1963-01-23

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked for the tabling of recent correspondence between the premiers of Quebec, Newfoundland and myself in connection with the amendment to the British North America Act relative to pensions. I now table the same, and if the house is agreeable it could be appended to Hansard, in keeping with what has been done previously.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister seeks the leave of the house to have appended to Hansard copies of the correspondence referred to in his statement. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For correspondence referred to above see Appendix "A".\


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that as part of the continuing effort to give help and support to India in her present difficulties, Canada is to participate in a joint commonwealth-United States air defence mission which will leave London for India on January 29 at the invitation of the Indian government. The United Kingdom and Australia will also be represented in the commonwealth component of the mission. It will examine with the Indian air force the problems it faces and the technical requirements involved in organizing an effective air defence against the possibility of any further Chinese aggression. The team includes Air Commodore Mount of the Royal Air Force, Brigadier General Tipton of the United States air force, Group Captain Murray of the Royal Canadian Air Force, and officers of the Royal Australian Air Force.
I think I should point out that the mission is of a technical nature, and that its purpose 27507-3-192J
is purely exploratory. Furthermore, no decisions will be taken by the mission, which is empowered only to report to the four sending governments. It will be up to each government to decide whether it will render assistance in improving the air defence of India and, if so, what type of assistance might be feasible. Furthermore, the sending of this mission does not imply any judgment concerning the prospects of success in the talks which may take place shortly between India and China. Whether such talks are going to take place at all is a subject which is today being debated in the Indian parliament.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (for fhe Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-107, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Explain.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to extend the duration of the Export and Import Permits Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ACT


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-108, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Explain briefly.


George Clyde Nowlan: The purpose of this bill is to make some minor changes in the technical wording of the act and also to provide for a chief executive officer who will be directly responsible for the administration of the act, and to provide for even greater efficiency than now pertains.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Questions PAROLE ACT



CLARIFICATION OF PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO SENTENCE AND PAROLE

Donald Methuen Fleming: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-109, to amend the Parole Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Explain very briefly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this measure is to clarify certain provisions of the act with regard to the relationship between sentence and parole.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	How many foreign built motor vehicles has the Canadian National Hailways purchased in the past year?
2.	How many such vehicles does the C.N.H. now own?


Mr. McBain:: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Foreign, exclusive of United States: 15.
2.	Approximately 50.
(Translation):


*GOLD PAYMENTS ABROAD
Mr. Cote: 1.	How many foreign payments have been made in the last five years in gold and how many in gold certificates?
2.	What was the annual average cost of transportation of gold payments shipped abroad?
3.	In what form is Canada reimbursed for its gold exports to foreign central banks, and is it with our imports?
4.	Does the Canadian exchange fund buy gold from the Royal Canadian Mint with money borrowed from chartered banks?
5.	What is the proportion of our payments abroad in gold as compared to our payments in paper money (bills, vouchers) ?


Mr. Graffiey:: 1. Nil.
2.	Average cost of shipping gold to New York over the last five years was 1.66 cents per fine ounce.
3.	Gold sold abroad by the exchange fund is paid for in U.S. dollars.
4.	No.
5.	Nil.
(Text):


CREATION OF &quot;INDIAN DAY&quot; IN CANADA
Mr. Brown: 
Mr. McGee:: 
* TELEVISION APPEARANCE OF ADRIEN ARCAND
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the C.B.C. bring Adrien Arcand from Quebec to Toronto for a television appearance within the last six weeks and, if so, was this appearance put on videotape, and has it been shown or is it to be shown to the public?
2.	If such a videotape exists and has not been shown, what were the factors that led the C.B.C. to kill such a viewing?
3.	Has Mr. Arcand been remunerated for his expenses and services?


Mr. Halpenny:: 1. Yes, the C.B.C. invited Mr. Adrien Arcand to go to Toronto, where a television interview was recorded. The interview has not been broadcast, and there are no plans for broadcasting it at present.
2.	The interview as recorded was not considered appropriate in relation to the program for which it was intended. It can possibly be used in some future program, and with this in view the recording is being retained on file.
3.	Yes.


INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ASSISTANCE GRANTS, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	What is the total amount of money committed by the national research council to industrial research assistance programs during the current fiscal year?
2.	What is the name of the company, and the amount and purpose of the grant in each case?


Mr. Churchill:: 1. $837,222.
2. The names of the companies and the amounts in each case are shown in the attached list.
Grants Awarded Under the Industrial Research Assistance Program as of 14 January 1963
Company	Amount
Union Carbide of Canada Ltd.	$25,600
Sherrit Gordon Mines Ltd.	30,000
John Inglis Co. Ltd.	56,250
Canadian Chemical Co. Ltd.	32,000
Canada Packers Ltd.	38,400
Anglo Paper Products Ltd.	12,500
Dominion Rubber Co. Ltd.	49,000
Industrial Cellulose Research Ltd.	19,000

Company	Amount
Maple Leaf Mills Ltd.	$10,000
Merck, Sharp & Dohme of Canada Ltd. 14,832 Dominion Engineering Works Ltd.	28,500
Ogilvie Flour Mills Co. Ltd.	12,000
Canada Carbon & Ribbon Ltd.	9,000
Canadian Aviation Electronics Ltd.	34,000
Shawinigan Chemicals Ltd.	80,000
Canadian Westinghouse Co. Ltd.	35,394
Duplate Canada Ltd.	12,233
Abitibi Power & Paper Co. Ltd.	5,700
Glidden Co. Ltd.	12,000
Dominion Tar & Chemical Co. Ltd.	19,'195
The Griffith Laboratories Ltd.	4,000
Bathurst Power & Paper Co. Ltd.	7,430
Ferranti-Packard Electric Ltd.	28,750
Brewing & Malting Barley Research
Institute	9,050
Northern Electric Co.	Ltd.	8,000Dow Chemical of Canada	Ltd.	10,288Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd.	35,642Abbott Laboratories Ltd.	20,875Canadian Refractories Ltd.	30^865John Labatt Ltd.	17'600Ayerst, McKenna & Harrison Ltd.	33'o00Johnson & Johnson Ltd.	8,400Delmar Chemicals Ltd.	8^500Automatic Electric (Canada) Ltd.	23-400Nuclear Enterprises Ltd.	5,000Frank W. Horner Ltd.	8,000Imperial Oil Ltd.	7'680Turbo Engineering Ltd.	13'600Canadian Technical Tape Ltd.	s'oOOHunting Survey Corp. Ltd.	2,778Rio Tinto Dow Ltd.	lo'ooo
Dominion Briquettes & Chemicals Ltd. 3,760
Iotal	$ 837,222


GRADE A HOG PREMIUM
Mr. Pennell: Will there be a restoration of the premium on grade A hogs in the near future and, if so, what is the anticipated date?


Mr. Jorgenson:: No decision has yet been made on the restoration of the premium on grade A hogs. However, this is a matter of continuing review and consideration.


MILITARY AID TO INDIA
Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	On what date between the Prime Minister's statement in the house on November 20 that India's requirements had not been finally determined and his announcement to the press in Nassau on December 21, was agreement actually reached among certain commonwealth countries including Canada and the United States regarding the amount of military aid to be given to India?
2.	Was any date agreed upon by the participating countries for the announcement of the amount of military aid to be given to India?
3.	What is Canada's share of this military aid?
4.	What items are to be supplied by Canada?
Orders for Returns


John George Diefenbaker: 1. During the past three months there have been consultations among the United States, Britain, Canada and other commonwealth countries which have been providing India with military assistance. In the discussions at Nassau it was felt that it would be desirable to bring together in one program all the assistance that had been provided and which might be provided in response to Indian requests. Britain and the United States, therefore, took the lead in proposing a systematic program. There is no formal agreement. The situation is rather that proposals have been made by Britain and the United States as to the size and shape of a program the United States and the commonwealth might undertake on a joint coordinated basis.
2.	As will be evident from the reply to the first question the matter of an agreed date did not arise.
3.	Discussions are continuing between certain commonwealth countries regarding their contributions to a joint program.
4.	What further items Canada might supply depends primarily on India's requirements and the nature of the requests received from India.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Legare: Has the Department of National Revenue or of Citizenship and Immigration instituted negotiations with the St-Come-de-Beauce Telephone Company concerning installation of a telephone system in the customs and immigration offices at Armstrong, Beauce county and, if so, what decision was reached?


George Ernest Halpenny: Return tabled.


QUEBEC-FEDERAL TAXES COLLECTED AND ESTIMATES APPORTIONED
Mr. Sauve: For each fiscal year from April 1, 1950 to March 31, 1962 (a) what was the total amount levied through direct and indirect taxation in the province of Quebec by the federal government (b) what was the total amount of the estimates of the federal government which were apportioned to the province of Quebec?


George Ernest Halpenny: Return tabled.


LETTERS FROM PERSONS REQUESTING EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Knowles: 1. Is it the practice of the Prime Minister's office, the office of the Minister of Labour and other cabinet ministers to have letters concerning employment referred to officials of the unemployment insurance commission?
3030	HOUSE OF
Denial of Access to Government Files
2.	Are the officials of the unemployment insurance commission requested to give preference in finding employment to persons writing cabinet ministers, or to persons whose letters are referred thereto by cabinet ministers?
3.	Does the Minister of Labour request from officials of the unemployment insurance commission reports from time to time concerning the finding of employment for persons referred to in part 2 above?
4.	Does the office of the Minister of Labour maintain a file of persons writing him, other cabinet ministers, and of persons whose letters are referred to his office until the unemployment insurance commission finds work for them?
5.	Does the chief commissioner of the unemployment insurance commission or any of his officials, retain a file on what is done in response to letters received as noted in part 2 above?
6.	How many letters have been handled by the office of the Minister of Labour from persons seeking employment during 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962?
7.	How many letters have been received by the unemployment insurance commission through the office of the Minister of Labour and other cabinet ministers, or referred through such offices, with respect to people seeking employment during 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962?
8.	Is preference given by the Minister of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission to persons writing to government supporters seeking employment?
9.	What is the policy of the government and the unemployment insurance commission, with respect to referring to employment, workers registered with the unemployment insurance commission offices, and are they referred on (a) the recommendation of the Minister of Labour and government supporters (b) their qualifications, or (c) the length of time of their registration with the unemployment insurance commission offices?



THE AUDITOR GENERAL


Mr, Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the report made to this house by the Auditor General to the effect that he was denied access to certain files, despite the provisions of the Financial Administration Act that notwithstanding any act he is entitled to free access to all files of every department and to all the information he may deem necessary to the proper performance of his duties.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that according to standing order 26 this is the proper time on a Wednesday to raise such a motion. I am sure the house will realize that what we are discussing here, or will be if Your Honour allows the motion, is a matter which is of concern to the House of Commons. My argument that this is urgent is that an officer of the


House of Commons, responsible to us, has reported to us that he has been denied a certain right to which, by statute, he is legally entitled. I feel that at the earliest possible opportunity this matter should be discussed by the House of Commons itself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word about the question of urgency of debate, which is the aspect that is in order at this moment. The house is well aware that as standard practice, a practice of long standing, with regard to either the observations or the recommendations of the Auditor General in his annual report to this house, there has been a motion introduced in this house to refer the report to the standing committee on public accounts. Then in that committee there is a detailed study with the assistance of the Auditor General, his staff and other competent witnesses, examining into the contents of the report.
It is the intention of the government to follow that normal procedure, Mr. Speaker, and to do so at the earliest possible opportunity. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there will be afforded to the house, as well as to the public accounts committee, all the necessary or desirable freedom of discussion in relation to anything the Auditor General may have chosen to say, rightly or wrongly, on this or any other subject. I suggest, therefore, that there is no urgency of debate in relation to this matter at this time.
Important business has been announced for the house this afternoon, announced last night. This business is urgently awaiting the attention of the house and I submit, therefore, there is no justification on the ground of urgency of debate to set aside the business that has been announced for today and turn to something for which there will be ample opportunity for discussion at the earliest possible date.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have nothing to say, except that since my name is mentioned in the report I want to concur in what my colleague the Minister of Justice has said about this matter. I should like to have it fully investigated, and I hope it will be, by the public accounts committee at the earliest possible moment. It cannot be dealt with satisfactorily by a debate here, since all the records are not available. I would hope that within the next few days the officers concerned including the Auditor General, the former minister of national revenue and anyone else, will have an opportunity of appearing before that committee and dealing satisfactorily and completely with the statement which appeared in the Auditor General's report.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance would be quite correct if the matter being raised had to do with expenditures, which could more properly be discussed in the public accounts committee. But what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has raised is the fact that an officer of this house, responsible to this house, has been debarred from carrying out responsibilities which by public statute he is authorized and empowered to carry out. Therefore the matter now being raised is not a matter of dealing with expenditures but with a denial of the right of an officer of this House of Commons to discharge his properly allocated responsibilities. We suggest this is a matter which ought to be discussed by the house at the earliest opportunity, and that should be today.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege I would like to say there has been no denial. That is why I want this matter to go before a committee where evidence can be introduced and not allegations which have no foundation of fact.


