1956-05-04

PRIVILEGE


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege arising out of the tabling last evening by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) of a letter from Frank McMahon dated April 4, 1956. My question of privilege has to do with the fact that commencing on April 13 the Minister of Trade and Commerce denied in this house the possession of any documents from Frank McMahon. At no time did the minister raise the question that he had documents or that the documents were privileged; he denied that there were any such documents in his possession.
The first reference is to be found in Hansard of April 13, at page 2895, and the question asked is as follows:


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him whether he would place before the house the offer reported to have been made by Gairdner and Company Limited as an alternative to the trans-Canada pipe line proposition now before the house? Would the minister also table any offer received from the company, and also the one from the McMahon interests relative to this matter?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall be glad to table any documents I have. I have two documents from Gairdner and Company which I shall table; I have no documents from the McMahon interests.
And then on April 16 at page 2940 there was a motion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I interrupt the hon. member for Prince Albert to clarify one point. Have the documents he is now referring to been tabled as the result of a motion or have they been tabled voluntarily?


John George Diefenbaker: The motion was for production and Your Honour will see at page 2940 the motion was for the production-
-of all letters and other documents received by the government or any minister or official from Mr. Frank McMahon or his agent or representative, and from Gairdner and Company Limited, since March 1, 1956, in which plans or offers have been made or suggested regarding the construction of a gas pipe line from Alberta to eastern Canada.
Then the minister said that he had filed the documents and my next remark was:
The McMahon documents were not filed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There were no
McMahon documents.
Again I point out that there was no question raised by the minister that he had in his possession any document that was confidential because it was so marked. He said that he had no document. Then at page 3258 of Hansard of April 25 there was a motion by myself as follows:
For a copy of any memoranda taken or made since March 25, 1956, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, or any official of either of their departments, or by anyone on their respective behalf, of any discussion or discussions with Mr. Frank McMahon, connected with or relative to any offer by him and his associates to build or construct a gas pipe line between the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary and eastern Canada.
The minister took strong objection to having to keep a record of telephone conversations, and following that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) had this to say:
Mr. Speaker, before the question is put and since there is a Hansard record it might be well to point out that there is no mention here of telephone conversations.
The motion was put to the house and was defeated. Here is my question of privilege. I am not concerned and it is not any concern of the House of Commons as to whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce on his own received an alternative offer to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines offer and concealed it from his colleagues, as apparently he did because the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said yesterday he had never heard of this.
As far as parliament is concerned my submission is that the answers given, to say the least, indicate that no reliance was placed on the fact, as was raised the day before yesterday for the first time, that the letters from McMahon were private and confidential. The answers given by the minister constituted a cavalier and flagrant contempt of parliament and certainly we are entitled to have the information we asked for unless the minister is able to say, "I cannot produce these because of their confidentiality." He said that there were no documents. That statement was completely incorrect. I ask the minister through you, sir, to explain why it was that this alternative offer, which until the day before yesterday he said he had never

Pipe Lines
received, as there were no documents, was not produced to parliament and why he persisted in his stand that at no time had he received any letter. Yet on April 4 he had received a letter setting out in detail an offer and criticizing as well the Trans-Canada proposition.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the question is: When is an offer an offer? An offer is not made to me personally as I am not building the pipe line. I am interested in having the government build the pipe line. The letter was marked "Private" and when a letter is marked in that way, if you are going to respect a document at all it must be private to you.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did not you say that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why did not I say
that? I get letters from my sister. I suppose I should announce in parliament when I receive a personal letter from my sister.


John George Diefenbaker: About the pipe line?


Mr. Drew:: Is she advising you in regard to the pipe line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: When a letter is marked "confidential" I believe it is supposed to be confidential. I may be wrong, and I notice that my hon. friends doubt that such things have any significance at all, but to me they do have. I have never double-crossed anybody in my life knowingly. Therefore I respect a private and confidential letter and I keep it private and I keep it confidential.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you not tell parliament?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a fine way to keep a letter private and confidential, to tell parliament about it. The front bench of the Conservative party amazes me.
Their idea of morality is most extraordinary. Just because another Conservative horse will not run, they are trying to say that I should disclose a private and confidential letter.


George Alexander Drew: The statement just made in no way deals with the point that was raised. That was the positive statement by the minister that there were no documents. If anybody was double-crossed, parliament was double-crossed by the minister.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I
should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that the confidential nature changed between early in April and May 2. On May 2 the minister said:
I have received no letter that I am free to table in this house.

That was a correct statement. That preserves the confidentiality, but why on May 2 he should tell us this and why he could not tell us earlier in the month is something nobody could possibly explain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I call your attention to the fact that a letter addressed to me that I am not free to table is not a document for parliament. I was asked for documents.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you tell the Prime Minister?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are we to understand that this answer is based on the theory that a letter is not a document? Is that the view we are now asked to accept?


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order. May I state-


Howard Charles Green: I would-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has overlooked the fact that I was standing and asking for order. We have not yet embarked upon our routine proceedings. The hon. member for Prince Albert has raised a question of privilege. It was one between himself and the minister. The minister has given his explanation. I think now we ought to proceed with the routine proceedings.


Howard Charles Green: Your Honour, my question had to do with the minister's explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member contend that a question of privilege is one that facilitates a debate? Is a question of privilege debatable?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Howard Charles Green: I was proposing to ask-


Mr. Speaker:: The answer is no. Let us go into routine proceedings.


Howard Charles Green: I was preparing to ask the minister to clarify the statement he has just made-


Mr. Speaker:: He has given the answer to a question of privilege that was raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. As a member of this house, I want to question your statement that the matter raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert concerned only him and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As a member of this house I maintain that it concerns me when the question is the correctness of a minister's answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry if I have aroused the indignation of the hon. member and perhaps of others. The word "procedure" comes from the Latin word "procedere", which means "go forward". I am here to keep things going. The point of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert. He was listened to in silence, and I include myself among those who listened to him very reverently. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, in accordance with our rules, gave an explanation regarding the point of privilege which the hon. member for Prince Albert had raised. Hon. members have heard his answer. The debate that was pursued after that by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Greenwood had to do with whether or not a document which is marked private is to be considered a document as far as this house is concerned. It is obvious that the Minister of Trade and Commerce held the view that a document marked private or confidential is not a document in the sense of documents that this house may require. To me this is absolutely right because at page 258 of May, fifteenth edition, I find the following:
However ample the power of each house to enforce the production of papers may be, a sufficient cause must be shown for the exercise of that power; and if considerations of public policy can be urged against a motion for papers, it is either withdrawn, or otherwise dealt with according to the judgment of the house.
I read this because it shows that there are documents that this house, however ample its power may be, is not entitled to have. How long am I going to allow a debate to go on? Even if the hon. member for Nanaimo is interested as I may be in having a debate on the question as to what is a document as far as this house is concerned, we are dealing here with what constitutes a private or confidential document and we could go on all day with such a debate. But we have an order paper and a question of privilege is not debatable. If the hon member can show me a reference indicating that a question of privilege is debatable I should like to see it.


Mr. Ellis:: It can still be made.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, what was before Your Honour was not a debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no!


George Alexander Drew: What was before Your Honour was very clear evidence of the fact that a misstatement had been made to this house.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: That was what was being placed before Your Honour.
Pipe Lines


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition has his own view as to what was placed before him or what was placed before me. I suppose the Minister of Trade and Commerce also has his own view and I have mine. As far as I am concerned, I take it that a question of privilege was raised and an explanation was made by the person concerned. I have allowed a few questions because I felt that the house was prepared to have a few questions asked, but I think that now the house is willing to go ahead with the order of procedure.



BANK OF CANADA


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, by consent I should like to move:
That the annual report of the Bank of Canada be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, under standing order 26 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the effect that there were no documents in the possession of the government from Frank McMahon, which was contrary to the fact, and the extent to which such incorrect statement made by the minister misled the house as well as his colleagues in the government with regard to the existence of a possible alternative pipe-line proposal for carrying gas from Alberta to eastern Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Leader of the Opposition, anyone in his party, or anyone in the house be kind enough to give me the reference in the authorities whereby a matter raised as a question of privilege can be the subject of a debate under standing order 26 instead of being pursued as a question of privilege in accordance with the procedure laid down for that type of matter? When a question of privilege is raised it may be the subject of a motion. It is then treated as such and takes precedence over all other matters, even motions by virtue of standing

Pipe Lines
order 26. It seems to me that if the hon. member for Prince Albert was not satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce it was up to him to make a. motion immediately which was one of privilege. The hon. member does not recall that such incidents have taken place in the house?


