June 3, 1961

PC

Noël Dorion (Secretary of State of Canada)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Dorion:

To our knowledge no proceedings at all have been taken. However, I should like to remind the hon. member that the responsibility of the chief electoral officer is limited to clause 70. It is not within his province to determine whether, in certain cases, action should be taken against any person who has violated section 66 or any other section. Generally speaking it is the privilege, if I can so state it, of any candidate to proceed against another candidate and take proceedings if there is a violation of the act. In other words, everyone has that right. The chief electoral officer, in virtue of this act, has nothing to do with that question. The situation is the same with regard to the Secretary of State, who is only the channel between the chief electoral officer and the House of Commons.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
CCF

Douglas Mason Fisher

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Fisher:

I am sure the chief electoral officer is the person who keeps a record of prosecutions that take place as a result of the act. It seems to me that I have seen returns filed in the past. That is why I asked the question.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
PC

Noël Dorion (Secretary of State of Canada)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Dorion:

With regard to actions taken, he keeps a record; yes.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
CCF

Douglas Mason Fisher

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Fisher:

In relation to this particular section, the part that follows allows an official agent or any other person to provide sandwiches, cakes, cookies and drinks such as tea, coffee, milk or soft drinks at a meeting of electors. It does not expressly forbid alcoholic beverages, but I imagine that matter was in mind in that they were not inserted here.

However, the boundary line here is so narrow, it seems to me, depending upon the Puritanism of the interpretation as to what is corrupting about a tea party.

I know that at least two of the parties have sent out instructions on how to organize. I know the Conservative party have done so, for I have seen their publications in the past. They advise building the whole campaign organization upon the tea party, the coffee party and so on, the idea being to have these meetings in as informal and as friendly surroundings as possible in order to get people in.

In this kind of situation, with which I do not see anything wrong at all, the whole idea of the first part of section 66, it seems to me, does not make a great deal of sense. How are we going to arrive at the conclusion, when you move over a boundary line, that you are corruptly influencing people to procure their vote? This section is totally nonsensical. If the words "bribe" or "bribery" were included it would make more sense than the adjective "corrupt". I cannot see any merit in the inclusion of that word in this context.

I turn now to a list found at the back of the by-election instructions provided to returning officers, issued in January. Schedule 3, page 276, lists electoral districts in which the nomination day is the twenty eighth day before polling day. All hon. members will realize that this has reference to large constituencies with scattered populations. Has the chief electoral officer given any consideration to recommending extension or narrowing of this time?

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
PC

Noël Dorion (Secretary of State of Canada)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Dorion:

No suggestion has been made concerning adding names to that list. The chief electoral officer believes that the list is complete and in order.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
CCF

Douglas Mason Fisher

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Fisher:

I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members of the committee to this list. Extra time is given in these particular constituencies because of the difficulty in arranging for electoral matters due to the size and scattered nature of the districts. This is another point that reinforces some of the suggestions made in the past to the effect that in setting constituency boundaries, and in making up your mind about whether you are going to have any ratio between rural and urban voters, this is a factor that should be taken into account. Very few of these constituencies are what might be called rural agricultural constituencies. I think of Cochrane, Kenora-Rainy River, Port Arthur, Chapleau, Saguenay, Bonavista-Twillingate, Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and Hum-ber-St. George's. These are not rural agricultural constituencies.

Supply-Secretary of State

I wish to underline the difficulty encountered not only by the candidates in these constituencies but by the chief electoral officer. After the election of a candidate in these constituencies he encounters especially difficult circumstances. This is another factor we need to examine closely. Under the Canada Elections Act, in this schedule, we have confirmation that there are added or exceptional difficulties in important constituencies in Canada. For this reason I should like hon. members in the next few months to again scan the constituency maps, and if they do not represent constituencies of this nature I urge them to develop some sympathy for hon. members who represent constituencies of the nature of Athabasca, Jasper-Edson, Peace River and others. I hope all hon. members will keep this factor in mind, whether at election time or at a time when we may have to make decisions relating to the holding of elections.

Has the Secretary of State sought to obtain from the chief electoral officer any information that would be useful and relevant to any consideration with respect to increasing the number of constituencies represented in this house? Has he done that in the last year or two?