Mr. Horace A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group feel that this is a rather serious matter which has been raised, in that the Auditor General was denied access to certain files that he felt he needed to see in order to properly discharge his duties. However, we believe the proper procedure would be to refer this report to the public accounts committee at once, so that committee could call the Auditor General and other witnesses. Then when that committee reported back to the House of Commons we would know specifically what it is he thought he ought to have access to and the files to which he was denied access.
Our position is that we should have this report referred to the public accounts committee, and we urge that they take this matter up at once and call the Auditor General so that we shall know what we are talking about when we debate the matter in the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there is one other aspect of the matter to which I ought to have referred when addressing you earlier, and that is this. The observations of the Auditor General are contained in a report in which he reviews the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1962. His observations do not have anything whatever to do with anything of recent occurrence or anything that is current at this moment. He is drawing attention to something which occurred during the fiscal year 1961-62, and this is another reason why this matter can be just
Motions for Papers
as properly discussed tomorrow, the next day, or at any early date as the house decides. It is not going to change its nature, its position or its condition by following the usual course.
I might say also that if the house were prepared to give unanimous consent the government would be prepared to ask the house right now to pass the motion that is annually introduced to refer the public accounts, and the report of the Auditor General thereon, to the public accounts committee for study.


Mr. Speaker:: Examining the proposed motion I feel that it refers to a situation which has existed for some considerable time. Further, first in view of the fact that there may be a difference of opinion as to the legal effect of the two acts and second that I also would draw attention to the point that the question that is raised must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if this matter is not given immediate attention. With the greatest respect to the hon. member I feel that, whether certain files in the hands of a ministry have or have not been examined by the Auditor General does not raise in my mind such a matter of vital interest that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.
We know that in due course the report of the Auditor General will be referred to the public accounts committee, where witnesses may be summoned and questioned, which cannot be done at this time in this house, and that opinions of legal officers may be obtained, which also cannot be done at this time in this house. Further I would urge upon hon. members the fact that this is a most extraordinary remedy, to put aside the whole business of the house to discuss a matter of this nature, in other words to suggest that there is such great urgency of debate that the rest of the business of the house must wait.
I think on both these counts this motion does not meet the requirements of section 26; therefore I cannot accept it.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 59-Mr. Cowan:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence dated August 15, 1982 to December 1, 1962, between the government of Canada or any minister, department or agency thereof and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, respecting the contract for telecommunications for the approximately 195 radio stations, the previous ten-year contract having been replaced by a new contract effective October 1, 1962.
[Stage Direction]
Motions jor Papers
George Ernest Halpenny: Unfortunately I have not had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the hon. member for York-Humber. We have as yet not ascertained what correspondence relates to this subject, and I would therefore ask that the motion be allowed to stand until we know exactly what is involved.


Mr. Cowan:: When this motion was made I was assured they would be produced in one week's time. That was just before the Christmas recess.


George Ernest Halpenny: That is true and I must say "mea maxima culpa". I am to blame that this material is not here. However, I can assure the hon. member that he will have them very shortly.
Motion stands.



EDUCATION OF INDIAN POPULATION, TIMISKAMING CONSTITUENCY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 61-Mr. Peters:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence between the government of Canada, its officials and agents thereof and the government of Ontario, or its agents and other interested persons and organizations regarding the education of the Indian population in the riding of Timiskaming.
Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: The hon. member has kindly agreed to specify the period in which he is interested and to add to the motion the words "since January 1, 1960". Subject to this amendment, and the reservation with respect to privileged communications and the consent of the government of Ontario, there would be no objection to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member prepared to add those words?


Mr. Peters:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion as amended, subject to the reservations indicated by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 62-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any reports concerning the moving of the maintenance and overhaul base of Trans-Canada Air Lines from Winnipeg to Montreal obtained by T.C.A. from Wallace Clark or any other firms of consultants.
Mr. Balcer:: I have explained to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the management of the crown company concerned considers this to be an internal document.

However, there would be no objection to the production of a resume of the document if that is agreeable to the hon. member.


Mr. Knowles:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation indicated by the minister and accepted by the hon. member, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 63-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence received by the Minister of Labour directly, or referred to him by other cabinet ministers and members supporting the government, from persons seeking employment, and the replies thereto from the Minister of Labour or his office, dated since January 1, 1959.
Mr. Starr:: All files dealt with and completed for 1959 have been destroyed with the exception of those on which there has been recurrent correspondence. Available files on this subject number some 15,000, and in each of these files there are approximately from five to 20 letters, including replies from the minister.
This, we estimate, would involve some 150,000 copies of letters. If four copies were made of each letter, as required by this motion, the number of copies would be brought to over half a million. In view of this I suggest to the hon. member that in order to save the expense of this return he is welcome to come to my office and look through these files of letters if he wishes to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently there is a great deal more correspondence concerning the subject of unemployment than we have been led to believe. As to the minister's offer, I will consider it and withdraw the motion until I have done so.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



WINNIPEG


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 64-Mr. Knowles:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, dated since July 1, 1962, exchanged between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Winnipeg school board concerning the subject of smoking in relation to the health of school children.
Mr. Monteith:: I do not believe there is actually any such correspondence, but I am having this looked into. I wonder if, in the meantime, the motion might stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will let the motion stand, and I will show the minister a copy of a letter he has received.
Motion stands.



REGULATIONS RESPECTING EXECUTION OF DEATH SENTENCES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 65-Mr. Maiheson:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all regulations made by the governor in council pursuant to section 653 of the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to the execution of sentences of death.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Might I ask the hon. member to allow this motion to stand?


Mr. Maiheson:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of Ihe Opposilion):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the fact that tomorrow we shall be discussing defence policy on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the normal sequence of speeches could perhaps be changed so that immediately after the Secretary of State for External Affairs has introduced his estimates a statement could be made by the Minister of National Defence on defence policy. This would facilitate discussion by the house of this vitally important matter.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not for the Prime Minister to direct the sequence of the discussion tomorrow. It will be the regular sequence which has always been followed. The hon. gentleman will therefore have an early opportunity of placing before the house the views he has expressed outside the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that this is the first time within my knowledge that the affairs of two departments are to be discussed under the estimates of one department-a proposal made by the Prime Minister himself-does the right hon. gentleman not agree that the proposal I have made, if the opposition groups agree to it, is a reasonable one so that we might have a statement from the Minister of National Defence on defence policy?


John George Diefenbaker: It was in answer, I think, to a general request that an opportunity be given to hear the views of the house on the question of defence that I suggested that when the estimates of the Department of
Inquiries of the Ministry External Affairs were up for consideration, interrelated as, naturally, foreign affairs are with defence, there would be an opportunity for the opposition to give the house the benefit of its views.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex East: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that we have not had from the government for almost a full year, any statement with regard to national defence policy, will the minister say if it is his intention to make a statement in the external affairs debate tomorrow at the earliest opportunity so the country may know what position the government takes with regard to so vital a matter?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that hon. gentlemen opposite were so anxious to hear me speak. I should like to thank them for that interest. I think they can be assured that there will be a statement in connection with defence before the debate is ended, but why they should try to insist on when it should be made I do not know.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said earlier this afternoon that the government would be prepared, if they can get unanimous consent, to refer the Auditor General's report to the public accounts committee. May I ask whether the government is prepared to make such a motion? I would indicate that as far as this group is concerned we would be prepared to give our consent.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad the hon. gentleman has brought that up. I intended, in view of the discussion earlier, so to move, and with the consent of the house I would so move. I realize that this is not the proper time, and I will have to revert to motions, but I will move that the report of the Auditor General be transmitted to the public accounts committee. After questions are finished, if the house will agree, Mr. Speaker, that we revert to motions I shall so move.
(Translation):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Would the Prime Minister tell us when he intends to make his statement on the appointment of a royal commission on biculturalism?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I shall personally discuss that matter in the near future.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What do the words "in the near future" mean in the Prime Minister's mind?


John George Diefenbaker: In the near future.


Gilles Grégoire: Another supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder what else can be asked to explain the answer: "in the near future".


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Do the words "in the near future" mean more or less than a month?


Mr. Gilberl Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister tell us whether the inquiry on biculturalism will take place in the ten provinces of Canada?
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when a complete announcement is made covering that situation the information will be made available. However, I would point out this fact; that the idea of the government is, in the spirit of confederation, to convene a meeting of the various provinces and representatives of the provinces to the end that these provinces, representing as they do all four political parties, will be able to arrive at a conclusion mutually acceptable and consonant with the unity of our country.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. At that time, will the various groups concerned throughout the country be able to make representations during this conference between the ten provinces and the federal government?
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter for determination by the conference when it meets. I would not want to endeavour in the slightest degree to determine the course of such a conference. It will be one rather unusual in its nature and one that, for any decision to be made, will have to


be representative of the views generally of the premiers of the provinces and of the government of Canada at the conference.


Mr. Langlois:: Will that conference meet before the next election, so that we can have the Conservative party on that side?
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Prime Minister to ask him whether the premiers of the ten provinces have accepted to participate in the national conference on bilingualism?
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the invitations are now being prepared. There has been no suggestion yet on the part of the provinces as to what their reaction will be. However, having regard to the general feeling as evidenced in several previous dominion-provincial conferences, and also the conference that was called at the instance of the Minister of Justice with regard to the terms upon which we could repatriate our constitution, I am sure there will be general acceptance of the invitation. Indeed, the need for action along this line has been generally agreed for some time.
(Translation):


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. In the reply he gave earlier, the Prime Minister said that this will be done in the near future. Does this mean it will be tomorrow come never?
(Text):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter L. Gordon (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask this question of the Prime Minister, referring to the report of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 1962, and his need for additional staff. Will the Prime Minister request the unanimous consent of the house to permit the Auditor General, with the approval of the treasury board but without reference to the civil service commission, to recruit the small professional staff he requires to carry out his responsibilities to parliament?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, even if the house gave unanimous consent I am sure the hon.

gentleman would agree that such consent would be inoperative unless the Civil Service Act and probably the Financial Administration Act were amended. Certainly it has never been my experience that statutes had ever been changed in this house by the action of consent of the House of Commons, without reference to the other place.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether in his discussions with the Prime Minister of Great Britain at Nassau there was discussed the question of the restriction of coastal trade from the lower St. Lawrence to the head of the great lakes?
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to answer that off the cuff, but I have no recollection of that discussion having taken place.


Lionel Chevrier: Then could I ask a supplementary question. What is holding up the implementation of government policy as announced by the Minister of Transport on May 12, 1961, that the government had decided to limit the coastal trade from the lower St. Lawrence to the head of the great lakes?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, legislation in regard to this matter, and not necessarily directly concerned with this matter, is under consideration by the government.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES MEETING WITH GOVERNMENT RESPECTING TRANSFER OF FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. Teillel (Si. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should place this question before the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport, or perhaps the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I wonder whether we might be informed as to when the Manitoba delegation concerning the Trans-Canada Air Lines move will be met by the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The information I have is that the delegation will be here next Tuesday.



HOCKEY-INQUIRY AS TO GRANT TO TRAIL SMOKE EATERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address an almost em-
Inquiries of the Ministry barrassing question of urgent national importance to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a request from the interservice council of the city of Trail for financial assistance to the world champion Trail Smoke Eaters to go to Sweden early in March this year and, if so, is he giving favourable consideration to this request? These will be the representatives of Canada.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I think there have been suggestions by the Minister of Public Works to the effect that some consideration should be given in this regard. Certainly the advisory council under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act has advised that we contribute to the Canadian amateur hockey association, and this has been done, with a view to some further consideration possibly being given to the Trail Smoke Eaters.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder whether he could tell the house what is now standing in the way of an immediate reference to the committee on external affairs of the contents of the Columbia treaty.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government has been made perfectly clear on this question on various occasions. We have said that before we seek ratification of the treaty it will be referred to the standing committee.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is related to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing). Will the Prime Minister refuse to accept the resignation of the Minister of Public Works until he has had an opportunity to appear before the external affairs committee in order to explain his position with respect to the Columbia river treaty?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In so far as the resignation of any minister is concerned, I think the question is quite hypothetical. I therefore do not think the question should be allowed.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



RAILWAY BRANCH LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Sherwood H. Rideout (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has an invitation been extended to the maritime premiers to attend the meeting which is being held with the prairie premiers to discuss branch line abandonment?


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker, no such request has been received.
(Translation):


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Is the Prime Minister aware that Canada would have been consulted during the Cuban crisis if it had been a member of the Organization of American States?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a matter of opinion. (Text):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder whether the minister is in a position to give the house any information with respect to the alleged arms build-up in Cuba.


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. On Monday I asked the minister what steps his department was taking to protect Eskimos and other Canadians in northern Canada in view of the disclosure that fall-out had reached dangerous levels in that area. The minister was good enough to say he was moving as rapidly as possible to ascertain the facts. Has he anything to advise the house today with regard to that situation?


