1964-06-26

NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Yesterday the Prime Minister mentioned that I would report on the meeting of the Canada-United States ministerial committee on joint defence which took place in Washington yesterday. This was the fourth meeting since the committee was established in 1958 and the first meeting since 1960. The early convening of this committee had been agreed at meetings between the Prime Minister and Presidents Kennedy and Johnson last year and in January of this year. The United States was represented by Secretary of State Dean Rusk, the Secretary of the Treasury Douglas Dillon and Secretary of Defence Robert S. McNamara. My colleagues on the Canadian delegation were the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Finance, the Associate Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Defence Production.
Among the subjects discussed were the changing nature of the threat to the North American continent and measures to meet that threat. There were no negotiations of any kind relating to nuclear weapons and no new commitments were entered into. We also took the opportunity to review developments in NATO which have taken place since The Hague meetings in May.
We discussed the interest of both governments in achieving an effective arms control and disarmament program and examined a number of proposals now before the disarmament committee in Geneva, including a "bonfire" of equal numbers of U.S. and Soviet medium bombers and the cut-off and cutback of the production of fissionable material. The United States expressed appreciation for the Canadian initiative in the field of international peace keeping activities. I described the conference which we hope to organize later this year among interested nations for an exchange of experience and views concerning 20220-302J
training and preparations for peace keeping under UN auspices.
At this meeting there was a useful review of the defence production sharing program which Canada and the United States embarked upon in 1959. The agreed object of this program has been to maintain a rough balance in the purchases of defence equipment in each other's country; this has been reaffirmed. A special study is to be undertaken with a view to maintaining this balance over the next few years during which we will be making a number of new defence equipment purchases. My colleague the Minister of Defence Production will be able later to elaborate on this aspect of yesterday's meeting.
It was natural that the situation in southeast Asia should have been a matter of special attention at this meeting. There can be little doubt about the depth of the concern of the United States government about the manner in which communist China and North Viet Nam are attempting to extend their influence through intereference in the affairs of Laos and South Viet Nam. We came away with the clear impression that if the communist powers seek to continue their subversive activities in neighbouring states, a serious situation could develop.
We formed an equally clear impression that the United States objective is simply the proper execution of the Geneva accords of 1954 and 1962. The latter provided specifically for the neutrality of Laos, and the United States wants nothing more than to see this neutrality respected and effectively safeguarded. I am satisfied that if the communist powers for their part would observe those agreements, the United States, which seeks no permanent bases or special position in either Laos or South Viet Nam, would no longer find it necessary to take special measures to support the governments of those two countries.
For our part we pointed out the special position which Canada has in Indochina by virtue of its membership in the international supervisory commissions. The U.S. ministers fully understood the limitation which this fact places on our activities in this area and made no effort to press upon us an alteration
4750	HOUSE OF
Ministerial Committee on Joint Defence of our current policies; and I may say, as the Prime Minister affirmed yesterday, there is no intention on the part of Canada to undertake any new military obligations in this area. Any action on our part could only arise pursuant to our obligations under the United Nations charter.
The ministerial committee on Canada-United States defence happened to coincide with the visits to the U.S.A. of Prime Minister Inonu of Turkey and Prime Minister Papandreou of Greece, who had been invited to Washington by President Johnson to discuss the Cyprus question. As Canada has a heavy stake in both men and money in the UN peace keeping operation in Cyprus, it was desirable that I should take advantage of their presence to see these two leaders of countries with whom we are allied in NATO and who are directly concerned with events in Cyprus.
I therefore took the opportunity to have meetings with both of them and to express again, as I had done at The Hague in May, my earnest hope that they would refrain from any action which might render more difficult the peace keeping task on the island or jeopardize the security of NATO. I also reaffirmed Canada's impartiality in this affair, emphasizing that our purpose in Cyprus is to assist in restoring order in a way which favours neither side in the difficult communal dispute on the island.
I am satisfied that both men are experienced statesmen who have no desire to see the relations between their countries deteriorate, but who are caught up in a vortex of pressures which are causing great difficulties for both countries. I am confident that both are men of peace who will do all they can to bring about a stabilization of the situation in Cyprus and an improvement in the relations between their two countries.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: No one would wish on an occasion such as this, without having reviewed the remarks of the hon. gentleman, to make any lengthy statement. However, I should like to refer to two of the matters to which he has alluded. The first he passed over very lightly. The discussions which have taken place revealed, he said, a change in the nature of the threat to North America. I wish he had carried on from there and told the house what apparently was said during the course of this discussion, namely that the bomber threat to North America is receding, and receding rapidly. This is something that


we contended when we were in office and which contributed to the course of action we took relative to the necessary defences in Canada to assure co-operation with the United States in this regard.
Certainly it would have been very helpful if, instead of generalities, the hon. gentleman had frankly admitted this situation to exist; in other words, that it is now generally agreed that the bomber threat has diminished. It is very difficult to understand such an admission in the light of a statement made by the Minister of Finance outside the house in the last couple of days that the Bomarc missile sites will be retained, and that it is expected they will continue to be required for several years. This is a statement altogether out of keeping with the stand being taken by the United States with regard to Bomarc installations, necessary as these were at the time of their installation.
In respect to southeast Asia, the minister spoke with that care which a minister must always exercise regarding conditions in Viet Nam and Laos. I, of course, have no information, nor have I ever been provided with any information by the government respecting the situation there although one would have expected that such information would be made available to the Leader of the Opposition, as it is normally in the United Kingdom. The position in southeast Asia is very dangerous, dangerous to the peace not only of Asia but of world as a whole. We in this country, knowing that the United States has an international responsibility which covers the entire world, should not do anything which would have the effect of giving to the Chinese or other communists operating there the idea that we are not in unity with any action which the United States must take, short of war, to preserve and maintain the integrity of those countries. Declarations are made from time to time as to boundaries and the integrity of countries. These countries in southeast Asia today are in a perilous position; perilous to the preservation of their independence and perilous to world peace if there is any indication given that in the western world there is no unity regarding courses or stands that should be taken.
I think Canada-and I take this from the words of the minister-followed that course very carefully in the discussions that took place yesterday, because the minister has just pointed out that there were no undertakings given to increase or expand in any way Canada's contribution there. That being so,

we ought to be careful not to do anything that would have the effect of arousing hope among communist nations in Asia of a divided opinion in the western world in this regard.
With regard to Cyprus, I would like to have had the minister give further detail in connection with the problem there. The withdrawal of so large a proportion of the British force must inevitably mean that other nations will have to contribute additional troops, for certainly the numbers that have been there have not been able to bring about the hopeful expectations of the minister at the time the Canadian force was first sent. We can only hope that there will be a recognition by both Greece and Turkey of the terrible danger to NATO in their conduct on internecine separation. It was because of this that yesterday I suggested to the Prime Minister, this being one of the matters that certainly will be discussed at the prime ministers' conference, that a day should be set aside to discuss these matters so the Prime Minister will have a consensus of the representatives of all the people and all parties in this house as he attends this important conference.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made a statement so soon after his return from Washington. He has dealt with three matters, and I would like to comment very briefly on each of them.
I would certainly have liked more detailed information regarding the minister's statement about the changing nature of the threat to North American defence, because one can only assume that if the threat is changing then the commitments which Canada will be called upon to make must also be changing. We would certainly like to know what changes in commitments are being made.
I would have liked to hear the minister state that the Canadian representatives at the conference yesterday had made it clear to the Americans that the Prime Minister of this country had committed himself and his government to a withdrawal from a nuclear role, in order that Canada might devote its resources to a role in international affairs more in keeping with its wealth and technological capacity. I do not think the government can keep on postponing this matter. The government have definitely gone on record as saying that the Bomarcs were taken as the result of what they considered to have been a previous commitment, but that Canada would phase out of this role as quickly as
26, 1964	4751
Ministerial Committee on Joint Defence possible. I had hoped that the minister would state that this had been made clear to the United States, and that if there is a changing threat to North America, Canada's role would be changed and the nuclear role would be discontinued.
All hon. members will be interested in the defence sharing arrangements which have been agreed upon. I hope that at an early date the Minister of Defence Production will give a report to the house in order that we might have some idea what this rough balance between Canadian and United States purchases really amounts to and to what extent Canada will be favourably considered in such a division of defence purchases.
With reference to southeast Asia, the minister said that the United States is concerned about a situation which could become very serious. May I say that in my opinion the seriousness has been contributed to very substantially in recent days by some of the statements which have been made by United States military personnel and government officials to the effect that the United States is prepared, if necessary, to risk an all-out war with mainland China in order to carry out what it considers to be its commitments in southeast Asia, and there is open discussion by U.S. military leaders of an invasion of North Viet Nam.
The minister in making his report this morning said that the United States is seeking to enforce the Geneva agreements. As I recall them, I do not think the United States is a signatory to these agreements, and it is rather strange that a nation, not a signatory to these agreements, is now placing itself in the position of an enforcer of agreements it did not sign. I think this concept of the United States as the world policeman to interfere wherever it feels its interests are being jeopardized, on the excuse that it is enforcing somebody else's agreements, is completely fallacious.
I do not think it is enough for the government to come back to the House of Commons and to say they made no new commitments in southeast Asia. I would hope that the government of Canada makes it clear to the United States that we view with alarm unilateral action by the United States, and that we wish to dissociate ourselves from any repercussions which may arise from the policy which it has adopted.
I cannot agree with the statement made by the last speaker that we should support any action short of war. It seems to me that this
4752	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Ministerial Committee on Joint Defence
is brinkmanship of the worst kind, because we cannot say what action will be short of war or which will result in war. If the situation in southeast Asia demands military action, then that military action ought to be taken by the United Nations, not by the United States unilaterally projecting itself into an area where it has no international obligations and where its action would seem to be predicated very largely upon its own vested interests. I trust that the Canadian government will make it clear to the United States that we are deeply concerned about the trend of events and the announcements which have been made by the United States with respect to southeast Asia.
I am sure all hon. members are glad the secretary of state was able to see representatives of the Greek and Turkish governments. I think he is quite right when he says these men are caught up in a vortex of pressures and hysteria which they find very difficult to control. I think the government are to be commended for their steadfastness in the Cyprus situation. I was glad to see that the Canadian government has indicated it is prepared to continue its commitment with regard to supplying forces for the peace keeping activities in Cyprus.
We may have to review our contribution in this regard, or ask the United Nations to review the contributions of the various nations. I notice that General Gyani, who is leaving his position as commander of the force, says that a minimum of 10,000 men is required. With Britain withdrawing some of her forces this means there will be a very great shortage of United Nations military personnel in Cyprus. This may mean that the United Nations will have to ask more nations to contribute, or ask some of the nations who are already contributing to make a larger contribution.
I hope that at a very early date the Prime Minister will arrange for a full debate on the Cyprus situation in order that members may have all the information the government can give us, and so that, at the same time, the world at large will know that the great bulk of the members of this house are solidly behind the government in giving wholehearted support to maintaining a United Nations police force in Cyprus in the hope that we can restore peace and order in that island and prevent the trouble there from spreading into a large scale war.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house are grateful to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for his statement this morning.

While this is not the time for prolonged remarks, I too should like to add my brief comments.
I think the statement he made relating to his talks with the heads of state of Greece and Turkey contains the most encouraging words we have heard about Cyprus for several weeks. Certainly he is to be commended for taking the initiative in this regard and engaging in discussion of this very critical problem with these men as I think only a Canadian can at this particular time.
It is reassuring to me, as I am sure it is to all Canadians, that he found these men sensitive to their own responsibilities with regard to peace not only in that area but as it relates to the whole world. It is also reassuring to me to know that while we are in the midst of trouble in the Middle East and Far East, talks are still continuing relating to arms control and a disarmament program. Probably these topics seem very remote as crises continue to arise throughout the world, but certainly this is the only solution to the overall problem of peace if peace is ever to come to pass.
There is no question at all but that the situation in southeast Asia is one of the most critical in the world today, and when we talk about the necessity of reviewing our contributions to peace keeping projects such as Cyprus I think it is also necessary that we keep reviewing the international scene in the light of developments. While the United States may not have always followed correct policies and may have made many mistakes, there is no doubt that that nation is the only reason at this time why the whole of southeast Asia has not been taken over by the communists, which would have meant that parts of the commonwealth, not just on the Asian continent alone but also Australia and New Zealand, would have been facing much greater danger from the communist threat than they are today.
Therefore I think it is good that liaison and dialogue with the United States should continue. It is very easy to stand up and condemn the United States for what they are doing, to take what is too often interpreted as an anti-American attitude, and lose sight of the fact that if it was not for the Americans assuming some of these responsibilities the world would be in a much graver state than it is at the present time. Therefore talks such as have been held in the last several days with relation to the situation in various areas of the world, the subject of co-operation in the defence of this continent

and the sharing of defence programs, are good. I think the government should be commended in this regard, and I hope these discussions continue on the same basis.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, meetings at the higher level between two countries like Canada and the United States are similar to a discussion between an average country and a colossus among nations, indeed the greatest country in the world with regard to wealth, natural resources and human potential. When discussions like that are launched, they give some food for thought.
First of all, it is obvious that we should not let ourselves be assimilated or wiped out by a giant like our neighbour country, when we have to face decisions. At such a time, we might know the sad fate of a pygmy confronted with a giant, and who is up against more than his match.
On the other hand, because we are not as big as our neighbours, we lack their financial power, as well as their resources. Under the circumstances we should not try to emulate their development, as we would be unable to keep up with them; we should not try to do as much as they do, because we would exceed the limit of our possibilities and then we would be on the verge of a catastrophe.
Canada must do its share as far as the North American defence is concerned, but not on a par with a colossal neighbour; Canada should not let itself be assimilated, but neither should we do more than our share.
As far as Indochina is concerned, Canada should keep away from that issue, more particularly with regard to the manner in which our southern neighbour is trying to settle it at this time.
The United States is trying to impose its ideas by force in Viet Nam, Laos and the whole Indochina region. There are a great number of people, throughout the world, who believe that the United States is going about it the wrong way in dealing with the problem of Indochina.
For our part, we prefer the suggestion advocated by General de Gaulle, that is, the neutralization of all of Indochina, in cooperation with the neighbouring countries, including communist China. In our opinion, that is the only solution which could put an end to the guerillas and war that are now going on in Indochina.
The French tried for a long time to dominate that country. The United States will not get off scot-free, so I cannot see what Can-
26, 1964	4753
Ministerial Committee on Joint Defence ada would be doing in such a region, where the problems are internal ones, since they have to do with a people who wants to free itself from all foreign influence and domination.
With regard to Cyprus, I understand that the Prime Ministers of Turkey and Greece may have met the President of the United States, but we must keep in mind-and I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs should keep this in mind, especially when there are 1,100 Canadian soldiers in that country-that the problem of Cyprus is not the problem of the Prime Minister of Canada but the problem of the people of Cyprus.
The domestic problems of a country cannot be settled by external intervention. It is because too many Cypriots think as Greeks or as Turks and not enough as Cypriots first and foremost, that they are faced with those problems. It should not be the part of neighbouring countries to impose a solution on them, they should instead suggest to them means to get on well together.
Concerning the question of a debate on Cyprus in the house, I remember very well that we had an opportunity for such a debate once, and the government as well as the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) decided then that the debate should be carried on as quickly as possible-


Mr. Churchill:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we indulging now in a debate, or are we supposed to be having brief comments on the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: To answer the question directly, the comments are supposed to be brief. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe my remarks are any longer than those of the Leader of the Opposition, and if the latter, as well as the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, thought it appropriate to speak about a debate in the house on the Cyprus question, in my opinion, I may also speak on it.
We refuse to let ourselves be gagged like that. I do not think that a debate in the House of Commons on the Cyprus issue is imperative for we shall not settle the Cyprus problem in this house; the Cypriots themselves will eventually solve their own problem. To my mind, the house is faced with issues of sufficient importance without initiating a new debate on the Cyprus problem.

Income Tax Agreement
In any event, it is rather in showing friendship to the Cypriots, in furnishing the economic assistance they need to establish themselves as an independent nation, both from the industrial and the agricultural points of view, that we shall help solve the Cyprus problem, but not in supplying them with armaments.



INCOME TAX


Mr. E. J. Benson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement on behalf of the Minister of Finance about the revision of the Canada-United Kingdom income tax agreement.
The minister stated in the house on June 11 that it is the intention of the government to seek the revision at an early date of the Canada-United Kingdom income tax agreement. He also thought it appropriate that the house be informed at this time that as part of these proceedings the government has followed the procedure contemplated in the agreement and has given the government of the United Kingdom notice of termination of the present agreement in accordance with the terms of article XVIII thereof. Under the terms of the agreement, notice must be given by one contracting government to the other before June 30 of any year if it wishes to bring to an end any feature of the agreement by the 1st of January of the following year.
As previously stated by the minister, it is proposed that meetings of officials be held as soon as possible with a view to concluding a revised agreement, and it is hoped that these can be concluded before the termination of the present agreement comes into effect in 1965.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: The announcement just made by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance is important. The Minister of Finance did suggest that this procedure would be followed. As the parliamentary secretary has pointed out, and as I recall the treaty, we have to give notice before June 30 in any one year to be effective the following December 31, that this treaty is abrogated. I presume there have been several preliminary discussions because there are some difficult problems which have to be solved before a new treaty can be negotiated. We have to negotiate that

treaty and have it approved before December 31; otherwise we will be in the unfortunate position of having no treaty whatever.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Brant-Haldimand) moved:: That the third report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, presented to this house on Tuesday, June 16, 1964, be now concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the indulgence of the house to offer an explanation of this report. The report contains the usual request that the committee be permitted to sit during the hours the house is sitting. In order to allay the fears and objections that have been voiced earlier in the house, I wish to give an undertaking that such a course will not be adopted without a prior meeting of, and approval by, the steering committee.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just a few words on this matter. I am the one who asked, a few weeks ago, that this motion follow the ordinary course of procedure, that is that 48 hours' notice be given before it be brought forward, so as to point out that committees often ask to be permitted to meet while the house is sitting. We do not object to that; on the contrary, we believe that committees must carry out the very important work they are entrusted with.
However, something happened recently, which prompted us to open our eyes and to ask for some explanations. Such an opportunity is being afforded to us this morning.
Recently the very important question of a Canadian flag was before the house. And while the main speeches on that subject were delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. members for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and Burnaby-Co-quitlam (Mr. Douglas), the very important committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines was hearing evidence by the president of the C.N.R., Mr. Donald Gordon, and the president of Air Canada, Mr. MacGregor.
In view of such a fact where many hon. members wishing to hear the Prime Minister's speech on that question had to attend the sittings of that committee, we feel that in the future committees, while being permitted to sit at the same time as the house.

should not do so while debates on important problems are going on in the house and while the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister are making important statements.
I think that the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Pennell) understands the situation. So, I feel that members of steering committees should obtain the approbation of the hon. members before holding meetings while the house is sitting, so that committees do not sit when there are important discussions in the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion on the order paper to extend the hours of sitting of the house. I am pleased to report that following a series of meetings between the house leaders and myself, all parties in this house have agreed to a modified version of that motion. The modifications are as follows; that instead of sitting on Friday evening it is proposed that the house sit continuously between 10.30 in the morning and 6 p.m., and on July 1, Canada day, there will be no sitting of this house.
I therefore move, seconded by the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught):
That, commencing on Monday, June 29, 1964 and thereafter until adjournment for a summer recess, the hours of sitting of the house shall be as follows:
Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays-from 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and from 8.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.
Wednesdays-from 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.
Fridays-from 10.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.
That proceedings on an adjournment motion, if any, on Mondays, Tuesdays or Thursdays, under provisional standing order 39A shall be deferred until 10.30 p.m.
That when this house adjourns at 6.00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 30, 1964, it shall stand adjourned until Thursday, July 2, 1964, at 2.00 p.m.
That in relation to the above, the provisions of standing orders 2 and 6 be suspended.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has said there is agreement in this connection. In point of fact I feel that the extension of the hours of sitting that we have regularly followed for several years is something that might well receive the attention of the committee on procedure. I believe the hours we sit should be materially increased and be in keeping with those that are followed in the
Business of the House
United Kingdom where, as you know, the house sits between 6 and 8, and during the dinner hour many opportunities are given to members to express views without being in danger or in fear of any division being called. I think the increase in hours that has been agreed to is a worthy step.
I would, however, suggest that as it is to apply until adjournment for the summer recess, some general indication be given by the government as to when it may hope that will take place. I know immediately it will be said "Well, get on with the business." I say get on with the business, and let it be business of priority rather than such things as the flag and anthem and the like, which could be held over at a time when serious economic conditions are already showing in our national position.
I would like to see the government make use of these increased hours to bring before the house, instead of such matters as I have already referred to, questions such as the loans for students and family allowances. In the economic field, what action will be taken to meet a situation that has already become apparent? In the month of May our exports increased by only 2.9 per cent, and if it were not for the wheat sales to the U.S.S.R. our exports in May would have been lower than they were a year ago.
Our exports to the United Kingdom, to the United States and to commonwealth countries were down in the month of May as compared to what they were a year ago, and this is something which we should be looking into. Then there is the question of our balance of payments. The current account deficit increased in the latest quarter to $341 million, reversing the favourable trend since 1962. The non-merchandise deficit was up 25 per cent. United States long term investment in Canada was $58 million compared to $373 million in the first quarter of 1963, and there is an outflow of capital.