John George Diefenbaker: Your Honour stated that no debate was allowed and I adhered to your ruling and took my seat. No discussion was permitted.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that no debate can take place except, of course, if a motion is placed before the house. I have noted that in the last few years members who have raised questions of privilege have never pursued their points far enough in order to make them debatable. Once a question of privilege is raised it may be ended by a motion. Such motion may not be taken up immediately but a day may be appointed when it will be taken up. That, to me, should have been the course followed.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this is not by way of continuance of a question of privilege. The statement was made by the hon. member on a question of privilege with regard to an answer he had received on different occasions. I am now raising this as a matter of procedure in this house, the position of the government in relation to parliament and the responsibility of ministers to answer correctly when questions are asked. I am putting forward a motion on that basis as a matter of urgent public importance in view of the fact that it has been announced that we may be debating the whole question of this pipe-line problem within a matter of a few days. I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a motion correctly before the house at this time and that it is urgent because it is the one opportunity that will present itself for debate to determine whether or not there are other undisclosed offers which we have not been told about and which would provide us with a means of obtaining information that we should have before we proceed with a debate on this extremely important subject.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) himself were the subject of this motion, I am sure that he would have the right to insist upon having the house decide whether or not he himself had made a statement which was not correct. This motion, if it were allowed, would be debated all day and what would be the effect of it? At six o'clock tonight the house adjourns. The motion is predicated on the

assumption that the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to the effect that there were no documents is incorrect. There is a point in dispute there. The minister says there were no documents that he could table. That was the sense of his explanation a moment ago but he said that there was a document or that there were documents marked private and confidential. Whether there was one document or more than one I do not know.
Arising out of that discussion that took place on the question of privilege, I think the matter should be the subject of a motion arising out of privilege and should be treated as such. I think that the one who is accused of a misstatement is entitled either to have that accusation confirmed by the house or to have his own stand that there was no misstatement vindicated by the house. As the matter stands now, this motion provides only for a debate but no chance for the house to express its views as to whether or not the statement made by the minister was a misstatement. I ask hon. members-any one of them

whether it is not true that if they were the subject of a motion of this kind, they would put forward the point that they are entitled to have their stand either condemned or vindicated by the house. By this motion such a thing could not take place. It is merely a motion to adjourn.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on the point of order that you have raised. In the first place, you suggested that a motion related directly to the question of privilege could be placed upon the order paper and a day appointed for debate. May I remind you-


Mr. Speaker:: No, no.


An hon. Member:: Wrong again.


Mr. Speaker:: What happens is this. I admit that it has been a long time since a question of privilege was pursued to its ultimate end. Perhaps it would be nice to have one again so that we would establish the procedure and everyone would know it and then the matter would not be so difficult. As the matter stands, many perhaps will say that I am laying down a new procedure that they have never heard of. However, it is there in the book. I do not bring my black notebooks into the house with me any more but later on I can get them and I will show hon. members precedents to the effect that when a question of privilege is raised, the member who is supposed to be concerned in it is entitled to explain. That is his right. Then the hon. member who raised the question may pursue the matter with a motion. He

makes a motion. That motion normally should be taken up immediately, be dealt with and decided upon; or someone may suggest, "We will take this up tomorrow". But these motions are not on the notice paper. They take place without notice. I would correct the hon. member when he says that you place a motion on the order paper. A motion with regard to privilege is one that must be taken up immediately.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was only taking up your own expression in saying what I did on that point, because I understood you were saying that if a motion directly arising out of a question of privilege were put forward a day would be appointed for it. I only point out that if that were the position it would not be possible to get any such motion on now and have it introduced by a private member unless the government undertook to sponsor it.
Now, you commenced your remarks this morning on this point of order by asking hon. members to point out to you where the procedure under standing order No. 26 had been used in relation to a matter that had been the subject of a question of privilege. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put before you this view that it is quite erroneous to assume that the procedure offered by standing order No. 26 cannot be used for this purpose. Why should it not be? I speak subject to correction, but I am not aware of any occasion upon which there has been a positive ruling that the procedure under standing order No. 26 cannot be used in relation to a motion of this kind. Therefore, I say to you I think it is quite erroneous to assume, in the absence of any such decision, that this procedure under standing order No. 26 is not available in cases of this kind.
I ask you further to consider this point, Mr. Speaker. You say this is simply a question of privilege. It certainly arises out of what has been said this morning in relation to the question of privilege, but here is a matter that has implications in it that go beyond what has passed back and forth this morning, having been uttered on one part on the question of privilege and on the other part by the minister in attempting an explanation. This motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) is a motion that goes right to the vitals of our parliamentary system. It is for that reason it is a matter of urgent public importance. Holding the views we do, nothing could be of greater public importance. In the situation which exists within the context in which this motion is brought forward, and in the context of the question of privilege brought forward today, nothing could be more urgent.
Pipe Lines
Therefore I am submitting to you, on the point of order on which you are proceeding now to base a ruling on the motion, that it is a very proper motion under the procedure available here under standing order No. 26 and that there is no other available procedure to deal with this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: I was very glad to hear the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) speak about procedure so enthusiastically and with great warmth. Evidently he likes procedure as much as I do, so I shall put him in my club.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do not put your club on me.


Mr. Speaker:: No, that would be a different club. It has been a long time since the club of the Speaker was ornamented and put on the table where it has become known as the mace.
Has the hon. member looked at standing order 26, subsection 6, paragraph (e):
The right to move the adjournment of the house for the above purposes is subject to the following restrictions:
(e) The motion must not raise a question of privilege.
That is where the whole issue lies between hon. members and myself. It is a question of privilege. I think the hon. member so indicated a moment ago when he said that this matter was so important it went deep down into the roots of our parliamentary system. That is my reason for not accepting the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I make my point clearer. You say you are proposing to regard this as a motion raising a question of privilege. My point was that it is not just a question of privilege. It is true it arises out of a discussion here this morning that began with a question of privilege, but it is something that goes far beyond any question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: It may go far beyond, but there is in it a question of privilege. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), in that motion which is one for the adjournment of the house, is accused of having made a misstatement. If the hon. member for Eglinton were accused, as the minister is, and if someone were to ask me that this matter be made one of privilege and a motion were brought by which he could either be condemned or vindicated by the house, I would say by all means let us have the motion. This motion under standing order 26 may be debated all day until the adjournment at six o'clock.
What is the position with respect to the accusation against the minister? So far as the house is concerned, when we adjourn at

Pipe Lines
six o'clock, there will still be the accusation that he made a misstatement. The minister is entitled to have the house decide on the statement made by the hon. member for Prince Albert or concerning any other speeches accusing him of a misstatement, and on his own explanation and any other speeches made on his behalf taking his point of view, to have the house decide whether or not he has made a misstatement.
There is a point at issue here; you are raising a question of privilege and to do so you say, "Let us move the adjournment of the house," and the result of the debate will be that we adjourn the house at six o'clock and the accusation still confronts the minister. The same thing would obtain if the hon. member or indeed if any other hon. member were concerned. It is a question of privilege and you have to deal with it as such.
The hon. member for Prince Albert should have pursued his point by moving a motion which might have been in the sense of this motion here. It would perhaps have been taken up immediately. Now we are into the routine proceedings and we must carry on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I have one final word, Mr. Speaker? You heard this morning, Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert. You heard the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in attempted explanation. And then when other hon. members sought to have something to say or sought to ask questions you ruled that the question of privilege had been disposed of and was not a debatable matter. I now submit to you that the question of privilege was then disposed of-


Mr. Speaker:: I would be very happy to assist hon. members if they were to consult me before they made a move but While they are making a point in the house I cannot very well leave the throne and go and tell them what to do. They were not moving a motion; they were just debating. No matter how many hon. members think it was their question, the fact remains that the question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert, and it was up to him to move a motion. It was up to him to continue this matter to its proper conclusion. But I say that by virtue of section 26, 6 (e) and also because of the fact that this matter -a serious matter amounting to an accusation that the minister misinformed the house -is one of those matters which you cannot raise, save upon a substantive motion, an adjournment motion under standing order 26 cannot be accepted.
If the hon. member had continued with it as a matter of privilege, all well and good.

Not having done that I have no other recourse but to cite citation No. 225 of Beau-chesne's third edition which says:
Certain matters cannot be debated save upon a substantive motion-
And a matter of this kind is one of them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: A moment ago when the hon. member rose to speak he said, "May I add one final word?"


Donald Methuen Fleming: And you interrupted right in the middle of what I was saying.