George Ernest Halpenny: >
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, may I take the question as notice.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister say if the government is prepared to introduce a contributory scheme of old age security modelled on the United States pattern, to the extent at least that such a plan is not precluded under section 94a of the British North America Act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, as is well
known by the hon. member for Essex East, the government has been considering this matter. As soon as a decision is reached the house will be informed in the usual manner.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is just the opposite of what the Prime Minister told the house.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question in view of the promise he made on December 6, 1962, that the report of the restrictive trade practices commission would be ready by the end of December, 1962. Is that report now ready for distribution. If not, what is holding it up?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the report is not yet completed. However, I am informed that I may expect to receive it any day now. It will, of course, be some time after that in the usual course before the report can be made ready for publication. I refer the hon. member to the terms of the statute in that regard.


Stanley Haidasz: I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the select committee on food and drugs will be meeting tomorrow in order to draw up its agenda, and as one of the problems to be discussed is the price of drugs, could the Minister of Justice offer the preliminary report to the members of the committee as soon as he has it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not possible. If the hon. member will look at the statute I think he will understand why.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Stewart (Aniigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. When the government arranged to co-operate with the Delaware and Hudson railway company and American Export Lines for the joint provision of immigration facilities at Lacolle, Quebec, as announced in this house on January 21, was it realized by the government that this arrangement almost certainly would be harmful to the ports of Halifax and Saint John, and what consideration led the government to proceed with these arrangements, nevertheless?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize the fact that not only is an opinion being expressed in the form of the question, but that he is also inviting argument. As a third count, I do not think the question is of that urgency that the informa-ion is required at the present time. If the hon. member will recast his question and put it on the order paper I think he will get a proper reply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman was asking a supplementary question about an answer which was given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in this house on Monday, which revealed that the department was getting financial assistance from a United States company in order to facilitate immigration through the port of New York, something which the hon. member suggests is to the detriment of Halifax and Saint John. It seems to me that is an urgent matter which the minister should be allowed to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry that I cannot share the opinion of the hon. member in this regard, that it should be answered at the present time.


Hon. Richard A. Bell (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: In view of the inference that has been drawn, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that there is no possibility of the ports of Halifax and Saint John suffering thereby.


Mr. Speaker:: We are now getting right into the argument that I anticipated.
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could the minister inquire from the C.B.C. why they have decided to hide from the public the fact that Mr. Georges Langlois, a reporter who is not known to be affiliated to any newspaper and who is an employee of the national Liberal federation, when he made comments on television last Monday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is expressing a controversial opinion.


Marcel Bourbonnais: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I feel that is inadmissible on the part of a crown corporation and I would ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no point of privilege here. Perhaps the hon. member could have his question placed on the order paper as long as it is properly phrased.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport? Could the minister tell the house whether the sub-committee of the boundary waters commission, established a few months ago to consider the dredging of the Richelieu river has begun its sittings and when it expects to be in a position to submit its report?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend should know that the boundary waters commission comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
(Text):


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, may I redirect my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the house whether the subcommittee of the international joint commission which was organized a couple of months ago to study the Champlain waterway has commenced its studies on the project, and is any first report to be expected?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to make inquiries about this matter.
3038	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry However, the report of a subcommittee like that would not be made to the house. I think the report would be made to the commission.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
the minister a supplementary question. Has the government given any consideration to amending the terms of the Boundary Waters Act in order to include in it certain economic and other matters, as suggested by the chairman thereof in a speech in Montreal recently?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no such intention at the present time.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) a question arising from the one I asked the Prime Minister about coastal trade?
Has he or has the government put an end to the discussions on coastal trade with the commonwealth countries?


Léon Balcer: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. Besides, I made reference to that matter in the house a few months ago.
(Text):



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Crossman (Kent, N.B.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister advise the house if the offer made by the hon. member for Charlotte to take over the expenses of having a customs office at Campobello is being considered?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this is very definitely not a question for orders of the day.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Is the minister prepared to make arrangements to have the report of the recent meeting of the international north Pacific fisheries commission referred to the marine and fisheries committee for its consideration at an early date?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question under advisement.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. In the light of the answer the minister gave yesterday to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, to the effect that she had not had any recent representations concerning the situation in the post office at Fort St. John, will she take another look at this matter if I send her a petition signed by 1,137 persons protesting the failure to reinstate certain employees.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I received a copy of the petition in the mail this morning.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. lady a supplementary question. Will she give consideration to the request set out in this petition?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the hon. member that this is a matter which was considered by the civil service commission and not by the Post Office Department.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
Righf Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, with leave of the house I would ask you to revert to motions now.
Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister seeks unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan)-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, could I make a request of the Prime Minister before he moves his motion? I wonder whether in his motion, in addition to referring the report of the Auditor General to the public accounts committee, he would include also the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1962.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I took the earlier recommendation. I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan):
That the public accounts, volumes 1, 2 and 3, and the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1962, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, normally, of course, this motion requires 48 hours' notice for the very good reason that this gives members of the house an opportunity to consider the matter and take part in any discussion which is required because a motion of this kind is debatable under standing order 32. Even if unanimous consent is given, and we are not refusing to give unanimous consent, this motion immediately becomes debatable. Therefore, if the hon. member who introduced a motion to adjourn the house earlier today sees fit and so desires he can, of course, discuss the matter on this motion. I call this to the attention of members of the house because we are now giving unanimous consent at the request of the government to a motion which now becomes debatable and we can do now what we were not able to do a few moments ago.


Michael Starr: That was a stroke of genius.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a word or two on this motion I should first like to thank the taller hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Mc-Cleave) for his suggestion that I might be preaching for a call. I can assure him that I have no interest in this particular position of Auditor General and I doubt very much that the members of his party would appoint me to that position.


Mr.   Mc@: I meant office boy, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do wish to say how important the position of the Auditor General is. It is a position to which the incumbent is appointed by the members of parliament and he is responsible to parliament. The audit that he carries out is one of the vital checks on the way public funds are expended. Another vital check, of course, is the review by this house of the departmental estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It may be that certain members are not interested in hearing what the hon. member has to say but at least the Chair is and the Chair would appreciate it if the hum of conversation could be moderated so that we can hear what the hon. member has to say.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If the Auditor General is hindered in any way at all, or for that matter if there should be any impediment placed on members of this house in their examination of departmental estimates, then parliament would be at the mercy of any government that might wish to take the law into its own hands.


Mr. Baldwin:: Like the last government.
Public Accounts Referred to Committee


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The Auditor General has been saying for some time that he needs more staff. If this request is not granted, and it has not been granted over quite some period of time, then the Auditor General cannot do his job properly. He cannot audit the books of the government properly. This is something that I am sure all members of parliament would take as a very serious impairment on their rights as members of this house.
I suggest that the establishment of the Auditor General should be reviewed regularly every year. Because if he has to make the kind of statements that he made in his annual report for the year ended March 31, 1962, if he has to say he is unable to get the kind of staff and a sufficiency of staff to do his job properly, then not unnaturally this creates suspicion as to whether public moneys are being spent properly and in accordance with the approval given by parliament. I understand that the Auditor General has made the request on more than one occasion to the public accounts committee that he should be permitted as an officer of parliament and with the approval of treasury board to recruit his own staff, which is a very small professional staff.
I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Now-lan) about this yesterday and he referred me to the Secretary of State (Mr. Halpenny), through whom it might be possible, at some time, to get some information from the civil service commission on this subject. Other hon. members have, during this session, asked for information from the Secretary of State about a number of things, and they have found that that information was not always forthcoming very quickly. It takes some time and some prodding. We have had an example today of the fact it takes a great deal of prodding to get this kind of information.
In the meantime, the Auditor General is not in a position to get on with his job. It has been suggested that the Auditor General has not found the civil service commission too co-operative in so far as his requests are concerned. I understand that the civil service commission is now advertising for staff for the Auditor General, but the salary scales proposed are not likely to attract very many qualified members of the profession to which some of us belong. If this situation continues, we will find the Auditor General is simply not in a position to do the work we rely on him to do.
I have had some experience in this matter of auditing. I can say from my experience that it is not possible for a man, with the kind of responsibility we expect this servant of parliament to accept, to do his job unless he
3040	HOUSE OF
Public Accounts Referred to Committee has not only sufficient staff but a well qualified staff. I thought, therefore, it would not be considered an unusual request on my part to suggest to the Prime Minister that he should facilitate the Auditor General's request to obtain this staff.
The Prime Minister did not see fit to comply with my request. Perhaps, therefore, in speaking on this motion I may put it in a slightly different form. I suggest that the Prime Minister should use his best influence to see that the necessary qualified staff is provided to the Auditor General and without delay. If the Prime Minister wishes to pass this request along to the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance takes it seriously as I think he should, something would be done and done quickly. It is because I feel so strongly on this particular point, Mr. Speaker, that I decided to speak on this motion. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not in the house. I hope he will read Hansard, and I hope he will do something about this matter.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: should like to make a few comments on this motion that has been brought before the house, Mr. Speaker. We in this party agree with what the Auditor General had to say in his report concerning the withholding of files containing information relating to the indebtedness of some people to the crown. We do feel, as the Auditor General has pointed out, that all moneys must be fully accounted for, and that the rules and procedures followed should be efficient in procuring an effective check on the expenditures and receipts of the Receiver General of Canada.
We do not, however, believe that we can effectively investigate this matter during this debate. It would be better, in our opinion, if we were to have this matter discussed in the committee stage or in the committee on public accounts. Then, we could call the Auditor General and ascertain from him exactly what the total amounts were that were involved and the reasons he felt these files were required in order to enable him to make a complete statement of all public moneys. Then, perhaps, in this committee we could call the members of the treasury board who approved the withholding of these files. We feel all this would be necessary so that we would know why they deemed it necessary to give permission to withhold the files from the Auditor General when he was making his report.
In closing, I just want to say we feel this matter can be more effectively investigated if we go to the committee first, then take the committee report back to the house and debate it. May I say a word or two about the matter of staff? We in this group realize, too,


that it is necessary to have sufficient competent staff to audit the books of the federal government. If the Auditor General can indicate to our satisfaction that he does not have a sufficient number of competent people, then we should take whatever remedial action is necessary to ensure that this staff is provided for him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I get an invitation from some other comer of the house to make a speech. Although it has happened before, I appreciate it very much, coming as it did today from the Leader of the Opposition. In return for his generosity in pointing out that I now have the right to make the remarks I sought to make earlier, I should point out to other members of the house that on the Prime Minister's motion much more is in order by way of debate than would have been in order on the motion I sought to make. I sought to raise for discussion simply one question, one which to me is the most serious point raised in the Auditor General's report; but under the terms of the Prime Minister's motion hon. members can debate anything that is brought before us in the Auditor General's report that we now have, and in the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1962.
However, Mr. Speaker, I wish to take only a few minutes to emphasize the seriousness of the point that the Auditor General has made in paragraph 95, on page 42 of his report to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1962. As a matter of fact I think this paragraph of the Auditor General's report should be on the record. It reads as follows:
Access to taxation collection files refused. In December 1961 the treasury board approved the withholding of amounts payable to three taxpayers to be applied towards reduction of their indebtedness to the crown with respect to income tax for the years 1954 to 1960. As such a step indicated a failure of normal collection procedure, we requested the relative head office collection files for audit examination. On the instructions of the Minister of National Revenue-
The minister of national revenue at that time was the hon. gentleman who is now the Minister of Finance.
-these files were not made available to us by the taxation division and we were informed that the minister intended seeking the opinion of the Department of Justice with respect to our right of access to such files. Up to the date of this report we have not been advised regarding any such opinion although we directed inquiries to the taxation division on two subsequent occasions.
The issue here, and this is the reason I raised it, relates not just to three particular files which, as Your Honour pointed out, go back a number of years. The issue before us