Mr. Winch:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious a person can introduce matters which he thinks should be discussed under the lengthening of the hours, but surely we are not going into a debate, and the Leader of the Opposition is entering into a debate on this question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am simply pointing out that these are matters of priority and pre-eminence. It is not a question of debate; it is a question of how these hours are going to be used. There has been an

Business of the House
outflow of capital and security transactions. I could go on and on mentioning these economic portents, but even though they are apparent to everyone the government does not act but brings these comparative trivialities before parliament in the face of priorities that should be receiving attention. We accept the increase in hours, but let the government place before parliament things that will help Canada economically rather than play around with issues that divide the nation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party are prepared to support the idea of the extended hours, but we are not too sanguine that by itself this is going to speed up the business of the house. We are willing to give it a try, but we maintain there are a number of things, as was suggested yesterday, which we ought to do, such as attempting to reach some common agreement about limiting the length of debates, putting up a limited number of speakers on certain legislation so that we can shorten the length of debate on various questions.
We are hopeful that the committee of which Your Honour is chairman, and which is working on this problem, will be able to present some useful suggestions to the house at an early date. The view of the members of this group regarding the priorities of business is already well known. We think there are a number of important items on the order paper, and other items which are not on it but which the government has said it is preparing to place on the order paper, which should have a higher priority than some of the matters we have been discussing.
One of the conditions on which we agreed to an increase in the length of sittings was a suggestion to the Minister of Justice, the house leader for the government, that we try to agree on a possible adjournment date for the summer recess. I recognize that if certain legislation has to be passed it is not possible to set a specific day, but if the parties could agree on a target date I think it would be very useful to members in planning their work in their constituencies, in planning the work of the committees of the house, and also in trying to reach some agreement about limiting debates. I hope the various parties will consider the possibility of setting a tentative date at which we could aim for the summer recess.
We trust the government will bring down some of the legislation which it has an-
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
nounced and put it on the order paper so we will have a chance to see it, and we trust that the government will not insist on leaving all these very important matters until after the flag debate has been disposed of. We have particular reference to the student loans legislation, the family allowances legislation, the Canada pension plan and the national labour code, in which we are extremely interested and which the government has expressed its intention of putting on the order paper at an early date. We hope these matters can be discussed and dealt with prior to a summer recess. In the meantime I think it would be useful to try to set a tentative date by which parliament could adjourn.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the house leader for our party is the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson). He was called by the government house leader and met with most of the house leaders of the different parties and made an arrangement-


Gilles Grégoire: With one exception.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not with me.


Robert Norman Thompson: -to lengthen the hours of sittings with the hope that this would be one measure to expedite the work of the house. During the progress of these discussions the hon. member for Fraser Valley talked to me about them and informed me what was being discussed, as I presume the house leaders of the other parties did with their leader. We agreed with the government house leader that we would support such recommendation; and we give our support to it now without anymore discussion.
I do not believe this is the only answer to speeding up the work of the house but it is one measure, at least of intent and good will on the part of the parties in this house to do something better than what we have been doing. Therefore, while we are all concerned about a summer recess, we are also concerned about priorities and about making more progress, so let us agree with the proposal that has been put before us by the government house leader.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we support the motion presented by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) concerning the extension of the sitting hours in order that we can have a summer recess.

I heard a while ago the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) tell us that we should defer the debate on the flag issue to deal with exports, family allowances, the labour code, etc. It is true that exports, in short, any problem concerning the national economy is more important than the adoption of a flag. However, we do not object to accepting immediately a distinctive national flag. If the Leader of the Opposition were ready to vote today on the resolution for a distinctive national flag, this would settle the problem, because every Canadian wants one.
As for part (b) of the resolution, we could wait till next fall or the spring to discuss it. However, it is surely not the flag issue which prevents the government at present from legislating or from introducing its legislation. It is the opposition that wants to discuss the flag to submit its own design in an attempt to confuse the issue as much as possible.
Let us put a stop to our discussion and settle the matter of the flag right now. As I said yesterday, and I repeat it today, the cleavage between the two racial groups of Canada is getting even worse, and I hold the Leader of the Opposition responsible for this situation.
Mr. Speaker, we, in this part of the house, are ready to vote on the flag resolution immediately and to proceed afterwards with the legislation to see what can be done as soon as possible.
We strongly and fully support the motion of the Minister of Justice, leader of the house, to extend the hours so as to enable us to pass some pieces of legislation which will prove beneficial, we hope, to the Canadian people.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was agreement, certainly in my party, to an extension of hours if that is going to accomplish something. But I wonder whether the general public is not asking itself what we are really concerned to pass, and whether there will be a recess or whether we intend to go on throughout the summer. The Prime Minister, in a genial, offhand way, said we might have a long week end some time in September. If that is the case I see no reason to consider any changes in the order covering our sitting hours. The public must wonder just what are the legislative preferences of the Prime Minister. I can only think of three things which need to be passed before a recess, if the Prime Minister wants a recess in July. They are, of course, family allowances, student loans
Business of the House
and interim supply. If the government wanted interim supply for the next three months they should have asked for it, instead of asking for only one month's supply. The Prime Minister shrugs his shoulders. I am sure he is aware that if he gets interim supply now he has immediately to begin considering next month's supply. The right hon. gentleman can shrug his shoulders and laugh about it if he wants to, but he must be aware of these things, or if not he should be.
A great deal has been said about getting on with the business of the house, but how can one really arrange things when the leader of the government is not willing to say what he wants? The last time he spoke on this subject in the house he read a long list of items he wanted us to pass, a list containing some 35 or 37 items. Some of those things have been on the order paper for a couple of years. Surely he was not serious about that list. Some of these things have been around for a long time.


Mr. Pearson:: Too long.


William Arnold Peters: I think it is silly to tell the public we intend to accomplish something by extending our hours as an emergency measure. I am inclined to agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says "Let us change the rules, lengthen the hours and make it a permanent arrangement". As for asking the house to make exceptions, to change the rules for the purpose of obtaining a summer recess, the Prime Minister will have to be more honest with the house than he has previously been.
I do not really care if we start the business of the house at nine o'clock in the morning and run it through to twelve o'clock at night. It does not matter to me, but let us adhere to it all the time. This is not an emergency; this situation has been cropping up throughout the seven years I have been in the house. It is not only the present Prime Minister who is concerned; the previous prime minister was in exactly the same position. We have no timetable here. We do not know what we are going to do at a certain time or when we are going to complete it.
The backbenchers in this house have some responsibility, too, and they should know what they are going to do. They should know what it is intended to place on the order paper and what is the government's preference for legislation. If the government wants to go on with the flag issue it may cake a couple of months-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Business of the House


William Arnold Peters: It will not be delayed so long because of me, I am simply guessing that it is not going to pass in a day or two. The government should be able to assess the position.
I see in the house today many hon. members who have children. I am sure most of them have. If we are to have a recess we do not want one in October or November; we should be able to arrange our business so as to have one in July and August. Again the Prime Minister laughs. Maybe he has no children of school age. Maybe he does not want a holiday in July and August. I do not really know what he wants.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We want to get some business done.


William Arnold Peters: I do know that he has not been very fair to the backbenchers of this house, and I do not think he has been fair with the other political parties. I say this because I believe he must have some time table and he must have some preference. I should like him to give us some assurance. He is not only playing with parliament, as things are now; he is playing with all the people who are writing to me and asking "Will my children be able to go to school this fall; are family allowances to be increased, because unless we know we shall not be able to send our children on to school?" The Prime Minister is not being fair to them. He is not being fair to those who are going to college this fall.
It seems to me that the country is concerned with this matter, and the government has a responsibility in this direction. We should be given a much clearer indication of what legislation the government intend to present, and I think they can count on my support as well as on the support of most hon. members in this house, if they are fair and honest with us. Before a motion of this kind is passed I think hon. members opposite should make their intentions clear, otherwise the country is going to take a hard look at the kind of irresponsibility which the Prime Minister represents.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not intend to say anything, and would not have risen had someone on the government side responded to the very reasonable request which has been put forward from this side of the house. The request is simply this: What is the meaning of the words "until adjournment for a summer recess"? Surely some date could be set so that people

could make plans. If the phrase has no meaning, I suggest it be struck out.
There is a question of good faith here. The hon. member who spoke before me made a very reasonable plea for those in this house who have families. How in the world are they ever to have a chance to get to know their children unless they are given an opportunity during the summertime? It is a ridiculous situation that this house should sit throughout the summer without making provision for some of these matters. I agree with an extension of hours, but if this is to be a permanent feature, and if the government does not grant a summer recess, it may of course go on perhaps until December, and in those circumstances I would want to suggest a modification of the hours while still granting the same number of hours for the entire week because I am a firm believer in an extension of the hours of sitting of this house. Could we not have from the government a statement with regard to the meaning of "until adjournment for a summer recess"? I ask that question for this other reason. I heard the Prime Minister over the radio two or three days ago talking in very vigorous terms about what this house was going to do, and he said, with regard to some of the questions before us, "We are going to sit here until we are finished".


Mr. Woolliams:: Oh, he is playing politics again.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would not suggest that. This is just a question of good faith. We reached an amicable arrangement yesterday in our various meetings and we are not disposed to debate this debatable motion today. We are quite prepared to put it through, but could we not have an answer from the government side; otherwise, if we do not get an answer, I am sure there will be other members who will want to press the point. So let us have the answer now and perhaps we could pass this motion immediately.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad at the beginning of the week to make a detailed statement on the business which the government would like to see completed before we consider an Easter recess-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -a summer recess. I do not think we will go until Easter, but you never know. I also agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that if we can fix a target date, that would be a good thing to do.

But if we fix a target date that we are not able to keep, I hope the government will not be blamed for having misled the house; because we can put forward what we consider to be the most important legislation but that does not mean we will get that legislation through in a week, a month, two months or three months. This week we asked for one month's interim supply, because if we had asked for three months we would perhaps be here all summer debating three months' supply. We asked for one month's interim supply, which we have been debating all week. So what is the use of suggesting that we could finish what we have to do on a certain date when we have no idea how long the house will take on matters such as interim supply? We have decided to go ahead with the flag resolution, a matter which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition called a triviality but to which we attach the greatest possible importance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When we dispose of that resolution we will be able to introduce into the house other priority matters, which I will mention next week. But the country is told by hon. gentlemen opposite that they are going to debate the flag resolution all summer if necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If that is the situation, how can we fix a target date or any other kind of date?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the Prime Minister would permit a question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If he is still uncertain as to the subjects he wants discussed by this house during the course of the summer and cannot make that announcement until Monday, would it not be wise to hold this motion over until Monday so we can find out whether these words "adjournment for a summer recess" are put there in good faith?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are, of course, put there in good faith. If I make a statement now it cannot necessarily be detailed as to the order of priority from day to day and week to week regarding which measures should be brought forward, because obviously these situations change, which makes it necessary to change the business of the house. That is inevitable.
Business of the House
What we have been doing this week shows that.
But there are certain measures-I said this in the house and I do not mind repeating it -that we consider should be dealt with before we consider the question of a summer recess. The flag resolution is one; the extension of children's allowances is another; loans for students is a third; fiscal relations with the provinces is an essential, including new arrangements for contracting out. It is very important to get this through the house and before the provinces for action. The National Defence Act amendment is another. The pension legislation, in so far as we can get that completed, is a very important matter. It may not be possible to do that before a summer recess. But these are priority matters, and there are others.
There is no use my giving a categorical statement that unless we cannot get all these matters through we cannot adjourn for the summer, because we have to make our time table correspond to the realities of parliamentary discussion, and those realities are determined more by hon. gentlemen opposite than by us on this side.
Perhaps I might add this, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is a very practical suggestion. While it is important to extend the hours of sitting at this time, and perhaps we should revise our hours of sitting for the future indefinitely, it is even more important to make arrangements as to the amount of time which should be devoted to any particular piece of legislation. If we can do that then indeed we can set a target date, because if we bring forward four or five pieces of legislation and can agree with hon. gentlemen opposite that we will have three days on one piece of legislation, four days on another, two days on another-


Gordon Minto Churchill: One day for the flag.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -then we would know where we are going and how long it would take us to get there.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is closure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have been putting this suggestion forward for years. The hon. gentleman opposite just said that is closure. If they take that attitude to a constructive arrangement regarding the business to be put before the house which would mean we would know how much time would be taken on each piece of legislation, and call that closure, this explains why in the committee on procedure we cannot get anywhere on this matter.

Business of the House


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question before he sits down. With reference to the legislation he has mentioned, can we have some assurance that by at least the middle of next week all this legislation will be on the order paper, so we will have some opportunity to study it? The Prime Minister has already mentioned items which we have not seen and have had no opportunity to study.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is a resolution in Votes and Proceedings today regarding youths' allowances. We will get the resolution regarding student loans on the order paper as quickly as possible. The only reason it is being held up is the difficulties with the provinces; because we have to clear these matters with the provinces, particularly this matter. As soon as we can get the agreement of the provinces as to the actual terms of the resolution, it will go on the order paper at once; and that applies to the pension legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: Then it is not we who are holding it up.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: With reference to the Canada pension plan, if it cannot be dealt with until the fall there is perhaps no immediate hurry in this regard; but if the Prime Minister wants this matter dealt with before a summer recess we should certainly have a white paper and a bill put before us very soon.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I agree that the house should have a white paper before the pension legislation is dealt with, and we will do our best to have that white paper in print and circulated within the next two or three weeks.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cole (Longueuil):: I noticed that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) was concerned about the fathers of young families, who sit in the house. I can tell him that I have eight children whose ages range from 19 months to 15 years, but my wife and my children are prepared to give up their holidays so that we may give our country a distinctive flag as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a statement with regard to the importance which the government attached to the flag resolution. I do not want to enter into a discussion on that matter; there is a time and a place to debate

that, which is when the resolution is before the house. But I do want to point out that it was with this in mind that on May 25 last I asked the right hon. gentleman this question:
I wonder whether the Prime Minister could indicate whether the resolution on the flag, if there is to be one, when introduced will be one of the items to which he referred on May 15-
That was when he gave the long, detailed list of legislation to which the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre referred. I then gave in my question this particular citation. Then I asked the right hon. gentleman this supplementary question:
Would the Prime Minister indicate whether it is his view that considering the importance the government attaches to this matter, when debate is once entered into it should continue without being interrupted by other government legislation, and that each member wishing to make a contribution should have ample opportunity to do so?
The right hon. gentleman said that he thought that was a very reasonable suggestion. I point this out, that when the government placed the resolution on the order paper, in the light of this answer they could only have anticipated that there would be a lengthy and undoubtedly acrimonious debate. Consequently that must be taken into consideration, having in mind the other items which the government has suggested they want completed before we have a summer recess. Putting this motion on the order paper at that particular time and under the circumstances could have led to nothing else than taking up the time that is apparently going to elapse before any recess will be available.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I heard several members of the opposition ask the Prime Minister to set a date for the summer recess.
A proverb says that the government ordinarily decides when the session will start but the opposition decides when it will end. The opposition, as we know, always has the possibility to discuss any piece of legislation as long as it pleases.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, to organize the business of the house in a satisfactory manner, the Prime Minister should first prepare a list of the most important measures he wants the house to pass; he should discuss them with representatives of the various opposition parties. It is at a round table that those representatives of the house will succeed in setting the date of the summer recess for those who want to spend the summer holidays with

their families. The way things are going at the present time, that is rather difficult. If the Prime Minister gives us a list of measures and the opposition is not ready to accept it in full, further discussion or compromise between the party in office and the opposition parties is impossible.
I wonder why the Prime Minister does not, instead, make up a list which he would then submit to the representatives of each of the opposition parties. Then, the opposition parties could decide-as is normally the case, since it is the responsibility of the opposition to criticize the legislation put forward by the government-about the intersession period. I think that this would be the best procedure and it would be better than having the Prime Minister enumerate the bills he would like to have passed before the summer recess. By submitting such a list, there would be no possible compromise as to deciding on the date of a summer recess.
For instance, I can assure the Prime Minister that our party would be willing to pass resolution No. 44a as quickly as possible, but resolution No. 44b not so quickly. As a matter of fact, it is under such circumstances that a compromise can be arrived at, in order to expedite the business of the house.
That is the suggestion we are making to the Prime Minister and to the government house leader, so that the business of the house may be expedited.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just stated once again that the flag issue must be settled before we recess for our summer holidays. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that a request has been made to call a plebiscite on this matter, but this request for a plebiscite was denied, the reason being that the Prime Minister was well aware of the outcome and the fate of this flag issue if the plebiscite were taken. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister is using this issue as a club over the opposition's head and trying to make them submit to his decision on the flag.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The matter under discussion is the hours of sitting. I wonder whether we could restrict ourselves to that.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, this is the item I am speaking to. The Prime Minister is using this issue as a club over the opposition's head; he is using loss of holidays and no summer recess as a means to force the opposition into submission on the flag issue;, one
Business of the House
which he knows will not carry in this Canada of ours.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated to the house on more than one occasion that he believes members of the house should have every possible opportunity to express their views as to how they feel about a flag design for Canada, whether it is his flag design or someone else's. He has also indicated that he wants a free and full discussion of the matter. I cannot see how he relates his feelings in this regard, in view of the fact that if each hon. member in the house were to indicate his views in a 15 minute speech the debate would extend almost through the summer holiday season, with his statement today that the flag issue must be settled before we have a summer holiday.
While I am sure we all agree that the flag Issue is an important matter, it is one which the Prime Minister promised the Canadian people, he says, within two years of his taking office. The two years do not expire until April 1965. I am sure if he is fair to the members of the House of Commons-and at the same time April 1965 is well within the limits of his solemn pledge-he will agree to set this matter aside, as it is an emotional issue, and consider placing legislation before the house of immediate importance to the Canadian public.
I would ask him not to go forward with this flag debate with the great urgency which he now indicates, placing it before every possible piece of legislation on the order paper, as well as other legislation not yet on the order paper but which is to come. I would ask him to give hon. members the opportunity to be deliberate in their considerations; to give them an opportunity to benefit by the views of other members in the house so they can determine what should be their stand; and I ask him not to set any kind of time limit or to place any impediment on any hon. member with regard to when this matter should be debated and for how long. In view of the fact that we have until April 1965 I would hope that we could take the four immediate necessary steps which will be of benefit to the economy of the country and the Canadian people, rather than forcing this issue to the forefront and setting aside these other matters which were also promised and supposedly so urgent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Carman Coates: I do not know why hon. members are interrupting me.

