1963-10-22

Mr. Speaker:: On October 17, in the course of proceedings, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) rising on a question of privilege stated in part as follows:
Yesterday-
That was Wednesday, October 16.
-a motion for the production of papers was on the order paper, motion No. 99, and there was an extended discussion with regard to the existence of a certain document. In the course of that discussion it was stated by the Postmaster General that this document did not exist. These words are to be found in Hansard at page 3626. A little earlier the Secretary of State also stated that the document did not exist. This was in accord with discussions which took place during consultation between the Secretary of State and the Post Office Department.
For the benefit of the house and the country, I have such a document before me now. As a matter of fact it is a copy of the document in question the production of which was requested under the terms of motion No. 99. If the house so desires I am prepared to table it, and that would end the discussion.
Later the hon. gentleman went on to say:
If I may say a further word, the main point at this juncture is not whether the list which I have is authentic, though I believe it to be so. It is that the Secretary of State misled the house yesterday when he said this particular document did not exist. Also, if the words of the Secretary of State were clear, and I believe they were, then of course the Postmaster General had misled the Secretary of State as he misled the entire house.
As the hon. gentleman implied, there were two points involved in this question. If the house will permit, I would like to deal first with the question of whether a private member may table a document. Citation 209, Beauchesne's fourth edition, states in part: Papers are laid before the house in pursuance of
(1)	Provisions of an act of parliament:
(2)	An order of the house;
(3)	An address to the crown;
(4)	The command of the crown;
(5)	Standing orders of the house.
According to this citation no member can table a document, as in the present circumstances, unless there is some authority for such action. I think the hon. gentleman from Grey-Bruce tacitly admitted this fact when he asked for unanimous consent to table the document.
The second point raised by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce is that the hon. Postmaster General as well as the Secretary of State misled the house when they stated that such a document did not exist. I must say that after looking over the record the difficulty would appear to be a difference of opinion. On the one hand it is asserted that no such document had been prepared and does not exist, while on the other hand the hon. member for Grey-Bruce has a document which he contends is a copy thereof. In other words there is a dispute as to facts.
In this regard I would like to refer to citation 113, Beauchesne's fourth edition, where it is stated in part as follows:
-a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
Therefore in my opinion a prima facie breach of privilege does not arise in this instance.



CARRIAGE BY AIR ACT


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-37 (from the Senate), to amend the Carriage by Air Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether before the orders of the day are called I might have the permission of the house to revert to motions just to make a brief announcement. On a number of occasions questions have been raised in the house with regard to the Haines road, and for this reason I should now like to make a short statement on this subject.
The government has today decided not to close the Haines road this winter, subject of course to satisfactory negotiations in respect of the technical requirements necessary to effect such a policy. Keeping open the road during the winter months will be in the nature of a trial for one year to determine the

Inquiries of the Ministry feasibility of maintaining this road on a year round basis. The project will involve the co-operation not only of several government departments, including the Departments of Northern Affairs, Public Works and National Defence, but it will also require negotiation with the government of the United States.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I just reply very briefly. I thank the minister for his announcement and for the decision which has been made to keep the Haines road open. His announcement will be welcomed most heartily by the people in the Yukon, I am sure, by the people in Alaska, and in fact all up and down the Pacific northwest coast where there is now, as he knows, a very successful ferry system in operation.
I hope the experiment leads to a decision by the department to keep the road open on a permanent basis. I am sure the minister and his colleagues in the government will find that it will be economically feasible and will introduce an economic viability in that part of the country and in Alaska which does not now exist.
I thank the minister very much for his consideration, also the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.

On the orders of the day:


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of northern affairs I would like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence in connection with a statement he made this morning, the last sentence of which points out that the prospect of keeping the Haines road cut-off open will require the co-operation of Departments of Northern Affairs, Public Works, National Defence, and also of the government of the United States. As the minister knows, the United States portion of the road is maintained during the winter, so that only the Canadian portion is involved here.
I have several times asked the minister of northern affairs this same question. Has the government decided to accept the offer of the Alaska authorities to keep the Canadian section of the road open with United States personnel and equipment, with the state of Alaska back-billing the Canadian authorities for this service?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think what is implied in that last sentence is the question of the terms and conditions under which some arrangement could be worked out with the state of Alaska.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask a supplementary question. Have the terms and conditions finally been worked out?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.



OFFICIAL NAME OF NEW GROUP IN HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: On a question of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like Your Honour to inform the house by what nomenclature we should refer to the new group sitting at the far left of the chamber when we wish to refer to them in debate in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the reply should come from the hon. member for Villeneuve, but I believe it was agreed upon this morning. If I may express it in my poor French, it is Ralliement Creditiste or Social Credit Rally.



REQUEST FOR YEAR ROUND EMPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS' SECRETARIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State?
Is the Secretary of State in a position to inform the house whether the working conditions of members' secretaries will be improved, and whether changes are being considered so that they may remain the year round in the members' service?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will have a look at the question when it appears in Hansard and see what I can say in reply.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask the minister why the Canadian delegation voted yesterday against the admission of mainland China to the United Nations.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the draft resolution which was introduced this year was sponsored by Albania and not, as usual, by the Soviet union. While the Soviet union and

India, which have at various times in the past taken the lead in trying to secure a change in Chinese representation, promised to vote in favour of the draft resolution and indeed did so, it is notable that they did not sponsor the resolution this year.
The draft resolution which was presented provided for two things, the seating of representatives from communist China and the expulsion of representatives from the nationalist Chinese government. As Canadian representatives have said in recent years, the Canadian government is ready to consider carefully any proposal to settle equitably the question of Chinese representation; but an equitable solution, among other factors, must preserve for the people of Formosa the right to self determination. This year's resolution did not make such provision; therefore the Canadian delegation could not and did not support it. I believe the vote demonstrated that the majority of the United Nations member states shared the point of view of the government of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Could I ask the minister why the Canadian delegation did not move an amendment providing for the seating of mainland China and also for representation in the United Nations for Formosa?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the answer must be clear to my hon. friend. The reason the delegation did not is that it did not receive instructions accordingly from the government of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask why the secretary of state was so derelict in his duty?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my hon. friend does not mean that. My hon. friend knows that in this particular instance the Secretary of State for External Affairs was not derelict in his duty.



COMMONWEALTH SEAT ON SECURITY COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can advise the house what is the position regarding a commonwealth seat on the security council. There has been some question raised in this regard, and it would be most important that the commonwealth have representation on the security council.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman gave me notice of his intention to ask this question yesterday. It is the desire of the government to see that there should be an expansion of the security council to take into
Inquiries of the Ministry account the needs of the newer members, and an expansion of the other councils of the United Nations as well.
It would be regrettable if, in the redistribution that followed such an expansion, the commonwealth were not given a seat. This would be unfortunate not only from the point of view of the commonwealth as such but from the point of view of the newer African and Asian members of the commonwealth. As yet there has been no decision on the matter, but my hon. friend may be assured that it is being pursued diligently.


Mr. W. B. Nesbiti (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question related to the one asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition a few moments ago. It concerns the commonwealth seat on the security council. Having regard to the reply given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, could he tell us whether the Canadian delegation is doing its best to protect the commonwealth seat, in view of the great pressures to remove some of the present incumbents on the security council, before the council is itself expanded? I refer to the pressure to remove perhaps one of the Latin American delegations, one of the eastern European delegations and perhaps the commonwealth one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, sir.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the request by Mr. Banks for a meeting with the Minister of Labour, and the minister's reply to the effect that such a meeting could be arranged if the S.I.U. crews went back to work, could the minister give us an inkling of what are the possibilities of such a meeting and what actually is the purpose of such a meeting?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I intend later in the day to take part in the debate now before the house, and I will be glad to go into some detail with respect to the conversation which I had with Mr. Banks.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question. In view of the reluctance of S.I.U. crews to get back to work, and as a result the tie-up of operations on the lakes, is the government planning to do anything, or is a time limit being set for this walkout after which the
3850	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry government would do something, to make sure that operations on the great lakes will be resumed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will also deal with that point, Mr. Speaker.



TRUSTEESHIP LEGISLATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister, but in his absence I will direct it to the deputy prime minister. Can he assure the house that United States A.F.L.-C.I.O. trade unions and the United States government will co-operate in ensuring that this public trusteeship, which I hope will be proclaimed soon, will be enforced in the United States so as to restore shipping on the great lakes?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the rules of the house the government is responsible for actions under its own jurisdiction. Unfortunately, I cannot answer a question dealing with another jurisdiction.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary
question. Has the Prime Minister of this country, who is in close collaboration with the President of the United States, received an assurance that the law of the land will be enforced regarding shipping on the great lakes?


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister of this country made it quite clear yesterday what are his intentions with reference to the trusteeship, and I have nothing to add to what he said.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the Minister of Labour a question, but he has already stated that a reply will be given later in the debate today so I will not ask the question.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER    INQUIRY INTO LONGSHOREMEN'S PENSION FUND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour?
In view of the rumours going around to the effect that the longshoremen could resume their strike should the government not carry out the requests and recommendations of
LMr. Starr.]

Judge Lafleur regarding a royal commission of inquiry into the administration of the Shipping Federation of Canada, could the minister tell us whether he intends to carry out the recommendations of Judge Lafleur so that a resuming of the strike by the longshoremen may be averted?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The mediator, Judge Lippe, apparently included in his proposals to the parties the institution of an inquiry by the federal Department of Labour. We had not received the report from Judge Lippe, and until we had done so it was obviously impossible for us to take such action. We have now received the report, and a commission of inquiry has been appointed.


Georges-J. Valade: Will the minister consider setting up a royal commission of inquiry-


Some hon. Members:: He has done so.


Georges-J. Valade: -into this pension scheme as was expected by the federation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, the government has taken action. The only way in which this could be done under the labour laws was to appoint a commissioner to inquire into the matter, and this has been done.


Mr. Balcer:: Would the minister tell us the name of the commissioner?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand that Judge Lippe has accepted this further responsibility.



POSSIBLE TRANSFER TO U.S. OF PART OF RUSSIAN CONTRACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
High! Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding press reports from Washington to the effect that Russian trade negotiations going on there indicate that it is possible that part of the Canadian wheat contract with the Soviet union may be transferred to United States buyers as a result of the failure of Canadian deliveries of wheat. Is the minister in a position to assure the house that delivery of wheat under the contract with the U.S.S.R. is being maintained without interruption, and that no part of the Canadian contract is going to be transferred to the United States?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minisfer of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in the contract between the U.S.S.R. and the Canadian wheat board there is, of course, the ordinary strike

provision, but other than that there are no provisions under which any part of the contract would not be delivered.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the minister's view in this regard? Is there any ground for this report from Washington to the effect that there is a possibility, if not a strong one, that a portion of this contract will be detoured to the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such possibility or doubts. The Canadian wheat board has every intention of fulfilling this contract, and as far as we know the U.S.S.R. has every intention of fulfilling its side of the bargain.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Yesterday I asked the minister a question in reference to the quantity of grain delivered under the contract between the Canadian wheat board and the U.S.S.R. What quantity has actually and physically been delivered from Canadian ports under that contract?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, following this request yesterday I spoke to the Canadian wheat board, who have informed me that according to the board of grain commissioners, which publishes the figures monthly, the total amount shipped up to the end of September was 5,100,000 bushels; that is, from Canada to the U.S.S.R. It would be possible, of course, for the Canadian wheat board to give detailed figures, I suppose up to a couple of days ago, but the wheat board does not think it would be in its interests as a marketing agency to give figures as recent as that. It prefers, therefore-and I hope the hon. gentleman will agree-to follow the usual practice of publishing them when they are released by the board of grain commissioners.



ACTION TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO RISING PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on behalf of the housewives of Canada. In view of the announcement by the sugar refineries of an increase in the price of sugar of $1.10 per hundred, would the minister inform the house what action the government intends to take to prevent this continued milking of the Canadian consumer by the sugar monopolies?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I gave an answer to a similar question yesterday regarding
Inquiries of the Ministry recent trends in sugar prices, and I do not think there is much I can add to what I said yesterday. Prices in Canada are following those in international markets. The question of what action might be taken seems to me to relate, as far as the powers of this government are concerned, to possible action under the Combines Investigation Act, about which my colleague the Minister of Justice might like to say a word.


Mr. R. W. Priilie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, related to that asked earlier by the hon. member for Kootenay West about the sugar price situation. Will the government give consideration to calling a conference of the Canadian sugar refining companies with a view to encouraging a voluntary stabilization of the prices?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall give consideration to the hon. gentleman's suggestion, but I do not really think such a conference would produce very much by way of useful results, and I would not wish any such impression to be created.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice?
My question is related to that put by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Can the minister tell us if he is considering the possibility of setting up an investigation to find out if the sugar dealers in Canada have conspired together to make the price of sugar fluctuate so wildly? Such action would reassure the Canadian housewives and their husbands, of course.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I already answered a similar question asked by the same member last June 13, I think.
I fail to see what I could add except this. As the hon. member knows already, the prices of sugar are determined, to a large extent, by international conditions on which Canada has no control. On the other hand, the director of research of the Combines Investigation Act administration has some jurisdiction in the matter, and he is following the situation closely at the present time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether it is correct that sugar grown in Canada has

Inquiries of the Ministry also been increased in price just as though it were being imported from outside this country. Has his restrictive trade practices branch investigated this matter to see whether this is in contravention of the combines investigation legislation?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the director of the restrictive trade practices branch of the department is keeping this whole situation under active surveillance. All I can say in answer to the question is that should any aspect of this situation give the director reason to believe that an offence against the act has been committed, he will take the action that the statute requires.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question I would ask the minister whether in so far as western Canadian beet sugar is concerned, which is refined at Winnipeg and Lethbridge, the people in western Canada are being penalized by having to pay the world sugar price, plus freight charges, as if the sugar was shipped from Montreal, when in fact it is coming from one or other of those two refineries.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think I would have to take this question as notice. I will try and give a reply tomorrow.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES CONSTRUCTION IN CANADA OF NEW PLANES TO BE ACQUIRED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
In view of the economic importance of the possible purchase of aircraft for Canada through Trans-Canada Airlines, is the minister making the necessary representations to the crown corporation so that they select the aircraft that will provide employment to the largest possible number of Canadians? ITextt


George James McIlraith: As I have indicated on other occasions, this question of employment for Canadians will be considered when a decision is taken concerning what aircraft, if any, are to be bought.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
In view of the fact that the decision concerning the purchase of those aircraft will
[Mr. Douglas.)

apparently be made today or tomorrow, does not the minister consider those pressures and representations to be very urgent?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. The decision will not be made today or tomorrow. I anticipate it will be some considerable time before a decision is made.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the report in the Globe and Mail today that the city of Brantford went over the top and was the first city in Canada to reach its objective in the 1963 community chest campaign, would the minister reconsider his decision to leave Brantford on the list of depressed areas in Canada?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: am sure we all congratulate the city of Brantford on being so generous in the philanthropic field. However, I cannot quite see what relationship this has to the rate of economic growth.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister inform the house whether or not he participated in a cattle auction at Kingston on Tuesday, October 15?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: I shall be glad to answer that question, because there seems to be some concern about my activities and commitments outside the house. Last Tuesday I left Ottawa at 11 o'clock and flew down to Kingston in a plane which I paid for. I sold about 50 head of cattle for 50 dairy breeders in Ontario who contribute to a sale each year advertising their artificial insemination unit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harry William Hays: This is a field of science which some of the hon. members here do not seem to know about.
I might say that there were about 700 or 800 farmers present at this sale, and they represent the best breeders we have in eastern Ontario. I promised them over a year ago that I would conduct this sale for them. I have always lived up to my commitments,

and will continue to do so. I might say, too, that it was an excellent sale and was productive of the highest returns of any sale that has been held in eastern Ontario. The breeders were very pleased. I returned to the house at half past four and on three different occasions tried to get up to speak, but I was not permitted to do so. No other member from this side of the house was allowed to speak until the vote at a quarter after eight. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm was doing a lot of talking, but there was not much to listen to.
Before I sit down I should like to inform the house that I am going to conduct some more sales. I should like the house to know about this because I am committed to them.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina Cily):: I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked a simple question, and a yes or no answer could have been given.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister was just about to conclude.


Harry William Hays: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I conducted another sale which is called the "allCanadian sale", and in which Senator Harry Willis had an outstanding animal, as did Dr. Rynard. These cattle usually come from all over Canada and there were people at the sale from the Argentine, Italy and West Germany. They come from all over the world to buy these cattle. I should like hon. members to know that we have the finest Holstein cattle in the world. I had the opportunity of selling these cattle before I became a member, and I am not going to stop now.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I should like to ask a supplementary question, though I hesitate to do so even though it is relevant to this subject. Will the Minister of Agriculture say whether the statement made by the Prime Minister as recorded in Hansard for October 16, 1963, page 3632 is correct:
The Minister of Agriculture and his associate, having taken part in this debate on agriculture, left the house to attend engagements previously undertaken for the Minister of Agriculture with farmers of Canada in the west.


Harry William Hays: I should like to answer that. I was at the grass roots in the morning, and I was in western Canada that evening at nine o'clock.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister or the minister acting in his absence a question. In view of the editorial in yesterday's Globe and Mail-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: -is the Prime Minister giving consideration to the appointment of not an
Inquiries of the Ministry eastern or western but a third minister of agriculture, to sit in the House of Commons when agricultural matters are being discussed?


Lionel Chevrier: This question was answered by the Prime Minister, to the effect that there is legislation on the order paper and in due course it will be considered by the house.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: May I ask a supplementary question. I mentioned a third minister of agriculture to sit in the house. The question is unanswered.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made a few minutes ago by the Minister of Agriculture I wish to rise on a question of personal privilege and put on the record the exact facts. Last Tuesday I spoke from twenty minutes to five until twenty minutes after five.