Public Accounts Referred to Committee
here is whether or not an officer responsible to the House of Commons is being impeded in the exercise of his duties by a member of the executive, the present Minister of Finance, the former minister of national revenue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some question in my mind about the exact relevancy of discussing in detail any and all features of the Auditor General's report on a motion to refer to a committee. I feel that it does not make too much logic, and I would draw attention to hon. members that it has been said many times to the house that the whole contents of a subject cannot be canvassed on a motion to refer to a committee, nor can those things in detail which might be raised regarding it.
I think we have had many precedents in that regard and I feel that it would be illogical to discuss and debate beforehand, before the hearing of evidence, and engage in any conclusive debate on the subject matter of it. The matter before us is the advisability of referring a certain report to a certain committee, and if hon. members will limit themselves to that we shall make better progress.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I will not take any time to argue with your ruling because what I want to say can be said within the four corners of what you have ruled. It is in order under standing order 32 to debate a motion "for reference to a committee of a report or any return laid on the table of the house." That is what I am now doing, and I am arguing that one of the reasons why this report of the Auditor General should be referred to the committee on public accounts for immediate examination is that the report brings to our attention what, in my view, is a serious interference with the rights and privileges of an officer responsible to this House of Commons.
It is not necessary for me to make any further reference to the report of the Auditor General for the purpose of making my argument, but I feel that this is the place, here on the floor of the House of Commons, where it should be drawn to the attention of the committee that we as members of the House of Commons regard this matter as very serious.
The Financial Administration Act was passed by the House of Commons, as well as by the other place, and it is on our statute books. Under the Financial Administration Act, section 65 and the sections following, the position of Auditor General is created, and one of the sections in this part of the Financial Administration Act sets out his rights in very clear language. It is section 66 (1) which says:
Nothwithstanding any act-
Please note that there are no exclusions.
-the Auditor General is entitled to free access at all convenient times to all files, documents and other records relating to the accounts of every department, and he is also entitled to require and receive from members of the public service such information, reports and explanations as he may deem necessary for the proper performance of his duties.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that right of an officer of this house is very clear, that he has the right to have free access to all files of any department at any time, and that he has the right to require and receive whatever explanations he needs in order to pursue his duties. According to press reports the objection of the former minister of national1 revenue, the present Minister of Finance, to this request was based on a provision in the Income Tax Act. That provision is also quite clear. It is section 133 of the Income Tax Act which reads as follows:
Every person who, while employed in the service of Her Majesty, has communicated or allowed to be communicated to a person not legally entitled thereto any information obtained under this act or has allowed any such person to inspect or have access to any written statements furnished under this act is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $200.
I submit that you do not have to have a course in law to put those two sections of those two acts together to see what they mean. The section in the Income Tax Act is the well known section regarding secrecy of information obtained by the income tax department, and it is very clear that the limitation is against giving information to anyone not legally entitled thereto. But the Auditor General is not one of the persons not entitled to such information. On the contrary, by statute passed by the House of Commons, the Financial Administration Act, he is legally entitled "notwithstanding any act" to get any information he needs to pursue his duties.
I submit therefore that what has happened is that a privilege of the House of Commons- because after all it is to the House of Commons that the Auditor General reports-has been transgressed in that an officer responsible to-the house has been denied, by a member of the cabinet, a right provided in a statute which we have passed.
As a matter of fact this denial of that right to the Auditor General has been compounded by the fact he was told, according to what he tells us, that the matter was being referred to. the Department of Justice for a ruling, but despite the lapse of considerable time he had not been advised what the ruling of the Department of Justice was. I submit that here again-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think for the edification of hon. members I should read a ruling
3042	HOUSE OF
Public Accounts Referred to Committee in this regard made by my predecessor on this particular point towards which I sense the debate is now drifting. This will be found in volume III of the 1960 Hansard, the report of the proceedings for March 29, 1960, at page 2558, where Mr. Speaker Michener is reported as saying:
I ask the hon. member whether he is not debating the issue as though it were being decided here. All we are deciding in this motion is whether the matter should be referred to a committee which will be able to hear evidence and report back. I do not want to narrow the debate too much, because one must understand the purpose and what problem is to be referred to the committee. I hope the hon. member will not attempt to settle here the problem which the house is referring to a committee.
Within this limitation I think the hon. member will recognize how far he can go.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with all respect I feel my arguments thus far, and the arguments I should like to advance for another moment or two, are within the four corners of the ruling you have cited. I am supporting the Prime Minister's resolution. I am endeavouring to show cause why that resolution should be supported unanimously, and why this report should be referred to the public accounts committee. I am not taking time to go through the whole report to bring up all the interesting items that are in it and which have made the headlines. Rather I have seized on the point in connection with which the privileges of the entire House of Commons have, in my belief, been abridged by an action of the former minister of national revenue.
As I was saying when you interrupted me, I feel this has been compounded by the statement that this was referred to the Department of Justice for a ruling. In other words one cabinet minister is getting an opinion from another cabinet minister as to whether or not he has a right to deny to an officer responsible to the House of Commons something that is provided in an act passed by the House of Commons. That is really all I wanted to say when I tried to bring this subject before the house earlier under standing order 26. I was anxious that the house itself, through at least one of its members might have a chance to express the view that our rights as members have been overridden by this action. I contend that this matter should be thoroughly investigated by the public accounts committee and I support wholeheartedly the Prime Minister's motion that the public accounts and the report of the Auditor General be referred to that committee.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I say a few words? I rise because I have had an unusual length of experience on committees dealing with public accounts. It was my privilege as a member of the provincial legislature to be a member of the public accounts committee for 20 years and in my ten years in this House of Commons I have been a member of the public accounts committee ever since there was one. In addition, I have always been a member of the steering committee.
I think the public accounts committee of this house, a committee made up of members of all parties, is a committee of which all hon. members can be proud. It is a committee which accepts fully the responsibilities assigned to it by the House of Commons. That is my sincere belief, and I am very proud of the work of the public accounts committee, particularly in the past four years. We now have to consider matters of major importance not only to the public but to members of this house. I believe we should not discuss technical or legal interpretations, or deal in platitudes and generalities. A motion is before us which places on the public accounts committee the responsibility for going over the public accounts and the report of the Auditor General. If my experience in the future as a member of the public accounts committee turns out to be the same as in the past, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the public accounts committee will accept this responsibility in its entirety and will make a report to this house in all honesty and decency.


George Clyde Nowlan: Perhaps I should say a word in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I do not want to sit here and, by my silence, have anyone think for one second that I agree in any way that the hon. member was correct at all in the inferences he drew from the report.
I do agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) that the proper thing to do is to refer this matter to a committee where the facts can be brought out. The matter can be reasonably discussed thereafter in the house.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I simply want to make this point, that as far as I can recollect

and I am relying on newspaper reports; I do not have the Auditor General's report here dealing specifically with what might be involved in these tax claims and tax files-it was the minister himself who was responsible for casting a cloud on all members of parliament because it was he, not

the Auditor General, who said that some of the files involved referred to members of parliament.
There are people all across Canada who are sometimes in difficulties over paying their income taxes and great damage will be done to the whole country I feel, if there is any possible suggestion that any special concession in connection with payment of income tax is rendered to members of parliament. Certainly, that has not been my experience. But I want to point out it is the minister himself who has put us all under a cloud in this respect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 19, 1962, consideration in committee of Bill C-91, to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act-Mr. Balcer-Mr. Paul in the chair.
On clause 1-Extension of time.
Léon Balcer: I do not intend to make a formal presentation at the present time. I just want to remind hon. members that the house had an opportunity to debate the subject matter of this bill at the time the resolution was considered and that the measure had been studied clause by clause by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. At that time the representatives of the various interests concerned appeared before the committee as well as officers of the crown, of the board of transport commissioners and of my department, and expressed their views. They were questioned at length and a great deal of documentation was produced. I think the whole matter has been gone into thoroughly and I hope, therefore, that hon. members will give their assent and support to this bill which is only an interim measure pending legislation on the MacPherson committee report which will be brought before the house in a very short time.


Mr. Turner:: On behalf of this side of the house I should like to address a few words to the committee explaining our attitude on this side in general and, if I am given the time, my own attitude in particular in connection with this amendment to the Freight Rates Reduction Act.
The purpose of the original act in 1959 was set forth by the minister in his initial statement on this matter when he told us it was to compensate shippers in western Canada and the maritimes for the 17 per cent freight rate increase which was authorized by the board of transport commissioners in 1958. As
Freight Rates Reduction Act a result of that act, a subsidy of a maximum of $20 million was authorized to allow the board to roll back the 17 per cent increase in favour of shippers, and on August 1, 1959, the board authorized a rollback from 17 per cent to 10 per cent. Later, on May 6, 1960, a rollback was made from 10 to 8 per cent. As a result, this legislation achieved a reduction for shippers in non-competitive rates of 9 per cent, that is, from 17 per cent to 8 per cent. Subsidies were paid under this act amounting to $20 million in 1959 and a further $15 million under the amendment of 1960. In 1961 there was a further $20 million; and the minister is now coming before this committee to ask for a further subsidy or third extension of $20 million, for a maximum of $75 million paid as subsidy to shippers moving traffic under commodity rates.
I should like to stress to the committee at this stage, Mr. Chairman, in order that we might analyse the effect of this extension and the effect of this act with respect to the competition between trucking and rail, that the subsidies are limited to what are known as non-competitive rates; that is to say, they are limited to commodity and class rates. The committee ought not to be confused, if I may say so with respect, over competition arising between trucking and rail, because in the main this act does not apply to rates which are made competitive by the railways in order to meet truck or water competition. A railway rate becomes competitive when the railway lowers the rate or makes a co-charge with the shipper to meet truck competition or to meet water competition. When that rate becomes competitive under the act, this subsidy does not apply. In other words, where the railways have made competitive rates in order to meet truck competition, the subsidies under this act do not go to the shippers and are not refunded to the railways.
The purpose of the amendment was outlined by the minister in his opening statement to this committee some time ago. The original act expired on April 30, 1962; and the amendment is to extend the provisions of the act to April 30, 1963. A secondary purpose is to authorize, as I have said, further subsidies of $20 million, and to authorize payment to the railways for the lower rate they have been giving shippers since April, 1962. The minister characterized this as temporary legislation which would have to do until more formal reforming legislation flowing from the MacPherson report was brought before the house. Our view of this legislation was very ably set forth by my learned friend the hon. member for Laurier

Freight Rates Reduction Act when he made his initial statement on behalf of our party at the outset of the debate before this committee. We take issue, of course, with the terminology that this is an extension of an existing act. This is a revival of an act which has already expired. In other words, at the moment, there is no legislation justifying these lower rates which shippers in western Canada and the maritimes are receiving from the railways, because the act, as I said, expired on April 30, 1962.
The railways, in accordance with an understanding with the government, have been granting the lower rates to shippers in the hope that this house will pass the amendment to the act. This is a bit of retroactive legislation to justify something which should have been done almost a year ago, and to bail the government out of a position where they will have to relieve the railways of somewhere between $15 million and $20 million paid in anticipation of legislation which at the time did not exist, nor does it now exist.
I suggest to the committee that this is just another instance, another example, of what has been happening in this house, where we are being called upon by the government to pass payments of money when it is really too late for us to do anything about it. It is seeking to bar the door when the horse has already escaped. We have had to pass interim supply which we have not seen, as well as estimates; and we are now being asked to justify payments of $20 million when most of that money has already been spent. A further extension will be needed on April 30, 1963; so that if this amendment is passed by this house in the next few days, the minister will again be obliged to come before us in about three months to ask for a further extension.
The minister said that this was temporary legislation; but it is legislation which has been renewed piecemeal year by year since
1959.	He said it is temporary legislation until the MacPherson report can be implemented. But, Mr. Chairman, the MacPherson report recommended the abolition of the present equalization policy and the abolition of the yery type of subsidy which is symbolized by this statute. In other words, the minister says: "Wait until the MacPherson report"; and the MacPherson report has recommended the abolition of this subsidy. I fail, with the greatest respect, to understand the logic behind what he says.
As my hon. friend for Laurier pointed out, this act continues to subsidize a wage increase because the motive behind it was to allow the railways the revenue with which to meet the railway employee wage increase in 1958, without similar benefit to the shippers. In


other words, the government has been put into the position where it is subsidizing a wage increase on behalf of the two railway systems of this country.
Finally, the purpose of this act should have been to benefit solely the maritimes and western shippers. But as the Canadian trucking association pointed out very conclusively, the benefits of this act are indiscriminate. Nowhere does it say which shippers are to benefit; it is limited merely to shippers moving goods under non-commodity and nonclass rates. In other words, some benefits have accrued to the central provinces when I feel sure that that was not the original purpose of the statute. Nor is there any attempt in the act to give a definition to "competitive rate" in order to clarify the problem which the truckers brought before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, whereby they contended that the subsidies really affect competitive rates to their detriment, as well as the non-competitive rates.
(Translation):
My friends sitting on my left have claimed, before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, that they had serious objection to this legislation. They offered some reasons, but I respectfully submit that they were unfounded. Allow me to recall the objections raised by my Social Credit friends, which were the following:
First, the subsidies granted to both railways were harmful to private enterprise.
Second, those subsidies have favoured both Quebec railways at the expense of truckers.
If I may be allowed to deal briefly with those two objections, I must say, first of all, that there are now serious problems, affecting the trucking industry in the province of Quebec, which are the result of the exploitation of subsidiary trucking companies by the railways. But this bill in particular does not touch upon that problem. Actually, the subsidies are granted to shippers. Second, truckers of the central provinces are not affected in the same way as those of the maritime provinces or of the western provinces, because the rates charged by most railways in the province of Quebec are competitive.
Therefore, they do not come under this legislation.
The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) has admitted himself that the grants were beneficial to the shippers and that the truckers were not directly involved.
(Text):
Chief Commissioner Kerr, who testified before the standing committee, said that so far

as piggy back shipments were concerned, the subsidy only went to that part of the shipment which went by rail and was not paid on the part which went by truck. Looking at the problem particularly from the point of view of the truckers in the province of Quebec, first of all the subsidy is paid to the shipper, Second, the truckers in that province are mostly competing against the railway in the competitive rate range, so that the act in question is not the act which my hon. friends want to attack if they are objecting to the railways moving in on the trucking industry in the province of Quebec.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) allow me a question?
I am trying to find out, in the event that this tariff reduction is granted to the shipper, if he has the right or privilege to choose the means of transportation? Can he choose between the railways and a trucking company?