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
PC

Noël Dorion (Secretary of State of Canada)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Dorion:

Mr. Chairman, I have not raised a point of order arising out of the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur because I believe it is valuable to have suggestions from hon. members of this committee, even if they are sometimes advanced in an irregular way. However, I cannot answer the question the hon. member has just asked. I believe the hon. gentleman will understand that it is a matter of government policy, and it would not be in order for me to answer that question. Redistribution is not a question to be decided by the chief electoral officer or by the Secretary of State who, after all, is the channel, as it were, between the chief electoral officer and the House of Commons.

With respect to the other questions raised by the hon. gentleman, let me recall to his mind the fact that last year certain suggestions advanced by him and by the hon. member for Skeena were fully discussed in a committee of this house but not accepted. For that reason those suggestions are not reflected in the existing law. The government is always interested in receiving suggestions from hon. members, some of which may be of assistance in introducing future amendments to the act. It is not my privilege to answer questions of the nature raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I can only make my suggestions to the cabinet when a question is raised about amending the act.

Supply-Secretary of State

Before taking my seat, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the hon. member for Skeena for the kind words he said about me a few moments ago.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
CCF

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Herridge:

Mr. Chairman, I feel I must rise at this time to correct any misunderstanding, misinterpretation or exaggeration that may arise out of the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I do not want anyone to think that C.C.F. campaigns are based on thousands of cups of tea and coffee. They are based on a challenging philosophy, on broad humanitarian principles and on programs supported by dedicated people; and the C.C.F. is represented, in the riding in question, by a candidate who is a personality.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
PC

Gordon Harvey Aiken

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Aiken:

Mr. Chairman, as a footnote to the discussion that has taken place with respect to amendments to the Canada Elections Act, and specifically the one referred to by the hon. member for Kootenay West, may I comment that whether or not the amendments made last year to the Canada Elections Act had anything to do with it, the results of the recent by-elections were much better under the amended act than under the old act.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
CCF

Frank Howard

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Howard:

About half an hour ago I fell into the error, occasioned by practice, of seeking to make inquiries about matters of government policy, and advancing suggestions. As I say, I fell into this error in raising the question of absentee voting and inquiring as to government policy. I confess my error now. I think the government has its finger in too many pies, and that it has too much authority over the affairs of parliament. I should have known better than to fall into that trap of words, as it were, in trying to give to the government authority over decisions on balloting matters or changes in the elections act when this is a question primarily within the control of parliament itself and of the standing committee on privileges and elections, which traditionally has considered these amendments and proposed changes to the act in a non-partisan way as far as possible. 1 felt I had better clear the record with regard to that particular error of mine before the government decided that this was another matter in which it could become engaged and upon which it could make statements of policy from time to time.

However, that does not preclude the opportunity of using the House of Commons as a forum, as it were, where particular matters such as the absentee vote may be discussed. It is true that in the committee last year I was a minority of one, I think, when this question of the absentee vote was considered; but no matter by what majority a man has his views rejected he should, in my opinion,

continue to press those views on every occasion because it is the little drop of water that wears away the mighty stone. Persistence brings results. I was a minority of one then, but perhaps I am in a better position here where I have colleagues close to me; by using this forum I am increasing my support.

To me, absentee voting is a vital matter, and I believe people should not be denied the right to cast their ballots on election day because of circumstances beyond their control such as the nature of their employment. Perhaps I can expand this theme now and indicate to the committee an area where additional difficulties will arise depending on the time of the year in which, specifically, the next federal election is held, though my observations will apply to other federal elections as well.

I mention the next federal election specifically because it will be the first general election at which our native Indian people will have the right to vote as a group. It is true that in the past, because of service in the armed forces, some Indian people have had the right to vote, and others have had the right to vote by virtue of the franchise. It is also the case that in at least two of the constituencies where by-elections have been held, native Indians have taken part in the voting. However, as I say, the next general election will be the one in which they will be casting their votes for the first time, at least for a number of years. I believe it was in 1918 or 1919 when they last had the right to vote in a general election.

On the west coast of British Columbia the absence of any provision for absentee voting could cause a great deal of misunderstanding and, possibly, anger directed against the government, the returning officers and everybody else concerned including the candidates. In British Columbia, as I have said, we have a provincial system of absentee voting. An elector, if he is on the voters' list, can cast his ballot in any polling division in the province. I should explain that a high proportion of the native population on the coast is engaged in the fishing industry, and during the salmon season the great majority of them are anywhere but at home in their own villages. They travel from their home villages following the fish. They move down from the interior to work in the canneries and fish out from the canneries.