Mr. Speaker:: I took it that we were both finalizing the argument.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker, with respect, you cut me off right in the middle of what I was trying to say. I will be brief. All I was trying to say-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no help from these raucous interruptions, but probably the adults could listen at any rate.
The question of privilege had been disposed of, as I understood what you said at that time; therefore section 26, 6 (e) does not apply to what is now before you because it refers to the question of privilege. The question of privilege had been disposed of and what is raised now is not a question of privilege. It is true it relates to the matters that were involved and it arises out of the attempted explanation of the minister, but in my respectful submission this was not a case within 26, 6 (e). It is the kind of case that is debatable; by 26, 6 (e) is meant one that is initiated by the question of privilege. The question of privilege had been disposed of and this is another motion and in my submission it clearly is not within 26, 6 (e).


Mr. Speaker:: If what was raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert had not been raised this morning and if the Leader of the Opposition had moved the motion he has, there is privilege in that motion. It was an accusation against an hon. member of this house that he has made a misstatement and this is a matter which should be raised on a motion which will give the house a chance to say it is true or it is wrong. That is the whole idea.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, is your ruling that this is not debatable?


Mr. Speaker:: Of course.


George Alexander Drew: Then I appeal from your ruling, with respect.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Drew has appealed from the ruling I have just given. Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there an appeal from the ruling of the Speaker under the standing orders of the house? I am not trying to block it but I just raise it because this is very important. If this is a precedent then some of the rest of us from time to time will use this as a precedent. I think we should understand what the rule is before we are called upon to vote on it.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, it has always been my understanding that there is no appeal from your ruling in this particular matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have had them before.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members know the story of this. I am sorry that we have spent so much time because of a point of procedure and it is now 20 minutes to 12. I do not like to have to talk about procedure any more than is necessary but hon. members remember the story of this kind of appeal.
Mr. Speaker Black was the first one who made the ruling that there was no appeal of his decisions that motions should not be accepted because he was given the discretion under the old standing order No. 31, now standing order 26, to decide whether or not in his view a motion should be accepted.
Mr. Ralston, who was then an hon. member of the opposition, appealed the Speaker's ruling that there was no appeal. Mr. Speaker Black on other similar decisions later on ruled in the same way and no appeal was made of his ruling. The matter was tried again in Mr. Speaker Fauteux's time and again in my time. When I made the ruling that there was no appeal the Leader of the Opposition made a similar appeal basing his action on the action of Mr. Ralston in 1932.
Hon. members will recall that at that time I said as far as I am concerned there will be no further appeal of my rulings that there is no appeal on this standing order.
Although I was perhaps convinced at the beginning of my term that hon. members would want to support the Chair with respect to this rule that rulings are not debatable, I have tried-hon. members know that-but I have come to the conclusion that it is almost an illusion for any Speaker to think that when he makes his rulings the rulings are not debatable, because hon. members choose to debate them.
Pipe Lines
The authority of the Canadian Speaker is such that it is entirely in the hands of the house. Notwithstanding what I said at that time, if I were to say here that there is no appeal of my ruling some hon. members might say, "Well, he is being autocratic; he does not want to have his rulings appealed", so I have taken the view, because I feel it is the wish of the house to keep the Speaker in their hands and to have that sort of check on him, that they want to have an appeal so I did not make any objection. As a matter of fact I offered an hon. member an opportunity to appeal my ruling not very long ago. That is my position now. It is true that there are more decisions sustaining the Speaker's ruling that there is no appeal of his decision under standing order 26 than that his decision is appealable. It is true that the weight of opinion is on that side. I might clear the position by allowing the house to decide. If there is another decision by the house sustaining the ruling I made last time it will give more weight to the position that there is no appeal from the Speaker's ruling, according to this standing order 26, when he decides that there is no appeal.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, if upon reflection and based on the experience you have had already you feel that it would be desirable that there should be an appeal from your decision I would appreciate it if you would put the question again to the house because I am sure some hon. members did not understand what it was.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, before you do that may I say that if that is done on this occasion I would vote with the opposition on the ground that on another occasion we would be entitled to have exactly the same ruling made. The rule is clear and if it is going to be set aside today by a ruling of Your Honour then I must feel free to follow that precedent on another occasion when I or some other hon. member might be interested.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, you have referred already to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Black in connection with a motion made by Mr. Ralston. I would refer to Beauchesne's third edition, page 747, which indicates quite clearly that an appeal was allowed, instead of the contrary. On February 19,	1932, Hon.
George Black, Speaker, refused to permit an appeal from his decision that it was not urgent to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter of public importance. That ruling being appealed from, it was confirmed by the house. Mr. Ralston had

Pipe Lines
made a motion to the house and the Speaker said that it could not be debated. I quote from page 748 as follows:
Mr. Speaker ruled that the statement was not in order and that the matter was not one of urgent public importance and moreover that there was no appeal from his decision.
Mr. Ralston appealed from the Speaker's refusal to permit an appeal from his decision.
And the question being put by Mr. Speaker: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained? it was decided in the affirmative.


Walter Edward Harris: That is different.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Finance interjects "That is different," but it is not different at all. I was placing the matter forward and had your ruling been that a vote could not be taken I intended then to follow precisely the same procedure as was followed in the case that I have just read from Beauchesne's third edition, as reported at page 747. Whether a vote is taken at this time or at the second stage on an appeal against the decision that there cannot be a vote I submit that this shows quite clearly that a vote can be taken in a case of this kind.


Walter Edward Harris: That was the point of my interjection. It has always been understood in the house that the decision by the Speaker that a motion was not a matter of urgent public business was not subject to appeal, but that your decision that there was no appeal was in fact subject to appeal. That is the point. This matter has been argued out several times in the last ten years and if Your Honour chooses to follow that procedure, of course there will ultimately be a vote of the house as to whether this second decision of yours is appealable.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I just want to say one word. I am inclined to believe that since we have rules we should stand by those rules. If a vote comes I propose to take my position in accordance with that view.


Mr. Speaker:: I just want to finalize the statement I made when the matter was raised the last time. There is a distinction. I am very much impressed by the attitude taken by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Standing order 26 reads:
(1)	Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance-
(2)	The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter . . .
(3)	He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order-
These are the words:
-and of urgent public importance-

By that standing order the Speaker has been given the discretion to decide whether it is in order and of urgent public importance. If in his view it is not in order or of urgent public importance he does not accept it. In 1932 Mr. Speaker Black, on a point of order raised by Mr. Ralston, gave a decision which appears at page 748 of Beauchesne's third edition, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker ruled that the statement was not in order and that the matter was not one of urgent public importance and moreover that there was no appeal from his decision.
Mr. Ralston appealed from the Speaker's refusal to permit an appeal from his decision.
I think there are three rulings to the effect that an appeal can take place, and if I recall correctly there are four or five to the contrary. On page 855 of the Journals for Tuesday, July 5, 1955, I find this:
Now, there were several occasions when standing order 31 was moved.
That is now standing order 26.
And the Leader of the Opposition will find that only on one other occasion, when Mr. Speaker Fauteux was Speaker, an appeal in similar circumstances to a decision of the Speaker that there was no appeal was granted. On all other occasions the house has always accepted the decision made by the Speaker, and also has always accepted the view that in those circumstances there was no appeal from the Speaker's ruling.
Of course I must decide on the spur of the moment, but if I had time I could give the exact references for the rulings. I quote from page 858 of the Journals of the same year:
In the future, whenever I make a ruling to the effect that the motion should not be accepted because it is not in order or is not of urgent public importance-that is that there is no urgency of debate-I will not grant an appeal from my decision that there is no appeal.
At that time the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar sustained the ruling I made, and so did the hon. member for Peace River. I should like very much to have this decided because I feel convinced that this is the right one. There are many people who seem to be interested in what is said from this chair, perhaps sometimes not for purely academic reasons, and I do not want any accusation made that I have not allowed an appeal although standing order 12 provides an appeal. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar will say, "If you are convinced you are doing the wrong thing, why do you do it?" After what he has said and after what the hon. member for Peace River has said and after I have had a chance to indicate why I had a moment of weakness, I shall stick to my guns and rule that there is no appeal.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
ruling which I have just read I appeal from your decision that there is no appeal.