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


Clément Vincent: The Minister of Agriculture came into the house at the end of my remarks and not at 4.30.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Secretary of State has risen on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that there does not appear to be anything that has happened in the last few minutes which would occasion or give any excuse for the raising of a question of privilege about something that took place several days ago in this house, and there is a rule of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and a rigid rule, that questions of privilege are to be raised immediately the incident occurs or they are not to be raised at all. It seems to me that if we are to do any of the public's business in this house we will have to abide by some of the rules.


An hon. Member:: You never did in your time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, something has happened this afternoon. The Minister of Agriculture rose and made a statement full of insemination and various types of personal propaganda. He made a statement which challenges the hon. member's veracity, the hon.
3854	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry member the other day having made the statement that the minister was not here. I submit it is proper that the hon. member who has asked to raise the question of privilege be allowed to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker-


Clément Vincent: On a point of order-


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


Clément Vincent: On a point of order-


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order then, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the house are quite clear, and I am sure no one knows them better than the Leader of the Opposition; namely, that when a question of privilege arises one should speak to it immediately and not wait for at least 45 minutes as the hon. member has done. Furthermore, this question was discussed yesterday or the day before-


An hon. Member:: Are you afraid of the truth?


Lionel Chevrier: -when it was clearly understood, I believe, by those who sat in the house that this was a question for debate, and my hon. friend can certainly rise and discuss it on another occasion.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, ever since the Minister of Agriculture made his statement I have been getting up and trying to get the Chair to recognize me and give me the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A point of order has been raised, and it seems to me that under the rules there must be a decision on the point of order before the matter can be proceeded with.


Michael Starr: Let the Speaker decide. He is the Speaker of the house.


Mr. Mariineau:: On the point of order, it seems to me that two objections have been raised, one by the Secretary of State and the other by the Minister of Justice, with regard to the question of personal privilege. The Secretary of State stated that the hon. member's question of privilege arises from something that took place in the house several days ago. That is not so; it arises from the statement made this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Justice went on to say that even if it did arise from that statement this afternoon it is now too late because 45 minutes have elapsed. As the hon. member has just pointed out, Mr. Speaker, he has tried to catch your eye and get the floor ever since the minister 

made his statement, and this is the first opportunity he has had to bring the point before Your Honour.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct your attention to standing order 17, which is in these words:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I have just explained that is what I have tried to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Just one minute. After taking advice I have come to the same conclusion with regard to the question of immediate opportunity. The hon. member stood up several times, but because of the number of members who wished to ask questions I could only get around to him when I did, so I think he is quite correct. He stood up at the first opportunity, but I am still waiting to hear what his question of privilege is, so I think the hon. member should continue.


Clément Vincent: My question of privilege is this. The minister said he came into the house at 4.30, whereas he came into the house at the end of my remarks. Second, he said that no member of his party was recognized by the Chair after I had finished. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska was recognized by the Chair right after my remarks.
So the facts are these. The minister did not come into the house at 4.30. Second, a member of his party was recognized by the Chair right after my remarks. Third, although the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is well known, I should like the minister to recognize me when I am speaking, because he will profit from listening to me and reading my remarks.



STATEMENT BY MINISTER RESPECTING COST OF FARM MACHINERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Was the minister forecasting government policy when on Monday last, October 14, he referred in his speech to the high cost of farm machinery and said this was one of the problems we must resolve? If so, is it his intention to introduce legislation relative to the high cost of farm machinery, or have the standing committee on agriculture conduct a further study of this problem as was done in 1961?


Harry William Hays: I agree with the hon. member that this is one of the greatest problems facing the farming community in Canada. Certainly this government is taking a long look at it.
I hope we will have the help of all in solving this very important problem.


James Alexander McBain: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister refer this matter to the agriculture committee for further
study?


Harry William Hays: Yes; we want everyone's cooperation. We are looking for all kinds of help.



PROVISION OF FEED GRAIN FOR EASTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the brief submitted by the Catholic Farmers' Union of the province of Quebec last week, asking the government to set up in eastern Canada a distribution agency for western feed grain. Could the minister tell the house whether the government intends to extend the powers of the Canadian wheat board so that it could carry out the same duties as the agency whose establishment is requested?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a question for the order paper. The hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, my question dealt with the delegation from the gold producing community, and has been answered by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, you just told me that my question should be put on the order paper, but the hon. member for Chicoutimi put a similar question yesterday, and the minister gave him an answer.
Now, could the minister reply fully to the question I asked, that is, whether the Canadian wheat board could not carry out the same duties as the agency requested by the Catholic Farmers' Union?



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: I should like to ask the Minister of Industry when he will be revealing to the House of Commons his plan in respect of the development of the automobile industry in Canada, in view of the fact that Secretary Hodges stated in Washington that the minister revealed it to him in confidence and he
Inquiries of the Ministry could not comment upon it to the members of the press until such time as the plan was brought before the house.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I hope to make a statement before the end of the week.


George Clyde Nowlan: May I ask a supplementary question. When the minister makes his statement I wonder if he will reconcile the statement that is credited to him in the press this morning-we know the press is not always entirely accurate-that there was no suggestion whatever by the United States of any hint of retaliation in his talks with Mr. Hodges; because Mr. Hodges is quoted as having said this afternoon that the United States government will retaliate against the Canadian automotive expansion program unless Canada is "clever enough" not to break any treaties? Is the minister prepared to assure the house there will be that degree of cleverness?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think I can give assurance to the house now that, as I mentioned earlier in connection with this important question, in any plan that will be disclosed later this week Canada will not be engaging or about to engage in any violation of any of our international commitments.



HEAVY WATER PLANT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the fact that tenders closed in June, is the minister now in a position to advise the house when a decision will be reached on the possible location of the heavy water plant envisaged by such tender call?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This is a complicated and difficult question, Mr. Speaker, in a novel area. I can assure the hon. member and all other members of the house that we are devoting considerable time and energy to getting the right answers. I hope that in the not too distant future we will be able to announce a decision.



REPORTED CRITICISM OVER RECRUITING OF DEPARTMENTAL OFFICERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry.
Does the minister intend to take into account the various complaints and criticisms voiced by the Minister of Industry of the province

Inquiries of the Ministry of Quebec? The latter has spoken against the intensive recruiting of officials for the federal Department of Industry; according to the minister such recruiting jeopardizes the sovereignty of the provinces.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that I have every intention of co-operating very closely with all provincial colleagues.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister.
Has the government received official protests from the Quebec authorities to the effect that, through its Department of Industry, the federal government infringes upon a jurisdiction which rests solely with the province of Quebec?


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA-U.K. AGREEMENT RESPECTING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Would the minister comment on the agreement reached between the United Kingdom atomic energy authority and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited regarding collaboration in the development of nuclear power plants?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the atomic energy authority of the United Kingdom concluded an important agreement covering the exchange of technical information, and this agreement will bring about a close working relationship between these two bodies.
Provision is made for the use by the United Kingdom of the process of heavy water moderation developed by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and there is some hope that the technique which has been so successfully evolved by Canadian scientists may become much more widespread in its application around the world as a consequence of this agreement.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to ask my

question of the Prime Minister, but in his absence perhaps I might address it to the President of the Privy Council. Has the government yet appointed any of the 25 members of the Economic Council of Canada, other than the chairman and two directors whose appointments were announced some time ago?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (President of the Privy Council):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the President of the Privy Council say when it is expected that this important body will become active?


Maurice Lamontagne: As soon as possible.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question	is for	the	Secretary	of State forExternal	Affairs. In	the light	of the manyurgent and rapidly changing international questions in which Canada is involved; in the light	of the	fact	that the	committee onexternal	affairs	has	not met	either during
this parliament or in the last session, will the minister let the house know how soon it may expect the necessary steps will be taken to provide for the setting up of this important committee?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that I will draw to the attention of the leader of the house, who will consider it in the light of other obligations; and I may assure my hon. friend that subject to these we will do everything we can to meet his wishes.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to reply to the question I asked him last Friday pertaining to whether the Department of Transport is planning, or has made arrangements, to take over the operation of the airfield at Fort Churchill from the R.C.A.F.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the various activities at Fort Churchill is under active consideration at the moment.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. However, first of all, 1 would like to point out that as from today we have something in common: we are seated at either ends of the house.
Mr. Speaker, here is my question. Could the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys tell the house whether his department intends to continue its subsidies to the gold mine operators, and to increase the subsidies paid to the new gold mines which might be discovered in any part of Canada?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, myself and several other ministers today received delegations from communities in northwestern Ontario and northwestern Quebec, and last week we received recommendations respecting this act from the Canadian metal mining association and I have been receiving too, recommendations from others. At the moment the extension of the act is being examined by officials of the departments concerned, and will soon be considered by my colleagues in the privy council. When we have decided upon policy, which I expect will be in the very near future, I will announce it.



REQUEST FOR STUDY OF REPORTED INCREASE IN BANKRUPTCIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance but, in his absence, I put it to the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of the startling statistics published recently on the number of bankruptcies in Canada, and in the province of Quebec in particular, could the minister tell the house whether the government intends to carry out a detailed study of the situation or to take immediate steps in order to meet that situation?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.



INQUIRY AS TO PURCHASE OF ARMOURED PERSONNEL CARRIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence is it the intention of the government to purchase United States armoured personnel carriers rather than the Canadian produced type?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken in this matter yet. When it is, it will be announced in the usual way.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a related question of the same minister. Is it the policy of the government to provide armoured personnel carriers for the Canadian army?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As my hon. friend well knows from his experience in the department, this has been a deficiency for many years, and it is something to which we are giving every consideration at the moment.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: As a
supplementary question, what is the situation now with respect to the development of the Bobcat armoured vehicle? Has development work on the first 20 vehicles been completed and, if not, when will it be?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is just a little bit further along than when my hon. friend left the department, but there is still a considerable amount of proving to be done, and the question of the technical competence of the vehicle is presently under consideration.



SASKATOON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Could he indicate what progress has been made toward a decision in regard to the selection of Saskatoon as the jet training base in western Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Satisfactory, Mr. Speaker.



FORT CHURCHILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he is in a position to confirm or deny the report that all military postings to and from Fort Churchill have very recently been frozen. I hasten to say I am not referring to climatic conditions.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Naiional
Defence): Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to confirm or deny it, but it would not surprise me in view of the discussions that are taking place in respect of the future of Fort Churchill from a military standpoint.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question. Would the minister consider making a reply with regard to the question of whether postings have been frozen?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday the government of Cuba announced that recent tornadoes have wrought great damage on their country and imposed great hardship on their people. I wonder whether the government contemplates giving any assistance to Cuba, and particularly to relieving any hunger or distress from which the Cuban people may be suffering.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my hon. friend's question I would remind him, notwithstanding his comment last week on the assistance which the Acting Prime Minister announced, it is the intention to provide, pursuant to traditional policy, assistance to countries that were the victims of unfortunate accidents and consequent destruction. I had a telephone call this morning from the head of CARE as to possible further assistance by way of supply from Canada of amounts of available dried milk. My colleague the Minister of Agriculture has indicated that this matter is under consideration. Indeed some action has already been taken. But my hon. friend may be assured that the matter is being looked into further.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Have any of the Caribbean countries been in contact with the government of Canada with respect to the purchase of butter?


Harry William Hays: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker; not the purchase of butter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, from my new seat, where I hope to get along
[Mr. Simpson.)
fine with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), I would like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Does the minister concur in the statement of that great Liberal minister, Mr. Rene Levesque, to the effect that we should invest in education rather than in national defence and that it is unthinkable that national defence be given precedence in the preparation of the federal appropriations?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am of the firm opinion that we should do both, Mr. Speaker.


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


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the question I had in mind has been asked by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine).



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Has the minister received a brief from the Vancouver branch of the association of Canadian television and radio artists in which they complain of inadequate and shameful facilities with regard to the operations of the C.B.C. on the Pacific coast? If so, what action is contemplated?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman sent me notice of this question. I did receive a brief. I was not able to receive the delegation, but it was received by my special assistant. I have sent the brief on to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for consideration. I might say that my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has also been making urgent representations about this matter which is very similar, of course, to the situation in Toronto and in Montreal with respect to the scatteration of the C.B.C. all over the city. There is no doubt the situation would be better if the facilities were all in one place, and if we had unlimited funds I am sure that is what would happen.

The house resumed, from Monday, October 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.

Labour Relations



LABOUR RELATIONS


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in rising to resume the debate which started yesterday perhaps it is in order to summarize briefly what took place. We in the official opposition were lectured by the government for even suggesting that a want of confidence motion should be moved on this very vital issue concerning the economy of Canada today. We were told that the amendment was frivolous. The Prime Minister laughed at the issue.
Certainly we in the opposition did not necessarily ask for a supply motion yesterday and today. We were told we were going to have supply motions every week until, as is customary under the rules of the house, six supply motions had been brought forward. I was somewhat shocked by the attitude taken by the government house leader, the Prime Minister and the members who spoke for that party. We were lectured with regard to wasting the time of the house for two days. They wanted to get on with government business, but at the same time they ruled that we should have a supply motion.
I have listened to a great deal of debate since the recess. We were told that one of the prime purposes in calling us back on September 30 last was to settle the great lakes dispute. The government wanted to bring in legislation, and we in the opposition aided them on numerous occasions by unanimously agreeing with the house leader that the rules be set aside and debate proceeded with. I think more rules have been set aside by unanimous consent in the past three weeks in order to proceed with government items than in any similar period of parliamentary history.
To me the biggest waste of time in the house has been this continual haranguing over the seating of members, and I am glad to see that at last this matter has been settled, though perhaps not to the liking of all hon. members. But it should have been settled before we reconvened, and we have wasted two weeks. Now it is settled I hope we can get on with government legislation expeditiously so that all the measures the government wish to bring forward can be proclaimed and their results felt across the nation.
It amazes me, Mr. Speaker, to think that yesterday 2,000 members of a Canadian union-whether we like the S.I.U. does not really matter-came to parliament but went away unseen by the Prime Minister and unrecognized, as far as I know, by the government. We see in today's Ottawa Journal that
the Minister of Labour said "Return to Montreal, Mr. Banks, and then I will see you".
I can remember a few years ago, when western Canada was greatly concerned over possible government action, that 1,100 farmers came to Ottawa. The government of that day welcomed them, and the prime minister spoke to them and told them that he was aware of their problems. But what did we see yesterday? Perhaps I am a poor one to speak on behalf of a trade union, but yesterday we saw a complete disregard for our fellow men. We saw these S.I.U. members being badgered by individual backbenchers, but no official recognition was given them by the Prime Minister and they received no official acceptance or hearing by the government of the day. To me it was a shocking display of arrogance and indifference, of treating it as a laughing matter, as evidenced in the house last evening in particular. I do not want to go into details; I am sure all hon. members were aware of what happened on the hill yesterday.
Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, about United States interference. I for one am pleased to see that at last action is being taken with regard to the situation on the great lakes, action which I regret was not taken long before. I also regret that a voluntary agreement was not achieved. As I understand it, this public trusteeship will have jurisdiction over Canadian ships. Whenever an attempt was made to get a voluntary agreement, control was also wanted over United States interests on the great lakes. The public trusteeship will not have such control, and it is interesting to note that we have been given no assurance by the Prime Minister that the United States unions, through the President, have assured Canada that they will co-operate.
I think this matter is well detailed in today's Gazette. An article on the editorial page says this:
But proclaiming the trusteeship is only the first step.
The minister himself admitted that the worst is yet to come. As a western farmer I realize the position with which western Canada is faced. We have had one of the greatest crops and one of the greatest sales of wheat ever made, but we have had no co-operation from the government and a particular segment of the country in the settlement of a dispute which has raged since July. The Gazette continues:
The next step will be to deal with whatever defiance of the law may now be raised by the S.I.U. In this struggle, however, the government will have many resources of law and power: the resources, in fact, of the Canadian nation.

Labour Relations
But then looms the still larger question. What happens if the government of Canada finds itself confronted, not simply with one strategically powerful union in Canada, but with the force of the massive labour federation of the United States-the A.F.L.-C.I.O.?
I hope when the minister speaks this afternoon he will give us an assurance that Mr. Meany and the labour unions of the United States have agreed to co-operate with the public trusteeship, because we do want shipping on the great lakes to return to normal operation for the remaining part of the season.
The Montreal Gazette continues in this way:
Hope now must be placed in the law-the law whether in Canada or in the United States. Mr. Justice Norris, in his report on the Canadian maritime unions, pointed out that the supreme court of the United States-last February declared the principle that even when a ship of foreign registry is in the waters of the United States its domestic jurisdiction must be respected in domestic affairs, which includes labour relations.
This was the point I tried to make earlier today. In his many telephone conversations with the President, has the Prime Minister been given the assurance that the law will be enforced? Apparently not. Some hon. members yesterday asked the Prime Minister about telephone conversations he had had with the President. What did the President say?


