did not make, of having broken a promise which I did not make, then accuse the government of failing, knowing all the time of the difficult circumstances, indicates to this house his lack of appreciation of the problems of government and his unsuitability to be a member of the House of Commons. He is treating lightly one of the most difficult problems that faces Canada. He is deliberately preventing action under the law in respect of 293 persons and their spouses who are asking for divorce proceedings. He is doing this deliberately, taking advantage of these people, because the two houses of parliament have failed to reach agreement with regard to this problem. I think it is most unfair. I think that in the first instance the hon. gentleman should withdraw his remarks concerning myself, and in

Divorce Bills
the second instance I think he should apologize to the house and he should let the committee pass these divorces.


William Arnold Peters: You should withdraw your remarks.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am not going to accept-


Robert Jardine McCleave: You scuttled it, Peters; you scuttled it good. Perhaps I might speak on this question of privilege-


Charles Benjamin Howard: There is already one question of privilege before the chairman, and I should like to comment on it if I may. I am not going to accept the invitation of the Minister of Veterans Affairs to engage in gutter type accusations such as those in which he has engaged. I am prevented from engaging publicly in a discussion of that sort with the Minister of Veterans Affairs because it would necessitate revealing private discussions, and I do not feel I should do that. As I took down the words used by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, he said that we were apprised of the difficulties. What he meant by being apprised of the difficulties, I cannot say. Earlier this session, I do not know the date, I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs what was being done towards meeting his promise of last year. He said then, after consultation with the Minister of Justice, that I would be advised of that and he thought I had been consulted about it, which I had not.
Following that, there was one informal meeting, this was about two months ago, between the member for Timiskaming and myself-he does not mind my mentioning this-and two other private members of the government whose names I am not going to mention at the moment. We went over a proposal point by point and the hon. member for Timiskaming and myself suggested additions to it which we felt would make the proposal work better to protect the interests of the people petitioning. We made those suggestions to the two government backbenchers, private members who came to see us, but we heard nothing more about them. We did not receive one single, solitary word by telephone call, personal discussion or anything else.
That was two months ago and that is as far as I care to go in dealing with the accusation of the minister.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would my hon. friend permit a question?


Charles Benjamin Howard: Certainly, when I conclude.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It is logical at this point.


Charles Benjamin Howard: This is as far as I intend to go in dealing with the minister's gutter type of accusation, and I have no intention of

apologizing to the Minister of Veterans Affairs or of withdrawing any of my remarks. The hon. member for Timiskaming has just turned up a question which I put to the Minister of Veterans Affairs on April 9, as recorded at page 2638 of Hansard for that date. It reads:
I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question in his capacity as house leader. As to the announcement earlier today made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), the chairman of the miscellaneous private bills committee, to the effect that divorce bills will be placed on the order paper as of tomorrow for proceeding thereon, does this indicate that the government has no intention of meeting its commitment made to the house last session about parliamentary procedure on this matter?
The Minister of Veterans Affairs, in his usual way, said:
I will examine in Hansard the hon. member's lengthy question and ascertain whether it requires an answer tomorrow.
That was the end of it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the hon. member permit a question before he takes his seat? Did the hon. member for Timiskaming not ask him about a meeting between the two of those gentlemen and myself about three weeks ago today? If I may refresh his mind, the hon. member for Skeena had been out in his riding, he had returned, and was there not a suggestion made to him at that time by the hon. member for Timiskaming?


Charles Benjamin Howard: A suggestion?


Robert Jardine McCleave: About a meeting among the three of us.


Charles Benjamin Howard: A suggestion made to me by the hon. member for Timiskaming about a meeting?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Among the three of us.


Charles Benjamin Howard: No.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Then, Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I am not going to deal with the behind scenes negotiations, but I can assure the house that I have personally spent more than 100 hours this session trying to get a bill together until we had that most unfortunate debate in this house, dealing with the exchequer court which is totally unacceptable to Quebec. Until we had that debate there was no indication that the procedure would fail.
This is a procedural question that deals with the fate of all these people here, some of whom have children who will never be legitimated if we do not pass these bills before parliament adjourns. I just want to make this point, without getting into a lot of recrimination, that the debate on the exchequer court was a most unfortunate thing because the atmosphere suddenly changed from one

of reasonable optimism. I think I am perhaps the most incurable optimist in the world on this matter, although I may yet have to apologize to the people of Quebec and Newfoundland for being an incurable optimist and for not having brought these bills before parliament earlier.
Had I thought we were not going to succeed we would have started with Bill SD-1 in January and we would have had a very lively session going through them all. However, the unfortunate effect of the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming-though he may have meant them with all good intentions and I am not going to quarrel with his intentions-had the unfortunate effect that afterwards negotiation on the proposed bill became completely impossible. One could not talk to members of any other party because suspicion was rampant.
I regret having to report that to the house, and I feel that perhaps in a way I failed in my own responsibility. I should have known that at a time like this we could not get a procedural bill through to streamline things, and that we would wind up with more than 200 people who have paid their $210 to parliament for petitions, and who have spent on an average $1,200 to $1,500 on other expenses, without getting their bills through.
There is only one final point I wish to make on this question of privilege. I do not want to cast recriminations at anybody. I am just asking that the heart of the House of Commons show itself.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall clause 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: I feel we have an obligation to discuss these matters. I too was of the opinion that something could be done and I still think the answer is very simple. In fact I think the suggestion was made to me by some people higher placed than the Minister of Veterans Affairs during the last few days. I agree that our obligation is great to these people, but the suggestion is that a royal commission be established to go into the whole matter of divorce, both parliamentary and otherwise.
I feel we are not unreasonable. We dealt with some hon. members very reasonably. Some of them were not difficult to deal with but some of them were, and we did not always know who we were dealing with.
In relation to this particular bill we do not expect that there will be the eleventh hour pardon which people sometimes receive in penitentiaries but we do feel that the Prime Minister could very easily come into the house and make an announcement establishing a royal commission to inquire into the whole question of divorce. Unless that happens, then we have an obligation to see that
Divorce Bills
the measures brought before us are handled and scrutinized in the same way as any other bill.
It is surprising that we have spent all our time discussing some 30 or 40 bills and that now, in the dying days of parliament, we should be asked to pass 200 odd bills without knowing the intricacies of each of them. It has often been said that where one individual is concerned more scrutiny should be given to his rights and wishes than should be given even where a great deal of money is involved.
So far as this bill is concerned there is only one person with whom we have to deal.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It is the headline writer in the Montreal paper. That is the person you are concerned with.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Look who is talking.


William Arnold Peters: I would be surprised if it makes any difference in the next few months what the Montreal papers write about Arnold Peters, or Bob McCleave for that matter. I think there will be other papers in other areas more concerned with our activities, and with which we will be more concerned.
In this particular field we have an obligation to the plaintiff, and second, to the respondent and co-respondent. In many of these cases we have found that the corespondent and respondent who are named as having committed an offence-certainly a social offence-have not been given the opportunity to appear. That is not true in this particular case, but it leads to another surprising point, that the respondent indicated he wished to appear and that he subsequently changed his mind. The committee will note the evidence of the clerk of the committee on page 9, where he says:
In this case, Mr. Chairman, personal service was effected by the bailiff on the respondent and the corespondent-
In passing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the work done in the last two or three years by the miscellaneous private bills committee of this house and the investigations they have made have resulted in personal service by reputable people in most cases. To continue:
-personal service was effected by the bailiff on the respondent and the corespondent, but we have not heard from the corespondent since. We sent out the registered letter informing her that the petition was filed in our office. Subsequently, a notice of trial was sent out and that was not delivered.
This of course raises the problem in my mind as to why it was not delivered and how it came about in the first place that if the bailiff was able to locate the respondent and the corespondent, notice of trial was

Divorce Bills
not deliverable. It does not say it was returned, or why it was returned, but just that it was not delivered. I continue:


Paul Raymond Martineau: Did the respondent get the notice of trial?
The Clerk of the Committee: Yes, the respondent registered a notice of opposition, and subsequently withdrew it
Mr. Chairman, I wonder and I think the committee should wonder why a notice of opposition should be implemented by the respondent and then subsequently the opposition was not proceeded with and, in fact, in this case there was the overt act of withdrawing it and the withdrawal was registered with the clerk of the committee. I think this would immediately bring one to the point raised by the hon. member from Skeena a few moments ago as to what was the evidence of adultery in this case, and how was it obtained? In considering this one has to check and see who in this particular case handled the investigation for the petitioner. We find that the people who carried out the investigation were Roger Ferland, aged 38, Montreal, Quebec; and Gabriel Ferland, aged 33, Montreal, Quebec. They described themselves as investigators. I would presume, and it is only a presumption, that these people are man and wife. This in itself would raise a particular problem in my mind because, Mr. Chairman, you may or may not be aware that there was a case not long ago in Ottawa which was instigated by a corporal of the R.C.M.P., in which two of the investigators who were appearing regularly before the Senate-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order.


