1964-03-13

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate to acquaint this house that the Senate doth agree to the address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen offering congratulations on the birth of a prince, by filling up the blank spaces left therein with the words "Senate and".
I also have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate as follows:
Resolved-That the following address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General, namely:
To His Excellency General the Right Honourable Georges P Vanier, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, upon whom has been conferred the Military Cross and the Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and Commander in Chief of Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
The Senate	of Canada, in parliament
assembled, have agreed to an address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen offering congratulations to Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Prince Philip on the birth of a prince, and respectfully request that Your Excellency will be pleased to transmit the said address to Her Majesty the Queen.
Ordered-That the clerk do go down to the House of Commons and acquaint that house that the Senate have passed an address to His Excellency the Governor General respectfully requesting that His Excellency may be pleased to transmit the joint address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen offering congratulations on the birth of a prince, and request the House of Commons to unite with this house in the said address.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That this house do concur in the address of the Senate to His Excellency the Governor General, respectfully requesting that His Excellency may be pleased to transmit the joint address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen offering congratulations on the birth of a prince;
That the words "and Commons" be inserted in the said address from the Senate; and
That a message be sent to the Senate informing their honours that this house doth unite with the Senate in the said address.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
20220-55J


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the transfer of certain duties from the Minister of Agriculture to the Minister of Forestry, on which some questions were asked yesterday.
It will be recalled that on February 20, in the debate on the address in reply to the throne speech, I described the intention of the government to combine forestry with the work of rural development and to create a ministry of forestry and rural development. By an order in council of March 5, 1964, pursuant to the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Agriculture under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act and the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act were transferred to the Minister of Forestry. The same order in council also transferred to the Minister of Forestry the administration of the program respecting freight assistance and grain storage costs on western feed grain.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that it has also been decided to establish a special three man executive committee to co-ordinate policies for agriculture. Its chairman is the Minister of Agriculture; the other two members are the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because of his responsibility for grain marketing, and the Minister of Forestry, who is to have responsibility also for rural development and for feed grains moved from western Canada. A bill to establish a ministry of forestry and rural development will be placed before parliament at an early date.
There has been some inquiry as to whether certain other functions of the Minister of Agriculture were to be transferred to the Minister of Forestry. In that connection I should say that an earlier order in council had been made on February 3 but was withdrawn. It did include the Farm Credit Act and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act among the functions to be transferred to the Minister of Forestry. That order was never proceeded with because it had been prepared before the new Minister of Forestry came into office on February 3. When he was appointed, he and the Minister of Agriculture jointly urged that a precise transfer of functions
864	HOUSE OF
Agriculture Minister Duties Transferred should not be finalized until the new minister had had time to familiarize himself with the problems which would be involved in the establishment of his office.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, by the wish of both ministers concerned, the transfer of duties was held in abeyance for a few weeks. The two ministers then agreed as to the duties to be transferred. Their joint recommendation was accepted by me and by the cabinet, and was embodied in the order in council of March 5 to which I have referred.
Yesterday there was a suggestion that the government was in default in not having published the order in council of February 3 and the subsequent order which revoked it. That allegation, Mr. Speaker, is quite unfounded. Strictly speaking, as hon. members know, there is no statutory obligation to publish such orders, but in practice they are tabled in a monthly summary. The list for February will, as a matter of course, include the two orders in question. Meantime people who asked for copies of the above orders, including an alert newspaperman who asked some time ago, were given them in the usual way.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make reference to the statement just placed before the house by the Prime Minister. In order to do so I will have to refer to the various orders in council. The changes in the cabinet, as I recall them, were made on February 3. On that date an order in council was passed, P.C. 1964-157, which states, reading only the appropriate portions, that:
... on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, pursuant to the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, is pleased hereby to transfer to the Minister of Forestry the powers, duties or functions of the Minister of Agriculture under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, the Farm Credit Act, the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and in respect of the administration of the program respecting freight assistance and grain storage...
His Excellency.. .is hereby further pleased to designate the Minister of Forestry, as the appropriate minister, for the purposes of the Financial Administration Act, with respect to the Farm Credit Corporation.
That order in council came into effect and could not be changed by the wish of the government without another order in council. In other words it continued in effect until a change of heart took place on the part of the government on February 20, so that for 17 days the Minister of Agriculture was divested of these powers and they were transferred to the Minister of Forestry.
It is of interest to ask, and I would ask the Prime Minister to advise, whether during


that period of time the Minister of Agriculture discharged the duties of these departments which had been transferred from him; because the fact is that if anything other than purely administrative work was done it was done illegally. For 17 days the Minister of Agriculture was a minister without these powers. Then on February 20 His Excellency, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, revoked the order in council. I ask specifically what happened during those 17 days when the Minister of Agriculture was outside the veil.
Then on March 5, as the Prime Minister said, another order in council was passed whereby certain powers were transferred back to the Minister of Agriculture under ARDA and the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, and in respect of freight rates. This is a strange and peculiar performance to transfer powers away from a minister and then, at the end of 17 days, find out that they should not have been transferred away.
What happened during those 17 days? Were these particular powers auctioned off as between two ministers? Certainly never before has there been an auction sale of powers on the part of ministers.
Stripped as the minister was of these prerogatives, I ask who exercised the powers between the 3rd and the 20th? The minister is not here today so that we could have asked him some questions in this regard, but is it a fact that there was great difficulty in the cabinet? Is it a fact, as stated outside the house, I am informed, that there was a threat on the part of the Minister of Agriculture that unless these powers came back to him he would go? These are all questions that arise.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the questions that were asked yesterday we naturally welcome the fact that the Prime Minister, without further delay, has made a statement on the issues involved, and I appreciate the fact that he has made it on motions so that brief comments can be made on it.
The first comment I wish to make is that it seems very strange that an order in council transferring duties from one minister to another, was made-as the Prime Minister implied-without adequate consultation with the ministers concerned before it was done.
The second point I wish to make is in fact one that the Leader of the Opposition has commented on, and I make it very precisely; that once an order in council has been passed, if it is a proper order in council based on a statute it has the force of law and no one, not even a minister of the crown, has the right to agree to vary that order or to agree to disregard it. Therefore any actions between
MARCH 13, 1964	8B5
February 3 and February 20 on the part of either or both of the ministers concerned, that were not in accordance with the order in council of February 3, were contrary to the law.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to blow this into an issue of the proportions of the flour milling report of 1949, or some other things that have happened, but if the rule of law means anything it applies to the government as much as it does to the ordinary citizens of the country. If two ministers choose by arrangement between themselves, with the consent of the rest of the cabinet, to disregard the law, then that is breaking the law just as much as when any citizen breaks any law of the land.
The other comment I wish to make is that the Prime Minister cannot brush aside the law regarding the publishing in the Canada Gazette of orders in council. He says that an alert newspaperman learned about these orders in council. Well, all power to him. I may also say that the privy council office this morning did not hesitate to agree to send to me, when I asked for them over the telephone, copies of the orders in council of February 3 and February 20. Neither did the privy council office hesitate for a moment to answer the question I put to that office: "Have these orders in council been published in the Canada Gazette?" The clear and forthright answer was "Not yet". Of course I did not need to ask that question because I knew the answer. However, I have in my hand the Canada Gazette, part 2, for February 12 and February 26. The next issue, of course, will not come out until a date in March. It is quite clear that the order in council of February 3 was not published in the Canada Gazette within 30 days of the time it was made.
The Prime Minister says there is no legal requirement but that it is only a matter of practice or tradition. I remind him that there is a very precise legal requirement. It is section 6, subsection 1, of the Regulations Act, which is chapter 235 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. 1952. It is very brief. Let me read it to the Prime Minister and to all who are concerned.
Every regulation shall be published in English and in French in the Canada Gazette within 30 days alter it is made.
There is no escape from that whatsoever except section 9, subsection 2, which does give the governor in council the power to make another order in council exempting some other order from publication. If there was such an order in council it would have to be published, but from the fact that the orders of February 3 and February 20 are available to the press and are available to
Agriculture Minister Duties Transferred us as members of parliament it is clear that there has not been an order in council making these two orders in council secret.
It is quite clear that the government has changed its mind. It is quite clear that the government has decided that what was proposed in the order in council of February 3 it did not want to carry out. It has the right to do that. The transfer of duties prerogative can be used to push ministers around as much as the government wishes. But the government is just as much bound by law as is parliament, just as much bound by law as the people of Canada.
Although this may seem to be a small matter, the plain fact is that my allegation of yesterday stands up, for the Prime Minister now admits that the order in council was passed on February 3. Today is March 13, Friday the 13th in fact, and not yet has that order in council been published in the Canada Gazette. Even if it is published now, this still does not carry out the strict requirement of the law that it shall be published in the Canada Gazette within 30 days after it is made.
What is strange about our parliamentary system is that there does not seem to be any penalty, other than criticism or lack of confidence and public dismay, when the government breaks the law. We had this in 1949 'when Hon. Stuart Garson broke the law requiring him to table a certain report under the Combines Investigation Act. We have had other instances, but I cite that one as a clear example. There seems to be nothing than can be done by way of penalty when the government breaks the law. I know of no penalty that can be imposed on the government for having broken this law; but if we are going to establish respect for the law in this country, if we are going to insist that it means something, I suggest that respect for the law should be practised without any question by the government itself.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, you have, of course, permitted a debate on this matter, so I assume you will permit me the right to reply in kind to the allegations that have been made. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition, without producing any evidence at all, has suggested that there may have been some illegal action in the 17 days between the passing of the two orders in council. He has no evidence to support that suggestion, and in due course I will be able to deal with it.


John George Diefenbaker: There was no action taken in that 17 days?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who often shows a tendency to accusations of illegality without producing supporting evidence that will stand
886	HOUSE OF
Agriculture Minister Duties Transferred up, has suggested that we have illegally concealed this order in council, and in making that argument he has talked about the requirements in respect of regulations. I would point out to him we are now dealing with an order in council, not with the regulations under the order in council.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Just a minute; I did not interrupt you, so give me a chance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister, by the words he is now using, is twisting what I said. He knows that the Regulations Act contains a definition of "regulations" that includes an order in council. If he does not, he ought to know it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I could deal with the requirement under the law which the hon. gentleman has stated has been broken by this government. This is what is required under the law; first, publication of orders, which means publication in the Canada Gazette, as governed by the requirements of the Regulations Act or in specific instances by requirement indicated in other pieces of legislation which authorize an order in council for a particular purpose. There is no requirement for publication of orders like those now in question, either under the Regulations Act or under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, which was the authorizing statute in this case.
Apart from publication in the Canada Gazette, orders may also be made public by tabling in parliament. Such tabling is sometimes required by a particular act and is sometimes done voluntarily by the minister directly concerned for special reasons. Again, there is no requirement in the Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act to table orders of the type involved here. It is the practice of the privy council office, Mr. Speaker, to table a monthly summary of the orders in council, not as the result of any statutory requirement but under a standing arrangement initiated by my predecessor, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. This summary lists the orders in council by subject and date of approval, but without giving the privy council number. The two orders in question about which we have been talking this morning were both approved in February and would, as a matter of course, be included in the summary for that month, which has not yet been published or tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it is time to call the attention of hon. members to the fact that on motions, statements should be short and as factual as possible, and the response


in turn should be short, factual and not lead to argument. In view of the importance of the allegations we have had an extended discussion this morning, but it is rapidly deteriorating into a debate. I am wondering if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could not use another time to advance some of his arguments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has sought to set aside the section of the Regulations Act which I read by the assertion he made that it does not apply. I will not enter into a lengthy argument; I will simply read, for his benefit, a portion of the interpretation section of the Regulations Act. It says;
In this act,
(a) "regulation" means a rule, order, regulation, by-law or proclamation
(1) made, in the exercise of a legislative power conferred by or under an act of parliament, by the governor in council-
An order in council is something passed by the governor in council under the authority of an act of parliament. I submit this is clearly covered by the act and therefore is subject to the requirements of section 6, subsection 1, which I have already read.


Mr.  A. B. Paiierson@Fraser Valley: First of all I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the house that I do not propose to enter into the debate that has been carried on for some time now, nor is it my intention to discuss the matter from a legal point of view as members have been doing. However, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity afforded by custom to make a few observations on the statement made by the Prime Minister.
First of all, we appreciate this statement and we do hope that it will have the effect of clearing up a great deal of the uncertainty that has accumulated as a result of statements that have been made and decisions that have been taken and announced by the government. I must say that while all this juggling of responsibility has been going on between ministers, the farmers of eastern Canada in particular have been awaiting with impatience a solution to some of their problems. We do hope that now some of these uncertainties have been removed, these problems will be resolved.
We believe there must be a correlation of the various agricultural policies now in force in order that agriculture may receive the full benefit of these policies. Reference has been made to P.F.R.A., to the ARDA program, to the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, and so on. We have insisted that there should be nation-wide policies with adaptation to suit particular areas as may be required. We hope, therefore, that the changes announced this morning may result in a more

uniform and effective administration of agricultural policy both in eastern and in western Canada.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but since he is away recuperating from the operation which he has just undergone, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Did the Minister of Agriculture agree to the wholesale transfer of his responsibilities at the cabinet meeting of February 3?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Although it is not customary to disclose what goes on in cabinet meetings, I can assure my hon. friend that the Minister of Agriculture was in wholehearted agreement with the transfer as now effected.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what he says.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Since the transfer of functions from the Minister of Agriculture leaves under his jurisdiction only tag ends, has the salary of the minister been reduced to match his remaining functions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is giving a conclusion before the question is asked.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
Hon.	Walter	L.	Gordon	(Minister	of
Finance): I am tabling herewith, in English and French, the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada and the statement of accounts of the bank as at December 31, 1963, in accordance with chapter 13, section 27(3) of the Bank of Canada Act.


[Stage Direction]
Hon.	Walter	L.	Gordon	(Minister	of
Finance): By leave of the house I should like to move that the budget papers which I tabled yesterday, and which the house agreed should be published as an appendix in Votes and Proceedings of March 12, should also be published as an appendix to the Hansard report, as is customary, for Monday, March 16.
Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT



USE OF MAILS FOR DISSEMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION LITERATURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['On the first question, Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated to the house I told President de Gaulle that he would be very welcome in Canada. When I heard in Paris that he was going to Mexico I asked him at that time whether he would consider returning to France via Canada. However, he regretted his inability to do so.\nAs far as the second question is concerned, that is possible membership in the organization of American states, I have nothing to report on that matter at the present time.']
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General. Yesterday, the hon. gentleman informed us, with reference to the post office box used for the distribution of hate literature, that it had been closed and that no further deliveries were being made. I ask him whether it is not a fact that since the 3rd day of March this hate literature, or the replies to this hate literature, have been forwarded to post office box 22, postal station "E", Toronto 4. Has the Postmaster General no information about this or is he in a position to discuss this matter today; because I am sure the investigation which has taken place must have revealed this fact.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: It is a somewhat involved matter. I mentioned in my statement, not yesterday but the day before yesterday, in reply to the right hon. gentleman that a forwarding address had been given in St. Catharines or Hamilton, and that the mail from the Toronto post office box had gone to that address. There was a second address involved, an address bringing in another member of the family. We are still awaiting a report on that box. There were some six or seven letters received. This might have occurred over a period of two or three days. As far as the boxes are concerned, the two boxes referred to the other day in my statement, they are definitely closed by my order under the Post Office Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether the box to which I made reference has also been closed, or whether this information has not been brought to his attention?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Until I have checked the number of the box I am not in a position to give a proper answer. I can say that within the last 36 hours a co-operative member of the press gallery has given us particulars of another box in Toronto. It may be the one to which the right hon. gentleman has referred. I will look into the matter and reply as soon as possible.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. A report from the United Nations in New York says Canada is ready to send a

Inquiries of the Ministry battalion to Cyprus in Canadian planes within 48 hours of the completion of arrangements with the secretary general of the United Nations. In view of the Prime Minister's assurance that no Canadian troops would be sent to Cyprus without prior consultation with parliament, I should like to ask the Prime Minister when he intends to ask parliament for such approval.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We intend to put the matter before parliament as soon as the force has been established. It does not seem to be a suitable procedure to ask parliament to approve or disapprove of action which may be taken, we can only say now that as far as Canada is concerned we shall participate, but we have not yet been told that a force will be set up in which we shall be participating. I hope, and I know all hon. members hope, that this will be done with a minimum of delay. It might even be done during the day. As soon as we are informed that the force will be established, not only will we proceed at once to carry out our commitment to participate but we shall proceed at once to put the matter before parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I take it, then, that the 48 hours would be a period in which the government would consult parliament before the troops were actually dispatched.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We would consult parliament at once. If the message comes through today it might be desirable to interrupt the business of the house and deal with this matter immediately.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection I would say on behalf of the opposition that if such a motion should be made it would, of course, require consent, and we would be prepared to give consent. The Prime Minister has stated that this matter would be dealt with by parliament, and in following that course he is following a course which receives our entire approval.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In the event that Canadian troops participate in Cyprus, what length of time will elapse between the arrival of Canadian troops in Cyprus by air and the arrival of their equipment which will be sent by ship?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, all the equipment that is required immediately will go by air. As I indicated yesterday, the only equipment that 

will go by sea will be the heavy equipment and supplies required in due course.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to my previous one. What wheeled or tracked vehicles will be available to the Canadian troops immediately on arrival in Cyprus, if they are sent?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understand that certain reconnaissance vehicles, jeeps and other vehicles, will be made available by the British army at the outset. As soon as our reconnaissance party has been able to determine exactly what vehicles will be required by Canada, they will be loaded aboard the Bonaventure and taken forthwith to Cyprus.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of National Defence be able to indicate at this time what other ships of the Atlantic fleet will escort the Bonaventure to Cyprus?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, an escort will not be required, but I will take that question as notice.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister regarding his undertaking to bring the dispatch of the force to Cyprus to the attention of the house prior to its dispatch. What will be the situation if he gets word Saturday or Sunday rather than later today? Will that delay the dispatch?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would hate to think there may be any delay in the dispatch of the force once it has been formally established, because the situation in Cyprus is such that the sooner the United Nations can intervene the better it will be. If word should come this afternoon or this evening that the force had been formally constituted with an acceptable membership it might be-and I throw this out as a suggestion-desirable to sit tomorrow morning to deal with this matter.


Hon. Paul Mariineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Can the Prime Minister state what is still retarding the constitution of that force?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes; the acceptance of the invitation to participate by certain members apart from the United Kingdom and Canada.


Paul Raymond Martineau: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that it has been reported Brazil has refused to participate in the force, would that be a fatal obstacle to the constitution of the force?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. Of course it would be desirable to have a South American country included, but that would not in itself be an obstacle to the constitution of the force.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Whereas the president of the French republic, President de Gaulle, will soon visit Mexico and this continent, is it the intention of the Canadian government to invite President de Gaulle to Canada and return the hospitality he showed to the Prime Minister of Canada last January?


Lester Bowles Pearson: President de Gaulle has already been informed that he would be very welcome in Canada if he would honour us with a visit during the present year. However, he has indicated it might not be possible for him to visit Canada this year, though he hopes to do so before long.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that President de Gaulle will shortly be in the Americas, would the secretary of state say whether an invitation has been extended to him to visit Canada? At the same time, in view of the increasing interest in the organization of American states, is the government in a position to say whether the undertaking which they gave during two election campaigns to the effect that Canada will join the organization is about to be consummated?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the first question, Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated to the house I told President de Gaulle that he would be very welcome in Canada. When I heard in Paris that he was going to Mexico I asked him at that time whether he would consider returning to France via Canada. However, he regretted his inability to do so.
As far as the second question is concerned, that is possible membership in the organization of American states, I have nothing to report on that matter at the present time.



REQUEST FOR AID TO RELIEVE REPORTED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I apologize to him for not having given him notice of the question. Has the government taken any steps, as the United States 20220-56
Inquiries of the Ministry government apparently has, to give emergency help to the people of the state of Rajasthan in India, who are suffering from famine and serious drought conditions?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, that matter is under review this very day.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCIAL FINANCE MINISTERS RESPECTING BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
At the federal-provincial conference last fall, the minister stated that he would call a meeting of the ten provincial finance ministers before presenting the budget. Could he tell the house whether he has invited them in order to hold consultations in connection with the speech he will be delivering next Monday?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: At the federal-provincial conference last November 1 had the opportunity and the privilege of hearing the views of the provincial ministers of finance about economic matters in general. I hope this will be an annual event, and that we shall have another meeting next November or December. I never suggested that the provincial ministers of finance would be asked to participate in the preparation of the budget, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that their views will be taken into consideration as seriously as will the views of all other people in positions of responsibility.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's answer, can he state whether in fact he has consulted the ministers of finance of the provinces since the conference of last November?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have not consulted them since last November, and they have not volunteered any suggestions since that time.



AIRPORTS


[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 Transport. Has the minister received a protest against locating a major airport on the Kootenay river flats near Creston, B.C., from the West Kootenay rod and gun

Inquiries of the Ministry clubs association, on the grounds that the landing and taking off of planes will have a damaging effect on wildlife-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was kind enough to send me notice of this question, and I suggested to him then that it was one for the order paper. I wonder whether the hon. member would care to accept that suggestion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But, Mr. Speaker, this is also a hazard to the lives of passengers in these aircraft.


Mr. Speaker:: The question concerns the future location of an airport in a certain constituency, and I really do not see that it involves a national emergency at this moment.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. On April 1 Britain will impose a quota on landings of Faroese-Danish-fresh and frozen fish as a result of the action by the Danish controlled Faroe islands in unilaterally extending their territorial limits to 12 miles. Since it is the minister's intention to unilaterally extend Canada's fishing limits to 12 miles on May 15, will he tell the house what steps are being taken to prevent any retaliatory action by the United States that would be detrimental to Canada's fishing industry?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in reply I wish to say that there is no indication whatsoever that any measures of retaliation will be taken by the United States.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What aspects of national security make it necessary to fingerprint and photograph employees of the world fair corporation?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the security checks that have been made on the employees and prospective employees of the world fair corporation are the ordinary ones, and are in no sense extraordinary.



PROVISION FOR EXPECTED INCREASE IN MONTREAL POPULATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of artificial activities which are now taking place in Montreal and result in attracting a large number of citizens from cities and rural areas, what steps does the present government intend to take, in co-operation with provincial authorities, in order to avoid the serious problems which will face us once the exhibition is over, in the spring of 1968?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which is asking the government what it is going to do about something which may happen in 1968. I will take it as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that under our rules the question, although very interesting, is nevertheless quite theoretical.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with respect to the question I directed a while ago to the Prime Minister who does not seem to have understood very well.
In my opinion, it deals with a most important matter, even if 1968 may seem far away.
May I remind the house that governments, whatever they are, federal or provincial, always wait for a relatively long time before developing and implementing any project.
As far as I am. concerned, I feel that Montreal will be faced with very serious problems in the spring of 1968, and that we must consider the question immediately, keeping those problems in mind, because Montreal will have by 1968 a population increased by more than one million people.
At that time, after the world fair is over, unemployment will be very serious there. [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. First of all, the point is not a question of privilege. If it is anything it is a point of order, and I do not think a point of order arises at this time. Second, it is in the nature of a hypothetical long range question, important in itself but not the type of question that should be asked at this time. In the third place, I would imagine there will be ample opportunity within the next week or so for the hon. member to discuss his suggestion at length for the benefit of the house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce and later by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition with respect to arms that had been removed from reserve units in Orangeville. I can inform both hon. members that on March 5, at the request of the chief instructor of the local army cadet corps, all weapons were withdrawn to the regional ordnance depot at Lakeview, Ontario, since this particular cadet corps is no longer active.
Arms were also removed from the militia sub unit at Orangeville and stored at the parent unit at Brampton, Ontario. These arms were withdrawn because the armoury at Orangeville is under repair. I am informed that the arms will be returned as soon as repairs are completed.



BAGOTVILLE, QUE.    REPORTED DISMISSAL OF DOCTOR AT AIR BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) asked if it was true that a doctor had been dismissed from the Bagotville air station because he was not fluent enough in English. I am now in a position to inform him of the circumstances concerning that incident.
To replace a bilingual military doctor for about a month at the R.C.A.F. base in Bagotville, a civilian physician of that locality was hired. Among the patients to be looked after, some are French speaking and others are English speaking. It was therefore preferable that the substitute doctor be bilingual.
Unfortunately, although we had been assured that the one in question was bilingual, it was very difficult for him to communicate with some of his English speaking patients. Both in the interest of the doctor and of the patients, it was agreed between the doctor himself and the commanding officer to call upon the services of another French speaking doctor from Chicoutimi who could make use of the two official languages of this country.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is it not a fact that at the military base concerned there were two doctors, the substitute doctor and the permanent one. The latter, who was English speaking, could readily understand the few patients who 20220-56J
Inquiries of the Ministry spoke that language, while the substitute could, for his part, look after the French speaking patients?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid that
was a statement, not a question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question. I asked whether there was not, in fact, another resident doctor who was English speaking.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I mean to say that nobody was treated unfairly in that incident.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question. I asked him whether is was true that there was, at the Bagotville military station, apart from the assistant doctor, another English speaking doctor who could understand very well the English speaking patients?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker, the doctor there was bilingual.


Gilles Grégoire: Then the other doctor could understand the English speaking patients?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister completed his inquiry into the proposal to establish a women's prison in Cornwall, Ontario, which he promised the house the other day?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I gave that reply the day before yesterday, and I will report on this matter in due course.