Business of the House


An hon. Member:: We want you to sit down.


Robert Carman Coates: The Prime Minister has not brought forward legislation which he promised the Canadian people over a year ago, and I think he should take steps to do so rather than to force through something which he did not promise the people of Canada until 1965. That is the question in the minds of most people in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Prime Minister on many occasions-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Robert Carman Coates: -to proceed with other legislation which would be of greater benefit to the Canadian people and the Canadian nation than forcing this flag debate on this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member has just finished.


Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforlh: Mr. Speaker, if there was any understanding in the house as to where we were going this morning it seems to me it has been completely obliterated by the remarks of the Prime Minister. I for one resent very much his suggestion that he keeps throwing out to the effect that the delay in the business of this house is in any way occasioned by the actions of opposition parties.
Let us just consider that suggestion for a moment. It was not too many weeks ago that the Prime Minister got up and gave the house a list of some 38 items which he wanted to have passed before a summer recess. Then suddenly out of the blue came the flag, about which we heard nothing. The Prime Minister objects to the official opposition registering their views on the flag, and his backbenchers call it a filibuster. I do not agree with the official opposition on the flag issue, but they hold their views seriously and they insist upon stating them. I say that when the Prime Minister brought in the flag resolution he knew he was sabotaging his own legislative program.
We all know the views that many members of the official opposition hold, and we know they intend to express them. The government knew that; the Prime Minister knew that. Yet he precipitated the issue of the flag; and when he persists in having it deal with before a summer recess he knows there is not going to be a recess and we might as well stop talking about it. I know that as far
[Mr. Coates.l
as I am concerned, and the other members of our party, I believe, I am sure we can forget all about a recess because if he is going to insist on the flag issue being dealt with in addition to these legislative items, if he is really sincere about dealing with them, there is not going to be a summer recess at all.
We want to deal with these matters, and we are prepared to sit here and deal with them. But it does not lie in the Prime Minister's mouth to come here and say that the fault lies with the official opposition, and then say that he cannot even bring in the family allowance legislation because he has not reached agreement with the provinces. This is his responsibility, and the fault lies on his head. Then he tells us this morning that we have to deal with financial arrangements with the provinces, something we had not heard about.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is on the order paper now.


Mr. Scoil:: It has suddenly appeared out of nowhere. We have been asking that the student loan legislation be brought before us. All I am trying to point out, and I think it should be made clear, is that this is certainly the most stupidly and illogically organized legislative program within our memory, and that the fault for this lies squarely on the heads of the government. There is really no point in passing this motion now because we are going to be here all summer, and we may as well make up our minds to that at this time.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support some of the comments of the previous speaker and to make a few of my own with regard to the motion. We in the official opposition agreed to the presentation of the motion. We will support it, and I hope it will pass before one o'clock. We have agreed to it simply because we feel there are legislative items that must come forward. This has been said before. But what bothers me is that there are quite a number of items on the order paper which have to be referred to committees if a reasonable amount of work is going to be done on them in committee. Surely these matters could be brought forward immediately and referred to committees.
We have talked about different items. The hon. member for Timiskaming mentioned three. I agree with him that they require immediate consideration, particularly the student loan legislation. Yesterday we tried to obtain a commitment to have that item

brought forward, and today the Prime Minister has made an explanation involving the provinces. I brought up this matter yesterday on a non-political basis, and it was the Liberal members who laughed at my suggestion and tried to howl me down. I was extremely serious about the matter because I am closely associated with the problem. We want this legislation brought forward immediately.
With regard to the flag debate, I should like to say that following the invitation extended to us by the Prime Minister I have asked, not demanded, that anyone who has strong views in this regard should express them in the house on the basis of that invitation. We are now prepared to go forward on that basis. We have one amendment before us now. How many more amendments will there be? No one in the house knows, but there is no question but that if other legislative items are not brought forward before the flag debate continues there will be no summer recess.
This does not particularly concern me. I am one who believes I must express my views in regard to the flag question whether I want to or not because the people of my constituency have strong feelings on this matter. They are now asking what is the matter with parliament. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if we do not have some decent organization of our business the people of the country will have good reason to lose faith in this parliament.
Not only has the government made one horrible mess of the presentation of legislation but the situation in the house is, I must admit, equally as bad. That has been shown this morning, Mr. Speaker. But you cannot expect a responsible attitude on the part of members in the house if we do not have a responsible presentation of what the country really needs. There can be a lot done for the country if the Prime Minister will bring forward legislation that is good for the country. I know that is the opinion of the people of the country. He can certainly set back the flag debate and bring this legislation forward. This is what the people of Canada want.
We promised yesterday that we would cooperate in regard to student loans, something that we feel is very necessary, and the Prime Minister will receive equal co-operation on every other basically good piece of legislation he brings forward. But we do not want to be muzzled on the flag debate. Members can make their speeches on that subject at any time. When I have made my speech somebody else can rise and make his speech. I plead with the Prime Minister in the name of common sense not to mislead us where
Business of the House
Canada's affairs and the flag question are concerned. We intend to support the motion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question. He indicated in his very interesting remarks that there are certain things on the order paper that should go to committee where they could be given immediate consideration. Is he speaking on behalf of his party on this matter, and if we bring these matters forward at once will he give us his assurance that they will be referred to committee without any delay?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Monteiih:: Without debate?


John George Diefenbaker: More muzzling.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I will say for the party I have the honour to represent that if the Prime Minister will present these matters to the house, we will see that they are properly dealt with.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have to support in essence what the hon. member for Danforth said a few moments ago. In addition, however, one or two very legitimate requests have been made to the Prime Minister which have not been answered properly yet. For example, in the resolution before us there is specific reference to a summer recess. During the course of the debate more than one member has asked the Prime Minister to give some indication of what the target date is for the summer recess. In my opinion he has given an unsatisfactory answer by saying there are X number of things that must be done, and that the government has no control over how long they will take.
I should like to remind the Prime Minister that last fall there was an enormous amount of work piled up, what might almost be called a backlog, before December 20, the target date for prorogation. If he will turn his mind back to those days he will recall that there was an enormous amount of work in the form of estimates and legislation which went through very quickly during the final week.
There are times when debates on legislation and estimates seem not to be making much progress and appear to be bogged down, but if we did have a target date for a summer recess some of these matters could probably be expedited very rapidly just before reaching that date. I think it is a little unreasonable on the part of the Prime Minister

Business of the House
and the government that they will not give any indication of what date they have in mind for the summer recess, when in fact there is reference to summer recess in the motion they are asking us to pass.
I think these matters can be worked out. The flag debate is one that perhaps will not be concluded expeditiously. But if the Prime Minister would undertake to give us a list of those things that have to go through before a summer recess, and some kind of target date, I do not believe the members of the opposition would hold him to the order he set out, that there must be the flag debate first, then family allowances, student loans and so on. This is the prerogative of the government, to change the order as time progresses. The Prime Minister indicated today that things change; therefore the government has to have the right to change the order.
I believe we should consider some of the suggestions that have been made from this side of the house, and there would be cooperation to expedite many of the things the government wants to get through. If they would give us some indication of a target date probably they would get still more cooperation.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, once again this year we are witnessing an attempt at blackmail about a summer recess. The Prime Minister and the government have decided to use that trick to force the hand of other opposition parties.
As far as I am concerned, I support a distinctive national flag. But I should have liked the government to use a normal procedure so that the members of the house could put their views forward on that matter. The present action followed by the government means that every day we have a little more blackmail. Every day, they try to exercise coercion through the promise of a summer recess as if we were school kids being told: "If you are good children you shall get a holiday."
I think that such a policy is lacking in elegance. I also think that the government has absolutely no sense of organization as regards the business of the house.
Reference is made to family allowances, which are excessively important, and on which legislation should be passed before the summer recess. We are told that the student loans legislation should be passed before the summer recess. Besides, as a representative from a rural riding, I think that

that there is one thing we must do before the summer recess, and that is to pass an appropriate legislation to give assistance to Quebec farmers in order to remedy the high cost of feed grain.
I feel the government should take its responsibilities, stop its childish blackmail about the summer recess and deal with the economic problems of the country. Let it say simply and frankly that there will be no summer recess. However, if the Prime Minister is sincere and absolutely wants a summer recess, let him meet with the other party leaders in order to straighten out a situation which is becoming awful and which is turning this parliament into a laughingstock in the eyes of Canadians. If the government wants us to pass its legislation, let it set out a final program.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister mentioned two or three pieces of legislation which he wants to see passed before the summer recess. This morning again he added another one, of the utmost importance, concerning fiscal relations with the provinces. The house has never been able to pass such a matter in a few hours. I am convinced that when the Prime Minister arrives in the house next Monday, he will add two or three new measures to those he has already suggested and, if he speaks on Tuesday, he will add some more.
It is getting to be a joke which has lasted long enough. The Prime Minister should sit, think over the situation and stop his childish blackmail tricks.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So far as the remarks of the hon. member for Medicine Hat are concerned, I have already-


John George Diefenbaker: Order. How does the Prime Minister get the floor?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have been asked a question.


John George Diefenbaker: What about a second speech? Are we all to have second speeches? Surely this question could have been answered by the mover of the resolution.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then may I ask the hon. gentleman who has just sat down a question. Would he agree that it would be desirable on Monday for the house leaders to get together and discuss the various suggestions that have been made in this debate this morning, the desirability of setting a target date, when that target date should be, a list of the legislation and other proposals which should be disposed of before the summer vacation? Will

my hon. friend who has made these remarks agree that there should be a meeting of this kind where we can work out the program in detail, and will he give me the assurance that the house leader for his party will attend such a meeting?


John George Diefenbaker: That is a case of the old
excuse, the old alibi.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the Prime Minister a question. Would it be acceptable if the leaders of the parties discussed this matter, because we feel it is an important matter that should be considered at that level.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very useful suggestion; perhaps a meeting should take place between the leaders of the parties rather than the house leaders, because we have had great difficulty in getting full representation at the house leaders' meetings in the last two months.


John George Diefenbaker: The rules are the rules, and the Prime Minister had no business getting up and making a gratuitous statement like that. The responsibility for the difficulties of parliament rests on his shoulders and his inability to organize.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. gentleman is quite right. The responsibility rests on my shoulders: that is why I am so discouraged when we have these meetings of house leaders. His house leader has not attended, and indicated yesterday he would not attend.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a question of privilege to deal with this statement by the Prime Minister, who has crawled into the gutter again, as he said with regard to me just a few days ago.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder, in view of the fact that there are only ten minutes remaining, if we could not reach some conclusion this morning. The atmosphere seems to be heating up continuously. We have a motion to discuss, and surely we could dispose of it by one o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I appreciate your desire, Mr. Speaker. Half an hour ago I suggested that there would be no debate on this issue if someone on the government side would tell us whether this phrase in the resolution was put there in good faith or just as a trap. Now we know that this was put in as a trap to conceal their intention.
The Prime Minister has gratutiously made an attack on me with regard to my objection
Business of the House
to attend the meetings of house leaders. I desisted attending those meetings of house leaders, and for very good reasons; one, they were not confidential; two, there was a combination of people trying to put me and the party I represent in a false position-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -three, a member of that house committee divulged items that had passed at those meetings and did not tell the true facts. I said never again would I attend a meeting of house leaders in the presence of that hon. member, and I have not. The Prime Minister has no right to inject these accusations into the debate this morning. It shows the level on which he operates, trying to gain some partisan political advantage out of the statement in the house.
Now he has caused the deterioration of this debate and its prolongation because of his complete incompetence in managing the business of the House of Commons. All he had to do, in response to a reasonable request by the Leader of the Opposition and by the leader of the New Democratic party, was to say he would postpone this motion as I suggested and we would see if we could not come to an agreement over the lunch hour. Let us support this, I suggested, and we will see if we cannot come to an agreement over the lunch hour. That is exactly what could have been done, but oh no, he has held the club over us. He has told us he is going to drive things through despite anything we may wish to do, and is attempting to trap us with an extension of hours so he can get on with something he has produced in the way of a flag and is insisting that this house pass. It is the act of a man who is becoming drunk with power and is showing signs of dictatorship. I ask him to withdraw the remarks he made with regard to me concerning meetings of house leaders.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as one drunk with power I am a little worried about getting on my feet, but may I tell the hon. gentleman who just sat down that I stated a fact, that he did not attend house leaders' meetings for a long time, and he has admitted that himself. I made no allegation or accusation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: An insinuation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was explaining why I did not attend. May I ask the Leader of the Opposition this question. If we can arrange this kind of meeting I have been talking

Business of the House
about, with the house leaders, to work out a program by agreement-


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, how does the Prime Minister get the floor? This is his third speech. The mover of the resolution can do this, but not the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me we are at long last approaching some conclusion on this matter of time and subjects and hours, and surely we can reach some sort of agreement by one o'clock. Therefore in that context surely the Prime Minister has almost a duty to suggest to hon. members of the house anything which will assist the house in reaching a conclusion which will be of assistance to the house itself.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the mover of the motion has the right, but surely Your Honour is not making a statement to the effect that any time the Prime Minister wants to get up he can do so, having once spoken. It is for the mover of the resolution to do this.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the very short question I was about to ask, with the permission of the house-


Harold Edward Winch: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker-and I am very sorry to have to get up on a point of privilege when the right hon. Prime Minister is on his feet-I think it is time we made very clear for the benefit of hon. members like myself whether the house is meeting with the Speaker in the chair or whether we are meeting in committee of the whole. It is quite obvious that the procedure which has been going on for the past hour has been a procedure in committee of the whole, and I know there are a few hon. members like myself who want to have something to say when the Speaker is in the chair. Therefore, sir, with all deference to yourself, and although it is now five minutes to one o'clock, I want the right to speak with the Speaker in the chair and not with the house in committee of the whole, to enable me to make my point of view known.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker-


Harold Edward Winch: All I want to say is that since we have been in the whole so long, can we not adjourn for lunch and come back with the Speaker in the chair, and hope at an agreed time to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion?


Mr. Speaker:: I would just like to say that if the Minister of Justice speaks now he will close the debate.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of what I have just said I could not possibly agree to that. I think, Mr. Speaker, I am not being at all unfair in asking the opportunity to speak on this matter. This session I have not risen to speak very often in the House of Commons, one reason being that due to the way the session has been carried on I have found that more effective work can be done in committees.
We have before us now a most interesting and far reaching resolution. At the time it was moved this morning by the Minister of Justice as house leader I was prepared to accept and support it, but because of the statement made by the Prime Minister I am not certain at the moment as to whether it can or should be supported at this time, or whether it should be postponed for reconsideration after what I hope will be a meeting, between now and Monday, of the leaders of all parties represented in the house to go into a full discussion as to government business.
What has brought me to change my mind, in a period of approximately one hour, on a statement made by the Prime Minister? It is this, sir; that the Prime Minister, whether he leads a minority or majority government, has the responsibility and the authority, and I would hope the prestige, of leading this House of Commons. This morning has given us complete proof that the Prime Minister is not prepared to accept that prestige and responsibility.
I am going to ask the Prime Minister if he will not have the intestinal fortitude and courage to admit a mistake and make a withdrawal. Ninety per cent of our problem today, and for the past days and weeks, arises because of his personal view, opinion, pride and prestige on the flag issue. If the Prime Minister would accept the fact that a decision on the flag issue could be postponed until in November or December, we would be a lot closer to agreement; because, sir, the flag issue, emotional, sentimental and important as it is, is not a question on which a decision before a summer recess will fill one belly of one person in Canada.
May I call it one o'clock Mr. Speaker.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Harold Edward Winch: At the time of the adjournment at one o'clock

I had the privilege of addressing this honourable house for approximately five minutes. In that period of time, short as it was, I endeavoured to make clear my views as a parliamentarian and I put forward certain expressions of opinion to the Prime Minister.
Now that I have a few minutes left this afternoon, I should like in part to repeat what I said and then to follow through with certain recommendations. Although the Prime Minister is not here, I should like to say to him through you, Mr. Speaker, that I understand, or at least I hope I do, the responsibility which rests with that high office.


An hon. Member:: He is here now.


Harold Edward Winch: Of course, I have never had the honour of occupying the position of Prime Minister or premier of a province, but for 12 years I did have the honour of being the leader of the loyal opposition in a province, so I think I know something about the meaning of the word "responsibility". In particular, I am familiar with situations where someone in high office thinks he has made a mistake. What I was trying to express, through you, sir, to the Prime Minister, was this: Never be afraid to admit a mistake or an error in tactics or strategy. If my experience over 31 years means anything it is that people honour a man who will admit a mistake, whether in policy, tactics or strategy. I am being a little impudent in what I am about to say now, but it is my personal belief that our Prime Minister today is not the man this country requires because of a strange mix-up in his personality.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I get the import of some of the hon. members remarks, but the question before the house concerns the hours of sitting, and an analysis of the personality of some other member of the house, even if he is a high official, does not in my view come within the general orbit.


Harold Edward Winch: That is the basis of my introduction to this particular matter; it explains why we have a motion such as this before us, now. I am not in the least being disrespectful. As a matter of fact I am being one of the honest persons speaking on this measure. I am simply saying that this is one of the reasons we are faced with this problem- the personality of a prime minister who ties together being a professor, a civil servant, a secretary of state for external affairs and leader of a government.
Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: Understanding that, is the basis for understanding the problem we are facing right now in the motion before us. You will surely not call me to order, Mr. Speaker, if I express this view and express the hope, as I did indirectly before one o'clock, that the Prime Minister will recognize this fact and exercise more authority and leadership in the conduct of this house and the presentation of government business. I am actually trying not only to be honest and sincere but to explain why I wish to bring in certain recommendations. Only on the basis of understanding the personality of the Prime Minister can I bring in what I wish to recommend. I am asking the Prime Minister if he will recognize the position in which we find ourselves-and I use the word "we" for the majority of members of this house who wish to get on with the people's business. The majority of members, having missed an Easter recess-if they did as I did, and stayed here-want a summer recess. But the Prime Minister has laid it down that there will not be a summer recess unless certain things are done and certain priorities dealt with. And the one factor which will hold up the recess is the flag issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: I ask the Prime Minister again if he will not recognize that making this issue a priority matter to be decided while sitting additional hours, before a recess can be considered, proceeds from personal pride-it has to be done because he thinks he would otherwise lose something in the eyes of members of this house and the people of Canada.
When we discuss additional hours we also discuss the statement of the Prime Minister this morning as to the business. I am asking that the Prime Minister have the intestinal fortitude to state that public business comes before personal pride and decision and that the matter of the flag shall not be a deciding factor.
Mr. Speaker, I have to introduce it that way in order to come to my next point, namely that the Prime Minister cannot make that decision which I and, I think, other members request him to make, unless the official opposition will accept a sense of responsibility, decency, dignity and decorum in the House of Commons. Day after day and week after week during this session we have seen, not the getting on with the public business from the official opposition but the utilizing of par-

Business of the House
liament as a sounding board, hoping to get an election, in making campaign speeches in this house.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: What are you doing now?


Harold Edward Winch: I have run 11 times and I have been elected 11 times-and not one of you can make that statement.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are you boasting, or complaining?


Harold Edward Winch: My position is this. I ask the Prime Minister to give consideration-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is humility at its greatest.


