1955-05-25

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Pictou) presented the tenth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 380, respecting the Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 408, to incorporate Trans-Border Pipeline Company Limited.-Mr. Decore.


Mr. Hees:: 1.	Was the Scarboro plant built in 1952 by the John Inglis Company Limited purchased by the government of Canada?
2.	If so, for what purpose was it purchased and what was the purchase price?
3.	Has the said plant been sold by the government?
4.	If so, to whom was it sold and what was the price agreed upon?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	The Scarboro plant under construction by the John Inglis Company Limited was purchased by the government of Canada in March, 1952, and construction was completed by the government as a capital assistance project.
2.	The plant was constructed as a facility for the production of naval turbines at a total cost of $3,199,170 including the purchase price of $1,200,000 for the partially completed plant, but excluding manufacturing equipment.
3.	The sale of the plant, excluding manufacturing equipment (to which the crown retains title), has been authorized by the government although the final sale agreement has not been executed.
4.	The sale will be to the English Electric Company Limited, for operation by the John Inglis Company Limited, at a price of $2,823,539.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: 1.	In how many cases have Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation inspectors refused to approve the construction in houses where approval has been given to builders for loans?
2.	What are the names of the builders?
3.	What is done in these cases where the workmanship is condemned?
He said: Mr. Speaker, having received the information I want I would ask permission to have this question dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



ARMED SERVICES


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: 1.	Are service personnel allowed to make assignments of pay in the form of savings to banks and other similar institutions?
2.	Can such assignments be made to the Investors Syndicate or other similar investment companies?
3.	Can assignments of pay be made to credit unions?
4.	If not, for what reason?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Assignments can be made to the Investors Syndicate.
3.	Yes, since May 12.
4.	Not applicable.



OLD AGE SECURITY PAYMENTS, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Balcom:: How much money was expended during 1954 on old age security for residents of Nova Scotia?


Mr. Robertson:: Fiscal year 1954-55-$18,168,115.



TAHSIS, B.C.-CUSTOMS OFFICER

Mr. Barnett:: 1.	What salary is paid to the customs and excise officer at Tahsis, British Columbia?
2.	Is this a full time or part time position?
3.	If part time, what hours, and under what circumstances is this officer required to be on duty?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	The customs officer at Tahsis, B.C., is paid a salary of $2,910 per annum.

Questions
2.	This is a full time position. Regular office hours are from 8.45 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. to 5.25 p.m.
3.	See answer to No. 2 above.



R.C.A.F., MARITIME PROVINCES  GENERATING UNITS REPAIRED

Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):: How many auxiliary generating diesel and gasoline units of the Royal Canadian Air Force were sent from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to other provinces for overhaul and repairs in the years 1953 and 1954, or fiscal years 1952-53, 1953-54?



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE


Mr. Purdy:: 1.	When a recipient of old age assistance payments is transferred to the old age security payroll and an overpayment is in existence or later discovered, does the treasury board in each case direct recovery of the overpayments from the pensioners old age security payments? If not, what are the exceptions?
2.	By provinces, what is the number and amount of (a) overpayments fully recovered; (b) overpayments in the course of recovery by monthly deductions?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: 


Mr. Blanchette:: New Brunswick
Gasoline Diesel
1953-	54	
10	-1954-	55	
10	-
Nova Scotia
Gasoline Diesel
1953-	54	
15	11954-	55	
-	-
Prince Edward Island
Gasoline Diesel
1953-	54	
4	-1954-	55	
5	-
Note: Records were not kept prior to 195354. Most of the above are small Homelite generator sets which are shipped for repairs to the Canadian agents in Montreal.



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Harkness:: 1.	From the start of the Korean war to March 31, 1955, what has been the total number of releases on account of desertion, or absence without leave: (a) from the navy: (b) from the army; (c) from the air force?
2.	What was the largest number of men posted as deserters or A.W.L. at any one time and what was the date?


Mr. Blancheile:: 1.	The total number of releases for misconduct-illegally absent and not claimed for further service-during the period in question was: (a) Navy: 20; (b) army: 3,816; (c) air force: 153,
As at 31 March 1955, the total number of personnel listed as illegally absent over 21 days (90 days in the navy) was: (a) Navy: 154; (b) army: 1,021; (c) air force: 64.
2.	The largest number of personnel listed at any one time as illegally absent over 21 days (90 days in the navy) was:
Number	Date
Navy	 154	31 March 1955
Army	 4,917 30 September 1953
Air force 

 192 30 November 1953

1. When a recipient of old age assistance is transferred to old age security and there exists an overpayment which the old age assistance authorities have been unsuccessful in recovering from the pensioner, they ordinarily report the case to the treasury board for an order to recover the amount outstanding by monthly deductions from		old age
security payments.		
2. (a) As at April 30

		
	Number	
Province	of cases	AmountNewfoundland 	... 2	$ 60.00Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia 	.. 5	159.10New Brunswick	. . 3	108.30Quebec 	. . 106	10,956.42Ontario	. . 22	957.95Manitoba 	. . 11	1,036.30Saskatchewan 	. . 4	54.72Alberta	. . 9	453.77British Columbia ....	. . 11	415.66Yukon and Northwest	Territories	2. (b) As at April 30-	Number	Province	of cases	AmountNewfoundland 	.. 15	$ 2,074.47Prince Edward Island.	.. 1	70.00Nova Scotia 	. . 57	9,357.45New Brunswick 	. . 30	5,346.14Quebec 	. . 358	73,929.39Ontario 	. . 93	20,511.03Manitoba 	. . 34	8,918.93Saskatchewan	. . 57	8,698.98Alberta 	. . 38	10,026.77British Columbia	. . 40	10,501.04Yukon and Northwest	Territories	. . 2	288.30
ASSISTANT GRAIN COMMISSIONER Mr. Argue:
1.	What is the name and address of the person appointed most recently as assistant grain commissioner, and what was the date of his appointment?
2.	Who made the appointment?

3.	What are the names and addresses of any person or persons who recommended the appointment of this man?
4.	What were the terms of each such recommendation?
5.	(a) Did the Minister of Trade and Commerce know what person was being appointed to the position at or prior to the actual appointment; (b) If so, did anyone recommend the person to the minister and, if so, who made the recommendation?
6.	To whom did the person appointed apply for the position?
7.	Was the application made verbally or in writing?


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: 1.	Mr. J. I. Hetland, 830 Temperance street, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, effective April 18, 1955.
2.	The government of Canada by order in council No. 1955-626, dated April 29, 1955.
3.	The board of grain commissioners for Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
4.	Previous experience and availability.
5.	(a) Yes. (b) Answered by No. 3.
6.	To the board of grain commissioners and to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
7.	Verbally to both.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Fulton:: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., exchanged between the office of the Auditor General and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and/or the Minister of National Revenue, since January 1, 1950, relating to the accounts of the said corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the Auditor General personally about this matter, and I am informed by him that a search of the files shows that the only correspondence and written representations dealing with the matter I have in mind is the letter which has now been tabled in the radio committee. Under the circumstances I would ask leave to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.



INCOME TAX BUILDING, WINDSOR

Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all letters and telegrams since the first day of January, 1950, which passed between any department of government and any corporation or person relating to negotiations for the purchase or acquisition otherwise of land required for income tax office premises in the city of Windsor.
Motions for Papers



NATIONAL REVENUE


John George Diefenbaker: For photostatic copies of documents in the possession of the Department of National Revenue concerning advances or payments made or given by John T. Drohan, since deceased, to James Dempsey sometime during the year 1951, which said photostatic copies were shown by the Minister of National Revenue to the premier of Ontario on or about April 26 or 27 last.


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


Mr. McCann:: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to oppose this motion and I wish to say with reference to it that I have already indicated to the house that I communicated certain information respecting the estate of the late John T. Drohan to the premier of Ontario in his capacity as provincial treasurer, under the agreement between the governments of Ontario and Canada, which has already been tabled in the house. That agreement provided for the exchange of information concerning provincial and federal succession duties.
By the terms of the Dominion Succession Duty Act I am under an obligation not to disclose any such information to anyone whomsoever who is not entitled by law to receive it. In this, as in all other matters, I have scrupulously refrained from disclosing such information to anybody not entitled by law to receive it. I therefore cannot be held responsible for recent publicity which has occurred in relation to what is alleged to be information lawfully disclosed by me.
In view of the express provisions of the Dominion Succession Duty Act I am unable to comply with the request now made of me that I disclose any such information to the house or any committee of the house. Because of the statutory bar the government has no option but to oppose this motion and also the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member allow his motion to be dropped, in the circumstances?


John George Diefenbaker: No.




Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of any photostats or other reproductions or facsimiles of any documents sent or shown to the premier and/or provincial treasurer of Ontario by the Minister of National Revenue at any time since April 25, 1955.
Sinclair
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Thibault
Thomas
Tucker
Valois
Villeneuve
Vincent
Weaver
Weir
White (Waterloo South)
Wylie
Yuill-135.
Anderson
Applewhaite
Ashbourne
Balcom
Batten
Blackmore
Blanchette
Boisvert
Brown (Brantford)
Brown (Essex West)
Bruneau
Buchanan
Byrne
Campney
Cannon
Cardin
Caron
Carrick
Carter
Cauchon
Cavers
Crestohl
Croll
Dechene
Denis
Deschatelets
Deslieres
Dumas
Dupuis
Enfield
Eudes
Fairey
Fontaine
Forgie
Fraser (St. John's East)
Gagnon
Gardiner
Garland
Garson
Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Gauthier (Nickel Belt)
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Gingras
Gingues
Goode
Gour (Russell)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Habel
Hahn
Hanna
Harrison
Healy
Henderson
Hollingworth
Holowach

Houck
Huffman
Hunter
James
Johnston (Bow River) Jutras
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough) Lafontaine Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere)
Lapointe
Lavigne
Leboe
Leduc (Gatineau)
Leduc (Verdun)
Lefrangois
Legare
Lesage
Low
MacDougall
MacEachen
MacKenzie
Macnaughton
McCann
McCubbin
McCulloch (Pictou)
Mcllraith
Mclvor
McLeod
McMillan
MeWilliam
Mang
Martin
Masse
Meunier
Michaud
Mitchell (Sudbury) Monette
Murphy (Westmorland)
Patterson
Pearson
Philpott
Pickersgill
Pinard
Pommer
Poulin
Pouliot
Power (Quebec South)
Power (St. John's West)
Proudfoot
Prudham
Purdy
Quelch


Mr. Speaker:: The non. member for Winnipeg North Centre will perhaps be good enough to tell me whether he does not consider that his motion is substantially the same as that which has just been voted upon by the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there are
certain differences between them, but substantially they are the same. Since my motion would probably meet with the same fate I might as well leave it to Your Honour to deal with as you wish.


Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members will read
this motion and the previous one they will see that the language is almost identical, except that the hon. member for Prince Albert asks for documents since April 26 or 27 while the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre refers to documents since April 25.
That is about the only difference. Since the hon. member was kind enough to indicate to me that it was substantially the same, I merely invoke citation 325 of Beauchesne's third edition, which is to this effect:
A motion or amendment cannot be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has already been decided, because a proposition being once submitted and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house.
Therefore I declare the motion to be out of order.



WESTERN FLOODS


John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all correspondence and telegrams, since the 1st day of May, 1955, received by any department of government from provincial governments, rural municipalities and local improvement districts, requesting assistance and compensation for the flood losses in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the replies thereto.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: There is no objection to the production of all these documents, but I should like to make two observations. First, we would send the usual courtesy communications to the governments which have written to us to ascertain if they have any valid objection to the production of what they have sent us. Second, in producing the documents we will not try to determine whether they constitute requests for assistance and compensation, but will file all those that refer to the damage caused by storms since May 1, 1955.