Mr. Speaker:: My decision is that there
is no appeal from my ruling that there is no appeal. The Leader of the Opposition has one recourse, that is to put a substantive motion on the ordeir paper after notice asking that my conduct be either condemned or vindicated by the house. See Debates, volume I, 1932, pages 360-6; Journals, volume 70, 1932, pages 62-3; Debates, volume II, 1939, pages 1748-50; Journals, volume 77, 1939, page 178; Debates, volume IV, 1946, pages 3440-3; Debates, volume II, 1947, pages 1828-30; Debates, volume I, 1948, pages 122-3; Debates, volume III, 1941, pages 2298-9; Debates, volume I, 1944, pages 417-20; Debates, volume III, 1944, pages 2381-2; Debates, volume III, 1944, pages 2425-7; Debates, volume I, 1945, pages 736-41.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think it would
be well to remember that there is a Hansard record. I do not believe it is appropriate that that should be left on the order paper.
There is no condemnation of the Speaker in seeking to obtain decisions in this house. The reference I made indicated quite freely an earlier case, clearly on all fours with this, where the house, for the purpose of obtaining an indication of how members thought on this subject, made an appeal, and there was no suggestion that that represented condemnation of the Speaker. I wish no suggestion left on this occasion of anything of that kind.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Leader of the
Opposition for having given this explanation. I would tell him that I had not in mind that there was a condemnation nor an acceptance of my position. I merely wanted to inform the house as to what was the next step if one wanted to go any further.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister made inquiries as to the nature of the telephone message yesterday from the Minister of Trade and Commerce to Mr. Frank J. McMahon, which led to the sudden and surprising withdrawal of his firm offer to build a gas pipe line from Alberta to Montreal?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No, I have made no such inquiries.


George Alexander Drew: Then may I ask if the Prime Minister will make such inquiries so that we
Inquiries of the Ministry may know the nature of the communication, which is not on record and which did produce such surprising results so speedily?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? In view of the minister's statement this morning that he is interested in having the government build the pipe line, may I ask if that means that we may soon expect an announcement that the trans-Canada pipe line will be built under government ownership?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not recall the statement to which reference is made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister made it this morning in reply to the question of privilege. He said that he was interested in having the government build the pipe line.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said that this morning?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now that the minister knows what he said this morning, will he tell us whether that means that that is his recommendation to the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I am very anxious to see the pipe line built. I had not been conscious of the fact that this morning I said anything to indicate the method.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister whether the McMahon offer was ever placed before the cabinet?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. McMahon made his offer to me privately and confidentially, and I do not disclose the subject matter of private and confidential letters to anyone.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: In view of all the discussion this morning I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fiasco that has been perpetrated on the Canadian people in these pipe-line negotiations, is the minister considering his resignation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Clarence Decatur Howe: The pipe-line resolution is on the order paper. I assume we shall reach it one day, and at that time I am willing to discuss any matter having to do with pipe-line negotiations. I am ready at any time to discuss any public document bearing on the subject but I am not prepared to discuss with anyone a letter that is sent to me marked private and confidential, unless I have the permission of the writer to do so. I asked the permission of the writer
3570	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to make the letters public and I got that permission, so that letter is no longer private and confidential. When the pipe-line debate is resumed, I shall be glad to discuss the contents of that letter.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask, then, is it a fact that the first time the cabinet knew anything about the McMahon offer was when these papers were tabled yesterday?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would be very glad to discuss cabinet secrets some time when I am no longer a privy councillor. A privy councillor is appointed for life, and so the discussion will have to take place in the next world. I have taken an oath, and so has the Leader of the Opposition, that we will not reveal matters discussed in cabinet, and I propose to stand by the oath.


John George Diefenbaker: Might I ask a question of the Prime Minister? When did the Prime Minister first become aware of this letter, and was that portion of the letter about faults of the Trans-Canada pipe line brought to his attention?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, the
faults of the Trans-Canada pipe line were not brought to my attention as being matters reflected upon in any correspondence that had reached any of my colleagues. I did hear some time ago-I cannot say just when-that a confidential letter had been sent to the Minister of Trade and Commerce but, as it was a confidential letter, I did not consider under those conditions that it was a proposal to the government. If anyone writes a confidential letter to a minister he must know it is going to be treated as confidential, and if he wants to make a communication to the government he has to make it in another form than that.


George Alexander Drew: Will the Prime Minister not agree that it would be a matter of some importance for the cabinet to know that there had been a firm offer to a member of the government to finance a pipe line across Canada without government commitment and that an individual who has already financed one pipe line in Canada was prepared to put up a $500,000 cash bond for the fulfilment of his undertaking?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not consider that anything addressed confidentially to any member of the government was a firm offer to the government to do anything at all or that a bond of $500,000 to meet an expenditure of $375 million was anything that had very great significance in proportion to the magnitude of the undertaking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
ask-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the hon. member for Yorkton wants to continue the subject.


Mr. G. H. Caslleden (Yorkton):: I do, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I think he should be given the chance to proceed.


George Hugh Castleden: Since the McMahon interests are apparently out of the picture, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, is it the intention of the government to make money available to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for the building of the western portion of the line and, if so, will permission so to do be obtained from this house by legislation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Whenever there is a firm decision reached as to the kind of recommendation to be made to parliament, it will be announced to parliament. Nothing of this kind can be implemented without the approval of parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the Prime Minister who disclosed to him that a confidential letter had been received from the McMahon interests on this subject and when this disclosure was made to the Prime Minister?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I cannot say. I have no note of that, because I did not attach any importance to a letter that was not a proposal to the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I presume that applies to the time. I asked the Prime Minister who made the disclosure.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not in
a position to tell the hon. gentleman who first made that disclosure. It may be something that I gathered from newspaper reports. I am not sure about that.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what the ministers have to depend upon.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: May I
ask a question of the Prime Minister? Could the Prime Minister advise the house whether the government is sufficiently united on the question of the pipe line to allow this very important question to be brought before the house early next week for debate?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As soon as there is a final decision made, it will be announced to the house, and I can assure the hon. gentleman and all hon. gentlemen that I shall be very glad to be able to make a definite announcement to the house as soon as that is possible. I can assure you that I do not enjoy as much as you do these questions that are constantly being thrown

at us, and I should be very happy to reach a position where they will be no longer looked upon as desirable by those who are asking them now.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister learned from the press about the contents of this letter-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: -may I ask him if he will make inquiries whether there are any other undisclosed offers in the hands of the Minister of Trade and Commerce at this time?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, because I do not consider that any communications made as private and confidential are matters of concern to the government of Canada.


George Alexander Drew: Will the Prime Minister not agree that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has shown some facility in obtaining the release of any limitations of that kind as well as other results apparently at the same time?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is something the hon. gentleman will feel he should have said when he sees it in print in Hansard. I think that is a reflection upon one whom the hon. gentleman and I both respect.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing whatever on Hansard that I have any reason to question with respect to whether I should have said it. I would indicate to the Prime Minister that if he has read today's paper and found out what has happened in the last 24 hours he will have learned there were other results as well as the decision that the confidential nature of these documents would be withdrawn.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. Purdy (Colchester-Hanls):: Now
that the opposition have got rid of some of their gas, may I put a question to the Minister ^^ Agriculture? Has a decision been reached on my request of last year that the committee on agriculture and colonization be given the opportunity of studying the problems of agriculture generally as well as those of the western grain growers?


Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):: That was
just gas too.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: Stronger gas than you have.


Mr. Hodgson:: That is gas 12 months old.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I will have to take my hon. friend's question as notice and 1 will give him an answer later.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. With reference to the meeting to be held on Tuesday morning between the railway companies and the union representatives may I ask what is to be the basis of this meeting? Is it for the purpose of discussing acceptance of the conciliation board's report or are the railway companies attending with any reservations?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: That will be for the parties themselves to decide if they have not already done so.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister give the house any information regarding the seizure of certain Canadian fishing vessels on lake Erie which I understand from a radio broadcast involved some shooting?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: My department has had no direct word on the matter because the administration of fisheries in Ontario is under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. However, this type of arrest is quite common on both coasts where fishermen, by accident or by design, cross the boundary line in territorial waters into the other nation's fishing grounds. The usual procedure is for the fisherman to come before the court of the country and have his case heard.
As far as shooting is concerned, all our Canadian patrol boats carry a gun in the bow and occasionally fire a shot by way of a warning across the bow of a fishing vessel they intend to arrest. I understand that was the nature of the shot fired in this case.



MR. SPEAKER  CONGRATULATIONS ON BIRTHDAY ANNIVERSARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I am sure the house will agree with

Supply-Public Works
me that it is too bad this is not tomorrow instead of today. I know of no better way in which to celebrate the 5th of May than by a display of interest in procedure such as we have had this morning. In any event, I am sure I have the unanimous endorsation of the house at this moment in wishing Your Honour a very happy birthday tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member says, no doubt it was to celebrate my birthday that hon. members made me go through an exercise in procedure this morning. I want to tell him that I appreciate the whole incident very much, together with his wishes, and I want to thank all hon. members.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS General-
390. To provide for advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites, $1,500,000.


The Chairman:: We have reached resolution No. 390. Hon. members will And this vote on page 64 of the blue book of estimates and the details on page 492.