An hon. Member:: "Sorry, wrong number".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We had to interject two or three times to ask this, and the Prime Minister referred to it as an asinine interjection, as a stupid interruption; and he said, in a sense "You western members quit making these statements and don't bother me. I was talking to the President about something other than shipping on the great lakes", or that is what we were led to believe.
This is certainly not the stand western Canada would like to see taken by the government on this question. We are worried. We do not want the worst which is yet to come, as the Minister of Labour said. We want this matter settled by agreement among the parties-the shipping companies, the unions, the members and the men who do the work-so that exports of grain can move forward freely along the seaway.
I have heard many hon. members condemn Hal Banks, the leader of the S.I.U., and certainly I hold no love for him. Few hon. members have ever stood up and proclaimed him a great union leader. Even the New Democratic party members say he should be thrown out of Canada. I read from time to time of certain alien citizens who are deported from the United States. Why cannot we, on the evidence of the Norris report, now deport Hal Banks? This evidence has been available to the present government

since last July and the Minister of Justice has been prodded several times to take action in this regard. On page 296 of the Norris report this statement appears:
Banks obtained his absolute control in his union through the misuse of union funds, the hiring halls, the D.N.S. and R.O.C. cards, and the welfare plan. This has been fully established.
This evidence is fully set out in the Norris report which was tabled in this house last July. Why has the Minister of Justice not taken some action with regard to this man who is doing so much to corrupt relations and disrupt shipping on the great lakes? The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is perhaps the only hon. member who has a particular affection for him. Maybe he should have, and maybe he should not have, but surely he could read the evidence and if the evidence is clear, as Mr. Justice Norris has suggested it is, he should be prepared to bring in the necessary legislation to deport him. Similar action is taken in countries other than Canada. I think it is time we were the power of the land, as is suggested in today's Gazette. This government is the power of the land and should take action against any undesirable alien as is the case in this instance.
With regard to the shipping situation on the great lakes, we have been given no assurance that the lawlessness which is now going on will cease. From time to time I have tried to get an assurance from the government that they expect the co-operation of the Canadian unions, of the United States government and of the labour unions of the United States in enforcing the law. But the government cannot even give us an assurance that they will have the co-operation of the unions in Canada in carrying out this public trusteeship measure. The Minister of Labour refuses to see one of the trade union heads. This is no way to go about getting the co-operation of the unions in order that the trusteeship can operate with the good will of all concerned.
From time to time we have heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce defend his department and his own actions with regard to wheat sales. This whole discussion centres on wheat sales to a great extent, because more than half the freight shipped on the great lakes or through the St. Lawrence seaway is western grain. This is why we who come from western Canada are so concerned with shipping on the lakes. From time to time the minister has said that shipments will continue to move out, that there is no real problem.
I wish to remind the house that we have seen disclosures in United States newspapers of Canadian wheat board transactions. We

have asked for information and been unable to get it, but all we have to do is to read the United States newspapers. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was asked whether he would tell the United States government that these disclosures about Canadian wheat board contracts were not appreciated by the Canadian government, and that they could possibly harm wheat board sales on behalf of the farmers of western Canada. The minister told us he did not think this was necessary; the message would be got across, but he did not want to take any formal note of it because he was afraid to hurt their feelings down there. He did not want to give the impression that the Canadian and United States governments were at odds about anything, though the evidence is abundant that they are.
We are concerned about the possible effect of this shipping situation on wheat shipments to Russia. I read in a United States newspaper that there is a clause in the contract with Russia which permits the Russians to stop taking Canadian wheat and shift their order to the United States if the commitments are not met, if there is a strike or a stoppage of movement on the great lakes. This explains the concern I feel about this problem. We are committed to selling this wheat. Now the fight is to maintain deliveries. We are in danger of losing this order because of delayed action, slow action and perhaps even meaningless action, if the co-operation of the various unions cannot be maintained.
We hear requests from time to time that the quotas on western farms should be raised. It is evident they are far below last year's levels. As a result of the abundant wheat crop many farmers have grain in open bins in the fields. They want to get it into the elevators, into shelter, before winter sets in. They want the quotas opened up, but with the continual stumbling and fumbling which has gone on with regard to the shipping situation how can they look forward with optimism toward a solution of their storage problems? The shipping difficulties on the lakes are not yet settled and they may not be settled, despite this trusteeship arrangement. We read in the Financial Post that President Kennedy is greatly concerned about an election next year. He does not want to offend the unions in the United States.
There is another thought which enters my mind in this connection. President Kennedy is not too popular in the midwestern states. He is not too popular in the grain belt there. Perhaps if, by hook or by crook, in co-operation with Mr. Meany and the unions in the United States he could increase United States wheat sales to Russia it would
Labour Relations
strengthen his hand in the election next year in those states where he is not too popular. These are the fears which arise in my mind as a representative from western Canada.
We were told that President Kennedy and the Prime Minister were as close as peas in a pod. We were told they could get along and solve such problems as this. But we cannot even be given an assurance by the acting prime minister today that the President has said the law of the land will be enforced. During the summer a Canadian ship tied up in the port of Chicago. It could not be loaded. A court injunction was obtained, and the fine for refusing to load was supposed to be $3,000 a day. Still the ship was not loaded, and eventually it had to leave the port and move into Canadian waters. This is what we fear for the future. We want some guarantee from this government that our shipping will not find itself once again faced with such circumstances.
Some time ago the Minister of Finance warned that if we were not extremely careful we would lose control of our own country. Well, there has not been much evidence in the last two months that we really have control over our own affairs or that we are masters of our own house. If this trend continues we will certainly be in danger of losing our sovereignty. We all hope that after the trusteeship bill has been proclaimed some sort of co-operation can be developed between this country and the United States. Only a few months ago the former government was ostracized as being anti-American. We were told that a Liberal government would get the co-operation of the United States.
We want to see some evidence that hon. gentlemen opposite are now getting this cooperation. Up to the present, in its dealings with important questions involving shipping, labour, and the wheat trade, there has been no evidence of this co-operation, and western Canada stands to suffer most from the lawlessness which has been permitted to continue on the great lakes.
We in western Canada have been laughed at in Ottawa whenever we have mentioned wheat. There have been times when we have mentioned it too often. We have been called dirty dogs by members of the present government. However, we still believe it is our duty to rise at every opportunity and point out the problems as they appear to us, in the hope that the government will take the advice of the opposition and introduce certain measures to alleviate those problems.
In so far as this problem is concerned, we have been given a great deal of hope because we note, in looking over the record of the

Labour Relations
present government, that they introduced a series of ideas on the budget, but the opposition and others outside the house convinced the government that many of these measures should not be implemented. We convinced the government they would not work. Many of these provisions have been dropped, and some of the taxes have been reduced. This gives the opposition some hope that we can successfully urge the government to take action to proclaim this trusteeship and get assurance from the United States government that they will co-operate. We should like the United States government to get the assurance of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. that they, too, will co-operate. I would strongly suggest that when the trusteeship is set up, the trustees take steps to ensure that great lakes personnel will be given the freedom to join whatever union they desire. The trustees should make sure that the unions operate free and democratic hiring halls.
I think it was evident during the longshoremen strike that there should be some assurance given that free, secret elections will be held in these unions. The leaders of the longshoremen's union said, no, we won't accept the settlement; but when a secret vote was taken the result was something like four to one in favour of accepting the terms of the shipping companies, and the longshoremen went back to work. I urge the public trustees to make sure they maintain secret elections in all cases in which union officials and union matters are concerned. I feel that there is plenty of evidence in the Norris report indicating the need for a private audit of union pension funds and other union funds. Certainly, I should like to see the public trustees establish principles in the years ahead to ensure that these matters will be looked after properly and accurately for the benefit of union members.
I think perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I have given you and the government some of my views concerning the operation of shipping on the St. Lawrence seaway. I hope, along with all Canadians, that the act will be proclaimed and that shipping will return to normal as soon as possible. I hope, too, that we will have the co-operation of the United States government and the United States unions in solving this grave problem affecting all of Canada, and particularly western Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the subject that has been raised in this supply amendment relates to a problem which has accumulated over a long period of time. Thus, it is the accumulated product developed over quite a number of years that is now being dealt with by the Department of Labour. It is my view that because of its

history it ought to be regarded as a shared burden, a shared responsibility, because if one examines the background of this problem, he will find that there are quite a number of groups who ought to accept their share of responsibility for the kind of difficulty that reached its most colourful manifestation on parliament hill yesterday.
I am thankful, Mr. Speaker, for the support that has been accorded the policy of the government by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). I appreciate that they have realized the difficulties of this problem. It is not as easy as has been implied by members of the official opposition to deal with it in an effective manner.
In introducing the legislation preparatory to setting up the trusteeship, I mentioned in the house that the situation would likely get worse before it got better. This statement has been borne out by the events of yesterday and by the events of last Friday. On Friday last, the rights committee of the seafarers international union issued a directive asking all members of the seafarers union to leave their ships to stage a march in demonstration on parliament hill. These instructions suggested that this demonstration was to be a peaceful and responsible representation to members of parliament. Surely no members of parliament have any objection to citizens of this country coming to parliament hill and giving some expression of their views to members of parliament. Surely also, Mr. Speaker, such demonstrations if they are held must be lawful, and the demonstration yesterday was in clear violation of the law of Canada.
The hon. gentleman who just took his seat berated me for not having rushed out to greet the leaders of the seafarers international union. I would remind him that the leader of that union, and his officers, and the seamen's rights committee had, in a concerted and determined effort, violated the law of Canada and conducted an illegal strike which made it possible for these men to come to Ottawa yesterday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister explain what he means by "illegal"? I do not want to interrupt.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was a work stoppage clearly in violation of the Canadian labour laws. I think all hon. members ought to bear that in mind in assessing this particular matter.
The president of the seafarers international union did not ask the Minister of Labour, nor to my knowledge any member of the government, for an interview or to be heard in any

particular way. No such request was made yesterday, even though many officers of the union were here. I did, as did other members of parliament, have an opportunity to meet with a large number of the seamen who were here as part of the demonstration and who were electors of the constituency of Inverness-Richmond. I was glad to see them and to spend almost two hours with them in a discussion of this problem. I want to assure my hon. friends in the house that in discharging my responsibilities its impact was made all the more realistic by meeting my own electors and explaining to them the reasons for the trusteeship that had been established by the parliament of Canada.
I found among these men, and among others, misunderstanding about the purpose of the trusteeship and about the possible effect it might have on the union. I assured these men, as I am sure other hon. members did with the seamen they met, that the trusteeship legislation is not intended to destroy the jobs of the seamen. It is intended to protect their jobs.
The legislation is not intended to destroy the seafarers international union as a properly conducted organization. The purpose of the legislation is to strengthen the union by making it more democratic and more effective. The purpose of the legislation is not to carve up the S.I.U. and divide it up among any other unions. The purpose is to make it a proper instrument, serving the union members.
I think many members of the delegation came off their ships through an understandable loyalty to their union rather than through a deep devotion to the leadership of the seafarers international union, because they wanted assurances that their union would not be wrecked. The purpose of the legislation is certainly not in that direction.
In analysing the demonstration yesterday it is apparent that the planning for it was elaborate and conducted in secret. Surely it was obvious, from the directives that had been issued by the committee, that the planning went far beyond the capacity of rank and file members of a trade union. The organization of the demonstration involved the expenditure of funds that required the active and direct participation of the officers, and obviously involved the financial resources of the organization.
It was apparent to all on parliament hill that Mr. Banks had sole and complete authority over what was claimed not to be a strike but a demonstration. It is also significant the men were ordered by him to the hiring halls after the demonstration, but not to the vessels they had left.
Labour Relations
Further, it was apparent many of the men were not aware of the facts in the Norris report. They were unaware of the origin of the report. One seaman suggested to me that the report had been written by the shipping companies, and he sincerely felt it was a document prepared and distributed by the companies in an effort to destroy his union.
There were no incidents. It was a careful, well conducted demonstration, and any of us who know anything about democratic unions must have been surprised at the unanimity and the docility of those union members who appeared on parliament hill yesterday. They were obviously under the direction and leadership of the president and his committee, and were behaving under the specific instructions of this group.
I am also sure that the demonstration revealed there are many men in that union who are not fully behind the present leadership. There were members of that union who came here, not with the enthusiasm that possibly Mr. Banks would like to believe, and this is borne out by the fact that there were many seamen who did not join the demonstration at all. We have been told that the majority of S.I.U. members on the west coast refused to leave their ships, and that there were seamen on ships in various other ports, in central and eastern Canada, who voted against the proposal to go to Ottawa and who later remained on their ships.
I was told this morning that some of the seamen who were in Ottawa yesterday have today drifted back to their jobs. Not all of them have done so, but I feel sure that the great majority of these seamen would prefer to be back at their jobs today. It will indeed be a very sad outcome if these men are ordered to remain away from their work and if further trouble arises, as it is bound to arise, from efforts on the part of shipping companies to man the vessels with other crews. Trouble would come from the kind of conflict arising from such a situation.
It seems to me all of us profoundly wish that these seamen will go back to their work, will obey the law of Canada, and will resume the operations which they were ordered to suspend on Friday last.
On Sunday I sent a telegram to the president of the seafarers international union reminding him that the activity was illegal, and on behalf of the government asking him and his executive officers to obey the law of Canada and to direct all seamen to resume work. On Friday I had made a statement indicating the illegality of this action. On Saturday efforts were made by the Department of Labour to indicate in the strongest and clearest possible terms that this action

Labour Relations
was illegal, and that the men ought to go back to work. On Sunday this was followed up by the telegram to which I have referred, and of course on Monday we had the demonstration.
Today I had an urgent phone call from Mr. Banks. I came out of the cabinet meeting to take this call and Mr. Banks explained why, from his point of view, it was unsuitable for him either to reply to my telegram or for him to meet me yesterday. He then asked to have a meeting with me and said he was prepared to leave his home at once and drive to Ottawa. He wanted such a meeting because he assured me that if I, at a meeting of that kind, asked him or ordered him to send the men back to work, then he at a subsequent meeting with his seamen would be in a much stronger position to influence them in getting them back to work.
I told Mr. Banks I would consider his proposal and call him back. I did so and told him I would see him, provided in the meantime he went before his men and asked them to return to work and to obey the law. I asked him for his assurance that he would make that recommendation to the men, and he gave me that assurance and said he would support it fully. If that happens, if the men are returned to work and if the law is obeyed, I will be glad to see Mr. Banks. If I receive an assurance from Mr. Banks that the men will be asked to obey the law, I will see him. But I am not prepared to meet with Mr. Banks or the officers of the seafarers international union of Canada while the law of Canada is being disobeyed, and while I have received no assurances that every effort has been made by them to see that the law of Canada is complied with.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister a question. I am sure he can say what section of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act or the Canada Shipping Act he thinks is in conflict with the seamen coming to Ottawa yesterday under what they claim is a contract condition. Second, what is the difference between this situation and the one where the other seamen asked the shipping companies to allow them to have a day off in order to come to Ottawa yesterday, although not with exactly the same purpose? Why is one illegal, and under what section of the act is it considered to be illegal?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I have not the actual texts before me to enable me to give my hon. friend the precise sections. But there is a provision in the collective agreements between the union and the companies that every consideration

will be given to a seaman who makes a request to go ashore for medical attention, legal counsel or the necessities of life. Consideration is given to such a request. We do not believe this provision of the collective agreements was complied with in the case of seamen who left their ships in violation of this clause and without the permission of the officers or masters of the vessels. In the case of one particular union, I understand that authority was given. In the case of another union it was not given, and this conduct is therefore in violation of the agreement.


William Arnold Peters: Would not this be a matter for grievance procedure between the two parties concerned in the contract, rather than the government declaring it to be an illegal act, which action would, in my opinion, necessitate a definition as to the contravention of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act from the point of view of the federal government. In those circumstances, it would not be a contract dispute between a seaman or a group of seamen and their shipping company.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is the point, that any such work stoppage as I have described is a violation of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and is consequently a strike that is unlawful. There is no doubt in the minds of the experienced officers of the Department of Labour that this clearly constitutes an illegal strike. This is the situation.
It seems to me that two weeks ago I was being pressed in this house to end a strike that was fully legal and I withstood pressure in order that the rights of the longshoremen would be fully exercised under the law of Canada. If these men in this situation were out lawfully and in exercise of free collective bargaining, I would take exactly the same attitude as I took with the longshoremen. But in this case I am bound to exercise my responsibility and say that this work stoppage is illegal under the law of Canada, and therefore I am obliged to ask the officers and the seamen to obey the law of Canada. That is the point.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister a further question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Let him make his speech. You will have an opportunity.


William Arnold Peters: In view of what the minister has stated, is he now prepared to lay charges against all those who are guilty of what appears to be an offence? I think this course of action has to be pursued, or we are foolish

to raise this type of problem. This is what has happened time after time: you say those things but do not do anything.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the help I am receiving from my hon. friend, but I intended to deal with this aspect of the matter. I am not taking any high handed attitude toward the S.I.U. If the officers of the
S.I.U., and Mr. Banks, under the conditions I have described wish to come before the Minister of Labour and discuss the trusteeship legislation, I will attempt to explain to them, as I have explained to seamen, that it will be the desire of the government, as it has been up to this time, to get fair minded men who will be free under the law, without direction from me, to discharge their powers under the act.
I would expect the S.I.U. to be treated fairly and justly under this public trusteeship. It is surely not the intention of parliament that a trusteeship should be set up to inflict injustice upon any individual in Canada, let alone 15,000 members of the S.I.U. That is not the intention. But the law is there and it will be administered by the trustees who will be carrying this heavy responsibility given to them by the parliament of Canada.


Mr. Fisher:: Where is Banks going to be?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I have stated, the law is there; it has been passed by the parliament of Canada. The trustees will be empowered to exercise that law within the provisions of the act, and it is not my responsibility to prejudge the action of the trustees and to say that any particular man in any particular situation will be dealt with in any way contrary to the provisions declared in the act by the parliament of Canada. I think that is a perfectly proper attitude to take, as minister. No other attitude is consistent with the action taken by the parliament of Canada. This is as I see the situation. I hope I have not been misunderstood with regard to any of the points I have made.
Much has been said about the delays and confusion with respect to the way in which this matter has been dealt with. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in one of his rare flashes of humour described it as a policy of chuckles and postponements. All I can tell him is that in his day we had lots of postponements but very few chuckles. I have no apology to make as to the way we have searched to provide a private trusteeship. I have no apology for that at all, because we did think on two occasions that we were close to agreement. If agreement had been possible, some of the difficulties that we may face in the future might not have arisen. But this was not possible. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the most strenuous and patient
Labour Relations
efforts were made to reach that desirable goal of a private trusteeship, but they failed. There was no other course, then, but to proceed with the legislation, and now to proceed with the selection of the trustees.
Until Sunday there was some last possible hope for the establishment of a private trusteeship and people were negotiating in good faith. Surely while they were negotiating in good faith for a private trusteeship it was not my responsibility to be out looking for public trustees. Surely that would be the wrong thing to do. Now that the private trusteeship has collapsed and there is no possibility of its being agreed upon, the government is searching for public trustees.
I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we are taking into account the views that have been expressed by members of the House of Commons as to the kind of man required. I am trying to live up to the intimations I gave in the house as to the kind of man that would be asked to serve. I am attempting to carry out those commitments. Just as soon as we have secured the willingness of these men to serve, and they are finally appointed, their names will be announced in the House of Commons. I hope these trustees will command the respect and the confidence of the Canadian people and the respect and confidence of the seamen of Canada whose unions are to be administered by them. Then the act will be proclaimed and the trustees will go about their work. Let me say in conclusion that I hope the trusteeship will secure the support and confidence of the members of the House of Commons and the people of Canada, because it may be that the things that will face the trustees will be very difficult indeed.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Labour would entertain two questions from me in order to clarify my thinking on these two matters. The first one has to do with the breakdown in the search for the private trusteeship, which was instigated again after the bill was passed, and went on over the week end. The reason given for the breakdown in the search for a private trusteeship was the illegal walkout of the S.I.U. men from their ships. It hardly seems possible that this could be so. My own opinion is that it would have probably precipitated the search for the public trusteeship in order to put it into effect. I do not know what the real reasons are, but if the minister would care to answer I should like to hear from him whether this was the real reason or whether there were other reasons about which we may be hearing later.