REPORTED EMBARGO ON SHIPMENTS FROM WEST COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Grain movements out of Vancouver slowed down from five million bushels per week in January to three million bushels per week in February. In view of the minister's statement that the sale of 200 million bushels has been lost because we could not deliver this grain, can the minister inform the house why the railways have

Inquiries of the Ministry placed an embargo on west coast shipments; why there is this slowdown on the west coast, and what he has done about it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, and as probably other hon. members know, there was a period during February when ships that were due in Vancouver did not arrive. The other day I received from the wheat board a report as follows:
Several vessels arrived yesterday-
This was earlier this week:
-and there are now a total of nine loading grain and oilseeds at Pacific coast ports.
It is the view of the Canadian wheat board that this temporary delay, over which they had no control whatsoever since they have no control over the movement of ships on the high seas, has been overcome and that the movement will proceed as planned-and a very large movement has been planned from now until July.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether part of the slowdown is not due to the lack of facilities at the port?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have already said, Mr. Speaker, that I hope these facilities will be improved; but the real reason and the only reason for this delay has been the fact that ocean going ships which had said they would present themselves at a certain time did not arrive until weeks later.


Stanley James Korchinski: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that as early as last September the Minister of Trade and Commerce was warned of this situation by the former minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a proper question.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. In his reply to my earlier question regarding the many empty grain cars at shipping points in central Saskatchewan, the minister stated that the railways are holding these cars in the west to ensure maximum movement as soon as navigation opens. Will the minister take action to see that these grain cars are loaded and moved to the lakehead now, to save shipping time when lake navigation opens and thus help to raise delivery quotas at country elevators?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be obvious even to the hon. member that if this could be done, it would be done. The reason for the holdback is that the elevators at the lakehead are full, and we are waiting

for the opening of navigation so the grain can be discharged and the movement proceed.


James Ernest Pascoe: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me this was the same question the hon. member asked, if not yesterday the day before yesterday. I think the minister gave a complete answer.


James Ernest Pascoe: With deference, Mr. Speaker, I asked why could not the cars be moved to the lakehead now to save time, rather than holding them in the west.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. If I heard the minister correctly I believe he said that the lakehead elevators are filled at the moment. I think the hon. member for Moose Jaw-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is developing into a debate. The hon. member has asked at least two or three supplementaries up to the moment.


Stanley James Korchinski: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question of privilege at the moment. There may be a point of order. If the hon. member cares to pose a question, let him go ahead.


Stanley James Korchinski: The answer which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has given-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley James Korchinski: -indicated that the lake-head is blocked at the moment, and therefore the cars could not be filled. The cars are sitting empty in the west waiting for movement to the lakehead. These cars could surely be loaded, ready and waiting at the lakehead just as easily as letting them stay in the west.



BARLEY AND OATS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, while on my feet I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he now ready to announce the final payments on barley and oats pools delivered to the Canadian wheat board?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I made an announcement some time ago about the times that these pools would be closed out, and in the ordinary course of events announcement of final payment, in accordance with the rule I have followed here, will be made from Winnipeg. This is the distribution of the farmers' own money, and when the time comes I will also make the announcement in the house.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: I direct my question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform me what is now causing the delay in the consideration by the board of transport commissioners of a private access crossing at Sicamous to all the property north of the main line of the railroad and the trans-Canada highway at that point, including a provincial park, application having been made by the British Columbia department of highways?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper.


Stuart A. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this question is very important to a very large development in this region. It is hoped to begin work this spring, it having been delayed since last spring, and I feel that some action is urgently required.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: If the hon. gentleman will put his question on the order paper today it will be answered on Monday.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Following the meeting yesterday with a delegation from the Canadian Jewish Congress I wonder whether the minister would care to report to the house what steps he proposes to take to stop the circulation of the hate literature.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, first may I say in reply to the question that the Jewish congress of Canada ought to be commended for the very good presentation which they made. They went to the trouble of suggesting draft amendments to the code. My answer is that the material submitted and the comments which were made plus the drafts suggested are already under study by my officials.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
Inquiries of the Ministry for the Minister of Finance. I observe there is a curious discrepancy in the estimates for budgetary expenditure between the figure given on page 29 of the budget papers and the figure given at the bottom of the first page of the supplementary estimates. Admittedly it is not a very large discrepancy, some $32 million, but it does raise serious doubts as to the method by which these estimates have been arrived at. I wonder whether the minister could give some explanation of this.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that a difference of $32 million sounds like a very large amount of money to me. I will be glad to look into this matter and advise my hon. friend.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State may I ask a question of the Prime Minister which he may wish to take as notice. My question is based on a press report appearing today that agreements concerning national centennial projects have been signed with the 10 provincial governments. My question is, have agreements yet been signed with the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that as notice.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of press reports to the effect that at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference Premier Robarts may alter his conditions with respect to the Canada pension plan in a way which might make it more difficult for the plan to be proceeded with? In view of this, will be the government reconsider its arrangements for the house business for the remainder of this pre-Easter session so there will be enough time for the house to consider and pass the resolution, so as to get the bill to the light of day and thus hasten action on the matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard or had

Inquiries of the Ministry any official confirmation of any reports of the kind indicated by my hon. friend which would, in my view, justify a change in our procedure. However, I will be glad to take the hon. gentleman's suggestion under consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister look at yesterday's Winnipeg Free Press, among other publications, for this report? If he feels the suggestion which I made should be considered I trust he will do so.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO ATTENDANCE OF PREMIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley James Korchinski: I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister can inform the house whether any of the premiers of the provinces have indicated that they personnally will not be present at the conference but that they will have their representatives present?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, though I should like to check this I think I am right in saying that the premier of Saskatchewan has indicated that he might not find it possible to be at the conference himself, but if not he would be represented by a member of his government.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the government had any communication from either party to the national agreement between the railways and the non-operating employees union with respect to arbitration of the job security fund negotiated in their last agreement and, if so, what action has been taken by the government?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the matter has been discussed by myself and my officials with the parties concerned. Following these discussions we have been advised that recent conferences between the union and railway officials indicate the possibility of reaching agreement for the disposal of this matter.



GRANDE PRAIRIE, ALTA.-PROVISION OF STRIKE- BREAKERS BY EMPLOYMENT OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister 
of Labour. Has the minister received a complaint to the effect that the national employment office at Grande Prairie, Alberta, is supplying strikebreakers to an I.W.A. strikebound plant owned by Canadian Forest Industries in Grande Prairie? If the minister has received such a complaint, may I ask him what action is being taken to rectify the situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have received no such complaint, and I doubt very much the accuracy of the complaint. However, I will be glad to investigate and advise my hon. friend.



SUGGESTED ADVANTAGE TO SELECTED COMPANIES IN MARKETS ABROAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for Oxford asked me whether the Ontario cheese producers association had been invited to take part in the Scotland food exhibition. The Scotland food exhibition is a fair open to the public, allowing branded merchandise to be sold over the counter to visitors; therefore only producers marketing consumer sized packaged goods were invited to participate.
The Ontario cheese producers marketing board markets cheese in bulk only. The board has participated in a number of the department's trade fairs more appropriate to its marketing practices. Arrangements with the board are under way to have Ontario bulk cheese included in a prestige government display in Britain's food fair to be held in September, 1964, in London.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: As a supplementary question, could the minister tell us what other firms producing package cheese of good quality, of the size of the Black Diamond company, were invited to participate?


Mitchell William Sharp: My understanding is that all cheese producers were directly or indirectly invited to participate in this fair.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In his reply this morning the minister indicated that invitations had been sent to all merchandisers of packaged brand cheese, presumably throughout Ontario and all Canada, and he said these invitations had been issued directly by the department, or indirectly. May I ask the minister what he means by indirect invitations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the department uses all the facilities of the trade in distributing these invitations. For example, it

Supply-Agriculture
makes known to the various trade associa- pleased to see him looking much better this tions that a Scotland food fair is being held morning. Has the minister been advised that and invites all their members to participate the governor of the state of Washington has if they can. In addition it has a list of known informed the citizens of that state that the producers to whom it issues the invitations. Columbia river treaty will provide 500,000
permanent, extra jobs for citizens of that LOTTERIES	state?



INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT OF CRIMINAL CODE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, who seems full of good intentions.
Does the minister wish to consult again the provinces or does he want to amend directly the Criminal Code to allow for a sweepstake?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of that question deals with a point of government policy which will be announced at an early date.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. In as much as the government of the province of Quebec is going to hold a lottery for 1,000 moose hunters' licences at $55 a ticket, when were the lottery regulations changed to allow this?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am not informed of the facts which are implied in the question just put to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I call the attention of all hon. members to the fact that on frequent occasions recently there has been conversation across the aisle. That has been against our custom and procedures, and it is certainly not too courteous. Also, it makes it very difficult for the Chair to hear the questions as they are asked.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Could the hon. member for Kootenay West delay his question until Monday, or is the matter so pressing that the house should hear it now?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is a matter of seeking important information. I want to address an urgent question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure we are all


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I have not been informed of that, but I may tell my hon. friend I am sure that when the treaty projects in Canada are completed there will be a lot of jobs provided in Canada for Canadians.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
le. Departmental administration-to extend the purposes of vote 1 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include the gift detailed in these estimates and to provide a further amount of $60,000.
Mr. Nowlan:: Is the minister going to make a statement at this moment in connection with these estimates?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I had not planned to, Mr. Chairman, as I made a statement when these supplementary estimates were tabled.


George Clyde Nowlan: I just wanted to clarify the situation. I did not want to speak if the minister was going to speak. I cannot speak myself at this moment because I have to leave for another appointment, but I might say that I commented to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on the matter he raised about the differences between the figures. I would be interested in hearing the explanation which I presume the minister can give, but I hope he does not give it until after lunch so I may be here to hear it. In the meantime I suppose that in dealing with these estimates it will be permissible on the first item to have a general discussion in so far as one wants to do so. There are various matters which I know will be discussed. I presume that is satisfactory to the Chair, and if so I will proceed on that basis now.


The Chairman:: Perhaps I should say to the committee that I am not sure whether it is customary to have a general discussion on the introduction of supplementary estimates, but of course this is something for the committee to agree upon. If it does, we will proceed in that way.


George Clyde Nowlan: These are the final supple-mentaries, and I think it has been customary to have more or less of a general discussion on the final supplementaries.

Supply-Agriculture


Lucien Lamoureux: Is that the understanding of the committee?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Is that customary?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I had not known it was customary, but I am relatively new here and I should like to consult the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. Perhaps he would tell me when there was a general discussion on other occasions.


George Clyde Nowlan: I cannot pinpoint the dates, but there have geen general discussions on various occasions during the few short years I have been here. Sometimes it is easier to allow a little leeway and have a modus vivendi of co-operation than to stick too strictly to the rules.


Lucien Lamoureux: I should like to confirm what I said a moment ago. I am not aware that there is normally or by custom a general discussion on the last supplementaries; but again, if there is unanimous consent and that is the desire of the whole committee, we can proceed on that basis. Certainly that is not the custom of the committee.


George Clyde Nowlan: If it is not, we will proceed item by item.


Mr. Winch:: I should like to ask whether the general discussion could not be on interim supply rather than on the supplementary estimates.


Lucien Lamoureux: We cannot anticipate interim supply, but that is an interesting suggestion.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that there are several departments where there are supplementary estimates with regard to vote No. 1, and that being so there would necessarily be a general discussion.


Lucien Lamoureux: That makes sense also. I am sure that when we reach the particular items there can be a general discussion on the first vote, but that does not mean that there will be a general discussion of all the estimates on the very first item of the supplementaries.


Gilles Grégoire: Is the Minister of Finance able to confirm that we will have such a discussion on interim supply?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It is my hope if the committee is agreeable that we will deal with these final supplementary estimates as quickly as possible and then proceed with interim supply perhaps later in the afternoon.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is my hope too, Mr. Chairman; therefore I think it might be advisable, rather than discussing whether we are going to have a general debate, to go

ahead item by item and see how much time we spend on them. Therefore the first item will be agriculture.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we agree with that, but I think that we should be able to discuss some general principles on these supplementary estimates. As for myself, I should like to raise a matter on these supplementary estimates having to do with the general principles of the supplementaries.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. A moment ago I made the ruling that we cannot have a general discussion at this time unless this is the general consensus of the committee. I certainly would not be prepared at this time to say that the hon. member for Lapointe can enter into a general discussion of principles. We should limit ourselves to the item before the committee which has been called.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to enter into a general discussion on the economy of the country, but I simply wish to raise a precise point about the supplementary estimates, to wit: why were mistakes made about estimated interests for last year, which were not included in the supplementary estimates, rather than in the main estimates for next year.
This would not necessarily give rise to a general debate but it would simply be a debate on a specific point involved, since we are considering the final supplementary estimates for this year.


Lucien Lamoureux: Without entering into-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might make a suggestion. It is in line with the remarks made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, namely that we should agree to take the supplementary estimates item by item and that there can be a general discussion on the first item of any department. If that should be the case I suggest that the hon. member for Lapointe could reserve what he is asking about until we get to the item on the Department of Finance. I think it would be more sensible and would lead to a more orderly discussion if we at least departmentalized our general discussion. Members can debate anything they wish during the course of the committee proceedings because there are so many departments before us, but surely we should try to keep the general discussion related to the particular department before us at the time.


Lucien Lamoureux: These are very interesting remarks, and I would go along and suggest that the committee should go along with

the last statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We have before us now vote No. le, Department of Agriculture, and certainly we should limit the discussion to this particular item without trying to anticipate discussion that may arise on other items later.


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Chairman, on this first item having to do with agriculture there are a few things I should like to discuss and bring to the attention of the minister and the committee. As a result of certain discussions that have taken place in this house within the last day or two, Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct certain questions to certain ministers. It is rather difficult, however, to decide the minister to whom these questions should be directed. Perhaps the Minister of Finance could bring these matters to the attention of the proper ministers.
I notice that the item under discussion relates to an increase in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture amounting to some 3.7 per cent, which is a lot of money. I should like to direct my remarks particularly to research as it is related to experimental farms, and ask that the attention of the Department of Agriculture be directed to the need for research on marketing and production.
I have two main thoughts in mind at the moment with regard to marketing, particularly in so far as fresh vegetables are concerned. In my area there are some half million acres of land under irrigation. The research station has been doing a remarkable job in this connection, but there is a great need for research in relation to management of production and marketing.
The need for this research is brought forcibly to mind by the fact that all year round, even during the production season in my area, imports of these commodities account for between 75 per cent and 90 per cent of the total demand in the province. In view of this fact, I wonder if the Minister of Finance would bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Forestry or whoever is the appropriate minister at the moment, the need for research on this problem. I believe responsibility in connection with some of these items has been transferred within the last few days, and we do not know who is going to be responsible for them. This particular item concerning marketing and production should be called to the attention of some department.
Then, too, I should like to call to the attention of the department the problems we have in connection with lamb production in Canada. These problems may fall within the item related to research stations as well. I
Supply-Agriculture
do not know how many members of the committee realize what is happening to the sheep industry in Canada. I should like to remind hon. members that there are more sheep raised in my particular area than in any other area in Canada. There are only about one million breeding sheep in the whole of Canada. What was it five or ten years ago? One of the main problems, of course, relates to the appetite of Canadians for lamb. I believe that here again, Mr. Chairman, the research station could do something, to put it bluntly, toward initiating a sales promotion campaign or perhaps finding some method of marketing, packaging or something of that nature that would aid Canada's sheep industry. That industry is disappearing so rapidly that this must be a good subject for study at the reasearch station, particularly since we have such a station in our area.
I do not mean to complain at all, but really something has to be done about this very valuable industry or it will disappear altogether. One other factor which contributes to the problems of this industry is the importation from Australia and New Zealand. I fully realize that we have to trade with our neighbours, but I wonder if we have to trade to the extent of running an industry. I would ask those ministers concerned to give real consideration to these two matters, in particular to marketing and production, and to try to do something to save the Canadian sheep industry. I am vitally concerned with the sheep industry because, as I said before, out of one million sheep in Canada, a quarter of a million are located right in my constituency.
I do not see a particular item here to cover the next subject in which I am interested but perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you will give me some leeway. In our area we have a large Indian reserve, probably the largest one in Canada I am wondering if the Department of Agriculture has ever given consideration to the people on these reserves, particularly in so far as farm credit is concerned. As I understand it, ARDA may be applied to Indian reserves. However, these people do not need help so much in connection with rehabilitation, with which ARDA is primarily concerned, as they do in connection with long term low interest financing.
As I said earlier, this is available to other Canadians. It is my hope that some method might be worked out to grant such credit to those people on Indian reserves. I am referring particularly to farm credit. I do know that the Farm Credit Corporation has done a wonderful job. I was really concerned the other day when I learned that responsibility for the Farm Credit Corporation had been

Supply-Agriculture
bandied back and forth between ministers. I do not mean to be critical, but as was pointed out in the house this is a very serious matter.
I wonder if the Minister of Finance would make note of these remarks and pass them on to the minister concerned whenever it is decided who the minister concerned will be.
I seriously believe some consideration should be given to extending long term low interest financing to the people on Indian reserves.
There is a further consideration which I have in mind, one which I have brought up once or twice before at least since I have been in the house, which is not very long; like the minister, I am new here. There are some discrepancies in the list of items, in particular affecting certain farm implements, which may be brought into Canada free of duty. I just mention this, as I always do.
I am not pinpointing anyone just now. For example, a hog waterer or stock waterer may be imported into Canada duty free, but a machine of the automatic feeder type may not. Admittedly I am a simple farmer, but I find it hard to distinguish, for duty purposes, the difference between an automatic waterer and a feeder. I see the minister is laughing.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, I am not, I am a farmer too in a small way. But I think we are getting into a budget debate.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: It is listed here under an agriculture item.


Lucien Lamoureux: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. I have been listening to the comments he has made in connection with the item before us, but I am wondering whether we are not going a little too far at this point. It is my opinion that as far as possible the debate should be restricted to the item which is before the committee, and I would not think that because an item refers to administration there could be a general discussion on a supplementary estimate of the whole policy relating to agriculture. That is my opinion and my understanding of the procedure followed in previous debates held over many years in this house.
I would refer the hon. member to May's sixteenth edition, the citation on page 738 which states:
Debate on supplementary and excess grants Is restricted to the particulars contained in the estimates on which those grants are sought, and to the application of the items which compose those grants; and the debate cannot touch the policy or the expenditure sanctioned, on other heads, by the estimate on which the original grant was obtained, except so far as such policy or expenditure is brought before the committee by the items contained in the supplementary or excess estimates.

This item is a very limited one, in my opinion. It says:
Professional and special services, $59,604.
Gift of commemorative plaque to the food and agriculture organization, $396.
My understanding is that hon. members should attempt to limit their comments to whatever subjects are brought before the committee by virtue of the specific item under discussion. There will be adequate opportunity for all hon. members to raise the type of question with which the hon. member is dealing in a few days, and in order to permit the good operation of this committee I suggest that we should try to limit our discussion as far as possible to the particular items before us.


Mr. Nugent:: On that point of order, may I point out that the vote says the purpose is "to extend the purposes of vote 1 of the main estimates" and that vote has always been the item on which a general discussion has been held. It would seem to me that since we are dealing with an extension of vote 1 of the main estimates my hon. friend, who wishes to make a statement covering many facets of agriculture at this time, should be allowed to continue. The point he was raising does affect many farmers today, and certainly comes within the ambit of vote 1.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think we must have a clear understanding as to what we are about. The earlier suggestion that we have a general discussion before entering upon the separate items was rejected, but it was pointed out at that time that many of the items referred to departmental administration, on which items it was always customary to have a general discussion.
I think it would be wrong to limit the discussion too severely. I can recall experiences in the past when the opposition of earlier days spent nine days on supplementary estimates. If the Minister of Finance hopes to get these supplementary estimates through today, some freedom of discussion will have to be permitted to the opposition. If the present government want us to act in the way they acted when they were in opposition, there might well be nine days spent on these supplementary estimates.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I should like to call the attention of the Chair to the statement in Beauchesne, citation 276, paragraph 5, which points out that discussion of supplementary estimates will follow the ordinary rules of relevancy. I submit that the ordinary rules of relevancy, as confirmed by all the citations, provide for a general discussion on the first item. Your Honour seemed to be in agreement with this view at the opening of the debate.


Lucien Lamoureux: It was my understanding that the arguments put forward by the hon.
member who spoke last were on the main estimates, dealing with item 1. But in this case the rules of relevancy certainly apply. If we read the whole of vote le, we find it says:
Departmental administration-To extend the purposes of vote 1 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include the gift detailed in these estimates and to provide a further amount of-
In other words it is limited. I did not rise in any way to complicate the procedures of the committee, and I appreciate that the hon. member for Lethbridge wishes to be given the opportunity to make a statement of a general nature. This is why I was lenient in the sense that I did not interrupt him for 15 or 20 minutes. But if it is the wish of the committee that there should be a general discussion on the first item of each of these departmental estimates, then my understanding is that it is not customary to do so on supplementary estimates.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I do not want to labour the point, but I think the conduct of the affairs of this committee should not be based upon the leniency of the Chair. There should be some ruling established, and that is why your present ruling is of such importance. With reference to your present ruling, may I say we are on item 1, on which a general discussion is permitted; not just because it happens to be vote No. 1, but because it deals with the general administration of the department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would we not save time if we stayed with the understanding I thought we had reached a few minutes ago? I thought we felt it would be extremely disorderly if on the first item of the votes of the Department of Agriculture we had a general discussion ranging over the whole ambit of government affairs-that instead, we should departmentalize the topics to be discussed, and that any general discussion should be related to the particular department whose estimates were before the committee.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I thought the minister, when he rose, was about to clarify that point, to which it seemed to me the government had agreed.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It appears to be the general wish of the committee that there should be a limited discussion of a general character. If it is limited, perhaps it would facilitate dealing with these supplementary estimates. But if it were protracted we should probably have to see that the ministers concerned were here in every case, because no one minister is in a position to know all the details of the operations of every department.
Supply-Agriculture


Paul Raymond Martineau: I wonder if the minister would mind explaining how he proposes to limit discussion of a general nature.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The Minister of Finance has just suggested it would be necessary to have the ministers of all the departments here to discuss the supplementary estimates. I recall that when the Hon. Donald M. Fleming was minister of finance he dealt with all the departments and had no one else to assist him at all. I realize that the Minister of Finance is a new minister and perhaps is not familiar with these details, but he does have advice from the gentlemen in front of him.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to draw to the attention of the hon. member what happened to Donald Fleming; that is all. I do not presume to be able to deal with all the items of every department, but I will do the best I can as we go along.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps I could just read the item that is before the committee and then allow the hon. member for Lethbridge to continue:
Departmental administration-To extend the purposes of vote 1 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include the gift detailed in these estimates and to provide a further amount of $60,000.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Just so we may be clear about this, Mr. Chairman, will you say whether you are in agreement with the suggestion put forth by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and agreed to by the committee and everyone else, so far as I know?


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not think I should be required to make a general ruling along those lines. If hon. members agree, I should like to let the hon. member for Lethbridge continue his remarks, and we will try to find a modus vivendi acceptable to all members of the committee.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I think, for the purposes of orderly discussion in the consideration of all these departmental supplementary estimates, we should have this matter clear at the outset. I had the same understanding as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely that we would have a general discussion on the first item of each department as it arose. It was my impression and the impression of hon. members on this side of the chamber that we and the government had agreed to that. I take it that Your Honour does not intend to superimpose any restriction at all on the general discussion on the first item of each department as it arises?

Supply-Agriculture


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Chair should not be placed in the position of having to make a theoretical ruling. The committee-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps I may be allowed to conclude my remarks. The committee is in obvious agreement that this procedure should be followed, and I suggest that we follow it.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say that I hope my hon. friend from the Yukon will not think he has put words into my mouth. If the hon. member suggests that I or the government have agreed to a general debate that might go on for weeks, that was not our intention.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: You have a more responsible opposition now.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is fine.


Erik Nielsen: I would not dare to put words into the minister's mouth.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Chairman, I should probably apologize for starting this discussion. I realize that talking about imports and implements is probably not connected with this item. However, I thought that speaking about research connected with vegetables, animals, and so on was perfectly in line with this item. Is my understanding correct, Mr. Chairman? I have very little else to mention. I was admittedly a little mixed up myself when I began speaking, because I did not really know to whom I was speaking or who was really responsible for these matters, but apparently that has now been clarified-


An hon. Member:: They don't know either.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: -and under this item it is the Minister of Finance who will deal with the questions. At least I hope we can address these questions to somebody who will be responsible for some period of time now. I would like to bring to the attention of the committee the matter of wheat shipments. This was mentioned earlier today. I do not know whether this item of administration falls under the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Trade and Commerce. How are we to decide under which department it falls, Mr. Chairman? I do not think that has been clarified sufficiently.


Erik Nielsen: They will have to pass another order in council to find out.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Yes, I think so too. The other item which I mentioned was under the Department of Trade and Commerce and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee for the patience with which you listened to the problems I raised in that connection. I

do hope the minister will take these two or three items into consideration and refer them to the departments concerned for their close attention.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be very glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. May I say that in a very small way-a much smaller way than the hon. member-I am also in the sheep farming business, and I am very sympathetic with what the hon. member has had to say.