William Arnold Peters: Well, Mr. Chairman-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is not dealing with the case under discussion. I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has only four minutes to go. He can talk the case out, but he is going to talk this case out and he is not going to raise extraneous matters.


William Arnold Peters: I do not know whether this is the place in which the chairman should rise and say, "Objection sustained" or "Objection overruled". I am not sure of the procedure in this particular case.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I want to reassure the hon. member that I will listen to him, but he will have to confine his remarks to clause 1 of this bill.


William Arnold Peters: I am trying to do that, Mr. Chairman. All I am doing is questioning the actions of these particular detectives and saying why I am questioning them. The committee is not, nor is the house or the Senate in a position to verify, guarantee or in any

way certify these particular investigators as to their reliability, because we are not even sure whether they are licensed or who administers the licence. The point I am making is that in another case a well known investigator who appeared regularly before the Senate was tried for perjury in a court-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is referring to matters which are not contained in the petition of Madeleine Fran-coise Hankowski for relief from this honourable house. I therefore submit that he should be brought back to order and should confine himself, if he knows the rules, to proper debate.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I of course agree with the point of order. The discussion must be directed to clause 1 and to the bill as set out in the preamble.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Timiskaming raised a very interesting point that makes me wonder just what sort of validity we should place upon the evidence before us in this case. Reading from page 13, the evidence of Roger Ferland, we find half way down, when he is almost through his evidence and just before they had discovered the relationship relating to adultery:
Then around one o'clock I called my assistant and they came and met me about half an hour later In the lobby and we went up to that room.
That is, they went to a particular room in an hotel. Then the chairman asked a question. I cannot find out quickly who the chairman was, but it does not matter anyway. The chairman of the committee asked:
What time was this?
A. It was around 1.30. I knocked at the door and said, "I am the house detective".
Then he goes on to give the name of the respondent; he said he was there and opened the door:
-he was wearing a pair of pants, that is all he had on. I said it is for an investigation. While I was talking to him there was a girl sitting on the bed and she ran into the bathroom and she locked herself in.
Then the chairman asked:
What was she wearing?
A. Nothing at all. She locked herself in the bathroom.
Let us consider this situation.


Mr. Matthews:: You would.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am asking hon. members to put themselves in this situation and just consider this. This is what happened: a complete stranger, a private detective, knocks on an hotel room door; the respondent opens

it, and while he opens it the girl sits naked on the bed so everyone can see her, and then she runs into the bathroom.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, we now know that N.D.P. stands for "no divorces permitted".


Charles Benjamin Howard: We stand for "no deceit" also, which is what some people are involved in.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, that by unanimous consent we sit through the six to eight supper recess and from ten o'clock thereafter until these divorces have been proceeded with.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The committee has not jurisdiction to rule on that motion. The hour for private members' business having expired, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: Mr. Speaker, before you call it six o'clock I would ask you to put my motion, seconded by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, that by unanimous consent this house sit from six till eight, and from ten o'clock thereafter until the 293 divorce bills have been agreed upon.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, the hon. member has not given notice of the motion, and furthermore it is six o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member asked for unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: If the house give unanimous consent to accepting the motion and prolonging its sitting beyond six o'clock, I could entertain it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Perhaps the best course would be to put that motion tomorrow.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: I am putting it now and asking for unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear dissent.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask from what corner the dissent came.
Customs Act


Charles Benjamin Howard: I will soon tell you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CUSTOMS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-79, to amend the Customs Act-Mr. Nowlan-Mr. Martineau in the chair.
On clause 1-Finality of classification or appraisal.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the minister was going to give some explanation of why, in the face of what I understand to be continuous or repeated requests on the part of some organizations, for a period of six months, as indicated in clause 1 of the bill the time has been increased only to 90 days.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is correct. When the committee rose at five o'clock I said I would refer this matter when the committee resumed at eight. As I said earlier in the afternoon, I believe, at one time under the other procedure there was a longer time permitted, something like two years. All sorts of difficulties arose out of the administration of that provision. The government which was responsible for the administration of affairs in 1955 changed the procedure and brought in a 60 day period in which one could appeal to the deputy minister from a decision of a dominion customs appraiser.
It is perfectly true, as I said, that since then various pressures have been brought on the department to extend the period beyond the 60 days prescribed in 1955. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think my departmental officials feel that in the average case-as a matter of fact in 95 per cent of cases which would arise-the 60 day period is probably sufficient; but with the multiplicity of branches across this country and with the vast diversification of business, it is appreciated that sometimes a hardship might ensue by strictly adhering to the 60 day period. Therefore, after considering the matter and having read the brief which my hon. friend read this afternoon and which, I may say, is simply a copy of various briefs we have received over a period of years, at least since I have been minister-I am not sure what date the

Customs Act
hon. member ascribed to the brief but I have seen similar briefs of the same tenor-in consultation with my officers we concluded that extending the period from 60 to 90 days would meet all the cases that would normally arise. There is no doubt that the brief referred to by the hon. gentleman contains the arguments which have been addressed to the department.
It was felt the 90 day provision represented a fair compromise between the 60 days we now have and the six month period originally requested. I point out that a six month period was requested following an interval during which there was a two year period. Naturally 60 days as compared with two years looks very short, but the whole procedure has been changed.
I do not think I am divulging a confidence. I do not have the communication before me but perhaps the committee will allow me to say that within the last few days I received a letter from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association from whose brief the hon. member for Ottawa West read this afternoon commending the government, or me, I am not sure which, for having at last relaxed the period to this extent. I think it will prove reasonably satisfactory and, of course, as always, the department is prompt to meet the views of the taxpaying public and the importers. Should it develop that further extensions are necessary consideration will be given to those at a later date. After the period of five years from 1957 to 1962 this is the first time we felt it advisable to relax the period and I feel the degree of relaxation is sufficient.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think I have ever heard a more enthusiastic encomium of a bill than this one. When you think that apart from the provision of supply this is the last act of this parliament, this bill which the minister thinks is really unnecessary but that apparently he has to put through to please the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, it certainly appears that this parliament is ending with a whimper. The minister said he thinks that in 95 per cent of the cases the 60 days would be sufficient, so that for 5 per cent of the cases this house is being denied an opportunity to debate the budget. That perhaps is a pretty accurate appraisal of the government's view of the budget-they are so anxious not to have it debated.


An hon. Member:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hear an hon. member obstructing me by calling out "order". I use the term "obstructing", of course, in the sense in which the Prime Minister uses it and not in the normal sense of the word. We know
that the double-speak the Prime Minister has introduced into politics is something new in this country.
Perhaps the minister could tell me whether my understanding is correct. I understand that what in fact has happened over recent years is that in the difficult cases the deputy minister has taken the view that although the law says the determination made by the appraiser is final and conclusive, if in his opinion there seems to be an obvious injustice he ought to do something about it. It seems to me if that has been the case-and I have the highest regard for the deputy minister as I am sure every hon. member has-it would still be desirable to bring the law into conformity with the facts. Perhaps the minister could tell us whether that is the case.


George Clyde Nowlan: Well, Mr. Chairman, after this political diatribe on the part of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, with his twisted political mind, perhaps I could say this. Hon. gentlemen opposite assured me at six o'clock they wanted only two minutes to discuss this matter and put it through, but apparently since that time there has been a change of tactics. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is not now ready to give the budget address which he seemed ready to give. I am not sure of his tactics. However if hon. gentlemen opposite wish to treat this as a political matter we are prepared to discuss it on that basis. There is no hurry; there is no hurry whatsoever. We will discuss it on that basis if that is the wish of hon. gentlemen opposite.
As I have said, these matters which we are bringing forward, whether we have brought them forward covering 5 per cent of the cases or 95 per cent of the cases as the hon. member mentioned, have been considered by the department. We are rectifying to some extent some of the complaints which have been expressed to me as minister following the changes in the legislation in 1955. No legislation can be completely perfect. No legislation will please everyone. However, as I said at the opening, I think this legislation on this particular section-and this is only one of various sections which are in the bill-meets the requests of the people who are importing goods into this country. As I mentioned a moment ago, they have written in expressing their satisfaction at the fact that the government is rectifying some of the difficulties which were created by the legislation brought in by the preceding government. We think this bill in this particular section will go a long way toward meeting the complaints.


George James McIlraith: I have one matter I wish to clarify. As I understand the practice now the deputy minister in fact, under the authority of section 43 (4) (d) of the act,

has been making his reappraisal or has been re-examining these cases where an appeal has been taken to the dominion customs appraiser and refunds have been sought. In other words, he has in fact been examining the cases that were appealed under section 43 (1) of the act. Does this amendment envisage that the practice of having the deputy minister examine cases appealed under section 43 (4) (d) will be discontinued if this amendment carries and with the longer period of time?