Harold Edward Winch: -to this proposal, that before a summer recess we shall deal with the business that affects the health, welfare, wealth and security of the people of Canada and postpone until after a recess, in the fall, a decision on the flag. I say we have not the right and I have not the right to ask the Prime Minister to consider this unless the leader of the official opposition and the Tories behind him will agree to it and will also agree not to throw out the continual challenge of "Retreat" and "Resign". In other words, Mr. Speaker, if the official opposition will accept responsibility along this line that I am proposing to the Prime Minister, I think there might be a basis of agreement, understanding, and a recess, I would hope, not later than the middle of August.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: I say not later than the middle of August because if we are going to deal with student loans, family allowances, the Canada pension plan and those things that we should do before we leave here, this cannot be before the middle of August if it is done on a proper and efficient basis; whereas if the flag is to maintain its priority, if the official opposition are going to carry on, when that resolution is again before us, as they have in the past, there will be no recess whatsoever. So, Mr. Speaker, having given considerable thought to this question over the lunch hour I should like to try to consolidate my views in this way, which I offer for the consideration of Your Honour, the government and all members. I would like to ask for the consideration of the Prime Minister, the government, the leader of the official opposition and their supporters of the following five points:
1. That the present motion which we are now discussing stand, with the exception of

a special amendment to grant employees in the House of Commons a holiday on July 1.
2.	That the Prime Minister call a meeting of all party leaders and discuss government business, with the objective of reaching a unanimous or majority opinion.
3.	That if the decision is not unanimous, with only one party abstaining from the agreement, the House of Commons be informed as to that party and their basis of disagreement.


An hon. Member:: This is a new manifesto.


Harold Edward Winch: I just heard someone say this was a new manifesto, and by heavens I think it is a good one for the House of Commons to consider.
4.	That the Prime Minister agree to drop the priority of the flag decision until the fall, and that if this is agreed to, the official opposition shall be asked not to practise political expediency by terming it a retreat or a call for a general election.
5.	That every measure be taken to expedite the recommendations from the committee on house procedure relative to hours and method of conducting the House of Commons business and, if the same is stymied or stalemated in any way by any party representative at meetings, or refusal to attend, this should be immediately reported to the House of Commons and the House of Commons should be given the opportunity of voting upon, and thereby deciding, any majority report dealing with recommendations to expedite the business of the House of Commons whilst at the same time retaining a most reasonable opportunity for members to express their opinions as the elected representatives of their constituents.


An hon. Member:: Amen.


Harold Edward Winch: My hon. friend says amen. I was waiting for somebody on my right to say hallelujah.


Mr. Nielsen:: Hallelujah.


Harold Edward Winch: I say, Mr. Speaker, it will be amen and hallelujah if we in this House of Commons now, after the sittings we have held this session, can get down to carrying out the business of the people in a calm, efficient and proper manner. So. Mr. Speaker, I am now going to conclude-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: I notice sir, that when I said I was going to conclude the applause came from those on my left, who apparently do
not realize the importance of the matters

which I am trying to draw to the attention of this house. I conclude, Mr. Speaker, after having made a special appeal, through you, to the Prime Minister, to the leader of the official opposition and to all hon. members to get on with the business of the people. I think we can do this and can reach conclusions on these matters. There may be a possibility of a recess at the latter part of August if we will remember those most famous words-and I love them and am going to give them to the House of Commons-of Henry Ward Beecher-


An hon. Member:: Who?


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I am being interrupted by some imbecilic remark from the left.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask all members of parliament to remember these words, in view of our discussion this morning and this afternoon on our procedures and what could forestall a recess. Henry Ward Beecher said this:
A thoughtful mind sees not the flag alone but the nation itself-the principles, the truths, the history.
We should remind ourselves through you, Mr. Speaker, that if we can submerge pride, prejudice and political expediency and remember those words, then I say we will have been, and will be, worthy representatives of those who elected us and sent us to the House of Commons.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Stralhcona):: Mr. Speaker, I see that the house leader is very anxious to close the debate, but I am not sure he will be able to answer some of the criticisms or the logic of the perfectly understandable complaints which have been made about the handling of business by the government. Certainly when we are considering whether we should sit longer hours some of the questions we should ask ourselves are: Is this the best and only way we can run the business? What is necessary that should be done? What is the urgent business? How can we streamline the way in which we work? I submit that all these are legitimate factors to consider when discussing this resolution.
I was much impressed with the calmness and logical approach of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates). He has been rather vehement in his feelings on the flag issue, but I thought he gave an example to hon. members of calm and logical discussion. The speech of the hon. member for Danforth
Business of the House
(Mr. Scott) was, I thought, a model of logic very forcefully presented. If the government will look at what the speech contains they will find some very unanswerable reasons why the government should proceed with the legislation most necessary to the economic well being of the nation rather than that piece of legislation which is a sop to the vanity of the government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and some of the members on that side.
I think most of us in this house regret that co-operation among house leaders has broken down; but I for one in this party will state frankly that I have advised my house leader that I could not condone his taking part in any consultation so long as those consultations were not confidential as they were in the past. Since the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made it so plain that he refuses to recognize this confidentiality it is impossible to carry on worth-while discussions, and so long as he represents the New Democratic party I advised our house leader that he should not conduct what would only be farcical negotiations.
I remember the events just before Easter very well. I remember what the Prime Minister said had to be completed. He knew interim supply had to be passed and he wanted the supplementary estimates passed. We had made requests that essential matters be brought in and he continued to dilly-dally. At last the suggestion was made: "If you want an Easter holiday, pass this now". In other words, they waste the time of the house with non-essentials, bring forward the essentials just before a holiday, and say to the members of the house that the only way we can get a holiday is by abandoning business worth discussing and passing it without comment. I had thought that if there was one thing the government should have learned it was that in this house they cannot get away with using a club. Members of the house are a little weary. We would all like a summer recess. But I doubt, Mr. Speaker, you would find very many who are willing to abandon their duty to examine government measures and legislation closely and will knuckle under to this sort of blackmail by the Prime Minister. I think the tactics are deplorable.
I hope the press will analyse exactly what the Prime Minister has been doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am glad that that remark has been met with enthusiasm. Perhaps the press friendly to the Liberal party will now know

Business of the House
in advance that they will be forgiven if they are honest with the party for a change and paint it in its true colours. The Prime Minister has put himself in a position where, in response to questions in the house, he said he hoped that every hon. member interested in the flag would have a chance to speak. I am certain there is not one member in the house who cannot understand the duty of each hon. member on an issue like this. Each of us has to get up and express the view of the area he represents. Therefore it goes without saying that there will be a great many speeches on the flag.


Gilles Grégoire: Adoptee.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: We are almost 100 years from confederation and suddenly the Prime Minister brings in his pennant. This has to be passed and given top priority after nearly 100 years of confederation. This defies logic. I wonder whether we can look behind the government tactics-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the house, any motion similar to the one under consideration is debatable.
However, the rules state that members who take part in the debate must talk to the principle of the motion and not about various subjects unrelated to it.
I am convinced that at the present time groups of fanatics and extremists in this house take advantage of the debate on the motion under consideration to try to forestall the flag resolution forever. I maintain that this is not in accordance with the motion under study but that fanatics are taking advantage of it-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is no point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: One at a time, please. The hon. member for Lapointe.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of privilege, this is no point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will decide whether it is in order, but I propose to listen to it first.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is consistent with the provisions of standing order 32, which lists the motions which are debatable. Besides, the same order states that those who take part in a debate of this kind must deal exclusively with the motion. What happens at the present time is

that fanatics and the extremists take advantage of the debate on this motion to kill the resolution we were discussing earlier, namely the resolution concerning the adoption of a flag, and, in my opinion, this is against the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The debate ranged this morning quite far and wide, and consequently, although the hon. member was beginning to range far and wide, nevertheless in my opinion he was still in order. I hope hon. members will remember that we are discussing the motion before the house, and should if possible restrict their remarks to the question of the hours of sitting of the house.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, we are considering the time of sitting and the extension of hours, and one of the moot questions is whether it is better to extend hours or to do the business of the house some other way. Is it a better way of doing things than passing this resolution; and I submit I did stick to that point. After that intervention by the hon. member for Lapointe the house can see the point I was making about the flag and its urgency now. After 100 years of confederation why does it have to be passed all of a sudden before a summer recess while at the same time so many important matters must of necessity be delayed? I suggest that the only reason the flag issue is regarded by the government with that much urgency is that there is that much pressure on the government from what I will call the lunatic fringe of politics in Canada today-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: -whose viewpoint is expressed so very well by the hon. member for Lapointe. I think it is clear that the order of business in the house is being arranged to make a good show, to make political propaganda and not to take care of business of the house that is important to the nation. I cannot understand how the government can pretend that they are anxious to bring in pension legislation and not give it priority over the flag debate. I cannot understand how they have the effrontery to say to the people of Canada that they are trying to do the business of the country and yet do it in this manner.
I submit that the Prime Minister has neglected to look very closely at this matter. If he will look at his answers to questions in the house with regard to the flag debate and the urgency of other matters, if he will

reflect for one moment on the amount of time that must of necessity be taken by speeches on the flag, if he will reflect on how important the flag issue is, and that it is necessary for the country to have lots of time to consider the matter so that unanimity may perhaps be achieved throughout the nation in fact before the issue is disposed of, he will realize why it should not take precedence over other legislation.
I am perfectly willing to go along with longer hours of sitting, I am perfectly willing to sit all summer if we must, but I submit that no member of the house is going to be happy sitting longer hours all summer if the government refuses to bring the business of the country before the house in a sensible manner.


Mr. Jean Berger (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say at the outset that the few remarks I am about to make are not intended to waste the time of the house, even though that seems to have become rather current practice recently. Nevertheless, with all due respect to the Chair, I should like to express as objectively as possible the views of a newcomer, of a backbencher, on the motion under consideration.
Members on both sides of the house often say that backbenchers are not always free to speak as they please in various circumstances. That is what I should like to do this afternoon as briefly as possible and without any partisanship.
We are now facing a problem and I regret, like everybody else, that we are not expediting the business of the house as we would like to. We are trying to find adequate means of presenting, at last, to the Canadian people the sound legislation to which they are entitled. I strongly support that policy.
However, we are told that backbenchers should, according to what has been the practice for a relatively long time, rather sit tight and listen to veterans in the house in order to learn a few things about procedure and that they should rely on the veterans' parliamentary experience. I was quite willing to do just that until today. I tried to learn as much as I could but I would like to forget as quickly as possible what I have unfortunately learned in the past few days.
When this so-called experience of the veterans of this house boils down to knowing how to meander around artfully and craftily in parliamentary procedure and politics which 20220-303
Business of the House
go back to the middle ages, I say it is high time we should find a cure.
Is it conceivable, Mr. Speaker, that, right in the middle of this twentieth century, where we have even gone beyond the atomic age, we should still have to rely on a parliamentary system which almost dates back to the time of the caveman? That is something which a backbencher finds hard to understand.
In my opinion, those self-styled veterans of the art of politics, who too often speak with their eyes turned towards the press gallery, so they can see their names in the newspapers the next day or in order to prove how expert they are in parliamentary procedure or else pursue their morbid ambitions, those people should refrain a bit from speaking often.
I think that the only practical advice we can give at this time, Mr. Speaker, is that, while we support the measure which is now before us, although, in my opinion, it does not go far enough, we recommend by common consent to the special parliamentary committee set up to that effect to get to work without delay.
The members of that committee should work 24 hours a day not to amend drastically but to redraft completely the archaic rules of the House of Commons, which often prevent us from going ahead.
With today's political experts, we have to use all kinds of manoeuvres and tactics and we are obliged, in this 20th century, to govern ourselves, to call on citations from Bouri-not and Beauchesne, to go back to 1816, 1600, 1500 or even before Christ.
Mr. Speaker, to begin with, we should insist so as to give ourselves a legislation allowing the backbenchers as well as the front benchers and all the members without exception, the right to speak freely, with much clearer and fewer old-fashioned rules. Then we could go forward and submit legislation, discussing and approving it in the best interests of the Canadian people.
In conclusion I will say, Mr. Speaker, that if we, the backbenchers do not have the political maturity which seems to be so greatly appreciated at times, and rightly so, among the old timers on the political scene who sit in this chamber, we, the backbenchers of the House of Commons can offer, if not trickery and astuteness, at least honesty, frankness, sincerity and the will to work.
That is why, as far as I am concerned, I have already given up the holidays I was anticipating and I am prepared to keep on

Business of the House
working steadily, provided we stop these empty discussions and take the necessary steps so that the house can abandon obsolete rules and start passing legislation in a more modern way.


Gilles Grégoire: That will be published in Le Soleil.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, when, some time ago, I mean this morning, on orders of the day, I introduced the motion now under discussion, I did so with some satisfaction. Indeed, we have often discussed some of the difficulties which may have existed, when house leaders have to meet, sometimes twice instead of once, and hold double meetings; but finally, we have succeeded, with the co-operation, I must admit, of all house leaders, whom I thought were speaking on behalf of their party, to reach an agreement on this motion. What I mean, and I think it is important that the house should know it, is that during our discussion, no mention was ever made-and I knpw all house leaders will bear me out-of reservations to the passing of this motion by the house.
The only discussions held dealt with the extended hours of sitting, and not with the conditions to impose on the motion.
We suggested at first, and I admit it might not have been the best procedure, that the house should sit on Friday evening, from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.
The opposition suggested that it would be much better, instead of sitting in the evening, to extend our discussions during the lunch hour. I immediately complied with this request.
Another discussion was held to know whether the house would sit on July 1. We have agreed that the house would celebrate Canada day and that we would not sit on July 1.
I am therefore the first to be surprised at the discussion which took place today.
I hope that each party, trusting his house leader and confirming his word given in good faith, will now pass this motion.
I wish to add this, for the satisfaction of hon. members and to reassure those who were reluctant and who voiced their doubts about the progress of our work. I want to tell the house that on Monday, the right hon. Prime Minister asked me to convene a gathering, or a meeting, of all the house leaders, during which I was to communicate to them the

final priority list with regard to bills or other measures which the government intends to introduce before the end of July. We are to suggest an order of distribution of the hours and days of sittings to allow discussion on all and each of those items, according to their respective importance and the time which each discussion should take.
When we speak of "allocation of time", i.e. the distribution of hours and days of sittings in the house, in order more particularly to discuss one piece of legislation, I think that we should make it clear that this is quite the opposite of the rule of closure.
The allocation or distribution of time to discuss some legislation is agreed upon by all parties in the house; it is opposite of closure, Mr. Speaker.
In this way, each party, considering the kind of legislation or measure to be discussed, would be able to choose among its members those who are particular conversant with the kind of legislation which is to be discussed at a given time or on a given day.
I therefore want to make it clear that this action is essentially connected with full and complete freedom for each party, which is quite the opposite to closure.
I also want to say to hon. members that the right hon. Prime Minister-if the first meeting unfortunately should fail to give definite result-proposes to convene the leaders of all parties in the house to start the procedure all over again and try to come to some conclusion which would help end or close the discussion of priority legislation before the end of July.
I could hardly, when asking the right hon. Leader of the Opposition-and this is a quite respectful, though very firm suggestion I am making-insist too much upon the necessity for him to see that, at the meeting of the house leaders next Monday, his party be definitely represented by someone with full authority, so that we may get on with the normal business of the house.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the understanding of hon. members that the motion standing in the name of the Minister of Justice on the order paper be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday I asked a question regarding the situation in British Columbia, with particular reference to the
S.I.U., which is recorded at page 4697 of Hansard. If I may be allowed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: -I should like to amplify it so the Prime Minister will be in a position to give an answer. I should like to point out this fact, that the ship in question, the T.S.S. Alaska was compelled, when it left Florida, to take on an S.I.U. crew and give Paul Hall of the S.I.U. a letter of intent to negotiate with the S.I.U. in the hiring of masters, mates and engineers when the ship reached Vancouver. The result of this is, when an agreement was entered into as between these various groups, the masters, mates and engineers in Vancouver, Paul Hall threatened the owners of this particular ship.
My information is that he advised them that if they had other than S.I.U. workers within these classifications there would be- well, I don't know what the expression is- they would find themselves "hard-timed". I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether this complaint has been looked into since the questions were asked, and particularly whether the agreement made between the owners of the ship before it arrived in Vancouver and the S.I.U. was entered into with the knowledge and consent of the maritime trustees.
Furthermore, I should like to know whether as a result of what the Prime Minister has ascertained the S.I.U. has tried to affect the maritime trustees, or in what the S.I.U. has done has it been acting with the approval of these trustees?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when this matter was brought up yesterday, and I appreciate the importance and urgency of it, I said that the Acting Minister of Labour and I would look into the matter at once. We have done so. I secured a statement on the facts of the situation which does not coincide in every respect with the facts put forward by the right hon. gentleman, but I make no complaint about that. Particularly, we have been informed 20226-303J
Inquiries of the Ministry that allegations made against Mr. Paul Hall have been denied by him.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this is a serious matter, perhaps even more serious in some of the implications that could arise out of it. The officers of the Department of Labour have been on the west coast trying to adjust this situation in a manner which would be equitable and the board of trustees have also-they have jurisdiction over this matter-been on the west coast. They are there now. The chairman of the board was on the west coast a few days ago and has remained there.
Only a few minutes ago I received a telegram, at least it was to the Department of Labour, concerning the negotiations that are taking place, and they are still going on, from the representative of the board of trustees. This telegram reads as follows:
I have met with the parties to the dispute and feel hopeful that a settlement will be reached. The parties are presently considering a proposal of settlement.
I hope that this settlement will be reached today or tomorrow. At the moment, I cannot add anything to what I have already said.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask one
supplementary question. The Prime Minister said some of the implications of what I have stated differed from the information he has secured. I secured this information from the same source as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam did.
Will the Prime Minister answer this one question? Did Hall in any way, by the direction that he gave and the arrangements made as to personnel on this ship while it was still in Florida, endeavour to avoid the jurisdiction of the maritime trustees and push in the
S.I.U. as the negotiating body, contrary to what had been the case throughout the years with regard to the three particular classifications I have mentioned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that has not been so stated in the information I have received but I will take up that specific question with the representatives of the maritime unions, the board of trustees, who are now in Vancouver, and endeavour to obtain a specific answer to that specific question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, might I ask the Prime Minister whether it is true that the S.I.U. brought engineers from Montreal out to Vancouver to replace some of the engineers who were on the T.S.S. Alaska as
4774	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry a result of Mr. Paul Hall's insistence that all the licensed personnel, who usually have been handled by the maritime engineers local, should now be turned over to the S.I.U.?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The information I have is that the vessel in question, which was formerly operated in southeast United States waters and belongs to the Alaska Trainship Corporation, and which it is hoped by the owners will operate between New Westminster and Alaska, was manned by the
S.I.U. for unlicensed personnel and by the marine engineers beneficial association, for marine engineers, a union which does not operate in Canada and has no Canadian membership.
I am informed that when the vessel reached British Columbia to commence operations, its unlicensed personnel were represented by the seafarers international union; four of the vessel's engineer officers were represented by the M.E.B.A., and two marine engineer officers were apparently imported from eastern Canada to work on the vessel. The deck officers were represented by the licensed division of the S.I.U.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a further supplementary question, is the newspaper report correct that the maritime union trustees ordered the local marine engineers and the local longshoremen not to picket the Alaska while it was in New Westminster and, if so, what possible reason could they have had for preventing the local union from enforcing a right it has always had in that area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can give my hon. friend all the information he would desire on that point, but I would be glad to add to what I have already given, in the light of his particular question. I am informed that the international longshoremen's and warehousemen's union is claiming the right to secure the box cars on this ship. It is said that the teamsters union, which represents employees of the company which performs the operation of putting railway cars on board the ship, does not question the jurisdiction of the longshoremen's union over this work, but it is also said that the employer concerned objects to the work being done by the I.L.W.U.
Various injunctions have been issued against picketing on the west coast but these injunctions have been circumvented by other pickets. I may add that I will try to get more information on this.
[Mr. Douglas.!