When a provincial election is held-and native people have had the right to vote in provincial elections since 1949-these native Indians can vote by virtue of the absentee voting provision. If a federal election is called to coincide with the fishing season, most of these native Indian people who will

be voting for the first time at a federal election and who have become accustomed, in five provincial elections, to a system of absentee balloting, will find themselves denied the opportunity to vote by virtue of their occupation. This would generate, I am sure, a great deal of antagonism on their part, an antagonism which in my view would be understandable. A good deal of explanation would be necessary to convince them that the law is different in its application to federal elections.

I cite this one group of people only as a case in point in order to show that there will be confusion and anger created. I think there will be an increasing demand on the part of the electorate after the next general election for a system of absentee balloting to be carried into effect. Even though, as I say, I was a minority of one once, perhaps by continual argument and complaint on this question sufficient public and parliamentary support will be generated to ensure that this system shall come into effect and that all the people shall have the right to cast their ballots on election day.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
CCF

Douglas Mason Fisher

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Fisher:

The last point I wish to bring up for the consideration of the committee and the Secretary of State has really nothing to do with elections. I should like to ask hon. members to consider the whole matter of election expenses and the declaration of expenses. If they will check forms 62 and 63, the official agent's declaration as to expenses and the candidate's declaration as to expenses, and read through them in all seriousness they will find, I think, that if they are completely honest they will have a most difficult time signing these forms.

Perhaps I could give a few indications at this point to underline the difficulty of putting one's name to form 63, although most of us do so; all the successful candidates. This is what the candidate swears:

I do hereby solemnly declare that I have examined the return of election expenses transmitted or about to be transmitted by my official agent to the returning officer at the said election, a copy of which return is now shown by me and signed by the officer before whom this declaration is made, and to the best of my knowledge and belief that return is correct.

I further solemnly declare that except as appears from that return I have not, and to the best of my knowledge and belief no person, nor any club, society, company or association has, on my behalf, made any payment, or given, promised, or offered any reward, office, employment or valuable consideration, or incurred any liability on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the said election.

The saving words which appear here are "to his knowledge or belief". I do not think anyone campaigning in a fairly large constituency would have much hope of knowing

Supply-Secretary of State this as a certainty. I suggest those individuals would have as much hope of being sure in this particular regard as I would have of being elected in the province of Quebec, and the odds involved there are pretty poor.

Section 3 of form No. 63 reads in part as follows:

-I have paid to my said official agent the sum of-and no more for the purpose of the said election, and that except as specified in the return, no money, security, or equivalent for money has to my knowledge or belief been paid, advanced, given or deposited by anyone to or in the hands of my official agent or any other person for the purpose of defraying any expenses incurred on my behalf on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the said election:

I suggest that is fantastic. In order to emphasize the point I make I should like to refer to a specific case involving one of my own supporters, who went out on his own and raised $1,000 for our campaign. The largest single donation he received was $10. He went from door to door and other places for these donations. Technically my official agent should have had a list of all those contributing individuals together with their addresses, and the money the individual brought in should have been listed under his name. However, would that have been a correct listing? Actually we did show on our return that we were advanced that amount by the C.C.F. riding association of Port Arthur. Had we followed the technical practice in regard to the collections of donations made by that individual, we should have had to hire a stenographer or stenographer accountant for several days.

The point I make regarding these expenses is that it is a very very mixed bag, and that I have grave doubts concerning accuracy of statements of expenses prepared by candidates following an election. I shall not recount some of the anecdotes which have been told by successful candidates and others regarding election expenses, but this does seem to me to be a situation which warrants serious consideration.

I should now like to refer to some suggestions made by Senator Douglas when he was in Canada not long ago, as appeared in the Globe and Mail of February 23, 1961. He is reported to have said that one of the greatest electioneering problems confronting politicians would be solved if campaign expenses were paid from the public treasury. He also believed that political parties should develop a wide basis of financial support rather than derive their funds from a small number of contributors. He said that some of the big contributors were idealists or sportsmen who enjoyed seeing politicians run, as other sportsmen liked to watch horse races. He suggested the majority were investors who expected to be paid by special favour. He believed that

Supply-Secretary of State the public should pay for campaign expenses, because they would be much better off than paying in the form of special privileges given to those major contributors.

The point I make is that electioneering will become more and more expensive. I suggest it cannot help but do so. Some of my colleagues have checked the rate cards provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the committee on broadcasting with respect to the cost of television appearances, and if the expenses in that regard are an indication of the expenses involved in television appearances wherever television reaches-and we have indication now that it does reach 94 per cent of Canadian homes-the total expenses are rather fantastic.