George Clyde Nowlan: No, I would not think that practice would necessarily be discontinued. I think what happens as a matter of practice is that the customs brokers, when they are entering an appeal from the dominion customs appraiser, almost automatically do so, so I am told. After all, it costs only a 5 cent stamp to get a decision. Hence you get an appeal automatically entered to the deputy minister and the deputy minister is obliged to pass on practically every matter which has been referred to the dominion customs appraiser. In this section there is nothing which would preclude appeals to the deputy minister.


George James McIlraith: As I understand the matter, it should lessen the appeals to the deputy minister because of the more adequate time for appeal to the dominion customs appraiser.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is the hope.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now, by leave.


George Clyde Nowlan: the third reading of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before third reading of this last ordinary bill in this parliament I think we should draw attention to this extremely urgent and important matter that has been obstructed for so long by the opposition.


George Clyde Nowlan: The last voice, that of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
Paul Raymond Martineau: The committee has before it for consideration the following resolution:
Ways and Means
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, the sum of $138,416,981, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I am taking advantage of this motion to continue the statement which I began last evening on financial and economic matters. I regret that in a matter of such great importance I shall not have the benefit of the Prime Minister's presence in the chamber this evening, which may be the last one of our session. According to the press he is in Toronto tonight drumming up provincial Conservative support for the forthcoming election. No doubt for some of those to whom he will be speaking it will be a welcome relief from their preoccupation with crime and other matters.
I do not apologize to the committee for taking up a good deal of time this evening. After all, I suppose it will be the last opportunity I shall have to speak from this side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David James Walker: Or from any side.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member had better be careful.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, if I get these friendly interruptions it is going to take me even longer than I expected it would. I hope I shall not be blamed for the extra time taken.


An hon. Member:: We cannot blame you for anything.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The other evening we heard at some length from the Minister of Finance. He presented to us our financial and economic picture. In this regard he played on an uncertain trumpet but he performed with pizzicato speed. Even though he was not able to get in all the things he wished to say, I appreciate the courtesy he extended to me in cutting out some of these things so that I could have 10 minutes at the end of the evening. He told us a good deal about economic and financial matters and we have managed to read those parts of his speech which he was not able to give in the house. From the minister's statement of the position, it was clear that the financial affairs of this country are in a morass from which the government is unable to retreat with grace or emerge with credit. It became quite clear and indeed it has been clear for some time, Mr. Chairman, that the government has not been able to make any new approach to the new problems that are confronting this

Ways and Means
country. Indeed, as the Montreal Star put it on April 7 in an editorial:
What is distressing about the Canadian scene is that no new approach is being made, nothing is being done. Temporary upturns mean little. These come and go. But Mr. Diefenbaker and his colleagues have, since 1957, done nothing new.
The reason for that is, I think, quite clear. It is because this government has no appreciation of the fundamental character of these new problems. So the remedies that have been put forward within the last week or so in the budget really can be characterized as a little more of the same. Problems have been piling up and are still piling up but the government feels that these problems can be solved by papering over the cracks.
Some of the measures that have been put forward recently by the government will be helpful to the business community. They will be welcomed as far as they go; but it is permissible, Mr. Chairman, to point out that these proposals for incentives to business expansion come about four and a half years too late, and, as is customary with the policies of this government, they are not only too late but too little. When we on this side of the house put forward proposals for business incentives session after session since 1957 they were without exception rejected by the government. Some of these business proposals of the government need clarification, and if we had had an opportunity for a normal debate on this important aspect of our economic and financial affairs perhaps the minister would have been able to give that clarification.
Take, for instance, his proposal for a tax reduction on profits of business from increased sales. It is not clear whether or not that reduction would apply to increased sales which are the result of increased prices; and if it would then, of course, there is a very considerable temptation to take advantage of this by increasing prices in order to qualify. We also note that there is no time limit placed on this particular proposal.
It is also very noticeable that the proposals that have been made have not been focused on the areas where help is needed most, the area of excessive unemployment and areas that should have been helped by special measures, which we have not had, which might provide for the introduction of new industries and new jobs.
The tax relief granted to individuals, as has been mentioned before, is, of course, marginal and minimum. No doubt the minister found it impossible to do any more because of the enormous deficits of the past and the enormous proposed deficit for the forthcoming year, which is the sixth straight deficit put forward by the minister since he first became Minister of Finance, and this sixth

and enormous last deficit he is putting forward in a period which he and the Prime Minister call one of great and exciting expansion.
The minister makes certain estimates, predictions and forecasts in his white paper and we, of course, will judge those predictions in the light of his accuracy in predicting in the past. We remember how he used to boast that he would keep expenditures down; and yet expenditures year after year since he has been Minister of Finance have always been higher than estimated. That is why we have had half a billion dollars in supplementary estimates for the last fiscal year and, as we saw it, this had some bearing on the necessity of dealing with these hundreds of millions of supplementary estimates by giving them the kind of consideration which they deserve, especially as it has now been shown that the subjects with which they were concerned would not have received any other consideration in the main estimates for this year during this parliament.
In the last Liberal year the expenditures of the government were $4.8 billion. In 1961 that figure was up by 40 per cent with this government of economy to $6.6 billion, and in 1962-63 who knows how much above $7 billion they are likely to be? Where is that curbing of waste and extravagance? It has gone with Arizona Charlie; it has gone along with the Beauceville post office site; it has gone along with the balanced budget and with "no one will suffer from unemployment".
It is important to analyse the minister's record with regard to predictions and, as I say, we will judge the predictions and estimates he makes in the light of his record in the past. As a matter of fact, perhaps it may be said of the minister, as was once said in another context about the value of statistics, that they should be used like a drunken man uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination. The minister certainly qualifies in that regard. Yet, Mr. Chairman, it is hard not to sympathize with the Minister of Finance. If he is searching for fiscal sanity, which in certain quarters is attributed to him, if he is searching, however unavailingly, for a balanced budget, he has the political sword of John Damocles suspended over his head, and I should think that must be a little unnerving to the Minister of Finance.
In any event, let us look at the record of his forecasting. The story of this government's economic forecasting must go back to January 20, 1958, just before the last general election when the Prime Minister produced in this house, in circumstances of deceit, the secret report entitled "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1957". In abusing the confidential character of this document-


Thomas Miller Bell: That is not true.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -he made two specific accusations against the former Liberal government. He claimed that this report had been deliberately hidden by the Liberals and he clearly implied that such reports should be tabled in the House of Commons.
Second, he accused the previous finance minister of not having used this document to give in his budget speech a detailed forecast of the true situation of the Canadian economy. We will see later how successful this Minister of Finance has been in giving the Canadian people a true picture of the Canadian economy in his forecast. We know, in so far as that earlier accusation is concerned, from the evidence produced since that time that both these accusations were false. This was the first and most unscrupulous distortion of the record of the past.
Let us see what the record has been since in so far as economic forecasting is concerned. The government was embarrassed by demands from this side that subsequent editions of this secret economic outlook report should be tabled, a report which has been prepared every year since 1946. After all, the government had produced one in 1958 when the Prime Minister violated its confidential character and quoted selected passages from it. Embarrassed by subsequent requests that this procedure be repeated in 1960, the then minister of trade and commerce, when we asked for the same treatment to be given to these reports subsequent to 1958 as was given to the one to which I have referred, told the house that this annual forecast which had previously been useful in the preparation of the budget had been discontinued. This report which, according to the Prime Minister should have been released in 1957, had become not only hidden but buried and sunk without a trace. Since 1958 therefore the minister, and I think it is very fortunate for him, has not had to produce any official evidence which, if it had been produced, I am sure would have made nonsense of his extravagantly over-optimistic forecasts.
On March 31, 1960, when the Minister of Finance presented his budget, another recession had started. But the preparation of the secret economic outlook report had been discontinued, so the minister felt free to fall back on his natural economic exuberance. He said, as reported on page 2669 of Hansard for March 31, 1960:
We can look forward optimistically to another year of solid expansion and balanced growth.
Remember, he estimated at that time a 6 per cent increase in the gross national product and a small budget surplus, and the
Ways and Means
Tory cheers on that occasion almost shook the roof of this chamber. During the debate which followed, I warned the minister about the recession, that he was being over-optimistic in his predictions. Of course, all we got for that was the charge that we were the prophets of doom and gloom.
What were the actual figures, then, in 1960? The increase in our gross national product was not 6 per cent, it was 2 per cent. Who was wrong? The estimated small surplus turned out to be a deficit of $345 million. Who was wrong? The minister failed in 1960 to warn the Canadian people about the difficulties that were ahead, let alone do anything about them. It was only when the recession was over that he recognized that it had existed because in his budget speech of June 20, 1961, he finally admitted that something had gone wrong. This was in June, 1961, Mr. Chairman, when he said, and I quote again from Hansard, page 6640:
-the economic outlook in the United States and Canada, which had been most encouraging at the beginning of 1960, had rather unexpectedly reversed itself, resulting in a disappointing slow down during the last three quarters of 1960.
Then, when the minister came to make his forecast for 1961-62, he was a little more cautious than he had been in the previous years. However, he was wrong again. I should like to quote now from page 6665 of the same volume of Hansard, where the minister is reported to have said:
-in the absence of any changes in the current economic outlook or of any additional stimulus we might anticipate this year-
That is, the year we have just gone through.
-an increase of about 3 per cent in our levels of economic activity.
As a result of the policy statements and legislative proposals I have now made I would expect a significant improvement in our economic prospects.
Remember, Mr. Chairman, that was only a little more than nine months ago and surely when he held his budget until towards the end of June we might have expected a little more accuracy in his predictions. What happened? Well, he was wrong in his forecasts of expenditures and he was wrong in his estimate of the gross national product. The gross national product in the last year, 196162, he told us only nine months ago, would be a 3 per cent increase, even in the absence of the additional stimulus through government policies which he would provide.
What has happened? The minister's figures revealed the other day just what had happened. The increase was only 2 per cent in that year of boasted expansion. Therefore, by the minister's own admission, his policies