Paul Raymond Martineau: But don't take us for sheep.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of taking up too much time on the first item of the supplementary budget, which relates to agriculture. Yet, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) to consider a matter which we think particularly important.
Mr. Chairman, in the field of agriculture, and more particularly with regard to the federal Farm Credit Corporation, there is, at this time, a certain lack of administration, organization or adjustment of the legislation to the prevailing conditions in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, it is incredible how many farmers in the province of Quebec-I have witnessed it everyday in the riding of Lapointe-have had their application for a loan to the federal Farm Credit Corporation rejected. This is due to the fact that the act in its present form is not adjusted to existing circumstances and farming conditions in the province of Quebec. The legislation was enacted for the western farmer for whom it works out very well but not for the eastern farmer.
On the other hand, the organization and administration of the corporation are not sufficiently developed to help the credit inspectors or advisers study every application and see to it that loans are granted in the majority of cases in the province of Quebec.
We have now been sitting for two years in the house dealing with the problem, telling the government again and again that the federal Farm Credit Corporation in the province of Quebec has not been sufficiently developed from an administrative and organizational point of view and is insufficiently adjusted to circumstances.
It must be recognized that there has been some progress, Mr. Chairman. We must admit, for instance, that in our district of Lake St. John, there was only one credit counselor in four counties; moreover, that one credit counsellor came from Quebec for half a day or one day a month. Now, at that time, in

Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta, there were four credit counsellors in each federal riding.
We had one for four constituencies, who came one day each month, whereas, in the western provinces, there were four credit consultants by constituency, and on a fulltime basis.
Things have improved. At present, we have two credit consultants for the four constituencies. However, with two credit consultants for the four constituencies, we are still far away from the average prevailing in western Canada, where there are four consultants per constituency.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the Minister of Finance-since he seems to have been chosen to jot down any remarks we may wish to make-should speak to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), who, unfortunately, is not here, and to the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), who is supposed to look after such matters in the province of Quebec, to inform them of the need to increase our representation in this respect as compared to that existing in western Canada, and in order to try to promote farmers' loans in the province of Quebec. There is a tremendous shortage of such consultants. We do not have the same ratio of credit consultants as the western provinces. And we are entitled to have enough credit consultants to meet the requests for agricultural loans made by farmers in the province of Quebec.
Moreover, the act should be adapted to prevailing conditions.
In western Canada, the average amount of the loans is much higher and they are much easier to get. Why? Because the law has foreseen the conditions and circumstances in that part of the country where wheat is grown on 1,000 acres of land. On the other hand, farms have only 100 acres on the average, in the province of Quebec. Since that is sufficient to raise cattle, 100 acres are enough for a farmer; he does not need 1,000 acres.
Because he has less land, he has less real estate to put up as a guarantee; however, even if he has less square feet or square inches to till with a substantial farm loan the Quebec farmer can produce just as much as a western farmer who has a much greater wheat acreage.
The Farm Credit Act has no provision for these circumstances. In my opinion, the Minister of Finance, who is now responsible for the financial aspect of this problem, should advise the Minister of Agriculture to change this situation.
It is true that there has been improvement in that field these last two years. In my own riding of Lapointe, more farm loans were
Supply-A griculture
granted to farmers in 1963 than in 1962, and much more than in 1961. I readily recognize the efforts of the government along those lines. However, there still are serious inadequacies in the act, because too many farmers tell us: the corporation refused to grant us a loan, we have to leave our farms and go to the city to live on social assistance.
That is why we witness at present in our ridings a mass departure from the country to the city, which must be checked because, everyone agrees, the rural class, and especially the farming community, is still the most stable class in our society and the foundation of our country.
Mr. Chairman, it is for those reasons that I-and I do so without partisanship, and I give credit to the present government for its action in that direction over the last two years-suggest that the agricultural field is perhaps the most important one at this time and that it is imperative that constant efforts be made in order to step up those already achieved in that direction, in order to assist our farmers.
I trust that the Minister of Finance will take our suggestions into consideration and act upon them.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say to my hon. friend from Lapointe that this matter which he has raised with regard to the farm credit loan act is of great concern to the Minister of Agriculture, who has discussed it with me on several occasions. I will bring the hon. member's remarks to his attention, and I am hopeful that something will be accomplished in this area very soon.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I should like to take this opportunity of saying that we are rather pleased with the work of the Farm Credit Corporation's employees in our area; they make all they can of the inadequate means at their disposal, and they are to be commended for having improved farming conditions in our area.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I take advantage of this study of the supplementary estimates to talk about a situation existing in the Department of Agriculture.
In the speech from the throne, it is mentioned that a department of rural development would be established; besides, the Prime Minister made a statement about that today. On the other hand, the present government promised to set up a department of agriculture for eastern Canada. As for ARDA, put into operation by the former government, that very sound program in itself is a joint

Supp ly-A griculture
program operated by the provincial government. I am worried about the situation which will prevail with regard to farmers in eastern Canada, in particular French speaking farmers, who will not be established in redevelopment centres.
The Department of Agriculture is an excellent department and farmers need the services it renders. I fear that the pattern under which assistance is provided to marginal centres tends to intensify the lack of interest now prevailing within the Department of Agriculture which is responsible for extending farm services to French Canada. Now, that important department, supported by public funds, which has the duty to serve the whole farm population, be it French or English, does not appear lately to be interested in improving its relations with French Canadians who nevertheless constitute 30 per cent of the farmers in Canada. The province of Quebec alone, through its agriculture, provides Canada annually with more than $500 million in revenue.
The Department of Agriculture has an important part to play in the Canadian nation. Its purpose is to give instructions in agricultural matters everywhere in Canada, since agriculture is not practised within the department itself but indeed on every farm in this country. The department is supposed to play its part as leader and to assist the farmers.
Thirty per cent of the farmers are French speaking, and most of them are unilingual. According to the constitution, they have a right to be French and they must, like all other citizens, contribute to the support of the department which, in turn, has the responsibility of assisting them just the same as English speaking farmers.
English speaking farmers are generally very well served by the federal Department of Agriculture, but it has been altogether different for some time as regards French speaking farmers.
The federal Department of Agriculture uses the services of translators and interpreters in their transactions with French speaking farmers, as they have no other means of direct communication with the senior officers of the department who are not bilingual. Moreover, it does not seem likely that this situation will be improved, since it tends, lately, to get worse.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock? [Text]
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the situation of our eastern farmers is precarious. Their income is decreasing in an alarming way and it is therefore essential, to my mind, to improve the means of communication between French speaking farmers and the federal Department of Agriculture, so that they may seek information, here in Ottawa, to improve their economic position.
Let me tell you what is the situation in the department at the present time.
First of all, it seems that no French Canadian officials are wanted in higher positions in the Department of Agriculture.
Second, the few French Canadian officials who occupy ordinary positions do not get promotions.
Third, promotions seem to be tolerated only in the "Quebec reserve", because good care is taken not to let any qualified agronomist come to headquarters in Ottawa. As you know, Mr. Chairman, several French speaking agronomists have their doctor's or master's degree in agricultural science, and are graduates from large American universities.
In the fourth place, the federal Department of Agriculture is now trying to keep up appearances by publishing press releases on bilingualism, which does not mean anything, to my mind. Indeed, we might well wonder whether promotions in the federal Department of Agriculture have been awarded to a few French speaking agronomists or technicians in the last eight months, or whether there has been some discrimination with regard to acceptable bilingual candidates.
I know for a fact that the former minister of agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) and the former prime minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made the necessary efforts to improve the situation, and everybody knows that Mr. Chagnon, who was assistant deputy minister, under a decision of the former government, was appointed associate deputy minister of agriculture with authority to share in all responsibilities and decisions of the federal Department of Agriculture. But the administration was defeated, and the situation remained in abeyance.
It would be interesting to know how things are going, presently, in that important Department of Agriculture, which now is in danger of not serving anymore agriculture in eastern Canada, since the government changed its promise into a department of forestry and rural development.
I strongly suggest an inquiry be immediately conducted in that department, where

it would appear they are not too interested in serving eastern Canada farmers, and especially French speaking farmers.
The present government appointed a special commission to study the situation concerning bilingualism in Canada. That commission has been sitting for two months already, and it is still trying to define its terms of reference.
Consequently, it would be wise if that commission had the responsibility and the duty of having inequities removed where they exist. I suggest there are inequities at the present time in the Department of Agriculture and I request the commissioners to make a full and thorough inquiry into that department.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I wish to bring out some concrete facts concerning the personnel of the Department of Agriculture of Canada.
Out of 542 upper echelon employees at headquarters in Ottawa and Hull, 6.5 per cent are bilingual.
It should be pointed out, however, that, if I am not mistaken, no bilingual person is to be found holding a job paying $12,000 or over, with the exception of the associate deputy minister, who has been side-tracked and is no longer part of the team running the Department of Agriculture. And that, in spite of the representations and efforts on our part, for it is through a decision of the previous government that Mr. Chagnon was appointed associate deputy minister.
Among those holding positions of lesser importance, the majority cannot do their work in their own language, because they do not have bilingual secretaries at their disposal, and that even goes for the few who have to deal with the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I have here statistics concerning the organization and staff of the Department of Agriculture of Canada.
Number of employees
Uni- Bi-
	Total lingual lingual		
Deputy minister's office Administration branch	7	5	2Economics division	54	46	8Information division	24	21	3Departmental administration 19 Production and marketing branch	18	1Administration	11	10	1Special services	12	11	1Dairy products division	9	9	-Fruit and vegetable division	9	8	1Health of animals division	43	37	6Livestock division	18	18	Plant products division	13	12	1Plant protection division	10	10	-Poultry division	12	12	-Research branch	301	289	12-	-	-Total	542	506	36
The Department of Agriculture also has other related bodies such as the Canadian
Supply-Agriculture
wheat board, the wheat marketing board, and P.F.R.A. Of course, as most of them are not too interested in the province of Quebec, those corporations or boards, out of a few hundred employees, have no bilingual personnel. As an exception, there would be the Canadian farm loan board.
Mr. Chairman, I would once more urge the government to suggest to the Laurendeau-Dunton royal commission, which is still investigating its terms of reference, to inquire into that matter in order to improve the situation and hence the income of eastern farmers.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether I might interrupt to say two things. First of all, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and also the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings asked for an explanation of the difference of $32 million between the total budgetary expenditures set out in supplementary estimates E amounting to $6,860 million and the summary of budgetary expenditures for 196364 set out on page 90 of the white paper. I should explain that the former figure, that is, the total set out in the supplementary estimates, represents the total amount which parliament is or has been asked to authorize. The latter figure, that is, the figure shown in the budgetary white paper, represents our best forecast at this time of what in fact will be spent in the current fiscal year.
The budgetary white paper refers to estimates, but perhaps it would be better in future if it were to refer to forecasts so as to make this distinction clear. One is the original amount that parliament was asked to authorize and the other is our best guess of what will actually be spent. Inevitably there are differences between these two amounts. I might say that this difference shows up every year and I dare say my good friend, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, has struggled with these reconciliations on previous occasions.
In addition, I should like to apologize to the committee while I am on my feet and ask their indulgence if I have to leave shortly to fulfil a long-standing engagement in another city, which I undertook some six months ago, not knowing we would be in committee today and that my presence should be here.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the committee will be the poorer for the departure of the Minister of Finance from its discussion this afternoon. However, we can all understand that appointments are made from time to time and certainly we will try to get on the best we can without him.

Supply-Agriculture
although we may require his presence here early next week to deal with these matters when we discuss them further.
The minister raises an interesting problem as to the difference between the two figures. I am not asking the minister to go into detail at the moment because I realize the situation he is in, but I take it that he said the figure in the supplementary estimates is the total of the estimates we have before us amounting to approximately $6,860 million. So far as the white paper is concerned, I will not say it is a bad break for the minister but perhaps it is not always usual for ministers of finance to have tabled such a white paper one day before bringing in the final supplementary estimates, so that we have the opportunity of comparing the two. In any event, in the white paper we have a definitive figure for expenditures amounting to $6,892 million compared to the estimate figure of $6,860 million.
I could understand if the estimate figure was larger than the one in the white paper, but frankly I am a little confused why the figure in the white paper should be larger than the estimate figure. I would have thought the one in the white paper would possibly have been smaller than the one in the estimates, and I am not quite sure how we are going to pay for the difference.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. It was agreed this morning that we could have a general debate on each of the supplementary estimates. I notice that we are now discussing an item of the Department of Finance even though we have not yet adopted the Department of Agriculture's supplementary estimates.
I had the opportunity of speaking on the latter, but if we continue with the estimates of the Department of Finance and I wish to make some remarks on them later on I will be called to order. On the other hand, should we postpone the debate, then all hon. members will be in order and the discussion will go on in accordance with this morning's agreement.


Lucien Lamoureux: The point raised by the hon. member is well taken. I remember quite well that the hon. member for Lapointe sought to raise a similar point earlier and it was agreed it might be raised when we reached the first item in the Department of Finance. So the minister might perhaps have waited a while before he brought up this matter, and I might suggest to the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings that we might perhaps postpone that discussion if the hon. member would see fit to go along with this suggestion.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am in your hands, Mr. Chairman. All I can say is that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands raised this matter on the orders of the day as a question, I supplemented it, and the minister promised to reply. The minister says he is leaving shortly and I thought it was a matter of courtesy to allow him to reply to this question. Certainly I am perfectly happy to have it stand over until Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or a week from Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, whenever we happen to get to it, but I was trying to facilitate the minister. We will allow the matter to stand until we come to it.


Lucien Lamoureux: I feel that the point made by the hon. member is also well taken and it would be ideal if we could settle that small point at this stage and then postpone the more general discussion until we have reached item No. 1 of finance. That would be my suggestion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the Minister of Finance has to leave I think we should postpone other departments and discuss the Department of Finance right away, so that this point may be completed immediately.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. As we are on agriculture I suggest that we should stay there and dispose of that item. I would assume that when we reach the item on finance there will be an able and competent spokesman to speak on behalf of the department.


Gilles Grégoire: The Minister of Finance should be here when we discuss his department, so let us take it right away and postpone the others.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He will be back.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I think it is appropriate to say something at this time with respect to the item under agriculture now being discussed. Since the item deals with general administration and as there is a particular item farther down dealing with farm credit I think my remarks are germane at this point. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am most concerned about the legality of the action taken by the government with regard to those sections of the Department of Agriculture involved in the order in council of the 3rd of February. These are the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, the Farm Credit Act, the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the Farm Credit Corporation. It will be recalled that an order in council was passed on the 3rd of February transferring these activities from the authority of the Minister of Agriculture to that of the

Minister of Forestry. On the 20th of February another order in council was passed which simply revoked the previous one.
The question is: What is the position of the government with respect to that fatal 17 days? There would be no doubt if the government had passed another order in council transferring these branches back to the authority of the Minister of Agriculture, but the government, with its well known reputation for action, plunged in somewhat hastily -and almost surreptitiously, as far as the public is concerned-on the 3rd of February. They did not even bother to publish what they were doing, and some of us have serious doubts as to the knowledge of the Minister of Agriculture with regard to what the government did on that day. I think perhaps our suspicions that there was a period of 17 days which elapsed are strengthened by our knowledge of the Minister of Agriculture. Certainly, in the light of his other duties as auctioneer, we can easily imagine 17 days going by before he returned to his office to find he had been bereft of most of his responsibilities.
I must say that the corrective action taken by the government on February 20 bears the stamp of the usual action taken by this administration when it finds it has acted unwisely or hastily without regard for the pertinent questions that must be considered when a change as fundamental as this is made. The administration acts in haste and retreats in even greater haste. When the retreat bears all the indications of a rout, and when they suddenly find their fingers burned, they usually retreat in such haste they forget what they are doing, or what they must do to protect their rear. They do not know what kind of a shambles they have left behind them. They just move back fast, say nothing, and hope they will get away with it.
The situation which faces us at the moment is that the government is asking us to vote supplementary estimates covering some items upon which action undoubtedly was taken during the period of time in which no one had any legal authority to act. As a matter of fact, departmental officials who may have been under ministerial authority did not, in fact, have any legal authorization to make expenditures under these votes. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I think the government probably spent money illegally. If we were to pass these items now, the parliament of Canada would be approving the illegality of these actions. I cannot see how the minister or the government can ask this parliament to pass quickly the Department of Agriculture items until they have indicated at what date they intend to introduce legislation to make legal these illegal actions, which were taken between February 3 and February 20.
Supp ly-A griculture
I do not want to labour the point because I do not pretend to be a legal authority. However, I have had the benefit of some conversations with other lawyers whose opinions I value highly and, quite simply, in these circumstances, there would have been no doubt if the second order in council had just reversed the first one and restored these items. Certainly one wonders why it was done in this manner. The point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning the failure to publish in the Canada Gazette certainly assumes new significance when we consider the awkward position in which the government is now. I suggest that perhaps the ministers of the cabinet disagreed, perhaps there was fighting in their own ranks, and I suggest that this action on February 3 was sneaky. They wanted to avoid throwing the light of public opinion on their actions, and therefore did not publish these orders as they were required to do. When they found they were in hot water on February 20 and had to restore these items, they were more than grateful at that time that no one knew about it.
I do not believe I am inaccurate when I describe the actions of the government in this case as rather sneaky, underhanded, precipitate, hasty, ill-considered, illogical, wrong and stupid. I hope that before the government decides to ask the pity of this parliament, to ask our assistance in trying to get them out of this muddle, they will give us the reassurance, as the first sign of penitence, that they intend to take remedial action to clear up this illegal situation. Perhaps before we are asked to give further consideration to these supplementary estimates the minister will tell us how quickly the government will be able to bring in a remedial bill. I suggest this should be the first step before any further progress is made in voting money which, according to indications, has been spent illegally.


Mr. Maiheson:: May I add a word to the discussion on the Department of Agriculture? I shall be very brief. I would urge the Department of Agriculture to give consideration to this question of the time it takes to administer farm credit, particularly in the province of Ontario. I have a lot of material here and could speak at length on this subject, but I think it is sufficient to draw the attention of the minister to question No. 120 reported on page 532 of Hansard. The question reads:
What is the average length of time taken be* tween the receipts of application and the dispersals of moneys in the cases of the last 50 agricultural loans in Ontario processed through the Farm Credit Corporation?
The answer to that question, sir, was 209 days. I do not believe this is good enough.

Supply-Agriculture
This answer indicates that, somehow or other, there has been a breakdown in the administration. The second question is:
What is the actual time taken in the case of the ten slowest of these loans-
The answer is 430 days for Norfolk; 408 days for Lanark; 377 days for Prescott, and so on. The third question was:
What are the dates of receipt of application in the cases of the ten oldest loans in Ontario still in the course of being processed by the Farm Credit Corporation-
The answer to that question shows that we have loans being processed from the 15th of November, 1961, in Grey; the 28th of February, 1962, in Halton; the 12th of March, 1962, in Leeds and so on. I could go on at greater length but I believe that if the minister and some of his assistants will now take a careful look at this problem as it relates to these areas of Ontario where there is a land registry system as distinct from the Torrens system, it will be seen that our farm credit administration has actually broken down. It is not proper to make our farmers wait for 300 days to get a loan from the government. I believe most people who have had some experience in this matter will tell you that a loan can be processed in approximately two or three weeks through a trust company. It does not sound reasonable to me that it should take upwards of a year to process a loan for a farmer when the land, in some instances, has been held by his family for a very long time. I am sure, sir, that the process can be streamlined. Perhaps we should look at the Veterans Land Act legislation under which I am sure things are moving more rapidly.
Another factor in connection with this problem is the remuneration of the legal agent. It is really not sufficient for the amount of work they are asked to do. In some places in Ontario there are legal agents who do not want to touch this business at all, and not entirely because of the monetary return. Many of these people would be quite happy to give the services of their legal offices at even less money.
The trouble is that doing work for the Farm Credit Corporation, with files going from one office to another and taking orders, in this particular case, from Toronto, really means that each agent's law office is getting a particularly bad name. That is not a situation which has been brought about by this administration-I do not think even by the previous government. It is just something which, like Topsy, has grown and developed. It is about time we took a close look at this and streamlined this operation because if we did it would mean a great deal to the usefulness of farm credit in Ontario.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I do not intend to make any extended remarks on this item. I would prefer to make my general comments on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture in the presence of the minister. But I do think the point raised by my hon. friend from Edmonton-Strathcona is one which should be taken into consideration by the minister. I noticed that when my hon. friend was speaking, the minister was engaged in a discussion with his neighbour and did not appear to be listening too closely. For this reason, I wish to repeat what was said. The point he was raising dealt with the orders in council passed on February 3 and February 20, the first authorizing the transfer of certain powers from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Forestry, and the second simply revoking the order which was passed on February 3. The point here is that as far as I can see there is no authority given for the Minister of Forestry to act with respect to the departments which were involved, so any payments of money which were authorized or any directives which were given by the Minister of Forestry concerning those particular branches of the Department of Agriculture were illegal.
This is the point upon which we would like the government to comment. There should have been an order in council which transferred back to the Department of Agriculture those branches of the department which were taken away, and I wonder if the minister or his officials could give us an explanation before we pass this item. We certainly do not want this committee placed in a position of voting money which has been spent illegally. I think this is an important point which should be cleared up at this time.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think it would be inappropriate for me to give legal opinions. The Prime Minister made an extensive statement about this matter on orders of the day. I am quite satisfied that if anything needs to be checked the Auditor General will have something to say about it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: That is certainly not satisfactory, particularly as the government may now be asking us to approve expenditures of money spent in an illegal manner. Certainly, it is not too much for members of this committee to ask that the situation be clarified.
We are not quarrelling with the decision of the government on February 3 to take some of these branches out of the control of the Department of Agriculture and give them to the Department of Forestry. We all know that the Minister of Agriculture is so incompetent that this was to be expected. We are not

quarrelling, either, with the decision of February 20 to hand them back, because this is typical of actions taken by the present government. They do this once in a while, and whatever decisions they make are likely to be reversed quickly. However, in this case, in their haste to reverse a decision, they have not even done a competent job; they have left the situation in such a way that I do not think the committee, if it voted this money, would know what it was voting for. The officials of the Farm Credit Corporation were certainly in great doubt as to where they stood, and it is not unreasonable that this committee should say to the government.* we decline to vote this money until the situation has been cleared up, despite the fact that we are well aware of the indecision, the mistakes and the retractions of which this government is capable. If hon. gentlemen opposite are not already aware of the mess they have made, perhaps they will take this as a warning and be prepared to bring before the house at an early date some bill, some retroactive piece of legislation, which would resolve this problem. If we could be given that assurance, we could possibly pass this item. The Minister of Finance has made it obvious that he does not know what action is to be taken to deal with this situation. He says the Prime Minister made a statement this morning. But the Prime Minister never dealt with this aspect of the question at all. Since the hon. gentleman knows so little about it, I think the best thing he could do would be to defer the present item until Monday, at least, when someone who knows something could advise him and so that the committee, at that time, might know what to do.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have just one observation to make before the item passes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Before it passes?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think the Minister of Finance should bring in some of his colleagues to help him deal with this question. Perhaps he should consult the Minister of Justice. I see the learned President of the Privy Council is sitting at his desk and perhaps he could enlighten the committee on this important matter. I submit that this is not only a question of determining the exact jurisdiction or scope of two government departments-the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Forestry. I suggest there is a more important principle involved, namely that of cabinet solidarity. According to some statements made yesterday on the orders of the day and some stories which appeared in the press today, there is a serious split existing within the cabinet and we are face to face
Supply-Agriculture
with a constitutional principle. I know the minister is not a constitutional lawyer, but we do have with us the Minister of Transport, who is a noted constitutional wizard, a noted authority, and I see we also have the minister of external affairs with us. He does not delve into wordly subjects any more but he might nevertheless wish to take one or two minutes in which to explain what the situation really is. In all seriousness I think it is up to the minister, up to the Prime Minister even, to tell this house whether, in fact, as has been reported, the government is really disintegrating at the present time.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I shall be glad to answer that particular question. The government is certainly not disintegrating and there is no split in the cabinet whatever. Of course, I understand that the hon. gentleman may know about that sort of thing.