With regard to this particular subject I suggest we should consider two features. First, perhaps a ceiling could be applied to campaign expenses, such as has been done in Britain; and second, to adopt the suggestion of Senator Douglas, at least in regard to television appearances, to provide the expenses out of the public treasury. If such a system were adopted appearances could be based on a sharing arrangement, thereby removing this feature of campaigning from the public realm.

The difficulty involved in setting a ceiling, of course, would be that a great deal of hawkshaw work would be involved over a long period of time in order to make it apply across the country. Great Britain seems to have a tighter control on public morale than we have, and I understand, from information I have received from the head offices of the different parties, that they consider this has worked fairly well there, without too many abuses. I do not know whether this would be practical in Canada, but it might be a step we will have to take. We should then at least have some guide for the consciences of candidates.

The suggestion made by Senator Douglas regarding the running of election campaigns at the expense of the public treasury may seem fantastic when we consider that the total expenses of candidates' campaigns during the last election amounted to more than $2 million in relation to the individual constituency campaigns only. I am convinced that there are many hidden expenses which if added to this total, would at least double or triple it. When I say "hidden" I do not mean deliberately hidden, but certainly associated with the election campaign. If the cost of the national campaigns carried on by the different parties were included-for example, full page advertisements in magazines such as Weekend, with a circulation of one and a quarter million, and the Toronto Star

Weekly, with a circulation of 800,000 to 900,000 and other national magazines-the total expense would be fantastic. The figures regarding the cost of such advertisements could be readily obtained from the editors and publishers of the magazines.

The difficulty of paying the cost of campaigns out of the public treasury is a practical one, in that a ceiling would have to be set. In view of the enormous expenses involved the amount of campaigning would have to be cut down, with the result that the voters would be very disappointed because of the lack of the kind of commercial spot announcement campaigns, hammering upon the issues, with which they have become familiar in recent times. If something of this nature is not done, however, the major parties in Canada will have tremendous advantages in terms of being able to find money to meet the election campaign expenses, while the minority parties will have a much more difficult task. That situation may not have applied during the last election campaign, and perhaps will not apply to the next, but I suggest it will apply more and more to future election campaigns as the expenses involved skyrocket.

I suggest this is a subject which should be of interest to all hon. members, and I hope many of them will give consideration to it; because I have a hunch that this will certainly be a major problem in future years to the democratic political policies of North America. Since in the United States certain limitations have been set in respect of expenses, with regulations requiring the provision of more information regarding amounts spent by national parties, it seems to me that this problem in our country, which in many ways is greater because of our lower economic base, as well as the fact that fewer politicians must cover a much greater area, must be seriously considered in the near future.

I realize that some consideration was given to the problem at the Liberal rally which took place in January. I was not present, but it is my interpretation of what took place there, having read the articles covering that rally which appeared in newspapers, that the discussion in respect to this problem was made from an objective point of view until someone dragged in a subject concerning Allister Grosart, the national organizer of the Conservative party, and the Liberals went chasing off down a trail regarding the activities of that particular gentleman.

It was interesting to me to find that the topic loomed so large with the Liberals at their convention, but I was disappointed to find no reference to it as a topic at the rally held by the Conservative party in March. I can only assume that when you are a winner these things are not important. I am sure that

those people in the government party who are receiving money for the next election campaign will begin to see the relevancy of this whole question of expenses and the need for possible reform. It is for this reason that my remarks have been so extended. I hope that the organizations which have to do with election matters on behalf of hon. members will give some thought to this very complicated matter.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
CCF

Frank Howard

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Howard:

Before the item carries I should like to say a few words. I am indebted to the hon. member for Port Arthur for raising this particular matter. There is one subject connected with it that I should like to deal with in so far as it affects election expenses or, more particularly, election contributions. Whenever this particular section of the Canada Elections Act has been dealt with, parliament has either re-enacted the provision or has said it is desirable that candidates of political parties make known to the public contributions which they have received, and also their source.

I say that in essence parliament has made a decision in this regard by reason of its enactment or re-enactment of the provision. I do not know when the provision first became part of the Canada Elections Act. Form 61, which deals with the return of election expenses, contains form No. 63 which sets out what the official agent is supposed to do. The hon. member for Port Arthur referred to a book which contains instructions for returning officers with respect to by-elections. I assume they would apply also to general elections. On page 265 of this book, under item No. 1, we find the following:

1-Receipts.