Ways and Means
brought about a reduction of 1 per cent and deprived the Canadian people of about $360 million of income.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is rubbish, and you know it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister says the increase will be 3 per cent, plus what I am able to add to it by the policies I am introducing. The increase was 2 per cent and the minister's policies, by his own admission, resulted in a decrease of 1 per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Ever hear of the western drought?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Only nine months ago, the minister was out about $150 million in his deficit estimate because as we know it was $791 million instead of $650 million. So, we accept any further predictions and estimates for the next year in the light of the record of his previous mistakes. In this respect, his public trust account is overdrawn.
Let us look at his further predictions for 1962-63. The current estimated sixth straight deficit is $745 million. On the record of past predictions, it will be considerably higher. It is based, this most recent forecasting by the minister, on a gross national product increase of about 7 per cent, assuming normal crops and no untoward events. I assure the minister that from his point of view there is going to be one very untoward event shortly. This gross national product of 7 per cent for 1962-63, the minister said, has been exceeded only twice in the last 10 years, both times of course under Liberal administration. But we know, and the minister must know if he pays any attention to the opinion of experts, that the current recovery is not as strong as expected in either Canada or the United States. Nevertheless, in the face of this situation, the Prime Minister who does not pay much attention, apparently, to the opinion of outside experts had this to say on March 22 in Montreal:
In every part of this country the economy Is making giant strides forward.
Tell that to the people in those areas where unemployment is 15 per cent of the labour force. Of course it is partisan rubbish, to use a favourite expression of the minister.
Conservative propaganda would like us to believe that all our economic problems have been solved, but in spite of the current, limited recovery we still suffer from chronic unemployment and lack of adequate economic growth which is the only way by which it can be removed. Moreover, many economists tell us it is likely that the current recovery will soon come to an end. Experts, but not the government, are worried about this. Cyclical patterns are quite regular, and in the

recent past recessions have appeared every three years. The last one began in the second quarter of 1960 and, if that pattern is continued, the next one could start before the end of the current fiscal year.
President Kennedy, in his message to congress in January, had the courage to face this possibility. He warned the United States congress about the likelihood of another recession soon if adequate steps were not taken now to prevent it. In particular he asked for powers and made proposals to fight the recession if it should come again. The Minister of Finance did not have such courage as that. Just as he failed earlier to warn Canadians about the last recession, and in doing so misled the country about the true situation of the Canadian economy, so now he has failed in his responsibilities as a minister by not taking effective steps in preparation for what might lie ahead. There is nothing in this budget for that purpose.
If governments cannot entirely prevent recessions which originate in the private sector of the economy they can minimize their effects by appropriate action taken at the appropriate time-but not this government. That is not the way they operate. They do not anticipate; they do not understand; they do not prepare. They just stumble along and hope for the best, and there is no excuse for that. Instead of recognizing the possibility of danger ahead and getting prepared for it so as to minimize its harmful effect, ministers prefer expediency and complacency, as I have said, to paper over the cracks and tinker with the surface.
Since 1958 the present government has failed every single year to give us a proper and true picture of our economic situation. Every single year they have been proven to be wrong in their economic forecasts. One reason for this, as I have already pointed out, is that having sabotaged confidential relations with civil servants, they have destroyed the effectiveness of economic forecasting, which is so essential to the formulation and implementation of sound and appropriate policies. The government's systematically wrong and over-optimistic assessment of the situation since 1957 has not been conducive to appropriate and effective policies. It has been a major reason for the difficulties we have had to face.
I can summarize the mistakes of the minister and of the government in this regard in one short table. In 1958 he forecast a 2 per cent rise in the gross national product. In effect the increase was one per cent. In 1959 he talked about an increase in G.N.P. of 7 per cent, and the results were 3 per cent. In 1960 the forecast was 6 per cent and the facts were 2 per cent. In 1961 the forecast was "significantly" above 3 per cent,

and the results were 2 per cent. In 1962, on the eve of an election, the forecast is 7 per cent.
Mr. Pallet!: The same as the Prudential Life.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prudential Life is as strong as Gibraltar, and that is not the case with this government.
I should now like to say a few words about fiscal policy. The promises that the government made in 1957 with respect to government finances were very simple indeed-they would reduce expenditures, they would reduce taxes, and they would balance the budget. The Minister of Finance, when he was in opposition, used to be very eloquent about balancing the budget. In those days he found deficits to be sinful and shameful.
In 1957-58 when he took over responsibility for our finances, the recession reached its maximum intensity in the winter of 1957-58. The minister could have planned for a deficit to defeat that recession by stimulating the economy, but he refused to recognize it, let alone defeat it. Therefore the 1957-58 budgetary deficit, at the height of that recession, was $38 million.
In 1958-59 the economy was recovering from that recession. That surely was the time to reduce the deficit but the minister that year, in a year of recovery, budgeted for a deficit of $648 million, which was a peacetime record.
In 1959-60, now facing his third consecutive deficit, the minister finally realized that the financial situation which he and his colleagues had created did not fit with their earlier fiscal principles of a balanced budget at all costs, and so the minister decided to abandon the principles.
He announced his conversion in a speech on April 9, 1959 when, as recorded at page 2415 of Hansard he had this to say:
As economic conditions change, the government's budget policy needs to change also. It must be flexible; it should be adapted to the shifting economic climate. There are times when a substantial deficit is clearly the right policy; there are times when the budget should be in balance; there are times when some provision should be made for the orderly retirement of debt.
It seems to me those are all Liberal sentiments. The minister went on to say:
The problem of timing the adjustments in budgetary policy is not an easy one, and yet good timing is often of crucial importance.
That, Mr. Chairman, was the great conversion. That was the political conversion loan which was not any more successful than the other one. That was the birth of the new "flexibility Fleming". But, Mr. Chairman, the minister was flexible only in the variation of 26207-1-195
Ways and Means
his deficits because he was not more faithful to his new set of financial principles than he was to his old ones.
As soon as he declared his new doctrine he abandoned it. It was quite clear that the fiscal year 1959-60 would be the peak of the 1957-60 business cycle, and according to the minister's new doctrine that was the time to provide for the orderly retirement of debt, or at least to balance the budget. So what did he do? He budgeted for a deficit of $393 million, up to then the second highest in the postwar period.
We now come to 1960-61. The 1960 recession began with the 1960-61 fiscal year and, according to the minister's new fiscal doctrine, he should have then planned for a sizeable deficit. But did he? No, Mr. Chairman. That was the year he planned for a surplus, and this is how he explained his plans for a surplus, as recorded at page 2681 of Hansard:
The position we have now reached, with its sound prospect of a fully balanced budget, represents the fruits of carefully designed policies carried forward over the past 18 months.
This is not something that just happened. It is a result of considered aims and efforts... I am happy to say that we have reached this goal of a balanced budget-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister, not realizing what was going on in the Canadian economy, planned for a small surplus. He did it at the wrong time and got the wrong result; he got a deficit of $345 million. The planned surplus became a large, unexpected, unwanted and unplanned deficit. Now after it is all over we are told that that deficit was planned also.