Harold Edward Winch: As
a supplementary question-and may I say this concerns my own constituency in Vancouver and I am glad to have the opportunity of asking a question-would it be possible to find out whether the Department of Labour received any telegrams from either the B.C. federation of labour or the Vancouver labour council, and would it be possible to have produced copies of telegrams which either of these bodies sent to the maritime trustees, relative to the S.S. Alaska?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will do our best to get those telegrams at once.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the subject matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the Vancouver situation. I understand the Prime Minister is going to look into the matter and give a report to the house on Monday. Would he include in the subjects he looks into, the activities of one Norm Cunningham to see whether he has any part in this whole operation, whether he is an employee of Northland Shipping, and what connection he has with the S.I.U.? This would be very vital in the information which the Prime Minister might supply us with. Finally, would the Prime Minister consider seriously the question of sending somebody from Ottawa with power to call all those together who are concerned with this matter, not only the shipping companies, but all the labour unions concerned, to try and get their suggestions on how to meet this situation rather than just leave it as an isolated matter between labour and management?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to try to get information on those specific points. On the second point, I would draw to the attention of the house the fact that officials from the Department of Labour are already out there negotiating with those concerned, as well as members of the board of trustees, and I suggest we wait till we see what results from those negotiations before we decide that anything else is needed.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not a fact that under the terms of the maritime trusteeship no union can enter into an agreement with ship owners without the approval of the maritime trustees? This being so, I should like to ask the minister to say whether the trustees have approved of the agreement between the
S.I.U. and the owner giving the S.I.U. the right to negotiate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad to look into that. I have not seen the terms of the alleged agreement. When I have had the chance to examine them I will be glad to follow up the latter part of the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister say whether Mr. Hall has had it made perfectly clear to him by the Department of Labour and by the trustees that his cavalier interference in this Canadian dispute is not going to be tolerated?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course that interference, if it has taken place, should not be tolerated. I would point out, however, that the government has, I believe, received a statement to the effect that Mr. Hall has denied the allegations made. These allegations are being investigated by officials of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Labour unions in Vancouver say otherwise.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday during his absence I asked the Prime Minister about the situation that has developed in the Far East between Indonesia and Malaysia as a result of the breakdown in discussions between the leaders of the two countries. My question is twofold. Does the minister have any word about recent developments today and, second, was the question of Indonesia and Malaysia discussed yesterday at the meeting of the international defence committee?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the matter was not discussed in Washington yesterday. I regret to say that the situation has deteriorated, but at this particular moment I do not believe it is desirable to say anything further except that we are deeply concerned about this development in so far as it concerns a commonwealth country. I can simply repeat what the Prime Minister said yesterday. We expect a visit from the Prime Minister of Malaysia after the commonwealth prime ministers' conference in London. Prior to that when in London the Prime Minister may be conferring with him about this and other matters.
Inquiries of the Ministry



VIET NAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: have a brief question to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the almost daily denunciation by Senator Wayne Morse of United States military activity in Viet Nam, did the hon. gentleman take advantage of his visit to Washington to discuss this situation with this very experienced senator?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have great respect for the senator whom the hon. gentleman mentioned. However yesterday I was discussing Viet Nam with members of the government of the United States, and without making any invidious comparisons, I am sure the house will agree that this was the proper source from which to get information on this subject.



SOUTHEAST ASIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question. It arises out of the statement earlier today in connection with Canada's degree of involvement in the situation in southeast Asia. My question is this: Am I correct in assuming from the minister's statement that Canada has no military commitments in southeast Asia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what I endeavoured to say this morning, Mr. Speaker.



CYPRUS-POSSIBLE INCREASE IN CANADIAN FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Is it true that he and his department are considering the necessity of increasing the number of Canadian servicemen on Cyprus at the present time, due to the withdrawal of 500 British troops?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no connection whatsoever. I have said that govern-

Inquiries of the Ministry ment policy was not to increase the Canadian participation there, subject to the reservation of minor adjustments for military purposes only within the area to which we are already assigned.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Canada has received
a request to increase its armed forces to make up for the withdrawal of the British troops. Has that request been passed on to the minister by UN authorities?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: To answer the question, Mr. Speaker, may I say that no such request has been received.



NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING 12 MILE FISHING LIMIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of his visit to Washington and his statement to the house at the opening of today's sitting which I may say seems to be quite a while ago. I am wondering whether, while the minister was in Washington, he was able to tidy up the matters which he has indicated have been outstanding between Canada and the United States in respect to the proposal to extend our fishing zones and our territorial seas.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, that matter was in my mind but there was no time to deal with it; nor had I intended to do so when I went to Washington.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Could the minister give us some indication as to when he expects these discussions to conclude?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would think some time might elapse before we would reopen the negotiations; no date has been set.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, that was not my question. I asked, not when the negotiations would reopen; I assumed they were going on. I asked the minister how soon he thought they would be finished.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not like to draw any conclusions which I am not in a position to draw.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question asked on June 22 by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) I am pleased to inform the house that an agreement between the government of Canada and the province of Nova Scotia on forest stand improvement was approved yesterday, June 25. This agreement covers various forms of operation designed to improve the forests while providing employment for Cape Breton miners.
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister very much for his kind reply. It is a little delayed but we appreciate it at this time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence, I shall direct it to the minister of rural development who is, in a way, the minister of agriculture for the province of Quebec.
Could the minister tell us whether his department has considered granting a substantial subsidy, by way of compensation, to maple syrup producers of the province of Quebec who suffered a very heavy loss of income owing to a complete crop failure?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put this on the order paper.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Secretary of State arising out of his statement of yesterday. I ask whether the independent television organization who produce programs for private stations, the C.T.U., have offered the C.B.C. $30,000 for the famous film "Mr. Pearson"?

Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of
State): Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries and answer on Monday.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask a supplementary that arises out of the fact that Mr. Ouimet has wired Mr. Griffiths that the C.B.C. would not sell the film. Would the minister ask the C.B.C. to provide us with the explanation as to why the C.B.C. is not prepared to give someone else the opportunity to show this film which does not meet the C.B.C.'s very high standards?


Mr. Lamonlagne:: I will, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Is the Secretary of State prepared now to answer the question he undertook to answer, the question I asked him yesterday?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The answer is in the negative.


Erik Nielsen: As a further supplementary question, is the Secretary of State aware, now that he has received explanations from the C.B.C. management, whether any personnel in public affairs tendered their resignations to the management?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have received this information, the information I just gave the hon. member, this morning, and I have not been in communication with the C.B.C. since, but I will communicate with the C.B.C. and if an answer is needed I will give it on Monday.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: I have a question for the Postmaster General and in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister or to his parliamentary secretary. I may say I had intended placing this question on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, but since this is a matter of urgency-the contract to which it refers expires on June 30-there will not be time to do so and receive an answer before that date.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could the house be told why, on the renewal of a postal delivery contract on July 1, 1964, for the city of Thetford Mines, Quebec, the contract had been extended to the highest bidder at nine cents per article for a period of four years when there was a tender at eight and three quarter cents per article by people who could do the job efficiently and at a saving to the taxpayers?


Mr. Alexis Caron (Parliamentary Secrelary lo Poslmasler General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall submit this question to the Postmaster General as soon as he returns.


David Réal Caouette: Before June 30?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question to the parliamentary secretary to the minister. May I have the assurance that this question will be carefully considered before June 30?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly when the Postmaster General will return; I think he will return only on July 1, and I am unable to submit the question to him in the meantime.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, is the parliamentary secretary in a position to tell whether it is customary with the Post Office Department to award contracts without tender?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, this is a question I should submit to the Postmaster General.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietle-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Industry a question of which I gave him notice. Is he able to tell the house whether he got in touch with Mr. Gerard Levesque, minister of industry in the province of Quebec, to inform him that Ottawa is prepared to grant tariff concessions to the Peugeot and Renault automobile manufacturers, in order to induce them to come and open plants in the province of Quebec?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked questions along similar lines. I am informed that the government of Quebec is engaged in

Inquiries of the Ministry an endeavour to establish in that province a facility to manufacture motor cars of a type not now made in Canada. This calls for extensive and delicate negotiations with the firms which have designed the cars in question- negotiations to which the government of Canada is not, and has not, been a party.
I would invoke the co-operation of members of the house in not seeking detailed information regarding these negotiations, in the interest of not prejudicing the chance of Canada's acquiring a new manufacturing industry.
In response to the specific queries raised, may I say that the government of Canada has communicated in general terms with the minister of industry and commerce of the province of Quebec concerning the possible manufacture in Canada of European-type cars. Representatives of the government of Quebec yesterday had exploratory discussions with officials of the departments of finance and industry looking to the setting up in Canada of facilities for manufacturing cars of French design.
The Leader of the Opposition also asked: "Is it a fact that officials of the firms in Quebec have been meeting with federal officials within recent weeks?" I would point out that the government of Quebec intends and hopes that the firm which will be manufacturing cars in Canada will be a Canadian controlled firm and will not be a subsidiary of foreign motorcar manufacturers. As a consequence, the negotiations with the federal government will be carried out by or on behalf of the government of Quebec, and not with us, by the foreign motorcar manufacturers.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been any communication between the officials of the firms and federal officials?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Up until yesterday there had been no negotiations between officials of the federal government and representatives of these firms. It is expected that in the negotiations at some point officials of the firms would become involved, because of their technical competence and knowledge. But I would emphasize again that the discussions and negotiations as far as the federal government is concerned are being carried on between the government of Quebec or its representatives and the federal government, not between the government of Canada and the French companies or firms.
The Leader of the Opposition also asked whether the ambassador of France had been in consultation with officials of the Department of Industry or the Department of Finance on this matter. The reply to that question is that the ambassador of France did pay a visit to the Department of Finance to make some inquiries regarding tariff rules and regulations which might be applicable to the import of cars into this country. It was not the purpose of the ambassador, I am informed, to negotiate on this particular occasion, but merely to seek information.
The Leader of the Opposition also asked what was the policy of the government in relation to this transaction. I think the policy of the government has been fairly clearly enunciated. It is to foster the healthy economic growth of manufacturing industry in Canada. To this end the federal government is prepared to do, and will do, all it appropriately can to bring to Canada these additional manufacturing facilities.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for his reply and ask him whether or not there have been meetings between federal officials and officials of the firms concerned. That question has not been answered. The house was told there had been no negotiations between them. I should also like to ask the minister whether there is any foundation for information given today by the Canadian Press, quoting informed sources in Ottawa, that the federal government is prepared to offer the same concessions as given to Volvo, the Swedish firm which set up an assembling plant at Dartmouth. Is that so; or who are these informed sources?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there have been no negotiations and no meetings, to the best of my knowledge, between representatives of Peugeot and Renault and officials of the federal government. In so far as who might be the informed sources, I regret to say that I do not know. I would hope that, as the federal government is now in the process of discussing with the provincial government what might be a basis for the entry into Canada of this new manufacturing operation, the Leader of the Opposition would not press the government to disclose its hand prior to and during the course of the negotiations.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not press the government to give any more information than it gives to the press. Is it a fact that the minister sent a letter to Gerard Levesque, minister of industry and commerce of the province of Quebec, setting forth the tariff concessions the federal government is prepared to make in the case of the French

automobile manufacturers Peugeot and Renault? I am not asking what the concessions are to be, but was such a letter, giving the concessions that the government of Canada is prepared to make, sent to the Quebec minister?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition would not want to press for details as to what might be offered. It is correct, as I stated earlier, that a letter was sent outlining in general terms the willingness of the government of Canada to assist, through appropriate tariff concessions, the establishment of this new industry in Canada. I again repeat that I am very glad the Leader of the Opposition would not want to press for details now as to what those concessions might be.


John George Diefenbaker: That still leaves one thing unanswered. Did the letter to Mr. Levesque set out what the concessions would be and those that would be acceptable to the government of Canada? The minister seems very carefully to avoid that question. I am not asking for the particulars; I am just asking, does the letter disclose that?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In detail, no, Mr. Speaker; in general terms, yes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, it does not give the number of automobiles.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production. He admits that his letter to hon. Mr. Levesque, of the province of Quebec contains no details but merely expresses in general terms the tariff concessions which would be granted to any French automobile company which would open a plant in Canada.
Is the minister giving serious consideration to the possibility of subsidizing the establishment in Canada of a strictly Canadian company which would produce typically Canadian automobiles?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I stated a
moment ago, that company would be strictly Canadian, would produce in Canada and and would be controlled by Canadians.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
4779
Inquiries of the Ministry

Is the minister ready to produce the letter he sent to hon. Mr. Levesque concerning these industries?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member would really want to push that question. In the first place, I think the leader of his party has agreed that it would not be helpful, in the purpose we are all seeking to achieve, to have at this point a premature disclosure of the negotiations or even the basis of negotiations.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry whether he has been in touch, directly or indirectly, with automobile manufacturers Peugeot and Renault, with regard to tariff concessions and other related problems?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I have not been in touch with automobile manufacturers Peugeot and Renault.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: And what about the French ambassador to Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Timiskaming.



SILVER DOLLARS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance what action the government is taking to alleviate the current shortage of silver dollars, and is this matter going to be resolved so that Canadians can obtain these souvenirs?


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


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question. Is the government contemplating any action to compensate for the unfavourable competitive position of our flour milling industry due to the change in the price of wheat announced by the Canadian wheat board the day before yesterday?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the change that was made by the wheat board is that it does not in fact unfavourably affect the competitive position of Canadian flour.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wonder whether the minister would give an undertaking to get an explanation of this for the house, because we were told that the price was raised 6J cents per bushel.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when I answered this question yesterday I was careful to say that I would bring this to the attention of the wheat board to see whether the wheat board would feel it was in the interests of western farmers to have an explanation. This has now been brought to the attention of the Canadian wheat board, and I shall be governed by their advice in the answer that I give to the question, because I understand that, there are certain competitive factors that you do not give away to your competitors.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are there to be further discussions with the United States officials to reconsider their flour export subsidies?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is now getting into exactly the sort of line of questioning that I very strongly advise him against.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Loney) asked me a question with respect to a letter received from the Georgian bay development association dated June 16. I might say to him that a letter has been prepared for the minister's signature in reply. The hon. member put a supplementary question in which he alleged that the Prime Minister had received a letter from the same association dated April 28 which was unanswered as of June 16. I took the trouble to check with the Prime Minister's office and can inform the house that the letter was acknowledged on May 7 by the Prime Minister's office, and was acknowledged personally by the Prime Minister in a subsequent letter of May 13.
(Mr. Olson.]



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STUDY OF EFFECT ON CANADA OF SEPARATION OF QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister whether he would consider a study being made of the economic, social and political effects on the rest of Canada of separation, in view of the need for clarification of this subject. At that time he indicated that he would have hoped to give consideration to such a proposal. I am wondering whether he has given it consideration and whether the government has reached any decision on the matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been considering the matter. It is not a subject which lends itself to easy investigation and dogmatic conclusions, but officials of the government are making that kind of investigation now.


Reid Scott: A supplementary question. I know it is hard to decide when this study would be available, but can the Prime Minister give us any indication of the likely length of time which would be involved?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should think it would not be possible to produce any results which would have any real significance in a matter of this kind before the autumn.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is a most interesting situation. The government of Canada has civil servants giving consideration to the effects of separatism, or the separation of our country. Would he let the house in on the secret as to what is the nature of the authority for this? What are these people supposed to investigate? This is a most unusual thing, for the government of Canada to engage in such a procedure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if it were unusual then it is surprising that the right hon. gentleman did not rise to express his surprise when the matter came up two or three weeks ago.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought the answer you gave then was ridiculous.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now the right hon. gentleman is quite disturbed about this. What is being undertaken is an economic investigation of the interrelation between Quebec and the rest of the country, which is surely a very proper subject for an economic investigation.


John George Diefenbaker: That was not the answer given to the hon. member who asked the question. The answer given was that a study was being made of the problems arising out of separation, as I recall it. The Prime Minister says he is surprised that I am concerned about this. I am concerned that the government would be considering a proposal like ;hat.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am very surprised that the right hon. gentleman tried to draw political conclusions from this.


John George Diefenbaker: No, but this is the most surprising thing I have ever heard.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquetie):: A
supplementary question to the Prime Minister arising out of the question asked about the study being carried on of the effects of separation. My question is whether or not the Prime Minister and his government could utilize the results of the studies now being carried on by Premier Lesage, who has established a bipartisan committee to study that very question, instead of our federal civil servants using their time on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not at all sure that this is a question. It seems to me more of a statement.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On a point of order, I am asking whether the federal government could make use of the studies which are now being carried on.


Mr. Speaker:: I did hear the hon. member but that is his opinion.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, but in his absence, I will put it to the Prime Minister.
Since the Montreal house builders association suggests that the high level of unemployment during the summer months can be assigned to the $500 bonus paid for the construction of houses in the winter, would the Prime Minister or his government consider the possibility of extending the payment of this $500 bonus to houses built during the summer.
20220-304J
Interim Supply


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Labour replied to that question the other day.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC  AGREEMENT RESPECTING STUDENT LOANS AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether an agreement has been concluded between the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec with regard to student loans and the extension of family allowances?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the family allowance resolution is on the order paper and agreement has been reached with all the provinces concerning it. The student loan question, which I hope will very shortly be on the order paper, will be brought forward after agreement with all the provinces, including Quebec.


Reid Scott: A supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether agreement has been reached with all the provinces except Quebec, or can he tell us with how many provinces he has reached agreement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No. There are one or two provinces which are anxious to have further information in this latter matter regarding some of the details of the administration of the scheme, but we hope this will all be cleared up within a few days.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, June 25, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $469,308,421.26, being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament. $329,299,209.25;
(b)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of agriculture item 5, privy council item 25 (schedule A) of the main estimates, $2,259,116.67;
[Stage Direction]
Interim Supply
(c)	lour twelfths of the total of all of the Items in the supplementary estimates (A), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $134,897,245.34;
(d)	an additional seven twelfths of the amount of loans, investments and advances item L37a (schedule B) of the supplementary estimates (A), $2,625,000.00;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of loans, investments and advances item L12a, (schedule C), of the supplementary estimates (A), $227,850,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the President of the Privy Council is going to give us some information with respect to the secretaries in ministers' offices outside the Ottawa-Hull area. I think he said yesterday that there were 15 full-time persons and one part-time person located outside Ottawa. I asked him last night to tell us where they are located and in how many instances they are located in the actual constituency of the minister in question.


Mr. Mcllraith:: I would be very glad to give that information, Mr. Chairman. Hon. members will appreciate that so far as the President of the Privy Council is concerned his whole department is located in Ottawa, and all his staff is located in his own constitutency. Therefore I will interpret the remarks as being related only to staff outside the immediate Ottawa-Hull area. There is some uncertainty in my mind as to which constituency the Vancouver office is in, so if I just give the Vancouver city office perhaps that will be sufficient, because I was not able to verify the physical location of the building within the constituency. Subject to that reservation and my remarks yesterday about Mr. Cote, the following is what I deem to be an accurate and precise list.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in the public immigration building at Quebec city, one employee; the Minister of Fisheries at Bathurst in a private place, not a public building, one employee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Where?


George James McIlraith: Bathurst, New Brunswick.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that in the minister's constituency?


George James McIlraith: It is either in or very close to it. I will get the information for the hon. member.


Robert Carman Coates: It is in his riding.


George James McIlraith: I am told it is in his constituency. The Minister of Industry and

Defence Production, one employee, clerk, grade 1, at Montreal in a public building.


An hon. Member:: In the constituency?


George James McIlraith: No, I believe not. The Minister of Justice, one employee in Montreal, not in the constituency; the Minister of National Defence, one employee in a public building, not in the constituency.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Where?


George James McIlraith: In Toronto. The Associate Minister of National Defence, two employees at Sorel in the constituency; the Minister of National Health and Welfare, one employee in the constituency; the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, two employees at Vancouver, not in the constituency.


An hon. Member:: In the same city?