(a) Money or its value received.

There are accurately set out hereunder the name and occupation of every person (including the candidate) and of every club, society, company or association, from whom any money, securities or the equivalent of money was received in respect of expenses incurred on account of or in connection with or incidental to the above election, showing in the case of each person the amount or value received as a contribution (including subscription or gift), loan, advance, deposit or otherwise.

In essence parliament has decided it is desirable that the official agent of the candidate shall make known to the public the amounts of money, the loans, the gifts, the bequests, the securities, or anything else of a similar nature, contributed toward the expenses of the candidate in a particular constituency. Although parliament has decided that it is desirable for the public to know where this money comes from, this requirement is not met because of the existence of provincial or national associations of political parties. If, for argument's sake, 90205-6-367

Supply-Secretary of State my official agent, or any candidate's official agent, receives the sum of $5,000 from the national or provincial party, the entry he makes on the return is: "Name, C.C.F., provincial, British Columbia, or Yukon section," or whatever it may be. "Address, British Columbia; occupation, political party," I suppose. The source of the $5,000, whether it is from a company, association, society or the like, is not revealed; it is hidden.

If parliament has decided that it is a desirable thing to make known to the public the contributions toward election expenses, in so far as the official agent is concerned, then to me it is an equally desirable thing, or even perhaps more desirable, that parliament should enlarge this and say it is also in the public interest to make known the contributions which are made at the national or provincial level as well. Otherwise, although parliament has decided it is desirable to do this sort of thing, a loophole would exist so that anyone who wanted to make a contribution with strings attached, as Senator Douglas and others have pointed out has happened, as a sort of prepayment for favours expected, could do so.

Anyone who wished to engage in this sort of contributing with strings attached, could easily evade the provisions of the Canada Elections Act as passed by parliament by making the contributions initially to some person other than the official agent. He could make it to a national association, or a provincial association, or even to a constituency association. On the return the agent could say that the money was received from some general source within the party. This gets around the provision of the Canada Elections Act which parliament decided was essential when it said that the public should have knowledge of most of the contributions made toward election expenses.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink

Item agreed to. Civil service commission- 66. Salaries and contingencies of the commission including compensation in accordance with the suggestion award plan of the public service of Canada, $4,486,681.


CCF

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Herridge:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on this item which relates to the civil service commission. I noted in the Gazette of this morning a further reference to Dr. Chaput and his case. The article reads:

Chaput says he'll reply in few days

Dr. Marcel Chaput, vice president of a Quebec secessionist movement, yesterday said he will reply within a few days to an invitation that he quit his defence research board job.

He said he will issue a statement replying to Dr. J. E. Keyston, vice president of the board. Dr. Keyston said Thursday Dr. Chaput's "political activities" are incompatible with his work as a federal government civil servant.

5814 HOUSE OF

Supply-Secretary of State

Dr. Chaput, 42-year old chemist for the defence research board, has been in federal service for 17 years.

There were rumours that a group of Progressive Conservative M.P.'s would ask Prime Minister Diefenbaker to see that Dr. Chaput is not forced out.

Dr. Chaput Wednesday night addressed a meeting of "le reassemblement pour l'independance nationale". He said that Quebec will secede from confederation before 1967 if the secession movement continues to expand at the present rate.

Jean-Noel Tremblay, Progressive Conservative member for Roberval who was one of three government members attending the meeting in Hull, said he had not heard of any project to approach Mr. Diefenbaker about Dr. Chaput's job.

I rise to say a few words on the question, because I am concerned on two grounds.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
PC

Richard Albert Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Bell (Carleton):

May I raise a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman, I believe, is talking about an employee of the defence research board. The defence research board is in no way under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission, and the employees are not civil servants under the commission. Normally, in my submission, it would not be appropriate to discuss the matter under this item, but it would be appropriate under an item of the Department of National Defence estimates.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
CCF

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Herridge:

I have been informed that this gentleman has been a civil servant for 17 years.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
PC

Richard Albert Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Bell (Carleton):

The employees of the defence research board do not come under the civil service commission.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
CCF

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Herridge:

Perhaps the minister could inform the committee whether he is a civil servant.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
PC

Noël Dorion (Secretary of State of Canada)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Dorion:

No, he is not.

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink
CCF

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Herridge:

Then it is not in order for me to discuss the matter under this item?

Topic:   STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA
Permalink

June 3, 1961