Labour Relations


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I stated on Sunday, I believe, that it was my opinion that in the absence of this illegal act by the S.I.U. there might have been a satisfactory private settlement. I held the view that in the absence of this development on Thursday and Friday there was a good chance, and I thought that the gap was closing. But the matter was completely disturbed by this illegal action.


Michael Starr: This is my second question. The minister mentioned the chuckles and delays and said that progress was being made at as quick a pace as possible. In view of the fact that he has said that the walkout is an illegal one under the act, and I agree with him on that score, does he not think there is delay on his part or on the part of the government in not setting a deadline for the walkout to end? How long is the government willing to allow this illegal walkout to go on?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All I can say in reply to that question is that this is a matter of judgment. It is my expectation and my firm hope that these men will go back to work voluntarily. If they fail to do so the government of Canada will seek every possible legal method to have the law of Canada complied with. That is all we can do.


Michael Starr: I have one further question on this point. How long a period does the government think is reasonable for this illegal walkout to continue before it undermines the economy of the country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would remind my hon. friend that two weeks ago he and other members of the opposition were up on their feet demanding immediate action with regard to a strike that at that time was only four hours old. We took a different course and our course was proven to be correct in those circumstances.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister of Labour meant what he implied when he said that I demanded precipitate action, and I am sure he would not want to leave that impression without correction.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the Minister of Labour while he spoke about the present situation with regard to the trusteeship. In today's Ottawa Journal there is a statement that the Prime Minister has the three trustees he wants and, provided the Minister of Labour signs them up, their names will be announced in the house this afternoon or tomorrow. Would the minister not agree that the delay in announcing the members of the trusteeship board will precipitate a situation whereby the illegal strike will continue and these men

will not go back to work until they see that the government means business? Would the minister not agree that this could be a factor in the present situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this is really asking for an opinion. At this moment I think that the two matters can be separated and I would hope it would be possible to separate them. But the government will not delay at all in carrying out its responsibilities with respect to the announcement of the trustees.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask the minister a question? Has the trusteeship act been legally proclaimed? Is it now the law of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not proclaimed.


Mr. Bell:: Has there been any reluctance on the part of individuals to accept appointment?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I do not want anything I say to lead the government or the minister to think that we have changed our views in support of the whole idea of the trusteeship. However, his speech has certainly disturbed me, and some of my colleagues I think, with regard to the analysis he made of the situation. Apparently he has given us a view of what he thinks the mood of the men may be, and their relationships with Hal Banks.
We would like to put the dispute into some kind of time text. It seems to me the reason the situation is crucial at the present time is that the shipping season on the lakes has at the most eight weeks to go. If we have a cold, late November that period may be reduced by as much as two weeks, and we will then have effectively only six weeks more shipping.
We have a very large problem in getting grain to the eastern ocean ports in particular, in order to fill the shipments to Russia which, as everyone agrees, are vital to our economy. With this kind of time sequence of six to eight weeks the time factor is most crucial from the point of view of getting these ships back to work.
All of us in the house, even those who voted against the trusteeship, like the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), have joined in insisting that Hal Banks is a gangster, a crook and a thug. But here we are with the situation where the man led a group of his followers to parliament hill yesterday. It was a well organized demonstration and, with one exception, the members of the S.I.U. to whom I talked expressed deep loyalty to Banks. The man is able to bring this many men here to parliament hill, keep them under good discipline and send them back to where they came from.

This suggests to me and to my colleagues that it is going to take some really sharp and drastic action in order to break the hold that Banks has over these men. I refuse to believe that it is going to be easy for the trusteeship, once it is proclaimed, to step right in and somehow take over. This is why we are concerned. We will all join in the cries about Banks being a thug, a gangster and a criminal, but we have had no legal proceedings or prosecutions against him, either under his immigrant status or as a result of any of the incidents in which he has been involved over such a period of time. It seems almost incomprehensible that the Minister of Labour will now put the onus on the trustees to straighten out what is a crucial timeconsuming situation. That is the only interpretation we can take of his speech, that the onus is now going to lie on the trusteeship working under the authority of the act. I insist that this is not good enough. I think the minister should recognize from his own experience of labour unions that if Banks is not separated from his capacity to control the membership of the S.I.U. we will not get very far.
I should like to report to the house on a conversation I had with one member of the
S.I.U. who came from Port Arthur which I think is as significant as anything the minister reported. This man said: "So Banks is a gangster. So nobody has ever done anything about it. I am worried about my job. There is not much of the season left. Do you think that I or any of my fellows are going to put ourselves out in left field with people like Banks in this kind of situation?" It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this underlines the criticism one might make both of the minister and the government at this time. In this sense we have shifted toward accepting to a degree the kind of criticism which has been expressed in the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker), that we have today not been given a really clear picture of how the government intend to move. I insist that the crucial question is: How is the government going to separate Banks and McLaughlin and all these other senior people in the S.I.U. from the capacity or the ability to interfere, and to keep their grip on these men? The press has given one indication of how it can be done; and unless the government has a plan prepared, I think that this situation is likely to lead to some kind of warfare along the docks. This is a suggestion that the C.M.U. is rounding up crews in Montreal and other cities to take over the ships and get the ships moving. If that is done without some attempt 28902-5-246
Labour Relations
to sequester Banks and his immediate lieutenants from connection with the men, we will have real warfare on the docks, quite apart from any action taken on the United States side.
I do not want to go on and dot the "i's" of something which has been dotted enough already, but to me the minister's response was most unsatisfactory, particularly to the question put by the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters). Is there no possibility, under any of these statutes of which the minister is in charge, of taking some action against Banks and his lieutenants? Perhaps I am wrong in my impression that the minister will leave it up to the trusteeship, but I suggest that that is going a little too far. I was approached yesterday by a couple of people who asked me what suggestions I would make, and I suggested that one of the things which it seems to me the government must be prepared to do is to have troops, in preference to police, ready to take over the dock facilities during this crucial period of time. That may be necessary. These are the kinds of emergency steps which should be taken, not the dragooning of S.I.U. members, to bring about what we all want, namely, the removal of Banks and his leadership from a situation of control, so that we can get the flow of trade moving again and the trusteeship on its way to doing something with the organization.
If I have misinterpreted the minister and he has an opportunity to clarify the situation, then fine; but I think other hon. members in the house also share my concern at the speech he has made and the interpretation we have been led to put upon it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if I may interpret those remarks, as a question I will be glad to tell my hon. friend that the point I was making about the trusteeship was that parliament has given authority to a trusteeship to do certain things. Parliament gave the trusteeship this particular responsibility, and it will be their obligation to carry out the responsibilities which have been assigned to them by parliament. That is, I think, the impression I wanted to give. If it led to the belief that with respect to other developments the government will not take any action at all, then that is an unfortunate misinterpretation which I may inadvertently have given. With regard to the present circumstances, the government has under active consideration steps which might be taken. It has in mind severals steps which might be taken to deal with this situation.


John George Diefenbaker: It seems to have had that for six weeks.
Labour Relations


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) gave us to understand yesterday that the house would be informed today of the government's intentions with respect to this problem of national interest.
This afternoon, the minister concerned stated that he would make a review of the situation and indicate the intentions of the government.
The only thing we learned is that later on a trusteeship will be set up and that trustees will be appointed. He gave us no indication as to whether those trustees have been chosen, whether the negotiations will soon be concluded successfully or whether the trustees will be appointed next week, in ten days or in a month.
He told us also that the strike now going on in Montreal and which threatens to paralyse shipping on the St. Lawrence and the great lakes was absolutely illegal and that union officials had exerted absolutely illegal pressures on union members.
He told us also about the spectacle given for our benefit by union members who, illegally led by their officers, came to Ottawa to demonstrate on the steps of the national parliament itself.
So there we have a cabinet minister who comes and tells us that everything that was done there was absolutely illegal. Yet, when we ask him what he intends to do, all he can say is: tomorrow we might consider the matter.
To make a long story short, this whole speech made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) was only meant to tell us that the situation was just as confused as it was yesterday, the day before, a week ago, two months ago, in short, as it was in August. In short, the situation is only getting worse.
The Minister of Labour told us that he had an announcement to make but he only told us that he was ready to meet Mr. Banks. He even boasted of having talked to him over the telephone. It is surprising how members of the cabinet find it difficult to make telephone calls.
The minister declared that Mr. Banks was guilty of illegal actions. In a word, the only news he could give us today was about the pleasant talk he had with that individual.
In short, this shows how much the situation is confused, and how the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) had every reason to assert yesterday that the government did not wish to assume its responsibilities, that it was afraid and according to the Globe and Mail, that it had been waiting during the past three months to find an easy way

out so that it would not lose face. But unfortunately the easy solution is not in view and the situation, instead of improving, is getting worse.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has told us that he is worried. That, in itself, shows a certain progress, even though he was all smiles while making his speech, probably because he wanted once more to have the house and the public believe that there is no need to worry about that problem.
Besides, the minister has told us that it is a trouble which has been existing for a long time and that that type of difficulty is not new, since the previous administrations had to face similar troubles on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the minister that under the previous government, if we had troubles on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence, we took our responsibilities, and the proof is that it is the predecessor of the present minister who appointed Judge Norris to make a complete investigation into the whole matter of shipping in the great lakes and the St. Lawrence.
If this government postponed the application of the recommendations of the Norris report, I do not think that the minister can throw the blame on the former government for that. Mr. Justice Norris, who is an experienced jurist, did not hesitate to recommend positive action. I do not say that they were easy measures to apply but they were positive, and the government should have assumed its responsibilities at that time.
Today, we hear members from western Canada express their deep concern about our wheat trade with Russia, and about the danger of losing a great part of this famous wheat contract with Russia and other countries behind the iron curtain.
Mr. Speaker, I have just met people living along the St. Lawrence; I come from Three Rivers. And let me tell you that people are greatly worried in that region and have been for a long time. As a matter of fact, the most deplorable acts of violence happened in Three Rivers. They are what prompted the previous government to take action.
Today, the population of Three Rivers, as well as of all the other communities along the St. Lawrence river and the great lakes, have a right to call on the government to assume its responsibilities, act immediately and stop saying that something else will be done tomorrow and the day after.
Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the St. Lawrence river is the main artery of the economic life of our country. The most beautiful pages of our history were written

on the shores of the St. Lawrence river. That artery is absolutely necessary for the export trade of a country like Canada.
It is really a tragedy that shipping itself on this beautiful waterway should be endangered not only by Mr. Banks and his gang, but also by the delays and indecision of the government.
Let us not forget that Canadian taxpayers have invested millions of dollars in the St. Lawrence river, that the seaway cost about $400 million and that the modernization of the waterway cost approximately $100 million.
It is time the government assumed its responsibilities. The government must not do what it did in the past when it was in power after the war. We then had sea-going merchant ships on which 10,000 Canadian seamen earned a living. Our merchant marine has completely disappeared because the government of the day refused to assume its responsibilities. Even at that time, labour unions were blamed, but nothing was done to put a stop to their wrongdoings. The same thing is happening today. As for us, we proceeded to modernize shipping on the great lakes, and that asset should be preserved for the people of Canada and not wasted simply because the government is afraid of taking its responsibilities with regard to labour unions, which it is first to condemn, but tolerates indirectly.
Today we see irresolution and delay. Mr. Banks was allowed to enter Canada, and now they claim they want to deport him. Sometimes they want to get rid of him, sometimes they wish to keep him there. At any rate, they confirmed his right to stay here as a landed immigrant. And now, they want to take proceedings against him. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) did tell us that he had enlisted the services of two great criminalists in this country in order to launch criminal proceedings against Banks; that happened three months ago and every week since then we have been asking the Minister of Justice to report upon the matter and we always get the same kind of answer from the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen): "We shall see tomorrow; tomorrow we shall be in a position to make a statement". The government must come to a decision, and above all they have to decide by themselves what they intend to do.
Indeed, since August, they have been seeking an easy solution. They have turned to the Americans, they have asked the Americans to find an easy solution for them.
One will recall that during the last electoral campaign and since then, these gentlemen have claimed that they were the only ones able to engage in friendly talks with the 28902-5-246J
Labour Relations
U.S. government; they have described how great were the relations of Canada with the United States under the Pearson leadership.
I am not surprised that they rely on the American government for an easy answer. Once more, they are making fools of themselves in the eyes of the Americans, as it happened at least four or five times since this government came to power.
Today, the situation is worse than ever. Canadians complain that their unions are controlled by American unions. That should not be. And what is worse, we have a situation where the union boss, Mr. Meany, together with Mr. Wirtz, a great friend of theirs, treats the sovereign government of this country as if it were a child.
Not only does Mr. Wirtz not co-operate, but he indulges in uncalled for remarks which, I am quite sure, the former government would never have allowed.
The situation is ticklish, it is true; but, after all, it has lasted all of three months. We know that the present government was dead-set against the trusteeship; it has said so on numerous occasions. It has repeatedly postponed the bringing in of this measure in the house, and sought every conceivable means to find a solution which might dispense with such a piece of legislation. What has it achieved in three months?
Do you think that this delay has in any way impressed Mr. Banks? The answer was flaunted in our faces, yesterday, as Mr. Banks paraded with a regal gait on the front steps of parliament. It could be that the trusteeship legislation seemed too drastic to this parliament, and that might be one explanation for the delay.
It would have been possible to find an alternative solution, since they were taking so much time to introduce this trusteeship legislation. If they were afraid of trusteeship, why not come up with something else?
Several of my fellow members of the opposition suggested a secret vote. That suggestion could have proved very useful in this instance. Moreover, a secret vote should be mandatory in all fields under federal jurisdiction. We have seen Judge Lippe insist upon it in the case of the longshoremen's strike. One could not go as far as to say that, if the strike was settled, it was because the vote was secret, but it should be pointed out that the longshoremen did not complain. I honestly believe that if secret ballots were used each time union members are called upon to vote, those union members would be the first to approve such an action.
The government could have required the regular auditing of the seamen's union books

Labour Relations
by a chartered accountant. It could have been done and things could have been straightened out.
If those two solutions had been applied immediately, without even waiting for that trusteeship legislation which the government apprehended, it would have been possible to know if the seamen really wanted Mr. Banks as their leader or if they wanted to prevent the acts of intimidation and mismanagement of which he is accused. It would have been possible to keep him in check if a real auditing of the union's books had been made by a chartered accountant.
The government will be obliged to make a hard decision, it will have to assume its own responsibilities if it wants to impose the trusteeship. But it must be convinced that there is no alternative.
The government must stop relying exclusively on the goodwill of Washington. As stated by the Leader of the Opposition, after all the humiliations and rebuffs the government has suffered in Washington, it should begin to understand that if it wants the St. Lawrence river and the great lakes to be an asset for Canada, and not a liability, it must change its philosophy, especially with regard to the merchant navy.
In my opinion, the government should call a meeting of the labour unions, ship owners, exporters and government representatives to set up a master plan for the long term reorganization of the merchant marine as it was done in France, Switzerland and England. Let us not forget that Canada has today a trade deficit of over $150 million because it does not have a merchant marine.
The setting up of a merchant navy would give employment to about 50,000 Canadians.
The present situation shows how important it is for the government to stop all this beating around the bush and to restore law and order once and for all, within the St. Lawrence maritime unions and in our seaports.
The time has come for the government to prove that it is really willing to act and that it is anxious to restore confidence among Canadians who want law and justice to prevail always.
I do not think that the speech made this afternoon by the Minister of Labour impressed many Canadians in that respect.
Mr. Speaker, the seamen are on the doorstep of parliament and the longshoremen threaten to go back on strike but the Prime Minister is waiting by his telephone, for an easy solution to come once again from Washington.
[Mr. Balcer.l


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: This afternoon we have heard widely divergent views as to how the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) should have reacted to the demonstrators who were here yesterday. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) condemns the minister and the government for not welcoming the demonstrators and the officers of the union with open arms. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) suggests that we should have no dealings with the officers of this union at all-


Léon Balcer: If it is illegal, it is illegal.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -because they are acting illegally at the moment. We have another view expressed by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), namely that we should call out the troops.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I did not say it
as simply as that. The hon. member should at least be fair.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly-


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to make it clear. I said that I believed the situation was so crucial along the docks that it would be necessary to call out the troops to sequester Banks and his leaders from access to the docks.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Well, whether you want to call out the troops to sequester Mr. Banks or any of the union officials, or any of the rank and file who are not prepared to co-operate with this trusteeship before it has been set up, is neither here nor there. In my opinion, it is a rather extraordinary precedent to set in this situation and in a democratic country.