John George Diefenbaker: That is agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion will carry, subject to the observations made by the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue arising out of the statement he made earlier today. Did the photostatic copies of documents to which he referred and to which the motion referred deal only with matters covered by the succession duty act? Were those documents in the possession of the department or the executors of the Drohan estate?


James Joseph McCann: As I have received no notice of this question I shall take it into consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question, of which notice may be considered to have been given on May 9. Will the minister say when he will be in a position to answer my questions which have been on the order paper since the 9th of May, and which appear as No. 5 today?


James Joseph McCann: Question No. 5 will be answered in due course.



EFFECT OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
ask the Prime Minister if in the light of the statement made earlier this afternoon by the Minister of National Revenue it is the view of the government that agreements entered into between the federal and provincial governments can have the effect of
Inquiries of the Ministry overriding the provisions of federal legislation such as the succession duty act?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No agreement could have the effect of overriding the provisions of the succession duty act, but there is a special section in that act providing for the making and implementing of such agreements.



INQUIRY AS TO CONSIDERATION OF DEPARTMENTAL ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: May
I ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to bring down the estimates of the Department of National Revenue before the Ontario election is over?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question. Arrangements for the order of business in the house are being made by the leader of the house in conference with representatives of other groups in the house. I shall bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the Minister of Finance, who is acting as house leader, and ask him if he will give the hon. gentleman an answer.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if any of the district officers of the income tax department are allowed to permit the deduction for income tax purposes of contributions to political organizations or political candidates?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. Political contributions can be made. The donor of those pays the tax, and they are not deductible expenses in his hands, nor are they revenue if they go through the proper channels to the person who receives them.



REPORTED CLOSING OF NOVA SCOTIA MINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: May I ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys if he will inform the house

Inquiries of the Ministry whether any progress was made at the conference held in Halifax on May 20 in regard to keeping 1-B colliery at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, operating after May 30; and second, was any progress made in regard to securing additional markets for the Nova Scotia coal industry?


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Cape Breton South for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question.
At the invitation of the government of Nova Scotia a meeting was held in Halifax on Friday, May 20, with the premier of Nova Scotia in the chair, to review the problem presented by the closure of No. 1-B colliery at Glace Bay. My hon. colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Ivlac-Eachen), and I attended this meeting, accompanied by officials of the Department of Labour and the dominion coal board. Also present were representatives of the provincial government, the executive of district 26, united mine workers, and executive officers of the Dominion Coal Company.
The problems of finding markets for the coal from this and other collieries of the area were most carefully studied. The effect on the market for coal of imports of low cost residual fuel oil was reviewed, and the possibility of developing additional outlets for coal was thoroughly canvassed. The effects on the life and economy of the area of the projected closure were brought out, and the problems of finding alternative employment for over 700 miners affected were stressed.
The meeting was investigatory only, and I can report that factors that could have a bearing on this difficult situation were brought forward and carefully examined. One promising line of investigation having to do with markets abroad was developed and is being intensively pursued at the present time by the Dominion Coal Company, the dominion coal board and officers of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
If successful this may enable the company to maintain this colliery in operation without causing additional difficulties in the marketing of coal from other collieries in the province. I expect to be able to report upon this at a later date, possibly when the estimates of the dominion coal board are before the committee; but since the negotiations are presently under way I would prefer to avoid being more specific at the present time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbiii (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the minister of external affairs. Will the minister state why a press release having to do with a visit to Montreal by the permanent representatives to the NATO council last Sunday and Monday was apparently released at noon on Wednesday, May 18, but was sent to members of this house only today? Second, has the minister any statement to make with respect to the significance of this visit and its results?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as to the first point raised by the hon. member I shall look into the matter to see if the facts as alleged are correct. If they are found to be so I shall inquire the reason for the delay.
As to the second question, I can only say that it was a routine visit of the permanent North Atlantic Treaty Organization council to inspect certain defence establishments in the United States and around Montreal. There is nothing I can report beyond that. If any report is to be made it will be made by the council when it returns to Paris.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he could indicate when he expects to be able to table the correspondence between himself and Mr. Parker relating to the position of crown attorney for the Northwest Territories, for which an order was passed some time ago.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Very shortly; I should think probably tomorrow.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the government give consideration to a suggestion made at the national highway safety council conference that legislation be enacted to make

possible a national authority to cope with the terrific death tolls taking place on our highways?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is a matter which will certainly receive consideration, but at first blush it would appear to require an amendment to the constitution to give parliament the right to legislate in any way except in the field of criminal law with regard to highway traffic.



PROVISION OF RECREATION SPACE FOR PAGE BOYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, having regard to the health and physical fitness of the page boys I wish to thank the Minister of Public Works for granting us a green spot in which to keep fit. The minister thinks boys are more valuable than grass, and my point of privilege is that it was on this same spot a year ago tomorrow when we lost our great Christian athlete, "big Lionel".



YUKON QUARTZ MINING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 24, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Lesage-Mr. Robinson (Sim-coe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to repeal the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, chapter 301 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, and to make provision by means of a new act for all substantive rights relating to quartz mining in the Yukon, including the rights to stake and acquire mineral claims and leases, and to provide for certain modifications in the administration of the law.
Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Chairman, at the adjournment last night I was about to outline the recommendations of Mr. Cole, which formed the basis of the legislation which this resolution seeks to introduce. The first recommendation is that there should be no change in the placer mining act at this time. I have already mentioned this last night.
The second recommendation deals with the question of whether quartz mining in the Yukon should be governed by statute or regulation. Mr. Cole recommended against the original plan to cover mining in the Yukon entirely by regulation. He stated that the Yukon mining fraternity wanted to have the essential privileges of prospectors safe-
Yukon Quartz Mining Act guarded by statutory provisions. The recommendation of Mr. Cole was as follows:
I therefore recommend that the rights of the prospector to prospect and stake claims anywhere in the Yukon Territory be protected by statute and that all administrative procedures of such prospecting and staking, including the number and size of claims, the method of staking, the use of cairns, the recording of claims, the granting of leases and all other matters connected with the disposal of mining rights should be provided for by regulations.
The bill has been drafted along those lines. All the substantive provisions of the present act are covered by sections of the bill to be introduced. The administrative procedures will be provided for by regulation of the governor in council. The result will be to give full and adequate protection to all matters of substance. Such matters cannot be changed without an act of parliament.
As a matter of fact we shall have put rather more into the statute than Mr. Cole recommended. For instance, in the act will be a provision as to the number of claims that can be staked, a provision as to the size of claims, and much of the procedure of an important character with regard to the recording of claims will also be in the act. This is to ensure full protection to the Yukon prospectors.
I want to give the assurance that the placing of procedural matters in regulations will not in any way endanger the privileges now enjoyed by prospectors. I wish to stress that only the detailed procedures of administration will be governed by regulation. The compromise recommended by Mr. Cole and embodied in the bill will provide for flexibility in administrative procedures, but will assure protection of substantive rights.
Regulations in respect to the administration of natural resources are not new to the people in the Yukon Territory. The Territorial Lands Act is applicable to the Yukon. Lands, as far as surface rights are concerned, timber, oil and gas rights, quarrying, dredging for minerals, are all administered by regulations. One of the pertinent recommendations of Mr. Cole deals with the question of withdrawing areas from ordinary staking, and to grant reservations or concessions by public competitions. This is an important matter. The virtue of that procedure is that it enables an area that is capable of development only on a large scale and at high cost to be bid on by companies which have the resources to develop it.


An hon. Member:: Are you talking about oil development now?


Jean Lesage: I am talking about mineral development-quartz mining. The procedure

Yukon Quartz Mining Act is often of distinct advantage for the development of a region. In answer to the hon. member for Yukon I might say that the Pine Point development is a good example of the necessity at times of granting so-called concessions. The Pine Point concession in the Northwest Territories is really much too large to be developed by small holders, and it is susceptible of development only on a very large scale. The granting of reservations or concessions often encourages capital and enterprise to come into a region. However, there has been and there is considerable opposition in the Yukon to the governor in council having any right to grant concessions or reservations.
Mr. Cole recommended:
I believe that a healthy condition exists in the Yukon in so far as the individual prospector is concerned and that the time has not yet come when "the governor in council should be given the right to withdraw areas in the Yukon Territory from ordinary staking or to grant reservations or concessions by public competition."
I would recommend that the granting of reservations or concessions be reviewed if and when conditions change.
Since, as I have said, in this new bill we are following the recommendations of the Cole report, the bill to be introduced consequently contains no provision to enable concessions or reservations being granted. This is also due to the objections we have received from the prospectors in the Yukon, and to the objections that were very strongly made by the hon. member for Yukon himself.
The fourth recommendation of the Cole report deals with the method of staking. Under the present act claims staked in the Yukon require only two posts to be marked; that is to say, a location line is established. The rest of the claim is supposed to be a square based on that line. All corners of the claim are not marked on the ground. The so-called two-post staking or single-line staking is such that the boundaries of the claim are not marked.
An important question referred to Mr. Cole was whether this should be done away with and four-post staking substituted. Four-post staking requires the marking of all four corners of a claim and the establishment of all four sides. As a matter of fact, only the Yukon, British Columbia and Alberta now have two-post staking. The Northwest Territories and all other provinces have four-post staking. If we go across the border we find that Alaska, Utah, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada and many other states have four-post staking or even more than four-post staking, and require all boundaries to be marked.
There are some prospectors in the Yukon who are much attached to the two-post

staking. I know the hon. member for Yukon disagrees with Mr. Cole on that score and I expect him to give reasons for two-post staking.


Mr. Simmons:: I am not the only one, Mr. Chairman.


Jean Lesage: But that does not mean the hon. member is right, sir. The disadvantages of two-post staking are certainly very great. There is no doubt about that. That is the reason it has generally been done away with. The greatest defect is that it does not adequately mark a claim and so it leads to overlapping and confusion, and to "fractions". One has only to look at a survey chart to see that this is true. It makes the maintenance of accurate records and claim sheets virtually impossible. The situation has been pictured to me by a leading man in the mining industry in Canada recently as being so bad that he said he would not consider buying a Yukon mining claim without surveying it as well as all neighbouring claims.


Mr. Green:: Does that apply to British Columbia as well?


Jean Lesage: He said in the Yukon, in conversation with me.


Howard Charles Green: There is the same law in British Columbia.


Jean Lesage: He said he could have no assurance that the claim he might buy would not be covered or overlapped by another valid registered claim. To quite an extent, I am told-even though I do not have to discuss it here-that the situation parallels that in British Columbia, because they have only two-post staking.


Howard Charles Green: He did not know much concerning what he was talking about.


Jean Lesage: Maybe he did not, but he has been in the mining industry all of his life.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Can the minister tell us where this authority carries on his business?