Azellus Denis: Deficit Fleming.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The 1960-61 recession ended with the beginning of the 1961-62 fiscal year. I think I can say without boasting that I was the first in this house, in March, 1961, to say that this particular recession was ending. Later in his budget speech on June 20, 1961 the minister himself recognized that when he said:
By now in mid-1961-
That is last summer:
-we are coming to the end of those adjustments related to special and cyclical factors which in 1960 were exercizing a restraining influence on expansion.
According to the minister's new financial principles of flexibility he should then have attempted to balance his budget, or at least reduce the deficit. Instead the minister announced, as we know, a deficit of $650 million, a new peacetime record in Canada, which became a deficit of $791 million. The Prime Minister and the minister then say, "We stand on our record".

Ways and Means


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. O'Hurley:: Yes, sir, so we do.


Mr. Chevrier:: What a record.


Azellus Denis: A broken record.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This year they are budgeting tor a deficit of $745 million which, on the record of the past, will be more than that. You add it all up and what do you get? You get accumulated deficits over the minister's term of office of just about $3 billion; and if you add the depletion in the unemployment insurance fund and the liquidation of the national defence fund you get accumulated debts of $4 billion.


Azellus Denis: What a success.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That amount is a debt the Canadian people will have to pay. For each family of four it will amount to $640. Yet we are informed that the Tories are able to wear these deficits as a cloak of virtue and with pride and say, "We did it all for the unemployed. We did it all for the expansion of the economy. We planned it all that way".


A hon. Member:: Poor planning.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What have we got? We have deficits of $3 billion and we have unemployment figures at a record high over these five years. Even in March, 1962 we have 718,000 claimants for unemployment insurance. We have deficits and we have jobless too. That is the ultimate in mismanagement by government. Government spokesmen counter that by saying that employment is up to record heights. Because of the slow down of the economy over these years the increase in employment is less than the growth in population. Therefore how can that increase which they boast about absorb the existing chronic unemployment, let alone the growth in the labour force? Employment-and these are the official figures-has increased by 324,000 since 1957. That is the boast.
The labour force-and the Prime Minister never talks about this-has increased by 515,000 since that time. Why is that? The answer is very simple indeed. It is because per capita production in constant dollars has actually decreased since 1957. The figure in 1957 was $1,923; the figure in 1961 was $1,893. There, Mr. Chairman, is the answer to unemployment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member permit a question? What is the source of the figures he has just now quoted?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are all dominion bureau of statistics figures.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. Would the hon. gentleman please give us the precise source of those figures, because they will not stand up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are from the dominion bureau of statistics, and I take responsibility for them and stand by them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They stand up a lot better than your figures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the hon. gentleman, if he is not in a position to give the reference to his source now, would he undertake to do so as soon as possible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, these are official figures.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, they are not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What I am giving I stand by as official figures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: They hurt.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Since 1957 the population has gone up by 10 per cent; that is an official figure. Population is up by 10 per cent, but the goods and services produced in this country are up only by 9.1 per cent. So how can we possibly avoid unemployment with that rate of growth, or ensure expansion to take care of the increase in the labour force? Furthermore unemployment, bad as it has been recently-though it has improved over last year, and we cheerfully admit that on this side of the chamber-would have been much worse if the labour force had virtually not ceased to grow during the last year, with people dropping out of it, with immigration drastically reduced and with emigration increased until from the point of view of the labour force it just about balanced the immigration.
Let us look at the figures-and they are very depressing figures-in regard to unemployment. They underline the importance and urgency of this problem. The average number out of work for 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961 was 6.8 per cent; the average from 1946 to 1957 was 3 per cent, which is less than half of that of the Tory years. In actual number, the average number of unemployed from 1946 to 1957 per year was 179,000; the average unemployed from 1957 to 1961 was 415,000. To deal with this there is the excuse which we hear all the time, that it was worse in the United States. I need only say that the United States average during the same period was 6.1 per cent; not higher, but lower. In Europe, of course, and in Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand there was virtually full employment.

In the face of all this the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and others keep shouting, "We have never had it so good". Indeed, as I have just said, the Prime Minister had the effrontery to boast in Montreal on March 21, and I repeat this quotation:
In every part of this country the economy is making giant strides forward.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not true.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It certainly is.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I say, Mr. Chairman, tell that to the areas where the unemployment is 15 per cent of the labour force.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And, Mr. Chairman, we know from their own propaganda that they actually give as evidence for this growing expansion and increased prosperity a great increase in unemployment payments. The Tories in their propaganda actually boast about this, the necessity for which should humiliate them.


Lionel Chevrier: Eight hundred per cent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They boast about the necessity for the great increase in unemployment itself. Because of these increased payments, and in spite of increasing the rate of contributions to the fund by worker and employer, the unemployment insurance fund dropped from $926 million in December, 1956 to $77 million on March 31, 1962.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Still going down.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The unemployment insurance fund from 1942 to 1957 increased at an average rate of $9 million a month because there was practically full employment during those years. During the last 59 months, in spite of a 33 per cent rise in premiums the fund has decreased at an average rate of $17 million a month. The government propagandists say: "Isn't it wonderful? We are paying out so much more for unemployment relief." They boast about the fact that in 1961-62 the payments for unemployment relief had gone up by 847 per cent over the last full Liberal year. Perhaps if he were here the Prime Minister would recall the words he uttered in Brantford on February 7, 1958:
The people who are unemployed will not be put in the false position of being on relief.
I repeat, the relief payments during this period have increased by 847 per cent. This is another chapter of the record on which this election is going to be fought.
Let us look for a few moments at a subject which is very close indeed to the heart of the Minister of Finance and very close to his 26207-1-195*
Ways and Means
interests. I refer to monetary policy. When the minister was in opposition he held the view, which was the correct view, that the government was responsible for monetary policy, and therefore the government of the day, when he was in opposition, should be condemned, and it was condemned, for tight money. The minister has been in office now for nearly five years. During the earlier years, for about four years or three and three quarters of that period, the minister was very emphatic in arguing that the government had no responsibility for monetary policy and therefore could not be condemned in 1959 for the most rigid tight money conditions ever experienced in Canada, with the highest interest rates we had ever experienced. In those days the minister argued that the Bank of Canada had the responsibility and, according to the Prime Minister in one famous "Nation's Business" broadcast, the Bank of Canada had the responsibility along with the big bad chartered banks.
Last summer it became necessary, so the government thought, to find a scapegoat for its lapses and its sins-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true and the hon. gentleman should know it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and the governor of the Bank of Canada was chosen to be the victim.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is untrue.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He was to be the victim even if it was necessary to tear up their cherished bill of rights in the process.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member's accusation is completely false.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That question has been decided.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The dismissal of the governor of the Bank of Canada represents one of the most sordid and shameful episodes in our history.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman's accusation is completely false.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was an unforgettable brawl.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister ran interference for the Prime Minister in this sorry episode.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a false accusation, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is absolutely true and the minister knows it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The governor went, and he went in circumstances that brought shame on the government. He went in circumstances that besmirched the Canadian Bill of Rights,

Ways and Means
which degraded parliament, which humiliated Canada abroad and tarnished her good name.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thanks to the part played in it by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister did not have the courage to resign.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister should have resigned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And leave matters in the hands of Liberal riffraff?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Having got rid of Mr. Coyne a new governor was appointed in the person of Mr. Rasminsky whose first act was to issue a statement saying that the government did indeed have responsibility for monetary policy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This was something on which we had insisted all along and which the Minister of Finance had violently rejected.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And which your leader, Mr. St. Laurent, rejected.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The new governor of the Bank of Canada having issued this statement, the minister then followed it up at once with a statement in which he agreed entirely and in a rather meek way with the new governor. The Minister of Finance had gotten back, by the road of political expediency, to the point he started from ten years ago; but as the Prime Minister is so fond of saying-and he speaks with authority on this subject-you do not get indigestion from swallowing words.
The minister told us the other evening in his speech that he now sees the governor of the Bank of Canada at least once a week. The former governor of the Bank of Canada should have been seen by the minister at least once a week. Weeks and weeks went by when he did not see him.