Léon Balcer: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to ask him a question? Does he say-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I would be quite happy to take any questions after I have completed my remarks.
After all, let us not get too excited over this situation. What we are concerned about, and what everyone seems to be most concerned about, is keeping the ships moving. There is a great deal of sympathy nowadays for communist Russia. People are concerned about keeping the ships moving and keeping wheat flowing to the seaports so that it may be exported. This is well and good, and as an objective is certainly to be commended. After all who is to guarantee, without the calling out of the troops, that if we act without a great deal of consideration these ships are going to continue to move? It must be

remembered that up until Sunday the ships were continuing to move from the head of the lakes to Montreal. After all, this is our objective.
Certainly, we cannot countenance the breaking of the law. However, it must be pointed out that the former minister of labour, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), was informed by his department officials that the Canadian seamen's union was breaking the law of Canada as far back as 1959. Why did he not act? The minister refused to act because this labour union belonged to a larger body in the trade union movement, and because they belonged to this larger body this somehow excused their acts of violence and their illegal actions. It appears to be a question of degree. On the one hand, we are prepared to accept these illegal actions because they happen to be committed by a large organization, but now, on the other hand, we are not prepared to accept them because they are committed by a smaller organization. We must take precipitate action. We must accept the Norris report as a court decision and take action immediately. We must deport Mr. Banks or put him in jail.
No legal action has been taken. I think we should face this problem more calmly. I want to say at this time, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour needs no one to speak on his behalf. I am expressing my own opinions as a member of parliament. But none the less I believe I have the right to answer some of the criticism that I have heard here today.
As the opposition have said, there was some delay in introducing the trusteeship legislation, but I think the minister was completely justified in allowing his departmental officers to take considerable time in drafting the legislation, legislation without precedent, so that it would be able to stand up if tested in the courts.
The Leader of the Opposition said we should have taken action immediately, but it must be remembered he was the author of the Canadian Bill of Rights which we heard about for 15 years before it became law. It seems passing strange that just because some of his constituents, wheat farmers, may be hurt by a labour union, he would march in immediately and take away the rights of union members.


Edward Nasserden: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question yesterday the Minister of Justice indicated that the trusteeship legislation was in accord with the Canadian Bill of Rights.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; there is no question of privilege there.
Labour Relations


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I did not hear the hon. member's interjection but I always welcome interjections from him because he makes them in such a smiling manner. However I believe he did say that the trusteeship legislation was in conformity with the bill of rights. I would point out to him that if the legislation had been drafted immediately after the Norris report was tabled he would have had no assurance that it would be in conformity with the bill of rights. We wanted to make sure that it was in complete conformity with the bill of rights, and that was one reason for the delay.
Since the longshoremen's strike has been brought into this debate I think I should refer to it for a few moments. Here again there was fear and dread expressed by hon. members from the prairie provinces that we were going to lose the sale of a few million bushels of wheat because the long-suffering longshoremen, after negotiating for over a year, had come to the end of the trail and decided to take legal strike action to obtain their just demands. In that incident also the opposition said the government should take immediate action to end the strike. How else does a government take such action except to call in the troops or introduce legislation providing for compulsory arbitration?
Let us be reasonable when we are discussing these matters. We have not lost any sales yet, and I feel quite confident that with the present Minister of Labour we are less likely to lose orders as a result of his improper management of the Department of Labour than at any time over the past six years. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) has suggested a free election in respect to the management of union affairs.
I cannot conceive of any type of election, unless it is secret, being a true democratic election; and the trusteeship legislation provides that in anything which the trustees attempt to foist upon the unions all questions will be decided by a secret ballot, particularly the election of officers.
Nobody need fear anything from this legislation, and now that the opposition has been relatively assured that the government will take the action they have been demanding for the last three months, I notice there is a bit of weakness on their part to support it wholeheartedly. The legislation will be enforced to the letter of the law, but the important factor today is to keep the seamen on the ships. Let us keep the boats moving, at least until freeze-up and they become icebound rather than strike bound.
I met some of the people who took part in yesterday's demonstration. On the one hand we saw that a section of them had fear of

Labour Relations
the union leadership, and on the other hand a section appeared to have absolute confidence in that leadership. However the over-riding thing which the demonstration indicated was that we could have much more vast and greater difficulties. The ships could be tied up for a longer period if we do not work out some way in which these people will be prepared to accept the trusteeship, in the same manner as it has been accepted by the other four unions involved.
We do not want the ships tied up, and I am sure this is the desire of all hon. members, in addition to cleaning up the S.I.U. I would hope, however, that some of my friends in the far corner of the house do not anticipate that a cleaning up of a union means a changing of its certification. The cleaning up can be done from within, with the help of the trusteeship, but that should not be interpreted as a change of certification.
I appeal to all hon. members to try to keep cool heads. Certainly the minister kept a cool head during the longshoremen's strike, and thus prevented much more serious labour trouble. He is deserving of our confidence. I do not expect members of the opposition to show the same confidence, but at least in the interests of the country's economy let us all pull together and give the minister every support in implementing this legislation, thus assuring that the union will be democratically cleaned up and that the ships can be kept moving until freeze-up.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I had prepared some notes to use when speaking today on this amendment, but after listening to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) would like to scrap those notes and answer the statement made by the minister this afternoon. I think I can safely say that all Canadians would have been rather shocked to hear that statement. I say this with the greatest respect for the minister because I, and I think hon. members generally on this side of the chamber, have great respect for him. We respect him as a gentleman; we respect his method of debating; we respect his oratory. However, I think it was most preposterous that we should hear the Minister of Labour of this country say in his speech that the S.I.U. people, led by Banks, who came here after walking off their ships and leaving their jobs committed an illegal act. When the question was asked as to whether the trusteeship act had been proclaimed, the minister had to admit that it was not the law of Canada; but he also said that according to the statutes of this country which control and govern labour relations, in this situation the march to Ottawa led by Mr. Banks-a recognized friend of the Secretary of State (Mr. 
Pickersgill) of the Liberal government-was illegal. Surely in the face of that statement the whole point is this, that the government of Canada is ready to allow people in this country to break the law. If you take the minister's statement at its worst, it is this: John Jones committed murder, but he only shot one Canadian. We will let him roam around this country and maybe he will not shoot any more Canadians. The minister admitted that we had in this country people who are breaking the law in this regard, but the government is not doing anything to enforce the law of the country.
I listened with a great deal of interest the other evening to the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), who said it is always the responsibility of the government to enforce the law and this was the reason he was backing his friends on the other side of the chamber, the Liberal government. I think it is preposterous-and I want to emphasize this again-that this government, believing that the march on Ottawa, the seamen leaving their ships at Canadian docks or ports, or whatever you wish to call them, was illegal is doing nothing to see that the law of this country is enforced.
The Norris report has been handed down since July. In that report was set out the evidence in reference to the lawlessness of Banks and his associates. What stand did the Conservative government take with regard to this matter? I should like to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, whose constituency joins mine in the province of Alberta and whose industry is on all fours with the industry of Bow River. The hon. member stated that the Conservative government had not taken any action in regard to the lawlessness of Banks, his activities, the activities of his union on the great lakes. But the fact is that the Conservative government of that day set up a royal commission to ascertain the facts. You do not try a man without having the evidence; you do not try a man without having the facts, and you do not judge any organization or association in Canada without obtaining the facts.
Mr. Justice Norris held hearings all across this country. He weighed the evidence carefully. There were counsel representing the interested bodies, including the crown, the commission, the unions and various other associations. After weighing that evidence Mr. Justice Norris made certain recommendations. His report was filed in this House of Commons after we had been removed from that side of the house to this side, and the Liberal party formed the government of the day. I say this in answer to the support

given by the Social Credit party-that is, the first Social Credit party, the one led by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), and not the second one. The hon. member for Medicine Hat asked, what did we do? We took a definite position, and I want to repeat it. We got the facts. Those facts were placed before the government of the day, and the government brought in a bill to form a trusteeship, which was one of Mr. Justice Norris' recommendations.
I asked a question today, and I want to repeat it. They talk about the trusteeship act and how they are going to implement this and that. I asked this question: Is this act now the law of Canada? The Minister of Labour would have shocked Canadians if they had been here in our place and heard him say it was not even proclaimed the law of Canada. In addition to that Canadians- I want to repeat this-would be shocked to realize that they elected a government that will not enforce law and order in this country when they know there is an organization, or a group of individuals, whose leaders are breaking the law.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No. I listened to you for a few minutes this afternoon. I have a few things to say before supper and I should like to finish them. I will answer any questions you want to put to me when I have finished. It is preposterous-and this is the point upon which I think the Canadian people will judge this government-that this government is not doing anything to correct this situation. I now want to come to the main part of the practical approach to this matter. Not only is this association, this group, breaking the law, but what is the effect upon the Canadian economy today? I believe there are 74 seats in this house from west of the great lakes. They are federal constituencies. Those people are all interested in one major industry, agriculture. In spite of the fact that the hon. member who endeavoured to ask a question a few minutes ago tried to dress up the situation and make it sound pretty good for the present government, I point out to him that there is a contract with the U.S.S.R. covering the sale of 228 million bushels of wheat. I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) this afternoon how much wheat had been delivered under that contract. The answer, I believe, was that approximately 5,100,000 bushels had been delivered. I say this-


Mr. Robichaud:: Up to what date? Be frank.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Up to the early part of October, or the end of September.
Labour Relations


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is different.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But I can answer my hon. friend in this regard. We had the longshoremen's strike. There was not much wheat moving then. Now we have the problem of the
S.I.U. and the men walking off their ships. There will not be much wheat moving now. If my hon. friend will just bear with me I will present the evidence as to whether the United States will eat into one of the greatest contracts secured by this country. I congratulate the government for having obtained this contract, but I would remind them of the fact when the sales were consummated with communist China, when credit was extended to the communist nations in order that they could buy this wheat, the foundation was laid by the former government, the Conservative government. We laid the foundation, enabling this wheat to be sold to these countries, and their peoples to be fed.
I think one of the most respected magazines or journals in regard to matters of trade is the U.S. News and World Report. I have here the issue of October 21 this year and I wish to read from it. However, before I quote from this magazine I would point out that the United States of America said it was wrong for Canada to sell wheat to people who were starving, if they belonged to a communist nation. But the moment we got into difficulty, the moment we had a government that would not enforce the law of this country so that ships could sail, the United States stepped into our wheat deal. My hon. friend says he thinks this contract will be fulfilled. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the U.S.S.R. will repudiate this contract if deliveries are delayed, because starving people need wheat and there has been a crop failure in that country and other countries. I now wish to refer to an article in this journal entitled "ABC's of American wheat sales to the reds". This the reason given for the new contract between the United States and the U.S.S.R:
Russia has contracted for about 300 million bushels from Canada and Australia. Dock tie-ups, however, threaten to prevent shipment of all the Canadian grain before the great lakes freeze this winter. Russians, evidently, are desperate for grain after a crop failure that may cut production this year by as much as 25 per cent.
The satellites have had poor crops too and cannot look to Russia for help.
In this article in the U.S. News and World Report, it says that the reason the United States has come into the picture to try to sell their surplus-and they have a surplus of one billion bushels-is that the ships are tied up on the great lakes. If this government stands by and allows these people to continue to break the law day after day,

Labour Relations
strikes in the transportation system of this country will break out like red measles, because they will know they can get away with it. They say: Who is going to enforce the law? The government of the day is not going to enforce the law because the minister speaking for the government says that the law has been broken but they are doing nothing about it; they are going to hope that something turns up. Something will turn up, and it will do so in this way: The U.S.S.R. may repudiate one of the greatest wheat contracts ever made through the Canadian wheat board for this country.
What about the situation? How much wheat have we been selling? How important is it to Canada? In this regard I speak on behalf of western Canada and in doing so I wish to remind all members of the house, particularly those from Ontario and the eastern part of Canada generally, that the $400 million to $500 million wheat contract with Russia means new combines, new trucks, new cars and new machines that will be manufactured in the east, thus providing men with jobs and bringing about a better standard of living. The farmers will have the financial resources to be able to go into the market and purchase these machines so they can equip their farms properly and grow the grain.
How much wheat have we been selling? Let us take a look at the record. I wish the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) was in his seat this afternoon because not long ago he said I had misquoted the figures. I did not have them with me then but I do have them with me this afternoon, and I am going to	give round	figures.	In	1952-53we exported	255	million	bushels.	In	1953-54we exported	251	million	bushels.	In	1954-55we exported	312	million	bushels.	In	1955-56we exported	264	million	bushels.	In	1956-57we exported	264	million	bushels.	In	1957-58we exported	320	million	bushels.	In	1958-59
we exported 294 million bushels. In 19591960 we exported 277 million bushels and in 1960-61 we exported 353 million bushels. I might digress for a moment. You will see there was a jump of 100 million bushels in that year, which was almost solely due to the sale of wheat to communist China, because they were able to buy on credit under the former government. In 1961-62 we exported 357 million bushels.
There is the story. I was in western Canada last week. I was absent from the house for a few days. At Flaxcombe, Saskatchewan, I saw 50,000 bushels of wheat piled up on one farm. People are trying to get lumber to build bins. All across western Canada there is the largest crop of wheat since the

days when my father went out to Saskatchewan in 1905 to homestead. There is the largest crop of wheat since 1905, a crop of 700 million bushels, one of the largest that western Canada has ever produced. The contract with Russia will play a large part in helping the western farmers to get rid of the biggest crop they have ever produced and, as I said, the whole economy is affected.
Why can we not get rid of it? I charge those who sit on the treasury benches, which are fairly empty this afternoon, with irresponsibility because they are not enforcing the law of Canada. I see that the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis) shrugs. He can shrug his shoulders but he can look to his colleagues- I wish more of them were here this afternoon-to assume their responsibility as far as this matter is concerned.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Open your eyes.


Mr. Denis:: We are four. Are you not satisfied?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Five.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad to see four or five here, but I am not going to digress. I want to say I was very happy to hear the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) speak in the manner he did because he somewhat contradicted his own leader. The other night his own leader said that they endorsed the government. The Social Credit party, the first Social Credit party, not the second, has endorsed the government. They have got some arrangement.
We have been criticized by certain sections of the press, particularly the Toronto Star. I think they called me a huckster or something like that because we have dared to stand up and tell the government that they are evading the fact that people in this country are breaking the law. I would remind the new government of a statement that was quoted by the Prime Minister when he was leader of the official opposition. I do not think he would say these words are asinine like he said last night when he lost his temper. He quoted at one time words put on the record by another great prime minister, Arthur Meighen. This is what he said:
If parliament is to be preserved as a living institution, His Majesty's loyal opposition must fearlessly perform its functions.
That is why we are talking today. That is why we are criticizing. That is why we brought to the attention of the public the flaws of the worst budget ever brought down in this country. That is why we have criticized the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) who says she is the

mother of all pensions but who rocked the contributory pension plan to sleep. I believe it is asleep; we hope so, and I do not think we will hear about it again. Here is what Mr. Meighen went on to say:
When it properly discharges them the preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities. It must be vigilant against expression and unjust invasions by the cabinet of the rights of the people. It should supervise all expenditures and prevent overexpenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse. It finds fault: it suggests amendments-
We have suggested an amendment. Let us have a look at it. Let us analyse what our amendment says. In a day's time we have changed the attitude of the New Democratic party, because the hon. member for Port Arthur has said that he now looks at the matter differently. He does so because the minister has said that these people are breaking the law but the government is going to wait; they are going to hope; they are going to delay; they are going to see what happens; they are going to follow political expediency so they may possibly be able to get another seat or two in the next election. That is really their position. That is the charge I level at this government of expediency.


An hon. Member:: We learned it from you.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member says they learned it from someone else. Let me say they learned their lesson well. Here is what our amendment says:
This government, because of its confusion, inconsistency and pusillanimous dawdling and delays in taking effective action has encouraged chaos approaching anarchy to develop on the great lakes, the seaway, and in several Canadian ports, thereby causing disruption in shipping and the placing in jeopardy of essential trade in general, and in particular contracts for delivery of wheat to foreign countries.
Surely we have the right to criticize, because by standing in our places and criticizing today and bringing this matter to the attention of the government they may retreat or they may do better than retreat. They may go ahead and do something which they should do, enforce law and order in this country.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: They may resign, too.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It would be a very good idea if they did resign. Mr. Meighen went on to say:
-it asks questions and elicits information; it arouses, educates and moulds public opinion by voice and vote. It must scrutinize every action by the government and in doing so prevents the shortcuts through democratic procedure that governments like to make. The absence of a strong opposition means a one party state. A one party state means an all powerful cabinet.
28902-5-247
Labour Relations
I remind the Liberals that these words were quoted by the Prime Minister when he sat in the opposition. Let us take a look at the situation. As I say, I am not going to use my notes because I want to answer the Minister of Labour. The minister described how Mr. Banks came here with his men, how they had banners with the names of members of parliament and their constituencies on them, and how they walked on to parliament hill and broke the law. That is what he said. He blamed it all on Banks. I would ask him to have supper tonight with the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), because the Secretary of State does not look on Mr. Banks in that light.
Why are we in trouble this afternoon on the great lakes? Why is there unrest among the members of the S.I.U. today? Because the former Liberal government brought a man into Canada-I say illegally, although they made his entry legal through an order in council-and that same man has excited the men, in the words of the minister, who wish to go back to work. When the Leader of the Opposition put the record of this man on Hansard the other day, what did the Secretary of State say? He uttered the most shocking words for a minister of the crown, particularly in circumstances where their chickens have come home to roost. We were talking about Banks, and he said: "I don't repudiate my friends". This is the charge I make of the government. If the Secretary of State, who is not in the house at the moment, does not want to repudiate Mr. Banks because he is a friend, is that any reason for the government to allow these people to break the law from day to day?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What page of Hansard is that?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Page 3218, and I am glad my hon. friend has a copy because I want him properly informed.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You need to be checked.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is what the Leader of the Opposition said, and one remark he made does not appear in Hansard; I was sitting here and I heard it. He said:
I now want to appropriate the words of the hon. gentleman during an interruption a moment ago.
And he is a great interrupter. The Prime Minister said I was a professional interrupter, but I certainly cannot compete with the Secretary of State; he has me beat. The Leader of the Opposition went on, in reference to what the Secretary of State said: -
He said. "I am not in the habit of repudiating my friends".