Mr. Peters:: I only want to say a word about this. I think is is a very important subject and that the legal people should give more consideration to this than they appear to have done on the government benches. I say this because this problem was raised, first, in the Family Herald and has caused a great deal of concern among farm people across the country. I think they will be looking forward to hearing a statement on the points raised by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre as to the legality of the action which the government has taken. I think it is imperative that the government should reach a decision of some kind and that the committee should not be left up in the air.
Certainly, in discussing the estimates affecting an item of administration, we are bound to express some concern because, I am sure, there has been a complete lack of morale within the Department of Agriculture since this government took over.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: You can give credit to the minister of agriculture in the former administration for his ability in knowing what agriculture is. Supporters of the previous government are going to take it, anyway. This government has given slavish adherence to the practice established over the years, namely that the Minister of Agriculture should be from western Canada and that a dummy minister is better than having one from anywhere else in Canada. This has caused the trouble. We do not know what to take away from the department, or what to keep, because the minister has not shown any great ability in any field. It might have been wise to get rid of him, as apparently the Prime Minister intended to do. He

Supply-Agriculture
thought the matter over and said, in the third week of January, "We are going to abolish the Department of Agriculture and have a new department comprised of forestry and agriculture". He later found this was not quite so easy because a great many people are still interested in agriculture and there are aspects of the department that cannot very well be administered in conjunction with the Department of Forestry. I think that we in this house have a right to know what the thinking of the government is going to be, not in terms of this order in council or other orders in council, but in terms of what is going to happen to this department, before we are asked to give our approval to an estimate covering the administration of the department. Things could not be worse in the Department of Agriculture if you wanted them to be. The only way the situation could be further confused,
I think, would be in a legal sense, because I am sure the morale of most of the people in this department is very, very low.
I am not going to add to the remarks of the hon. member for Leeds who spoke about farm credit. The Farm Credit Corporation has been kicked around a number of times over the past two or three years. Under the former Liberal government and the old farm loan board, things had got into a very disgraceful condition. This program was opposed by almost everyone who had ever had anything to do with the farm loan board. Then, because of the advantages that were given to veterans under the V.L.A., the Farm Credit Corporation as we know it today was built and designed on the basis of supplying to all agriculture the benefits that had accrued from the legislation peculiar to veterans.
I doubt whether anybody in the Department of Agriculture now knows where they are going. They may be concerned with rehabilitation; they may have something to do with rural development; they may be concerned with agriculture; they may also be concerned with forestry. Therefore there must be a great deal of confusion in that department. This is certainly a branch of the department that deserves consideration, because the method of granting loans based on land values has not really met the problem in many parts of the country. This was mentioned by the hon. member for Lapointe this morning. With reference to those lands upon which are grown crops that require a large area, the basis is not unreasonable; but in those areas which grow highly specialized and highly developed crops, the land values very seldom, if ever, bear a straight relationship to the amount of money necessary to provide an economic unit. Choose any of the

problems connected with the Department of Agriculture and I am sure you will find a farmer who will say, "I wish somebody would do something", with regard to some of these particular problems. It may be there is a closer liaison with some of the farm organizations than there is with members of parliament, because I was surprised that when the Canadian federation of agriculture visited us this year they were not the least concerned about the fact that the Department of Agriculture might disappear; and they have not yet raised this matter. Well, perhaps they had been given more information than the rest of us. Perhaps they knew there would be further developments and considered there was no point in making a decision on this question when the position might change in the next few weeks.
If the minister of any of these three departments which are today involved in agriculture would really sit down and do something for agriculture we would be very satisfied. This problem has come about because of the inability of the Liberal party to adapt themselves to the face that they would have to have an eastern agricultural minister. With regard to who should be the eastern minister of this department, I could name two or three of the young fellows of the Liberal party who are interested in agriculture, are actually engaged in agriculture, are people who know how to farm, who know what are some of the problems of eastern agriculture and also have the education to enable them to understand the problems of agriculture in western Canada. I am shocked when I find the Prime Minister playing around when we so desperately need good material in the Department of Agriculture. I believe the Prime Minister has available a number of people capable of dealing with this matter. I suggest that those he has played around with so far are not suitable in the opinion of most Canadian people, and in my opinion they are not equipped to solve the problems which face agriculture.
I think it is very unwise for us to be dealing with the final supplementary estimates of this department when the minister is not here to explain to us what the government intends to do with the department. Unless we know what is really asked of us and what the government intends, we should not be asked to support anything. I say this because I am confused as to what we are asked to support. Parliament is confused; I am sure that at least the cabinet is confused, and the Canadian people are as confused as anyone. I think it is downright unfair to ask us to approve the final estimates of 1963-64 on the question of agriculture while the whole situation is so confused. I believe

the Minister of Finance-for whom I have considerable respect-would be very well advised to stand this item and wait until the Minister of Agriculture has a chance to look at it, when it could then be referred back to the committee for approval.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall vote le carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. I fully agree with my colleagues who said a while ago that it is absolutely impossible for us to adopt those estimates as long as we are denied an explanation concerning the situation which exists within the Department of Agriculture.
Before April 8, 1963, the cabinet included a full-time minister of agriculture and a fulltime minister of forestry. The minister of agriculture also had two parliamentary secretaries. However, only one minister of agriculture and one parliamentary secretary were appointed after the election of April 8 last. On May 20, 1963, the government put on the order paper a motion to the effect that it would appoint a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada and a minister of agriculture for western Canada.
All through the last session, we waited impatiently for the government to do something in that connection. When we asked questions, we were told that, in order to solve the problems of agriculture in the eastern part of the country, the resolution would have to be passed so as to enable the incumbent, who was then minister without portfolio, to become minister of agriculture for eastern Canada.
We noticed at the end of the session that the government had to withdraw, to retreat, and we witnessed the migration of the minister without portfolio to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
Afterwards, last February, they stated that they were going to change their procedure, that they would appoint a minister of forestry who later on would become minister of rural development. But care was taken beforehand to take away from the Minister of Agriculture certain responsibilities such as the Canadian wheat board. But we were unaware last February, that other responsibilities had been taken away from the Minister of Agriculture; we learned of it only recently.
Here is the present situation; We have an invisible minister of agriculture. We do not have a parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture; we have only half a parliamentary secretary, whereas we had two before April 8 last.
Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Two were needed to do the work of one.


An hon. Member:: There was Mr. Pigeon.


Clément Vincent: Farmers are wondering what the situation will be in a few months and what the Liberal government has in mind regarding the farm policy for eastern Canada and the rest of the country.
Before agreeing to vote the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture, it is the duty of every member of the official opposition to see to it that the situation is clarified. That is why we shall refuse to vote those estimates as long as one of the two so-called ministers of agriculture will not give us some information, will not tell us what he feels bound to do for agriculture in Canada, and what are his responsibilities within the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, until we obtain some explanations from one of those ministers, or from the Prime Minister himself, we shall not be able to vote the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to see this item pass until we receive some answers to some of the questions which have been raised. I notice in the supplementary estimates that the only item with reference to forestry is an expenditure of $91,000. Yet in the period of time when responsibility was passed from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Forestry there must surely have been some expenditure on behalf of P.F.R.A. I think, for example, of some of the dugouts which have been built. Payments must have been made to some of the contractors. I ask, who authorized them? Was it the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Forestry? If it was the Department of Forestry, then why is not that item included in these estimates? Some P.F.A.A. cheques must have been sent out during the time, and what has happened to them? Who authorized these payments?
We have often heard remarks coming from the government side, Mr. Chairman, to the effect that we are wasting time. I often pick up press reports which suggest that we are asking too many questions in the house and are wasting the time of parliament. We will not waste any more time if we can get these questions answered. Surely this is the time when we, the elected representatives, have the right, especially when dealing with expenditure of money, to receive answers to our questions.
Where are the ministers concerned? Why are not the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Forestry here? Where are they

Supply-Agriculture
when problems such as this are before the committee at the present time? Surely they must have known that these matters would be raised. I see that even the Minister of Finance has gone out. The government have had ample evidence, both from questions asked yesterday and today, that we required answers. Why should not these ministers be prepared to come before us now and give us the answers, instead of delaying the house and then in the future accusing us of delaying the work of parliament?


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I merely want to add some words to what has already been said. Several members have suggested that we have now come to an impasse with regard to the agriculture estimates and that they will not be allowed to pass until some explanation has been given. We have not had any communication from the government side that they wish to take up this suggestion. I should like to put it directly to the President of the Privy Council, who now seems to be handling these estimates, that we let the agricultural items stand and go on with the next department.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Chairman, while the suggestion is an interesting one the subject matter which seems to be concerning hon. members is one of importance, and it seems to me comes more directly under another item which will come before the committee or possibly the house as legislation. If I may have a few minutes to check before dealing with the point now raised and put to me, then I will try to deal with this matter. It is quite proper of course, and in order to discuss it on this item, but it could be discussed more adequately on the other item to which I have referred, which it seems to me, allows for wider discussion than is possible on these items to be voted by parliament in these final supplementaries. If I could have those few minutes to consider the matter in the light of these remarks I would appreciate it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, naturally no one could deny the President of the Privy Council the opportunity of a few minutes consideration, and the committee will wait with anticipation to hear the explanation which will be made by him. For after all, in his new capacity in charge of the expenditures of the country I am sure he would be the first to agree that when a minister is divested of authority, then whatever took place during this period of interregnum, as it were, cannot be justified by this committee. Certainly the Minister of Agriculture, one would have thought, would have been here today. We know he is a busy man, but the Minister of Forestry is not as busy a man as

is the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps it is a strange coincidence-I am sure it is a coincidence-that these two ministers are away today. They knew that this matter would come up because it was discussed yesterday. They were forewarned. To be forewarned is to be forearmed, but they apparently decided that this was one occasion when they did not want to be around.
There is nothing more important than the preservation of the rights of parliament in regard to the expenditure of money. I think the house in general will agree with that. Just a moment ago I brought it to the attention of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance that one of his family name is recognized as a great authority on the subject of the control by parliament of expenditures. I sent the book in question over to him, "Treasury Control", by Samuel H. Beer.
It was published at Oxford University in 1956, and knowing that the parliamentary secretary in his position is a student of the controls that must be exercised over expenditures, I am sure the book is known to him and that the principles contained in it will be carried into effect so far as he is able to do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question? Is not the hon. member sitting beside the minister the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and not to the Minister of Finance?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. gentleman. There have been so many shuffles over there that it is difficult to know what they are. One has that difficulty with ministers, and one would have expected the same sort of uncertainty with regard to parliamentary secretaries. However, that is not the case; but the hon. gentleman is sitting there in an advisory capacity and because of that fact I took it that he had been elevated to finance.
We are asked, Mr. Chairman, to support supplementary estimates of $127,343,000. There is no doubt whatever that the government made an awful mess when it decided to divest the Minister of Agriculture of certain of his powers. There was a long while when the hon. gentleman who is now the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stood in the shadow of greatness. He was expectant. He was the authority on agriculture. He was going to bring about the dawn of a new day for agriculture in eastern Canada.
There were going to be two ministers. Thej were going to bifurcate the department. Thai went on for a long while, and it was not because of any intention on his part but he

even had the documents issued indicating he was minister of agriculture. Now it has turned out that he was wrong. The great qualifications for agriculture that he possesses are now being lost by his appointment as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I can well understand his feelings. He must be awfully disappointed with all that background of agricultural knowledge lost to Canada. And what have they substituted in place of it? They have substituted the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) as Minister of Forestry.
Then there was not enough work for him so the government decided that some changes should be made. I suppose there was too much work for the Minister of Agriculture, so on February 3, when the new cabinet was set up, what happened to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Hays)? Why, Delilah never made a worse job of Samson than was made of the Minister of Agriculture. But he grew back his hair by February 20 and he was once again strong, just as effective as he had ever been.
It was one of the most preposterous things that ever took place in this country. I wondered for a while why it was that the Minister of Agriculture was usually in his seat in the house following that episode. During the period that he had no authority to speak of, when he was divested of all these things, suddenly he displayed an interest in the house that he had not shown when he had the authority, and he was then here on guard.
Well, what a picture. They stripped him of ARDA, and I can well understand that. He did not know anything about it. They stripped him of the Farm Credit Act. Well, he knew something about that because he understood credit. In fact I remember a speech he delivered in Chicago in which he discussed at length what credit had done in Alberta, and what an uncle of his had been able to achieve in laying out credit and being able to pay interest.
They also stripped him of the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. If ever there was something which should be looked after by a western minister one would have thought it would have been P.F.R.A.
I would like to have heard the discussion that took place in the cabinet if he was present, but I am beginning to wonder if the Minister of Agriculture was there because I am sure he would have been strongly antagonistic to being left almost naked of authority. It was a most unusual thing.
Then there was the administration of freight assistance and grain storage costs on
Supply-Agriculture
western feed grains, which also went. And we must not forget that the wheat board had gone earlier.
Now, speaking seriously, what happened on February 20? Suddenly, without ever having revealed the metamorphosis that had taken place in the Minister of Agriculture and the changes in his authority, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister the order in council was revoked. We want to know what happened. We want to know what were the expenditures between February 3 and February 20. Who did what, and who was in charge? What expenditures were made by the minister in these particular departments over which he no longer had authority.


Mr. Lloyd:: If you are serious, ask the Auditor General.


John George Diefenbaker: Once we pass this we will have legalized the wrongdoing against which we now raise objections, and we are not going to do that. We will not pass the bill that will be based upon these supplementary estimates until we get an explanation, and until the Minister of Justice assures us that what had been done during the days from February 3 to February 20 was within the law. He is going to have a terrific job doing that.
I have just been looking over Durrell, the standard authority on parliamentary grants, and the essence of his argument is that ministers cannot do those things which they are not authorized to do. That is ordinary common sense. What happened during those 17 days when the Minister of Forestry was administering ARDA, P.F.R.A., freight benefits and subsidies? If so, we want to see what was done. Was it the Minister of Agriculture? If so, he had no authority, and I have not seen anything that issued from the Department of Forestry to indicate that the order in council was in fact implemented by action. If it was not implemented by the Department of Forestry, then what is being asked is that we shall approve of that which was done illegally in contempt of parliament and in derogation of the powers which the government has. Let that be perfectly clear.
I do not think I have ever seen a more outrageous example of an egregious mess in connection with the administration of public moneys than this one. Yet where are the ministers? Where is the Minister of Agriculture? Where is the Minister of Forestry? Certainly the Prime Minister this morning in his explanation was reading from a document which said "this department" and which apparently was prepared by the privy council office. We have had no answer to the point we raised this morning. There is no answer, and until the government is prepared to place
892	HOUSE OF
Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus before us a statement showing what expenditure was made in this period so that we will be able to judge whether or not there is any justification which is not apparent, this item will not receive passage by this committee.


An hon. Member:: What about the 15 per cent surcharge?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, could I ask for unanimous consent to revert to motions to make a short statement?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will have to rise and report progress.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would ask now for permission to revert to motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government expects to hear shortly that a United Nations force will have been constituted for peace keeping duties in Cyprus, with at least two member states contributing forces in addition to those of the three guarantor states, Great Britain, Greece and Turkey. This development comes when the information we are receiving emphasizes the great importance of United Nations intervention at a time of deterioration in the situation.
If this announcement is received from New York before 6 p.m. I shall ask for unanimous consent for the house to consider this afternoon and this evening, if necessary, a resolution approving Canadian participation in the United Nations peace keeping force in the manner described in the resolution. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the resolution will be placed on the order paper so that it can be discussed on Monday if no word is received from New York today.
It is also proposed, Mr. Speaker, that an R.C.A.F. plane should take off this afternoon for Cyprus with a small party of officers.


They will report to the United Nations military representative in Cyprus, General Gyani, and secure from him information about facilities and administrative arrangements in Cyprus for the Canadian United Nations contingent if and when one goes forward. This will be purely a reconnaissance and fact finding mission to expedite and facilitate later moves that may have to be made.


John George Diefenbaker: Has it gone yet?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, it has not gone yet.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as far as we in the official opposition are concerned we said this morning that we would co-operate in giving consent to the calling of any such item as is contemplated by the government or is requisite. Certainly this is a serious step. If Canadian troops embark upon this adventure they do so on a dangerous mission, having regard to the words used by the Prime Minister that the situation is deteriorating in Cyprus.
If forces are sent by the United Nations it will be the first time to my knowledge that the United Nations will be taking part in keeping the peace in a situation of civil war. It will also be the first time that the peace force within the United Nations will be one that is brought together and mobilized from among those nations which are prepared not only to provide their blood should there be hostilities but also their treasure. It is one of those things that leads one to wonder whether this step, while necessary, will not in fact weaken the purposes of the United Nations. By that I mean that the United Nations is not operating as an organization in furnishing the membership of the peace keeping force, but members of the United Nations, willing to serve, are being placed in the position where only their voluntary service and their voluntary contribution to the costs make possible the carrying out of the objective of the United Nations.
This is a matter that is particularly important in view of the failure of the U.S.S.R. to make its contribution to the peace keeping operations of the United Nations. As at the first of the year that country was in default some $52,600,000, while France was in default some $16 million for the Congo force, Nationalist China some $10,820,000 for the Congo force, and other nations are in default as well.
Whatever the desirability and the necessity of this action being taken, I am concerned with the effect upon the life and prestige and authority of the United Nations in the years ahead. Certainly the mobilization from

amongst United Nations members of an international force is a long way off when, in the face of so serious a matter as prevails on Cyprus, we have been unable, with all the power and authority of Mr. U Thant and other members of the United Nations, to secure a force which would be paid for by the United Nations rather than by those nations which voluntarily assumed their responsibility and who regard the matter so seriously as to be prepared to make a national sacrifice rather than endanger the peace of the world by refusal to act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The members of this group, Mr. Speaker, will certainly co-operate with other members in the house in expediting any motion which the Prime Minister cares to introduce either tonight or tomorrow, if that is necessary in order that parliament may deal with the matter of sending a contribution to the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus. This is not the time to discuss that question. I presume we will discuss it more fully when the Prime Minister introduce his motion.
We are all aware of the fact that this will be a hazardous undertaking. It is somewhat unusual that an intervention into a civil war is necessary, but the United Nations has already intervened in what was virtually a civil war in the Congo. Most members will agree that action was necessary at that time to prevent the spread of war and unrest throughout Africa. I think that if the experience of the last few days helps to convince the members of the United Nations of the need for a permanent stand-by peace keeping force that will be available at any time, then recent events will have served a good purpose. I hope that in the future the United Nations will be able to act more expeditiously and not have to wait until members do either what Canada is doing, namely pay for her own peace keeping force, or pass the hat around amongst other nations asking for voluntary contributions. I hope the day will come speedily when the United Nations will act to have a permanent peace keeping force on call and that Canada will make its contribution to such a force. This is something we can discuss later.
The Prime Minister has informed us that a group of officers will be sent some time today in order to ascertain what facilities will be available for a Canadian contingent, if it is to be sent. I certainly agree with the advisability of sending these officers because a good deal of preliminary work will have to be done if this force is to be sent and is to be comfortable, so that it can make an effective contribution to the situation on Cyprus. When the motion itself is introduced,
Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus we will have an opportunity to explain our views more fully. In the meantime, I can assure the Prime Minister that we will expedite in any way which is necessary the discussion of a motion dealing with this matter.


Mr.  A. B. Pafierson@Fraser Valley: I am
sure, Mr. Speaker, that we all regret the situation that has developed on Cyprus that is the occasion of this announcement this afternoon. It is doubly unfortunate in the fact that two members of an alliance designed for mutual protection should now find themselves in a position where they have to be defended from one another. I am sure that we regret this is the situation that has developed, which calls for military intervention in a sense, because we would all much prefer to see the problems settled around the conference table. I think a solution can be found. In view of the fact this proposal has to do with a peace keeping operation, I think it points up once again Canada's willingness to make those sacrifices that are necessary for the preservation of peace.
The urgency of the matter is emphasized by the fact that the local situation could escalate into a world problem and perhaps into a conflagration that would be far reaching in its effects. Certainly, the reports that have appeared in the newspapers are far from reassuring. Perhaps some attention could be given to the possibility, while these nations are asking for assistance, that some activities are being permitted to aggravate the problem and which are directed toward political advantage.
We just want to say this at this time, Mr. Speaker, that we are willing and prepared to co-operate in every possible way to take care of any motion the Prime Minister introduces in connection with this matter. If it requires sitting tonight or tomorrow morning, then we are, in the Social Credit party, prepared to assist and facilitate the consideration of this matter.


Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) concerning Cyprus is of the utmost importance. We appreciate and understand how serious and far reaching it is. However, what we deplore is that, not only on this occasion but for a good number of years, each time external problems come up, the government, no matter which, Liberal or Conservative, has always shown more interest than it ever did for the problems of our country.
In fact, we have yet to see a government or a prime minister put forward a motion for

Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus an emergency sitting in order to settle the unemployment problem, tor instance, or that of poverty in Canada.
Yet, when Greeks and Turks are fighting each other, we are asked to do so. Since those two countries are members ot NATO,
I feel that the Cyprus problem could have been settled naturally and normally by NATO, without the intervention of any military force. It is due to a lack of good will somewhere that the government is bringing before us a resolution on the advisability of sending troops or not.
I am entirely against the Canadian parliament being asked to sit this evening or tomorrow, or to hold a special sitting in order to consider whether troops should be sent to Cyprus or to that continent. It is not that I am against peace, but I do not believe in peace imposed by arms or under compulsion. I believe in peace brought about through co-operation and agreement. Yes, indeed. For all these reasons, when any government whatsoever gives priority to the problems facing us here in Canada, then I might be more inclined to help it send troops overseas.


John George Diefenbaker: If the house will allow me, I should like to ask the Prime Minister one question. Mention was made of the fact that we might sit tonight, if required to do so, or tomorrow. The fact that there has been opposition to sitting tonight or on Saturday denies that unanimity that I hoped would be displayed in this house on a matter that is as important as this one.
However, the question occurs to me, is it necessary that the resolution or motion the Prime Minister will introduce should be considered and passed in the other place? If it is, what arrangements have been made to ensure that the other place is available to consider any resolution that we might pass?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman is, of course, correct. Unanimous consent not being given, we could not meet this evening or tomorrow to deal with this peace keeping situation. The government leader in the Senate was informed that I was to make a statement in the house and he has taken steps to acquaint other leaders in the Senate. He is to make a statement and a resolution will be put forward there at the same time. I do not think we can do anything more at the moment because if we ask permission to interrupt the normal business, that would have to receive unanimous consent, too. Furthermore, we have not yet received final word from New York that the force is legally in being and we cannot pass a resolution authorizing participation in such a force

until we have received that word. In the circumstances I am afraid that is all we can do in this matter at the moment.
I may say I am grateful for the co-operation of the right hon. gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I am advised by my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs that in the meantime the Department of National Defence is taking all the necessary preparatory steps so that if parliament does approve a resolution of this kind on Monday we can move forwai'd at once.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Prime Minister permit a question? I trust he will consider it to be helpful. Is he aware of the exception set out in standing order 41 which says that the rule requiring notice to sit does not apply to times of meeting or adjournment of the house? It seems to me that if a decision were made by the house before six o'clock today to continue in session, that could be decided on a majority vote. There are other things on which unanimity may be required but not with regard to time of sitting or the adjournment of the house. If the Prime Minister is aware of this exception-and he is now being made aware of it-will he consider the situation between now and six o'clock?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I appreciate the hon. gentleman's desire to be helpful in this matter and I appreciate the possibility raised by his question, but it does not arise at the moment because we have not yet heard definitely from New York. If we should do so before six o'clock I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. gentleman has said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister is aware that if there is to be any arrangement for a sitting tomorrow it would have to be done before six o'clock?

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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
le. Departmental administration-to extend the purposes of vote 1 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include the gift detailed in these estimates and to provide a further amount of $60,000.
George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka put forward a suggestion in the form of a question a short while ago, and I undertook to consider the matter and state the position of the government when I had obtained additional information as to whether or not I could give an assurance that there would be an immediate opportunity to discuss the subject matter which was then being debated in the committee.
MARCH 13. 1S64	g9S
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I am not in a position to give a sufficiently precise assurance that an immediate opportunity will occur. It will be understood, I think, by most hon. members, that it is not possible to do so in view of the situation which is likely to exist in the next two or three days, and I am therefore agreeable to taking up the hon. member's suggestion that item le should be allowed to stand so that the committee may proceed to consider other items in the supplementary estimates which are not directly affected by the points raised when the orders in council were being discussed earlier this afternoon. Perhaps this course will be agreeable to the committee.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would it not be better to let all the items in the Department of Agriculture stand? There may be some doubt about the relation of individual items to the matter we were discussing and if all the items dealing with agriculture were left open the position might be clearer.


George James McIlraith: As to that, I am in the hands of the committee. As hon. members will see if they look through the items, there are a great many which are not directly related to the point which has been raised. However, if the committee wishes, I will let all the items under the Department of Agriculture stand.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. Have there been any transfers of authority to him other than those which have already been announced?


George James McIlraith: The one which has been announced is the presidency of the council. That is the only one that has been made to me.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the treasury board?


George James McIlraith: No. Statutory provision is made with regard to the treasury board, and the Minister of Finance is president. As it is a statutory provision it cannot be changed by order in council. I have been carrying on as a member of the treasury board and fulfilling the duties in that way.


George Clyde Nowlan: As I did for years.


George James McIlraith: I will check in case there are any other items, but I am not aware of any at the moment.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Might I suggest that we let the agriculture estimates stand so that we shall not waste any time sorting them out?


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed by the committee that vote le of the Department of Agriculture stand?


Some hon. Members:: 


All. 20220-57J
Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the wish of the committee that all the items of the Department of Agriculture stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If that is agreed, I wonder if the President of the Privy Council would tell us if it would be possible to get a copy of the order in council of March 5 which provided for another allocation of authority and responsibility as between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Forestry?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: In answer to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, let me tell him that all he has to do is telephone the Privy Council office and obtain a copy of the order. If he cannot do it today I shall be glad to lend him my own copy.
Item le stands.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Immigration branch-
Vote 20e-Administration of the Immigration Act, $133,800.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, it is about a matter related to the administration of the Immigration Act. I wonder if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) can answer the question I put to him a few days ago about the possibility of Algerian farmers settling in Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec?
I am asking that question because it is of interest to the whole country.
In the province of Quebec, and more particularly in my riding of Pontiac-Temis-camingue, a great number of farmers wrote and assured me that in case Algerian colonists would want to settle in Canada, land might be made available to them. Apart from farms occupied at this time, there are a great many abandoned ones both in Pontiac and in Temiscamingue counties. This land was formerly part of prosperous farms.
I have no doubt that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) will seriously examine the possibility of establishing those settlers on this land. If he is able to answer the question, would he do so immediately?