Mr. Hosking:: Mr. Chairman, I believe I can probably comment on this item about the purchase of a site in the city of Guelph. I understand the government has decided that we need further accommodation for the federal building in Guelph and that plans were made to enlarge the post office building. This would mean that the officials of the customs branch, the Department of Veterans Affairs and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would be congregated in the present post office or the new addition.
At the rear of the post office there is a considerable parking lot on which, during the seasons when the mail is not too heavy, some 30 to 40 automobiles of the employees are parked. Should there be an extension to the present building making use of the parking lot it would result in great inconvenience to people who shop in the city of Guelph. I should like to take this opportunity to convey to the minister the appreciation of the mayor, the board of trade, the planning commission and the parking authority for having his officials go to Guelph to meet the officials of the city and discuss the problem that would arise if it were decided to extend the present post office. They appreciated very much the opportunity of explaining to the minister's officials that they are planning to spend some $165,000 in the city of Guelph to remove existing buildings very close to the government parking lot in order to create a parking

area. They have asked me to thank the minister for meeting with them and for arriving at a decision which has given them reasonable assurance that the parking space will not be used for a building site. When the new federal building is built I hope that a suitable location will be found which will be satisfactory for the job the building has to do.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to follow the suggestion made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings on the last occasion these estimates were before the committee. I had hoped that the Prime Minister would be here but I realize that he cannot be here on all occasions. However, this is one matter during the discussion of which I should have liked to see him present.


Mr. Winters:: I will tell him about it.


John George Diefenbaker: In any event, the matter can be brought to his attention. I feel that in what I am about to say some support might be expected to be forthcoming from the Prime Minister. I refer to the plans that have been made, as reported in the press, to remove and destroy the old Supreme Court of Canada building.


Robert Henry Winters: You are out of order.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Surely this discussion would not come under this particular item of the estimates of the Department of Public Works.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I stayed around here the other day and it came up under this item. I hope that I am not transgressing. I waited here for three hours for a chance to deal with this matter and I walked out momentarily. This is a matter that affects all the lawyers within our country and is one that I think deserves to be discussed. But, Mr. Chairman, if you say that it cannot be discussed, that is final. However, I point out that I was here the other day and that the matter came up only at ten minutes to six. I am asking the consideration of the committee in order that I may deal with it for a few minutes.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I would think the hon. member would have to have the unanimous consent of the committee because this discussion is clearly out of order on this item.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member
unanimous consent to deal with this matter?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that two or three other members wanted to revert to preceding items in the previous discussion of these estimates and

unanimous consent was not given to them. On the basis of fairness, I object to unanimous consent being given.


Mr. Byrne:: So do I.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the hon. member's statement. I have been here during every minute of the discussion of the estimates and my recollection is that two hon. members reverted to certain questions and it was agreed that they should do so. No one was refused.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: What items were they?


Mr. Campbell:: The minister has not his officials before him but I wonder whether he could give me any information as to what progress is being made on the advance planning of a new post office building in North Battleford and whether there is any possibility of a start being made on the building this year? The minister can answer that question later if he so desires.


Robert Henry Winters: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, -and all I could say if the officials were here-is that the matter is in the planning stage. Until we get votes of parliament I am not in a position to go farther than that. This is a planning vote and that is one of the projects we have in the planning stage.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, are we on item 390?


William Alfred Robinson: We are on item 390.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I ask you to look at the wording of item 390 which is as follows:
To provide for advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites.
If the question of where the supreme court building should be placed in advance planning does not come within that item, then I am very much surprised.


Robert Henry Winters: There is a supreme court building now.


John George Diefenbaker: I raise this question, Mr. Chairman. If you hold against me, then I ask the usual consideration.


William Alfred Robinson: I am, of course, in some difficulty in that I have before me a resolution in the following terms: Resolved that a sum not exceeding $1,500,000, less amounts voted in interim supply, be granted to Her Majesty for public works, general, to provide for advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites. In the details in the blue book at page 492 there is little, if any, additional information. The minister has indicated that an expenditure for the supreme
Supply-Public Works
court building is not included in this vote. I therefore do not see how the hon. member for Prince Albert could discuss that matter under this vote. I presume that there were other occasions on which the matter could have been discussed. For instance, I am quite certain that it could have been discussed, perhaps, under the first item of the departmental estimates. I regret very much if, by reason of our rules, the hon. member is prevented from discussing this question at this time. For that reason I transmitted to the committee a request for unanimous consent, but that consent was refused. I therefore feel that my hands are tied.


Mr.   Johnsfon@Bow River: I should like to ask a question of the minister under this item which is to provide for advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites. Can the minister tell the committee what advance planning has been considered in connection with the new civic centre in Banff and also what has been considered in the matter of choosing a site? I know representations have been made to the government, probably by political parties. But I should like the minister to state what planning has been done, what type of structure is proposed and whether any consideration has been given to the choosing of a site.


Robert Henry Winters: No; not under the estimates of this department. Planning for a project of that nature, if it is to be done, would more appropriately come under the jurisdiction of my colleague who is responsible for the administration of national parks. We have done no planning under this vote.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: If further discussions take place with regard to the consideration of a civic centre and if as a result the Department of Public Works will be required to go ahead and carry out the construction, may I ask whether the Minister of Public Works would be advised before the final decision is made, so that he could use his good judgment in making decisions?


Robert Henry Winters: I presume so, Mr. Chairman; yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: You say you
presume so. I think the matter is of a little bit more importance than that. I think it is of sufficient importance that the minister should not just pass on a presumption on it. Maybe the minister can assure the committee that that would be so.


Robert Henry Winters: No; I cannot do that. That matter is within the jurisdiction of my colleague. If he wants my advice, I should be glad to give it to him. But it is perfectly and entirely within his competence to make a decision if he chooses to do so.
3574	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works


Mr. Wylie:: I have one question that I should like to ask the minister. It is not in connection with the national parks, so I am sure he will be able to answer it without referring it to another minister. The city of Medicine Hat has grown so much within the last eight years that the public building we have there-I refer to the post office-is entirely inadequate to handle the mail situation today. I am wondering whether the minister has given consideration to the acquisition of a new site for the post office and just what is being done in advance planning for a project of that kind.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member for Medicine Hat will recall that I interrupted another hon. member a few moments ago. Under these specific votes, I feel that we must deal with specific matters. Although this particular item reads, "to provide for advance planning", I do not think it opens to the members of the committee the opportunity to discuss their particular pet projects in all parts of Canada. If that were the case, it would lead to a debate which would be far more extensive than should take place under an item of this kind. Under this item, I really feel that we should deal with the particular subjects covered. I would ask the hon. member if he would co-operate with me in that respect.


Charles Edward Johnston: May I ask you
to define what is meant by advance planning of projects including the acquisition of sites? Now, certainly, advance planning-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. It is, of course, not for me to interpret or try to interpret these votes in advance. But I might perhaps suggest this to the hon. member, that it is within his competence to ask the minister what is covered by this vote.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Perhaps I could have brought up this question under item 360. However, there was no provision made for a post office in Medicine Hat, and I feel that some consideration should be given to a building there. I think that calls for advance planning. What I want to know now is whether or not the Minister of Public Works or the government is giving consideration to a building in Medicine Hat. I consider that advance planning, and I think that is what the item is for.


Robert Henry Winters: I will be glad to keep in mind what the hon. member has said. This vote, as hon. members will recall, was introduced into the Department of Public Works about three years ago when I became responsible for this department. Formerly we could not consider the preparation of plans or the acquisition of sites unless we
[Mr. Winters.)

had a specific item in the estimates, and that meant that each year we carried over sums of money that we were not able to spend, and we had revote after revote. We, therefore, asked parliament to give us an amount of money, which in this case is a million and a half dollars, to enable us to do some preliminary planning and incur some expenditures against planning and acquiring sites, so that when we did get to the stage of coming forward with a project and putting an item in the estimates we would be in a better position to spend it. It seemed to me this was an opportunity to do some orderly planning.


Mr. Quelch:: Can the minister tell us any sites he has in view at the present time?


Robert Henry Winters: No, I cannot say that.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: That was my point; in the city of Medicine Hat we have to have a new site and a new public building, and I was wondering what was being done by the minister in that respect. It was for that reason I asked the minister the question, which I think is a fair one under item 390.