Labour Relations
My charge against the Liberal government is to measure up to their responsibilities and tell the Secretary of State that even though Banks is a friend we have to enforce law and order in the country.
I should like to return to the main part of my address and say that without this law and order the wheat will never reach Russia, or Japan, or the hungry. Without law and order Canada will lose the finest deal we have had for many years, a deal which was negotiated basically by the former government through steps they took in negotiations with communist China.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not aware of any question of privilege arising, unless-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It must be because my hon. friend is very fond of the word "communist". That is the only question of privilege I can think of.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a question of privilege affecting the members of this house, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member indicated that he was quoting the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, I did not.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: As I heard the remarks he was quoting the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who apparently put words into the mouth of the Secretary of State.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I always like to quote the Prime Minister as one of the Secretary of State's witnesses, because they are all colluding together.
I have here an article I did not intend to read, but we have heard a lot about this great relationship with the United States, which is now stepping in to take the contract. Let us just put things in their proper perspective. Who were the "friends" who got the Liberals elected to form this kind of irresponsible government? I say that some of these friends were on the other side of the border. It is interesting to read what Mr. Milburn P. Akers said recently in an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, written before the minister changed his opinion. They thought it was very simple, with these people behind the iron curtain; but when a few dollars were involved they changed their tune. Let us see what is said about Canadians by some of the friends of the Liberals. This is one of the writers who promoted a new Liberal government with the great arm of

friendship of the United States. This is what a responsible writer in a responsible newspaper in another country, a person who is a friend of these people, said:
The United States can take care of its enemies.
No one has ever questioned that, and I say thank God it can.
In doing so, it has saved many of its friends, as well, from being overrun by communist nations. But heaven save the United States from its "friends"-friends such as Canada-whose primary concern appears to be that of making a dollar, no matter the damage done to this nation's over-all objectives.
What is behind Canada's so obvious desire to maintain Castro and his communist regime in power? That desire has been long evident. The only reasonable explanation is that Canada, afflicted with an international inferiority complex, obtains some sort of satisfaction in attempting to frustrate U.S. policy. Such acts feed its ego. And, simultaneously, acts such as selling wheat to Russia for Cuba provides it with dollars-the principal Canadian concern nowadays, so it seems.
This next sentence is amazing, and it will shock you people from the province of Quebec.
It might not be amiss for Americans, for whose policies Canadians evidence little concern, to be a bit more sympathetic to the aspirations of the French speaking Canadians of Quebec. Those people have become "fed up" with Ottawa, too.
And so are we today. Mr. Akers did not say yesterday, he said today. Where is this great love affair? What has happened to it? There seems to have been a breach of promise, to say the least. Mr. Akers continues:
Maybe they should be permitted to go their own way, even as Canada, in effect, insists that Cuba be allowed to do. An independent Quebec might provide a market for some surplus wheat now stored in the United States.
There is the threat. If I can be personal for a moment, I might say I am married to a United States citizen, and I would be the last person to criticize the United States. But this type of American writing in this kind of style shows a kind of irresponsibility which was endorsed by this government now sitting across the way. That is my charge.
The government ask what we would do, Mr. Speaker. I would answer them in one simple sentence: If our party were in office we would enforce the law of the country. That is my answer, with the greatest respect, to a man who I have always admired as a man from a province I was born in, namely the leader of the New Democratic party.
What does this wheat deal mean? Do not tie it up in dollars for western Canada alone; it means big business for the railroads and the shipping companies. It means millions of dollars in the hands of the farmers. It means higher production in eastern factories and an increase in the gross national product.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You can clap, but you will be in tears tomorrow if you do not get the grain moving. Above all, it means this-millions of jobs across the country for millions of Canadians who can live with dignity with their families and enjoy a higher standard of living. But I make the prediction, although I hope I am wrong, that unless the government gets rid of its inertia, then we will lose this deal. 1 say-


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Some one says how do I know. I know he may not know these facts, but if he goes to the ports tonight he will see how much wheat is being loaded. We lost 60 million bushels which would have been exported from the country had the government not allowed a strike to go on for several days while it negotiated and negotiated. But this is different. I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) in his place, having returned from Calgary smiling; but he has a responsibility to the people of Alberta. We may lose this deal. The contract may be repudiated because of the inaction, the ineffectiveness and the delay of this Liberal government who fought a phony campaign on that very issue, branding the former government as one which delayed when they themselves can be indicted of the offence; and I have tried to place the facts about that before the house this afternoon.
While I am on my feet I want to say a word about a remark which was made last night. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about their good relationships with other countries -and they have got into trouble. This is what appears in the U.S. News and World Report of October 28, 1963. This is the latest edition, and this is what it says:
One thing has become clear: Canada's changing government has not removed the basic causes of friction with the United States. What happens next is anybody's guess.
I can tell the people in Washington it is anybody's guess up in Ottawa, too.


An hon. Member:: Are you going to run for leadership?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody talks about leadership. Well, his party needs some leadership. I know exactly what hon. members opposite like to do. They like to erode our leaders. They may have noticed we seldom refer to their leader, but 1 intend to do so now. Last night the Prime Minister talked about a conversation on the telephone between himself and the President of the United States. The right hon. gentleman told us what he said to the President. When I asked him what the President had said to him in 28902-5-247i
Labour Relations
reply, he replied to me that I had made an asinine interruption. Why was it asinine? Was it because the President might have said, "no" so often to the Prime Minister of Canada that the right hon. gentleman did not want to tell the people of Canada about it? If that interruption was asinine, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to tell us how asinine was that statement made last night by the leader of the party opposite. How asinine can government policy be, when it will not enforce the laws of this country so as to get the economy moving-to use one of its own phrases borrowed from across the line?


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I am not known for making either long speeches or partisan speeches but I should like to beg the indulgence of the house for a few moments because I do not want to let this occasion pass without making a few observations on this important question of trusteeship legislation.
I see little reason for throwing recriminations back and forth from one side of the house to the other. I do not think anybody will come out of this mess with entirely clean hands-neither the former government, nor the government before that, nor the shipping companies with their "sweetheart" deals. I honestly think that despite the speeches we have heard from the other side, most members would agree that the Minister of Labour has done a very good job. I should like to draw attention to one point made this afternoon by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). It was a point which, I thought, brought this whole situation into focus and it concerned the problem raised by Hal Banks. If we say that Hal Banks is the cause of this problem, then, surely, we are saying that either the rank and file of the S.I.U. are his imitators or that there is no communication between the rank and file of the S.I.U.- or of any union, for that matter-and its executive.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) made his point very accurately when he said that we should be concerned, not with this trusteeship legislation, which has already been passed and which must now be carried out, but with the lack of democratic links between the rank and file of the union movement and its executive. The hon. member for Port Arthur pointed out that no one could be expected to have the foolish courage to get up and face Mr. Banks in the open in contradiction to his plans or policies. That stands to reason. I submit we should be concerned in future with legislation to compel the holding of a secret ballot in the election of officers in the union movement. If that were done I think we would have no

Labour Relations
Hal Banks, and we would have had no march on Ottawa; because I believe the members of the labour unions are, as you and I, good, honest citizens trying to make a living. I think we should accord to them the opportunity of democratically electing their responsible leadership.
If I have made it clear-and I think I have, with all due respect to the opposition- that we are in agreement with the action taken by the Minister of Labour, then, surely, there should be no cause for further debate and the amendment should fall.


Michael Starr: May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we had a statement from the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) in respect of the amendment, and the charges that had been made by the official opposition in that amendment. This statement certainly bore out the facts set out in the amendment, and the charges that are made concerning the actions of this government. This afternoon on orders of the day I asked the minister to answer two questions. The minister said he would be making a statement later and he would then deal with the questions asked of him.
I asked him in respect of a meeting with Mr. Banks and the purpose of that meeting. Well, the minister dealt with that by stating he explained to Mr. Banks in a mild way that he would have a meeting with Mr. Banks provided the S.I.U. members returned to their ships. However, he did not deal in detail with the purpose of the meeting and left that question unanswered. I requested him also to explain the walkout and what the government intended to do with this illegal walkout as the government terms it. The minister did not deal with that at all. He said he hoped that the S.I.U. members would go back to work of their own accord. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have been informed that in Fort William the union voted not to go back to work. Certainly this should precipitate some action on the part of the government to deal with what they term an illegal walkout.
Let us look at the situation that has developed over the period of a few weeks. Negotiations were initiated in respect of a private trusteeship. I would not be surprised if those negotiations were initiated by this government in order to see if they could find a

way out. These negotiations broke down, and we could not find the reason for the breakdown until Mr. Wirtz issued an explanation. The reason for the breakdown was that the C.L.C. insisted on two Canadians being members of the trusteeship, and one person from the United States. It goes without saying, therefore, that the United States must have insisted on two representatives, and one Canadian. This was the reason for the breakdown in negotiations. We had to find this out from the United States rather than from our own government.
Then, the trusteeship bill was introduced because the government could not find any other alternative. All attempts to find an alternative had broken down. The bill was passed unanimously by all parties in this house. Then, after it was passed in the Senate, lo and behold, negotiations for a private trusteeship were resumed. Now I ask, who initiated those negotiations after this House of Commons and the Senate had passed that bill? We have received no answer. There has been delay and evasive answers. Then, over the week end word was received that the negotiations which had been resumed had broken down again.
What was the reason for the breakdown this time? The explanation has been given that they broke down because the S.I.U. membership walked off the boats. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is no explanation at all in my opinion. It is only an excuse. This action by the S.I.U. should have precipitated a private trusteeship. It should have made those who were negotiating more resolved to bring about a trusteeship immediately. The admission was made that Banks had broken the negotiations for a private trusteeship. That is an example of the power this man wields over this government. They cater to his every wish. We would like to be told the real reason for the breakdown of these negotiations, and not the lame excuse that was given by the minister and by others.
This afternoon we had a statement from the minister that the S.I.U. walkout was an illegal walkout. If it was an illegal walkout, why did the government not take some action to get these men back on the ships? Why has there been this delay, this procrastination, these evasive statements that we have been getting in respect of these matters? It is quite clear what action should be taken by the government in this serious situation. The government says, we are going to see what is going to happen; we are going to let somebody else do the job for us. You talk about evasion, procrastination and delay.
Let us take the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) as an example. Special counsel were appointed back in July to look into the Norris

commission report and ascertain what charges might arise from the revelations in that report. They have submitted a report, but no one knows how long ago it was submitted. Questions have been asked in this house for the past three weeks, but the government has treated it as a preliminary report. There has been no action, but somebody in the department is studying it. Then, they have to have another meeting with the two counsellors who were appointed. Is this report so complicated the legal men in the Department of Justice cannot understand it? Why has there been this delay? What is the real reason behind what is happening at this time? What does this report contain? This is what the members of this house want to know and what the people of Canada want to know. Why has the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) laboured so long on this question? Why is the Minister of Justice delaying action on this question? Why is the whole government stalling? What are they waiting for? Are they waiting for things to get so difficult they will have no control over them? Are they waiting for someone else to find a solution? Are they going to telephone to Mr. Wirtz to see if he can settle the problem, just as they asked for his support and his help on previous occasions?
The Minister of Labour says that they are now proceeding to look for trustees. They are looking for trustees after the bill has been passed. Why has there been this delay? Why could they not have had people ready to appoint? They have had all this time since July to find people. In his statement today the Minister of Labour gave credence to the facts outlined in the amendment we introduced, because his statement was one of stalling, of hope, of no action and no trusteeship. There has been nothing but dawdling, delay, inconsistency, confusion, all of which has encouraged chaos and this is the result of the government's fear of making a decision. These are the words in our amendment, and these are the facts as illustrated by what we have seen in the statements we have heard from the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the cabinet. The words of the amendment certainly fit the government's actions, and it is no wonder that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said today they were going to change their minds. Every party in opposition, and indeed hon. members on the other side of the house, ought to support this amendment because deep down in their hearts they know it tells the truth.
We have given the government every opportunity. We have endeavoured to be helpful. We have supported the trusteeship bill; but when the government introduced that bill and said every available means had been
Division
exhausted in attempting to bring about an effective alternative solution to the problem, was it telling the house the truth? Was it just going through the motions? Was it just stalling for time?
The bill was passed, but why has it not been proclaimed? What is the government waiting for-legal advice, or advice from Mr. Banks with respect to this matter? Is that the purpose of the meeting? What is there to discuss with Mr. Banks at this point? Parliament has spoken. The representatives of the people have spoken. The bill has been passed by the other place. All that is needed now is action by the government, this government which told the people of Canada it would give action and direction to the country.
Members of the government gave themselves 60 days, but no action was taken at that time, and many more days have gone by without action. Every day on orders of the day the same answer is given: The government has not yet decided. The people are wondering when the government is going to decide to take action, but indeed the day for action has long past.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You had six years of inaction.


Mr. Smith:: Name the trustees.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 8.15 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 4(d) of standing order 56 to interrupt these proceedings forthwith and put the question on the amendment before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Georges Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
[Text]	_


Mr. Chatierion:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. (Mr. Laing). Otherwise 1 would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.



COMPLAINT ALLEGING INCOMPLETE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

['On division.\nMotion (Mr. Gordon) agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.\nThe estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:']
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a grievance to raise tonight which has to do with a subject which I drew to the attention of the treasury benches on October 21 It concerns the manner in which members on the treasury benches are answering the questions which are asked by the opposition.
I thought I would raise the matter tonight because there is more time now for members on the opposition side to voice their views.
I feel, and I believe I am justified in saying so, that while some of the ministers cooperate, the great majority take refuge in equivocation, evasion and vagueness when they are answering questions put to them by members of the opposition. When the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) took part in the discussion on October 21 with relation to the question of privilege I raised he told the house that during the first 70 days of this session some 2,941 questions had been answered as opposed to 1,705 questions in the first 70 days of the last session.
There are two answers to that, Mr. Speaker. The first is that the number of questions which appear on the order paper would not be so large if the ministers of the crown would not equivocate in their answers, but give the direct information to which we feel we are entitled. The second answer to the proposition put by the Secretary of State might well be that the members on this side of the house take their responsibilities a little more conscientiously than the members on the government benches did when they were

in opposition. I have heard hon. members from the Conservative party, the New Democratic party and the two groups in the Social Credit party put question after question to various ministers, yet not once has there been a direct answer.
Today, Mr. Speaker, a question I put concerning the construction of an airport at Mayo was answered by two ministers, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) and the Minister of Northern Affairs, who is not presently in his seat, I am sorry to see. The question was a written one and I asked about the representation being made to the government concerning the construction of an airport at Mayo. The Minister of Northern Affairs said that the only representations he had received were oral, being made to him at the time of his visit this summer to the Yukon. The Minister of Transport was honest enough to say he had received representations as far back as 1962 from myself and others in the Yukon. Why this hiding of information by the Minister of Northern Affairs? Why this hiding of information by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschate-lets) in answer to the question I asked concerning the construction of a minimum security institution in the Yukon? Why cannot we be told when tenders will be called on various projects? Why cannot we have direct and unequivocal answers to the questions we ask? I remember asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) a question, which he answered yesterday, concerning consultations which were had with officials of the government of the United States regarding matters of transportation in the Pacific northwest. These matters concerned corridors through to tidewater, the paving of the Alaska highway, the Haines cut-off road, the acquisition of a free port, and so on. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said, as reported on page 3806 of Hansard:
There have been no recent negotiations between the governments of Canada and the United States on any of the five subjects mentioned in the question, although there have been some informal and inconclusive discussions with regard to the Haines cut-off highway.
What did the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) say? Is this one of these snap decisions? He said that the Haines cut-off road would be maintained all year round this winter on a trial basis. Surely this decision was not made between the time the Secretary of State for External Affairs answered the question yesterday and roughly three o'clock this afternoon, when the Minister of National Defence made his announcement, because international negotiations could
Answers to Questions Incomplete not have been carried on in the space of a few hours. This all indicates a serious lack of, for want of a better term, frankness with hon. members of the opposition and the constituencies they represent.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, did my hon. friend say that the decision with respect to the Haines cut-off could not have been made between yesterday and today? Because if he did, may I correct him and say that the whole matter was dealt with this morning.