John Napier Turner: In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), I can say that he is right and that at the present time, under the act, the shipper can only use the railways. But later I will propose an amendment recommending that the subsidies be paid to the shipper, in all cases, whether he is shipping by truck or rail. That could bring up administrative problems but, personally, I am of the opinion that we must study the matter and try to give the shipper that alternative, under the provisions of the same act.
(Text):
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should like to get down to the very important opposition taken to the extension of this act by the Canadian trucking association. It is an opposition which concerned every member sitting on the standing committee and gave us pause as to whether this legislation ought again to be extended. The testimony of Mr. John Magee, executive secretary of the Canadian trucking association was for me very persuasive, and from comments made to me by other members of the committee I gathered that they as well were very much impressed. The principal argument of the Canadian trucking association was that the non-competitive rates set by the railways which profit from this subsidy are really no longer non-competitive rates but would be competitive if thrown open to active competition without the benefit of a subsidy. In other words, what they said was that the present height or standard of the rate is such that it already competes with the trucking industry, and that the
Freight Rates Reduction Act trucking industry is therefore impeded in free competition because the railway is allowed to maintain an artificially low rate as a result of the subsidy.
The Canadian trucking association argues that if the present subsidy were withdrawn, many of the present so-called non-competitive rates benefiting from the subsidy would be in effect competitive rates and the railways would be forced to and would be able to reduce them. This was indicated, said Mr. Magee, by the fact that in the past three or four years the area of non-competitive rates has been steadily lowered until the non-competitive rate has become what he termed "a vanishing breed." His argument is that if this legislation were withdrawn the vanishing breed would be close to suicide and that the non-competitive rate would disappear from the traffic.
In answer to his arguments, and while admitting that there is great merit in them, I would say that if the non-competitive rate is a vanishing breed or if the non-competitive rate is disappearing, then the trucking industry has less to fear from this legislation than it had three years ago in the sense that if more and more of the rates are becoming competitive, then fewer and fewer of the rates are being subsidized and more of the rates are being opened to free competition between trucking and rail unsupported by any subsidy.
Furthermore, Mr. Chief Commissioner Kerr estimated that the trucking industry was currently carrying only 5 per cent of the goods moving under commodity and class rates. In other words, only 5 per cent of the traffic carried by the railways under the subsidized rates is being competed for by the trucks. Mr. Montague, the economic adviser to the Canadian trucking association, was unable to produce any concrete evidence to rebut that estimate, although he would put the figure closer to 10 per cent or 15 per cent. If this is so, it means that the handicaps complained of by the trucking industry in so far as this particular legislation is concerned-and I am not talking about the no-strings-attached general subsidy but only about this particular legislation-are not as great as they would have us believe. If only 5 per cent of 10 per cent of the traffic open to trucks is affected, their complaint is not as severe as they would have us believe. On the other hand, if only 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the traffic is being affected, if this House of Commons were not to pass this legislation it would mean that 90 per cent of the traffic would move from a 9 per cent rate to a 17 per cent rate because there would be no competitive trucking able to force the rate down. In other

Freight Rates Reduction Act words, shippers in western Canada or shippers in the maritimes would be forced immediately for about 90 per cent of the traffic to pay the higher 9 per cent differential.
The second argument of the trucking association was that this subsidy prolongs the railways' monopoly, and is a subsidy paid to one mode of transport to the detriment of other modes of transport, or, in other words, the subsidy is only open to shippers who use the railways; and that was the point raised by my hon. friend from Lapointe. In other words, the subsidy allows the railways, so the truckers say, to lower their rates in other areas. They say the money the railways get from the subsidies under this legislation allows them, for instance, to meet competition with trucks under agreed charges by giving them more revenue to divert into other cost factors of their operation. I suppose the answer to that might be that much of the Canadian trucking association's brief relating to this railway monopoly problem went to the general subsidy question, or to the no-strings-attached $50 million subsidy.
It would be my respectful opinion that the argument raised by the trucking association had less pertinence or less immediate application to this particular legislation. But if this subsidy is to be continued further; if the MacPherson report is perpetually to evade us in this House of Commons; if the legislation incorporating a new freight rate policy for this country is not to be brought down by the government; if the house is to be faced with a further extension of this act in three months, then the suggestion made by the trucking association last year is one which I personally find very attractive and which obviously my hon. friend from Lapointe finds attractive; namely, that the Department of Transport should investigate the possibility of transferring the application of the subsidy to the shipper, so that the shipper could choose between railway or trucking, and so that the shipper would be allowed to use the low cost mode of transport and receive the subsidy. In other words, if the purpose of the legislation is to aid the shipper and not to subsidize the railways, then to my mind it is conceivable that the shipper ought to be able to choose the mode of transport.
There is a second general comment I should like to make personally-and I stress the fact that the comment I have made about the subsidy going to the shipper rather than to the railway is my own personal comment- and that is that interprovincial and international trucking should be regulated by the same board by which railways are regulated. If, as is unquestioned, the federal government


has jurisdiction over extraprovincial or interprovincial and international trucking under the Winner case of 1954 which went to the privy council, and if at the moment the provincial transport boards are only handling this jurisdiction over interprovincial trucking because of the federal Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1954, whereby the federal government gave jurisdiction to provincial boards to handle this matter; if that is so, there would be no legal bar to the federal government again enacting legislation to assume jurisdiction over federal trucking. If the MacPherson report is to be implemented, if competition in transport is to be freed as between rail and trucking, it would seem logical that the same board ought to administer both sets of rates and both modes of transport. At the moment we have no unity and no consistency in the regulation of rail rates as opposed to the regulation of trucking. If the board of transport commissioners were to be given jurisdiction not only over rail and water transportation, as it has today, but over trucks as well, we would have a central regulatory body controlling all means of ground and water transportation.
I put this suggestion to Mr. Magee when he was before the standing committee, and his objection to it was that the trucking industry did not think that the board of transport commissioners had among its membership anybody familiar with the trucking industry. I know that many trucking people, when they do get before the board, feel that the board is weighted in favour of railways as against trucks. My suggestion to him then and to the committee now is that this would be quite simple to remedy. If the board were to be given the wider jurisdiction I suggest, it would be quite easy to appoint additional members to it who were familiar with the trucking industry. It would be a procedural point only, and I think the interests of rail, truck and water transportation could be dealt with quite fairly within the same forum. Goodness knows, we have had a proliferation of boards introduced at the present session, and if the minister were to undertake to reverse this trend of boards forever, if the minister were to institute a measure whereby federal trucking would be brought under one single board and the same board that regulates its competition, I think he would be doing a service to the country.
Our position then is that we will not oppose this legislation and the extension of the act, because if we did the dislocation to western shippers and maritime shippers would be immediately so severe as to impose serious pressure on people moving goods in those parts of the country. Second, we have a

situation where the railways have already disbursed between $15 million and $20 million to shippers under commodity and class rates covered by the subsidy in anticipation of this legislation. We have been put in the position where we are almost forced to pass it in fairness to a mode of transportation that has relied upon the government to back it up. Third, the non-competitive rates subsidized by this legislation are disappearing. As a result, the area where the subsidy operates to the detriment of the trucker is diminishing. Therefore, with a clear conscience and in the hope that more general legislation will eventually be forthcoming, we are prepared to accede to the minister's request to adopt the bill.
(Translation):


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I cannot help voicing once more the objections I put forward every time this Bill C-91 was discussed in the railways, air lines and shipping committee. In fact we, of the Social Credit party had intended, during the sittings of the sessional committee, to move certain amendments which could have saved much of the time of the house if there had been time to discuss them. At the first sitting of the committee, the discussion was quite free. At the second sitting, it was more restricted. At that time, both sides seemed to be more on the defensive. But at the third sitting, on Monday, December 17, 1962, we saw the two old parties and the socialists take advantage of their experience in camouflage and of our first steps in committee work to pull a fast one.
I was present at that sitting of the committee. The question was raised as to whether we would have a quorum or not. The hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger), for whom I was waiting to direct the discussion, had just walked into the room when the chairman announced the opening of the sitting. The whole thing had been arranged by the masters of the three groups which, in the usual manner, had decided that this amount of $75 million granted to the C.N.R. would be passed and, without consideration for the citizens who pay taxes, with a view to making up for the extravagant deficits of a crown corporation run by the most inefficient and arrogant persons I have ever seen in my life.
And after that, you, the members of the old line parties and the socialists, you will cry out to the people, who are finding out about you today, that you are the defenders of private enterprise. You will tell the builders
Freight Rates Reduction Act of private enterprise, the champions of free enterprise, that you protected them. You Conservative gentlemen, you are entitled to all of Donald Gordon's gratitude. You Liberal gentlemen hasten to demand an election, so that the people may expose your cheating. Administration for you is simply a joke. As far as you are concerned to administer is to hoodwink the people, to hide everything from them and then to accuse them of ignorance when they vote intelligently.
Mr. Chairman, at that memorable sitting which lasted only two and a half minutes, because everything was passed in two minutes, whereas it would have been advisable to extend the discussion, we adjourned proud of having once more served the financial community. It was another victory over the people represented by the Social Credit party. All that led to the approval of Bill C-91 included only two clauses: namely an extension of the rate reduction, and an increase of $20 million in the expenditures authorized by the legislation.
That increase of $20 million is not much, Mr. Chairman, but it will help to destroy private enterprise.
I should like first to mention casually that I do not believe in the "temporary" legislation which is extended every year. In my opinion, it is merely a smokescreen to hide the real causes of the C.N.R.'s deficits. This government is so used to taxing Canadian workers that whenever an agency takes it upon itself to help overtaxed people, the speediest means are taken to get rid of it.
To extricate themselves from this muddle, they will go from town to town, and from village to village, singing loudly the praise of private enterprise.
Mr. Chairman, by supporting unconditionally Bill C-91 which was then being studied by the sessional committee, the representatives of the three parties proved in the most glaring fashion their incompetence and their thoughtlessness.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The hon. member is not allowed to impute motives to his colleagues in a parliamentary committee, nor to pass remarks upon their attitude or their behaviour. He cannot formulate any criticism about their position on the problems studied in the house or in a committee. I hope therefore that the hon. member will be kind enough to express his views without making any disparaging remarks about his colleagues who sat on the sessional committee on railways.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, if I have a few bitter remarks to make here, it is because we feel that there has been an encroachment

Freight Rates Reduction Act upon our rights and, in my opinion, the house is the only place for us to voice our protests when we cannot do it elsewhere.
Translation was not even provided at the sittings of the committee. In fact, after every sentence, we had to ask for a translation into French in order to understand, and parliament takes no account of that. That is why I was entirely dissatisfied with the committee's proceedings.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The debate must be somewhat orderly.
The hon. member for Roberval claims that the sessional committee on railroads to which this bill was referred, did not act democratically, had no regard for French Canada, etc. And what are the facts? The witnesses appeared before the committee, and each time any member of the committee who wished to speak in French could do so in all freedom and without any limitation.
In fact, when a reply was given in English we had interpreters to translate it.
The hon. member was perhaps frustrated because of having arrived too late to make certain representations, but, in my opinion, he cannot blame anyone but himself.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I remember that a question was asked in French, and the minister replied there was no translator at the time. In fact, it is only after that incident that one was provided.


Rémi Paul: Order. When the committee of the whole house is considering a bill, the subject matter of the bill must be adhered to, and no comments may be made on the behaviour of members nor an analysis made of the events which went on during the proceedings of another committee.
We are now considering the principle of Bill C-91, whose purpose is to extend for a period of one year the revised freight rates. Now, hon. members may express their opinion on the principle of the bill, but I think it is contrary to standing orders to make comments or discuss the way in which the debates proceeded in another committee, or the treatment given certain members during the consideration of the bill in committee. Consequently, I would invite the hon. member for Roberval to remain within the scope of the discussion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order and since you have allowed the Minister of Transport to complete his remarks, I

feel it would have been quite in order to allow the hon. member for Roberval to do the same.


Rémi Paul: Order. The remarks I made were addressed both to the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) and to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer).


Gilles Grégoire: However, Mr. Chairman, you have allowed the Minister of Transport to finish his remarks, while you have not allowed the hon. member for Roberval the same privilege.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, to follow up your point of order, I was saying that at the first meeting of the committee, the minister stated that there was no translator, and it is only after that that we succeeded in obtaining the services of one.