Jean Lesage: In the Yukon. He has interests in the Yukon, but his claims there were surveyed a long time ago. He said he thought the situation was detrimental to mining development in the Yukon. Mr. Cole went into that question of four-post and two-post staking very fully, and I believe it is worth putting on record his recommendation and his conclusion on that score:
In the final analysis the strongest argument used in favour of two-post staking is that it is better adapted to the rugged western terrain. In fact, it is about the only reasonable argument offered. That it is easy, simple and quick is hardly acceptable where a matter of acquiring title to mineral

land is involved. And with changing conditions in the acquisition of mineral claims, the fact that the two-post method has been used for years does not measure up to modern needs. Nor is the four-post staking any more difficult to understand than the two-post method, although it must be admitted that it demands more work. All of which prompts the inclusion of a question asked by a prospector, "Do you want to do it right or do you want to do it easy?"
I am still quoting Mr. Cole's report:
I am of the opinion that four-post staking can be and should be used in the Yukon Territory despite the many areas of rugged terrain.
I am convinced further that if the prospecting fraternity of the Yukon accept the four-post staking as an endeavour to improve the prospector-purchaser relations in their territory, it should stimulate the interest of those financially able to develop the mineral resources of the Yukon, to the mutual advantage of all concerned.
The present Yukon Quartz Mining Act, section 26, has provisions for the staking out of a claim "in case it is found impossible, owing to the presence of water or other insurmountable obstacle to set post No. 2 in its proper position ..." etc.
I am confident if study be made of this provision for witness posts then an effective plan can be devised for four-post staking.
However, some suggestion has been made that the two-post staking could be used in some areas and the four-post in others. This would not be a compromise, rather would it lead to more confusion.
In my opinion it is one method or the other, and I have expressed myself as being in favour of four-post staking.
The bill does not include a clause dealing with the method of staking. It will not be in the bill. This is, as the Cole report recommends, a procedural matter. However, as it is a question of importance I wish to make clear now what the Cole report says and what is the intention as to what will be the regulations and what will be in the new act.
The fifth recommendation of the Cole report had to do with the surveying of claims. I quote the recommendation:
I am of the opinion that the minister should have the right to demand that an unsurveyed claim be surveyed within a reasonable time-depending on the circumstances that may arise.
The new act will provide for this. The old act also provided for the same thing.
The sixth recommendation deals with the requirement to take out leases. The present act does not require leases to be taken out after any specified period or even before substantial mining operations occur. We do not believe it is satisfactory to have claims remaining simply as claims indefinitely. In his report Mr. Cole recommended:
A limit of ten years after the recording of a claim be set as that at which a claim holder should take out a lease.
And in order that those presently holding claims may be brought to comply with a time limit, such as may be applied to future claim holders, I would suggest further that present claim holders
Yukon Quartz Mining Act be given a period of ten years-from, say July 1, 1954 (or such other date as may be found advisable), to take out leases so that all claim holders may be on the same basis.
The bill will provide accordingly.
I have now given a brief summary of the recommendations of the Cole report. I have gone into them in detail because they form the basis of the proposed legislation. I wish to emphasize, however, that they are not simply the views of one man. Last night I cited the great experience of Mr. Cole, one of the best qualified men in Canada to give an expert opinion on these questions.


James Aubrey Simmons: May I interrupt the minister? What does Mr. Cole know about mining in the Yukon? I should like to know that.


Jean Lesage: He has been concerned with mining in British Columbia and two or three other provinces. He made a special study of mining in the Yukon when he was appointed, with the approval of the member for Yukon, with whom Mr. Cole discussed the matter personally to his great satisfaction. The hon. member for Yukon expressed his dissatisfaction only when he noticed that Mr. Cole's report did not give expression to all his opinions on the matter.


James Aubrey Simmons: May I interrupt the minister? The minister intimates that I knew all about Mr. Cole's appointment long before the appointment was made. I did not know a thing about it until after the appointment was made. I did have an interview with Colonel Cole and found him to be a very fine gentleman, but I did not know at that time he was a proponent of four-post staking and a series of regulations without the stability of an act. I have changed my mind completely.


Jean Lesage: I just wish to say that in making his report Mr. Cole did not do so as a proponent of four-post staking. His recommendations included four-post staking in the Yukon for the various reasons he gave in his report, not because he was a proponent but because after having studied the matter he felt that should be the method of staking in the Yukon and would be of great benefit there.
I do not want to enter into a discussion at this time. When the bill has been read the first time, distributed to interested parties and received second reading, I shall propose that it be sent to a committee where all interested parties can be heard and the matter can be discussed. I have an open mind. I do not believe I can be accused by anyone in the house of having anything but an open mind. I am open to conviction at all times.

Yukon Quartz Mining Act What I wish to say, though, is that up to now I have not been convinced that Mr. Cole was wrong.
I also wish to emphasize that the views expressed by Mr. Cole are not the only ones on which we have relied. The department has received a great many representations on various subjects, and this is to the knowledge of some members of the house. As I said last night, in the session of 1953-54 a bill was presented to the house which would have brought quartz and placer mining in the Yukon under the regulations established under the Territorial Lands Act, as is the case in the Northwest Territories. Considerable opposition was voiced to that way of proceeding, and it was for the purpose of trying to break the deadlock that, after consulting people who know a lot about mining in Canada and my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, Mr. Cole was appointed to give an expert opinion. We now have the expert opinion and we believe it is sound.
Mr. Cole is not the only man who has advanced ideas, and the bill to be introduced follows the recommendations that have been made. That will be a very good basis on which the committee can go to work to consider these technical matters, and they can be discussed there without anyone getting mad at anybody else. I am concerned with what is in the best interests of the Yukon. That is really what we have at heart, and what we want to do is further the development of the Yukon. As I said, the views in the report have been adopted not only because they are those of Mr. Cole but also for ether reasons, among them being the fact that they are in accord with mining experience elsewhere in Canada-


Mr. Herridge:: Not in British Columbia.


Jean Lesage: No?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No.


Jean Lesage: -and also in the northwestern states of the United States and Alaska where, as an example, you not only have four-post staking but six or seven-post staking.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: They want to change to the British Columbia system.


Jean Lesage: Some may like to change but others do not want to change. It is a very difficult question and one that I believe should be discussed in the committee where expert advice can be had. That is why I shall propose later that the bill be sent to a committee. It is a highly technical matter and really one for committee discussion.


I leave the Cole report for the moment because it dealt only with a few matters of major policy. There are also a number of other provisions of the existing law which require modification. Apart from matters referred to in the report, the following are the principal new provisions in the proposed legislation. First, miners' licences will be required before claims can be staked and held. These are not now required. I discussed this matter with various persons, including my friends from the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines two weeks ago, and they agree with the proposal. That is at least one point on which we agree. There will be annual renewal of these licences, and free licences will be given to people who have prospected or owned claims in the Yukon for 25 years.


James Aubrey Simmons: They all have long beards already, without waiting 25 years.


Jean Lesage: This provision is to please the member for Yukon. Second, the size of claims would be reduced from 51-6 acres to 40 acres.


Howard Charles Green: This is to be in the regulations?


Jean Lesage: No, this will be in the act. Only strictly procedural matters will be covered by the regulations.


James Aubrey Simmons: But smaller claims will create far more fractions, and I thought that was what you were trying to get away from.


Jean Lesage: I cannot agree with that for various reasons that I am ready to discuss at any time with the hon. member, but I do not believe we should take up the time of the house with such technical matters. The bill will go to a committee and I believe we can have a very good discussion there. But it is my duty to say what are the principles of the bill to be introduced. The number of claims that may be staked would be increased from 8 to 12. The reason for the change is to get claims to a size that will facilitate the preparation of claim sheets and maps, and make available to prospectors up to date information as to what land is open for staking.
The new claims will be 40 acres, and that has a great advantage to it. The sides of claims will be 1,320 feet, which means a quarter of a mile by a quarter of a mile, so if you take four claims together it will represent an area half a mile square. You do not run into fractions of acres. You can have fractions of miles, but they are divided evenly. Another advantage is that most claim

sheets and mining maps are on an inch scale and the change will assist in recording and mapping claims.
A third provision will have to do with the staking of additional claims where a discovery claim is located in a new area. This will be new to the Yukon. The purpose is to provide added incentive for the prospecting of new areas. A fourth aspect of the bill, not dealt with in Mr. Cole's recommendations, will provide that the amount of representation work to be done yearly on claims will be increased from $100 to $200. The $100 figure was set quite a number of years ago, in 1898. Surely, sir, work which was worth $100 in 1898 is worth more than $200 today.


James Aubrey Simmons: That is a good way to drive the little prospectors out of the country.


Jean Lesage: The figure is certainly much too low. Let us see what is done elsewhere. The other provinces require much more work. In Newfoundland, for instance, it is 40 eight-hour days; in Nova Scotia, 80 days' work; in New Brunswick 45 days' work; in Quebec, 25 days' work for the first year; in Ontario, 40 days' work. Taking into account the higher prices in the Yukon, the requirement as to representation work in the Yukon is now the lowest in Canada.


James Aubrey Simmons: May I just interject-


The Chairman:: Order.


James Aubrey Simmons: I have a note here which says that many prospectors feel there is a move on foot to put the individual prospector out of business by means of these unwelcome changes, such as the requirement for $200 worth of assessment work.


Jean Lesage: I do not believe the hon. member will contend that if the requirement of $100 worth of work in 1898 did not drive the individual prospectors out of business, $200 worth will do it today. After all, $200 worth today represents much less work than $100 worth in 1898. Perhaps the hon. member is right, but the advice I received was that persons holding claims should not be able to simply sit on them.


James Aubrey Simmons: I do not think they do sit on them.


Jean Lesage: I believe the $200 requirement will restore the work requirement to something like the amount which was involved When the act was passed in 1924, at which time it was left at $100 which was the figure established in 1898.
Now there will be an additional provision. Credit for representation work done prior to
Yukon Quartz Mining Act the recording will be allowed up to the value of $400. The sections respecting geological and geophysical work have been clarified, and credit of up to 10 years will be allowed, whereas it is now only three years. Finally, the royalty clause has been revised to take into account developments in mining and administrative practice in recent years. The general effect of this will be to reduce the royalty requirements slightly, which should assist mining in the Yukon.
I have given some of the more important changes that will be embodied in the new legislation. The bill will be quite lengthy, but I repeat that all substantive rights will be protected. The matter is complicated. As I said a few moments ago, in order to give a full opportunity to study the bill as well as a full opportunity for interested parties to present their views, at the appropriate time I shall propose that the bill be referred to the select standing committee on mines, forests and waters.
In the committee I intend also to bring forward the proposed regulations, which is not customary, in order that we may have a complete picture of the whole question and so all interested parties may make representations. Then the interested parties and members of parliament will together be able to provide the kind of mining law for the Yukon that will really be in the interests of the development of the Yukon. If we have to amend the bill, we will amend it.


James Aubrey Simmons: The minister has painted a very rosy picture, Mr. Chairman, of how this proposed legislation will benefit mineral resources development in the Yukon Territory, but I emphatically do not agree with him. It is quite evident that the government intend to introduce a bill that will completely revise the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, notwithstanding the fact that numerous protests and representations have been made by the mining fraternity and the people of the Yukon Territory for the retention of the present act, with a few minor amendments to bring it up to date.


Jean Lesage: Not the people, but some people.


James Aubrey Simmons: It is all the same in the long run.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I wonder if I might ask the hon. member what he means by "the mining fraternity"?


James Aubrey Simmons: I mean the mining industry in general; prospectors, mining scouts, engineers, everyone connected with the mining fraternity.


Mr. Byrne:: And the miners' union?

Yukon Quartz Mining Act


James Aubrey Simmons: Yes, and the miners' union, too, if you want to know that. Let us take a look at the wording of this resolution. It seems to me it is very misleading. In other words, it is a lot of eyewash so far as I can see. Listen to it. It is all right to laugh now, but listen to this:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to repeal the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, chapter 301 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, and to make provision by means of a new act for all substantive rights relating to quartz mining in the Yukon, including the rights to stake and acquire mineral claims and leases, and to provide for certain modifications in the administration of the law.
I should like to impress upon hon. members that the existing Yukon Quartz Mining Act contains all the substantive rights and protection, including the right to stake and acquire mineral claims and leases. The crux of the resolution is contained in the last two lines, which read:
. . . and to provide for certain modifications in the administration of the law.
That is the catch. Let me tell you, it does not pull the wool over my eyes. This most certainly means that we are going to have distasteful legislation forced upon us by the arbitrary enactment of a series of regulations, some of them covering procedures, as the minister just said, which will take away from, the stability of the act. I am inclined to believe that the minister has been hoodwinked or ill-advised by his departmental officials, some of whom have probably never been in the Yukon unless possibly for a day or two on a Cook's tour.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Never staked a claim.