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Chairman, some weeks ago, French government officials came to Canada in order to contact authorities in the various departments and provinces in this country, in order to help settle in Canada, a number of Algerian families who are now in France.
Those two officials were quite satisfied with their investigation. They returned to Paris because their report had to be laid before

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the French government. We helped them as much as possible in their investigation. As far as I know, we have not yet received from the French authorities indications concerning the places the French government might choose for the establishment of those French families.
Several provinces have informed the federal authorities that they would be ready to further the establishment of those French families by paying their expenses and helping them find farm lands.
The department sent a special representative to Paris in order to give the French government all the assistance they might need to reach a decision. Of course, this offer implies a substantial assistance the French government would be prepared to give those immigrants wishing to set up in Canada.
Therefore, we follow closely the developments in that case, and as soon as we have more precise indications concerning the establishment of those French families, it will give me pleasure to pass that information to the hon. member.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Could the minister tell the committee whether he has received representations from the government of the province of Quebec on that matter?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: No, Mr. Chairman, the government of the province of Quebec has not indicated its intention to co-operate, but I know that the officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration are constantly consulting those of the Quebec department of agriculture on this matter and up to now, this department has greatly co-operated with us with regard to the settlement of these families.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I fully realize that the minister has not held his portfolio very long, and I recognize that it takes a while to get to know all the intricacies and implications of this department. However, I would appreciate it very much if the minister would now make it clear that he is not going to permit anything that might in any way be interpreted as lawyer racketeering in the handling of immigration cases. I have the honour of representing a riding which I think has more of an ethnic basis than any other constituency in western Canada. The result is that I handle a great many immigration cases. I was most disturbed very recently by what I was told in the handling of a case which was drawn to my attention almost a year ago by one of my constituents. This was a case I had taken up with the minister's department, the minister and his predecessor, and I very much appreciate the co-operation

and advice that I received from both ministers. The most recent advice I received from the minister's department was that this particular man should return with his problem to the immigration office and honestly admit that years ago he gave false information; he should give the true information and the entire case would be reconsidered. When I went to the regional office I received the greatest courtesy and co-operation from them, but I was amazed to be told that because a year or two ago chis Chinese person had employed a lawyer to assist him-although I had been handling the case for months- my constituent would have to go through that lawyer. This should not be necessary when a member of parliament is handling a case and has received co-operation and advice from the minister's department, and I may say that I received the advice of the minister himself. I fail to understand why, in these circumstances, a member of parliament should be told by a regional office, when he goes there in accordance with the instructions of the minister or his department, that his constituent must pay a lawyer to handle his case.
I think this is a mistake. I wish to say that I understand it was not under your direction, sir, but some time ago such an instruction was issued. There must have been some such instruction issued, otherwise I as a member of parliament would not have been told that in recent weeks when I took up this case in Vancouver. I believe there is something radically wrong when an East Indian, a Chinese person or anybody else who is having his case handled by his member of parliament is told this. Although we may receive every courtesy and co-operation, it seems that we must advise our constituents to have their cases handled through the lawyer in order that it may be proceeded with further. That is what I meant when I said I hope the minister will make an early acceptance of his responsibility, and make it clear that a problem case which is being handled by a member of the House of Commons does not have to go through a lawyer, because I know what they charge my constituents to handle their immigration problems. [Translation]


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with the details of the case just referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). However, as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I can say that I will continue to follow the long standing policy of my department which consists in giving serious consideration to grievances concerning immigration submitted by any member of the house. I feel it is quite normal

for people to seek the help of their member of parliament in the presentation of a case before the department.
I have received representations from many hon. members since I have taken up my present office and it has always been a pleasure to co-operate with them, whatever their party, in the solution of those problems.
I can assure the hon. member and all my other colleagues that I shall carry on the policy that I have been following up to now, which is to ensure that the greatest co-operation will be given hon. members who submit immigration cases to the department.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the minister has misunderstood me. I have received in all the cases which have come to my attention the best of co-operation and consideration, both from the minister and his predecessor, with regard to immigration and citizenship problems. But what I am asking is that it be made clear that, having received consideration and co-operation from the minister, when we are advised by him and his officers to go to the regional office a member of the House of Commons shall not be told that instead of the applicant reappearing before the regional office he has to go and see a lawyer who in years past has taken up his case. It is that point that I am asking to be cleared up so that we can do our job, instead of being part of what I am afraid might have been in the past somewhat of a lawyer's racket.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay).
When the minister was teaching political economy at the faculty of social sciences at Laval University, I remember very well that he published a 30-page booklet entitled "What is Social Credit" or something like that.
I am going to relate my remarks to the minister and the item under consideration. That booklet contained the following assertion: "Social Credit claims that we are undergoing hardship amidst plenty" and the minister, then professor of political economy, said that it was not a matter of undergoing hardship amidst plenty but it was a case of want in a country with insufficient resources. That is what the minister contended-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I would like the hon. member for Lapointe to relate his present remarks, as he said he would, to the administration of the Immigration Act which is the item under consideration.
13. 1964	897
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Gilles Grégoire: I ask the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue to wait a little while and he will see the relationship between my remarks and the item under study. I guess his one vote majority at the last election tends to make him nervous.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Lapointe seems to get farther and farther from the item under consideration and I ask him to come back to it as soon as possible.


Gilles Grégoire: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I will relate my remarks to the item we are now studying.
If, as professor of political economy, the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane declared that there is privation because there is scarcity, how then as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, can he allow immigrants to come to a country where there is scarcity? Then, does the minister continue to profess the same ideas to the effect that there is scarcity which makes for privations in Canada? In such circumstances, does the minister advocate a new policy which will result in blocking completely potential immigrants from entering Canada, for fear that other citizens may establish themselves in a country where there is scarcity and for fear of increasing the percentage of scarcity? As a professor of political economy, how can he reconcile his ideas with the present policy on immigration in this country?
I could not help but ask the question because, in my opinion, what the minister thinks as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration comes in conflict with the ideas he sets forth as a professor of political economy. As Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, he might tell us what this country's policy will be in this matter.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the vote carry?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: I feel this is neither the time nor the place to make lengthy speeches to refute the Social Credit theories, but since an important point has just been raised, that is how to settle the problem concerning the scarcity of resources compared to human needs, I should like to make a few comments.
I remember very well that in this booklet,
I said that our basic problem was the scarcity of resources, and as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I am very pleased to contribute in developing this important, but extremely scarce Canadian resource, human potential. I am most glad that the term of office-


Gilles Grégoire: Would the minister-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: I am answering your question just now.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.
8S8	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: As I was saying, it is quite normal that we should seek an efficient method of developing this scarce resource of manpower in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: 600,000 unemployed.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: In the first place, we do not have 600,000 jobless in Canada. The people who are unemployed, are unskilled and live in certain areas of the country where a trade is required.
I do not think that restricting the number of immigrants coming to Canada would help to solve our unemployment problem, because most of the jobless do not have the necessary training to meet the requirements of the labour market. To find a solution to the problem of local unemployment, I think that we should very actively undertake to solve the unemployment problem on the technical as well as on the regional level, and this does not at all prevent us from applying a long term and aggressive immigration policy which, it seems to me, would provide increasing manpower and would enable us to develop our natural resources.
Therefore I do not see any inconsistency between the assertion I was making at the time I was considering the Social Credit's point of view and the progressive immigration policy I am suggesting for this country.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Am I right in thinking that the minister said that natural resources were plentiful but that manpower was less abundant? He also led us to understand that there were areas where there was no unemployment. I am therefore asking him to indicate not five or six areas but one area only in Canada where there is no unemployment.
Could the minister also tell us in what field there is a lack of manpower at a time when many unemployed people registered in unemployment offices are either experts or graduates?
Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I am not against an immigration policy, but when the minister says more or less that this country does not produce enough or has not enough resources to feed its people, in short, when he declares that there is no privation in the midst of abundance, but privation in the midst of scarcity, I then feel that he is contradicting his immigration policy.
Once more, I am asking the minister to indicate to the house what areas are free from unemployment, and what occupational categories require more manpower.
[The Chairman.]


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I hesitate to intervene in this exchange between the minister and the hon. member, but, in my opinion, the discussion they have engaged in is considerably beyond the matter under consideration.
I realize that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is sustaining an argument which may be of interest to the committee, but as several other members have mentioned that they would like to make some representations, I think they should be given the opportunity to do so.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I believe my remarks are in order, since we are now considering supplementary estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Furthermore, judging from his previous remarks, we are of the opinion that the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is no longer qualified to head that department, and that is exactly the point we wish to underscore. As a matter of fact, his previous statements are entirely in contradiction with the qualifications a minister of immigration should have. As we are now considering the estimates of that department, I feel it is the right time to deal with this problem. And that is why I believe I am not out of order.
Furthermore, I maintain that his statement is contrary to the opinion held by those favouring the implementation of an immigration policy in Canada at the present time.


Mr. Rheaume:: Mr. Chairman, I want to direct a few remarks to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, identical to those I directed to the former minister. I do so because this is the first opportunity I have had of speaking since the minister assumed this portfolio, and I am hoping he will bring as high a degree of enthusiasm to the workings of the Indian affairs branch as did his predecessor.
I realize it is not an easy matter for a minister overnight to change procedures that have been going on for decades. Nevertheless, there is something he could do, if he were prepared to take a single administrative decision and see to it that his officials carried it out, a decision that would result in immediate and future benefits for all Indian people.
I ask that the minister deal with the director of the Indian affairs branch and the chief of the welfare division of that branch, to see to it that rates of financial assistance to Indians are standardized with those rates of assistance being offered by other social agencies across Canada in the communities in which Indians are living.

There is no excuse for there being such a great disparity between the amount of assistance a person who is a registered Indian can receive in comparison with the amount a non-Indian in identical circumstances can receive. It is more than just a matter of seeing to it that an Indian person in need has sufficient resources available to him to preserve health and decency. There is something more important at stake.
We are faced with the problem of walls being built between one group of Canadian citizens and another. The question of unity and harmony between various races is one, I am sure, that occupies the minds of the government, as it occupies the minds of all thinking Canadians. Nothing divides people quite as effectively or harmfully as when the rate or form of help they are able to get is completely dependant on whether their parents were Indians or not, which is what the present system is, in effect.
This means that an Indian person in a given community cannot get help from an agency from which others are getting help. It means he must go to an Indian agent. Furthermore, it means that when that person at last establishes his need for assistance, be it financial or otherwise, in every case the level of assistance is not as adequate as that which would be available to someone else, someone who might be a Greek or a Frenchman, or in the case of the Northwest Territories, an Eskimo or a white.
The solution to this problem rests in an administrative decision to be made by the minister in consultation with his welfare officials. I am sure no hon. member would begrudge the additional dollars it might cost if the minister, when presenting his next estimates, is able to say that Indian people who find themselves in need of assistance will, in every case, receive the same level of assistance as would a non-Indian in similar circumstances.
1 note in the supplementary estimates an item for the granting of $25,000 to the province of Manitoba to assist in its work in community development with people of Indian origin. The prospects that community development programs hold for Indian people are very great. The minister may not have been in his department long enough to familiarize himself fully with the community development program being carried out in Manitoba, or with the one that is starting in Saskatchewan, but there is no doubt, on the basis of preliminary studies, that the dollar invested in a community development kind of program pays off, not only in reduced social welfare and human costs but in accelerating the pace at which Indian people are
13, 1964	899
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration able to assume the full privileges and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
I would ask the minister to consider convening a conference on community development with the various community development services in existence across Canada, in the light of the experience which community development organizations in the United States have, such a conference to consider the role that a healthy and sound community development program can play in assisting the Indian people to integrate themselves more speedily than has been the case in the past.
I am sure all hon. members welcome the announcement which the minister made yesterday, in response to questions, that legislation on the Indian claims commission will be introduced later this session, and that there is no intention on the part of the government to let the matter lapse, or drop it entirely.
I am hopeful that the minister will not insist that the letters which were sent out to every Indian band in Canada-I believe there was almost 1,000 letters-must be replied to before the resolution preceding the legislation can be introduced. While it is important that the Indian bands should have been notified of what the government was proposing to do, surely we cannot afford to wait until every Indian band has replied?
For one thing, many Indian people are unaccustomed to being consulted by any government with regard to what is going to happen to them, and quite frankly many of them do not know what this correspondence is all about. I made a recent trip through the Northwest Territories, and I saw the documents that the former minister sent to the Indian people pinned to walls, alongside my picture and the pictures of all other important officials, in their eyes.
Many of them really did not understand the document because it was written in excellent civil serviceese. They did not understand what is being asked of them, and consequently I suspect that it is being treated as another piece of paper that is interesting, but which does not really hold out any hope of improvement for them. So I would ask the minister to set a target date, and if necessary write to his field officials and ask them to get this information back as quickly as possible. If it is not available within two or three weeks I would ask the minister not to sit back and say that they cannot establish this Indian claims commission because they have not heard from the people on the Thunderchild reserve, or some other place like that.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
The Indian claims commission holds tremendous promise for the Indian people of Canada. They are very keen on it. I have referred before to the efforts the previous minister made in dealing with the Indian people to assure them that the government was going to proceed with this commission. I assure the present minister, as I did the past, that the Indian people are keen on the commission. Do not betray their trust and do not, through inaction, allow their enthusiasm to wane and permit this commission to go the way of so many other projects.
If the minister has been following the press closely in relation to Indian matters he will have noted in recent weeks the fact that an Indian from the Northwest Territories, Michael Sikkyea, was convicted some months ago of the unpardonable offence of killing a duck in the spring and his guns, equipment and so on were seized. The case was reviewed by the next higher court of the Northwest Territories and a decision was given quashing the earlier conviction. Subsequently the case was referred to the appeal court of the Northwest Territories, which ruled that the provisions of the Migratory Birds Convention Act applied to Michael Sikkyea, and his conviction was confirmed. Because the decision was unanimous it is now necessary for Michael Sikkyea to seek the permission of the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal.
An Edmonton lawyer has taken it upon himself to assist Mr. Sikkyea in bringing this matter before the Supreme Court of Canada, but because this is an important problem for all Indian people I want to make a suggestion at this time. The minister can take notice of it and perhaps let me or the house know his answer. Does the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Indian affairs branch, have any way in which it can assist Indian people with legal expenses when they become involved in these areas that are still very much in doubt? Surely it is the function of the branch responsible for helping the Indian people to have within the branch some kind of contingency fund so that Indian people, who through no fault of their own or through a misunderstanding of the law become involved in offences and may not have access to expert legal advice, will be provided with this assistance. I ask the minister merely to take this question as notice. I have mentioned these various matters because I know that as a new minister he has not had time to look into all of them, but by bringing them to his attention perhaps he will take them up with his officials.
I should like him to give the house the assurance that he will have the courage to look into the matter of the level of financial

assistance to Indian people, discuss it with his officers and, if necessary, make the courageous, administrative decision that the Indian people shall no longer receive less financial assistance when they are in need than other people in Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, may I add something on that very point? Undoubtedly the minister has noted a similar case on Vancouver island where an Indian was charged with killing a deer out of season and did so because he was hungry. He was convicted of the offence. A lawyer in Vancouver took up his case, and on appeal a most important decision was made by the judge that the Indian was completely within his rights as an Indian in killing the deer out of season because he was hungry.
I believe I am correct that the province of British Columbia is going to appeal the decision further. This Indian has no money. When he appealed, his position was found to be correct and the original conviction was quashed. Surely in a matter of this importance there is a responsibility on the minister's department to assist this Indian financially. I just wanted to mention this case in support of the statement made by the previous speaker and to ask the department to give very serious consideration to legal assistance to Indians and Eskimos under similar circumstances.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take only a few minutes to refer to what the hon. member for the Northwest Territories has said. In dealing with the letters circulated to all Indian bands and accompanying the draft bill to set up an Indian claims commission, he implied that the wording or instructions therein were not too clear. First, I think I must say that in my view the document was quite clear and it is to the honour of the Indian people in his riding that they have framed it and hung it on the wall for constant reference. If they have the hon. member's picture next to it, surely these are two handsome picture subjects to be framed and hung one beside the other.
All I wish to say is that when the bill was referred to each of the Indian bands in Canada it was made very clear, first of all, that the regional superintendents were at the disposal of the bands to give further clarification if anything in the bill did not appear to them to be clear. It was also stated that any member of any council was free to write to the department in Ottawa to ascertain the purport or the general tenor intended with regard to any of the clauses of the bill. In my view, based on my experience in the short time I was associated with the

Department of Citizenship and Immigration and therefore superintendent general of Indian affairs in Canada, the Indians, more particularly those forming the band councils throughout Canada, are very intelligent people. The way in which they direct the business of their respective bands and hold their council meetings is amazing. I am quite sure that with this experience and in the light of their ability there is nothing in any of the documents referred to them by the department which has been misunderstood.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to hold up the committee any longer than necessary, so I will simply ask the minister a number of questions. He may not be able to answer them now but he can undertake to answer them by way of a letter to me or by way of tabling the necessary documents to provide the answers. In the details of the estimates on page 6 there is one item concerning the publication of departmental reports and other materials in the amount of $60,000 appearing among a number of items at the top of the page.


George James McIlraith: Which item?


Erik Nielsen: This is item 20c. I should like the minister's undertaking to provide me with information, not necessarily today but at some time in the near future, as to what reports this item covers, by whom the reports were published and whether public tenders were called for the printing of these reports. I also ask the same questions and request that answers also be supplied with respect to the phrase "other material" in that same item.
In item 20c there is a reference to exhibits, advertising, films, broadcasting and displays for a total amount of $56,200. I should like the minister to provide us with information as to what the exhibits were, what the advertising was, and what films were made and why they were made. Where were the films made, and by whom? What broadcasting and displays does that phrase cover? Were public tenders called for each of these items, and was the successful tenderer the person or firm to whom the final contract was awarded? What was the cost in each individual instance?
With regard to the items listed under vote 30e, there appears an item for professional and special services, and I think the minister should undertake to provide information as to whom that amount was paid to. If it was more than one person, he should provide the names of those persons, and the nature of the services that were rendered to the department for that amount of money. Perhaps he might also inform me in his reply, when he eventually gives it, as to what the method of 20220-58
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration selection was for the particular professional services, whether by individual or by firm.
The next item is a rather large one amounting to $116,500 covering travelling and removal expenses. I believe the questions would be satisfactorily answered here if the minister would agree to table a list of the individuals and materials that were removed from what point to what point, and at what cost, and also supply information as to whether or not public tenders were called for the removal of the goods and effects covered by this item. If so, did the public tender result in a contract being awarded to the lowest tenderer, and if not why not?
There is another item for materials and supplies amounting to $3,800. Perhaps the minister could supply a short statement giving information as to what materials and supplies the item covers, whether or not tenders were called for their supply, whether or not the lowest bidder got the contract, and if not why not? The sundries item amounts to the nice round sum of $1,000. This would seem to require some explanation.
In so far as the item under Indian agencies is concerned, I draw the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to the fact that I had a question on the order paper last session for almost four months, and it is on again this session, asking for some very simple statistics. A similar question was asked by me during the term of the former government and it took them three days to supply me with the information. I feel that perhaps six months is a little unreasonable to have to wait for statistical information. My request concerned, of course, the number of houses that were built for the Indian people in the Yukon, and their costs.
I should like, too, to draw the attention of the minister to the personnel requirements of the Yukon agency. I have written to him on this subject and no doubt he will be replying to me soon. The situation there at the moment is a very sorry one indeed, and the Indian people are suffering as a result of the austerity program that is being imposed by this government, which has resulted in the staff being stringently controlled.
The item concerning Indian agencies, construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including expenditures on works on other than federal property under vote 50e in the amount of $43,000, needs explanation. Perhaps the minister would provide us with the information as to what construction this item contemplates, what contracting arrangements would be entered into, whether by public tender or not and if by public tender whether the lowest bidder received the contract, and if not why not?

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
The item under transoceanic and inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers amounts to $230,000. Perhaps when the minister replies he might provide some explanation of this item. I fully endorse the remarks that were made by my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories with regard to the Indian claims commission, and the remarks that were made by the hon. member for Vancouver East with regard to the provision of counsel for Indian people when they are confronted with matters in court. At the moment, the only provision for legal aid for the Indian people is in relation to capital cases. I raised this matter last session before the minister took on this portfolio, and it has to do with the Indian claims commission. I give him fair warning now, as I did his predecessor, that unless some treaty arrangements are entered into with the Indian people and the Yukon Territory, having regard to the fact that the implication in the treaty of Paris of 1763 is that the lands in the Yukon Territory are Indian lands until such contractual arrangements are made, the government may very well find themselves confronted with a suit for damages for trespass and illegal occupation of this land over the years. These people are, of course, just as entitled to the conclusion of such an arrangement as all the other Indian people of Canada with whom treaty arrangements have been concluded as a result of the treaty of Paris of 1763. I do seriously bring this matter to the minister's attention. There has already been talk of it in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories by serious counsel.
With these few suggestions, I will defer my general remarks on the welfare of the Indian people in the Yukon until the minister's main estimates are before the house. I think he may say a word about vote 70e concerning economic development in connection with the handicraft programs for the Indian people across the land. To what is this vote of $65,000 intended to apply? He might also, as requested by the hon. member for Northwest Territories, inform us of the progress made under vote 60e with regard to community development in the province of Manitoba.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the desire of the committee to pass this item before we report progress?


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.
Progress reported.


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


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. C-ll an Act to amend the Criminal Code (A purge for the King's evil) - Mr. Fisher.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Although several bills have been called and allowed to stand, I wonder whether, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Port Arthur has now arrived, we could revert to order number 7, by unanimous consent?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree that we should revert to item number 7?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if the unanimous consent of the house is required, I object, and for a very simple reason, which is that there is on the order paper a bill in my name. It is not too far down the list and it might be reached. I have been trying for two years to have it discussed.
That is why I raise an objection. I have nothing against the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), but I would like to have my bill considered today, if possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As we seem to have the consent of the majority of the house, I suggest that we begin consideration of Bill No. 7.


Gilles Grégoire: Is not the unanimous consent of the house required after all its orders to reserve consideration of other bills?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that point, I may say to the hon. member for Lapointe that if he does not feel he should allow unanimous consent to be given, and we must go on, I am prepared to take one of my bills that lies ahead of his.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Well, do we have unanimous consent of the house to revert to item number 7?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-ll, to amend the Criminal Code (a purge for the King's evil).
He said: I must thank hon. members for allowing me to present my bill now. I was not here a little earlier because I was purging down in the steam bath and did not come out quickly enough.

The purposes of this bill, as set out in the explanatory notes, is to deal with a situation which came to my mind a couple of years ago when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) had an argument with the Minister of Veterans Affairs over the appointment or the reappointment of people serving on public boards.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was just last spring.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Just last spring-an interjection has come from the hon. member concerned.
It struck me at the time that there was a real hardship involved on occasion in these appointments to boards, councils and so on, in respect of which there is a definite time period. In case after case, when a person is well under the normal age of retirement and might reasonably expect his appointment to be renewed, he finds himself removed from his position right at the last minute, due to an exercise of ministerial discretion. It seems to me it would be only fair in such cases to allow for six months' notice to be given. I think this would have the effect not only of protecting the persons involved but also of allowing the ministries concerned to make a more careful appraisal of the performance of persons who hold such offices.
The one part of this bill which, I say myself, may contain a weakness, has to do with the situation which would arise should a change in the government of the day coincide with the termination of a great number of appointments of the kind which are the subject of this measure. This would mean, I suppose a delay of about six months before the new government could hand out these positions to its own followers, as seems to be largely the case. However, I do not think this would impose a tremendous burden.
The other point I should like to make is this: I believe we are moving away from patronage. I think it is being recognized that the calibre of the people who are required to serve on many of these boards-the pensions board is an example-is such that the partisan label placed on those who fill these offices, or the assumption that they are no more than party followers being rewarded for good party work, is becoming less and less popular in the country.
For this reason I think the bill would do a great deal of good. I know some hon. members may say that anyone who takes on such an appointment is aware that at the end of his appointment it may not be renewed. But I think when an appointment lasts five, six or seven years there is a tendency for it to develop into a routine. If you want to look at this matter historically, there is no question that if you want to find fault you can find it with Conservatives or with Liberals.
Criminal Code
I know that some people who were appointed by the Liberal government during the 22 years they were in office suddenly, at the end of their term of office, while they still had many good years of work ahead of them and were well below what we might think of as being the normal retirement age, did not have their appointments renewed. I know this did not happen in connection with the board in which my hon. friend was interested-at least, I do not believe it did- but I believe it did happen with the tariff board.
The protection afforded by this bill would not affect a great many people; yet it seems to me it is something worth having, in all fairness. I have been interested more in the board of broadcast governors, perhaps, than in any of the other boards of government. At the present time we have three full time members of that board who I conceive would be affected by this bill. I know that in a couple of years time the question will arise with regard to their reappointments. You have on the board-I shall deal with personalities-Dr. Stewart and Mr. Carlyle Allison. It seems to me there is a great likelihood that in either case, but particularly in the case of Mr. Allison, the government at the time, if it should happen to be other than a Conservative government, may feel they do not want to renew Mr. Allison's appointment. I would agree they are entitled not to renew it, but I believe that in view of the long period of service given by Mr. Allison, despite the fact that in the past he may have been considered a Conservative partisan representative before he took on this position, he would have the entitlement of six months notice. Of course this notice could be served six months before the appointment lapsed; the only requirement would be six months.
I do not think this is a major item. It would just redress, it seems to me, a situation in which harm could be done to Canadians who enter government service. I think it is one of the small things we can do to improve the attractions of government posts. I have heard from cabinet ministers in both the Conservative government and the present government that it is terribly difficult to get many Canadians to serve on boards. Quite often the argument is put forward that a change of government will come along and they will find it very difficult. One of the explanations often given to me as the reason so many appointees are partisan appointees is that non-partisan appointees tend to turn down these appointments because of the lack of security, and the fact that they may be labelled and may not have any protection. It seems to me this small amendment would help solve this problem.

Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, as I close these rather brief introductory remarks I should like to say a word to those who may wonder about "a purge for the king's evil". The king's evil is thought of in two ways. In medical terms the king's evil is a type of scrofula that is no longer as prevalent as it used to be, probably because of modern sanitary methods. The other reference to it is the arbitrary use of power. In this sense the bill would prevent the arbitrary intervention or use of ministerial power in cases where an appointment to one of the government boards or agencies is lapsing, without giving this notice. This bill, as the explanatory notes say, "preserves the crown's right to dismiss without notice but protects the interest of the employee and the public interest". The reason for the Criminal Code being introduced here is, of course, that it would be tremendously difficult to go through and rewrite or amend every statute which creates the membership for boards. By making this a penalty that would apply to a minister, in particular, who was involved in such a case there is produced, it seems to me, the required effect. Of course, I am sure that once the amendment was made it would just become part of the understanding around the federal civil service, and in a sense would be merely a signboard.
I hope the house will consider the matter fairly. I have not tried to go into a great deal of detail about the pros and cons of charges that have been made through our history regarding the arbitrary dismissal of people, because I did not think that was worth while. I hope all hon. members will join with me in supporting this bill.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the remarks of our distinguished hon. friend with respect to his Bill No. C-ll. I am sure every member of the house will congratulate him for the imagination he has shown in this bill, and indeed in its presentation. I am sure the hon. member is admired as one of the most thoughtful students of government and one of the hardest workers in the house. But if I may introduce just a note of criticism, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this is the kind of bill that might be introduced by a person who has no reasonable expectation of ever having to govern this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Ross Matheson: There is a great advantage in the objectivity of the ivory tower approach, or being able to look at something in theory or principle. However, sometimes the fact that one looks at government in this theoretic

way deprives that person of some of the considerations that are very important in a truly objective analysis.
The hon. member referred to an appointment to which I will not allude specifically, although I think the case he had in mind could very well be argued on its merits. The former minister of veterans affairs appointed to the pension board a person whom he had come to know, trust and respect; and subsequently, when the period of his service had expired, this appointment was not renewed. Another minister, looking at his responsibilities with a fresh point of view, approached the problem with a view to re-establishing a balance which he believed to be of value. I suggest that each of these gentlemen did his job, in the making of these appointments, honestly and fairly.
What does this disgusting word "patronage" really means? If we go back far enough, patronage was where an ecclesiastical power, such as a bishop or somebody like that, took a monk who was scrubbing the floors, serving at table and serving the candles and, because he had certain gifts, turned him to the translation of the scriptures or allowed him to paint on the walls or develop the arts. Patronage, in the finest sense, is the power of the ministry to take talent and to put it to work. After all, one of the main considerations when a government changes is actually to change the direction of government in the way the new set of politicians believe it should be shifted and changed. Indeed if we do not take the attitude that there can be change, there is very little merit in elections at all. I am not arguing that my party has all the political wisdom because I do not think it has. But we have had a change of government which resulted from the defeat of the former government on February 5, 1963.
Looking at this bill in the context of what happened since February 5, 1963 there were, according to my count-I am referring now to sessional paper No. 249

99 orders in council passed by the government that had been defeated. They made appointments to the Senate, to lieutenant governorships, judges, returning officers, the Atlantic development board, Canada Council, ambassadors, the consular service, Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation, agricultural products board, national film board, Farm Credit Corporation, Canadian Pension Commission, national battlefields commission, national productivity council, Canadian Commercial Corporation, national technical and vocational training and advisory council, defence research board, national research council and the tariff board. They appointed directors of the Bank of Canada, board referees under the

Unemployment Insurance Act, and so on. These included some of the most critical appointments involving well over 200 key people employed in the public service of Canada.
I am not criticizing this, Mr. Speaker, but I am pointing out the danger in adding this inflexibility which is inherent in this particular bill. Because surely one of the things which a new administration has to do, if it can, is in its own wisdom to shift direction. I am not arguing now that these appointments which were made were not good appointments, that they were not honestly conceived to be in the best interests of Canada by the former administration. But they would not be the appointments of a successive government, and what is the use of an election if a successive government cannot in some wise change the direction of policy.
By way of contrast I should like to indicate the type of people who surrounded the rather interesting democratic administration of the late John Kennedy. A lot of books have been written on this subject. I could refer hon. members to a book called: "The New Frontiersmen" published by Public Affairs Press, "The Year of Trial", "The Study of the Kennedy Circle", etc. It was my privilege, as a member of our defence committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve), to be in Washington on December 11, 1963. There we had a chance to sit in and talk to William Bundy, assistant secretary of defence, J. C. Kitchen, Mr. Henry S. Rowen, Mr. D. Gilchrist, and other gentlemen. Afterwards I had a chance at leisure to talk to some of these people. And what was the phenomenon which took place? Within a few months a new administration was able to make new appointments unfettered by the kind of law that my distinguished friend from Port Arthur-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. What the member is introducing now is completely irrelevant to this bill. So far as the American argument is concerned, I concede that it would be better if we had more of this in Canada, particularly with appointments close to ministers. But here we are dealing with a situation which has nothing to do with the coterie of people. This bill would not affect the Tom Kents or people like that. I assume that the Tom Kents would go, with their $25,000, if the Liberal administration went. This bill has to do with people appointed to boards, and if my hon. friend wants to talk on these lines he has to think more in
Criminal Code
terms of the interstate commerce commission or F.A.A., rather than referring to the new frontiersmen who collected around John Kennedy.


John Ross Matheson: With respect, Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal party cannot be satisfied with the kind of administration it has ever seen in the past, because I do not think that is the kind of administration it now has or hopes to have for whatever length of time it enjoys the confidence of the people. I should like to think that this is going to be a country where there can be something of the new frontier approach. But I do not want to be distracted from my basic argument, that if we are simply to give people security and invite people to take jobs or give them sinecures-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Six months' notice.


John Ross Matheson: My hon. friend suggests in his bill that its purpose is-
-to ensure that public servants who are appointed for a period of time to boards, commissions and other public offices in the gift of the crown shall be given six months' notice if they are not to be reappointed.
A very likely and practical response to my hon. friend's bill were it law would be to serve everyone, immediately there is a new administration, with six months' notice at once. As a matter of fact it would be a very foolish thing if a new administration did not do so, because there would be the danger of mens rea under the penal provisions of the bill, which might seriously penalize a minister. So the sensible and practical response to this bill is that a new administration would serve notice to everyone, in writing if you like, until it was satisfied that these people had the character and qualities which would command the confidence of such new administration. If we look at what has actually happened in Canada we will see that many good people have continued on in service.
Hon. members will recall that, owing to the untimely death of John Kennedy his vice president took over the office of president. That meant that there was absolutely no security of tenure of the officials of the United States administration. As a matter of fact our defence committee had hoped earlier that there would be an opportunity for a talk with Mr. Robert McNamara, but circumstances at that time were such that nobody quite knew just what confidence Mr. McNamara might enjoy in the new administration. As it developed of course, President Lyndon Johnson was entirely satisfied with, and expressed complete confidence in, the excellent service given to the United States not only by Mr. McNamara but by the brilliant team of people who were gathered around him.

Criminal Code
What type of people were they? I think one of their important characteristics was youth. This patronage-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Surely the hon. member is a mile out of order. I should like to rise on a point of order here, Mr. Speaker, in support of what was said by the mover of the motion. We are not talking about patronage in the United States. I cannot follow the hon. gentleman, unless he is advocating that that type of patronage be accepted by the Liberal party of this country.


Douglas Mason Fisher: They tell them that in caucus.


John Ross Matheson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, any shift in direction on the part of a new administration which is at all creative depends in some measure on the quality and prestige of the type of people who enter the service of the government. This bill affords a certain added protection in time to all existing appointees. If the bill has merit why not extend the time to a year, a year and a half or two years? It is perfectly clear from the fact that some security of continued employment is now provided that for some time any new administration has to gradually work its way through to effect the changes which it thinks are in the national interest. Unless this country can take some leaves out of the books of other democratic states such as West Germany, some of the Scandinavian countries and Britain, what we are going to do is to limp along in an archaic, Victorian way, unappropriate to these difficult and rather demanding times. The American experience is something which we might well look at.
Because the fact is today every government is tested to some extent by the quality of just such appointments. The word patronage covers the very best appointments and the very poorest. We know, on a general principle of course, the large bulk of our public servants are going to be employed by the choice of the civil service commission, unfettered in their wisdom, but there is a certain residue, a certain area, where the ministry does have some choice, and this Bill C-ll is obviously a step which tends to limit and reduce that choice of movement.
As it happens, and I feel the matter is relevant, the Kennedy administration is about as good an example as we might find of an administrative body seeking out the talent of people either in the universities, in private business, in journalism or the professions, and it is those kind of people we want to help share the risks which politicians know, to try to do something for their country.
Everyone in this house, from the Prime Minister to the newest member of the house-


Stanley Howard Knowles: To the highest.


John Ross Matheson: -to the newest member of the house, or to the dean of the house, who has just interrupted, knows we politicians have virtually no security at all. That is a good thing for the house, for us and for Canada, and there are some people who never wish to risk getting into practical politics themselves, but they are willing to come along with us and share the risks. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, a good many of these appointments have been covered by orders in council of the former administration-99 of them.
What possible benefit does it do to penalize the minister? One of the principles of criminal law is that if a man commits a crime there has to be some evidence of mens rea, or guilty mind, but my hon. friend who has introduced this bill has not introduced that element at all. If a minister should fail to fire a man at the proper time, six months before his time expires then he automatically becomes eligible for an additional six months. That is not good principle or law.
There are people in this country from the best areas of agriculture, of labour movements, of the universities and industry who are prepared to step in with politicians and take a chance to do something for the national interest. I am satisfied that if we further limit the choice of the government by adding security, simply shoring up any job, any appointment, then what we are doing is simply reducing that flexibility and that change.
I can quite understand that occasionally there are people who are hurt, and who perhaps should not be hurt. I think that is one of the misfortunes of the democratic process; but surely it is much more important to Canada that there be some flexibility, some change in direction?
I have heard the distinguished hon. member who introduced this bill stand up and say there is no difference between the Liberal party and the Conservative party when they are in power.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I am being credited with words I did not use. There certainly are degrees of difference, and if the hon. member is going to make that accusation I would like to have the opportunity of refuting it. Obviously they are not the same. One is worse in some things; the other is worse in others.


John Ross Matheson: All right, subject to these degrees of worseness, we are described as very much of a kind; but if there is a difference, and I believe that there always has to be a difference, then really the democratic

process survives on change. Quite apart from the orientation of the parties themselves, the very fact that there is a change periodically is in itself a sort of cleansing device and helps give a fresh look.
But let us face another fact, that generally those who run for office and win seats in this House of Commons are pretty average types, but some of them possess the ability to pick out better brains than their own. We have to be on the lookout all the time for imaginative, adventurous, daring people who are prepared-not necessarily in practical politics but rather in the area of service to Her Majesty in the public service-to take the risks involved and help mould and direct new events.
I did not intend to speak at length, Mr. Speaker, but I know something of the circumstances of the case that prompted this bill. I know something of the character of the criticism that we heard from the official opposition. I respect the fact that the former minister of veterans affairs had great confidence in a certain person, a person who was actively and closely involved with him in politics.
It happens that in my own riding there is a man who has been campaign manager for me on three occasions, who is a graduate student in political economy, and I say with the utmost sincerity that this kind of person is exactly the kind of person who could be serving Canada in a larger sense if he were given larger responsibility.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my profound regret at the speech I have just listened to from the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson). A week or so ago I had occasion to congratulate him on a speech he made in the house, but I now regret I did because he has destroyed my confidence in him by the speech he has delivered this afternoon.
He is inferring that the government exists only if it pursues the course of patronage and surrounds itself with people of the same mind and intent, and that when a government changes, then there should be a very substantial change in the civil service. This is disturbing. I thought that for the past 40 years we had settled the limitation on patronage within the ranks of the civil service, but the hon. member for Leeds wants to revive it.
Perhaps this accounts for the bill now before us and for the complaint I made earlier with regard to an example of Liberal action concerning a person in the public service.
Criminal Code
I see no relationship whatsoever with the situation in the United States where, when there is a change in government, about 5,000 people employed by the government leave and are supplanted by 5,000 others of a different political philosophy. That is a different system from what is supported here, except to a very limited extent, for example where personal assistants to a prime minister and other ministers do not stay on to advise a succeeding prime minister. But within the civil service, and within our various boards and commissions, we have provided for security of tenure and continuity.
The hon. member for Leeds in mentioning a particular case, which is the one that apparently inspired the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) to bring forward this bill, and which encourages me to speak on it, mentioned the fact that this particular person was closely associated with me in a political sense, and as though this were terribly wrong.


John Ross Matheson: I said precisely the reverse. I think the remarks I made indicated that the very fact he knew this man well was undoubtedly the reason why he regarded him as a worthy and proper appointment in the first place, and I brought out as an illustration my friend in my own constituency, who is a man of exceptional character and talents, and who would prove a distinguished servant of Her Majesty in the broadest sense if ever afforded that opportunity.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not want to misinterpret the hon. gentleman but I would point out to him, and this has been mentioned before by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet), that he is talking about people associated with me in political activity and then drawn into public service. Why did he not give the example of the vice chairman of the pension commission, who sat here as a member of the House of Commons and resigned his seat to take the appointment of vice chairman of that commission? That was a political appointment if there ever was one. He remained on the pension commission and we did not remove him.
I support the bill advanced by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) in principle. I do not agree with the penalty clauses he has provided, but the introductory paragraph in the explanatory notes outlines the purpose of the bill and this has my support. It reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that public servants who are appointed for a period of time to boards, commissions and other public offices in the gift of the crown shall be given six months' notice if they are not to be reappointed. Thus the dismissee has time to prepare for his transition from employment to unemployment.

Criminal Code
Surely that is only fair. I would never agree to any other action being taken with regard to people employed on boards or commissions if they desire a little time to make the adjustment to some new job. Nobody is talking about keeping them on for a year and a half or two years or anything like that. The purpose is to provide a six month period for adjustment.
Just about a year ago this coming May I raised an objection about the scandalous action, as I considered it, of the Liberal Government in removing from office on four days notice or less a member of the pension commission. I wondered why they were so foolish. Why did they not give Mr. Ken McKay three months' notice or six months' notice if they did not want to continue him in office? To dismiss him practically overnight was in my opinion shocking-and particularly to start doing such things with the pension commission, of all boards or commissions in this country, a commission which has been free from political interference. Despite political appointments to that commission it has been free from political interference. It represents the veterans of this country. The members of the commission are themselves veterans.
The first act of the present Minister of Veterans Affairs was to retire from office a veteran of the first world war, without any reason given at all except that the minister said that his time was up. Over the years the practice on the pension commission has been to appoint people generally to what are called ad hoc positions and such positions are renewable from year to year. When vacancies occur on the permanent staff of the commission the ad hoc commissioners are normally advanced to those permanent positions.
Mr. Ken McKay was an ad hoc appointment on a one year basis and his reappointment came up last May. The normal practice observed by other ministers of veterans affairs has been to continue these ad hoc appointments. My predecessor in office, the hon. Mr. Brooks, carried out that practice and I did, myself. An appointee of the former Liberal government was continued as an ad hoc commissioner for 17 years. Year after year renewal of his appointment took place.
The particular member of the pension commission to whom I have referred was retired practically overnight. I objected to that very strenuously and protested the action in a telegram which I sent to the Minister of Veterans Affairs on May 2 and which he answered by letter. I apprised the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of the situation and he did not bother to reply to the cable I sent
[Mr. Churchill.)
to him in London. I sent him another telegram when he came back to Canada and at that point he replied in these words:
I do not believe this is a matter in which I should interfere with the decision of the responsible minister.
He washed his hands of a matter affecting a veteran of this country. He washed his hands of a matter affecting the pension commission which should be kept free of political interference. It was to this attitude that I objected, this striking at the veterans of this country through the pension commission immediately on the Liberal government taking office. It was almost the first act of the Liberal government last year. This veteran had served in the first world war and, as I pointed out in my telegram, had been through the battle of Passchendale.


Mr. Greene:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would mind returning to the subject matter of the bill at some time before six o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am glad the hon. member has come into the house to attend to private members' business. Following the mover of the bill, I am giving an example of the type of thing which brought about the introduction of the bill, the type of thing which the bill would correct and prevent in the future. Surely an example is acceptable in explaining the purpose of the bill. Perhaps the hon. member will continue to pay his customary close attention.
I say that this is an instance where six months' notice would have been at least satisfactory, if the Liberal government thought it could not continue Mr. McKay in his position. When the house opened last spring I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs if there were any vacancies on the pension commission. He replied that he did not know of any vacancies, when in actual fact there were at that time two vacancies and he created a third by his action in the ad hoc positions on the pension commission.


Mr. Teillei:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman would not wish to misquote me. I did not say at that time that I did not know of any vacancies. I said that there were no vacancies. There were openings for other ad hoc appointments to the commission. This is what he is referring to.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Of course I was referring to ad hoc appointments, and that is what I was asking the minister about. There are a number of positions on the pension commission which are generally regarded as permanent. Twelve are permanent positions and there are also five ad hoc positions which run from year to

year, and the appointments are normally renewed or the individuals are appointed to permanent positions. This is the question I asked the minister, and I quote from page 14 of Hansard of May 17, 1963:
I should like to ask him whether he has filled the two vacancies on the pensions commission which were existing when the government took office on April 22.
This was his reply:
To my knowledge there were no vacancies on the commission at that time.
There were two vacancies in the ad hoc group and he created a third under false pretences, according to the letter he sent me. That is what I objected to and I also objected to the failure of the Prime Minister to intervene on behalf of a first world war veteran. The Prime Minister understands the first world war veterans, but nevertheless he did not do so. He washed his hands of the whole issue. I said at that time that the Minister of Veterans Affairs was incompetent to hold his position, having no knowledge of first world war veterans and no consideration for them whatsoever. He dismissed this man overnight without any notice, and I presume appointed somebody else who was more favourably inclined toward him.
This bill which the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) suggests for our consideration would at least provide a cushion for people the government might consider could be retired. This cushion of six months seems to me to be a very suitable cushion indeed. I gave much longer notice than that to people who were retiring from the pension commission, either by virtue of the fact they were well over the age limit, or they had served for a great many years in an ad hoc position. I gave a year's notice or a year and a half's notice to enable them to make the necessary adjustments. Here was a minister who, within just a few hours of taking office, implied he was going to be the big shot. He was going to show who was in control and he seized upon the pension commission to take his action. He dismissed a first world war veteran and he is permitted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to continue in office.
This was the objection I made in May of last year. I regret very much the fact that the Prime Minister did not take effective action because, as a result of his lack of action and as a result of the bad action of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet), the veterans of this country were not treated fairly. I was trying to adjust the representation on the pension commission so that each
Criminal Code
province in Canada would have a representative. By this action the province of Alberta was deprived of its representative on the commission.
I have given my reasons for supporting the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, although I object to some of its details. I have given an example which occasioned the production of this bill. If it is considered worth while to consider this bill in some standing committee, I would support such a move,


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I cannot allow these distortions to go unanswered. I gave a clearcut statement of the position at the time, and if the hon. member does not wish to accept that, then that is his privilege. However, he should not be repeating these distortions and continually putting them on the record. The facts are simple. The pension commission had been unbalanced by the removal of people of French origin-


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is untrue.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: -and we did not have French speaking people on the appeal boards. The man who replaced Mr. MacKay was a man who had been with the commission for some time and he had the necessary experience. The so-called vacancies are ad hoc positions which have not been filled for considerable time. I just wanted to reply to these distortions.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr,
Speaker, I should like to address a few remarks in opposition to the hon. member's bill. I must say that the remarks of the hon, member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr, Churchill) would have carried more conviction in this house and would have drawn greater attention, if he had not been a member of a previous government which indulged in exactly the same practice about which he complained.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He objected that at one stage a former member of this house had been appointed to the pension commission. I just remind him that the former member for Victoria was appointed by the previous government to the tariff board in the same way.


An hon. Member:: How about Les Mutch?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps we could return to a consideration of the hon. member's bill, and I should address a few remarks to this Bill No. C-ll. Perhaps the most relevant observation I could make with regard to this bill would be in respect of the hazards connected with such positions. The hazards to

Criminal Code
which the hon. member has referred are well known in advance by the people who take such positions. Hon. members of the house know there is no certainty of continued occupation of their own positions up to retirement age. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), for example, well knows that there is no certainty of tenure here. Supposing he did lose his seat and lose access to the behind the curtains gossip, and had to give up the newspaper business and perhaps- even this contemplation presents a shock-had to go to work, this would be every bit as much of a hardship to him as I expect it was to the gentleman in connection with whom he is putting forward this particular legislative measure.
The fact that these positions are for a term certain, and that there is no certainty of reappointment at the end of that time, is well known to every person who takes such a position. These people take such positions subject to that limitation.
With regard to the specific points made by the hon. member for Port Arthur, I may say that he seemed to believe this measure would, in some way, be a protection against patronage practices. I would point out to him, as did the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Mathe-son) that, if anything, this type of measure would impose upon any government an obligation to give automatic notice in every case where one of these appointments was going to end. This would make for greater uncertainty, as the hon. member for Leeds pointed out, greater cause for individual chagrin and individual disappointment than the situation that exists at the present time.
May I also point out several other objections. It might well be that in between the period when the notice was given, and I say this in no pejorative sense, someone better qualified for the position may become available for the position. The government's hands would be tied. It would not be simply a matter of the pecuniary penalty involved here under this measure, but it would involve the members of the government responsible in a criminal penalty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; the hour
appointed for private members' business having expired, we shall now revert to the consideration of the business interrupted at five o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to move, under standing order 41, that the house shall continue to sit this day until ten o'clock p.m.


Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
This afternoon, I understood that the house could not revert to motions and sit after six o'clock unless there was unanimous consent. Could you explain to me why that is possible now?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member for Charlevoix reads standing order 41, he will see that a motion such as the one the right hon. Prime Minister has just presented can be entertained at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: On division, Mr. Speaker. We are against the motion.



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



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
20e. Administration of Immigration Act, $133,800.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Although the house agreed to a motion to sit until ten o'clock tonight, I do not think it would necessarily imply that we would sit straight through. I hope we are taking the normal six until eight recess.


Lucien Lamoureux: If the committee gives unanimous consent, we could adjourn until eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: It is my understanding that we should rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again later this day.


George Clyde Nowlan: No, at the next sitting of this house.


Lucien Lamoureux: Later this day or at the next sitting of this house, whatever the case may be.
Progress reported.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Lester Bowles Pearson: By leave, I wish to move, seconded by my

colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin, Essex East):
That it be resolved by the... House of Commons:
That it is expedient that the Houses of Parliament do approve the participation of Canadian forces in the United Nations international force in Cyprus, and that this house do approve the same.
In speaking to this resolution I should like to begin by telling the house that while the situation on the island of Cyprus has deteriorated to a point at which there is grave danger of conflict-even greater conflict-


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Do the rules of the house allow the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to bring forward a motion without having received beforehand the unanimous consent of the house?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the Prime Minister asked leave to present the motion and he is proceeding on that basis.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I began my remarks by asking for leave to present this motion and I had the understanding-


An hon. Member:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Prime Minister asked for leave, there was no objection, and he proceeded with his remarks.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: I rise again on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Prime Minister has the floor.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, we want to place our objection on record. We do not agree to the Prime Minister proceeding with this motion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Personally, I do not wish to delay the business of the house, but I raise the point of order to protest against the procedure now being followed.
I think that if a motion is to be introduced- the meaning of which I did not quite understand-standing order 41 provides that there must be a notice of 48 hours. If I am told that the Prime Minister only asks for leave to make a statement, then we agree, let him do so. On the other hand, if we are told that the Prime Minister asks for the unanimous consent of the house to introduce a motion, and unanimous consent has been given by the house, this is quite another matter. Now, it
Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus is on that point that I would like Your Honour to tell us whether the house unanimously agrees that the motion should be introduced at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair already made a ruling in this respect. The Prime Minister preceded his remarks by saying that he had a motion to submit with the consent of the house.
As no objection was raised, the Chair suggested that the Prime Minister be given the opportunity to continue his remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, personally I have nothing against the motion being introduced-


An hon. Member:: Well, let us get ahead with the business, then.