Rémi Paul: Order. It is out of
order here to deal with the way the proceedings developed in the sessional committee on railways.
The house is now considering the principle of a section of a bill and the discussion must be related and relevant to this question.
Once again, I ask the hon. members who take part in this debate to restrict their remarks to the bill under discussion.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only wanted to say a few words, because I was subjected to a personal attack, whereas we were told that we had the right to speak French in committee.
But what I wanted to point out to the minister is that in order to get a word in French from the English speaking members, we had to ask for the translation at every single line.
Mr. Chairman, since we are dealing with the reduction of freight rates with regard to the shippers, X should like to prove to the house that it is the Canadian National which will eventually benefit from the subsidies that are voted. On the other hand, if such an amount of money is passed, it is absolutely necessary to know why, because, once again, I am convinced that that amount of money is not granted so much for the benefit of the shippers as to make up the deficit of the Canadian National Railways. In fact, I have come to wonder if an inquiry should not be made into the management of the C.N.R. because it can even be asked if those high officials are at least aware of the meaning of good service in transportation.
Mr. Gordon and his associates, protected by the various governments, could even be

asked if they know that the main requisite in transportation is to give the customers good service, in order to avoid deficits.
Mr. Gordon could also be asked if he really tries to ensure, by every possible means and in all departments, the service required in the transportation of goods and passengers.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, I doubt it so much and I have so much evidence that I am obliged to say no. Take for instance the case of the western shippers who, last fall, complained that the C.N.R. was slow in supplying them with the cars needed to ship potash to the consumers, which was resulting in serious losses for the industry.
As such a service was lacking, these same shippers requested the services of a private transport company which would guarantee them a better service: the C.P.R.
I could give thousands of examples showing that the C.N.R. lost its customers on account of its inadequate service. Allow me to refer to the passenger trains in my own area, the county of Roberval.
During the holidays, the heating system in one of the cars of the train linking Montreal to Chicoutimi-Dolbeau failed during the whole night. Needless to say that all the passengers had to sleep wrapped up in their winter coats; we do not know how many of them caught a cold during this trip.
The personnel on duty did everything they could to cope with the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: Do these remarks embarrass you?


The Chairman:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that he cannot discuss the administration of the C.N.R. or of any other railway system as far as the passenger or freight services are concerned. I once more ask the hon. member to restrict his remarks to the subject matter of the bill now before us.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, do we have to
submit ourselves to this sort of thing without saying a word?
Mr. Chairman, I said a moment ago that I do not believe that Bill C-91 is giving assistance to shippers. In fact, a large sum is being voted to make up the C.N.R.'s deficit. And where does this deficit come from? I believe the inadequate service of the C.N.R. is the main reason. This is another proof of the poor service given by the C.N.R.
27507-3-193
Freight Rates Reduction Act
I do not know whether it is better to bring home to the government the grievances of the people. The best place to do it, as I see it, is right here in this house, by expressing the dissatisfaction of the whole population for the service given by the C.N.R. into which we are pouring countless millions of dollars.
It is in the light of this principle that I have given instances as regards freight and passenger service, for we are granting the C.N.R. $75 million and nobody knows how this money is going to be used. Everybody is asking us: "Where is this money going"? And we do not know ourselves where it is going.
When we want to deal with these issues in this house, we are said to be out of order. The C.N.R.-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I should like to point out to the hon. member that he must abide by the rules of this house. Like all the other members who might take part in the discussion, he must follow as closely as possible the rules which have been established in order that the work of the house may proceed smoothly. When the chairman of the committee gets up to call a member to order, he is only doing his duty so that the discussion can really contribute to the subject matter before us.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
If through their trucking business, the Canadian National Railways manage to reduce freight rates as provided under section I of Bill C-91, and if this reduction is to be extended for another year, I can only commend that project.
In view of the hundreds of millions of dollars which the federal government has spent in order to refloat the Canadian National, that would only be normal.
He who calls others incompetent might then prove himself right.
But if such a reduction means that all our fellow Canadians, all our workers, and heads of families will have to pay those additional $20 million directly to the C.N.R., then I cannot go along with that. That is why Bill C-91 will not pass in this house without an amendment.
Do you really believe that, as representatives of the people, we are authorized to concede another $75 million to the C.N.R. without knowing for what purpose it will be used?
3050	HOUSE OF
Freight Rates Reduction Act
I say to the management of the C.N.R., and also to the president, Mr. Donald Gordon, who is so well paid: "If you are incapable of managing such an important corporation as successfully as the management of the truckers association, you should let that association accomplish what you were never able to achieve yourselves."
There is no difficulty for the C.N.R., with its wonderful president, to grant reduced rates to the shippers, when those $20 million are paid by our workers and farmers.
Mr. Chairman, we have no right to penalize the whole population under the pretence of helping those few hundred producers who would act in a quite different way if they could freely organize themselves.
Our doubts with regard to the use of that money to the sole advantage of the so-called beneficiaries are getting stronger every day. The issues have been so much confused that we are unable to discern what concerns trucking and what concerns the railroads.
If the government seriously wants to help the shippers, why not do so directly?
Why not give those millions directly to the needy shippers, in proportion to their shipments? Why go through a third person to let someone have the assistance he so urgently needs?
Do you not know that every day we have proof that the go-between often reaps much greater profit than the shipper?
Shall we, once again Mr. Chairman, let ourselves be misled by an administration with no common sense? I say "no common sense", because for those people the main principle of a good administration consists in having deficits.
They accumulate deficits and boast about it. They go as far as saying that those who have no deficits are incompetent.
Indeed, they go on with their fallacious arguments in favour of our economic system of debts. Money should be allowed to circulate, and the only manner to do so today is to create deficits.
As you see, Mr. Chairman, with our mistaken monetary theories, we come to the conclusion that tomorrow-and the C.N.R. is a striking example of it-a deficit will mean a saving.
Consequently, the thrifty person will be forced to pay off tomorrow the deficits which will have become the most stable form of wealth of our new democracy.


To avoid all those mistakes, Mr. Chairman, and there are some significant ones-
(Text):


Rémi Paul: Order. So that the house may proceed to consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit later this day or the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It now being five o'clock the house will turn to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motion which appear on page 18 of today's order paper.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford) moved:: That the standing committee on privileges and elections be empowered to consider the advisability of amending the Canada Elections Act to limit the election expenditures of all candidates to an effective ceiling, and to provide for a strict accountability of all such expenditures of each candidate, and at the same time to provide for the payment of the legally permitted election expenses of all candidates, who in the election secure a reasonable proportion of the total votes cast in each constituency: and to report to the house such proposals or suggested amendments relating to the said act as the committee may deem to be advisable.
He said: Mr. Speaker, might I be permitted to direct special attention to the motion that has been read to the house, and to offer the observation that a motion somewhat similar to this has already been before the house moved by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). My motion goes a little further. Unlike the other motion it provides that the standing committee on privileges and elections be empowered to consider the advisability of these proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act. In other words, if this motion is not talked out tonight and if it happens to be approved by the house, that does not mean the house approves of the suggested amendments. It simply means that the amendments referred to are to be considered by the committee on privileges and elections after which that committee would make such report back to this house as it deemed advisable. This would make provision for a wider discussion and a much more thorough study on the part of hon. members than is available to them under the pressure of the one hour discussion which is permitted us at this time.

Two of the proposed amendments in the elections act have been in effect in Great Britain for a considerable period of time, namely the provisions to limit the election expenses of candidates and to ensure a strict accountability of all such expenditures by candidates.
Over many years in Canada there has been a cry for needed reform along these lines. The present law relating to election expenses of candidates has been in effect in Canada since 1874. It was brought into being by a Liberal government at that time-one of the most puritanical governments in Canadian history, if I may say so. I refer to the administration headed by the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie.


An hon. Member:: It has gone to the dogs since.


James Elisha Brown: An hon. member says it has gone to the dogs since, and that is what I should like to bring to the attention of this house. The Canadian people first became exercised over the problem of election expenses and campaign contributions at the time of the Pacific scandal in 1873. So the new government which was elected following that scandal introduced the present legislation which has been in effect ever since. My submission is that the statute is now sadly in need of reform. I will not go into detail here but I doubt if there is a responsible group, or even if there is a responsible person, in public life in Canada opposed to the first two proposals which I suggest should be submitted to the standing committee on privileges and elections. Certainly, there is no responsible newspaper in Canada objecting to these two needed reforms. The Brantford Expositor, the Toronto Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star among many newspapers have been pressing for electoral reform along these lines. In addition, well known newspaper columnists such as Mr. Blair Fraser and others have been pointing out the inadequacy of the present law for a number of years. Canadian political leaders of various parties have been crying for reform. The Hon. C. G. Power, now a member of the Senate, has been a leader in this regard. He introduced a bill which reached this house-a bill known as the political expenditures bill-in 1939, containing sweeping provisions for reform-provisions which required the publication both of the income and expenditure of political parties and limiting the amount of expenditure of candidates 27507-3-1934
Canada Elections Act
to 20 cents per voter plus $1,000 for the personal expenses of candidates.
Mr. Power described this measure at the time as a businesslike piece of legislation which would bring about open disclosure to the public, a disclosure such as would be made in the operation of private business.
In 1948, Mr. Power admitted that his bill was laughed at at the time it was introduced, and that its objectives were ridiculed as being academic and unrealistic. But he brought the same measure before this house in 1949 and it passed second reading without one single voice of dissent. It did not proceed further because parliament was dissolved and a general election called. Thus, today we have the same law as we have had since 1874, the law which has been complained about so much. The same situation exists and nothing has been done about it since.
It is now 1963 and I am asking this house of minorities at least to permit the standing committee to discuss this much needed reform. I notice that at Christmas time Mr. Power had completed 45 years of public life in Canada. I think it would be a nice thing if this house could at least consent to consideration being given to these matters by the committee as some recognition of a long life devoted to the public service of Canada.
Now I come to the third suggested amendment-that provision be made for the payment out of general revenue of the legally permitted election expenditures of those candidates who receive a reasonable percentage of the total votes cast in each constituency.
As I stated in my speech on the motion of the hon. member for York South, this third proposal is a little more controversial, but 1 maintain it is sound.
There was a debate in this house in the year 1920 on electoral reform. In that debate that much-revered Canadian statesman, the Hon. W. S. Fielding, stated that the only real solution to excessive and improper election expenditures was to make all such expenditures of sums a charge on the federal treasury. He predicted in that debate that the day would come when this House of Commons would pass such legislation. I know that on this third proposal there will be a cry of: "Oh, election expenses in Canada will rise to an unprecedented figure". But I maintain that the Canadian people are paying the bills for election expenditures at the present time in many ways: by their own private contributions, and by the rise in the cost of goods as a result of companies giving large sums of money, donating large sums to the election campaigns and expenditures of the various political parties.
I think it is true to say that today the contributions to election campaign expenditures

Canada Elections Act
are largely from big contributors, and the sum contributed in small contributions amounts to very little. In the United States, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, two weeks after he was elected, stated that work should be started at once on legislation to provide for payment out of the United States treasury of the presidential election campaign expenditures so that, to quote him, "We can discontinue having candidates going around with their hats in their hands". In Canada, the Brantford Expositor took exception to this third reform which I have mentioned in a leading article; but the Toronto Globe and Mail did not take that view, and the Toronto daily Star complimented me upon bringing to the house a proposal for a much-needed and long-overdue reform. I stated a few moments ago that the percentage of contributions from small contributors amounted to very little. The overwhelming amount of contributions comes from big companies and big labour unions, and I say to this house that this situation is not of the best and could be dangerous. In the province of Quebec legislation has already been passed, which did not come into effect before the last provincial election, covering all of these items which I have asked this House of Commons to refer to its standing committee.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to talk at length or to prolong my remarks, because others will want to speak and I should like to hear their views upon the question. But before taking my seat I should like to say that I know all members of this House of Commons are jealous of the sovereign rights and independence of the parliament of Canada, because each year a mass of legislation is passed through this house which affects the life of every Canadian. I should like to state that at the present time many Canadian companies have huge lumps of capital invested on the part of foreign investors, and when large contributions are made to political parties they can also be accompanied by sponsorship of a type of legislation that is not in the best interests of the sovereignty of Canada or of the independence of parliament. Keeping this in mind-and it is a very important point- I believe that this house could do well to pass these suggestions on for consideration and more prolonged discussion, at this point of time in this year 1963, to the standing committee on privileges and elections. I believe that they will be for the betterment of Canada, for the preservation of democratic principles, and for the continuance of the sovereignty of this house and of our country.
(Translation):