An hon. Member:: Four years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the minister had seen him once a week he might have been able to criticize some of the statements the former governor was making during that period.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Some of them might not have been necessary.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But he did not bother seeing the former governor during that period. What kind of monetary policy is it for which the minister now assumes responsibility? In opposition he used to lead some blistering assaults on the government of that day for

tight money and high interest rates. I will quote just one statistic to show the present situation.
In 1956 the interest rate you had to pay on Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation mortgages was 5 4 per cent and it was violently criticized by the minister at that time as being too high. It is now 6J per cent.
What about the national debt and what about taxation policies? In Liberal days the national debt used to be reduced. We all know the record of the previous government in achieving a reduction of over $2 billion in post-war years. What has happened under this regime? Our gross national debt-and these, Mr. Chairman, are official figures-was $18J billion on March 31, 1957. It was $215 billion on March 31, 1961. In the fiscal year 1957-58 the national debt per capita was $648. In 1961-62 it was $725. Because of this increase and because of higher interest rates the payment of interest on the national debt has gone up from $520 million in 1956-57 to an estimated $804 million in 1961-62. But do not worry, say the apologists of the government, indeed, the political economists of the government-and I emphasize the word "political"-do not worry; this is easy to bear. What is $3 billion, after all?
And to what are the people of Canada most indebted in connection with this national debt? Surely our foreign debt must have gone down during these years because we recall how the Prime Minister and his friends were going to release Canada from the stranglehold of foreign debt-this was in 1957-and especially from United States control of our industry and development.
You will remember, Mr. Chairman, how hon. gentlemen opposite accused Liberal governments of having sold Canada to the United States, of making us an economic satellite; and in driving home their arguments, for political vote catching purposes they are not above fomenting or exploiting antiAmerican feeling.
What is the situation now? Again the figures tell the story and they again throw a lurid light on the gap between Tory promises and Tory performance. According to official figures from the bureau of statistics released on March 12, 1962, Canada's net balance of international indebtedness rose in the year
1960	from $14 billion to $16.9 billion and in
1961	to almost $18 billion. Even more significant, the greatest part of the increase was due to the direct investments of Americans in United States branch plants and subsidiaries in Canada, particularly in resource industries such as petroleum and natural gas and mining and smelting.
As a result of the growth in foreign ownership and investment, the amount of money

sent out of Canada in the form of dividends, profits and interest rose from $669 million in 1960 to $771 million in 1961. That was the increase in one year alone.
So much for the Tory policy of saving us from United States domination. I should not say that they have done nothing during these five years. They have passed a bill which makes it necessary to give some information about this matter. Taxation?-how have the minister and his government managed this? In 1957 they ranted about the country asserting that every Canadian family was overtaxed by $500. This used to be the theme especially of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am sorry he is not in the chamber tonight either. In the year 1957 the Canadian people paid $4,928 million in taxes, and these are official figures. In 1961 they paid $5,751 million into the federal coffers, an increase of 17 per cent, more than $70 in additional taxes for every Canadian family of four. Thus between the fiscal years 1957 and 1961 -and this should end all this talk about the easier burden of income tax that we hear from government spokesmen-the amount collected from personal income tax went up by 28 per cent and on a per capita basis income tax went up from $94 to $108 or by 15 per cent.
There is something else the minister has done recently that should be noted, namely the decision with regard to the devaluation of our dollar out of which he takes great and growing satisfaction these days. It was not very long ago-two or three years ago-that the minister was telling us that the government could do nothing about devaluing the dollar. We on this side in 1958, 1959 and 1960 urged this course on the government at a time when devaluation would have done the most good. However, the minister replied in those days that to lower the value of the dollar-and I quote from his statement in the house-would be "a gigantic financial speculation with little chance of success" and would result in undesirable and indeed impossible controls. Then last summer the minister saw another great light.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The vision.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In his budget speech he told us he was going to force down our dollar "significantly". That is a word he seems to like. He said he was going to force it down significantly through the exchange fund by purchasing United States dollars. In that same speech in June, 1961-I refer to his budget speech-he said this course would be desirable also because it would add to our reserves-and I quote-"which have not grown over the past decade in line with
Ways and Means
Canada's international transactions". Our reserves were too low. This is to be found at page 6649 of Hansard of that year. That was nine months ago. The situation now is that instead of buying United States dollars in order to get our reserves up and get our dollars down he is selling United States dollars in order not to depress but to support the Canadian dollar, to stop it from going down too far.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is going down and it may go down too far because of loss of confidence in that dollar. One reason for that loss of confidence, in addition to certain ambiguous statements by the minister, was the shameless Coyne affair and the effects it had abroad.


Lionel Chevrier: It lowered the prestige of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This operation which was to bolster our reserves, has cost our reserves about $350 million in the first three months of this year. I can only describe that, Mr. Chairman, as muddled manipulation of our dollar.
We ought to say a word about trade because that matter loomed quite large in the minister's statement, especially in that part of it which was not given to the house. The criticism of the minister and his colleagues in 1957 of the government of that day was that Canada had too many trade eggs in one basket. Since then the only new baskets of any significance in terms of trade which have been developed have been red China and Cuba. We remember the 15 per cent diversion boast in 1957 to transfer $500 million of imports from the United States to the United Kingdom. What a phony that turned out to be. We on this side, of course, knew that it was a hoax from the beginning. However, the British took the Canadian Prime Minister seriously and in order to assist him in achieving this objective they made a proposal for free trade between the two countries in September of 1957. After all, that was the only way in which this boast could have been fulfilled or in which this vision could have been realized. However, the Canadian government, their bluff having been called, treated this offer with silent contempt. They swept it under the rug and they hoped that everyone would forget that it had ever been made. However, the United Kingdom did not forget. They learned among other things how much importance was to be attached to the public declarations of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. After the dust had cleared away the Canadian government introduced a series of measures designed not to help but to hinder the ability of the United Kingdom to assist

Ways and Means
the Prime Minister to realize that 15 per cent diversion. They were pin pricking, protectionist measures.
Then let us look at the confusion about Canadian policy toward the United Kingdom and the European common market. It is impossible to resist the temptation to say a word or two about that matter especially as now some attention is being distracted from the past policy, the past attitude and the past words of the government in this matter. A year or so ago-about a year and a half ago- the British government gave clear indications for anyone who wished to understand them that it would seek to come to terms with the new European common market by membership, if possible on suitable terms. The Canadian government pooh-poohed our warnings that this might happen. They received many from this side of the house and they paid no attention to our suggestion that it should be a first requirement of Canadian policy also to try to come to terms and to make arrangements with this new and important European development. Instead of trying to bring this development across the Atlantic and transform it into something even bigger than a European arrangement, they decided to fight it and they went to Accra for that purpose. The Canadian government, instead of taking a constructive and farsighted approach, violently criticized the United Kingdom for seeking to join the European common market and warned of dire results for the commonwealth if that ever happened.
At this commonwealth meeting at Accra the Canadian delegation-and the Minister of Finance was one of them-acted like petulant children. That is how they were described in Canada and abroad at the time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Falsely described.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is other evidence of this purely carping and sterile attitude. We have the refusal of the Canadian high commissioner in London to attend a meeting of commonwealth representatives called by Mr. Heath to discuss European common market questions. We have the irritable and unnecessary complaint of the Minister of Finance that they were not shown the full text of Mr. Heath's statement last autumn to the European common market negotiators in Paris. Since that time we have had a full summary of that statement which was given to the minister at that time. We have been able to compare the summary with the full text which has also been made public, and it is quite clear that the summary contained every bit of substantial information that the full text contained.


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


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is he not going to be frank enough to tell the committee that the summary was a summary of only one part of the speech?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is perfectly true, Mr. Chairman. There was a great deal of introductory matter in the speech. I have read the speech and I have read the summary and I say that every piece of substantial information in the speech which the Canadian government would have a right to have in negotiations of that kind was contained in the summary.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then does the hon. gentleman say that the full text should not have been made available to Canada and other commonwealth countries?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This government, Mr. Chairman, is very sensitive about making public the texts of diplomatic documents when it is in the midst of negotiations with other governments, and it should exercise the same restraint in respect of other governments making texts available to them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will you answer the question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I tell the minister that he got all the information which the government required in the summary which was given to him and that has been proven by comparing the summary and the full text.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Now will you answer the question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Therefore, Mr. Chairman-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will you answer the question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -the irascible and indignant complaints of the minister on this occasion were not only unwarranted but mischievous.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And your statement now is untrue, completely untrue. You ought to know better.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yet in the light of all this the Minister of Finance had the amazing effrontery to make a speech in Vancouver on March 29 in which he stated, and he has stated it before:
Canada has shown no hostility toward the United Kingdom in connection with negotiations over the common market.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Very true.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Trade and Commerce was even more absurd in his statement in Lethbridge on April 5-


Donald Methuen Fleming: You find the truth absurd.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -when he is reported as having said:
Canada is not trying to influence Britain on whether she should join the E.C.M. or not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You do find the truth absurd, don't you?


Lionel Chevrier: He finds the minister absurd.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have comments here from British papers about the Canadian position and I have comments here from Canadian papers about the Canadian position. Are they all wrong? Is everybody in Great Britain and Canada wrong about the government's attitude? Can the minister find anything in any newspaper praising the attitude of the Canadian government at Accra?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, those that were acquainted with the facts.