Another Member: Let us go ahead with the business.


Gilles Grégoire: -but I object to the procedure used.
Has the unanimous consent of the house really been asked? Must the unanimous consent be asked by the Chair or by the Prime Minister as was done this evening?
That is the reason why I am objecting to the procedure used.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I can only repeat the ruling which I made a moment ago. We have already initiated the procedure with the unanimous consent of the house, since no objection has been made.
Such is the decision of the Chair, and I do not deem it necessary to alter it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we cannot raise any objection until the motion has been presented, and the motion cannot be presented until it is read.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has made its ruling and if the hon. member has any objection, he can appeal the ruling. There is no other alternative.	*


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would not have Ventured to ask for the leave of the house to bring forward this motion had I not been convinced by information I have received that there has been a very serious deterioration in the situation on the island of Cyprus, which constitutes a real threat to peace and security in that area. And if there is a threat to peace and security in any area of the world today there is a threat to peace and security in every area of the world.
I indicated earlier in the day that if certain developments took place at the United

Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus Nations in New York, it would be possible, provided the house so agreed, to consider this matter in the light of those developments.
I would like, in the first place, to report to the house and put on the record a statement made by the secretary general of the United Nations at a meeting of the security council late this afternoon. The secretary general made this statement:
It may be recalled that in my report to the council of yesterday, March 12, I expressed my confidence that the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus would be soon established, and indicated that I hoped shortly to be able to report some positive developments. It is with considerable gratification that I am able to inform the council that the force now is actually being constituted.
Since late yesterday, I have received firm and official assurances from three of the governments I have approached about providing contingents that those contingents will be available. These governments are: Canada, Ireland and Sweden. With regard to each of these governments, certain conditions and prerequisites were defined, which either have been met or, in my view, can be coped with.
The secretary general then goes on:
I may add that there are other promising prospects for troops. In these circumstances, therefore, I am now able to state to the council that the force will be established without further delay, and that elements of it will soon be deployed in Cyprus. Indeed, a small party of Canadian officers will be en route to Cyprus tonight.
That is the part I mentioned to the house this afternoon. The secretary general went on:
This morning I received a communication through the permanent representative of Turkey to the United Nations which has since been issued as a security council document. I immediately requested the permanent representative to convey to his government my serious concern and my urgent appeal to exercise the utmost restraint. A formal reply to this communication has also been sent.
The council is also aware of the pledges of voluntary financial contributions which I have already received from several governments, which assure the requisite financial support for the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus. I am most grateful to all these governments for their ready and generous response.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the statement issued only an hour or so ago by the secretary general and which I think indicates that a United Nations peace keeping force has now been constituted. I think we will all agree that the sooner that force can get to Cyprus, where the situation is deteriorating, the better it will be for peace and security. It is our purpose to ask this house to approve of a contribution by Canada to this force for this high and noble purpose.
Mr. Speaker, although the house has been in a general way kept informed of developments in so far as it was possible to do that while those developments were proceeding and changing so rapidly-that is, developments in the island of Cyprus-perhaps it would be

helpful if I reviewed briefly some of the major factors in the situation which have led the government to submit this resolution seeking approval for Canadian participation in a United Nations peace keeping force for Cyprus. Events move very rapidly these days, and it is hard to realize now that it was only on March 4 that the secretary general of the United Nations made an official request to the Canadian government to contribute a contingent to this force. This request came as a result of a security council resolution passed that same day which recommended the creation of a force and the appointment of a mediator. The security council in that resolution recommended that the function of the force should be, and I quote from the resolution:
-in the interest of preserving international peace and security to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and, as necessary, to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order and a return to normal conditions.
It further recommended that the stationing of the force should be for a period of three months only. This means, Mr. Speaker, that if the force is required in Cyprus for a longer period than three months-and I do not believe we should have any illusions about the necessity of this-that could only be done if the security council passes another resolution. The prospect of Canada being approached had been foreseen by the government from the outset. I think we in Canada can take some pride in the fact that whenever the United Nations is required to intervene in a situation where peace and security are threatened, the United Nations has nearly always turned to Canada for assistance. Canada has always been proud to do its full duty in this respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a matter, I think, of pride for us all. But it also involves problems and difficulties. My right hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) was the head of a government which was faced with this problem when a serious situation arose in the Congo and Canada, under his leadership, at that time responded quickly and effectively.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is not inappropriate for me to recall tonight that in those days one of the strongest and most sincere supporters of the United Nations action in this field was the man who was secretary of state for external affairs in those-days, Mr. Howard Green.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think all of us are deeply concerned about the inherent danger of sharp conflict developing out of this Cyprus situation between two neighbouring countries who are, with Canada, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I refer to Greece and Turkey. In addition to doing anything we can as a member of the United Nations to prevent a conflict between two members of the Atlantic coalition, we also wish to play our part in rendering whatever assistance we can to restore peace and order to Cyprus, which is a fellow member of the commonwealth of nations. There is every humanitarian reason, Mr. Speaker, for doing what we can to halt violence and bloodshed on that beautiful and once happy island. We in Canada have always regarded participation in United Nations peace keeping operations as a fundamental obligation of United Nations membership, as our service in Korea, the Congo, the Middle East, Kashmir and Indochina, testifies. So on March 6 our permanent representative to the United Nations, on instructions, indicated our interest as a government in playing our full part in this operation. But he also, on instructions from the government, raised certain questions with the secretary general with a view to ascertaining what were the facts of the situation in Cyprus and what would be the nature of the peace keeping operations. We wanted to ensure that if we took part in this operation we would at least get whatever assurance could be secured that we would have an opportunity to discharge that duty.
Therefore the permanent representative asked the secretary general certain questions, and these followed the lines of the statement which I made in the house on February 19. In that statement I laid down what I thought were reasonable conditions which should attach to our participation and, indeed, to the participation of other members in this United Nations operation. Among the important questions which were put to the secretary general at that time were those relating to the size and composition of the force and the role envisaged for the forces in Cyprus.
The right hon. gentleman said this afternoon, the United Nations would be intervening in a situation of civil war. Civil war is always tragic, but is even more tragic and dangerous to general peace and security when the two parties to the civil war are backed by outside states, as is the case in Cyprus. Therefore we wanted information on that point. We wanted to be quite certain that the powers and authority which were to be allocated to the United Nations force would be sufficient to ensure that it be given the chance to do the job it w7as sent to do. We wanted to be sure that the force would have
Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus enough authority under its terms of reference to give itself protection, because we also had a responsibility in that regard. We were particularly concerned with these matters, and I am sure no hon. member would wish me to apologize for this concern which we have shown. Because we knew that this United Nations force would be asked to perform perhaps a more difficult and dangerous role than that entrusted to any United Nations operation since the formation of the world organization.
One prerequisite which we laid down for Canadian participation was that the force should be multinational in character. We have now received from the secretary general, as I indicated a few moments ago, word which satisfies this requirement. In addition to Canada there will be other contingents participating in the force. There will be a Swedish contingent, an Irish contingent, and we also hope, though the secretary general did not mention it in his statement to the security council, that a Finnish contingent will be sent, along with the British, Turkish and Greek contingents which are now on the island and will participate as representatives of the guarantor powers in the situation there.
I am sure I do not need to tell this house how complex and dangerous is the situation in Cyprus. There is a very obvious danger to peace because intercommunal strife in the island is closely related, as I have pointed out, to the interests of Greece and Turkey which have treaty rights that permit them to intervene in the island in certain circumstances. While that is true, the problem is basically intercommunal, arising out of a dispute over the constitution. Incidentally, it is interesting to recall that the chief justice who has the authority and the problem of interpreting that constitution, is Mr. Justice Wilson, a member of the Ontario supreme court.
I suggest that this problem can be solved only in a climate of moderation and compromise, removed from violence and bloodshed. The need for a mediator to bring that about has been recognized, even though that mediator has not been appointed. But if the mediator is going to do his job, there has to be peace on the island. It will be the purpose of the international force to bring about, if it can, a situation of sufficient peace to enable a mediator to go to work and bring about a political settlement which will remove, to the greatest extent possible, the chances of this kind of bloodshed and disturbance in the future.
I am sorry that there has been a delay in the appointment of a mediator. I think back

Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus to the tragic days of 1956 when the United Nations intervened in Palestine to keep the peace. If the United Nations had had perhaps two or three days to move in with a mediator, who had been charged with the responsibility of trying to bring out of this crisis, this panic almost, a political settlement, that might have been done. But that opportunity passed, and once the United Nations force moved in-and it is still there many years afterwards-the danger of that conflict spreading was at least halted. Then the atmosphere changed, and it was very hard indeed to bring about a political settlement; and there has been very little improvement in that field ever since. So I would hope that a mediator can move into Cyprus as quickly as possible, take advantage of the present emergency situation, and out of that emergency bring about some kind of political settlement which will avoid this kind of request for action from the United Nations in the future. But that is going to be a very difficult task indeed for any mediator.
The government, and I am sure the house too, have no illusions about the difficulty and danger of the task which will face our forces in Cyprus if the house supports this resolution. Peace keeping operations are very rarely easy. They are usually expensive. They are uncertain in duration and they are very often subject to unfortunate incidents. Who would have thought that when we moved into Palestine in 1956 Canadian contingents in the United Nations emergency force would be still there today, keeping guard on that disturbed frontier?
Therefore the responsibilities which we are asking the house to approve will not be taken lightly, I know, by the house. The force which will be stationed in Cyprus will not act as an army of occupation. It will be a reserve of impartial strength, but its success will depend in large measure on the co-operation of the Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus and on the support and co-operation of the governments of Greece and Turkey. The United Nations force there, under the blue flag of peace of our world organization may, however, even by its very presence, bring about that easing of the atmosphere which will make some kind of solution possible. And perhaps we should not forget that while the force will consist, so it is now anticipated, of about 7,000 members, half of those will be members of the forces of Her Majesty, Queen of the United Kingdom, who have been holding the line in Cyprus at a time of very great provocation, difficulty and danger. Half of whom will be changing over from membership in the United Kingdom force to temporary membership in the United Nations force,

and will be serving with British and Canadian forces, who have served together so many times. It will be a very happy circumstance indeed, and I would like to think of it as having significance beyond Cyprus, if in this partnership of British and Canadian forces in a peace keeping operation, we can once again associate with the Irish forces.
The Canadian contingent to the peace keeping force will consist of a self-contained battalion group augmented by a reconnaissance squadron. Administrative and logistic support elements will also be provided. The 2nd battalion of the Royal 22nd regiment now stationed at Valcartier and currently on stand-by duty for United Nations service -and I may say we have kept a battalion on stand-by duty for this kind of service, the 2nd battalion of this famous and courageous regiment, and a reconnaissance squad-dron of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, now in Gagetown, have been selected for this honourable and dangerous duty.
These two fine regiments, which have in the past been responsible for many creditable pages in Canadian history, will go to this new duty with the confidence and trust of the Canadian government and the Canadian people.
The Canadian contribution, if parliament supports a contribution, will be air lifted by R.C.A.F. transport command to Nicosia with their personal arms and equipment, over a period of two weeks or so. A small fact finding force, as I indicated to the house this afternoon, has already left for Cyprus and will be reporting to the United Nations representative there, so that it can at once send back information as to what the arrangements will be and what the requirements will be. Her Majesty's Canadian ship Bonaventure, which returned to Halifax today, may have a role in the transportation of vehicles and material to Cyprus. The Canadian contingent is expected to number approximately 1,050 officers and men, and in addition there will be an R.C.A.F. element of up to 100.
The arrangements for the financing of the United Nations force are a departure from the established practice, and from what is desirable. In that respect I wholeheartedly agree with what the right hon. Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon about the undesirability of this kind of arrangement, that a few members of the United Nations should have to do more than their duty, financial and otherwise, to make up for the dereliction of duty on the part of other members of the United Nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A voluntary fund is to be created to which the United States has

pledged $2 million, and the United Kingdom $1 million in addition to its own contribution, and I believe other countries have already contributed to the fund.
The Canadian government, Mr. Speaker, has consistently held-the present government and its predecessors-that the financing of United Nations peace keeping operations should be the collective responsibility of the whole membership, and I do not know how we can continue satisfactorily to carry on those operations unless some arrangements of that kind are made in the United Nations. But in the rapidly deteriorating situation which we face in Cyprus, and which was made so clear to us by the messages we received today and yesterday, it seemed clear that the deployment of a United Nations force could not wait upon lengthy financial negotiations. The government has therefore decided to assume all the costs of a Canadian contingent for a three month period, as well as the costs of transporting our men and our materials to Cyprus. The estimate, and of course it is only an estimate, of the total costs for three months, including a one-way airlift, is about $2,600,000.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the way to carry on a United Nations operation where a few members-and they are becoming increasingly fewer and are becoming concentrated among a certain circle of United Nations members-have to bear not so much the financial responsibility as the political and every other kind of responsibility, in discharging the duties of the United Nations in regard to peace keeping operations.
Perhaps I may be permitted to pay my tribute to the hard work which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been doing in the last few days in trying, not only to bring about a satisfactory solution of the problem of a Canadian contribution, but to get the force itself into operation. He has been on the telephone today, I think to Turkey, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, New York, and perhaps even to Windsor. I can only say that if his predecessor were around Ottawa these days I think he would have been proud of the activities of the secretary of state.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said this, and I do not apologize for putting it on the record, because I think it will meet general agreement in the house:
Once again, the urgent requirements in Cyprus have illustrated the need to prepare in advance for prompt United Nations engagement in peace keeping operations. This is a matter of contingent planning in United Nations headquarters by military and political staffs, of earmarking, training and equipping units and personnel in national defence establishments, of improving methods for processing United Nations requests for assistance, of standardizing operational procedures.
Canadian views in this regard have been stated so often-
Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus -by the present government and by its
predecessor-
-that it is hardly necesary for me to do more than mention them. We have been pressing for the establishment of a military planning staff which could assist the secretary general and his political advisers in establishing and conducting peace keeping operations. Canada has been exploring ways and means of making its own stand-by arrangements more effective.
Other member states share our views about earmarking and training troops for United Nations service. The Nordic countries and the Netherlands have firm policies in this regard. Recent indications are that more governments are thinking along the same lines.
Last autumn the Canadian delegation to the assembly suggested that it might be useful to pool experience and ideas for improving United Nations peacemaking methods. Because of prevailing international political circumstances, this cannot be done at the present time through formal action by the United Nations. For the time being, interested members may have to accept that a permanent peace keeping force cannot be established, although it has emerged as one of the ultimate goals of disarmament programs put forward in Geneva.
Yet Cyprus and other situations already on the international horizon show that peace keeping operations by the United Nations may be needed on very short notice. The demands are almost as varied as the situations which arise. In Greece, Kashmir and Palestine, military observers on the ground were needed. In Lebanon and Yemen, air observers played a key role.
In Gaza and the Congo, an international force was essential. On many occasions, the United Nations has urgently needed mediators and conciliators.
The obvious conclusion is that the United Nations cannot stand still in its preparations for such operations. It has accumulated experience but some of the lessons have been learned the hard way. The underlying risk of escalation to war demands more effective preparedness.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Canadians will be proud to play their full part once again in a United Nations operation which is designed to restore peace and prevent conflict spreading. But I do hope we will learn the lesson of these operations so that we will not have to work out these ad hoc arrangements on the spur of a crisis, that somehow the United Nations will work out an arrangement by which we will be ready for this kind of thing, and that not only Canada but all members of the United Nations will play their full part in international peace and security by preventing little conflicts from spreading to become big conflicts, which is perhaps the greatest danger we face in the world today. That danger at the moment is centering on Cyprus, and goodness knows what might happen if that danger is not removed.
I believe that this United Nations force, if it can get to Cyprus quickly, will play once again an essential part in removing this kind of danger and in the re-establishment of peace and security in this part of the world, just as such action has been successful in doing, in the past, in other parts of the
316	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus world. I am very proud, Mr. Speaker, to put this resolution to the house, and, if the house accepts it, we will give Canada once again the proud privilege of sharing in this kind of international peace keeping responsibility.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the question is put, I would like to place on the record that we are opposed to this procedure. I was here at five minutes to eight and, as far as I know, neither the Prime Minister nor Your Honour have asked for unanimous consent-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member is raising the same point which was considered by the Chair and on which a ruling was made.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. When the Prime Minister rose, he said "By leave, I move" without pausing, so that no one gave his consent. You did not hear a single member express his approval.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Charlevoix was listening to the interpretation through his earphone. When the Prime Minister moved his motion, the hon. member heard the interpretation a few seconds late, which is unavoidable. That is understandable and hon. members have always accepted it.
Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is as follows: Personally, I am in favour of discussing this motion tonight. However, other hon. members in my party do not agree with me; they respect my opinion even though it differs from theirs. Their opinion should also be respected by the other members of the house, since they have the right to express their opinion here.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that they have had no opportunity to express their views; not a single second was granted to allow them to express their agreement or disagreement.
Futhermore, I submit that, according to the procedure which has always been followed in this house, it is the Speaker himself-and that, ever since I have been a member of the House of Commons-who rises and takes the precaution or the time to ask the house: Has the Prime Minister or the minister the unanimous consent of the house to introduce this motion?
Tonight, Mr. Speaker, that has not been done, and I say that such an omission will cause some bitterness, because you have violated the privileges and democratic rights

of members of the house by preventing them from expressing their opinions as they have the right and the privilege to do.
Mr. Speaker, I have a strong protest to make, not against the Prime Minister, but about the way in which the Speaker behaved tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is not necessary, I think, to comment any further on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member. This matter again refers to the point of order raised previously. I do not believe there is any-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -need for further explanation.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, look at the countenance of all the members in this house. They may support the motion, but deep down inside, they are all aware that the Speaker did not behave properly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member knows very well that he cannot comment in the house on the attitude taken by the Chair. I must remind him that the Speaker is here to look after the interests of all hon. members, including those of the hon. members for Charlevoix and Lapointe.
I am convinced that the hon. member did not quite mean all that he said-


Gilles Grégoire: Not at all, not at all, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to take the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we of the opposition have made our position perfectly clear on more than one occasion and it is not necessary this evening for me to go into any detail. Throughout the period since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 we have taken the stand that a prime responsibility of responsible members of the United Nations is that each and all of us shall discharge our respective responsibilities to the United Nations, and thereby assure that institution's ability to carry out its objectives, its purposes and its aims.
I want to begin by referring to one matter that is of interest as one looks back over the years, and has to do with the fact that this resolution is brought before parliament. I recall that the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen in 1925 enunciated, as a principle for Canadian participation of troops abroad, that parliament should decide. That view was not generally accepted at the time. Many believed

that the principles that had existed a generation or so earlier were still in effect, and this action tonight is but one more step in the constitutional development and final establishment of the principle that we in this nation will not send our troops abroad without a decision by parliament.
In so far as the recital given by the Prime Minister is concerned, I can but say that the only facts I have are those that have been placed before parliament. It is one of the ironies of our situation that the course followed in the United Kingdom is not followed here, namely that those who have occupied the position of prime minister and others who have been privy councillors are generally made aware of the dispatches that are received so that they may be in a position to discuss with their supporters the principles that should be brought about, based on the information that is available to the leader of the party. I hope that in the future the government will do more than make a mere passing reference and will make available to those of Her Majesty's privy council the fullest of information. Certainly we are bound by our oath, and those who occupy the position of leadership of the opposition are certainly not going to reveal information that is made available to the members of the privy council in the government of the country at the moment.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has mentioned the difficulties of the present situation. NATO is in serious danger. NATO has been challenged from within by the events of the last few months. NATO is again being weakened at this time by the dispute between Greece and Turkey. Both of these nations are allies of ours, and as such it is natural that Canada, with the reputation she has throughout the world, should be considered from the beginning as one country which might make a provision of this kind. We have done more than any other nation to assist the United Nations in peace keeping operations. No other nation in the United Nations has made the same contributions and sacrifices to the ideals of San Francisco. This fact is often forgotten.
The Prime Minister mentioned the various peace keeping operations in which we have engaged, from 1956 onward. He referred to Korea which was one facet of the operations within the United Nations, and he referred, too, to the operations in the Middle East, the Congo, India and in Kashmir. There is another reason why Canada should participate at this time, and that is that Cyprus is a commonwealth nation. I was present when Cyprus was admitted as a member of this family of nations. I feel that no other country within the commonwealth, outside of the United
Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus Kingdom, could make a better contribution to good will and to the re-establishment of order in that country than could we.
It is of interest, too, that the commanding officer will be a commonwealth officer. Lieutenant General Gyani, who commanded the Middle East forces, is an outstanding leader, a man of great personal courage and above all having those powers of leadership and magnetic presence which enable him to bring together whatever jarring elements there may be within the forces under his command. I was glad to know the Prime Minister hoped that Ireland would be making a contribution. I often wonder why Ireland left the commonwealth. Indeed, I might interpolate this, that my hope is she may some day return to the commonwealth. Certainly, at the time she left the concept of a republic within the commonwealth was not generally accepted.
I would have liked to hear the Prime Minister assure the house that he or the government have been in communication with Turkey. I am sure that amidst all the phone calls that were made today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), none would have been more effective than a call to the Turkish government requesting them not to take any precipitate action. Today, we read in the press that Turkey threatened to engage in an aggressive action. I believe that if we do that which is outlined in this resolution tonight we will be doing our part toward assuring Turkey that fairness, justice and equality will be done and that she, on her part, will not launch these aggressive moves that have been suggested. Indeed, the relationship between our countries is of such a nature that the very fact Canada gives leadership in this direction, and acts immediately, will I feel sure bring about new relations within Cyprus and certainly will postpone the opening of open warfare there, the results of which no one at the moment dares even to envisage.
Finally, I would say that I believe an advisory committee should be set up at once, similar to that which operated in the commonwealth. The membership could be restricted to those nations which are making their contribution, and in such a committee Canada would be able to play a very large part in advising the secretary general, and in assuring that whatever course is followed in that island nation of Cyprus, the objective of peace would be assured. We have done it in the past. We have done more, I repeat, not only in proportion to population but on the basis of any other measure than any other nation in the United Nations to assist, maintain and promote peace keeping operations. The Prime Minister mentioned that his hope was a United Nations force would be estab-

Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus lished, readily available at all times, rather than having an ad hoc force whenever trying situations arise in different parts of the world. He is more optimistic than I am. This was the dream of Grotius and Puffendorf three or four hundred years ago. It has been the dream of mankind all through the ages. It was the dream of the Congress of Vienna. It was a dream again in 1918 and 1919. The great difficulty is that while it has its attractive features it has not yet been possible for mankind to agree that the powerful nations will provide forces which at any time in the future would take up arms against their own nation. All we can hope is this, that by gradual steps such as we are taking this evening, we will ultimately have achieved the objective of mankind through all the years, that through united action man will bring about peace. As a matter of fact, biologically, it is of interest that there are only two species that actually go to war, man and ants. There is no possibility of any change in the ants. Mankind hopes that there is for mankind.
I join with the Prime Minister in support of this resolution. I am not going to speak any longer because I do not want to participate in talking out the opportunity of concluding this matter this evening.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party recognize the need for making a speedy response to the appeal of the United Nations for Canada to make a contribution to the peace keeping forces which are to be sent to Cyprus.
I hope no group in this house, even though its members may disagree with the idea of sending a peace force to Cyprus, will hold up a decision which it is apparent the house wishes to make, and which the great bulk of the Canadian people wants to make in order that Canada may make the kind of response which I think has to be made at this time if the authority of the United Nations is to be maintained in this present world situation.
I think the government is to be congratulated, that in spite of the speed which is necessary at this time parliament is being consulted, not only because the Prime Minister gave an assurance that he would consult parliament but because a vital principle is at stake; no citizen should be committed to any type of armed conflict without the consent of the elected representatives of the Canadian people.
I am also glad that Canada has not stopped to haggle about the question of money. I agree with what has been said by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition-that there ought to be a permanent world peace keeping force and that it ought

to be financed by all the nations on an equitable basis. But for us to stop and haggle about money at this particular time would, be a mistake. I am glad the government has indicated its willingness to send a peace keeping force and finance it, rather than haggle while the situation in Cyprus continues to deteriorate.
We need have no illusions about the problem the United Nations will face in Cyprus where a bloody civil war has been going on. The population there is 83 per cent Greek and 17 per cent Turkish and it is now apparent that the 1959 constitution is not working and that the veto power which was vested in the minority has virtually brought government administration to a standstill.
I think one should recognize that neither Greece nor Turkey has been entirely without blame in this situation. There has been a great deal of encouragement given, sometimes amounting to direct provocation, to promoting the racial dissension and bitterness which obtains in Cyprus. I only hope that we in Canada will take a look at what is happening in Cyprus and that some of our people who take very extreme positions, in both English speaking and French speaking Canada, will realize the end result of demagogic appeals to racial antagonism and racial bitterness and realize what they could bring about in this country.
The real need in Cyprus is, first of all, a peace keeping operation. Of equal importance is the appointing of a mediator who will work out a modus vivendi by which these two groups of Cypriots can live together in peace. It seems to me the action we are being called upon to take tonight is made necessary because of the danger that civil war in Cyprus may turn into a general war. When the United Nations was formed, intervention by a United Nations force was thought of mainly in terms of preventing an aggressor nation imposing its will upon its neighbour. But the Congo situation demonstrated that there are times when the United Nations must intervene even in a civil war. The danger at the moment is that what is now a local civil insurrection could spread, especially if Turkey and Greece decide to intervene. A war in the Balkans could have far reaching repercussions. The Soviet union has always looked with an eager eye upon the Black sea and the Dardanelles and if the United States and the Soviet union were to take opposite sides in the struggle between Greece and Turkey a war could be precipitated from which it would be difficult for Canada to remain aloof. In any war in which the United States and Russia were involved Canada would be a battleground, if not on land, then certainly, in the air.