Mr. David Ouellei (Drummond-Arihabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the

hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) who introduced this motion to amend the act respecting election expenditures.
In the province where I come from, we know something about that. I do not know how an election is run in the other provinces across Canada, I have never seen one. Nor do I wish to unduly disparage my own province, but in Quebec, people are beginning to think that an election is the occasion of a huge treat. That should have been corrected long before 1963.
I was told that the present Quebec government was preparing an amendment to the act in order to grant to each party an amount proportionate to the number of votes obtained. Frankly, when you look at the report on election expenditures, after seeing some members at work during an election-and I would not wish to charge anyone with committing perjury-you would think they have very rickety adding machines.
When one sees the tremendous electoral machine at work in some ridings, one wonders if that is not tantamount to a lack of civilization. The electoral machine has an extraordinary influence on public opinion. In fact, it is even used to attack public men in their private lives. Another thing, candidates promise things they know they will never give. That is the harm that representatives do to Canadian politics.
I went through an election for the first time. The member for Brantford said that he is not ready to pass the hat. Well unfortunately I am one of those who had to pass the hat. But there is one good side to that: I showed in my return the correct amount of money I spent for election purposes, as I did not have to lie to arrive at a reasonable figure.
As the hon. member for Brantford stated, parties should report the sources of their income because foreigners are trying to influence our country's politics by contributing to the campaign funds of our political parties. People wonder why foreigners have so much power. It is because certain political parties have their hands tied by power-happy individuals. This is something that should have been discussed long before 1963 but since we are now dealing with this matter, we must take every means at our disposal to correct this situation which has done so much harm to this country.
If, as the hon. member for Brantford who sponsored the motion claims, this state of things is, as I presume, a danger to Canada, I gladly support the motion because this situation has to be corrected. In my opinion,

the whole house is duty bound to do so, because it is the first step toward the great political clean-up which must be made in order to have basically honest politics. I do not tax politics with complete dishonesty; but, to say the contrary, I should be obliged to stretch the truth a little. If political parties could balance their electoral budgets, I think they would be less reluctant to declare their sources of income.
In any case, I am talking on behalf of my own party. We were considered as beggars, but we do not owe anything to anyone. We only promised to give the best of ourselves. We have entered politics in full freedom and have acted accordingly. This is true of every single member of our party. It has been said that the situation was worse in provincial elections than in federal elections. But there is one thing we are beginning to realize in the province of Quebec, and it is that federal elections also are expensive. Federal political parties are taking the lead from provincial ones. Bad example does strange things.
Yet, it is the Canadian government who should set the example. That is why, it should be its duty to have some piece of legislation adopted, including provision to the effect, for instance, that elections should be held honestly, so that those who take part in them may remain honest. In other words, the example must come from Ottawa.
There would be much more to say on the matter, but other members probably wish to take the floor.
I have no doubt that the motion introduced by the hon. member will be carried. Therefore, may I close my remarks by saying that before rejecting this motion, we should consider it dispassionately in the interests of all Canadian citizens.


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Would the hon. member allow a question? Could he tell me how much he received for his party from Jerry Martineau?


David Ouellet: The hon. member's question is not even worth answering. However,
I can tell him that we did not receive anything from Jerry Martineau, or from Mr. Pearson either. But we received funds from those who wanted a reform.
(Text):


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this motion one immediately realizes that what is being asked here has been asked on a number of different occasions down through the years. The question of elections and election expenses has come up for consideration in this house once already in this session and perhaps in a
Canada Elections Act
number of other sessions. Here we are being asked to refer certain conditions to a standing committee for the purpose of studying them and perhaps coming up with the solution suggested by the mover of this motion or perhaps disagreeing with it.
In the first place, the mover of the motion is asking us to limit expenditures in all Canada to an effective ceiling, whatever that effective ceiling may be. Whether he is trying to control or to limit people or whether he is trying to make it broad enough to include all the big spenders in his party and perhaps ours, I do not really know. However, I would suggest that the words "effective ceiling" could be debated for some hours before any figure could be arrived at.
He also would like to bring about a strict system of accounting for expenditures. I suggest this would be a very difficult thing to do as one never knows when one is making an expenditure on behalf of another in politics. For example, I as a candidate may have a flat tire and may have some farmer drive me to a campaign meeting. He may do this free of charge. He may be contributing to my election expenses. I do not know whether or not this item would have to be put in this strict accounting. Again, if some big company thought that my views or his views were right and came into the constituency and spent a great deal of money on that campaign without the person even asking for it, I do not know whether this money would be included as an expenditure in the campaign. It would be something which would be very hard to determine. In my opinion, it would be nearly impossible.
Last of all, his suggestion is to provide for the payment of all election expenses of candidates who secure a reasonable portion of the votes in a constituency. That is another matter which I think it would be very difficult for any deciding judge or any ruling body to determine. Certainly if we had a system such as that to which he referred in the United States or which was referred to in President Kennedy's remarks with regard to election expenses, or a system something similar to theirs where they have nearly got down to a two party system-while it is not statutory, that is in a sense what is operating there-then I might see the feasibility and the possibility of the government standing some or all of the expenditures of the candidate. However, in our country, anybody in a constituency, if he meets the conditions set out in the elections act with regard to being a Canadian citizen and has residence of the required time before the election is called, can become a candidate in that constituency. He does not have to belong to any given political party. He may even found his own

Canada Elections Act
party and run, as a particular candidate did in my constituency in the 1962 election. Perhaps he felt he received a reasonable share of the vote. In his thinking maybe this was all he expected in the first year of founding his political party. I do not know about that.
I never asked him. However, that may have been what he thought was a reasonable start.
Certainly the idea of a reasonable amount of anything could be subject to a great deal of question. The only other reference I know of with regard to "reasonable" is in the grain act under the grading of grain. If I am right and if I may refer to it for a moment, may I say that as to the definition of reasonable I think the grain act states that No. 2 wheat is to be reasonably free of weed seeds and immature kernels; and I am told by the board of grain commissioners that this deals with a figure of 5 per cent. No. 1 wheat, according to the terms of the grain act is to be practically free of immature kernels and weed seeds and No. 2 wheat shall be reasonably free of immature kernels; and they consider that 5 per cent or something near that figure of 5 per cent meets the requirement. Would 5 per cent be a reasonable percentage of the votes of a constituency? I do not know what the hon. member is referring to here. I point out this consideration. The matter could be subject to a great deal of controversy with regard to paying election expenses. With regard to limiting expenditures certainly one would have to take into consideration many things such as the locality of the constituency; the number of miles one is obliged to cover; whether it is all populated or whether it is partially populated; whether it covers a rough terrain as it would if a portion of it were in the Rocky mountains; and I can think of several in Alberta which are in the Rocky mountains; or whether it be in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. Certainly those constituencies are much more difficult to campaign in. As years go on and as improvements in transportation take place and as those areas become more settled candidates will be obliged to spend more and more money in those areas. Perhaps private aeroplanes and the hiring of them will become more common. However, I suggest that they will be still very expensive and that many areas must be covered in that way.
I can certainly understand the situation with regard to a city riding which includes so many blocks west of Main street and so many blocks east of Main street and is a neat little parcel with many people living in it who are easy to get in touch with over one radio station perhaps, and in one daily newspaper. I can understand the feasibility of limiting expenses in a riding of that type. However,

ridings of that type while perhaps not in the minority I am sure are not in the majority in this vast country of ours today.
I was in some ways interested in the remarks of the hon. member from the Social Credit party. From the way in which he started out I thought for a while he was against this particular measure. However, he corrected my wrong impression by stating that he would second the motion and strongly wished it to carry. This is an interesting viewpoint to be expressed by that particular party, because as one who comes from Alberta I know that the people there have seen numerous parties in that province rise and fall. I can think of the ginger group as it was commonly called which was elected in the twenties, the old U.F.A. government that operated there in the twenties and part of the thirties, and the present Social Credit government in that province.
If there were a system whereby the government paid part of the expenses of all candidates who received a reasonable share of the votes and if the number of candidates allowed to enter any campaign were in any way limited, one can readily see that various parties would never come out of the eggshell, shall I say. Even the Social Credit party might never have come into being in 1935 if such a system had been in existence because the government then might very well not have paid part of their election expenses and might very well have not even recognized them as having a possible chance. Certainly in the early founding days of that party they themselves must have wondered about this. I suppose they are no longer wondering, of course, because they have become established. However, they are trying desperately now to bring about a resurgence after having fallen on evil days.
I use this as an example. Certainly we cannot limit the number of candidates who may want to run in any given election. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) referred to basic democratic principles and if we accept this as one of our basic democratic principles how can we as a government say that we will pay part or all of the election expenses of candidates as long as they receive a reasonable share of the votes? There might very well be a large number of candidates wishing to run in any given constituency and this could involve the expenditure of a great deal of money.
If there were a sufficiently large number of candidates this would eventually put a limit on the amount any one candidate could spend because there is only so much money to go around under today's conditions. Maybe if we started to print money, as some would

like us to do, there might be more. The hon. member for Brantford said in his closing remarks that we must guard our democratic principles; however I cannot support this motion because it leaves too many things undecided.
To sum up briefly, this effective ceiling about which he talks is a very mythical figure. I would hesitate to guess what it might be. In the last campaign I think I spent an average amount. Possibly that average would be taken as the ceiling in order to place a limit on expenditures in some of the constituencies where vast amounts were spent. I do not know. Maybe you would take the constituency where the most money was spent and use that figure as the limit. I do not know what is meant by an effective ceiling and I suggest there could be a good deal of debate on that point. I suggest that at no time would we all agree on what an effective ceiling should be. I think this is an elusive amount which would grow and grow as the years went by.
We can only refer to election costs in past years. For example, in the 1949 election total election expenditures by the various parties were a little over $2 million. In 1958 total election expenditures were substantially over $3 million and I suppose that at the present time such expenditures might well approach $4 million. The figure is going up all the time. The effective ceiling would have to be increased, I suggest, having in mind the urge that politicians have to get in touch with everybody in their riding and leave no hand unshaken and no door on which they have not knocked. As communications improve politicians will have an increasing urge to knock on every door and shake every hand. Therefore I suggest that election expenses will continue to rise and if an effective ceiling could be arrived at today it would not be suitable four years from now or eight years from now or at any other time.
The other point has to do with a strict accounting of such expenditures. I firmly believe that in an election a strict accounting is practically impossible. Let us be practical. Let us consider what is being suggested here and whether a committee of this house or the house itself should pass upon it or spend time debating it. A strict accounting of election expenses would be a very difficult thing to achieve because it would have to take into account everything that my neighbours or my good friends spent on my behalf. Every time they even talked to their neighbours or knocked on a few doors on my behalf any expense involved would have to be included.
Canada Elections Act
I do not really know just what would have to be included, but there are many ways of getting around the carrying out of a strict accounting. I can remember a provincial election a few years ago in which I took a great deal of interest although I was not a candidate. I thought to myself that the sitting member was spending a terrific amount of money in that campaign and that there was a great deal of fanfare. His name was on the radio all the time and there was a great deal of fanfare in the local and weekly papers, including full page advertisements. I thought to myself that I would like to see his expense account when he published it after the election but, much to my surprise, when it came out the figure was very low. In fact, I think he had only spent a thousand dollars or so, according to the report in the paper.
I met him after the election and as I was on reasonably friendly terms with him I said, "How is it that your expenses were so low? I thought you were really burning up the money during that campaign?" He said, "That was not I; that was the party headquarters. That money was not spent by me at all."
These are questions that arise in my mind when I consider whether a strict accounting is possible. I think it would be practically impossible. I have dealt with the question of a reasonable proportion of the votes cast and the question of paying a part of the election expenses. I feel it would be very difficult to arrive at a reasonable proportion. If one wanted to, he could arrive at a reasonable proportion but it would definitely limit the number of candidates in a particular riding. It is all well and good to quote what President Kennedy said two days after he was elected, but I think it is more pertinent to inquire what he has said about the matter since. I have not seen that he has said anything about election expenses since. One can say a great many things two days after being elected or two days before but it does not take very long after being elected to become burdened with the cares of office, and perhaps this tends to make one's thinking a bit more reasonable and practical.
In this country where we have no limit on political parties or on the number of candidates who run in a particular constituency, I feel that the government in governing the country cannot accept the idea that the government should pay part or all of the election expenses, no matter what proportion of the votes we arrive at as being reasonable. If we wish to guard our democratic principles then I think we must not carry out any of the ideas suggested in this motion. I see no reason

Canada Elections Act
why it cannot be debated in this hour and resolution is in exact conformity with the perhaps dropped then, because I see little policy we put before the country at the last worth-while, practical good coming from it. election, and which we intend to carry out.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express the views of the New Democratic party on the resolution that the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) has put before the house. We look upon this resolution as one which has a twofold purpose. It provides for the payment of election expenditures out of public funds and it imposes a ceiling upon election expenditures by candidates. In our view these things are important but, Mr. Speaker, we will not have an effective electoral law and we will not adequately reform our electoral system until we provide for complete disclosure of the sources of campaign funds. I agree, and I think all the members in all parties agree, that the present system badly needs to be changed.
I recall reading a few months ago an article in Maclean's magazine by James Scott, once a federal organizer for the Liberal party, who candidly revealed what went on in the Liberal and Conservative parties in connection with fund raising. He pointed out that when one of these parties was in office the people who received government contracts, corporations which received favours from the government, would allocate a certain amount of money for electoral purposes and would distribute 60 per cent of it to whichever of the old-line parties was in office and 40 per cent to whichever party was out of office. They met their campaign budgets rather effectively in those days, and no doubt they are still doing so.
The hon. member for Brantford believes, I take it, that if his party were to get into office again, which seems rather unlikely, they would change our electoral system to conform with the worth-while objectives found in his resolution. I am not aware of the policy of the Liberal party and whether it conforms to his resolution, but perhaps the leader of the Liberal party will change it overnight, as he has done with other policies espoused by the Liberal party. At the moment, however, Liberal policy remains in the same state of confusion, remains shrouded in the mist that surrounds not only Liberal party policy but apparently the leader of that party as well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit my asking him a question?