William Alfred Robinson: I have no wish, of course, to limit debate but hon. members will realize that if, under wording such as we find in this item, hon. members had the privilege of mentioning a project or several projects in every riding in Canada, we would arrive at an impossible result. It seems to me that these general remarks, and remarks to the effect that members are disappointed that a particular project is not proceeding, are the type of remarks that might be made on the first item in connection with policy. I think most hon. members agree that would contribute to more orderly debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, now that we have this item I may say that I am opposed to these general items unless we have particulars. I wanted to deal with the subject of planning and expenditure in connection with a parking space and the destruction of the old supreme court. Now that the minister has blocked it we shall start to try to find out where these projects are.


Robert Henry Winters: On a question of privilege; the minister did not block it, the committee blocked it.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes he did. We will get along well if that is the minister's attitude.


Robert Henry Winters: Let us have a clear understanding on this. Is the hon. member threatening us or doing something of that nature?


John George Diefenbaker: I am just saying we are going to get information for a change.


Robert Henry Winters: If we are going to be threatened and bulldozed, parliament is not going to do the business of the country very well.


John George Diefenbaker: It is hard to get information from ministers.


Robert Henry Winters: Not from me.


John George Diefenbaker: Where is the million and a half going to be spent? What are the projects in mind? Handing the minister a million and a half to play around with, without anything to justify it-


Robert Henry Winters: Well, express your views. You have had two years to do it. This is the third year this item has been in the estimates.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us have the particulars, Mr. Chairman.


William Alfred Robinson: Before too much heat is generated, may I suggest to the hon. member that he should address the chair rather than speak directly across the chamber to the minister. I am sure we would have a more orderly debate.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister should let us hear about some of these projects that he has in mind for the million and a half dollars. There was no objection raised, Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Wellington South dealt with one of these projects. What are these projects the minister has in mind? Has he made any projections of them? Let us have some of the particulars as to how this is to be made up and why the amount has been fixed at one and a half million?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pursuing the particular point and pursuing the same desire to get information, can the minister tell us how last year's vote was spent? According to the details, $317,452 was actually spent up to December 1, 1955; surely he could tell us how that money was spent. Then, he will note that the estimated amount for the balance of the year was $932,548. I realize that at the time the blue-book was printed that money had not been spent, but could he tell us now whether that $932,548 was spent in whole or in part and how it was spent? He could tell us, in the usual forthright manner in which he likes to hand out information, how this money was spent last year and then that would give us some guide as to the kind of expenditure this money is for and perhaps then we could get some intelligent answers to our questions as to what this year's vote is to be spent upon.


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot, of course, tell what this year's vote will be spent upon because I do not know. I am asking parliament to
Supply-Public Works
vote a million and a half dollars to enable me to plan projects as they come up for consideration. If I were in a position to know exactly where it was going to be spent, I could put specific votes in the estimates and I would not need to ask for this pool arrangement. But it may be that a project will come forward in any community across Canada upon which we would like to do some advance planning and perhaps acquire sites so that when the plans are prepared we will be ready to develop the structure.
I am not, therefore, in a position to detail what it is for, and the very nature of the vote indicates that it is planning as required. It has always met with the approval of parliament. As a matter of fact, I recall the first time it was put in the estimates it was rather welcomed as being a step in the direction of orderly estimating, and I think it has helped us to do that. If hon. members are in disagreement with that, then of course they are at liberty to express their views. I would be glad to get a breakdown of how the amount was spent last year.


Victor Quelch: It was suggested a few moments ago by the previous chairman that it would be quite in order to ask the minister what projects he had in view or what sites. I asked him that question and he said he had not any sites in view. That being the case, surely it must be in order for members to suggest to the minister what projects might be carried out under this item.


Robert Henry Winters: They are quite in order to suggest what they think should come under this item by way of planning and the acquisition of sites.


Victor Quelch: The minister would not object to that.


Robert Henry Winters: No.


Mr. Cardiff:: I do not want to take the minister off the hook, particularly, but we had a certain amount of work done in Bayfield last year for which there was no item in the estimates. I think that is perhaps where some of this money goes, is it not?


Robert Henry Winters: If it is a matter of planning and acquiring a site, if we acquired a site under that vote, then that is the case. It gives us the opportunity of doing this so we can deal more expeditiously with the actual carrying out of the work. I hope this commends itself to hon. members as a good approach to the matter of estimating and doing work, because I personally think it is.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I think that the work that was done in Bayfield certainly was not in the estimates and it had to be paid out of the

Supply-Public Works
same fund. I just suggest to the minister that we have another project at Port Albert which needs some attention. The project is at the mouth of the natural harbour at Port Albert which is a fine place for boats to slip into out of the storms that often occur on lake Huron. All that is needed is a little dredging at the mouth of the river, at the natural harbour there. At the present time I do not think boats can get in and out of there because of a sandbar.


Mr. Pearkes:: May I ask the minister if this vote merely covers the planning of design and the acquisition of land or whether it includes any form of economic planning? It seems to me that many decisions are made by this department based purely upon the engineering requirements or the engineering benefits whereas decisions frequently have to be made as between two suggested projects based very largely upon the economic value of those two places.
I would like to refer to an instance where I understand the department is carrying out an investigation which I presume comes under this amount. My example refers to the relative value of a structure in two points. I have raised the question and the boards of trade on the south coast of Vancouver island have asked for greater facilities in connection with harbours. The last report I had from the department was that they were investigating the advisability of constructing additional harbour facilities either at San Juan or at Sooke. It was not a question of both of these places being developed; it was a question of one or the other being developed. No doubt that is an investigation which is being carried out under this item.
I would like the minister to tell us how far he has progressed with that investigation. I would particularly like to know whether the economic side of these problems is investigated by his department under this item.


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Chairman, this item just covers the architectural or engineering planning, the actual preparation of plans and specifications on an advanced basis and the acquisition of sites.


George Randolph Pearkes: In a case such as I have raised, is the decision made as between the relative values of the two harbours or is it based solely upon the engineering advantages? Where is the economic side discussed? Has the department any economics branch? Could the minister explain where that is covered?


Robert Henry Winters: We have a small economic branch in the department, Mr. Chairman,
[Mr. Cardiff.!
and the vote is through the general administrative item. These things are not determined solely on the basis of the engineering merits but are considered in the light of economic circumstances as well.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked how much of last year's vote was actually spent. The answer is that on building construction projects we spent $234,738.07; on engineering projects we spent $233,413.31, or a total of $468,151.38.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on that same question, could the minister not give a greater breakdown than that?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, how much do you want?


John George Diefenbaker: That is almost as good as the pipe line answers.


Robert Henry Winters: I could give it to you by provinces under the two headings, building construction and engineering.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, could the minister give it by projects? We would like to have some idea as to what kind of thing this money is spent on.


Robert Henry Winters: It is quite a long list, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the hon. member would care to have it made a return, in which case I could table it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Give us some examples and perhaps when we get the picture we can decide on that.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us have the details so we can find out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am making two suggestions. The first suggestion is that the minister give us some examples so that we can get the picture. I also suggest that he table the document the next time we are in the house.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be very glad to do so, Mr. Chairman. We did some work at Burin, Newfoundland; Curling, Newfoundland; Change Islands, Newfoundland; Deer Lake, Newfoundland; and at Joe Batts Arm, Newfoundland. There are several others in Newfoundland and perhaps I could move on. In Quebec, at St. Joseph d'Alma, St. Jovite, Seven Islands, Shawinigan Falls and so forth, and there were a number in Ottawa. There was one at Batawa, Ontario; Brampton, Ontario; Don Mills, Ontario; Fort William, Ontario; and Grimsby, Ontario. There is a long list for Ontario.
In Manitoba we have a survey at Churchill, and we have done some work at Winnipeg; also at Broadview, Saskatchewan; Davidson, Saskatchewan; Estevan, Saskatchewan, and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just so we can get a picture of the situation, could the minister tell us what work was done at one of the last places he mentioned, Davidson, Saskatchewan?


Robert Henry Winters: We acquired a site for a post office building from the Monarch Lumbering Company in the amount of $3,000.


Mr. Brooks:: Very interesting.


Robert Henry Winters: I think it is interesting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am trying to get this thing sorted out, Mr. Chairman. How did it happen that you did that under this vote rather than under one of the specific votes? I am not complaining about it but I think we should have a picture as to how the vote operates.


Robert Henry Winters: Quite right. It developed during the course of the year. There was no specific vote in the estimates under Davidson, Saskatchewan. The Post Office Department wrote to us that they needed accommodation at Davidson, Saskatchewan. We looked into the project and found out that in our opinion accommodation was required and that to build a project we would need a site. So we acquired the site, and now when we are ready with our plans we will have the site and will be able to proceed with our building at Davidson, Saskatchewan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister wants to go on but I wonder if he would permit me to ask a question.


Robert Henry Winters: As you wish.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could you tell us by looking over the list what are the largest single items on it?