Mr. Macdonnell:: I should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question. He says he has comments from British newspapers as to what happened at Accra. Has he read what the London Economist, which I presume he respects, had to say?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Indeed I have, and when I spoke about this before I put on the record exactly what the London Economist said and it was nothing to give any comfort to any member of the government. I wish I had it here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the Leader of the Opposition put the comment of the Economist on the record, or will he allow me to do so?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the hon. member would put it on the record at the end of my speech. I am frank to admit, Mr. Chairman, that there has been a very considerable change in the government's attitude and the government's words in the last few weeks. Of course they soon saw the reaction in this country to their policy at Accra. Frightened about the votes they would lose by his needless and carping criticism of the United Kingdom, this rather stupid attitude, the Prime Minister and his colleagues have since that time tried to beat a retreat and to swallow their earlier words, and the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have been doing some swallowing in that regard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps at long last they are beginning to realize that to protect Canadian interests it is not necessary to irritate everybody else.
Ways and Means


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: That is the heart of the problem.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is necessary to deny what you are saying because it is not true.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As the London Telegraph or Sunday Times said at that time, people want to be on good terms with the Canadian government but it is almost impossible to be on good terms. Surely the government is now aware of the fact that in order to support the commonwealth it is not sensible needlessly to offend the most important member of the commonwealth.
In short, Mr. Chairman, the conduct by this government of its trade relations with the United Kingdom has been characterized by shortsighted and angry stupidity. And this is the government that at every possible opportunity shouts from the housetops on every conceivable occasion its devotion to the commonwealth association. Again, it is a case of words rather than action.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You certainly have never done anything for the commonwealth.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I prefer to let my attitude to the commonwealth be shown by deeds rather than by words.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You dragged your feet at every commonwealth conference you ever attended.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As for becoming less dependant on the United States for trade, this is what the Minister of Finance is reported in the Vancouver Sun as having said in that city on March 29 last:
Canada will have to follow Washington's trading policies to adjust successfully to changing patterns of world trade.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What an about-face that was.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister also said at Saranac, New York, on April 7, the day before the budget speech, I believe:
We are fortunate these days in witnessing the constructive and imaginative leadership of the United States.
I wish we had some constructive and imaginative leadership in this government, Mr. Chairman.
Having talked about trade relations with the United Kingdom, I should like to look for a moment at the external trade picture generally and the figures for our exports, because those figures constitute one of the biggest boasts of the government. We will hear a great deal about them in the weeks ahead. The Prime Minister and other ministers have claimed, certainly the Minister of Trade and Commerce has done so, that in 1961 Canada experienced the greatest growth in

Ways and Means
our exports in our history. That was the statement made by the Prime Minister. That growth, and it is one from which Canada can take satisfaction, was something over 9 per cent over 1960. I believe it was a very small amount over 9 per cent, but notwithstanding what the Prime Minister said in the exuberance of his imagination about this being the greatest growth in our exports in our history, in six of the eleven post-war years our exports increased by more than 9 per cent. This is an instance of what I have just referred to as the exuberant use of statistics.
We admit, of course, that exports increased last year and it is a very good thing they did. Let us hope they will increase even more this year. But while our exports may have increased this cannot obscure the fact that our relative position in world trade has gone down since 1956, and that is something which should cause every Canadian some worry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Our trade has not gone down since 1956.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Relatively.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Canadian share of world trade has gone down since 1956, and if the minister gets any satisfaction-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Canadian trade has gone away up since 1956, one record after another. Why don't you tell the whole truth?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The fifth trading nation now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the minister wants to speak, let him get up on his feet. I am giving statistics which are true.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are distorting the facts.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister is annoyed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A travesty of distortion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let me repeat what the Prime Minister said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was the Minister of Finance treated this way in the budget debate?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not worried about him. He is a little upset tonight by this exposure of his financial policies. I am going to repeat what the Prime Minister said because the Minister of Finance does not accept it. The Prime Minister claimed that in 1961 Canada experienced the greatest growth in our exports, a 9 per cent increase. I tell the minister that in six of the eleven post-war years Canada's exports increased by more than 9 per cent. Let him try to reconcile these two 
statements if he can. I also say to the minister that our relative position in world trade has gone down since 1956, notwithstanding certain ministers' attempts to try to do something about it. In 1956, which was the last full year of Liberal administration, this country exported $5,254 million worth of goods. I use United States dollars so a comparison will be made on the same basis as world exports which are reported in United States dollars; that is the United States dollar figure. World exports for that year were $93,960 million.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You had a trade deficit in those years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, look after your
Bomarcs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You don't like the truth.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In 1961-


Lionel Chevrier: Fire a few more civil servants.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order; with these continual exchanges I have some difficulty in hearing what is being said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In 1961, Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to proceed in relative calm, Canada exported $6,076 million, which is a very considerable increase over 1956. However, world exports had increased in that year to $118,300 million; in other words, world exports expanded by 25.9 per cent during this five year period while Canada's exports expanded by 15.6 per cent. In 1956, Canada was fourth largest exporter in the world, and in 1961 she was fifth.
Our exports by destinations are significant. They went up during this period to the United States, in 1961, $162 million or 5.5 per cent to $3,198 million. These are exports to the United States, and this is the basket which used to worry hon. gentlemen opposite when they criticized us. Our exports to the United Kingdom last year went down $5 million to $920 million. Our exports to the rest of the world, and this increase is largely to communist China, went up $342 million or 31 per cent to $1,443 million.
Our imports from the United States were up last year by 4.9 per cent to $3,874 million. Our imports from the United Kingdom were up 6.2 per cent to $625 million.
Now, this increase in our exports, from which we can take satisfaction, is due largely as I have already indicated to sales of grain to communist countries, mainly China, and that is not a very substantial or permanent basis for an increase; to devaluation and to increased sales to Japan and Cuba. Much as

we welcome the increased sales to any country, we cannot help but be preoccupied by the nature of these increases when they go to destinations which do not provide a continuing and solid foundation for the kind of increase we would like to see happen. As the Globe and Mail said on January 30, 1962, and I quote from this editorial:
Particularly pleasant was the rise in exports of wheat, which made up the larger part of the increase, for our wheat farmers have not generally shared in Canada's advancing prosperity in the last ten years.
Then, the editorial continues:
Let us enjoy this pleasure while we may, for the additional sales of wheat were more the result of China's bad luck than our good management.
The Minister of National Defence, in his interruption a few minutes ago, talked about our favourable balance of merchandise trade. Of course, at the moment, this represents the most popular talking point of government spokesmen who are dealing with trade. This is their biggest boast, Mr. Chairman. It is quite true. We can take, all of us, satisfaction out of the fact that our merchandise trade last year showed a favourable balance of $179 million as compared with an unfavourable balance of $145 million in 1960. I believe, Mr. Chairman, in giving all the statistics on each side of this question, unlike some government spokesmen. This is an important change for the better and is a gain of $324 million in our balance of merchandise trade.
Our non-merchandise trade, Mr. Chairman -government spokesmen do not talk about this-had an unfavourable balance of $1,070 million in 1960. This unfavourable balance went up to $1,168 million in 1961, or a loss of $96 million. We do not hear these figures from government spokesmen or from government propagandists. The result of this is that in 1961 our total unfavourable balance of payments, merchandise and non-merchandise, was $989 million, almost $1 billion. This means, Mr. Chairman, that our current account deficit for 1961, merchandise and non-merchandise, amounted to almost $1 billion. If the minister tells me that is a better figure than last year, I say that is true. But I would point out to the committee that for the five years, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956, our current account deficits totalled $2,726 million, or an average annual current account deficit of $545 million. What is the picture for the five years 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961? The total accumulated current account deficit was $6,113 million or an average annual current account deficit of $1,222 million. This is what the government calls improvement in our position.
26207-1-196
Ways and Means
The government has taken a great deal of satisfaction out of what they call the great improvement in the economic situation. The government is boasting about the economic recovery that has been taking place since the spring of 1961.


David James Walker: This is a dull speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the Minister of Public Works would just refrain from his normal bad mannered practice of interrupting-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If he must talk however, Mr. Chairman, perhaps he will be able to restrict his language to that which is customary in parliament instead of the language he used the other night.


David James Walker: Will the hon. Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


David James Walker: -say whether Walter Gordon, who is in the house tonight, wrote this very dull speech?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not hear what the minister said but I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that I missed very much.
Well, Mr. Chairman, of course there has been recovery in our economy. We predicted it early in 1961. We thought the minister was a little pessimistic at that time. We expected, of course, on this side that the recovery would continue through the most of 1962. As I said earlier in my speech, Mr. Chairman, it is a normal movement in the business cycle.