Erik Nielsen: I did not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the decision could not have been made between those hours, although decisions usually made by this government are made tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow. What I said was that these negotiations could not have been conducted within the space of a few hours, between the time the Secretary of State for External Affairs answered yesterday and the time the Minister of National Defence made his answer today. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said yesterday:
There have been no recent negotiations between the governments of Canada and the United States on any of the five subjects mentioned in the question-
One of those five subjects was the Haines cut-off road.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit a question? Perhaps he is underestimating the negotiating capacity of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Erik Nielsen: I do not for a moment underestimate the capacity of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I am sure he would sooner be minister of agriculture because there is a certain lack of capacity there which I am sure the hon. gentleman would fill admirably, with all his vast knowledge of agricultural problems in this country. I recall the hon. gentleman in a previous debate telling the speaker in the house that he did not understand the point he was making because of their mutual misunderstanding of the agricultural problems of the country. But the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not leave it at that yesterday when answering the question. He went on to say:
I would refer my hon. friend to what the minister of northern affairs said on October 3, 1963, page 3165 of Hansard.
If hon. members would turn to page 3165 of Hansard, perhaps they could tell me where the minister of northern affairs uttered a single syllable, either on that or adjacent pages. That is typical of the "M.B.S."-the
3882	HOUSE OF
Answers to Questions Incomplete "Martin bureau of statistics", an organization we heard about when hon. gentlemen opposite were on this side of the house.
But seriously, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), when speaking to the question of privilege I raised yesterday said, as reported on page 3821 of Hansard:
The hon. member said he could waste the time of the house by asking questions. Surely if his questions are a waste of the time of the house they should not be asked on orders of the day, and they should not be put on the order paper either.
I read these questions which appear on the order paper both when they first appear in Votes and Proceedings and when they appear on the order paper. I read the questions of all hon. members and take an interest in them, and none appear to me to be a waste of time. They are put on the order paper because we do not want to waste the time of the house on orders of the day. We give the government ample opportunity to answer them and plenty of time to come up with some sort of accuracy, truth and unequivocation. But we do not get this. This seems to me to be a dereliction of a duty which ministers who sit on the treasury benches owe to all hon. members. When we take the time and trouble to phrase our questions, the least the government can do is to answer them as fully as they can.
As far as the number of questions is concerned, a point raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that is no criterion at all. While a question placed on the order paper may not have the urgency required for orders of the day, it at least requires the courtesy of a reply. The particular question which raised my point of privilege yesterday was No. 1,272, namely the date on which tenders would be called for the construction of a minimum security penal institution in the Yukon. I asked where the government proposed to construct this institution, and the answer given was: "In the Whitehorse area". The Whitehorse area covers a great deal of ground. The Department of Justice and the Department of Public Works must know precisely where that institution will be constructed, and the least they owe to members on this side is some forthright, frank and truthful information. It was they who assassinated the character of the leader of this party by accusing him of not telling the truth. I ask those who sit now on the treasury benches to practise a little of what they preached over six years.
I need not confine my remarks to questions which are put on the order paper. The questions asked on orders of the day are just as evasively and equivocally answered. We


heard a most shameful display the other day when questions were directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) inquiring as to the whereabouts of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) at a given moment. The right hon. gentleman said, and it is recorded in Hansard that the Minister of Agriculture was in the west attending to the grass roots, or talking to the grass roots, or feeling the grass roots. It was something to do with grass roots-fertilizing them, maybe. Anyway, that was not the truth. It was not the case at all. The minister was not in the west. It seems to me that when such questions are put they deserve an honest and forthright answer.
We heard the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) try to fix the responsibility for a certain document concerning patronage in every constituency in this country. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) denied the existence of such a document, as did the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis). It seems to me it is a denial of the truth and that it makes a farce of the proceedings in this chamber for a minister to say a document does not exist when we see it produced before our very eyes over there in the hands of my hon. friend. Incidentally, it seems passing strange that this million dollar cabinet has to send a $35,000 a year minister out to earn a few bucks at a cattle auction in Ontario.


Harry William Hays: On a question of privilege, I should like to say I have not taken a nickel for any of the work I have done for the cattle breeders, and I do not intend to.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure the Minister of Agriculture would be overjoyed to take part in this debate and accept a challenge to do so although he could not, would not, or was unable to do so during the debate on the agricultural amendment.
We have heard much about co-ordination within the cabinet, but it seems to me that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, and we get more left hand from over there than right hand. I do not know whether this lack of co-ordination when it comes to answering questions is a result of too much imagination on the treasury benches or whether it is the result of too little; whether it is due to lack of co-ordination between their officials and themselves or to lack of cohesion among themselves. At any rate, there is a distressing lack of something. Otherwise, we would get the answers we deserve.


An hon. Member:: You do.


Erik Nielsen: I do not know whether it is insemination within the cabinet or dissemination, but in connection with this dissemination I think there should be more cross-breeding between cabinet members.


Mr. Berger:: May I put a question to the hon. member? Does he not think that the system of answering questions under the present regime is much better than it was under the former administration, with all the shifting and changing of ministers that took place? I do not think he would have bothered to put his questions, because the minister would have been moved to another post.


Erik Nielsen: I have sat in this chamber both on that side and on this side and I could tell the hon. member that under the former government, even though a question might have been embarrassing, it was answered truthfully and factually at all times.
The Secretary of State wonders why so many questions are asked on this side of the house. They are asked because we do not get the answers, so a question has to be put over and over again. And still we do not get the answer. Surely, unless a particular piece of information is privileged, or confidential, hon. members are entitled to be given it without distortion. I have watched ministers, particularly the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), go red in the face when they are asked embarrassing questions, and either decline to answer them or equivocate. We have seen this happen over and over again. We do not get the answers from the treasury benches to which we are entitled; we have to read United States newspapers and other publications.
I am not condemning all ministers and all departments. Some ministers are co-operative and go a long way in answering questions. I should like to single out the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) in this respect for his co-operation concerning my questions about the Haines cut-off. He made this information available when he need not have done so. He did this on certain undertakings being given on my part and it seems to me the rest of the cabinet could be just as forthright. It seems to me that what the treasury benches might be doing is consulting with their consultants before they give an answer to these questions. Perhaps this accounts for the delay in answering questions. Perhaps these so-called consultants say to the ministers; I think we should release this much information but not that, because it would be politically undesirable. I am thinking of this patronage list, because that is precisely what it is.
Answers to Questions Incomplete


Azellus Denis: On a point of order, I think the hon. member is looking at me. I am glad to hear he is looking after my interest. At the same time I may say I am a bit fed up with these innuendoes. May I remind him that the answer I gave to the house was an accurate answer. I was asked to produce a list for the guidance of the ministers of the crown. Such a list does not exist. In order to prove it was a document of mine, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce said instructions were given as to the use of "tu" and "vous". How could I know that any minister would be so closely related to any member of parliament and say "tu" or "vous"? How can one prove that such a minister could even write in French. This document is a personal document to speed up the work. It is in order to prepare letters for my signature.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand the minister is raising a point of order, and it does not seem to have been explained until now. I do not think we should engage in a debate at this time, and perhaps the hon. member for Yukon should be allowed to continue.


Azellus Denis: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Do you think a member of parliament should not rise in his place when he is accused of doing such a thing? He would be surprised to know that this part of my personal document was copied from a privileged list of the Tory party. I do not blame anyone for that; I do not blame him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I gather that it was a question of privilege rather than a point of order that the minister was raising. I suggest that the point has been made and the hon. member for Yukon who has the floor should be allowed to continue.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me-


David Réal Caouette: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I ask how it is that on that list which belongs to the Postmaster General the constituents who are mentioned are defeated Liberal candidates at the last election?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that perhaps the minister had a question of personal privilege when he rose, but I do not see how the hon. member for Ville-neuve has a question of privilege. It seems to me that if we continue this way we will engage in a debate at a time when we should really be considering a particular grievance which has been raised by an hon. member. I suggest that if other hon. members want to

Answers to Questions Incomplete take part in the debate after the hon. member has finished his speech, they will be given the opportunity to speak.


Azellus Denis: May I be allowed to insist on answering the hon. member for Villeneuve?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I suggest that there was no question of privilege and it should not be answered. I recognize again the hon. member for Yukon.


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, even though the interruption of the hon. member for Villeneuve was out of order, it raised a point the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis) must comment on in view of its implications.
That is why I feel the Postmaster General should reply.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Much as I appreciate the opinion given by the minister, the fact remains that the Chair has already stated that no question of privilege was involved and that decision stands.
However, I say again that if the Postmaster General wishes to reply to the allegation or comment on the facts referred to, he will have an opportunity to do so during the debate.


David Réal Caouette: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You called me to order saying that I did not have a question of privilege when I put a question to the Postmaster General who was speaking on the question of privilege he had raised.
I was speaking to that question of privilege and not on a question of privilege raised by myself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that my very innocent observations on this patronage list have drawn some blood. The Postmaster General (Mr. Denis) must have something of a guilty conscience, otherwise he would not have risen at all. There it is again for all to see. There is the patronage list that was addressed by the Postmaster General to his cabinet colleagues.


Azellus Denis: I did not deny that.


An hon. Member:: He does not deny it.


Azellus Denis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I never denied that he might have stolen a list or a document from my own office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Azellus Denis: I might say that this document is for my personal use and has nothing to do with anything else mentioned by the hon. member for Yukon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and I do so on behalf of all the members of this house. I do so under the provisions of standing order No. 17 which reads:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
It is under standing order No. 17 that I am rising immediately, at this moment. The Postmaster General, whether or not he was in order in taking the floor, has admitted the existence of this list.


Some hon. Members:: Resign, resign.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My point of privilege will be readily apparent to all members who were in the house when we assembled at 2.30 this afternoon. At that time His Honour the Speaker gave a judgment on a point of privilege raised a few days ago by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler). The hon. member for Grey-Bruce asserted, amongst other things, that such a document existed. The Postmaster General, following the Secretary of State, had denied the existence of such a document.


Azellus Denis: For the guidance of the ministers of the crown, not for myself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think I have the floor.
His Honour the Speaker divided his judgment, as I remember it, into two parts. One of those parts, the second part, related to a question of fact. He said that if there was a dispute as to fact between the minister on the one hand and the hon. member for Grey-Bruce on the other, this was something concerning which the hon. member for Grey-Bruce had to take the word of the minister. The matter, so far as this house was concerned, seemed to be ended at that point. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce insisted that there was such a document and that he had it, but because the Speaker said that on a question of fact we had to take the word of a minister, that seemed to end the point.
I now submit, Mr. Speaker, that the point is not ended, the issue is not closed. The Postmaster General has now admitted the existence of the document which the hon. member for Grey-Bruce referred to.


Azellus Denis: I never did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are in the chair at the moment,

but my point of privilege is that, in all fairness to all the members of this house his honour the Speaker must now reconsider this matter and report again to the house upon it. We have been told by him we have to take the minister's word and that the hon. member for Grey-Bruce has no point of privilege so far as the existence of this document is concerned. Tonight, the Postmaster General has admitted the existence of the document. He declares it has some different purpose than we might have thought, but he admits the existence of the document. He states, in his own words, what the purpose of it has been. I say that Mr. Speaker should reconsider this matter. If this document is now admitted by all concerned to exist, reconsideration should be given to the matter of whether or not it should be tabled, either by the member for Grey-Bruce, who has a copy of it, or preferably by the Postmaster General himself who has now admitted its existence.
The Postmaster General now comes under the citation in the book which says that a minister of the crown, having made a reference to a document, must produce it. The Postmaster General made a reference to the document. He has admitted its existence. He has made certain statements as to the use of that document, and therefore the rules of the house now require him to produce that document. I ask that Mr. Speaker reconsider this very serious matter that has arisen in the midst of this debate tonight.


Mr. Winkler:: I do not wish to add to what has been said by the previous speaker, but I do wish to request that the motive that was imputed by the Postmaster General to myself be withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has referred to the fact that a ruling was made earlier today by His Honour the Speaker, I am sure he will want to take into consideration the suggestions which have now been made by the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will be satisfactory. I think the members of the cabinet must also consider the position of the Postmaster General in the light of this development.


Mr. Grafftey:: And the Secretary of State.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, there is one point that perhaps escaped your notice in the recent exchange, and that was the request of the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, (Mr. Winkler), that the Postmaster General withdraw certain words imputed against the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, in that he may have stolen the document. I personally heard
Answers to Questions Incomplete those words and I would ask Your Honour to demand the Postmaster General to withdraw those words.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no doubt that if the minister has suggested that another hon. member has been guilty of the theft of the document, he would want to withdraw these words, and I would suggest that perhaps the minister should be given an opportunity to withdraw his words.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to withdrawing any offensive remark that I may have made regarding the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) who claims to have a document belonging to me. I do not know where he took it. I said that it might have been stolen. I regret having gone that far because even if this document belongs to me,
I do not know where it comes from.
In any event, the hon. member thinks he is in possession of a document belonging to me.


Erik Nielsen: Well, Mr. Speaker, we can get back to the original point of departure here.
I raised the matter of this document because it is a fact that on several occasions questions were asked of the Secretary of State and the Postmaster General with regard to it.
I think that the whole business surrounding this matter is very strange indeed. I do not know why those on the other side would be so embarrassed to have one of their own documents tabled. It is a production of theirs. It has instructions directed to every executive assistant of every minister on the treasury benches, and I do not see what is embarrassing about it.
There are those who believe in patronage and those who do not. I for one do not. I will fight it wherever I see it, and the Postmaster General will see that if he looks through his files. I am afraid I cannot come to the same conclusion with regard to the treasury benches, particularly in the face of the existence of this document. I do not know why everybody is covering their eyes. I say, let the people of Canada get a look at the way the country is run and at the instructions the Postmaster General has given to his colleagues, whether it is for a reference, or a Christmas card list-


Azellus Denis: Yes.


Erik Nielsen: -or whatever it is; but it does seem very strange indeed to see the name of every defeated Liberal candidate, including the name of my Liberal opponent in the Yukon, listed as a consultant.
3886	HOUSE OF
Answers to Questions Incomplete What are the people in the Yukon going to think when they know that the minister is going to consult the man who was defeated in the last election and who is named in this list? What is he going to consult him about? Obviously it is about appointments and contracts, and all the rest of the operations of the department. Why can the minister not say that? Why does he have to beat about the bush? Why does he have to call it a Christmas card list? We all know what it is.
I think I will pass from there, Mr. Speaker, to the answers I have heard from the Minister of National Health and Welfare when she was squirming, and I mean squirming, under the questions of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) and the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), as to the knowledge of Premier Lesage concerning the existence of a certain state of affairs with regard to the pension plan.
She knew that the premier of Quebec had already communicated with her, or she knew of his intentions with regard to the introduction of his own legislation. That is quite obvious from the answers she gave; yet she equivocated and back-tracked and did not come up with a direct answer. Yet all the press did-


Miss LaMarsh:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the member, whom I shall not even call an hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Withdraw.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The member has in the last few words told an absolute and utter untruth as though it were a fact. I ask him, in view of the fact that I have repeatedly said in this house the absolute opposite of what he has just averred, to withdraw it on his honour-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: And under the rules of the house I ask him to accept my word.


Erik Nielsen: On the question of privilege raised by the hon. lady-I certainly do not want to be so ungracious as not to refer to her as the hon. lady-I leave Hansard to speak for itself, and if the hon. lady has taken offence by what she construes to be statements of fact by me, then I am very sorry; but I must say the hon. lady knows what the facts are, and it seems passing strange that she did not tell us the whole story when questioned so closely on it.


An hon. Member:: The truth squad.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, with the vast experience gained by the hon. lady in her activities on the truth squad in the last election she certainly should know the difference.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should recognize he is now departing from the previous point of his remarks.


Erik Nielsen: All I am trying to do is convince the members on the treasury benches that they should tell the truth directly, unequivocally and in a forthright fashion when answering our questions on orders of the day or on the order paper. It seems to me this is what we are not getting,. and I am sure it will not go unnoticed, Mr. Speaker, that the ministers I have singled out have all just risen in their places. I hope, in the 40 minutes left, they will each take the opportunity of rising and answering some of the questions that have been asked over the past three or four weeks, in a fashion which is in keeping with truth, frankness and forthrightness, and which has been the habit of this house in the six years before that under the former government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare rising on the same grievance?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have, Mr. Speaker, said that the words spoken by the last speaker were not true. It is my understanding under the rules of this chamber that my word must be accepted, and I therefore must insist that the hon. member withdraw.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. lady on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, feels within her heart that I have said anything untrue about the way she has answered questions, then I would gladly withdraw.


An hon. Member:: Let Hansard speak for
itself.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The rules are quite clear and I am sure the hon. member realizes he has to accept the statement made by another hon. member.


William Heward Grafftey: He has.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Well, it was not too
clear to me whether he had withdrawn or not. It was my feeling, to be perfectly candid, that the words he uttered were not really a withdrawal.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much farther I can go.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member now disgraces not only his party but his constituency-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -since he is a member of this chamber, is bound by the rules, and has not indicated whether he is prepared to be bound by the rules and withdraw without equivocation something to which he appears to object. After speaking for half an hour by the clock on this subject he will not stand and say he withdraws any offensive material.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, what is it that the hon. lady wishes me to withdraw?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my understanding that the hon. member, according to what he told the Chair, had actually withdrawn any suggestion that he did not accept the word of the minister.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Kootenay West rising on the same grievance, the same subject?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has raised a very important question this evening during this opportunity to deal with grievances. I have been a member of this house for 18 years-in fact, I have the longest service in this house of any member of the New Democratic party group-so I think I am at least recognized as having had some experience in the house. I say in all seriousness that never before in my experience in this house have the opposition been given so many contradictory, incomplete or evasive answers from the cabinet benches as they have during this session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not intend to refer to the incident that has just blown over as between that very kindly gentleman, the Postmaster General, and other members, and who is a little annoyed at being caught.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It was obvious from his reply that the Secretary of State did not tell the facts to the house when he was questioned earlier this week on this subject. I wish also to mention, to illustrate my point-we have heard it repeated on a number of occasions- that the opposition were very concerned about the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) and the expectant minister of agriculture, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Tremblay), during the debate on agricultural policy a week ago today.
Strangely enough, the Minister of Agriculture has again vanished. Surely they do not
Answers to Questions Incomplete hold auction sales at night time in Ottawa, under artificial light? I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) a question about the absence of the minister because of the concern that was felt on the opposition side of the house. This concern was felt by all opposition parties. I asked the Prime Minister as to the whereabouts of the Minister of Agriculture last Tuesday and the Prime Minister replied:
The Minister of Agriculture and his associate, having taken part in this debate on agriculture, left the house to attend engagements previously undertaken for the Minister of Agriculture with farmers of Canada in the west. They got in touch with the grass roots while the hon. member remained in the house.
Here this afternoon the minister admitted that he was attending an auction sale in Kingston on that day.


An hon. Member:: A bull sale.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The house was told by the minister that he did not receive a cent for taking part in this auction, but we must remember he was auctioning cattle for his brother's firm. There is rather a close relationship there. Anyway, we find out that the minister did not go to meet farmers in the west or to meet with the grass roots; he went to some board of trade or chamber of commerce meeting in Edmonton to replace the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). I have since heard that even that gathering did not think he was "Sharp" enough.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is a serious development in our parliamentary history, Mr. Speaker. Regardless of our differences, it has always been the practice of this house and in the country to respect the word of a member of the cabinet. When we can no longer respect the word of a member of the cabinet, democracy in this country is on the downhill grade.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, before concluding I want to say-and I shall be very brief-that I consider it strictly improper for the Minister of Agriculture-who I wish were here-to use his influence as Minister of Agriculture to draw a large and curious crowd to his brother's auction sale.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I respectfully
submit to the hon. member that he is now getting away from the grievance under discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.