Thomas Rodney Berger: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the hon. gentleman ever taken the trouble to read the Liberal program which was presented at the last election? If he does, he will find that this
[Mr. Horner (Acadia) .1


Thomas Rodney Berger: I gave up long ago reading Liberal propaganda because if the platform that is in the pamphlet the hon. member has waved on high is going to be carried out in the same way his party carried out its promise to introduce a national health insurance scheme back in 1919, then I think the point in reading his propaganda is lost-at least, that is the way it looks to me.
Let me deal with two matters that were raised by the resolution of the hon. member. He said that a payment should be made out of public funds to candidates securing a reasonable proportion of the total votes cast. This would discriminate against third parties in some of the provinces of Canada. The hon. member who just spoke pinpointed this difficulty I thought rather well. If the decision as to the reasonable proportion were to be left in the hands of some agency, some political group or some government which fixed it at such a high level third parties could not gain any advantage from the measure, this would present a serious difficulty.
In British Columbia, the Liberal party might be discriminated against because it is a third party there. In Newfoundland the Conservative party might be discriminated against because I understand that in that province every party except the party in power is a third party. In Ontario, the Social Credit party must be regarded as a third, fourth or fifth party, and perhaps it would be discriminated against. Let me point out that legislation which in principle was sound, put forward some time ago by the premier of Quebec, to reform the electoral system in his province, was legislation which discriminated against third parties. I think all of us were pleased to hear that apparently that legislation is going to receive further consideration before it is put before the legislature of that province.
Now, the hon. member also suggests in his resolution that there should be strict accountability for all expenditures of each candidate. This is important, that candidates should be accountable. However, we should keep in mind that under our present electoral system they are accountable. But it is not enough to make candidates accountable. Parties that contest federal elections are organized on a federal basis, and the federal organization of each party must be accountable. I gather, from what Mr. Scott has said, it is the federal organization which gets the funds which enable some parties to charter jetliners for their leaders to travel around the country. It is the federal party which pays for the

slick supplements in Sunday supplements and other newspapers which are used in federal election campaigns. It is the federal party which makes use of the Madison avenue techniques which inundate the population of this country with tons of political claptrap at election time.
Some of us wondered, as a matter of fact, when parliament opened, why the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), even before parliament had opened, said that he wanted an election right away. He felt that the idea of an election was not to elect a parliament, but that you elected a parliament in order to have an election. At any rate, we wondered why he did not even wish to come into this house to hear what the government was going to put forward. The members of this party, like the members of the Liberal party, were disappointed when we heard what the government put before us. But we wondered why the Liberal leader did not wish even to come to parliament to hear it. We wondered why he did not wish to test the mettle of his colleagues in this house where, after all, we are all equal. We do not have to depend on chartered jetliners, the slick Sunday supplements; we do not have to rely on editorialists to whip themselves up into a frenzy of support.
My point is that the federal organization of each party must be made strictly accountable, not just the candidates themselves. If the candidate's funds are raised at the local level by small donations from various individuals in the local community, from local trade unions or local businessmen, then certainly the candidate's expenses will be disclosed under our elections act. But only that portion of the party's expenses which is raised at the local level will under those circumstances be disclosed, and the enormous amounts of money that, as James Scott has told us, are provided to the old-line parties at the federal level will not be accounted for. It is for this reason that the necessity for the full disclosure of election campaign expenses is, to some extent, not taken into account by this measure.
One of the members of this party put forward a resolution during the fall sitting of parliament proposing that certain of the expenses of candidates be paid for out of public funds. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) proposed that certain use of public news media be made available to candidates, that transportation expenses should be taken care of by the federal government, and that the expense of producing at least one piece of election literature be paid for out of public funds.
I think all of us would agree this is perhaps a better way to approach the problem than 27507-3-194
Canada Elections Act
simply to provide a lump sum payment out of public funds, because this at least ensures that the public would not be put to the expense of providing political claptrap. The public will only be put to the expense of providing a useful, sensible and rational means of propagating the ideas espoused by each of the political parties.
I myself believe it is time in this country for parliament to consider establishing the equivalent of the C.B.C. in the newspaper field. The C.B.C. has worked in the field of broadcasting and television, and there is no reason why that concept cannot work in the field of the dissemination of news and public information by the press. Such an institution could be made available in the same way as free time broadcasts are made available at present to candidates, in order to enable them to put their platforms and policies before the public.
Politics is the public's business. I ask what good are democratic rights if only the wealthy can exercise them? What freedom of choice has the voter when it is only those candidates in those political parties with large resources available to them who can reach him with their messages? What freedom of choice can he have under those circumstances? How can the Canadian government be above suspicion, how can any party serve its country to the utmost, when the source of its funds is shrouded in a cloak of secrecy?
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) has brought forward a motion proposing that public funds be made available to candidates for public office, and which would establish a ceiling on the amount of expenditures which could be made by any candidate for public office. Subject to the important reservations I have made that third parties should be not discriminated against, and that there should be an accounting at all levels, including the federal level, of election campaign expenses, I think the motion is sound and the members of this party will support it when the vote is called, as I am confident it will be during the next few minutes.
It is estimated that during the last election campaign more than $12 million was spent on election expenses, both at the federal level and by individual candidates, by the four parties sitting in this house. If the public were to undertake the expense involved in election campaigns and thereby obtain honesty in government and honesty in public administration, and achieve a situation where public administration could be removed from any taint of suspicion, it would be a small price to pay to bring honesty into the conduct of election campaigns in Canada and into the administration of public business.

Canada Elections Act


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the shortness of time prevents me from dealing first with the largely irrelevant innuendoes just offered by the last speaker, but I would like to address a few remarks to certain statements made by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner).
I rise to speak in favour of the motion and would like to elaborate to some degree the attitude of this party to the proposal, and particularly to some of the questions raised by the hon. member for Acadia. His first and major objection was to the question of an effective ceiling on election expenses. He suggested in some way it would not be humanly possible to arrive at a proper effective ceiling for that purpose.
I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the experience of other countries in the western world, and France in particular, where this kind of calculation has been found possible and the system has been satisfactory for many years. I recognize, however, there are problems in calculating such an effective ceiling caused not only by the topography of a particular riding, which was the kind of thing the hon. member referred to, but also problems caused by areas with which he may not be so familiar; and I speak of running an election campaign in large metropolitan centres. One of the problems is the hiring of space and media, and in the case of Toronto a candidate may pay full price for only one eighteenth of the coverage of a particular media.
These are the kinds of problems which could most effectively be dealt with by a committee, and it is for this reason that the hon. member for Brantford has suggested that the matter be referred to a committee where it can be fully studied. The committee can consider statements by those most experienced in this field and can also call on the services of experts in the field of political science.
The hon. member for Acadia raised problems with regard to the strict accountability of expenses. While I acknowledge the example he cited of a neighbour assisting him with a flat tire, and agree it may be difficult to account for that in election expenses, it is no different from the problem we have encountered with income tax in determining small contributions and donations which should come into income but which are difficult to account for. But, the difficulty of accounting for such particular sums has not prevented us from levying income tax.
With respect to the suggestion that the motion should refer only to those candidates who obtain a reasonable proportion of the total votes cast, I would make the suggestion that instead of having such a vague requirement, an arbitrary measure be put into the elections act providing that every candidate who gets 20 per cent of the votes cast will have his expenses met in this way. We already have a precedent in that act, in an equally arbitrary measure with regard to deposits.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, I will not. There is little time remaining. All hon. members, of course, will want to support this bill if for no other reason than it relates to their personal solvency. Therefore in order to give hon. members an opportunity to cast their votes I shall sit down.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You talked out your own motion. It is now six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business having expired the house will revert to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock. I was advised that the house leader was in the neighbourhood.


Mr. O'Hurley:: He will not be here.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I was going to inquire from whoever is leading the house, and I take it it is the Minister of Defence Production, if he could indicate to the house what the business will be for Thursday and Friday?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: There is no change in the program. We will deal with external affairs estimates tomorrow, and Friday with national defence.


Lionel Chevrier: Could the acting house leader give any indication what the business would be for next week?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I was told by the house leader just a moment ago that he will announce it tomorrow night.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.


[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
Ottawa, January 3rd 1963.
My dear Premier,
In your letter of September 19th, in reply to mine of August 27th regarding the proposed amendment to section 94A of the British North America Act, you stated that, since the Quebec legislature had been dissolved, you felt it preferable to wait until it met again before going further into the matter.
You will be interested to know that I have now received a letter, dated December 11th, in which the premier of Newfoundland agrees to the proposed amendment to section 94A. Thus all provinces, save Quebec, have now signified concurrence in this amendment.
May I now take the liberty of expressing the hope that Quebec will join her nine sister provinces in support of the proposed amendment. It seems to me that the measure has become even more urgent since your last letter.
Yours sincerely,
John G. Diefenbaker.
The hon. Jean Lesage,
Premier of the Province of Quebec,
Quebec, P.Q.
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Province of Quebec
January 8th, 1963.
My dear Prime Minister,
In reply to your letter of January 3rd, I must say that I see no reason to change the position I took in my letters to you of January 24th and February 8th, 1962 with regard to Section 94A of the British North America Act.
At the time the provinces were asked their assent to the constitutional amendment of 1951 regarding Old Age pensions, the federal government had given them definite information on the nature of the legislation it was planning to enact. Now, on the contrary, we are given only the vaguest of indications which do not allow us to determine the implications of the unexplicit text we are asked to accept.
27507-3-194J
I must therefore repeat that I find it impossible to introduce a proposed constitutional amendment in the legislature unless I have on hand the particulars of your project.
I intend to table in the house a copy of your last letter, together with this reply, as soon as the next session opens on Tuesday the 15th.
Yours sincerely,
Jean Lesage.
The Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa.
(Text):
Ottawa, December 24th, 1962. The Honourable J. R. Smallwood, M.H.A., Premier of Newfoundland,
St. John's, Newfoundland.
My dear Premier,
I acknowledge and thank you for your letter of December 11 in which you advise that the government of Newfoundland have no objection to the proposed amendment to section 94A of the British North America Act, which would allow parliament to legislate in relation not only to old age pensions, but also in relation to pensions and other benefits incidental to, and conducive to the better operation and administration of, a scheme of old age pensions.
You ask that your administration be advised of the nature of the legislation which the government of Canada proposes to introduce and you suggest that this was done in 1951 when the present clause 94A was added to the British North America Act. According to my information, although there was consultation between the federal and provincial governments at that time it did not result in any effort to provide or request detailed information on the legislative measures that were to follow the adoption of the constitutional amendment.
With respect to your request that you be advised as to how soon, after the concurrence cf the governments of all the provinces
[Stage Direction]
is secured, it is proposed to introduce the legislation into parliament, I would say that after the address has been passed by the Canadian parliament and the British North America Act amendment has been passed at Westminster then we will be in a position to introduce legislation.
Yours sincerely,
"Original signed by John G. Diefenbaker".
The government of the province of Newfoundland
THE PREMIER St. John's
11 December, 1962
Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, M.P., Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
My dear Prime Minister:
My colleagues and I have now had an opportunity to give consideration to the proposal made originally in your letter of January 27, 1962 and renewed in a letter of August 25 for the concurrence of the governments of the provinces in a proposed amendment to section 94A of the British North America Act to provide explicitly that the parliament of Canada should be authorized to legislate not merely with respect to old age pensions but also with respect to pensions
and other benefits incidental to, or conducive to the better operation and administration of a scheme of old age pensions.
We are wholly sympathetic to the idea of incorporating in any contributory old age security legislation provisions for the payment of benefits to widows and children of contributors and to contributors who become permanently disabled. While our government is inclined to review that the present section 94A might provide sufficient legislative authority for such legislation we see no objection to an explicit reference in the constitution which would remove all doubt on this score.
We recall that when the original amendment was made in 1951 to include section 94A the provincial governments were advised of the nature of the legislation the government of Canada proposed to introduce in parliament and we would hope that a similar courtesy would be extended by your administration in the present circumstance. We would also appreciate being advised as to how soon after the concurrence of the governments of all the provinces is secured it is proposed to introduce the legislation into parliament.
Meanwhile this letter is to advise you that the government of Newfoundland have no objection to the proposed amendment.
Sincerely yours, Joseph R. Smallwood.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 24, 1963