James Aubrey Simmons: To be honest with you, I doubt if some of them would know the difference between a frying pan and a gold pan. For the last four years they have been trying to force distasteful legislation upon us.


Clarence Gillis: That is true of all mining.


James Aubrey Simmons: I am sorry to have to take this stand in opposition to the minister, for whom the people of the Yukon have a high respect. It is quite obvious that the proposed legislation will be based on the recommendations contained in the Cole report. A few comments on the Cole report might, therefore, be interesting and timely.
As the minister said last evening, last year Colonel George E. Cole of Winnipeg, Manitoba, was appointed by this government to report on matters concerning the administration of quartz and placer mining in the Yukon Territory. In his report dated Winnipeg, Manitoba, June 18, 1954, he makes live main


recommendations. I shall just summarize these briefly, Mr. Chairman:
1.	That to a large extent the Yukon Quartz Mining Act be eliminated and a series of regulations substituted therefor.
2.	Areas of the Yukon Territory should not be withdrawn from ordinary staking to grant reservations or concessions.
We agree with him entirely on this point.
3.	A system of four-post staking similar to that now in effect in eastern Canada and Alaska should replace the existing two-post, single line method now in effect in the Yukon and British Columbia.
4.	A time limit should be set within which a claim owner must have his mineral claim surveyed.
5.	A claim holder should be compelled to take out a lease within a reasonable period of time.
Colonel Cole suggests a limit of 10 years after the mineral claim has been recorded.
In all fairness, at the outset I might say that Colonel Cole is held in high esteem not only for his personal qualities but also for his many years of service to the mining industry. While holding my personal respect and admiration for Colonel Cole, I feel I would be remiss in my responsibilities if I did not state frankly my opposition to certain of his recommendations, which were probably preconceived by officials of this same department. In doing so I feel assured I am expressing the views of an overwhelming majority of people domiciled in the Yukon Territory.
These recommendations are most objectionable to at least 95 per cent of the people associated with prospecting and mining development in the Yukon Territory. Surely it is not the intention of the government to proceed with legislation that is contrary to the wishes of the great majority of the mining fraternity. I am most emphatically in agreement with the submissions of the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines, the Yukon territorial council, chambers of commerce, boards of trade and others.


Jean Lesage: I am sorry to interrupt, but while the Yukon council did not agree completely with Mr. Cole's report, they did not object to the whole report.


James Aubrey Simmons: I shall bring that up later and read the resolution into the record.
In order to acquaint the house with the wishes of the various organizations and the people in the Yukon Territory I am going to quote several telegrams and letters I have received on the subject. These letters and telegrams will support my view that no changes in the present act, without the knowledge

and against the wishes of the united interests of the mining industry in the Yukon Territory, should be made. In other words we do not like to see an acceleration of the trend away from democratic procedure.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You represent the people.


James Aubrey Simmons: That is what I intend to do.


Mr. Sinclair:: Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.


James Aubrey Simmons: Let me answer the interjection by the hon. member for Kootenay West by quoting the words of Tennyson:
Because right is right, to follow right
Were wisdom in the scorn of consequence.
Here is a telegram from Frank E. Woodside, manager of the British Columbia-Yukon chamber of mines. It is as follows:
Understand mining bill based on Cole report will be introduced shortly. One hundred per cent Yukon Territory prospectors favour present two-post staking method. Four-post method in Yukon definitely impractical. All prospectors absolutely opposed governing by regulations and strongly favour mining acts. Present Yukon Quartz Mining Act with few minor amendments considered most satisfactory. Prospectors would like to know what few people endeavouring force through these regulations against wishes practical Yukon mining people. Urge you do everything possible prevent passing this very unpopular legislation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You will get lots of help.


James Aubrey Simmons: Here is one signed by A. R. Hayes, Speaker of the Yukon territorial council. It will be understood that the Yukon territorial council is an elected body. In other words this resolution is the voice of the Yukon. It reads as follows:
Whereas the Cole report has been widely read and studied by the people of the Yukon Territory and has met with great disapproval; and whereas the criticism of this report written by Dr. William V. Smitheringale has been given wide publicity throughout the territory and in the opinion of the council has met with the approval of the people of the territory:
Now therefore be it resolved:
That we, the Yukon territorial council now in session, strongly urge that the Hon. Jean Lesage, Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, place before the members of the House of Commons and have consideration given to the proposals of Dr. Smitheringale as set out in his submitted brief on the Cole report.
I have copies of Dr. Smitheringale's criticism of the Cole report. I would be glad to send a copy to anyone wishing to have it.


Howard Charles Green: Was that resolution passed unanimously?


James Aubrey Simmons: Yes, unanimously; but that does not mean anything to the people over there. Then here is one from the Whitehorse board of trade:
Whitehorse board of trade has passed the following resolution condemning the Cole report and
Yukon Quartz Mining Act
recommending Dr. Smitheringale's criticism and recommendations also that present Yukon Quartz Mining Act be retained with minor amendments as this act worked to the satisfaction of the mining fraternity since 1924. We are therefore opposed to four-post staking and regulations in any form as proposed in the Cole report.
Then I have a lengthy letter from the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines. I do not wish to take up too much time in debate, so I shall quote only the concluding paragraph which says:
Our executive committee feels confident that by far the majority of prospectors and mining companies active in the Yukon Territory are satisfied with the existing Yukon Quartz Mining Act. No one appears to know just who the persons are that desire to scrap this "time tested" act for a series of regulations that are unwelcome among the prospectors and company scouts. Our committee realizes that from time to time certain minor amendments, such as one now required for use of cairns instead of posts in certain areas, are necessary, but see no reason for any radical changes in the Yukon mining laws. May we point out that prospecting and mining development are more active in the Yukon than ever before, with large numbers of new prospectors and mining companies entering that territory each year. We believe it would be most unwise for the department to take any drastic action in respect to mining laws that would discourage the existing enthusiasm and well laid plans for future development of that territory's rich mineral resources.
I have many more communications along the same lines, but I do not wish to take the time to place them on record in full. However, I must point out that the government has been made well aware of the wishes of the people in the Yukon in connection with this matter.
They sent Colonel Cole to the Yukon last summer to make an inquiry. What did he do? Well, he reported to the minister to the effect that the mining industry were quite happy with the Yukon Placer Mining Act, "so leave it alone." He also intimated that the people were quite happy with the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, but that they did not know what was good for them, "so change it."
Did you ever see such contradictory advice? On the one hand he recommended that the department should leave the placer mining act alone because the people of the Yukon were happy with it. On the other hand, although the people were happy with the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, he recommended that it should be changed, and this contrary to the wishes of the people and of the mining industry.
Why is it then, if it is reasonable to conform to public opinion on placer mining operations, that it is not also reasonable to conform to public opinion on quartz mining matters?
I might say that the statements contained in Dr. Smitheringale's report have been

Yukon Quartz Mining Act widely accepted by the mining fraternity. Dr. Smitheringale is a geologist and mining engineer with many years of practical experience in the Yukon as compared with Colonel Cole's record of experience, which is more confined to legislative matters. The people of the Yukon Territory cannot understand why the government would accept the Cole report as a basis for making changes in our Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
The suggested changes in the act made by Colonel Cole, and the comments on his suggestions, together with the opinions of Dr. William V. Smitheringale of Vancouver and Whitehorse, have been carefully studied by everyone concerned, and it is the considered opinion that Dr. Smitheringale's conclusions are basically sound and should be followed. Dr. Smitheringale knows the country, the people and the problems associated with the mining industry and is held in high esteem. We have every confidence in his integrity and ability.


Jean Lesage: His employers do not agree
with you.


James Aubrey Simmons: I do not care what his employers say, the fact is the people back him up 100 per cent.


Jean Lesage: His employers in the mining
industry.


James Aubrey Simmons: You must realize that there is one company up there trying to get the mining laws changed and that is the reason.
It is agreed that some minor amendments are required to the existing act. However, there appears to be no necessity to scrap an excellent act that is most popular among the large number of prospectors and other mining people. It is felt that the wishes and opinions of the large majority of practical mining people active in the Yukon should be considered and that the proposed legislation along the lines of Colonel Cole's recommendations should be reconsidered.
It is the considered and practically unanimous opinion that the granting of reservations or concessions of mineral lands in the Yukon Territory, the arbitrary enactment of four-post staking and repeal of the present two-post staking, the endorsement of compulsory surveys of mineral claims and compulsory applications for leases would be contrary to the true spirit of free enterprise, resulting in unjustifiable hardships to the prospecting and mining fraternity domiciled in the Yukon and in several years of confusion, uncertainty and frustration. Therefore, in my opinion, any proposed legislative action should be confined to amendments to the existing act.

I find it difficult to reconcile certain aspects of Colonel Cole's investigation. For example, why was he selected for this task and who made the selection? Without reflecting in any way on his proven integrity and ability, it is a fact nevertheless that he has indicated in his tenure of office with the Manitoba department of mines that he long has been a proponent of four-post staking and regulations rather than the stability of an act.
Further, why select an individual from one of the only three areas of Canada where mining is administered under regulations rather than someone from the several provinces where at least 90 per cent of metal mining is done and where mining administration under an act has been well proven. Better still, why not an individual from the area involved in such investigation?
Two-post staking is a time-tested, proven and entirely adequate method of establishing claims in such mountainous areas as British Columbia and the Yukon. I am surprised that Alaska should be cited by Colonel Cole as an illustration of the practicability of four-post or seven-post staking.
We are all aware that this is simply a direct and natural extension of the practice within the United States and, unfortunately, is practically impossible to change now. It might well be noted in this connection that these laws were inherited in part originally from the Spanish and are widely admitted by United States authorities to be most unsatisfactory and, in fact, almost unworkable.
Surely under these circumstances we can well afford to look to Alaskan practice as evidence in support of two-post staking. It might also be noted that there is currently a very strong sentiment among the mining fraternity of Alaska for a change in the method of staking.
In spite of the kindly sentiment expressed in regard to the prospector there seems little hesitation in burdening him with considerable unnecessary work and expense in four-post staking. In this matter also Colonel Cole's opinion disregards the will of the majority entirely.
If some of these four-post proponents would refer to Dent's Canadian School Atlas of 1940 they would see some very fine reference maps of the Canadian provinces which were compiled by the Edinburgh Geographical Institute. These relief maps show that the greater part of Manitoba and all of Ontario and the greater part of Quebec have elevations of 2,000 feet or less.
Compare these elevations with the topography of western Alberta, British Columbia

and Yukon Territory. I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that Kluane lake in the Yukon has an elevation of 2,525 feet above sea level while mount Logan not far to the southwest of lake Kluane has an elevation of 19,850 feet. Or step clear across the Yukon to Frances lake, the elevation of which is 2,000 feet, and from the head of the east arm of this lake one may walk to the summit which has an elevation of around 9,000 feet.
How would some of these four-post proponents like to put four posts on the top of it? It would, no doubt, teach them to be more sympathetic and considerate of their fellow man.
Whatever the geographical and topographical aspects may be in eastern Canada it is certain that in the Yukon and in British Columbia these conditions are such as to make four-post staking a practical impossibility.
If anyone has ever staked claims in mountainous country they will be forced to admit it would be virtually impossible to stake out four corners of a claim with any degree of accuracy. Even in a flat country like Ontario claims are by no means square, or even of any particular shape.
All one has to do to verify this statement is to look over a claim map of some of the older districts, say Kirkland Lake for instance. It is at least 1,000 times more difficult to set out a square in the mountainous areas of British Columbia or the Yukon. With two-post staking and a reasonably accurate map as a guide one can pretty well tell the location of any claim.
The four or seven-post staking required in Alaska was cited. The complaints one hears about this method in Alaska and in the western states, where similar requirements are in force, would certainly lead one to the conclusion that stakers would much prefer the two-post method of British Columbia or the Yukon.
Some of Colonel Cole's objections to two-post staking are really amusing. It is infinitely simpler to run a survey along one boundary if overstaking has occurred than to have to run four boundaries of each claim to determine just how much overlap has occurred. Further, if his fear of fractions is as great as indicated, then all that is required is to stake out one of each four claims as a fractional claim to begin with, and claim all open ground up to 60 acres.
Colonel Cole does not differentiate between legitimate staking and wildcat staking. During a boom anyone who purchases claims for more than a nominal sum without first of all having a survey of some kind run 50433-259
Yukon Quartz Mining Act deserves to lose his money. Sorting out holdings staked out under the two-stake per claim method is easier, cheaper and quicker than with four posts as he suggests. Even under boom conditions, a prospector always knows the discovery he has made is covered by his claims when staking by the two-post method. In almost every case he will stake along the strike, throwing a claim each side of his location line. If he follows along the outcrops he will not let any showings escape him. He would be a poor staker if he wandered over 1,500 feet from the strike of the deposit or deposits he is staking in that same distance.
As a rule the original discoverer of any mine receives little or nothing for his labours, probably having had to sell out long before he should have done owing to economic stresses. Then-and this has never yet been made clear-who are those interested who desire revision of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, and who wish to force upon us four-post staking, regulations, compulsory surveys and compulsory applications for leases? Naturally, I am puzzled about the mysterious "easterners". There seems to be an implication that the two-post system is causing "easterners" to withhold from participation in new found exploration and mining. What a joke!
Perhaps the following companies, who are or who have been active in the Yukon Territory, are not included as "easterners" such as Con West, Ventures-Frobisher, Noranda, Teck-Hughes, Prospectors Airways, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, Newmont-


Jean Lesage: Most of them are in favour of fpur-post staking.