Mr. Creaghan:: You hope not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not catch that additional interruption from some hon. member who did not stand up.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: I will repeat it. I said, you hope not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think he said that we hope this-


An hon. Member:: You are extremely dull.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member says that we on this side hope the improvement will not continue. That is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, and that is what the Minister of Public Works said outside this house. Mr. Chairman, whenever that kind of statement is made I call it a slanderous falsehood. That is what it is, and although I know that having called it that, that is not going to prevent the Minister of Public Works from using those words whenever he sees fit.

Ways and Means


David James Walker: Your days are numbered.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of policy or lack of policy we have been getting from the government. I charge the government with not doing anything to meet this predictable end, with not putting into effect the kind of policies that will be needed to meet this problem if and when it arises. They are taking refuge in extravagant optimistic hopes that something will turn up to get them out of the trouble in which they have been for the last five years. Yet, Mr. Chairman, when we call attention to these difficulties and dangers that may lie ahead, what reply do we get from the minister and his colleagues, especially from the loquacious Minister of Public Works with his eloquent parliamentary language? We get the reply that we are prophets of doom and gloom.
We get that reply in spite of the fact that we point out that every prediction the Minister of Finance has made about the economy has been wrong, that he has been extravagantly over optimistic in everything he has said, and that every estimate he made has been wrong every time about what was going to happen.


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


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am always delighted to hear the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has he completely forgotten that the deficit for the fiscal year 1958-59 was substantially less than I had forecast?


Azellus Denis: You were wrong.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us hear what your leader has to say.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has just convicted himself out of his own mouth. He says he was wrong away back in 1958-59 but, Mr. Chairman, this was the only time he was wrong in the right way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not what you said a moment ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not only has he been wrong the right way once but he has been wrong in the wrong way many times. However, I am glad he was wrong in the right way once, but that was away back in 1958.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Don't you think you were extravagantly wrong just now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the minister and his colleagues try to get out of their difficulty by criticizing those who expose their weakness and call attention to the problems facing him, they call us prophets of doom and gloom. I 
say, Mr. Chairman, that is merely cheap politics and demagoguery. Nothing we have said in this house about the economic position at the present time has been contradicted by outside objective observers. I could quote, as I have done, the president of the Newfound-land-Anglo Development Company. I could also quote the ex-governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Graham Towers, who said our economy is not growing sufficiently to take care of the demands made on it.
I could also quote another very eminent economic authority whom the Prime Minister loves to quote, Mr. Michael Barkway, who said in the Citizen on April 2:
Amongst economic experts who have no political axe to grind recent weeks have brought a distinct moderating of optimism about both the length and strength of the business pick-up.
All we asked was that the government realize that some of these things may happen, and that in the budget put forward by the Minister of Finance there might be some policy to deal with them if they do happen. But all we have had was a little more of the old stuff we have had during the last four years. It is too late and it is not good enough.
All the big decisions of this government are always being postponed. On this occasion we have got just a little more of their usual treatment for economic recovery, a little of the same, and it is the same four years too late. The problems are piling up. Yet the government ignore them and fall back on their favorite motto-save the surface and you save all.
We have had continuous growth of our debt over the last five years, a piling up of deficits without the economic growth and employment that would justify them. We are having more and more international indebtedness and greater and greater foreign control. We had four years of refusal by the government to do anything about the dollar, and now they are trying by frantic efforts to keep it from dropping too far. We have had devaluation by loss of confidence. We have had fumbling and uncertainty in international trade policies. We have had an increase in exports, but it is dependant on markets which give no assurance of stability or continued growth.
We have had a continued postponement of solutions to the problems that are facing this country but, Mr. Chairman, that continued postponement is nearly over because the time is coming when this government will have to give an account of their stewardship to the Canadian people-


Thomas Miller Bell: And happy they are to do it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and the Canadian people will decide on the record of that stewardship.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: That is what you said in 1958.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what I am saying in 1962.


Richard Albert Bell: The result will be the same.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not according to the recent test of public opinion carried out by an agency asked to do this test by the Toronto Telegram.


An hon. Member:: You went south of the border.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That paper initiated and financially sponsored this test, but when the results came out in the last week or so they were so damning for the Conservative party that the newspaper which initiated this test refused to publish the results.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Was the man who
composed the speech being delivered by the Leader of the Opposition the same man who was responsible for the liquidation of Canada Cottons Limited in Cornwall?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is probably the last interjection the hon. member is going to make during this session, and perhaps his last intervention in a Canadian parliament. May I tell him that this interjection is characteristic of all the others that have preceded it in this parliament.


Grant Campbell: Will the Leader
of the Opposition answer my question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has not yielded the floor.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In closing I think I can do no better as this parliament comes to its untidy end, than to quote Oliver Cromwell. Unlike the doughty editor of the Ottawa Journal, who perhaps does not know his Cromwell as well as he knows his Burke and Meighen, I shall quote the whole passage.


David James Walker: This is your valedictory.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is what Cromwell said about a parliament, and it could be applied to the Conservative members of this parliament as it comes to its unlamented end:
You have sat there too long for the little good that you do. It is time to make way for better men. In the name of God-go.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for this government to make way for a better one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman-
26207-1-196J
Ways and Means


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam surely must have had your eye before the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: You can't take it, eh?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under our rules it is understood that the parties are given a fair opportunity to present their side of the case. The Minister of Finance had over two hours when he presented his budget. Following him there was the Leader of the Opposition. To deny the hon. gentleman who stands immediately to your left the opportunity of speaking would be a violation of the rights of hon. members of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Azellus Denis: Closure.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The hon. member for Essex East has raised a point of order and I will hear the hon. minister on the point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, we are in committee of ways and means. I have not spoken in this committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Monopoly of debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The last speaker was from the opposition. I now claim the right to use the five and a half minutes that remain to make some reply.


Charles Benjamin Howard: On a question of privilege-


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


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, hon. members opposite are engaging in a time killing manoeuvre to prevent free speech in this house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I cannot hear more than one hon. member at a time. I understand the hon. member for Skeena has risen on a question of privilege.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In accordance with the right provided by the rules, I move that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam be now heard.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Moved by Mr. Howard, seconded by Mr. Herridge-


An hon. Member:: This is Liberal closure.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam be now heard. All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Ways and Means


Donald Methuen Fleming: Liberal closure.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Impersonation.


Azellus Denis: A new type of closure.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The committee is ever now.
Motion (Mr. Howard) negatived: Yeas, 35; nays, 49.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I declare the motion lost.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I will hear the hon. member for Laurier on a point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: My point of order is that after the vote was called and while it was being taken the Postmaster General came in. That is contrary to the rules of the house. He should therefore not have voted and his vote should not be counted.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Chairman, I was just seeking simple words that the opposition could understand, and trying to simply phrase them. Certainly I came in after the vote was called. However, as the hon. member knows perfectly well, this rule applies only when the Speaker is in the chair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William McLean Hamilton: When the house is in committee an hon. member may come in at any time-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


William McLean Hamilton: -
until the row has been counted.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment on the point of order and in respect of what the Postmaster General has just said. On previous votes in committee, on two separate occasions I have raised a similar point of order without naming the hon. members who came in late. On each occasion the chairman of the committee at that time agreed that my point of order was well taken and that hon. members should not enter the chamber when a vote was being taken in committee.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Standing order 12, paragraph 2 reads:
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the house, or make any noise or disturbance.
There is no doubt that by analogy the same rule will apply in committee. Therefore I believe that one vote should be deducted from the count made.
[The Chairman.]


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Typical Liberal closure.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. Before I put the motion may I ask if the hon. member would defer his motion, as it is now ten o'clock and we could call it ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very happy to withdraw the motion, sir.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, it was stated that the Postmaster General came into the chamber while the vote was being taken. The hon. member for Cape Breton South also came in after the vote started.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The same alteration would apply.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, the hon. member for Hull has called attention to the fact that I came in from behind the curtain after the vote was called.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yes, you did.


Donald MacInnis: If my eyes served me right, the hon. member also came in after the vote was called.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. It being ten o'clock-


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cape Breton South said that I came into the chamber after the vote was called. I was in here when the vote was called. I came in before the vote was called. The hon. member came in after the vote was called, and there is quite a difference.


Azellus Denis: Get some glasses.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. It being ten o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I take it that tomorrow we will continue with this debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: More of the same tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps on Thursday.


Azellus Denis: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They cannot make up their minds about anything, poor fellows.


Mr. Pallell:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if unanimous consent could be given with respect to tomorrow's order paper; that is, to having

private members' bills printed for private members hour and giving them precedence during that hour.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I did not hear what was said.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been suggested by the parliamentary secretary that the private bills be printed on tomorrow's order paper and by unanimous consent be given precedence during private members' hour.
Business of the House


Charles Benjamin Howard: I think we would agree to that if the hon. gentleman has any expectation of making progress on them.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that private bills be printed under private members' business tomorrow with priority?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes past ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday. April 18, 1962