Answers to Questions Incomplete


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the Chair should be given an opportunity to express its point of view. The essence of the grievance put forward by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is that hon. members posing questions to the government do not receive appropriate or proper replies. My understanding of the grievance which the hon. member for Kootenay West is now submitting is that he is objecting to the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture. In the mind of the Chair this is essentially different from the grievance submitted by the hon. member for Yukon. If the hon. member who now has the floor can relate his comments to the grievance put forward by the hon. member for Yukon, he will be in order; otherwise he is obviously out of order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I respect your opinion, but I was relating what I was saying to improper answers given by ministers in the house, and I was using this as an illustration of the answers of ministers. It is just as improper for the minister to attend an auction sale under these circumstances as it would be for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) to go out and sell bonds for a brother of his who controlled a finance house, or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) to appear in court on behalf of a brother lawyer.
In view of these unfortunate incidents, which seem to have accelerated and increased in recent weeks, I do hope it will not again be necessary for the members on the opposition side of the house to raise this grievance. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I do hope the Minister of Agriculture will in future have a sense of dignity with respect to his office and a sense of his responsibilities to this house and to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. These remarks are obviously out of order.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has raised, this evening, a most serious grievance which affects each and every member of every opposition party in this House of Commons because it concerns our individual rights as opposition members. As the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) so ably said a few moments ago, not since he has been in this House of Commons has such dictatorial arrogance set into the treasury benches in such a short time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Heward Grafftey: I say, Mr. Speaker, that in a few short weeks, by intended actions, members of the government have sought to lessen the effective role of opposition members. While Mr. Lesage and the Liberals in the province of Quebec say there is never going to be any more patronage, what do we see in this House of Commons? We see a bland admission by the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis) that defeated Liberal candidates are to be consulted in every district in Canada in which they were defeated. But getting back to the original grievance and the pith and substance of the grievance raised by the hon. member for Yukon, what have we seen in this house? During the last election campaign what did the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) say? He went from coast to coast saying that one thing the government must be is forthright with the Canadian people. He said: We must give them the facts, we must let them know what the facts are, we must communciate the facts to the people so they can be partners in government.
What has happened? The members on the treasury benches, by assuming a role of dictatorial arrogance, have time and time again in the question period withheld the facts from opposition members. All we are asking tonight is that they be forthright with us and with the Canadian people in the way they said they were going to be during the election campaign. Why? Why waste the time of the house? Why did not the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis)-


Some hon. Members:: Why? Why?


William Heward Grafftey: -admit the existence of this document in the first place, instead of wasting the time of all hon. members and the house as he has done? Let us be more specific, Mr. Speaker. As a member from the province of Quebec I took a very real interest in federal-provincial relations at the beginning of the session, in a non-partisan way. I felt that at this stage in our national development it was important for all hon. members to know the real facts in relation to many fields affected by federal-provincial relations, such as the pension plan, the municipal loans fund plan and the financial agreements. I put question after question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), and I side with the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I do not know what tomfoolery she was up to tonight, but she was less than forthright with me, and no amount of brazen argument and talking on her part will cool us down this evening. The hon. lady got up on a question of thin-skinned privilege and could not even make her statement of privilege concise. Time after time during the debate on the pension scheme I put precise questions

to the hon. lady that demanded a yes or no answer or a one-sentence answer. Were the answers forthcoming? No.
I put questions on the municipal loans fund legislation to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) requiring a yes or no or one-sentence answer, in order to help those of us on this side of the house to study this matter conscientiously, so we could be an effective opposition. And, by the way, I note that the hon. lady is making tomfool, head-shaking movements. I suggest that dictatorial arrogance deserves a better reaction than that.
As I was saying, I put questions time and time again to the Minister of Finance in order that I might prepare myself to study and debate the municipal loans fund legislation. There were no answers. He would not get out of his seat. I put question after question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in relation to the forthcoming federal-provincial meeting. There were no answers forthcoming. Then the Speaker had to remind me that these questions had already been dealt with and I was out of order, and he asked me to put my questions on the order paper.
So I placed on the order paper motions Nos. 19, 22 and 33 for the production of papers all relating to the pith and substance of these subjects, finance, the municipal loan fund legislation and so on, all of which come within the orbit of federal-provincial relations. I put these motions on the order paper on June 26, I believe, and the government accepted them and agreed to make the returns. In a few short weeks there is going to be a dominion-provincial conference but I have not been able to get answers from the ministry. I did what the Speaker said. I put them on the order paper, and I have not even got the basic facts to begin my study.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: No amount of intervention will deter me. In 1957 every Canadian knew what it was like when the Liberals imposed closure in this house. This is a new type of closure. We are told to put things on the order paper. This is the government which slandered our prime minister. This is the government whose members went from coast to coast saying that the government should be forthright with the people.
I ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickers-gill), who is sitting smugly in his seat, why is there this delay? Why is it that an opposition member who cannot get verbal answers to his questions has to wait three months for returns to simple questions? There is nothing tricky about the questions. They are simple matters of fact which I require, so that I can prepare myself to debate as a responsible opposition member before the
Answers to Questions Incomplete federal-provincial conference takes place. In the name of all Canadians I ask, why is this new form of closure being imposed? I say to the Secretary of State that there is something more than Machiavellian practice behind this.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? I would be most grateful if he would tell me what questions he has put on the order paper directed to the ministry of health and welfare which remain unanswered.


William Heward Grafftey: On the orders of the day. As far as the order paper is concerned I do not believe my questions touched upon her department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


William Heward Grafftey: I say that if you go back to the remarks I have already made in this debate you will find nothing contradictory.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: You should withdraw what you said.


William Heward Grafftey: The other day I got up in
the house not knowing the facts at all-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: You went out in a huff.


William Heward Grafftey: Hon. members jeer, but it so happens that an inmate in one of the federal penitentiaries was beaten up and thrown in the hole. We are told, and I admit it is rumour, that he was thrown in the hole for a number of days and did not receive medical treatment for several days. I got up and asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) a question in as polite terms as possible. I firmly believe that the minister was ready to answer the question and I bear no malice toward him in this regard, because I know he wanted to answer it. The same holds true so far as the Speaker is concerned. He was ready to listen to my point of order; but a jeering, screaming house howled me down and I did not want to participate in that type of debate.
When the people of Canada say today that they are worried about parliament, they are worried about parliament as an institution, and parliament as an institution is written large in the principles of Conservative thought. We are here to preserve those principles. All I ask is, why the delay? Ministers of the crown, including the Prime Minister, went from coast to coast saying they were going to be forthright. All we are asking now is that in the name of goodness they be forthright with opposition members and with the people of Canada. Answer

Answers to Questions Incomplete our questions, and I am sure by doing so you will make this institution a more worthy one in the eyes of the Canadian people.


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express a few opinions from this corner of the house, with regard to the statement made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) concerning the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis).
If there is in fact a list, I think that we should look further to find out what was the purpose of it.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Lucien Plourde: I have seen it and I have noticed that in my county-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A moment ago, when the matter of an incident connected with that list came up, the Postmaster General wished to answer the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), and if I understood the situation correctly, you mentioned to the minister that you would consider the matter at a later date. Therefore, I am of the opinion that if the Postmaster General was not allowed to refute some allegations from the hon. member for Villeneuve, the hon. member for Quebec West should not deal with the same matter at the present time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I believe that the minister is misinterpreting the remarks of the Chair. I said that, in my opinion, there was no question of privilege.
But I feel at this point that if the hon. member for Quebec West does not limit his remarks to the matter under discussion he will depart from the grievance stated by the hon. member for Yukon.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, I was just coming to the point. What I wanted to point out to the house before coming to the crux of the matter, is merely that if Mr. Jean Paul Nolin is the dispenser of patronage in my riding, we shall not accept that, and my constituents would be very annoyed about such a situation.
In the last few days, I noted that when we put questions to members of the cabinet, some of them seemed to take a malicious pleasure in telling us: Put your question on the order paper.
We are ready to follow that suggestion, but most of the time, answers seem to be given only to get rid of us. If such is the attitude
[Mr. Grafftey.l

which the government intends to take, I can assure the house that we will often take the floor and that the government will have to tell us the truth. If not, we will lose no opportunity to state a grievance such as that expressed in the house this evening by the hon. member for Yukon.
Mr. Speaker, if we cannot learn what that famous list was used for or if what we heard about it is true, the house should not dismiss this grievance without calling the attention of the Canadian people, in order to reveal the meddling of some legislators.
In fact, it is our duty to work for the general welfare of the country and the ministers should consult the elected members and not other individuals who have no authority in the eyes of the people.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress the views of my constituents in this respect, and if that list is eventually found to be of importance or useful, I will rise again to register my vigorous protests against those dispensers of patronage who have always existed in the past.
Mr. Speaker, we do not want such a situation to arise again in the future, and I hope that the incident will serve as a warning to the hon. minister, until such time as some other irregularity possibly pops up in other departments.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on the same grievance. I occasionally put a question on the order paper, so I have had some personal experience of this question. A couple of weeks ago I thought that perhaps all the ministry had had inspiration, since they might have read a speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), I believe down in a border city, in which he indicated that what was necessary in this very crucial matter of United States-Canadian relations was an end of platitude-away with platitude, let us have straight talk. At first I thought he had committed himself to an act of self-destruction. I realize, Mr. Speaker, there was perhaps a great awakening here, a great example for the minister.
I should like to think that we could have some straight talk. I can give an example of how lightly the government is answering these questions. My secretary made a mistake in compiling question No. 1,203. I assumed she knew the sex of the person involved, but she did not. So we got this question:
What office does Dallas Taylor hold in the government?
What is his age. place of birth-

And so on. As soon as I saw that, knowing that Dallas Taylor was a female, not a male, I immediately informed the clerk in charge of this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You asked her age.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, I asked the age. I understood from him that it was changed, but the government puts on the record for all Canada to see that poor Miss Taylor-I think it is "Miss"-is imperishably in print as a male. This is the kind of shoddiness hardly expected of a government.
If shoddiness is not bad enough, I should like to turn to another matter. This is what I would call a flippant reply made to me by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), our house leader, a most august gentleman with a tremendous amount of responsibilities under his wing-and we all appreciate how hard he works at them. This type of answer is the kind of flippancy which really correlates with the arrogance earlier referred to. I asked question No. 1,202, which asked:
What office does Gordon Sheppard hold in the government?
Then it went on to ask what particular qualities of Mr. Sheppard led to his engagement. Part of the answer, as reported on page 3620 of Hansard, was:
In 1961, Mr. Sheppard co-founded Inter-Video Productions Limited to produce television programs and films. From 1961-1963 he was vice president and director of Inter-Video Productions Limited. Included among Mr. Sheppard's television productions was a unique C.T.V. program featuring Mr. Douglas Fisher, M.P.
This is effrontery, Mr. Speaker, when a minister allows an answer which I am sure will be taken by anyone reading it as, in effect, a ridicule of the hon. member involved.
I should like to turn to some other questions I have asked. I asked a question which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) refused to answer on orders of the day. It related clearly to the F.L.Q. I was instructed by you, Mr. Speaker, to put it on the order paper. I put it on as a starred question, and despite the fact that it was elementary in its simplicity it stayed on the order paper for two weeks and into a third week. It asked the Minister of Justice whether the F.L.Q. was considered subversive. I complained about this to a friend of mine, and he replied: "You know the Minister of Justice; he probably thinks you are referring to the federation Liberate in Quebec". But my point is that there is an element of stall.
I would suggest to ministers, if they feel they are giving fair answers, that they examine some of the answers given to me to questions I have put on the order paper relating to the queen's publisher. I have great
Answers to Questions Incomplete suspicions about the operation of that particular department, and have had for several years. It has nothing to do with the incumbent government or the previous government, but with the personnel and set-up there. This concern of mine is evidently shared by some Liberal members, including the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis), who has also placed questions on the order paper. In almost every case where I asked a long series of questions I have been shrugged off or put off with the most evasive and minute of answers. I can remember the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), when he was the conscience of the house in his role as a member of the opposition, making much of the evasiveness of previous ministers. I once remember raising the question of the evasiveness of the Department of Transport when it was headed by Mr. Hees, and as a result of raising that issue I had the satisfaction of an assurance from the minister, and subsequently some good honest and direct answers.
I should like to ask hon. members supporting the government as well as the minister himself, to read some of the answers we have had from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) this year. I ask them, have they really felt we are getting clear and direct answers to the sort of issues we raise? I insist that there is a real element of truth in the charge raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and we will get no better example of it than the kind of answers we have had throughout the session from the Minister of Transport. Lord knows, they are long enough, Mr. Speaker, but they are not clear and almost never relate to the question asked. If the minister wants some specifics I would ask him to look at some of the answers he has given.
One is on the question of run-throughs and the other is on the question of branch line abandonment. Answers of this kind are symptomatic of a government which assumes it will be in power for a long, long time and I think it is a little too early for such an assumption to be made. I should like to compliment some of the ministries whose answers in the main, have been direct. In this regard I can certainly say that in my opinion the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Favreau), and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) have been examples to some of their colleagues. I might say to the President of the Privy Council that, as one of the newer ministers, he might well consider some of the answers he gives which are so short as to be completely noninformative.

Answers to Questions Incomplete
I think a serious point has been raised, and if in some parts of my remarks I have allowed levity to creep in I apologize. I am serious as, I think, was the hon. member for Yukon. Already we see an attitude on the part of this government which goes back to days we thought had long gone by. It is almost as if, as one newspaperman put it to me, the events of 1956 and 1957 had not happened.


Eric Alfred Winkler: In the
few minutes which are left of today's sitting I thought that in view of what has taken place this evening it might be appropriate if I were to address myself to the house with reference to what we might expect in the course of the near future. I rise, as I did on another occasion, to say to the government that we on this side of the house, as the official opposition, are prepared to deport ourselves in a way which would do credit, as we have in the past, to the operation of parliament and the entire country.


An hon. Member:: When are you going to start?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I believe the time to proceed in the proper manner is now. This responsibility is not, in my view, that of the official opposition. I wish the Prime Minister were present this evening. I do not say this in any derogatory way, because I know the function he is attending. I wish he were present because in the light of events I believe the honest and proper course which should be followed now, so that we could present ourselves as a proper parliament to our country without the type of thing which has gone on since the opening of this parliament, should now take place. We should examine the facts; and I do so with trepidation in my heart, because it is not the duty of the whip of any party to rise in the house and make suggestions such as I have in mind this evening. But I am sure they are in the mind of the Prime Minister and of every member of this house. We all find ourselves here as a result of what the electorate has chosen to do. I may think that the electorate in one area might have chosen differently, just as my own views in this regard may be reciprocated. But that is beside the point. We are here in our own right.
I refer to the matter which was raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and which was introduced by myself at an earlier date. In fact, it was brought up before that by a member of the New Democratic party. I do not wish to go into specific detail, but I will merely refer to the seriousness of the situation which has developed as a result of the production of this document. On the


day I rose to speak on the subject I quoted Hansard and said at that time that the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis) had misled the house. Because of the fact that I have a great deal of respect for the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill)-I think he is aware of this-I said the Postmaster General had also misled the Secretary of State.
Then we had a situation where the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss La-Marsh) was participating in provincial matters. This was a gross error as far as the rights of the provinces are concerned.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I have two minutes. After I have finished I will certainly allow the hon. lady to ask her question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that since the hon. gentleman has changed the subject I have the right to rise on a question of privilege. I should only be a second. The Postmaster General did not mislead me in any way, nor did I mislead the house. If the hon. gentleman will read the motion which was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) he will find that the motion is extremely clear and specific. It refers to a document prepared by the Postmaster General-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member raised a question affecting my personal reputation. He did it very nicely but, surely, since he suggested I was led into misleading the house I should be permitted to put the facts briefly on record.


Mr. Maclnnis:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the house will not be surprised when I rise to remind you that the Secretary of State has once again risen to take part in a discussion without being formally recognized. There may have been a nod from you, but I did not see it. May I recall that one of my hon. friends rose six or seven times earlier today in an attempt to catch your eye on a question of privilege, but failed to do so.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I continue in the one minute left to me? I will terminate at the end of that time. I will continue by referring to the Minister of Agriculture along the same lines as were pursued by my hon. friend from Yukon. I do not say for one moment that the Prime Minister misled the house, because I do not think that would be a fair thing to say; but certainly, then, the Minister of Agriculture misled the Prime Minister in the statement he made today. There is an old phrase, possibly shopworn, which runs: "There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at

the flood, leads on to fortune." The fortune is ours, as Canadians. The responsibility that lies upon us is to discharge the business of this country and I believe the most important task which faces the Prime Minister tonight is to ask for the resignation of the three ministers to whom I have referred.


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


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Gordon) agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:



[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including $24,000 for grants in aid of forestry research $1,060,700.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates $1,378,100.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including authority notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the
Business of the House
treasury board, for total commitments of $2,529,570,600 for the purposes of votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 , 30, 35, 40, 45 , 50, 55 , 60 and 65 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $978,136,600 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government $3,432,000.
Proceedings reported.

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the house leader, Mr. Speaker, if the order of business as outlined yesterday holds for tomorrow, Thursday and Friday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, with one slight exception, sir. The Prime Minister has reminded me that he had begun to speak on a motion to set up a committee on procedure, and suggested to me that before we embark on the income tax bill again we should complete that debate, which I think there was some disposition to feel could be done fairly quickly. It seems to me, after this evening, it would be a very appropriate thing as the first item of business tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, Ociober 23, 1963