James Aubrey Simmons: No, I have letters from practically every one of them, and I can prove it.


Jean Lesage: So have I. What about Prospectors Airways?


James Aubrey Simmons: There is one man in that. Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, New Jersey Zinc, Kennecott, Anaconda, American Smelting and Refining Company, American Metals Company, Trans-Continental Resources, Newkirk interests, Karl Springer interests and many more too numerous to mention.
No doubt there are certain minor amendments which will benefit the existing act, as for example I am unable to determine from the existing act how protection can be secured for a vein striking out under a lake more than two claims wide. There seems to be no provision for witnessing a submerged claim such as there is for claims

Yukon Quartz Mining Act in British Columbia and some other provinces. I am of the opinion that certain minor changes in the existing act would be practical and justified, but there is absolutely no adequate reason for the introduction of regulations covering procedure in place of the act, or the entire changing of the existing method of claim locations, as recommended by Colonel Cole.
There are a few comments that may be made regarding Mr. Cole's suggestion that a claim must be surveyed within a certain length of time. It is my feeling no survey should be required as long as the annual assessment work is being done. In nearly all areas, particularly in the Yukon, most claim holders are far removed from others, except in a few of the more developed areas. It is far more important to find an ore body than to have a survey run. Further, surveys are expensive, and the average prospector does not have funds available for that kind of work, but is well able to handle his assessment work as it consists largely of his own labour. To have a claim surveyed in the Yukon would cost about $500 per claim, the equivalent of five years' assessment work, and the claim owner only gets credit for one year's work. If they are going to reduce the size of our claims, it is going to cost a prospector much more. I cannot understand it at all.
Such a requirement would be confiscatory as far as the average prospector goes. If the claims are of sufficient value, then the purchasers from the prospector will see they are surveyed to protect themselves. It is obvious this suggestion is ill-advised as, in some particular cases, it would force the prospector to abandon his claims. Surely the government does not want to see the prospector being forced to abandon his claim.


An hon. Member:: It looks as if they do.


James Aubrey Simmons: The British Columbia and Ontario acts are by far the most definite acts of their kind now in force. Very few discretionary powers are left to the whims and fancies of government officials, and even those powers are sometimes abused. These acts have been in force over many years and have been tested and proven sound. These acts should be compared to the one in New Brunswick, where the minister of mines is empowered to do anything he desires at his discretion, there being no recourse to his actions. That feature of the New Brunswick act has scared and is scaring capital away from that province, and is doing more and more harm as time goes on. We do not want such a condition in the Yukon.

Prospectors should not be discouraged in any way. Almost without exception some prospector makes the first strike in a new district, and often where the so-called experts of various kinds state emphatically that such an element or mineral could not be found.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The officials of the provincial department did that in the Salmon river valley.


James Aubrey Simmons: From that point on geologists, geophysicists and others take over. Regardless of scientific developments the prospector will always have a very important part in mine development and should be encouraged in every way possible. If this new bill comes into force, I am afraid it will discourage many prospectors.


Jean Lesage: You have not seen it yet.


James Aubrey Simmons: I do not care if I never see it, to be honest with you.


Jean Lesage: When you see the act you will have to withdraw most of the things you have just said.


James Aubrey Simmons: I think I can read it off by heart now, though I have never seen it. The only bright spot in the recommendations contained in the Cole report is where it is recommended that areas in the Yukon Territory should not be withdrawn from ordinary staking to grant reservations or concessions. We agree and are pleased to support him in his stand that reservations or concessions should not be granted. Granting concessions to induce capital to develop the country is not required, and would undoubtedly prove detrimental. The minister in his remarks mentioned something about the Pine Point concession. How many of these concessions are applied for and developed?


An hon. Member:: They are still waiting.


James Aubrey Simmons: They are still waiting. In most cases all that is ever done with a concession is to give it "a lick and a promise". If the first results are not satisfactory the officials of large companies lose heart, and are generally afraid to ask for further funds, the net result being large areas are damned outright or with faint praise, and are eliminated from the possible areas others will look over. Concessions would hog the mineral potentialities of the country to the detriment of individual prospectors and syndicates. Concessions always tend to hold back rather than to encourage prospecting and the discovery of new deposits.
For many years past mining in the Yukon Territory has been administered under the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act. The people of the Yukon

have been very happy with these acts which have been kept up to date with modern developments by occasional amending acts of parliament. This has meant that all proposed changes in mining legislation have been brought out into the open and have been thoroughly discussed by members of this house. The people of the Yukon want their mining laws administered under acts wherein any proposed changes would be presented to and discussed in parliament. There is general agreement that some further minor amendments should be made in the present act in order to deal with problems which have come to light in recent years. But the people are unanimous in their desire to have our mining laws governed by an act and not by regulations in any degree.
Let us go back into some history of how this happy state of affairs occurred, because things were not always so happy in the Yukon prior to 1924 when our mining laws were administered by regulations under orders in council. Back in 1898 mining matters in the Yukon were administered by regulations passed by orders in council. This procedure caused so much dissatisfaction with and resentment of the administration of mining that in 1900 Mr. Justice Britton of the supreme court of Ontario was sent to the Yukon to study placer mining problems. As a result of the consideration given to the problems at that time the Yukon Placer Mining Act was enacted in 1906. This act has given entire satisfaction. There are no regulations under this act.
Perhaps I should explain that at that time placer mining was the dominant industry and held the centre of interest in the Yukon Territory, and that people did not become interested in quartz mining until after 1906 when quartz mining continued to be administered under regulations. I might also mention the fact that there was very little interest in quartz mining at that time in the Northwest Territories, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta.
Another point of interest is that there was throughout Canada general dissatisfaction with the administration of mining matters by regulations and under orders in council. This dissatisfaction was so widespread that the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy presented a brief to the government in 1910 advocating the administration of mining laws by means of an act of parliament.
As a result the Canada mines act was prepared for the twelfth Canadian parliament upon principles advocated by that institution, and was introduced in this house in 1912. Had that act passed there would have been 50433-259J
Yukon Quartz Mining Act no necessity for the Yukon Quartz Mining Act which was enacted in 1924. Unfortunately the Canada mines act of 1912 was not passed.
The point I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, is that for over 50 years the people of Canada who are interested in developing the mineral resources of this country, wherever they may be, have advocated the administration of mining laws under acts of parliament-and have always been opposed to the instability created by administration under regulations -so that today mining matters in all provinces where there is any degree of mining activity, such as Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, administer their mining laws under acts of provincial parliaments.
Let us now go back to the Yukon Territory and see what happened to quartz mining there. As I told you previously there was very little activity in quartz mining in 1906 when the Yukon Placer Mining Act was passed, so there was no great concern whether quartz mining was administered under an act of parliament or under regulations which could be changed overnight without the foreknowledge or approval of the mining industry. However, the quartz mining industry was soon due for a decided change and acceleration in pace. It picked up rapidly and public dissatisfaction with and resentment of administration by regulations and orders in council developed. Public feeling and resentment to this unhappy state of affairs developed to such an extent that in 1924 the mining industry in general became dissatisfied, distrustful and aroused by administration by regulations so that the Liberal government of the day allowed an opposition member, the Hon. George Black, to
sponsor the Yukon Quartz Mining Act__________a
highly popular and time-tested act-which was approved by parliament. There is no provision for the arbitrary enactment of regulations under this act, something for which we are truly thankful. That is the way we want to keep it.
Despite all this history, not only in the Yukon Territory but throughout the provinces, of public disapproval and resentment of the administration of mining matters by regulations, and the almost universal desire to have mining matters stabilized under acts of parliament, the government has apparently decided that it knows much better about what is good for the mining industry in the Yukon than does the industry itself. What did it do? In 1952 the government brought in a bill to repeal both the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act. This bill was introduced in the other place but it died in the House of Commons. Since then.

Yukon Quartz Mining Act I am sure it has been realized that the proposed repeal of those two acts was a mistake.
The intention was to extend the Northwest Territories mining regulations to the Yukon Territory. This bill was introduced without my knowledge and without consulting anyone in the Yukon Territory. In other words, the people of the Yukon were going to take this dose of medicine whether they liked it or not. Fortunately this bill died in the house. I say "fortunately" because I cannot conceive how any action could have been more highhanded, unpopular and undemocratic.
Let me again emphasize the fact that in 1952 the government intended to repeal both the Yukon Placer Mining Act and the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. Now it intends to leave the Yukon Placer Mining Act alone, while it still obstinately continues to insist on forcing upon us distasteful legislation by completely revising our Yukon quartz mining laws, because that is what this proposed legislation intends to do. Why it is being done is beyond my comprehension and, as you must have gathered, it is against my advice and the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of the Yukon.
The Yukon Quartz Mining Act, passed in 1924, has been an admirable act.


Jean Lesage: That is your opinion.


James Aubrey Simmons: It certainly is. It has been, it is yet and it always will be. It was framed with the assistance and the advice of the mining fraternity-both the prospectors and mining companies-and it has met the situation peculiar to the Yukon. We must remember that the Yukon is different topographically from any other section of Canada except the province of British Columbia. It was therefore natural that the Yukon Quartz Mining Act should follow the pattern which had been developed for British Columbia, and with which the prospectors were thoroughly familiar.
In the Yukon Territory mining is an old industry and the prospectors and miners and people working in it have developed over the years, by trial and error and the sweat of their brows, and experience in the conditions peculiar to the territory, a set of mining laws which they know and understand, and with which they are generally satisfied. I am sure that all hon. members can plainly see why they are reluctant to have our mining laws tampered with.
In any legislation which we pass with a view to assisting mining resources development, we must be sure that annoying details of legislation are eliminated. In these days

when there is so much criticism of legislation by regulations it is easy to understand why the Yukon people, who have been quite satisfied with the Yukon quartz and placer mining acts, are reluctant to see any drastic amendments such as have been proposed to our mining laws on the recommendation of Colonel Cole. May I have leave of the house, Mr. Chairman, to continue for another three or four minutes?


Mr. McCulloch (Pictou):: Just three.