Until now the people of Great Britain have borne the major responsibility for trying to restore peace in Cyprus. I think this parliament is being asked to take the only course which is open to it. I think a commonwealth force would have been impracticable, first because there is no central decision making body which could have taken day to day decisions, and also because a commonwealth force would have been associated in the public mind with Great Britain which was long a colonial power there, and would have been resented by the Cypriots. I think a NATO force would have been unwise. I do not believe NATO was set up to do this kind of job; it was set up to meet a special situation which we all think is gradually improving. Only the United Nations has the authority and the prestige to undertake the kind of intervention which could be effective in the present circumstances.
I want to say that in passing this motion neither we in this house nor the Canadian people ought to have any illusions about what we are doing. I think we have to recognize that we are assuming a hazardous, thankless and discouraging task. We have to be prepared for a long and difficult assignment in which lives may be lost. Moreover, the role we play may be an unpopular one. Nobody ever made friends by interfering in a family fight. I hope we recognize that this will be an arduous and a dangerous task and that we ought not to go into it without weighing all its aspects; we should go into it with our eyes open and our resolve high.
To those who object to Canada's contributing to this peace force I say: What is the alternative? The alternative is that we can do nothing. If we refuse to respond to the appeal of the United Nations and if other countries which have been invited also refuse to respond, we would sit back and almost certainly face the danger of war spreading in the Balkans and, quite possibly, throughout the world. This is one instance where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It is one instance where putting out a brush fire may prevent a major conflagration. Therefore, we in this party believe we have only one choice-that the only hope for world peace lies in maintaining the rule of law in the world.
We think that, ultimately, a permanent world police force financed by all the nations of the world on an equitable basis is the only solution. In the meantime, we must make ad hoc arrangements as was done in Suez, the Gaza strip, in the Congo and in Korea. Now, once more, we are making an ad hoc arrangement in order to meet a serious situation. We hope that some day not only will there be a stand-by permanent world police force but
Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus that we shall have legislation on our statute books so that we shall not have the scramble we have had in the last few days; so that the government will have the authority to act any time it is invited by the United Nations to despatch a peace keeping force to wherever the United Nations requires it to maintain law and order throughout the world. We do not have that at the present time. Therefore it seems to me that we must act now, and act quickly, to maintain the authority of the United Nations; because if the United Nations is not able to raise a peace keeping force at this time, its authority is gone-nations will disregard and ignore it, and it will become nothing but a debating society, without power, without authority and without a voice in world affairs.
Let us face the fact that in an assignment such as that upon which we are embarking, lives may be lost. In all probability lives will be lost, just as policemen every day in our respective communities risk their lives to maintain law and order. The Canadian people will have to appreciate the fact, as I am sure they will, that this is part of the price we must pay if we are to maintain the rule of law throughout the world. Because, Mr. Speaker, in this rapidly contracting world of the second half of the 20th century peace is indivisible; when peace is violated in any corner of the world, unless the situation is dealt with promptly peace will gradually be destroyed everywhere. If mankind is ever to see brought to fruition Tennyson's dream of "a parliament of man and a federation of the world", then nations such as Canada have to be prepared to make their contribution toward maintaining peace and order throughout the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party have often advocated in this house that Canada's most effective military role is exactly what the house is now being asked to do. We have often said that Canada is not suited to filling a nuclear role; that we have neither the resources nor the technical knowhow to do so. We have often said that the two great nuclear powers have checkmated each other, and it has been argued that what we are suggesting is that Canada should shelter beneath the umbrella of the United States deterrent. Our argument has always been that we were not trying to evade our responsibility, but that Canada should assume the kind of military role for which it is best suited and which is equated with its resources. This is the kind of role for which we are suited, being a middle power, along with the Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Austria and some of the other nations. This is
920	HOUSE OF
Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus the kind of role we can best play-not trying to pose as a nuclear power, but supplying mechanized, mobile, military forces with their own air transport to help put out brush fires wherever it is necessary to do so, in order to maintain peace throughout the world.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) will continue to press the United Nations for the speedy appointment of a mediator. Keeping peace in Cyprus is the first task which must be assumed, but a political solution must ultimately be found. A police force is not enough by itself. There must also be justice; there must also be an attempt to remove injustice. A mediator appointed to bring the conflicting groups together is most essential, otherwise this peace keeping force is liable to be required in Cyprus for a long time. I want again to urge the government, as I did the other day, to impress upon the United Nations the need for an economic development plan being instituted in Cyprus, recognizing that hunger, poverty and unemployment in Cyprus are undoubtedly contributing factors to the discontent there. The United Nations could do much, by means of technical assistance, to help develop industries, raise living standards and get at the economic causes which have produced the present situation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will seek assurances from both Greece and Turkey that they will not intervene; and I hope the United Nations will make it perfectly clear to Greece and Turkey that any armed intervention by either of those powers will be looked upon as an unfriendly act. I hope the United Nations will be asked by the Canadian government to make absolutely sure that once we have committed Canadian troops to Cyprus they will be guaranteed adequate reinforcements and adequate military support; because if this conflict widens to include Greece and Turkey, 7,000 men will be a totally inadequate force. This parliament has no right to commit Canadian troops unless we have an assurance from the United Nations that those troops will be supported militarily and that other members of the United Nations, such as Greece and Turkey, will not take part in any type of military intervention that would make the task of this peace keeping force even more difficult.
Mr. Speaker, the members of this party will support this motion. We do it because we believe it is the most effective way to maintain peace in the world, to stop the spread of war and bring about accord among the nations of the earth. I am sure this


Canadian contingent will go to Cyprus with the blessing of the members of this house, and the hope that their efforts will be crowned with success and will result in restoring peace and harmony in the island of Cyprus.


Mr.  A. B. Paiterson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, for the encouragement of the members of the house I should like to say that my intervention in this debate will be very, very brief. I do not believe that the circumstances require lengthy debate, discussion and statements; but I do wish to place the position of our group before the house. When I was speaking very briefly this afternoon I pointed out that it was unfortunate that conditions have developed to the point which makes it necessary to place this motion before us. I am sure that every member of the house has viewed with increasing concern the events that have led up to this hour.
We face the situation now, after having considered for some days the possibility that we would be asked to participate in a debate such as we are having this evening. It is also unfortunate that the problem we face at the present time is one between two members of an alliance the members of which pledged themselves to come to each other's defence. But now it seems that others are having to play a part in reconciling the differences between those two parties. It has been pointed out this evening that the situation in which our servicemen will be placed may be one of intense danger. We do appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has indicated that these forces will not be in the position of entering this theatre of responsibility and then being unable to protect themselves in the case of certain eventualities.
Therefore I think it is the better part of wisdom to ensure that those who are going to represent us in this peace keeping operation will have the wherewithal and the authority to defend themselves in face of danger and emergency.
We recognize the fact that this is a United Nations operation and that our participation cannot in any way be construed as an intervention to fulfil any national interest or selfish motive. However, it is unfortunate that the burden of this operation is being borne by so few members of the world organization. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) stated in introducing this resolution tonight that Canada has accepted the principle that such an operation is a fundamental obligation of membership in the United Nations. Unfortunately, it seems as though many of the other members do not consider it as such. I ask the question: Could it be that many of the nations now comprising the United Nations

are desirous of sharing in the benefits accruing from their association with it, but are unwilling to share the responsibilities involved? I suggest that this is a question which could bear some study, not only in connection with this present situation, but with many other situations which the United Nations is called upon to handle. Surely when some nations are ready to supply personnel, others should be prepared at least to accept the responsibility to bear the financial burden involved in such an operation. I do not mean to imply that we should not proceed as the Prime Minister has indicated in spite of this particular situation; I believe we ought to go ahead. But I still believe that other nations who do not provide the personnel should be prepared to assume financial obligations in connection therewith.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the situation is serious and the need is urgent. Therefore, on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues I want to assure the house that we are supporting the resolution which has been presented by the Prime Minister, and we express the hope and prayer that this action will assist the solution of this immediate problem and contribute to the maintenance of peace in Cyprus and also in the world at large.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of procedure in order to ensure, if I can, that members who wish to speak on the resolution are given the opportunity to do so, tonight. Therefore, in an effort to ensure that opportunity I should like to move, under standing order 41:
That the house do not adjourn at 10 p.m. this day, but that the time of adjournment be decided later.
[Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, standing order 41 of the house provides that if such a motion is introduced, 48 hours' notice is not necessary, but it also adds:
Such notice shall be laid on the table before six o'clock p.m.. and be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: My understanding of the notice to which the hon. member refers indicates to me that there cannot be other objection raised to the motion now moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). However, to my mind the notice referred to in the fourth last line of standing 41 refers to the notice which will have to be given of a motion for leave to present a bill which is to be tabled. There can be no other notice which has to be tabled before six o'clock except a written notice.
Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it says just a little before that, in the same standing order:
-but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house.
Those notices concern the times of meeting or adjournment, but the notice in question must be laid on the table before six o'clock p.m. There is no need for 48 hours' notice or unanimous consent if the motion deals with the time of meeting or adjournment; but the notice must be tabled before six o'clock p.m. and printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day. The last sentence should apply, not to part of the paragraph, but to the whole paragraph because it completes it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I shall be happy to hear the views of hon. members, but it seems to me very clear that the word "notice" is only used in one place, that is in the first part of this standing order, where it says:
-Forty eight hours' notice shall be given...for placing the question on the order paper-
A few lines further we read:
Such notice shall be laid on the table before six o'clock p.m.-
There could be no question of any other notice than that mentioned in the standing order. But I would be happy, anyway, to hear the views of hon. members with regard to the interpretation of that standing order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to explain a few moments ago, is that, with regard to a motion for leave to introduce a bill, there must be a notice. Of course, the word "notice" is not mentioned before each word, as, for instance, notice for introducing a bill, notice for a resolution or an address, notice for setting up a committee, etc.
The word notice means to inform somebody of something. Now, the Prime Minister has just informed the house that he wished to introduce a motion providing that we would continue to sit after ten o'clock. Such is the notice given by the Prime Minister. Now, it should have been laid before six o'clock p.m., and printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the same day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, whenever we are dealing with something which seems to involve double negatives it is easy to get confused. I think we are in a situation which is comparable to that of a double negative. I would invite my friend from Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to realize that the lines in the middle of standing order 41 except certain things from any notice whatsoever. In other
922	HOUSE OF
Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus words, motions having to do with the times, meetings or adjournments of the house do not have to be preceded by a notice. Therefore the later reference to such notice cannot refer to something of which no notice is required; it can only refer back to the earlier part of the standing order where it is indicated that notices are required.
The need for the last sentence, namely that "such notice shall be laid on the table before six o'clock p.m., and be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day", is because somewhere there has to be a definition of what is meant by 48 hours. Forty eight hours' notice means that it shall be given to the Clerk of the House of Commons or filed in the proper way before six o'clock on the day two days before it is to come up. Surely it is quite clear that that latter reference is merely a definition of what 48 hours' notice means, when 48 hours' notice is required.
The motion now before the house having to do with the adjournment of the house is excepted from any notice being required whatsoever. Therefore, it seems to me that the point the hon. member raises at this time is hardly relevant, and since the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has moved the motion so that there can be ample debate on this important question I would hope that we could settle it quickly.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I still maintain that the last sentence of the standing order applies to the whole paragraph.
However I shall read standing order 42 where it says:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the house without notice having been given under standing order 41.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the motion was presented tonight without the mover giving an explanation beforehand as to its urgency; he simply moved the motion. I am of the opinion that here again the rules were disregarded.
I should like also to hear your ruling with regard to standing order 42 which states that unanimous consent of the house is required:
-without notice having been given under standing order 41, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover.
In my opinion, the hon. member has not explained the urgency of the matter before presenting his motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I feel that the point raised by the hon. member is very important.
Standing order 42 deals with motions which require a notice. This standing order means that for certain motions requiring a notice, another procedure may be followed


in case of emergency. But as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has just pointed out, the present motion does not require any notice.
That is why I must hold to the decision I rendered a moment ago, and I give to standing orders 41 and 42 the same meaning which was just given with such clarity by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the 48 hours' notice was necessary in the case of the motion that the Prime Minister proposed at eight o'clock, to the effect that it is advisable that the houses of parliament approve the participation of Canadian troops.
The 48 hours' notice was called for in the case of that motion. The Prime Minister asked leave of the house and presented his motion; however, in the case of the motion which he presented at the beginning of the sitting, at eight o'clock, he did not explain its urgency beforehand. He moved his motion at once without explaining how urgent it was. That is why members from this corner of the house had no opportunity to set forth their opinion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no need to continue the debate on this point. I rule that standing order 42 does not apply here. We must restrict ourselves to standing order 41 which covers the present case.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member could perhaps wait till I submit the motion to the house.

It is moved by Mr. Pearson, seconded by Mr. Martin (Essex East) that this house does not adjourn at ten o'clock today but that the hour of adjournment be decided later.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: On division.
Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the motion itself, I should like to point out that after the way in which the standing orders were disposed of, since the consent of the house is required under the rules, I was treated offhandedly-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to resume his seat.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to make my point-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should know that the rules of the house suggest that he take his seat when the Speaker is on his feet.


Gilles Grégoire: Is there such a thing as the rules of the house?


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, are the rules of the house applicable only to us?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I remind the hon. member that he should limit his comments, as far as possible, to the motion introduced by the Prime Minister.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: The rules seem to be particularly applicable to those who are usually touchy and punctilious, because there have not been many tonight, who have registered a protest.
Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why we are opposing this motion, is not so much the motion itself, but mainly the procedure that has been followed to submit it to the house. That is precisely what we do not like.
First of all, this motion was introduced to give us the impression that there was great urgency and that failure to adopt it would result in disaster.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe a word of that. I feel that nothing much more serious would have happened if the debate had been postponed until Monday. Perhaps you might reply that lives would have been lost in Cyprus, that Turks and Greeks would have been killed, but that does not impress me too much since there are at present, in Canada, people who are destitute, and yet no special session is called to help them.
We also have to deal with most urgent problems. But here in Ottawa, the government is usually more preoccupied with external problems than with our own. But let a question of war, rumour of war or disorders outside the country come up and we are ready to put everything else aside so as to be a part of it.
I believe that is quite the wrong attitude to take. This public spirit principle should be applied first of all to our own people. We are not even able to settle our own problems and we are running everywhere else in order to settle the problems of the whole world.
It was said tonight, in the course of certain speeches, that Canada had certain obligations towards the United Nations, but that, on the other hand, Canada was the nation which had best discharged its obligations. Why that? I still wonder, tonight, why Canada was chosen to police the island of Cyprus. It might have been any other country. But, once more, Canada is approached with a statement that an amount of $2J million will be appropriated for the expedition.
Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus
But when we ask to vote any amount of money for our own fellow citizens, great difficulties arise.
I know some will cry shame, because I am trying to compare the standard of living in Canada with that existing outside the country. I do not fear to say I am much more concerned about my fellow citizens than about the people of other countries. If we are in a position to show other nations how they should organize their business, we should at least be able to organize our own, in our country.
Moreover, in so doing, that is policing all the countries of the world, as was reiterated a while ago, and if we succeed, we shall be praised, it will even be said that Canadians have served a noble cause in Cyprus, that our soldiers showed great courage, great valour, great skill, and so forth. But should things go bad, who will get the blame? Who will pay for the damage done? The reputation of Canadians, therefore, that of Canada, will be at stake.
The same thing is happening now in the United States. That country is doing police duty in various countries of the world. It has even contributed billions of dollars in different countries for that purpose. If there is a people today that is not liked, to put it mildly, it is surely the American people. Why do they not go to Cyprus? It is precisely because they are not welcome there.
I would have many other points to raise concerning that matter, but since we did not get too much time to prepare ourselves for this debate, I feel compelled to conclude my remarks, but not without complaining once again about the off-hand manner in which the government decided to adopt that motion against our protests.


Mr. C. A. Gauihier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker,
I shall not be very long. I simply wish to air the impressions I felt this evening. I can assure you that they were anything but rosy. After such an orgy of infringements of the standing orders, I wonder how we will be able to sit next Monday.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister brought before us tonight, a resolution motivated by a family quarrel on the island of Cyprus. And I am given to understand that while the Cypriots have appealed to Canada, it is only tonight that negotiating efforts are being made to lessen the seriousness of the situation on that island. We would have liked to discuss it without having to extend this debate until Monday, but I note that it would be impossible to conclude the discussion tonight, even if hon. members were forced to sit until midnight.
924	HOUSE OF
Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus
I realize that the government, that the totalitarianism of the Liberal government has so decided. Tonight, Liberal dictatorship gets the better of public opinion. I should have liked to sincerely discuss that matter before next Monday and get a reply to each of our questions. I should have liked the rules to be followed tonight.
I deny that our consent has been obtained. The Chair never asked us whether or not we agreed to the motion introduced by the Prime Minister. I want to say for the record that we have been abused this evening.
Mr. Speaker, it is not that we disapprove of the idea of helping our neighbours, for none is more anxious to do so than we are, but we say: let us apply the great principle which prevails in the world as a whole, namely, charity begins at home.
If we can spend millions of dollars to help our neighbours, that is very well, and let us thank God; but let us also spend millions in the province of Quebec, because its farmers have been crying for help for years and the government turns a deaf ear to their requests. We want to help our foreign friends, but let us begin by helping our citizens, by fighting in our province finance plans which literally, especially in my riding, have stolen the lands of farmers.
We have been here for two years and have not ceased putting on the order paper measures urging the government to act. And without trying to be partisan, may I mention that we asked the government to set a maximum price with respect to interest rates. Nothing was done and nothing will be done. Why? We now have the answer, Mr. Speaker. And I am telling you tonight that farmers cry for help and want to save their farms. Nothing has been done. But this evening, we had a call from Cyprus, a call from a foreign country, from people whom we esteem without knowing them, because we do not know Cypriots at all, and to answer such a call, money is no consideration. Whether it costs $2, 3 or 6 million it matters little; the call comes from abroad. But if this call came from within our country, I am convinced that there would not be a single hon. member here this evening to discuss such an important matter.
I do not wish to dwell further on that point; besides, I know that my speech is of no avail, that I know, just as I know that I am speaking to persons who will openly laugh at my comments. I also know that tonight I speak for people in need, who will eventually come and ask for the same assistance that we are giving tonight to our friends in foreign countries.
Mr. Speaker, if there are people with a strong love for peace, we are those people;
[Mr. Gauthier.!

but let us start by giving food to those who are hungry and let us stop putting guns in the hands of those whose stomachs are empty. Those are the foundations of peace. I would be very happy to go without sleep for two nights if the Prime Minister presented a bill of this kind to help our farmers.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I think that the people of Canada will wonder several days from now why there was this unusual haste, and why some of the things happened that are taking place tonight. Is this not an indication of our lack of planning and a need to do something in a much more formal and better way to deal with such a situation than is the case tonight? Certainly the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is a long-time proponent of the idea of a peace force, and certainly if we had taken action like that taken by Norway, Sweden and Denmark in establishing a peace force for use by the United Nations any place in the world-


An hon. Member:: We already have.


William Arnold Peters: We have, but we have done so in a very odd way. These countries have established such forces, and I am sure that if we had done so in the same way it would have led to the dispatch of troops in an orderly manner befitting our country.


An hon. Member:: That is in Europe.


William Arnold Peters: That may be so, but I think that the matter would have been handled in a much more dignified way than the way we are handling it now. Several methods have been used tonight that were used in the pipe line debate or in other exceptional cases. It seems to me that this is not the way to do these things. It seems to me that while we may have used the parliamentary system to accomplish something very worth while, at the same time we have done so in a way that degrades the whole system.
There is one point I want to raise having to do with the relationship of Canadian personnel who will be taking part in this peace corps operation. As the Prime Minister said, they will be going into a very serious situation, and certainly we are proud of the fact that Canadians are available to go and that we have the money to send them and are able to provide them with the necessary equipment required by their role. But I am wondering if it is not time for the Prime Minister to rise and say what protection is going to be afforded these troops.
I have been a member of the veterans affairs committee for some time, and we have been shocked by the lack of coverage and protection for our soldiers and other service

people in Europe. It seems that the same situation will apply as far as the troops going to Cyprus are concerned unless a specific change is made in this regard. I can give an example of an airman on a base in Germany who was told to bring his family to the base for inoculation because they might come in contact with other personnel who had been in an area where there had been an epidemic. When this airman drove his family back to the town where they were living, he was under orders to return to the base to finish his day's work, and on his way back he was killed by a truck. His wife and his family have been completely neglected. They have received no benefits, except what they were granted under an insurance policy, and they are now charges on the mother and father of the airman who was killed.
Every member of the veterans affairs committee knows that this is the situation with regard to our personnel, and I think the Prime Minister should rise and say that we are going to be fair to these troops who are going into an area of combat and will give them full coverage and all the benefits of the veterans charter. I believe that these troops are going to do a good job for us and I agree with all that has been said about this peace keeping mission. However, they are going into a theatre of war, and we should in return provide them with all the protection we have given to service personnel in other theatres of war in the past.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that before this resolution is adopted we should be assured that all the necessary protection for service personnel going into active service is given. No doubt, the Prime Minister will give us the assurance that this is going to be done. I think this is a case where you are not only going to be shot going forward but it will be a little bit like the poem which refers to "cannons to the right of them, cannons to the left of them, volleyed and thundered". It may be that serious. We should certainly make sure that these men who did not volunteer necessarily for war will not need to have any qualms at all about accepting the responsibility for which they have volunteered. We, in turn, should give them complete coverage that would be afforded to personnel in any theatre of war.
Peace Keeping Force to Cyprus world and it may be said that we helped avoid a greater disaster. And if that came about, we owe it to the efforts made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) who went all out, offering the services of Canadians and making it possible for us to play our given part, that is to preserve peace throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, even if I spoke harshly at times tonight, I assure you that I was not against the motion, but against the procedure that was followed. Incidents such as the ones which occurred tonight unavoidably lead to war. In fact, that may be how hostilities started in Cyprus, because citizens were unhappy with the policy followed by the authorities.
Anyhow, even if I disagree with some members of my party on that point-they are aware of my feelings as I am aware of theirs and we mutually respect each other's opinions -I am in favour of the motion introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) because I feel Canada has a role to play not only in Cyprus or in the Congo but everywhere in the world.
Canada must contribute to the restoration of peace and the prevention of war.
Moreover, as was pointed out a moment ago, Canada also has a role to play within its own territory, for we cannot overlook the fact that if people suffer today and will suffer tomorrow in Cyprus, there are also people in Canada who suffer.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot forget that there is hardship in Canada ( and I am well aware of it because I have witnessed it in my own riding. I hope that the action taken tonight, which springs from the desire of the Canadian people to help alleviate suffering in the world, will convince us to reduce suffering and misfortune throughout the world as well as in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet will continue their efforts towards alleviating suffering and destitution everywhere, outside as well as inside our country.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that I am very happy to see that the motion under consideration will be adopted this very night and that Canadians will be able to do their share, as men of peace and good will, so that peace may be restored throughout the 20220-59


Mr.  M. W. Marlin@Timmins: Before the motion is put, I wonder if the Prime Minister would reply to the point raised by my colleague the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters)? This is a very important point. The hon. member referred to one case, but it is not the only case. I know of several cases, and I am sure other hon. members do as

Business of the House
well. The reason given for depriving these service personnel of protection is that they were not on duty at the particular time. If we are going to send people into an area such as this, they are on duty all the time they are actually in this area. They are many miles from home, and I think they deserve all the protection of the country that sends them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I may just answer that point, I would say that I believe Canadian governments have had a good reputation in relation to the treatment of their servicemen and their dependants. They have been treated equitably and, indeed generously. I can assure my hon. friend, and the hon. member who preceded him that Canadian troops who proceed, if they do, to this theatre of operation will be given the protection of Canadian forces on active service. If there are special circumstances which require special protection, I am sure the Department of National Defence will take that matter into consideration, including the remarks made by the hon. member a few minutes ago.


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


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.

Lester Bowles Pearson: Consequential upon this resolution which we have adopted, I move:
That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this house has adopted a resolution approving of the participation of Canadian forces in the United Nations international force in Cyprus, and requesting Their Honours to unite with this house in the approval of the same by filling up the blanks in the resolution with the words, "Senate and".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Gordon Minto Churchill: Since it is ten o'clock, I should like to ask the house leader if he will give us the order of business for Monday and Tuesday. I would not want to ask him to go beyond that because he may want to make some adjustment later.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, while reserving my right of reply to the last part of the question, I may say that on Monday we will carry on with the debate on the supplementary estimates, and then take interim supply. Monday night, it is most likely we will have the budget. Tuesday, all day, we will proceed with the resolution to introduce the Canada pension plan.
On motion of Mr. Pearson the house adjourned at 10.02 p.m.

Monday, March 16, 1964