George James McIlraith: Yes. The Postmaster
General, two employees in Vancouver. I am not certain whether the actual office is in the constituency or outside it. I will try to verify that. The Minister of Public Works, two employees in Montreal, not in the constituency; the Secretary of State, one employee in Montreal, not in the constituency; the Minister of Veterans Affairs, one employee in the constituency. That employee is only a part time employee at a salary of $2,000 a year. In case anyone asks about the order in council, there is an assistant indicated in the order in council as being in the minister's constituency but I And on investigation that in fact he lives in the immediate Ottawa-Hull area and is in fact in Ottawa. I mention that in case someone reads the order in council. I believe that list to be full and precise.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister this question? We have knowledge of two orders in council now and in the case of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the employee working in the office of the minister is described in the order in council as being at Baie des Sables. The minister says that he is actually in Ottawa most of the time. Now he tells us that another employee described in the order in council as working in the constituency is actually located here.


George James McIlraith: I do not know that it is fair to say that in the order in council they are described as working in the constituency. In any event, in the one case the man has never worked in the particular town or village of Baie des Sables although he has worked parttime in the constituency. That is the point I am making. The practice in drafting the

orders in council has varied over the years. If you go back for 30 years checking through the orders in council, as I have tried to do to unearth information, it is obvious that they do not give the whole record, although they are perfectly effective and proper orders in council. There are changes in the form of setting them up which does make it quite difficult, and in fairness to hon. members I thought I should point out these two cases. In the case of the order in council referring to Baie des Sables, this man works here mostly, and also in the constituency, but never in the particular village referred to in the order in council.
With regard to the other case, if you read the order in council you will see that he is said to be working at a particular place in the constituency. In fact, he lives in the immediate Ottawa-Hull area and works in Ottawa. It is true that he does go to the constituency occasionally. Incidentally, I found no travelling expenses for him, which pleased me very much. I wanted to make these precautionary remarks in case the orders in council are subsequently turned up and appear to indicate that something I have said is not precisely accurate. I believe what I have said to be precise and accurate and it certainly represents an attempt to get at the problem in a very full way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, to me the minister's statement is far from satisfactory. He says that the individual mentioned in the order in council, Mr. Andre Cot6, is most of the time in Ottawa but he also does some work in the constituency and in that event is located at Baie des Sables.


George James McIlraith: No, not in that case. That is the point I am making. This is the third time I have made the point. He is never at Baie des Sables. There is no office at Baie des Sables. So far as I can find out he has never been at Baie des Sables in his working hours since he was appointed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
George James McIlraith: Precisely. That is the very point I was trying to make. Here is an order in council obviously prepared to cover a man who came from the village of Baie des Sables and somebody put his address in because they found out he was going to do some work in the constituency. I came forward frankly and told the house what the situation was. Baie des Sables, which unfortunately I have never seen, is a relatively small community. But it is the home of this man whence he came when he was employed by the minister. I have looked at the map to satisfy myself, and I am told that when he goes to the constituency he does not go to this smaller community or centre. He goes to the main centres of population in the constituency, such as Matane. Incidentally, he was in the gallery when these questions were asked some days ago and he is in the gallery today. He is based at Ottawa and operates in Ottawa, but he does go to the constituency from time to time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is exactly the point. I am not concerned about what he does in the minister's office in Ottawa. I am concerned about the fact that apparently there are employees paid out of the public treasury who are located in the constituencies of ministers. In the case of Andre Cote apparently he is here part of the time and in the constituency part of the time. I want to know what he does in the constituency. Apparently the Minister of Fisheries has someone at Bathurst in his constituency. The Associate Minister of National Defence has two people at Sorel in his constituency. With respect to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the order in council I have only covers one person in her constituency although I thought the President of the Privy Council said there were two.


George James McIlraith: No, one.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One in Niagara Falls, then, and it says in the order in council appointing this person that she is to be located at Niagara Falls. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has someone part-time in St. Boniface.
Now, Mr. Chairman, no one is contesting the minister's right to have someone in his office where he is doing government business. However, the whole defence put up by

Interim Supply
the President of the Privy Council yesterday was, first, that this thing has been done for many years, which seems to me to be no argument at all. He said, in fact, they have improved upon the practice of the past because now these orders in council appointing these persons who are in ministers' constituencies are subject to review from time to time by the treasury board.


George James McIlraith: No, that is not the way he put it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I believe the minister said the treasury board reviewed these from time to time.


George James McIlraith: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I understand they are not reviewed at all?


George James McIlraith: No, you do not understand it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They are approved by the treasury board, then an order in council is passed and there is no review from time to time.


George James McIlraith: I did not say that. It seems that throughout the proceedings today the hon. member has rather lost track of what I did say yesterday. I had undertaken to get information for the hon. member and discuss this matter on interim supply. As I pointed out in the early part of my remarks, this was a practice going back many years. I indicated how far back, but I have not tried to check just how far back it goes. I know it goes back as far as 1935, but I have no idea how many years before that.
I said that the practice was the same as that which had been in existence under the former government. There was one slight change and that was that treasury board had to deal with the recommendations before they were brought forward under section 71 for appointment by the governor in council. It is a small change, but it does give treasury board a chance to get at this thing. I then gave a statement in general terms and concluded with these words, which I should like to quote from page 4742 of Hansard:
I must add, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister has instructed the treasury board to examine into the whole question oi ministerial assistants working outside Ottawa. He has asked treasury board to report on how this practice, as it has developed over the years, can be brought under strict control so that abuses, if any, can be prevented, and whether there are any advantages to the public service under the practice which should be retained under the control referred to.

Now, it will be seen at a glance that if you take a country the size of ours the work will be spread out over a vast area. Perhaps I could pick out one city by way of illustration because I have had a chance to look a bit at the work being done in Vancouver. If the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam views the information I have given him he will find that there are three stenographers and one clerk in Vancouver. If you follow the practice of business people in that province, and their habit of communicating with the government or making appointments with ministers and that sort of thing, you will find you have to make a careful evaluation of the situation because it will be seen that keeping these stenographers there, at the regular stenographer's salary, undoubtedly saves a great deal of money to the public treasury. I must confess that when I see the size of the budget deficits, both past and present, that is a source of concern. It is a much better way of getting effective service for the population and the business people who will likely be communicating with the government than closing up the office and having all the staff here. Then, you would have to pay travelling expenses, and if you start travelling the vast mileages necessary in this country, the cost can be very high.
I have picked on Vancouver to illustrate a point. We have the same kind of situation to a limited extent in Winnipeg. There has been an office there for a great many years. In Montreal there has been a public works office in a public building, and I find that they probably do even more work than the minister's staff should be doing. It may well be that they are doing work for the departmental staff as well.
About all I can say that is really effective is that the Prime Minister has issued these instructions and the treasury board are doing precisely what is indicated. They are making a thorough examination of this whole matter to see what abuses, if any, exist. Of course it follows that appropriate action will be taken if any do exist. It will be seen this is not a simple matter of just having everybody work in Ottawa. This is no solution at all to the problem. When some questions were asked some time ago on orders of the day, the inference was-I must say I made a note of it very quickly-that these persons were doing other than ministerial work in the local constituencies at the constituency level. If that were the case it would, of course, be objectionable. I do not find that is so. We have a proposition here. The ministers are

expected to produce results and I think I can say, in all modesty, that they are paid to look after the national business of the country. There is a good deal of work done for ministers to leave them free to deal with public business with which they might otherwise have to deal, or be expected to deal themselves. This matter requires careful evaluation and examination.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister has a great capacity for muddying the waters. I started by saying that the minister's argument consisted of two parts: First, in saying that this practice had been going on for some time and that this government was trying to tighten it by having such appointments first of all reviewed by the treasury board prior to appointment. He also said the Prime Minister had asked for a further examination to see if there were any abuses. This really does not satisfy me. A review by the treasury board, a board made up by ministers themselves in the main, regarding the activities of other ministers of the same political party is not going to produce very much by way of careful scrutiny of these appointments.
Now, the other case made by the minister yesterday was that this section 71, subsection (1) of the Civil Service Act under which these appointments are made is being interpreted as meaning, when it says "persons to be employed in the office of the minister shall be appointed by the governor in council", not the place but the function of the minister. This means stretching one's credulity almost to the breaking point.
The President of the Privy Council said he had an opinion from the Minister of Justice on this. I keep wondering whether it was an off the cuff opinion which the minister gave one day after lunch or whether it was a written opinion from his department. I would certainly enjoy seeing it. But even if the minister's interpretation is right, and this office of the minister referred to in the act is not the actual office, the actual room or rooms where the minister's staff may be located, but is the function of the minister, then I still maintain that these appointments are only to assist the minister in carrying out his functions.
To what extent do the ministers' functions as a minister extend to having someone in Sorel, Baie des Sables and Niagara Falls? I am not talking about the minister's function as a member of parliament. The section does not give the governor in council the
Interim Supply
power to appoint staff to do their work as M.P.'s, but to do their work as ministers.
Last night when explaining this to the committee the President of the Privy Council said:
It may well be that ministers could be relieved of much of their obligation to deal with the manifold problems of their constituents by a secretary or a stenographer living in their constituency-
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the function of the minister does not extend to looking after his constituents. That is his function as a member of parliament, and any staff which he requires to look after his constituents and his constituency business is his responsibility, just as it is that of any other member of parliament.


Miss LaMarsh:: Do you pay your secretary?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I pay any secretary I keep in my constituency.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Is it not a fact that every member of the house, whether on the treasury benches or otherwise, is provided with at least one secretary, paid from the public purse, whose responsibilities include looking after constituency matters, correspondence, and anything related to the individual member's constituency, and that those duties are performed with respect to the riding, here in Ottawa and could just as easily be performed in the constituencies?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, every member is entitled to secretarial assistance, and the ministers in carrying out their constituency affairs are no different from any other members. When a minister is given the privilege of having a secretary in Niagara Falls-and I refer to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, since she has raised this matter- and the secretary is paid a salary of $5,220, which is much higher than any private member's secretary gets, not to work in Ottawa but to work in Niagara Falls then this is something which is not granted to any other member.
I want to know, is that secretary looking after the work of the department. If so, what public health department work is there in the city of Niagara Falls that this secretary is discharging? The fact is very clear that this person is not doing work for the department. This secretary is looking after the affairs of the minister, not in her capacity as a minister of the crown but in her capacity as a member of parliament. But if any of the rest of us need secretarial help in our

Interim Supply
constituencies we expect to supply it ourselves, and we do.
What 1 am quarrelling with is that an order in council, passed under a section
which gives the government the right to appoint secretarial staff or other staff to work for a minister, is restricted to the minister in his or her function as a minister of the crown, and does not give the governor in council power to appoint persons to work in a minister's constituency to do tasks which are related to the minister's responsibility as a member of parliament.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the hon. member permit another question? Is it not a fact that work done in Ottawa, work done in Niagara Falls or Burnaby-Coquitlam, being of the same type and being done by an individual counting off against an establishment is exactly similar in kind? Is it not also a fact that the hon. member, who is concerned over this matter, has on his staff a number of individuals who are paid from the public purse, one in particular a Mr. Pope who frequently does work for his member outside of Ottawa, and yet his salary is paid at public expense?


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question of the minister? If what she says is correct then I take it there is no difference between her operation of the department in her own constituency and in my constituency in Vancouver. If so, does she intend to appoint somebody in my riding in Vancouver and, if not, why is it only in her constituency where this appointment is made?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will be happy-


The Chairman:: Order. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam had the floor and when he has concluded we might continue with questions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister's question simply points up the whole problem so far as the government and the committee are concerned, that either the staff which the public pays for should be available in members' constituencies or should be restricted to Ottawa, and it should be the same for everybody. But if the ministers are going to have staff working in their constituencies they ought not to be appointed under section 71. They ought to be appointed in their capacity as members of parliament. This section however only gives the governor in council power to appoint persons to help a minister discharge his or her responsibility as a minister of the crown and not as a mem-

ber of parliament, and I think that this can lead to a great deal of abuse.
If the government wants to adopt something of the system they have in England, of allowing members to have agents, and paying them to look after the business of the members in their constituencies, that is a policy which could well be considered; but the government has not followed that policy. What I and others are afraid of is that by a back door method, of appointing people under the pretext that they are helping a minister carry out his ministerial duties, this is actually being used to appoint people to carry out constituency duties, and this borders on political duties. This is a very serious matter and the fact that it has gone on some time does not excuse it at all. I hope we get some satisfactory explanation as to whether the government is going to continue this practice, is going to extend it, or is going to discontinue it.
For instance, the minister said that when a minister of the crown goes to a city it is useful to have someone to make appointments. I quite agree that when a minister goes back to Vancouver undoubtedly organizations and individuals will want to see him in his ministerial capacity, but I cannot believe that among all the civil servants a minister has in Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal, there is not someone who can look after his appointments without having a secretary located there full-time to deal with the one or two days a month that he may be in the city.
I hope the government will not allow this thing to drift into serious abuse. I for one am quite dissatisfied with the explanations that have been given. I am convinced that what is being done now improperly, under the guise of appointing staff to do ministerial duties, is actually appointing staff to carry on constituency work. If the government is going to give ministers constituency agents, and make ministers different from other members of parliament, then it should come out and say so. If it is going to give similar staff to all members of parliament, then it should announce that policy; but I do not think it should rely on the subterfuge of appointing people under section 71(1) and having them do constituency work.


George James McIlraith: I wish to answer one point raised by the hon. gentleman. He made reference to civil servants doing the type of work done by the staff in Vancouver-I refer to Vancouver because I had the opportunity of learning about the situation there. I would

be the very first to object if we got into a position where civil servants were the ones who were telephoning to Ottawa for appointments to get ministers to go here, there, and everywhere in that province, making appointments for the people of that province to see ministers in that area, and passing on correspondence to them. I hope he did not mean to imply in the course of his remarks that civil servants should be all mixed up with the minister's staff, and vice-versa. I hope we are on common ground in this regard and that on reflection he will agree with me on this point, at least, because I do not think he could have realized the implications in his remarks.
There is one other point which the hon. gentleman raised-a general point which seems to be based on a wrong premise. It is a fact of geography in this country that our ministers come from most of the provinces of Canada. I regret I am compelled to say "most provinces" instead of "all provinces". In any event, the point I am making is that, though they represent the whole country as ministers in the cabinet, the fact of life is that they do come from a particular province and are looked on in those areas as the provincial minister, or the area minister, in the federal cabinet. Because in some cases a particular office is located in a town in the constituency of a minister, rather than in some other town in the region is, surely, no reason why the inference must be drawn from this fact alone that the person concerned is doing constituency work.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What are they doing?


George James McIlraith: That is the point. We are checking right through, as I told the hon. member. And, as I was careful to say in the concluding part of my remarks, the Prime Minister has given instructions-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Tell us what their duties are now.


George James McIlraith: I think I can do that. The hon. gentleman was premier of a province and I have a suspicion-in fact, I have more than a suspicion-that he used the minister's staff outside the city of Regina. He knows that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister be specific? Is that a statement or an hypothesis? Give us particulars.


George James McIlraith: Yes. When I was solicitor for the province-I think I could check up the records; I will give them.
Interim Supply


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister need not be coy. If he has any charge to make, I want him to make it. If not, he should withdraw it.


George James McIlraith: I have no charge to make whatever. The point I am making is this-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister is dancing away from this and I will not allow it. The minister made a statement. He will either substantiate it or withdraw it. He dances away from almost everything he has been asked.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I might be allowed to withdraw-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have the floor, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: My understanding is that the minister has the floor.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was rising on a question of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Burn-aby-Coquitlam is rising on a question of privilege.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister has danced away from almost everything he has been asked, but he is not going to dance away from this. He will now either substantiate what he said, or withdraw it. Or he will tell me he is making a hypothesis, and if he does I will want confirmation of that.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member has taken the time to put on the record some further observations which are unnecessary. I did withdraw it. How many times does he want me to withdraw?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not hear the minister withdraw it and I do not think anybody else did.


George James McIlraith: I realize the hon. gentleman did not hear what I said. I withdrew it in a loud voice and the hon. gentleman did not hear because he was busy talking when he might have been listening. I spoke in a loud voice and a direct voice. It was quite unequivocal because it was not my intention in any way to irritate the hon. gentleman.


An hon. Member:: Slander.


George James McIlraith: No, I do not have the reputation around here of seeking to slander anyone. I have been here too long to take that from the hon. member. I have a reputation here of answering the questions put to me if I can, and the record will vouch for that. I told the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam some ten or 12 days ago on orders of the day that 1 would be willing to discuss this matter and give all the information I could

Interim Supply
on interim supply. This I am prepared to do, and I have been giving this information as fully as I can. The hon. member made what I thought were wrong arguments when he spoke a short while ago, and I was rising to correct what I considered were those wrong arguments. If there is more information required, I will be glad to give it to him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the minister has withdrawn his remarks, I think it would be interesting to know why he made them in the first place. What was he trying to prove?


George James McIlraith: I will tell the hon. gentleman. I was trying to illustrate that it is perfectly obvious that any minister may have to send a member of his staff to one part of the country or another on a particular occasion. That is the point I was trying to illlustrate or prove. I thought it would be evident to anyone. For instance, I sent a member of my staff to Kingston some days ago to undertake certain work of a rather technical nature which I regard pretty much as my own concern. That is the point I was trying to make.


Harold Edward Winch: The matter before us now concerns an appointment to a minister's office in a constituency. I certainly heard an allegation made that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, a former premier of a province, did the same thing.


George James McIlraith: No.


Harold Edward Winch: I am asking that that be withdrawn.


George James McIlraith: I never made any such statement.


Lucien Lamoureux: I may say in any event, whether the statement was made or not, whatever statement was made by the minister, he withdrew it, and I suggest that this particular incident be forgotten. I should like to call on the hon. member for Medicine Hat who has been wanting to speak for a while.