James Aubrey Simmons: I could continue this all night, if necessary. I have all this material to make use of yet.


Jean Lesage: You had better go on now because after seeing the bill you could not say the same thing. You had better say it now.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


James Aubrey Simmons: The mining fraternity does not want the lauded flexibility of regulations which can be changed overnight without their knowledge, and often to their detriment, in place of the stability of an act. I share their view that there is everything to be said in favour of retaining the present mining acts rather than administering our mining laws in part by regulations. Undoubtedly the retention of the present act, with slight amendments to bring it up to date, would be preferable and in the interests of mining resources development in the Yukon. The adoption of regulations in part, in lieu of the stability of an act, is certainly a retrograde step in our democratic form of government.
It is quite obvious, therefore, that as soon as we have sufficient population and industry the people in the territories will welcome self-government which will enable them to run their own affairs as they deem fit, and consistent with the wishes and needs of the people of the particular areas, rather than have forced upon them distasteful legislation which they do not wish to accept. Surely the government is not going to completely ignore the wishes of the people in this regard.
Amendments to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act at the present time have to be submitted to parliament and so become known to the electors and to the people affected by them. If these laws are revised and regulations substituted in part for them, parliament cannot be consulted or informed as to what the government is doing and has no opportunity to approve, object or offer amendments. In other words, it will rob parliament of its power, and this will be most unpopular in the Yukon. Any part of the proposed new act providing for regulations will be most

unsatisfactory as it is generally felt that the present act has been working satisfactorily for a number of years and that any changes necessary should be confined to the existing act rather than be made by a revision with enactment by regulations.
The Yukon Quartz Mining Act, as I have said before, is a very good one. With a few minor changes it is as good as, if not better than, any mining act in Canada, and the mining can be carried on very satisfactorily under it. Again let me reiterate that I am unequivocally opposed to regulations in any form in so far as they relate to our mining laws, as I believe in the business of the country being carried on under statutes as much as possible. We have heard very few complaints from prospectors or mine operators regarding our mining laws.
At the present time prospectors and mining development are more active in the Yukon than ever before, with quite a number of additional companies planning to operate in that area during the coming season. More and more prospectors are also looking to the Yukon as a favourable area in which to search for mineral deposits. The mining fraternity is entirely familiar with the Yukon Quartz Mining Act on the whole and are satisfied with its provisions and the protection it affords them. So why change it? To my way of thinking the present act is a pretty fair mining act, far better than it would be if altered to suit Mr. Cole's way of thinking, which leads me to believe that the less some government officials have to do with administering our mining laws by regulations the better and more smoothly business can be carried on.
There are a few government officials who do not have any grasp of the true conditions of business, and certainly not of prospecting or mining. They fall into two types, those who become very arbitrary and insist on deciding everything according to their personal views, or those who are afraid to make any decisions. The present act is pretty definite on almost all subjects and should, therefore, not be altered to give officials more discretionary powers, for that can only lead to abuse. The administration of the mining laws in the Yukon prior to 1924 will bear me out in these views.
I cannot conscientiously support this resolution, Mr. Chairman, against the wishes of the people of the Yukon who are bitterly opposed to the recommendations contained in the Cole report as a basis for any proposed drastic changes in our mining laws. The prospecting and mining industry must be safeguarded and unhampered by mandatory
Yukon Quartz Mining Act orders emanating several thousand miles distant from the scene of mining operations m the territory. I have refrained from extreme statements as I do not wish anything I have said to be interpreted as meaning that I am personally hostile to the minister presenting the resolution.


An hon. Member:: Do not be too timid.


James Aubrey Simmons: I do wish, however, to reiterate my determined opposition to the proposed new act for the reasons given.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we have listened to a remarkable speech, and I am very happy to associate myself-


Mr. Dechene:: Undoubtedly.


Howard Charles Green: -with the stand taken by the hon. member for the Yukon. He has been here since 1949; in the first parliament in which he served he was the member not only for the Yukon but also for the Northwest Territories. Therefore he also has a knowledge of mining conditions in the latter area as well as in the Yukon. Throughout his service as a member of parliament he has loyally supported the Liberal party. I do not believe there has been one occasion on which he has voted against his party. He may have done so on a minor matter but generally speaking he has been a loyal supporter of the Liberal party. Today he has had the courage to stand up and criticize this measure brought in by his own party.


Jean Lesage: He does not even know what is in the bill.


Howard Charles Green: He deserves the respect and not the laughter and scorn of members of the house. Some members on the government side think this is a laughing matter. Here you have an hon. member who has stood up and spoken for his people regardless of the stand of his party.


Joseph Miville Dechene: Oh, oh!


Howard Charles Green: Oh, go on back to Athabaska.


Joseph Miville Dechene: I will come back.


Howard Charles Green: For that he deserves respect. He certainly has mine.


Joseph Miville Dechene: You do not need to insult anybody.


Howard Charles Green: I am sure he will have the respect of the people of Canada at large. He is not in the position of members representing a province. There are, for example, 22 members from British Columbia. This hon. member alone represents one group of people; he represents the Yukon Territory. The government should listen to his views. I am

Yukon Quartz Mining Act amazed that the minister would introduce a resolution, as he has done on this occasion, against the views, wishes and advice of the hon. member for the Yukon. What on earth have we got left of representative government when that can happen?
Furthermore, the hon. member has pointed out that he is supported by a unanimous vote of the Yukon territorial council. There, we have a council that is entirely elected, chosen by the people of the Yukon and not appointed by Ottawa, as was the case until a very short time ago. The Yukon territorial council has met and taken exactly the same stand as the hon. member for the Yukon. Yet, their recommendations are to be ignored by this dictatorial government.
Let me point out to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources the coincidence that just a year or two ago this department of northern affairs was set up and attention was focused on northern Canada. Yet here today you have the minister bringing in a measure in defiance of the wishes of the people of the oldest part of northern Canada.


Jean Lesage: For the good of the Yukon; that is what we are doing.


Howard Charles Green: Just a few days ago, on May 13, the hon. member for Kootenay West asked the minister about certain motor vehicle ordinances that had been given effect to in the Yukon. The question and answer can be found at page 3776 of Hansard for May 13. On that occasion the minister was in favour of the independence of the Yukon territorial council. I quote first what the hon. member for Kootenay West said:
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that you put me in order. I have been asked to bring to the minister's attention certain motor vehicle ordinances that have been given effect in the Yukon.


Jean Lesage: On a point of order; I am sorry, but this involves a territorial ordinance and I have nothing to say about it. There is autonomy in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
There is not much autonomy in the minister's attitude here.


Jean Lesage: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Howard Charles Green: 1 am making my speech.


Jean Lesage: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe the hon. member who is now speaking can say that I have changed my mind, because the other day when I rose on a point of order the hon. member who was questioning me was dealing with a matter under the jurisdiction of the local council, whereas the natural resources of the Yukon Territory are under the jurisdiction of parliament and have to be administered by this government.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I may say at this moment that I do not feel the point of order raised by the minister is a point of order. I think it is one of the many we have before us which really come under the heading of personal explanation, and that except in cases of very obvious misinterpretation of one's remarks these points should be withheld until the conclusion of the speech by the hon. member who has the floor.
There is a point of order worrying me at the moment which I draw to the attention of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. It is the prohibition against quoting in one debate on one subject in this house any argument from another debate of the same session. I would ask the hon. member to make his argument without quoting from another debate in the same session.


Howard Charles Green: I am quoting from a discussion of the estimates having to do with the Yukon Territory. I submit I am in order in quoting that on this resolution which deals also with the Yukon Territory. It is not as though I were quoting from a different debate; I am quoting from a discussion of the estimates.
I repeat, the minister said this:
There is autonomy in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am sorry to perhaps appear stubborn, but I cannot agree that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is in order in quoting from a debate on the estimates, even though it was on the estimates of this department, a matter relative to automotive transport, and using this argument in the same session on a resolution dealing with an amendment or repeal of the quartz mining act. I am sure the hon. member can make this argument without going that far.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I will not quote, Mr. Chairman. I merely say this. On an earlier occasion the minister defended himself by taking the position that he would not interfere with what was done by a regulation of the territorial council. Today, on this other measure, he is taking the position that he will not listen to the Yukon territorial council; he is ignoring the stand that they have taken on this question. If there is to be democracy in the Yukon, as there is in the rest of Canada, then I suggest that the hon. member for the Yukon and the members of the territorial council are the ones whose advice should have been taken on this question and not the recommendation of an engineer from Manitoba.
The hon. member for the Yukon has read extracts from letters from the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines. Some hon. members might wonder why it is that there is

a chamber of mines that deals with mining both in British Columbia and in the Yukon. The reason is that there is the closest association between miners in British Columbia and in the Yukon Territory. The territory was opened largely by prospectors and miners from British Columbia. The hon. member for Yukon, himself, is a native son of British Columbia. Until the construction of the Alaska highway all the traffic to the Yukon went up the west coast from Vancouver, Victoria, and the other coastal ports and eventually got by rail from Skagway into the Yukon. The Alaska highway, too, starts in British Columbia and runs across the northeastern portion of our province into the Yukon Territory. Air connection to the Yukon is also made from Vancouver, although there is in addition an air service from Edmonton into the territory.
In mining matters British Columbia and the Yukon have been closely associated for the last half century, and that is why they have this chamber of mines dealing with problems facing the miners in the two areas. As the hon. member has said, the topography of the Yukon and of British Columbia is much the same. The highest mountains in Canada, I believe, are in the Yukon Territory. They are far higher than those in British Columbia.
Many years ago, about the turn of the century, the British Columbia legislature placed on the statute books a mineral act which was a codification of mining laws, and it has been eminently satisfactory ever since. Before that mineral act became law there was litigation of all kinds over mining claims. In fact, most of the litigation in the province had to do with mining. But once that act was placed on the statute books, mining litigation fell away, with the result that since that time the lawyers have had a hard time making any money out of mining disputes in my province.
There have been no regulations under that act; everything is written into the act. It refers to the method of staking and the other details in connection with staking-everything is written into the act. And as the hon. member for Yukon has said, Yukon adopted the same system some years ago. You see, one of the big difficulties about having regulations rather than having everything written into a statute is that those regulations may be interpreted one way today and another way tomorrow. Furthermore they may be changed. The cabinet may meet and decide to make a change, and this can be done. There is not the same difficulty in the matter of permanence and stability when the law is
Yukon Quartz Mining Act placed on the statute books, rather than having it in the form of regulations.
I do not think there is any doubt that the people of the Yukon feel as the hon. member has stated about the possibility of having part of the mineral law made up of regulations. When the bill introduced late in 1953 was under consideration a wire was received from the Hon. George Black who, as hon. members know, for many years represented the Yukon here in the House of Commons, as did also his charming wife, Martha Black. She was here from 1935 to 1940.
The Hon. Mr. Black had this to say about substituting orders in council for statute mining law in the Yukon:
That will be most unsatisfactory to Yukon miners. It is reverting to dictatorship of early days.
Many members in the chamber this afternoon knew George Black, and most people in Canada know his record. I suggest his views on the subject should carry great weight, just as should the views of the hon. member who now represents the Yukon.


Jean Lesage: They have carried weight.


Howard Charles Green: Well, nothing seems to have
carried much weight in the minister's mind.