Robert Henry Winters: I have one at Estevan, Saskatchewan, for $12,000; one at North Battle-ford, $15,000; and then usually small amounts. There is one at Stephenville Crossing, Newfoundland, $5,000. At Fort William, Ontario, there is a site for improved building facilities, $50,000, but normally they are relatively small amounts. This is an accumulation of small amounts.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions which I should like to ask the minister and the first one is this. Is any part of this vote being used this year for the advance planning and the acquisition of a new site for the new post office or public building we should have in Medicine Hat? My second question is this. Was any part of the vote last year used for that purpose?


Robert Henry Winters: The answer to the last question is no, and the answer to the first part of the question, whether it will be, is that I cannot tell as we have no projects before us at the moment.
67509-227i
Supply-Public Works


George Randolph Pearkes: What money was spent on Vancouver island last year? There were a lot of promises made and I should like to know how they have been fulfilled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There will be a lot more
next year.


Robert Henry Winters: The only planning we did last year under this vote was survey work for a site for a post office at Campbell River, British Columbia.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister paid a visit to Vancouver island and carried out a personal investigation of certain wharves at Sidney. He made definite promises in my hearing as to how that harbour might be developed. Has any action been taken?


Robert Henry Winters: Action is being taken under another vote.


Mr. Jones:: I think the question I have to put to the minister comes under this vote. Over a year ago the Minister of National Revenue announced that an income tax office would be opened at Penticton. I asked the Department of Public Works why this office had not been opened as yet and they advise that they are unable to get suitable premises on a rental basis, it being intended to build a public building in about four years. The income tax office has not yet been opened and neither have they acquired suitable premises. I was wondering if the minister could not advance the building of the public building and perhaps take out of this vote sufficient to purchase the land immediately.


Robert Henry Winters: The project at Penticton is one on which we are endeavouring to do some planning.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has not tabled or put on Hansard the list of projects; in which we were interested. Before the-item passes could he say what the Ottawa, items are?


Robert Henry Winters: What the items were for last year?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, and for the future.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member heard my explanation about the future. I cannot tell what the projects will be until they come before us for planning.
Last year in Ottawa there were architects' fees for the construction of a new public works testing laboratory on the Bowesville road, $10,000. Architects' fees for the construction of an addition to the science service laboratory, $38,525. Appraisal fees for a site for a new postal station in the west end, $282. Survey work re site for national gallery, $125.

Supply-Public Works


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister state who the architects were?


Robert Henry Winters: In the case of the public works testing laboratory they were Messrs. Noffke and Ingram, and in the case of the science service laboratory, Messrs. Gilleland and Strutt.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Would the building for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not come under that?


Robert Henry Winters: No, the planning for that was done before this vote was established.


Charles Edward Johnston: Can the minister tell whether any money was spent from last year's appropriation in connection with the planning of the penitentiaries to be built in western Canada and has consideration been given to the possibility of erecting one at a most favourable site in Drumheller?


Robert Henry Winters: Penitentiaries have not to date been under the Department of Public Works. That would come under the penitentiaries branch of the Department of Justice.


Mr, Johnston (Bow River):: May I ask the
minister whether in the process of planning for these projects a considerable amount of work must be undertaken by other departments before a matter would come to public works? If that is so, probably some of these matters which the minister has in mind would have been developed quite substantially before he knew anything about them. Surely if there is a project such as the construction of a penitentiary in western Canada, it would be before another department, the Department of Justice or some other department, and be quite far advanced before they would consult the Department of Public Works.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Could the minister give us the breakdown of this current item under the headings of advance planning and the acquisition of sites?


Robert Henry Winters: No, I have no breakdown of that. This is a pool item and we try to make the best use we can.


William McLean Hamilton: thought the minister used the term "fool". At times it seems almost like a fool item and I was not quite sure whether the minister had used that word.


Robert Henry Winters: You may be quite sure I used the other one.


William McLean Hamilton: the minister cannot give that breakdown perhaps he could give us the distribution of amounts according to provinces for last year.


Robert Henry Winters: The distribution under the two headings was as follows:
	Building Construction	Engineering
Newfoundland 	. $ 9,054.20	$ 11,429.48Nova Scotia 	. -	18.885.95Prince Edward Island .	. -	7,199.94New Brunswick 	. -	9,891.70Quebec 	. 7,469.64	26,269.16Ottawa 	. 48,970.83	-Ontario 	. 113,495.50	28,424.71Manitoba 	. 2,809.00	315.00Saskatchewan 	. 32,113.60	-Alberta and Northwest Territories	. 20,625.30	112,762.42British Columbia and Yukon 	. 200.00	18,234.95$234,738.07	$233,413.31


William McLean Hamilton: thank the minister for that information with		
respect to last year. Would he give us some indication of the proposed or expected distribution of this provincially in the current amount of $1,500,000?


Robert Henry Winters: No, this is an as-required vote, and I should think that generally speaking it would be broken down on much the same basis as the populations between provinces.


William McLean Hamilton: If the
minister can inform the house, in what' manner are the actual expenditures out of this fund authorized? Are they authorized by order of the governor in council and passed as a minute, and examined by the cabinet?


Robert Henry Winters: That is subject to the Financial Administration Act and the government contract regulations. If it is in the amount that requires to go before the treasury board and the governor in council, of course, it does. The same regulations apply to expenditure here as in any other vote of parliament.


William McLean Hamilton: That is the point I had in mind. The same regulations apply here as to any other vote of parliament. We have spent the better part of one hour attempting to get some detailed information from the minister regarding a gross amount of $1,500,000. The complete, total and absolute amount of information we have been able to procure is that $1,500,000 is to be voted. There has been no indication that the minister has any idea as to the distribution of this between advance planning and acquisition of sites, which are the two specific reasons given for it. There is no indication, nor has the minister any information, as to the provincial distribution of this amount. By the minister's own statements and admissions it is absolutely clear that this amount is completely and entirely available and unencumbered in every sense of the word.

Now let us turn to the control held by parliament or by the cabinet over the expenditure of this amount. Since it is being dealt with in exactly the same way as other government expenditures are dealt with, and we know it is not necessary for every government expenditure, or even the majority of government expenditures, to have the personal examination of the cabinet, we can only come to the conclusion that we have given the Minister of Public Works a nice little pot of $1,500,000 to do with as he wills as regards its allocation to various points in Canada or the nature of the expenditures, provided that they come within the classification of advance planning and acquisition of sites.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The year before the election.


William McLean Hamilton: As
one of my colleagues points out, perhaps in advance of the conclusion I was going to come to, and I quote his words, "The year before an election."


Robert Henry Winters: It has been in every year. You know that.


William McLean Hamilton: Yes, for the three years before the election. The going is getting rougher for this government all the time.


Robert Henry Winters: You will see.


William McLean Hamilton: Perhaps it is necessary to have some advance planning for the elections.


Robert Henry Winters: Apparently you do not do enough advance planning for yours.


William McLean Hamilton: think it has been the experience of all of us who have followed an operation of the magnitude of this government, or even the operation of a municipal council, to know that on occasion-and the minister will agree with me on this-sites may be acquired and eventually, for whatever reason, not used, and perhaps even resold. Planning may be done which eventually becomes a futility because it is decided not to go ahead with the project. Of course, you may have other things too, such as a rather famous harbour in Canada where the planning is done after rather than before the event, and we pay for it rather dearly. However, just think for a moment-


An hon. Member:: Why don't you?


William McLean Hamilton: To
answer the interjection, I have been thinking for a moment, which is why I am making these remarks. The trouble is that too many of the gentlemen on the other side are not doing their thinking. The Minister of Trade
Supply-Public Works
and Commerce made a reference this morning about a Conservative horse that did not run. I was just thinking I would rather be a Conservative horse than a Liberal donkey.


Robert Henry Winters: That one did not get a laugh.


William McLean Hamilton: am not attempting to speak in terms of getting a laugh. I am attempting to bring some intelligence to bear on a problem that the minister does not seem-


Robert Henry Winters: Then let us get started.


William McLean Hamilton: 
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: Mr. Chairman, to summarize what I was saying at one o'clock in case it may not be fresh in the minister's memory, we have here an amount of $1,500,000 for which no accounting has been made and no adequate explanation of the details given to the committee. In any one case an amount up to $15,000 may be spent at the discretion of the minister. We are approaching a year which by many is considered to be an election year. Some people would consider an item of this sort which can be spent where the government is having a little trouble, where they want to sweeten up certain localities, where they want to make a show to the people of the so-called munificence of the government, as

Supply-Public Works
little more than a political slush fund. I for one object strenuously to the government including in the estimates for this year anything that might be a political slush fund under the guise of a proper expenditure by the government.