Mr. Teillel:: I think perhaps because the leader of the New Democratic party-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am wondering whether we should not give an opportunity now to other members who have been trying to get into this debate. They would like to say a word, and I suggest we recognize the hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are one or two matters I should like to place before some of the ministers opposite. I wish to ask the ministers who have requested treasury board to make these appointments providing for

people to work in their constituencies just what, in fact, these people are doing.
I think the argument advanced a few minutes ago by the Minister of National Health and Welfare is tantamount to an admission that they are in fact doing constituency business. The hon. lady tried to argue that all members have the privilege of hiring a secretary to take on their constituency business in Ottawa. I drew the inference that this was justification for her having an appointment made under this section of the act by treasury board of someone in her constituency to take on her constituency business. I want the President of the Privy Council and the ministers who have made these appointments to know that no member of this House of Commons, as far as I know, has the privilege of having a secretary to attend to his constituency business anywhere except in his office in Ottawa. We would like to know whether or not this is the case, because it just so happens that the secretary who is on the staff of the House of Commons here in Ottawa and is assigned to my office did in fact go to the constituency of Medicine Hat during the Christmas recess and was there until some time in February, and during that period she was not paid by the House of Commons. If there are members of this house, be they ministers or otherwise, who are enjoying the privilege of having secretaries paid to attend to constituency business in their constituencies, I think this practice should either be extended to all members or withdrawn.
The President of the Privy Council has attempted to muddy the waters, as has been pointed out, and stick-handle this question which has been put to him a number of times; but so far we have not received any clear explanation from the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of National Health and Welf are or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as to the exact duties these people are performing. We all know very well that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, for example, has an office in Ottawa. We know there is an office of this department in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Regina, in Edmonton and in British Columbia; and we also know-


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member would not want to mislead the committee. There is no office of a minister in Winnipeg. There is only one office for the province of Manitoba, and that happens to be in St. Boniface, at the moment, in the public post office.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I said there was an office, or a branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare, in Winnipeg.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: And in St. Boniface.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And perhaps in St. Boniface. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of them all across the country. Members of this house have no objection whatever to ministers using the staff of this house to assist them in their function as minister of whatever department it happens to be. But these three cases of appointments by treasury board of other staff in the constituency appear to me to have nothing to do with their function as ministers of the crown.
With regard to the argument advanced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to the effect that she is entitled to this kind of person on her staff in Niagara Falls because other members of the House of Commons have the right to hire a secretary to attend to constituency business, I think she is entirely wrong because the premise of that argument is false. Members of this house do not have that privilege, and I have personal [DOT]experience to buttress that argument. Therefore I think if we are to get at the heart of this question, which is a very valid one, we should have an explanation from these three ministers at least as to just exactly what these three people do in their constituencies while they are being paid by the government.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am very 3iappy to have the opportunity to speak on this matter; I have been waiting for it all afternoon. In the first place, I should like to say to the committee that I am not being [DOT]defensive-I do not intend to be-and I deny any allegation that there is any subterfuge or anything wrong in what I have done I am speaking of what I myself have done as Minister of National Health and Welfare and I should like the committee to know "this.
Within a day or so of my appointment to this portfolio I was advised of the size of the establishment of the minister's office. Some individuals had been employed by my predecessor, and remained; some left of their volition a few days before this government took office. Some of those individuals had been appointed by Mr. Martin, who was my predecessor's predecessor. They perform different jobs, and the establishment was set up, I presume, by the civil service commission. [DOT]Some of them are what members of parliament would call regular civil servants; that is, they have come up through the civil
Interim Supply
service and have moved into the ministerial staff. Some of them have been appointed to the ministerial staff or have taken the civil service examination in the past and have come into the staff. We have everything from messengers up to the most qualified senior clerks in the ministerial offices.
Every member of the House of Commons has at least one individual appointed to his staff here in the house. Admittedly this is while the session is on. That individual is appointed and is paid from public funds for one purpose, obviously, namely to deal with the member's constituency work. A minister of the crown has no sessional staff over and above those individuals allotted to him or her as members of the ministerial staff.
Obviously the work which a minister carries on also involves that of a member of parliament, and he or she is as entitled to a staff member to carry out this work as any other member of parliament. It should be remembered that more than one half of the remuneration of a minister of the crown is paid for being a member of parliament. This work must be completed, but no individual is appointed to ministers' staffs for sessional purposes at all.
The discussion has not been heated today, but there has been a faint suggestion by hon. members of sticking one's fingers in the till. I deny such an allegation. The practice, rightly or wrongly, has been going on for 30 years. Civil servants have informed me of it and I imagine that the same thing has happened with my colleagues. Our senior civil servants informed us, when we took over the responsibilities of the department, of the way in which the minister's office was operated. There was absolutely no reason for any of us to inquire into whether there was anything wrong in it, just as there was no reason to inquire into any other information we were given.
We had information as to how our predecessors operated. In my particular case my predecessor did not establish an office in his own constituency; instead he had to appoint people whom he was entitled to have, namely an executive secretary and an executive assistant. This was done by a great many ministers. In particular I remember that it was done by Mr. Fulton as minister of justice. Those individuals, instead of appointing someone to their constituency office had a rather high priced man, in some cases with a salary of $9,000 a year or more, flying back and forth to the constituency. Their expense accounts were charged to the public purse.

Interim Supply
They were doing the minister's work in and out of the constituency.
In my own view, to have someone who is a clerk, who is a contact not only for me as a member in my constituency but perhaps, more importantly, for me as the minister for southern Ontario, for something in excess of 5 million people, most of whom through their members or otherwise contact me in my constituency-presumably to save themselves the cost of long distance travel and long distance telephone calls-is a necessity.
Like the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquit-lam and every other member in this house, I have great pride in being a good constituency man. I have always tried to take a great deal of care of my people. Since I have been appointed as a minister of the crown I have found, particularly because of pressures regarding pension legislation, that it has been virtually impossible to be in my constituency. Accordingly I have done what a great many other members do, and that is put on a telephone answering service 24 hours a day and run up long distance telephone bills at my own expense in telephoning back and forth to my constituents. But there has been no way of having personal contact with people, not just from the riding of Niagara Falls, which constitutes 80,000 people and for which I am paid $18,000 a year for being their member, but also all the people from southern Ontario who wish to get in touch with me as the minister for the area. Surely every member realizes that a minister does not just have the responsibility of an individual portfolio but has also the responsibility of a member of parliament representing these people.
In addition to that, because of my particular portfolio a great deal of work is generated regarding pensions, family allowances and matters of that kind by individuals all over the country. Many of these people are not literate in either the French or English language. Accordingly, I ask them to come to the office; I want that to be clear. This office is established in a public building. As far as I know there has never been one similar in my constituency, although my constituency was formerly represented by a minister of labour, Mr. Humphrey Mitchell. At this time his executive assistant was sent to the constituency. I remember his staying at a hotel for a week at a time at public expense arranging for people in that area to see the minister. Therefore I know from my own knowledge that this is a practice which has gone on for more than 30 years.

Hon. members have said that they do not have this kind of privilege. It was not very long ago that I was a private member, and I am well aware that there are differences between the privileges and responsibilities of members of the privy council and those of individual private members. If there were not those difference I would not imagine that too many members on that side would want to get over to this side and sit on the front benches. But with parliament sitting eight to ten months a year now we who in this house are not only members of the executive branch but members of the legislative branch are incapable of looking after our primary responsibility for which purpose we were elected, and for which purpose we are paid, namely constituency work.
I should just like to put my position on record. Each of my colleagues may have a quite different position, but if I were to represent, as did my hon. friend opposite, the wonderful province of Manitoba, and had a constituency office in Brandon, or if I were to represent Nova Scotia-I am not certain whether the former minister of finance had one too, but I think he did-and I represented the whole province of Nova Scotia or Manitoba, I would be happy to have such an office and would feel that the people of that province would be better served by the minister from the province if there were such an office.
The hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam suggested that this was political. I think too often members of parliament sneer at that word. But I can say on my honour as a member of the House of Commons that no piece of patronage work, no political work in that sense, has ever been performed in this office. Although I was informed about a year ago that I was able to open such an office I did not do so until this spring, when it became perfectly apparent that no matter how work was arranged here in Ottawa with reference to the individuals in southern Ontario, and more particularly in my constituency, their needs could not be attended to properly. Yet in setting up such an office my staff was advised never to ask the politics of anyone who came in the door. The sign on the door says: "Department of National Health and Welfare Minister's Office". The stationery used in that office is the stationery which is used in each of the several offices I have, also in Ottawa. When I am in my constituency I work physically in that office, and outside it sits the secretary at her desk, as the receptionist. I suspect that if there is a summer recess I

will be working in that office every day. When I am in my constituency I expect that I will be handling not only constituency work but also departmental work as minister in Ottawa.
If this type of practice is improper and illegal I should like to know, because I have no desire to do anything which is improper and illegal. I would appeal to the hon. members of the house not to suggest that simply because this sort of thing has been done there is something underhanded, that subterfuge has been used. This practice has been carried on for quite a time, as I have pointed out, in different ways in different constituencies. There was no attempt to hide the fact in the order in council that this individual was going to work in Niagara Falls, and my constituency was in fact informed about it in speeches, by telephone calls and in every way possible, and the public invited to come to the office. Liaison has been arranged with the provincial welfare and the municipal welfare people, who move in and out of the office in an attempt to serve the people in the area.
If I have done wrong, if section 71 does not, as I believe it does, extend to appointing someone in the office of the minister to do the work of the minister, if this is improper I shall at once discharge her and close this office. I do not believe there is anything improper in that which I have done, and with respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the members of the committee will find anything improper or that there is any subterfuge involved.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I just want to take one moment, if I may, to try and explain the value of this kind of arrangement as far as Manitoba is concerned.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not know whether my hon. friend is making a maiden speech, but I have the floor.


Lucien Lamoureux: I did call on the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I simply wish to say that as far as Manitoba is concerned I have found it essential, and all my predecessors from that province have found it essential, that there be an office in that province available to the public, to all the citizens of the province, where they can talk to someone and find a means of getting information from the minister, from his department and from other departments of government.
Interim Supply


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not have one. Why did you say all your predecessors had one? Let us be accurate about this.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I beg the hon. member's pardon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You said all your predecessors maintained an office with a staff there. I did not and I was one of your predecessors in the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Then I apologize to the hon. gentleman. My information was that one existed in the general post office building in Winnipeg, and instead of using that I opened one in the general post office in St. Boniface. I did this in order to serve the people of that area, because I feel it is important. Otherwise it would mean that someone from my office would occasionally have to travel to Manitoba, and the net cost involved here represents a saving. This office is open to serve the public. I would feel very badly if we had to make a change because I think it is useful to the public of Manitoba.


Reid Scott: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question. I understand that there is a district office of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Winnipeg. Is that not so?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Yes.


Reid Scott: What do they do in the minister's personal office which cannot be handled by the federal office located in Winnipeg?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: This is a question of the office being located in St. Boniface rather than Winnipeg. I think there is a good reason for that office to be occasionally located there instead of on the other side of the river, otherwise it would not be accessible to the people there. There is a distinction in going to the Department of Veterans Affairs, where there is a considerable amount of traffic.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall I call it five o'clock?


Harold Edward Winch: I have the floor so I will call it five o'clock.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the item coming up at five o'clock is a bill standing in my name dealing with the elections act. Subject to the feelings of the house, this matter concerns such a serious misuse of the statute that if it could be cleared up within the hour I would be content to relinquish my right to speak on my bill, and have it listed for some day next week.

Interim Supply


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest that a decision on this point be made with the Speaker in the chair.
Progress reported.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Danforth I wonder whether the house would grant permission to continue with interim supply from five to six?


Reid Scott: I am quite agreeable to that, provided it is understood that my bill will be called in the first hour next week.


George James McIlraith: It will not lose its position, there having been no private members' hour.


Reid Scott: I am agreeable to that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we will suspend private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $469,308,421.26, being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of all of the items set forth In the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $329,299,209.25;
(b)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of agriculture item 5, privy council item 25 (schedule A) of the main estimates, $2,259,116.67;
(c)	four twelfths of the total of all of the items in the supplementary estimates (A), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $134,897,245.34;
(d)	an additional seven twelfths of the amount of loans, investments and advances item L37a (schedule B) of the supplementary estimates (A), $2,625,000.00;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of loans, investments and advances item L12a (schedule C), of the supplementary estimates (A), $227,850,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Veterans Affairs. May I say with all respect, or perhaps disrespect, that it is not possible to accept their statements. How can they hope to bamboozle members of the House of Commons and expect that we are so naive as to accept what they have said?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a question of personal privilege, is the member saying he does not accept what I have said?


Harold Edward Winch: I said that you cannot expect us to be so naive as to accept what you have said.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Is the member saying he does not accept my word as a member of the House of Commons?


Harold Edward Winch: I accept your word, but not what has happened. If one, two or three cabinet ministers have found it necessary to make special appointments by means of a recommendation by treasury board approved by the governor general in council in order for them to discharge their responsibilities as ministers holding the portfolios of health and welfare, immigration and veterans affairs, may I ask how it is that the other 17 cabinet ministers have not yet found it necessary to carry on their business in the same way? If, for example, such appointment is for immigration purposes, will we finally find out how many landed immigrants have been processed through the office in the minister's riding and how many immigration cases there are in the minister's constituency? I am getting on very well without the minister rising and I want to deal with this matter on this basis.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare comes from Niagara Falls, a particular area in Ontario. Why is it that it is not important for her to have a representative in the other 264 constituencies of Canada? May I ask why the Minister of Veterans Affairs requires a representative in his constituency? I am usually pretty honest and not naive. These appointments by cabinet ministers are political appointments for party patronage purposes.


George James McIlraith: That is not true.


Harold Edward Winch: There cannot be any other answer. I was most interested in what the Minister of National Health and Welfare said a few minutes ago about her responsibilities and how she had to have somebody in her riding able to approach people and report to her. She said that we as members of the House of Commons have secretaries. Of course we have when the house is in session. I admit that as a minister she cannot get back to her riding very often. We all admit that. But I cannot go back the 3,000 miles to my riding of Vancouver East either. As a matter of fact I think my attend-

ance in the house is close to a record. I have only lost three full days since February 18. My riding of Vancouver East is just as important to me as the Liberal riding of the minister is to her. She made a statement-I am sorry, I should say that the minister made a statement because you should not call a minister a she.


Reid Scott: You would not call her a he.


Harold Edward Winch: I would not call her a he. As a matter of fact, I should like to know about the invitation to marriage because 1 read that she would like to become a mother.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Really, Mr. Chairman, I do not know to what my hon. friend refers. However, not only do I think that I deserve some respect as a woman from him but also my office deserves some respect. I have no idea what the reference he has just made means, but I do ask him to realize that he is speaking in the highest court in the land, that there are children in the galleries, and that the few reporters in the press gallery who understand English may occasionally read Hansard and produce reports for the public press. Therefore I ask him at least to pay attention to what he is saying.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, whether I am in the highest court of the land or the lowest court of the land I always honour women. My point is that the minister said that with all her staff she had no one to take care of her constituency business. That was the implication. Am I correct? The minister acknowledges that I am correct. If that is so, how does she think that members of the house take care of their constituency business when they do not have the authority to appoint anybody in their constituencies?
Let ministers as well as members be honest. These appointments were made by these cabinet ministers at government expense for strictly political purposes.


George James McIlraith: That is not so.


Harold Edward Winch: If not, then there should be an office of the department, not the political party, in the ridings where these appointments have been made. In the constituencies of each of the three cabinet ministers and in the towns that have been named, where is there an official office under the control of the cabinet minister for the carrying on of government business which requires the appointment of somebody representing the minister in that constituency with a salary ranging from $5,000 to $7,500 a year?
Interim Supply
The cabinet ministers concerned can make all the explanations they like. This is still political patronage for the maintenance of party control in their own constituencies. There is no other basis for these appointments. There is no other reason for these appointments, and they are completely against the laws and regulations of parliament. I hope that the time will come when greater consideration will be given to the needs of members as well as cabinet ministers.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I do want to say this, that the real meaning of government is honesty; the real meaning of democracy is following the principle that what is right for one is right for all. The government is a minority. It can carry on if it conducts the business of the people. It can carry on also if it does not make a farce of the rules and regulations. All three ministers concerned are fairly close to their constituencies, but there are about 150 of us in this house who are a lot farther away from our ridings. There are a number of us who have not been back to our constituencies, except for three days or a week, since February 18.
If a cabinet minister can say that because of responsibilities he needs somebody in his own riding, appointed by subterfuge at government expense, then other members have that right and privilege, too. Until you are prepared to be absolutely honest and give rights to all members, to recognize the distances in Canada, then I say that the three appointments made, irrespective of everything said by the three ministers, are political, constituency appointments for political control of their own organizations in their ridings and not for the work covered by their positions as cabinet ministers.


Reid Scott: I wanted to ask the minister if he could give me the duties of these people. I find it very strange, for example, that in the city of Toronto we have an assistant to the Minister of National Defence, yet the more important cabinet posts of trade and commerce and finance do not seem to require that type of assistance. I know the minister is a bit uncomfortable at this apparent misuse of the statute, but I want to say to him in the beginning that it is not particularly helpful to the discussion for him to make the type of innuendo against the leader of our party that he did a little while ago. I can understand the uncomfortable nature of his position, but I do not think it is helpful to make that kind of innuendo and then try to withdraw it, because the innuendo is in the record.

Interim Supply
It is a rather unfortunate thing that he would try to sidetrack it in that way.
I do not want to go through the whole list of these appointments, but really we have had no satisfactory answer at all on this subject. We still do not know what these people are doing for their ministers in their capacity as ministers, over and above the duties of the minister as a private member. All of us have sympathy for the ministers. They have a great deal of work to do and they would like to have some assistance in their ridings, but you cannot do it in this back door method. You are misusing this statute. I would not go quite as far as saying the appointments are illegal, but certainly I should like to see the whole matter referred to the courts for an interpretation. I doubt very much if the wording of the statute, which is quite clear in its provision that these people are to work in the minister's office, can be stretched to appoint people in constituencies. By the admission of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, this assistant is dealing with business on a constituency basis.
It is really fatuous to suggest that the reason for the appointment is that the minister represents all of southern Ontario. I am sure every member of the house can say, as I can, that I receive correspondence from members of our party in various constituencies across the country. It is a ridiculous argument to say that because she is the minister for all of southern Ontario this is required. We are simply not satisfied with the explanation. We want to know what justification there is for this type of misuse of a public statute. We have not received any information at all from the President of the Privy Council or from the other ministers who have spoken that would in any way justify the conduct in this case. I suggest that until you do give us proper answers we want to sit here and talk about it. The alternatives are either, (a) refer this matter to the court for a ruling as to whether you can make use of a statute in this way or (b) rescind these appointments until such time as you can satisfy the House of Commons that the procedure you are adopting is legal and proper.
After all, it is our historic right to insist that public funds be spent in a constitutional and proper manner. Nothing you have said today has convinced us that you are following a proper course. It is not sufficient to tell us that this practice has been followed by previous administration. I understand that in the case of the present Leader of the Opposition, he stopped this practice when

he was prime minister. The mere fact that this procedure has been used by previous Liberal administrations is not sufficient justification for pursuing it now.
I want to again ask the minister to go through this list of departments. For example, the associate minister of defence has two persons in his constituency. What are they doing for him as minister, over and above his capacity as a private member? The minister of northern affairs has two people in Vancouver. What are they doing there? What are their duties to him as a minister, in a city in which there are regional offices for his department? The Postmaster General has two in Vancouver. What are their duties? What are they doing for him in his capacity as a minister-


John George Diefenbaker: Checking to see that the mail arrives.


Reid Scott: -as distinct from his capacity as a private member? The Minister of Public Works has two in Montreal, again in his own area. The Secretary of State has one in Montreal. It is just too coincidental, Mr. Chairman, that all these appointments happen to be either in the constituency of the minister involved or in such close proximity to the constituency that it does not really matter.
This is a very serious charge. I would not go quite as far as my colleague who just spoke. I am not suggesting that there is anything deliberately sinister in these appointments, but you simply have not satisfied us. I want to ask the minister again to get up and tell us, as he has not done, what these people are doing in these constituencies. I find it very interesting that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, handling one of the most complex and difficult departments, has not needed an assistant in his constituency. I find it a strange coincidence that the Minister of Finance, carrying perhaps the heaviest portfolio in the city of Toronto, has not seen fit to require such assistance. Again, we want to know, what is it all about? What are these people doing there, because from what has been said today the implication that will go out across the country is that these people are performing duties for ministers in their political capacity or in their capacity as a private member, and for that there is absolutely no legal justification under the section which you have used to make these appointments. I want to give the minister an opportunity to answer.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member has raised several points and I should like to deal very

briefly with one, that is the interpretation of the section. I do not propose to develop the argument I made last night on that. I am convinced of the legality of the appointments, but that is not, I respectfully suggest-


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister read the section so we know what he is discussing?


George James McIlraith: I must warn the Leader of the Opposition that it is one page in length. This is section 71 of the Civil Service Act. After I satisfied myself, and because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had intimated a doubt about the legality, I took the precaution of asking the Minister of Justice for an opinion on it.


Reid Scott: Would you table the opinion?