Jean Lesage: Oh yes. You did not see the bill.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think much weight has been attached to Mr. Black's proposals because Mr. Cole has been able to ride roughshod over all such recommendations.
And that brings me to Mr. Cole's report, where he says that he is in favour of four-post staking. I might point out that in British Columbia we have had two-post staking since the enactment of our mineral act. Under that system a prospector can stake out eight claims by placing posts in five different spots. For example, for one claim he will put a stake at one side or one corner, and the next stake 1,500 feet away; then he can claim 1,500 feet out from those stakes. By putting two other stakes beside those two he can claim 1,500 feet in the opposite direction. The result is that he can stake eight claims with 16 stakes; but in order to do that he has to be in only five different spots on the mountainside.
On the other hand, under the four-stake system he would have to put a stake at every corner. Today the minister has mentioned groups of 12 claims. Under the two-stake system the prospector would have to drive in only 24 stakes, many of them driven beside each other, whereas if the four-stake system were used he would have to set out

Yukon Quartz Mining Act 48 stakes. So I say this is an extremely serious matter for prospectors, and it is extremely unfair that men in the Yukon should be forced to work under a system of that kind. .
The reasons given by Mr. Cole for his recommendations are very enlightening, because I believe they go to the root of this whole matter. I turn to that portion of his report which bears the heading, "Two and four-post staking, which?" He says:
This question proved to be the most contentious given to me for investigation. There is a marked division of opinion between the westerners and easterners as to the merits of the two methods . . .
Those prospectors who had lived in British Columbia or the Yukon have grown up with two-post staking. Yet it is passing strange-
And I suggest the use of those very words in this man's report shows how biased he is ail the way through. And he uses words of this kind at more than one place in his report-sarcastic, sneering words about any suggestion in favour of two-post staking. He says:
Yet it is passing strange that in a terrain as rugged as either British Columbia or the Yukon, Alaska has held to the four-post method-or should it be referred to as "seven-post" for three more posts are required to designate the location line.
The hon. member for the Yukon has explained that the Alaska miners wish they did not have this seven-post staking system. Then Mr. Cole goes on to say:
The westerner views his two-post method with a fervour almost vehement-
And again we see a sneering remark about these western prospectors.
-and one at least has voiced his disregard to an eastern counterpart in the words, "If you don't like two-post staking out here you had better go back east."
What kind of statement was this for a responsible man to put in a report to the government? Then it goes on to say:
However an easterner describes it this way, "If a prospector is selling claims that he hasn't got-"
And there again, another sneering remark, insinuating that these prospectors are trying to sell claims they do not own.
"-the two-post staking is wonderful."
And then he goes on to say:
Now the eastern exploration and development companies have moved into the Yukon in search of minerals. They are used to the four-line staking which prevails in all parts of Canada east of Alberta.
The hon. member for Yukon has given evidence today that practically all of these companies actually working in the Yukon are satisfied with the two-post staking system. Mr. Cole goes on to say:
The easterner with the wherewithal-


And here come the money interests, the Toronto stock exchange, and so on-
-to carry on exploration and development is sensitive of the fact that the four-post staking has merits that the westerner fails to appreciate.
And then there is this remarkable paragraph, again showing his bias:
Attention has already been directed to the fact that the money for exploration and development is coming from outside and particularly from the east. What are the points of contention that eastern interests desire to have settled? They feel that the four-post staking offers a measure of security of tenure that is lacking in the two-post staking. It is reasonable-
And here he is speaking for the eastern interests.
-then, for the interests putting up the money to ask the people of the Yukon to co-operate in this regard.
The minister has accepted this report. In other words, the miners in the Yukon are to be sacrificed for the benefit of eastern interests. It is just that simple. That is the statement by this Mr. Cole in his report to the government which report the minister has seen fit to accept.
I suggest that that is a most flimsy foundation upon which to work out a new quartz mining law for the Yukon. The minister will never get the approval or support of the mining people in the Yukon for a measure based on recommendations of that kind. That one recommendation itself should have been enough to condemn Mr. Cole's report. The minister should have called in his own member and the members of the Yukon territorial council and taken advice from them instead of trying to ram this measure down the throats of the people of the Yukon.
I suggest that after the bill has been introduced the fair thing to do would be to allow it to stand until next year. Let us see exactly what the minister has in mind; let these people in the Yukon have the necessary time to study the bill and of course let the eastern interests study it as well. That cannot be done between now and the end of the session. The minister talks about having the bill referred to a committee but that would mean that the bill would be law within the next week or two if the government members stood by the government as they have a fixed habit of doing. It certainly would not give the people of the Yukon an opportunity to check the merits and demerits of this bill. I suggest that nobody would be hurt particularly if that course were followed. Let the bill be introduced and then let it lie on the table so that it may be considered by everybody interested. Then next year amendments

could be put through the house which will give satisfaction to the great majority of the people.
Certainly any measure that passes this house should above all give satisfaction to the people of the Yukon. They are the ones who live in the territory; they are the ones who believe in the territory; and it will be by their efforts that the Yukon will grow and eventually become a province of Canada. But you will never be able to build a province in that northwestern part of Canada by ignoring their wishes, as is being done in this instance, and forcing through legislation against their recommendation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up very much of the time of the committee because I know that at least a dozen members are waiting to speak on this resolution. I think we had better leave our principal speeches until the second reading of the bill. We heard this afternoon a most informative, and I for one think a most courageous, speech by the member for the Yukon. There is no doubt that from the information he gave to the committee and from the information which other hon. members have received he was speaking for a great majority of the people whom he represents. While I was listening to him I thought that he must have inherited his father's independence. His father was a federal government official on the Arrow lakes in the early days of this century and was well known for the strong stands he took on issues about which he felt keenly.
Like the hon. member for the Yukon, I have every respect for the minister and I am confident that he is concerned about the proper development of Canadian natural resources. He has evidenced interest in the subject in general and has shown concern about certain developments in connection with the Columbia river. We appreciate that interest and that concern. I think other hon. members will agree with me when I say that I think in this instance the minister is receiving poor advice from his officials, and is accepting that advice. I think a reconsideration of the whole matter would be fully justified.
I notice that the Minister of Fisheries has stayed in the chamber this afternoon. The Minister of Fisheries has the ability to appear to be reading a document in a most interested manner when in fact he is listening intently to what is going on. I have experienced that on former occasions. I am quite sure that the Minister of Fisheries is very interested in 50433-260
Yukon Quartz Mining Act this matter and could make a most interesting speech on the question of the mining laws of British Columbia.
The minister is a mining engineer and for some years was secretary to the minister of mines of the province of British Columbia. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra mentioned, we had great difficulty with the mining laws of British Columbia until the early days of this century. Then under the McBride administration the mining laws were redrafted and they remained almost unchanged until a Liberal government came into power in British Columbia. The minister will remember that after some years the Liberal government made several amendments to the basic mining laws of the province which were required because of changing conditions and circumstances. I well remember the minister of mines making a speech in the provincial riding of Nelson-Creston where there is considerable mining activity. This was a meeting of mining men and I remember him saying that in his opinion British Columbia had the finest mining laws in Canada. I wonder if the Minister of Fisheries will disagree with that statement today. I should like to hear the Minister of Fisheries express an opinion on British Columbia mining laws.
The hon. member for the Yukon has pointed out that the basic law in the Yukon is based to some extent upon the experience in connection with the mining legislation in British Columbia because of the similarity between mining conditions and the terrain in British Columbia and the Yukon. When we have the finest mining legislation in Canada in British Columbia, according to the opinion expressed by a cabinet minister of a Liberal government in British Columbia, I cannot for the life of me understand why this government wants to change the situation and impose a different type of legislation in the Yukon.
I know that many hon. members on this side of the house appreciate that the hon. member for the Yukon is taking objection to this legislation because of the satisfaction they have had with the present law, which to a large extent is based upon the mining laws of British Columbia which a member of a Liberal government in British Columbia stated were the finest mining laws in Canada. I can understand the hon. member objecting to any change being made, but I think his main argument on this occasion is that he is speaking for the people of the Yukon and that the government in introducing this legislation has overlooked completely or disregarded completely the wishes of the majority of the people in the Yukon.
The hon. member referred to the opposition of the Yukon territorial council, an elected

Yukon Quartz Mining Act body that surely expresses the opinion of those concerned with mining in the Yukon, being close to them. Then, as the hon. member said, there is strong opposition from the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said that it was because this chamber of mines functions on behalf of British Columbia and the Yukon, because the conditions are very similar and they represent people who have similar problems and a similar attitude to basic mining law and to mining legislation. We have the branches of the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines at Vancouver, the chamber itself, the central body, the branch at Whitehorse and the branch at Dawson City also expressing opposition to this legislation. Here we have the parent body and the body at the Yukon and the local bodies which are in touch with the mining situation and the two major towns in the Yukon, Whitehorse and Dawson, expressing opposition. We have the chamber of commerce at Mayo also opposed, and the board of trade of Whitehorse; and then various meetings of rank and file miners have expressed their opposition to this legislation. There have been many other individuals also, including prospectors, mining engineers, geologists and individual mine operators.
That is a massive weight of evidence and a massive weight of opposition against this legislation. For the life of me, I cannot understand the minister proceeding with this bill in view of the apparent opposition of the great majority of the people in the Yukon Territory.
The minister referred to the Cole report as being the basis for this legislation. I have a copy of the Cole report here and have read it through once or twice. In mentioning that he based the legislation on the Cole report, the minister did not deal very fully with a report made in reply to the Cole report by Dr. William V. Smitheringale, entitled "An Analysis of the Report on Matters Concerned with Administration of Quartz and Placer Mining in the Yukon Territory". This qualified engineer-I judge with a great deal of support, according to the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon-expresses some severe criticism of Mr. Cole's proposals. As far as I can understand from listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon, Mr. Cole is a highly qualified man in certain fields but he visited the Yukon only for a short period. I think I am correct in saying that. He based his report on that brief visit, whereas this other gentleman bases his reply to this report on long knowledge of and experience in Yukon mining conditions.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, in view of the opposition of the people of the Yukon, and in view of the fact that this legislation will replace legislation that has proven so satisfactory throughout the years, that the minister would be well advised to let the bill lie on the table for another session so that all those interested will have an opportunity to go into the matter and make their representations to the government, and so that members of the opposition and people in the country generally who have come to realize that the government, in pressing this legislation, is doing so in a most undemocratic way in opposition to the expressed wishes of the great majority in the territory that the legislation is intended to cover, will be considered.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly not going to take up very much time this afternoon, and I do not intend to repeat the arguments that have been so well put forward in this house today. It seems to me that it took a great deal of courage on the part of the hon. member for the Yukon in one way, and then when you look at it in another way, anyone who has the backing of all the people of the Yukon Territory must, of course, voice his opinion according to their wishes. I grant you that that has not been the case always on the part of members of the house. Therefore I should like to commend him for his stand and the action he has taken here this afternoon.
He has given us a full and informative address, laying before us those things which concern his people in the Yukon and presenting a realistic approach to the problems with documented evidence. We in this house must take full recognition of those things he has laid before us in his well rounded discussion of these problems. It is apparent that the people of the Yukon were not consulted, according to the evidence that has been presented. Of course, I am not too surprised, because I can think of several cases during this session already where the people concerned have been left out in the cold in regard to being consulted until some unwarranted action has been taken by this government. Now they are making retractions. That was done in the case of Bill No. 3, and also the act relating to the consolidation of the Railway Act. Here we have another case, another one of three cases, where highhanded action has been taken, and a member from the government side has had to stand up for his people in opposition to the government on this proposed resolution.

The least that could have been done would have been to hear all interested parties in the Yukon and not here, particularly before some committee of this house, which would necessitate people having to travel from the Yukon many thousands of miles to submit their case. We should not ask people to spend many hundreds of dollars and take time away from home to come down here to present their case before a committee of this house, when this government should have moved into the field where the act is enforced. They should move into that field at the convenience of those people and give them a chance to make their wishes known.


Mr. Philpotl:: Could I ask the hon. member a question? He suggested that members on this side had spoken against Bill No. 3. Is it not a fact that all members of this house spoke in favour of Bill No. 3, except the small group which he represents?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Before the hon. member replies, I had better point out to the committee that we are discussing, not Bill No. 3 but a resolution on the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. Shall the resolution carry?