George James McIlraith: No, it is not proper to table such an opinion and it has never been the practice. I think that is elementary. I invite the hon. member for Danforth to read the remainder of subsection 1 of the authority for the appointment. I invite him to continue on reading this section and notice the inter-changability of the use of the words "position" and "office", particularly as it appears in the first part of subsection 2.
Further, if he is familiar with the whole act, I invite him to notice the drawing of the distinction between departmental civil servants, what we would call regular civil servants, and these service sections that deal with publicly paid special employees, drawn from outside the general divisions of the regular civil service. If he does that he will be more satisfied on the legal question.
Now, I do not wish to put this thing on narrow legal grounds, though that is a very important point and I am not in any way underestimating it. But assuming I am right in that, there still remains the larger question on which to be satisfied concerning public funds. I am sorry I am not better able to satisfy the hon. member, but I assure him I had no intention of casting any aspersion on the leader of his party. I was seeking to illustrate the regional nature of the ministers' appointments, and the fact that they have been regarded as regional has gone on so far as I know since confederation.
I was solicitor to that province for a great number of years and, to allay the hon. member's fears a bit more, if I made a reference that was taken up in any way, I immediately withdrew it because I had no intention of casting any aspersion on the hon. member. I was trying to indicate what had not been appreciated, the regional nature of ministers' appointments in this country, and
Interim Supply
if the hon. member goes back over Hansard he will see that just before this I had spoken about Vancouver, to illustrate the fact that the provinces regard certain ministers as their ministers, and this is certainly true of the smaller provinces. I made indirect reference to the fact that the government has no minister from Saskatchewan-


John George Diefenbaker: The people decided that.


George James McIlraith: That was the sole point I was seeking to raise on that issue, so I hope the hon. member will accept my word on that point, and I think Hansard will bear me out if he looks at it more carefully in the light of what I have said.
Now, coming to the particular point I have made, where I said I would not justify the practice by saying it had been there as far back as I could check, I do not think that is a sufficient answer by itself, but I think if I had not given that information I would have been less than frank with the committee. I do not see how I could do otherwise than give it and that is the reason why I gave it. If hon. members will look at my answer carefully they will see I described it as a practice going on since 1935, and I had illustrated it throughout the years since, but I had certainly not meant that as a full justification of it.
I had then gone on to point out what apparently seems to have missed the attention of the hon. member for Danforth, precisely what we are doing now that this matter has been drawn to our attention; and this was contained in the very last part of my remarks last evening. I thought I made that point clear.
Now, as to the particular offices, I said I had gone through the Vancouver office quite carefully and I sought to illustrate that I was completely satisfied that, whether it is due to the Rocky mountains, or whatever it is, that province regards itself as far away -separated, if you like, in a physical sense, from Ottawa. It is a long distance away, from Ottawa. It is a long distance away, with difficult means of communication, expensive costs of telephone calls and a few things like that. In any event it is the practice of people all over that province to come to that office, which is staffed with relatively junior staff, to make appointments and get information about business at Ottawa, a great deal of it by way of information as to where this or that should be directed. I fully satisfied myself on that office because I had an opportunity of getting through it, and I had satis-

Interim Supply
fied myself that there was no work of a local party nature in that office.
With respect to what has been said about the office in Winnipeg, I would draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that the province of Manitoba seems to feel some pride-and I share that pride-in the fact that it is a province of some considerable substance and there is, and always has been, a minister's office maintained in that province.


Gordon Minto Churchill: But not a minister's assistant in that office.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would just mind checking that statement before he leaves it on Hansard. I would draw the attention of the hon. member for Danforth to the fact that this employee in the St. Boniface office is drawing the magnificent salary of $2,000 a year, with no travel expenses of any kind, and I invite-


Reid Scott: What does that prove?


George James McIlraith: It proves I have some responsibility for financing this country's expenditures and if I am satisfied that employee is doing proper work in the minister's office relating to the minister's duties, I am not going to cut off that $2,000 to be replaced by an expenditure of many more thousands of dollars for travel expenses and that sort of thing.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is giving a very full explanation, but he got out of Vancouver pretty fast. Am I correct that there are two in the office of northern affairs in Vancouver?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: And two in the post office?


George James McIlraith: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: In the examination the minister made of the Vancouver post office sub-office, would he tell us what he found there among the records, and also the same with northern affairs, because it is most unusual to have such a large staff just looking after general matters?


George James McIlraith: I am tremendously surprised that the Leader of the Opposition raised that question because I thought of all the people in the committee he would not raise it. I must say I was surprised at finding the extent to which the B.C. people, including its business people, regard Ottawa as being-I do not want to use the term separated-a long

piece away, and the extent to which they go there for all manner and type of government information.


John George Diefenbaker: Are there no federal government offices in Vancouver?


George James McIlraith: Yes, there are. I may say that right here in Ottawa I have found myself somewhat amazed at the extent to which I have found myself being interviewed by business and professional people in the whole of eastern Ontario about what they regard as eastern Ontario matters related to goven-ment business, and not of a political or party nature. This is a fact in this country. I have not yet gone over all the offices, but this is in the process of being done and if there are any abuses, action will be taken. I wish again to draw the attention of hon. members to that. I do not know what more I can say about this thing.
When I checked the one in Niagara Falls I began to wonder, in the light of some of the work there, what percentage of our total immigration had gone into that area. Frankly a lot of things rather surprised me. I was amazed to find the increased inquiries about immigration which were going into that office. I do not put this forward necessarily as a defence, but hon. members asked for information and I am giving them the information. I can only say this is being pursued right through. I did get around to the public works office in Montreal. I found that it has a smaller staff than is usual. The question raised there was whether these people were doing more than the minister's office work-whether they are doing work that should be done by the departmental staff, in which case we may have to add departmental staff there. There is a practice there of getting information about publicly called tenders, a practice which apparently has gone on in that province over a great number of years, no matter who is minister.


Mr. Bigg:: I am wondering whether these people are not doing some of the work we ourselves are supposed to be doing. Take the postal department; I have not had a letter from the postal department in my constituency for a year. When I was on the other side, I used to have many letters about vacancies coming forward, and so on-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: It is no laughing matter. I am talking about legitimate business. When postal services are required in my area I think it is my duty to my constituents to

see that those situations are adequately filled. It is not a question of patronage. I think the reaction from the government side of the house is very unpleasant. I want to know why I am no longer asked to help supply adequate postal services throughout my district. As I say, I have not had a letter for a year. Where are they going?


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I can help the hon. member by reminding him that I, like himself, was a private member supporting a government for some years, and I was a private member of the opposition for some years. And I am not surprised at what he says.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am.


George James McIlraith: That may be. What the hon. member says is undoubtedly true, but I do not know that it is germane to the point at issue here.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I think so. If you are spending $2,000 in any place in Canada on work which could be done by members here, I think it is not money well spent. This is a legitimate job-


George James McIlraith: No, it is not part of a member's job to perform the duties required of ministers of the crown. It is the duty of the hon. member to discharge his obligations as a member of the House of Commons and of the parliament of Canada. What we are discussing here is whether or not these employees are performing the duties of a minister of the crown.


Gerald William Baldwin: I did not get a list of all the
various ministers who have representatives, ambassadors or assistants in their constituencies or other places.


An hon. Member:: None in Alberta.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was thinking in terms of one of the ministers, the Postmaster General who, before being offered that important portfolio, was minister of forestry. I would be interested to know what is the position in cases of this kind, where the duties of a minister are changed. What happens with regard to the assistants in these cases. For example, what happened to the assistants credited to the minister of forestry in Vancouver? Were any new orders in council passed to deal with the situation when the minister became Postmaster General? Did they become attached to him in his new capacity? I think this is a point of some interest.
Interim Supply


George James McIlraith: I would want to check that before giving an answer because I do not know exactly what the procedure is. In any event, the two employees in question are on the minister's staff now, attached to the Postmaster General; they were on his staff formerly, when he was minister of forestry. However, I would want to check the technical aspect of the question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not wish to participate in the discussion this afternoon, but the President of the Privy Council I think suffered a lapse from his usual standard of veracity when, in answer to an interruption of mine, he cast doubt on my truthfulness. He was talking about ministerial assistants in the province of Manitoba, in the office there, and I said "But no ministerial assistants in the office". He said "When you check Hansard you may wish to revise that statement". I do not wish to do so at all. Never, when I was a minister of the crown, did I have a ministerial assistant appointed outside the city of Ottawa, and I hope the President of the Privy Council will, in fairness, correct the inference to the contrary which he left on the record.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I am happy to correct it. The hon. member-and I think Hansard will support me in this-says "in that province". He said "no one in that province", and I looked directly at the minister concerned. There was an employee of the minister's staff, as he knows, in that province. The hon. gentleman is quite correct as far as I know. He did not have any employee of his minister's staff in the province.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wrote down what I said, and the words I used were "in that office". I hope that my correction when I interrupted the Minister of Veterans Affairs is correctly shown, too. He said that all his predecessors had personal assistants in the office in Winnipeg as he has at the present time in St. Boniface. I attempted to correct him because I did not have a ministerial assistant serving in the office which was available in the city of Winnipeg; I had nobody on my staff serving outside Ottawa.
May I say, with regard to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, that the department has in the city of Winnipeg a very large office to which I always referred the problems of veterans which arose in Winnipeg and in Manitoba when I happened to be in the city of Winnipeg. Veterans would call me at the hotel and I would make sure that they were immediately looked after by the officials of

Interim Supply
the Department of Veterans Affairs. That is precisely what should be going on at the present time.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Perhaps I could throw a little light on this matter. It seems to me that the President of the Privy Council was looking in my direction when he referred to Manitoba. When I became a member of the treasury benches I was informed there was an office available in my constituency to which I was entitled to appoint a representative. This I did. However, it was not long until the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who all the time that I was minister of northern affairs and national resources performed the function of being the controller of the conscience of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, raised objections in the form of complaints, with the result that I decided it would be desirable, in the best interests of good administration to withdraw the representative from my local constituency office. I think the appointment was made in November, and it was withdrawn in February. From that point on the office was available. It was served by representatives of my staff here in Ottawa.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member what year that was?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That was 1960-61.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, were the members of the hon. member's staff actually attending the office in Brandon?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No, not on a continuous basis. The office was there. I was informed by the Department of Public Works that the office was available in the post office building. I used it myself when I was in the constituency, and it was used from time to time by the secretarial staff in my office here in Ottawa.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the President of the Privy Council. If I heard correctly, the information given by the hon. member for Danforth was to the effect that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has two appointees of a personal nature in Vancouver. Could I ask the President of the Privy Council to explain why there are appointees of northern affairs in that riding. I ask this question because I know the riding; Vancouver has been my home for 43 years. I would like to know if there are appointees of northern affairs in the riding of the minister; and if so, what is their job?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I dealt with both those questions earlier. I am not sure whether or not they are in the constituency. The building is the federal building at 326 Howe street, Vancouver. I believe it is not in the minister's constituency, but in any event it is in the city of Vancouver.


Harold Edward Winch: Are they two private appointees of the minister who are doing constituency work there? I should like to ask this question at the same time. I understand, also, that the Postmaster General has two such members on his staff, and I presume they are in the same constituency. What are the responsibilities of these four appointees?


George James McIlraith: I dealt with that matter a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman. They are not employed on constituency affairs; that was the very point I made about them. They were ones I happened to have an opportunity to check, and they are not working on constituency affairs.


Harold Edward Winch: What are their responsibilities?


Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforlh: The minister has told us what they do not do. What do they do?


Harold Edward Winch: What are their responsibilities outside the offices of the Postmaster General and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources? These public buildings are in Vancouver Centre; there you have the complete staffs of northern affairs and national resources, and public works. What are the responsibilities of these four appointees over and above those of the normal staff?


George James McIlraith: They are on the ministers' staffs, as opposed to or distinct from departmental duties. That is a distinction I also tried to draw earlier in my remarks this afternoon. As a matter of fact, I differed a little with the leader of that party on that particular point, when he suggested that the duties in a minister's office should be performed by civil servants. I am sure he did not mean it to sound as it did, the way he put it.
Could I ask the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, whether he was in the chamber a few minutes ago when I gave this explanation?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, I was. I think, Mr. Chairman, we have now come right down to it, in view of the statement of the President of the Privy Council, who has said that those four persons are not in these ministers' offices for departmental duties. Therefore, what are they? Are they party hacks?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Chairman.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister, in his statement of about 30 seconds ago, said they are not there for ministerial or departmental duties.


George James McIlraith: I did not say they were not carrying out ministerial duties, Mr. Chairman. Surely the hon. member does not wish to put words in my mouth. I drew the distinction between ministerial duties and departmental duties. They are regular civil servants. This is a distinction I have always drawn in this house and, as a matter of fact, have fought a good deal about over the years. They are doing work that comes within the category of ministerial office duties, as distinct from those of the civil service. I also said they were not doing local party organization work or work of a party nature.


Harold Edward Winch: This is becoming somewhat ridiculous, sir. Is the President of the Privy Council saying there is a difference between ministerial and departmental duties? Is there such a difference, when the minister has a complete staff?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman; I am very firm in saying that.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I have one very brief question for the minister. Is there such an assistant in the constituency of the Minister of Transport, or is there just one for that whole province?


George James McIlraith: There is none in that province, or for the Minister of Transport.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have listened very diligently to the remarks made this afternoon, and I think they are very important. I was interested in the last statement in particular, when the President of the Privy Council suggested that there is a difference between ministerial and departmental duties. This is not what the hon. member for Niagara Falls said when she explained the situation. She said-and I think this is exactly right and I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of hon. members about it- that she has a person in her riding doing the work of a member. It may well be, she said, that she receives a letter relating to welfare, which is a provincial matter, and is doing something that is really not within a member's responsibility; but I am sure it falls within the duties of every member of the house to handle matters that are allied to our job. I think we all do this-and these are the duties of a member of parliament.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What about your secretaries?
Interim Supply


William Arnold Peters: We certainly do not have secretaries who are able to do this type of work in our ridings. We do this as members of parliament. I certainly do not ask my secretary to do the job I am supposed to do as a member of parliament. But really this is what the Minister of National Health and Welfare was saying; that in her area she has someone to do the work that she had not time to do because her duties as minister take her into another field. Yet the President of the Privy Council is suggesting this is not the field; that the field is a limited one. It may be I am not familiar with the difference between the duties of a minister as minister of the crown and the duties of a minister as head of a department of government. There may be some fine distinction there. But the argument does not hinge on that; it hinges on whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare is doing the job to which the President of the Privy Council has referred, namely in the field of ministerial responsibility. Has the President of the Privy Council looked into the matter as to whether or not the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or for that matter the ministers of veterans affairs, northern affairs, fisheries and many others, have ministerial offices legally in their own areas to handle matters which as members of parliament they must handle? This is a highly technical question, because the act specifies that these people can only be appointed to a minister's office. Frankly, I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare did this, because she said earlier today that she had a brass nameplate on the door indicating to all and sundry that it was the office of the minister.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Not brass.


William Arnold Peters: Well, the material does not matter, but the implication is that this office is an extension of her Ottawa office and should therefore be handling matters which I doubt whether the person she has in her office is capable of handling. I do not say that in disrespect to the person concerned, but the problems which come to a minister's office I would presume often need the advice and co-operation of the deputy minister concerned, or the advice of various heads of the department, because people coming to that office would not be asking about welfare or compensation matters but about matters which can only be settled by the staff in Ottawa.
I submit we are talking of two different things. I think the minister of health told

Interim Supply
us forthrightly and honestly exactly what her office was. If this was out in the open in my area you would not need to pay persons who are defeated candidates-because this is a patronage machine. I think there may be a role yet in politics for this. It has not been eliminated so far. If it has, it comes in conflict with the decision of the President of the Privy Council. My experience with the office of the privy council is that the minister goes into great detail and examines the matter very carefully, and I would be happy to have him take the whole matter under advisement.
There are two legal problems. One is whether or not the minister has the right to move her office around the country, which is something like the situation with the president of the United States. Is the president of the United States a guy who goes out and lays a cornerstone, or is he the guy who acts in an executive function? Books have been written on the division of these two responsibilities. In this case we will have to look at the office of the minister and at the work of the office of the minister to see whether the duty is performed in that sense.
I did not get much of a story from the Minister of Veterans Affairs and I do not know what is the function of the person in his office. It appears that he would rather have his office in St. Boniface than in Winnipeg, which raises a different question entirely. The minister of health and welfare made it clear enough that the President of the Privy Council will have to decide whether or not this office can be moved around.
Second, what is the function of the persons concerned? The act says that the minister may appoint his executive assistant and private secretary. This is done in a non-civil service way, and they act as the persons directly responsible in a political way. These people are always political people; they must be politically oriented or they would make a real botch of the problems which come to all of us here. Then the act goes on:
-and other persons to be employed in the office of a minister shall be appointed by the governor in council.
I think it is these others we are concerned with.
The only reason we are concerned in this matter is that it completely changes the aspect of government. If I am a poor member and very stupid I may have to hire someone to do my business in my constituency. As one hon. member has said, give me $5,000 to

stay at home and I will represent my riding better there than in Ottawa; and maybe that is true. But the question is whether or not we want to change the system which has existed for a long time and now put into ridings people who are paid a salary by the treasury board to look after our business. I think the President of the Privy Council will simply have to face up to the problem of whether I in Timiskaming, should have an executive assistant to handle the political business of Timiskaming, because I too have to be in Ottawa eight to ten months of the year. If such a person is supplied for a minister I suggest he should also be supplied for members. I think whether we should move the office of the minister from place to place is the crux of the problem, and that the President of the Privy Council should give us the legal opinion he receives on this. I suggest that he get the legal opinion, not necessarily from justice but from the law officers of the house, who have the right to make a report to parliament rather than just to a minister.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


William Arnold Peters: I would only suggest, Mr. Chairman, that I would be quite happy to let it carry tonight if the minister will give me the assurance he will consider these matters, which will be important to members of parliament for many years to come.


George James McIlraith: Yes; I not only give that assurance but, as I have said, I am considering the matter now. In fact, the Prime Minister has instructed treasury board to do this, and that is on the record in Hansard.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned-and I speak now on behalf of the house leader-we are perfectly prepared to have the resolution carry now, on the undertaking that we will go ahead with the bill on Monday and with the committee stage of the bill. Frankly, I have some matters I want to comment on, as have other members. We will have the right on clause 1, as we do on any general bill, to have a general discussion in committee. If that undertaking is given and it is agreed we have a general discussion on the first clause, I think we could advance this resolution one stage tonight and carry on on Monday.


Guy Favreau: We are, of course, ready to give that undertaking.


Reid Scott: We are happy to have the resolution pass, but over the week end would the

President of the Privy Council look up the legal opinion he received and table it in the house?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated earlier I would not be prepared to table it. This has never been the practice in the House of Commons and there is a long argument on this which I will not enter into. But that has always been the position.


William Arnold Peters: Is it not legal to get the legal officers of the House of Commons to give this kind of opinion?


George James McIlraith: I think the practice is to get it from the attorney general. As far as I know that is the practice, and I am going back over a number of years. That is the responsibility of the Department of Justice.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sure that the President of the Privy Council is right when he says there has never been the tabling of an opinion in this house; but if parliament requests it I think there is a practice we could follow, which has been followed on several occasions in the past. The Minister of Justice could write to the President of the Privy Council saying that he cannot give the ruling that parliament has requested, but advise him in general terms, which really comes to the same thing. You get away from the tabling of a written opinion which, because I had to go into this one time myself, has never been done under the rules of the house.


George James McIlraith: That is a correct statement of the practice and we are quite prepared to follow it.


Guy Favreau: The reason for this, of course, is that only the Attorney General of Canada or Minister of Justice has the responsibility of advising the crown, and any opinion from an officer of the law department is a draft opinion with which the Minister of Justice, under his responsibility, will or will not agree. The minister is the only one who has final responsibility, for such advice.
26, 1964	4801
Business of the House


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.

George James McIlraith: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, the sum of $469,308,421.26 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Mcllrailh thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-105, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1965.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Depuly Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time? Next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: With regard to the business of the house I suppose we will be on interim supply on Monday, and if the President of the Privy Council has less support from his colleagues perhaps it may pass. What will we be doing on Tuesday?


Guy Favreau: I hope we may dispose of interim supply on Monday. After interim supply the business of the house remains as announced. We will proceed with the flag resolution.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 29, 1964