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to take part in this debate, chiefly because the Minister of Fisheries indicated that my friend, the hon. member for Yukon, should beware of Greeks bearing gifts. Certainly I hope that anything I shall say will in no way embarrass him, in his very honest effort to convey to the minister the true feelings of his constituents. Yes, it may be unusual that someone from the banks of the Humber might be speaking about something that takes place on the banks of the Liard or of some other river. I listened with considerable interest to the minister both last night and today, and I made fairly full notes on what the minister had to say. As I glanced through them, I have wondered if there has been any connection between the reasons which he has given for the necessity of bringing in this new act and the actual reasons. I might take a look at a few of them.
First of all, he said that the Yukon had some unusual characteristics. Second, he said that mining legislation usually came within the jurisdiction of the province and that it was unusual that federal legislation was required. Third, he said that the territorial council handled certain matters of administration in the territory but were not seized of the right to legislate in connection with mining claims. He said that the natural resources were a federal job. He traced the history of the legislation dealing with mining. He indicated that we had had this act almost 50433-260J
Yukon Quartz Mining Act without change since 1924. I understand there have been seven subamendments since that time. He said that conditions have changed. He is not sure whether this act is fair to the mining prospectors at the present time. He said revision is required. All of these statements are about as wide as you could possibly make them but none of them discloses an inherent reason for changing this legislation. The minister referred to Colonel Cole's report. One of the most striking paragraphs in this report, in my opinion, is to be found at page 3, at about the sixth or seventh line:
There is in the Yukon an inherent determination that an act should prevail. While I do not share that feeling with the mining people of the Yukon I am of the opinion that a compromise, mutually satisfactory to the government of Canada and the people of the Yukon Territory can be devised.
Just what state have we reached in connection with the administration of the affairs of the people of this country when we have to reach a compromise between the wishes of the people and those of the government? I was always led to believe that the government reflected the wishes of the people. Here we have a situation where we are apparently now going to be asked to arbitrate between the wishes of the people of the Yukon and the wishes of the administration, as reflected in this new legislation proposed by the minister.
It is indicated that certain changes must be made. I have heard about two-post staking and I have heard about four-post staking. The conclusion that I have come to is that the only experience displayed by those who advocate four-post staking must have been obtained in a four-poster in a Whitehorse hotel. The indication that two-post staking is not adequate for this job is the contention that it is holding up development by new scientific methods. Yet the minister has said that there is no intention to give out concessions of any kind under this act. Surely that is where scientific development and the new methods of using scintillometers and other equipment of that kind would be reflected. He has said that there is no intention to make any concession to people who might be using those types of methods.
As a matter of fact, everyone should take the opportunity of going to the Yukon. You will find that it is not necessary to have large development companies take over this type of exploration. All this type of the newest and latest equipment can be handled by the new type of prospector. On the Liard in northern British Columbia, in the corner of the Yukon, I have seen six and seven private aircraft sitting there waiting to go on with a prospecting program, each one handled on the basis of an individual partnership of

Yukon Quartz Mining Act prospector and pilot, and each one having at its disposal some of the latest type of prospecting equipment. Apparently there can be no reason for revision on that score.
Then we find that it is indicated that two-post claims result in the fractional or marginal type of mining claims. I might refer the minister to the mining act of the province of Ontario which is contained in chapter 236 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1950. There he can see that, even with established townships and places where bearings can be taken for surveying, that act as well indicates that even with the four-post type of mining claims in Ontario, fractional claims may exist even there.


Jean Lesage: Surely. But they will be fewer in number.


John Borden Hamilton: Then he talked about the question of the work involved in this type of mining claim. When we talk about two-posters and four-posters, I think there is an inclination to believe that we are just doubling the amount of work and that that is not too much. Leaving aside the question of the character of the country which has been described by every hon. member who has spoken so far, the fact is that there is probably four times as much actual physical work and expense involved; and in a territory of the type of that in which these mining prospectors are working, it becomes a heavy time-consuming and expensive proposition.
Then it has been indicated that this question of doing work on the claims is one which is difficult to check under present circumstances and that with the use of regulations we are going to be able to handle the matter a great deal better. Let us be frank about it. No matter whether it is an act or a regulation, there are people who will undoubtedly attempt to get by, if they can, without doing the work. British Columbia has spot checking in connection with development work on claims. I would strongly suggest to the minister that he might take some of his help, who have been so good at drafting this type of legislation, and send them out for a few months to handle the spot checking chore in the Yukon. If he did that, I am quite sure that they would not be quite so anxious to get us into regulations in this connection.
I am wondering whether, in fact, this legislation is not the thin edge of the wedge. When there is an undertaking that no concessions will be granted, I am wondering whether that does not mean there will be no concessions granted in the immediate
[Mr. Hamilton (York West).)
future but that, with regulations being provided under the new legislation, such concessions may be granted in the future without reference back to the house. I can understand there may be companies which are quite definitely interested in this type of legislation. I listened to the hon. member for the Yukon read the list of those who support his viewpoint. He covered pretty well most of the substantial and practical mining development and exploration companies. I wonder whether this type of legislation is not much more pleasant to those who make their living by taking the sucker's dollar, whether they be from Bay street or anywhere else, by simply selling something off a map. Of course this legislation would assist them to a great extent. They could sit in their offices and sell the best of claims simply from a piece of parchment.


Mr. Barneil:: Mr. Chairman, I find myself
becoming increasingly interested in the subject matter of the resolution before the house this afternoon, and increasingly inclined to agree with the proposition advanced that this is not a piece of legislation which should be rushed through the house at this time. I do not know what percentage of the members of the house have the necessary qualifications to deal with this kind of legislation, qualifications such as the hon. member for Kootenay West suggested the Minister of Fisheries had, but certainly when this matter affects so vitally the people of the Yukon, who can only speak in this parliament through the voice of one representative, and is a matter which also involves complicated considerations in respect of mining, I feel the house should hesitate to rush into a decision so obviously contrary to the wishes of most of the people of the Yukon Territory.
Reference has already been made to the connection between mining law and conditions in the Yukon Territory and those of British Columbia, and I suppose that may tend to have the effect of making British Columbia members rather prone to take the position that extension of the basic mining law of British Columbia into the Yukon Territory is the logical and most desirable method of approaching the question. On the other hand, I for one am not inclined to say that is necessarily and irrevocably the case. Nevertheless, from such limited experience as I have had of the operation of the mining laws of British Columbia, I do feel that the statement made by the hon. member for Kootenay West, which he claimed had been vouched for on the authority of a Liberal minister of mines of British Columbia, is one with which we can agree to a great extent.

Certainly 1 suggest no one can claim that mining development in the province of British Columbia has been materially held back, nor have I been able to see any great reluctance on the part of some of the mining interests, to which the hon. member for Yancouver-Quadra referred, to come into our province because of the particular type of mining law we have there. I had very limited experience in doing a little two-post staking several years ago, and while I do not claim that that in any sense makes me an authority or puts me in the class of having been a professional prospector, nevertheless I do know enough about the matter to realize that the argument being advanced that in mountainous and rocky terrain the two-post staking system has advantages has a good deal of basis in fact.
I know that particularly if one is trying to travel over that type of terrain on snow-shoes and through underbrush it is much easier to do a proper job on one line than on a multitude of lines. I am quite interested in the fact that someone like Dr. Smithering-ale should have taken the trouble to make an analysis of the report submitted to the government by Dr. George E. Cole, which analysis indicates that the conclusions reached by Dr. Cole with respect to the Yukon situation do not necessarily represent the only valid conclusions that can be drawn. In his report Dr. Smitheringale discusses the relative merits of two-post and four-post staking, and points out that the conditions imposed upon an individual by mountainous terrain are really different from those prevailing in the flatter country characteristic of most of Canada east of the Rocky mountains. In that regard he says:
The four-posters readily admit there is less work involved with two posts, but overcome such an admission by stating a two-post claim is not properly staked, is poorly defined . . .
Later in his report Dr. Smitheringale comes out quite bluntly and says:
Moreover, allow me to flatly contradict anyone who says a claim, staked by two posts, is not as rigidly defined as one staked by four. Colonel Cole, as well as all other responsible people, government or private, knows beyond argument that the boundaries of any claim or any plot of ground, no matter how staked, are not fully defined until such time as an accurate land survey has been made . . . and registered . . .
I lived in one of the mining areas of British Columbia during the time of a staking boom, and certainly my limited observation would indicate that what Dr. Smitheringale says is in point of fact borne out. I happen to know that Dr. Smitheringale is no newcomer to the mining game. It was in 1933 that I first met him. At that time he was the manager of a mine which was under
Yukon Quartz Mining Act development and was one of the people chosen by the British Columbia mining department to deliver lectures to prospectors on subjects which are of interest to them, under a plan carried on by the British Columbia department of mines. With a long experience in an area such as British Columbia, back of an experience in the Yukon Territory, I would suggest that Dr. Smitherin-gale's opinion in this connection may very well be as valid as the one that has been expressed by the engineer whose recommendation the government apparently is prepared to take.
I have quoted briefly from Dr. Smitherin-gale's remarks and tried to suggest to the house he is a man with sufficient qualifications to express an informed opinion, in order to further advance the argument that we in this house are getting into something of a very complex nature. It is a problem that could vitally affect the future of mining in the Yukon Territory, and one about which we should not be asked to hurriedly come to a decision in view of the objections which have already been raised to the proposed legislation. We all hope that this session is coming towards its close, and therefore the detailed work of committees should not be such as to prolong the sittings of committees at this time. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman that this is the type of bill that needs a detailed and thorough examination by a committee. It is the type of bill, as has been suggested, upon which all those concerned should have an opportunity of making representations and presenting their detailed briefs.
Under the present circumstances it would be most difficult for a committee of the house to give this bill the kind of consideration that it should have, and to bring in a report to the committee of the whole so that the measure could receive adequate consideration or amendment at this session For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I felt I should like to complement the remarks which were previously made by my colleague the hon member for Kootenay West. I feel that we who come from British Columbia have a very valid reason for believing we have good mining laws, mining laws which have been developed out of a long experience in the mining industry. These mining laws result from the fact that British Columbia, once it. passed the fur trading era, owes its very existence as a province to mining activities.
I know that in some respects we have always regarded the Yukon Territory as the child of British Columbia, especially so far as mining is concerned. I have heard old-timers in the Cariboo mining country tell:

Yukon Quartz Mining Act what happened when word of the discovery of gold in the Yukon reached that area. The placer miners dropped their tools and started the trek to the north. I suppose from that beginning mining in the Yukon and in British Columbia have had a closg association. It is not only the result of easily established lines of communication, but in large part a matter of the inherited tradition which was carried from British Columbia into the mining development of the country to the north of us.
So, Mr. Chairman, I feel it is not only fair but proper that, with that background, those of us who come from British Columbia should view with a rather jaundiced eye any proposal which would make the mining law of the Yukon Territory a basically different arrangement from that which we have in British Columbia.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The Minister of
Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Clarence Gillis: If the minister wants to speak, it is all right.


Jean Lesage: I just thought we could finish up by six o'clock and have the bill distributed as soon as possible to the interested parties.


Clarence Gillis: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, as it is almost six o'clock, perhaps you would call it six o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the business for tomorrow?


Mr. Lapointe:: We will be taking estimates of the Post Office Department and the Department of Agriculture.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention to move for interim supply tomorrow? The Minister of Finance told me last evening that he would be doing so, and I thought he said it would be tomorrow.


Hugues Lapointe: If the leader of the house so announced, then we shall do so. However, I have no word of it.


Howard Charles Green: He may have said that it would be Friday, but I understood it was tomorrow.


Jean Lesage: It has to be done before the end of the month.


Hugues Lapointe: It would be tomorrow or Friday.


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

Thursday, May 26, 1955