Mr. Holowach:: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister is anxious to utter the sigh of relief that will come when his estimates are completed and I wish to accommodate him by being very brief in my remarks. I cannot let this item go by without once again drawing the attention of the minister and his officials to the urgent need of buildings in Edmonton East, particularly in the town of Beverly in order to accommodate a post office. I believe that part of this appropriation would be justly spent for the acquisition of a site and the planning of such a project in that area. I do not know of any other place of comparable size or importance that has had as little public investment by the government as Edmonton, and particularly Edmonton East. It is true that a new federal building is being constructed which is coming along very nicely and we are grateful for that, but we should remember that this project has come about after some 15 years of making strong representations to get it.
On several occasions in the past I have endeavoured to draw the attention of the minister to the urgency for a public building in the town of Beverly and on each occasion I have not been very successful. At the present time the post office in that town is nothing more than a small wooden shack which is disgracefully inadequate. I would appreciate it very much if the minister and his officials would investigate the possibility of erecting a suitable public building in that town. I have communicated with the Post Office Department and they of course give the explanation that the decision has to be made by the Department of Public Works. The minister will probably answer me by saying that the recommendation has to come from the Post Office Department. It seems to me that is classic buckpassing and is not fair at all to the people in that region.
There is another point I wish to make. In the city of Edmonton real estate values are rising constantly. I think it would be good business and good economics for us to invest in sites and make plans in order to provide for the needs of the community. Recently I received a submission from the Edmonton businessmen's association which drew my attention to the fact that in Edmonton East particularly most of the post office services are located in grocery stores and other retail shops. In a country such as Canada I think
fMr. Hamilton (Notre Dame tie Grace).]
that also is disgraceful, especially in urban areas. All I ask at this time is that the minister assure me that he will investigate and examine the conditions there with a view to using some of this money in order to acquire sites for such projects.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, I was accused this morning of holding up these estimates. That is a misstatement. I think the minister will agree with me that last Friday we would have completed the estimates of this department in two or three minutes if it had not been for a member of his own party, the hon. member for Wellington South, who objected to anything of that nature being done. All he had to say was what he said this morning which was nothing more than a travelogue of Wellington county in order to get his name on Hansard.


Walter Edward Harris: That is not unusual.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: As far as this item is concerned, I hope it will cover post office sites in my riding.


Mr. Churchill:: When discussing this item this morning I think the minister said that when it was first put in the estimates three years ago there was general approval. That may have been so. We were interested in seeing that some advance planning was going to be undertaken by the Department of Public Works. But I was disappointed today to find that the minister was so obviously reluctant to disclose what had been done even last year with regard to the money expended under this item and was also not prepared to give us any indication as to how the money would be used in the coming year. That being so, some doubt arises as to the purpose of the item. In other sections of his estimates there are large items which are not specifically pinned down to one particular matter. I hope the minister is not going to get into the habit of the Department of National Defence and set up his estimates in the form of a revolving fund which will not be changed from year to year.
With regard to this particular item the minister said-he can correct me if I have made an incorrect note-in response to a question as to what would happen in the coming year with respect to the distribution of the $1,500,000 available, that he supposed that the division of the money would bear some relation to the population of the various provinces. May I point out that there was no such disposition of the money last year because, according to the figures that the minister read, the province of Manitoba seems to have been relegated to a position almost off his list. We were blacklisted, having an

expenditure of only $2,000 for public buildings and $315 for engineering. Can the minister inform us just what was done in Manitoba last year and why it was placed in such an inferior position compared with the rest of Canada? Second, in this planning activity and acquisition of sites what does the department do when it acquires sites that are not subsequently used for the original purpose for which they were procured? Some of the sites that the department obtains possession of are secured by means of expropriation of property; but if the site is not used for the purpose originally intended, is that expropriated property returned to the original owner? I put those two questions before the minister.


Robert Henry Winters: I will answer those two questions, Mr. Chairman, and I will deal with the second one first, as to what we do with property if we expropriate it and then do not subsequently use it. That is something that happens very seldom, indeed, but it happened in one instance in Winnipeg. I am sure that is the instance that my hon. friend has in mind. We have declared the property to be surplus and have turned it over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. That crown company reports to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and it is his responsibility to dispose of the property. He has that matter in hand now.
With regard to the other question, namely as to why Manitoba was discriminated against, may I say I do not think there is any question of that. The results are the best answer. It is not how much planning we do that determines always what results will be obtained. It is the actual structures that are the pay-off, if I may use that word. I know he realizes that Manitoba has been far from discriminated against.


Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Before discussion on the minister's estimates is concluded, I should like to point out that in my riding we will soon have the pleasure of having a lovely public building in the city of Camrose. Since this particular item deals with planning I should like to suggest to the minister that he direct the members of his department to do something in terms of the actual planning and construction of a recommended post office building in the town of Vermilion. I believe this matter has been before the Post Office Department for a number of years. I do not know whether or not it has reached the minister's own particular department. I sincerely hope that those folks around the town of Vermilion will, within the next few years, be able to have the privilege of enjoying the use of a modern post office.
Supply-Public Works


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Palleil:: Earlier today the chairman indicated that it was perhaps not quite proper to discuss the old supreme court building for which many people in the legal profession have a liking almost similar to that of those in other professions for the things that are important to them. You might almost compare it with the liking that some people have for a little piece of metal they wear which is supposed to have come from a bridge that has been sold three or four times.


Robert Henry Winters: I did not hear that last sentence. I should like to hear it.
Mr. Pallet!: I said that the liking that people in the legal profession have for that old supreme court building might be almost compared with that which another profession has for a ring made from a little piece of metal that is supposed to have come from a bridge that has been sold three or four times. I wonder whether the minister might indicate to the committee under which of the estimates that are before us-and some have been passed1-provision has been made for any discussion of this matter.


Robert Henry Winters: It could have been discussed under the general administration item 344, or under the general item of the building construction branch which is item 350; or it might have been discussed under Ottawa buildings, which is item 356. There are three items there under which this particular matter could have been discussed.


John Cameron Pallett: I have examined the particulars of those items and I see nothing with particular reference to this matter. That is why I raised the point at this time.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member is aware of the fact that we had on the first item of these estimates broad and general discussion in which we covered the field fairly completely.


John Cameron Pallett: I am fully aware of that fact. But I thought it was in the interests of good debate sometimes to withhold your comments until you came to a particular item. In many instances I believe it was for that reason that some matters were not discussed earlier. In addition to that, I might suggest that too much was not indicated that this action was going to be taken when the first item was actually before us. The information came to hand after that time.


Robert Henry Winters: What is that?
Mr. Pallet!: There was not too much general knowledge that this action was going

Supply-Public Works
to be taken about the supreme court building when we were at the first item.


Robert Henry Winters: That is not correct.
Mr. Pallet!: It may have been within the minister's knowledge.


Robert Henry Winters: There were several public statements made on it some considerable time ago.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: At this point
perhaps I might interpose the observation that there seems to be on the part of some hon. members a desire to discuss the possible demolition of an existing building in Ottawa, namely the old supreme court building. Personally, I cannot see how the demolition of an existing building could come under item 390 which is "to provide for advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites". Unless the minister or somebody with factual knowledge stated to the committee that it was proposed to use moneys under this vote for the purpose of demolition of the old supreme court building,-and I say this with some regret-I am afraid that the committee would agree with me when I say that discussion could not come under item 390.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would it be fair to ask the minister whether, under this planning section, he is planning to acquire a site for a parking lot on the area on which the supreme court building now stands?


Robert Henry Winters: No, sir; we are not.


Mr. Regier:: On April 20 last I asked the minister why item No. 364 could not be left until the time of the supplementary estimates with which we are annually faced at the close of the fiscal year. His reply at that time was that the supplementary estimates were in the course of preparation now. I do not think he quite understood the point I was after at the time. I realize full well that the supplementary estimates with which we shall be faced before we go home from this session are in the course of preparation and possibly are almost completed now. However, in each and every year before the close of the fiscal year-almost within hours of it-I understand that this House of Commons is faced with another or second list of supplementary estimates. Some doubt has been raised as to the advisability of granting to the minister a blank cheque for $1,500,000 with which to do as he may deem necessary during the course of the coming year. However, I should like to point out that item 364 was of a similar nature and asked for $900,000. Item 389 was of a similar nature again, and asked for the sum of $800,000. We have item 390 which is now before us and which asks for $1,500,000. Item 391 is another
fMr. Pallett.]
similar item calling for $750,000 and item 392 calls for $650,000. That is a grand total of some $4,600,000. I do not for a moment wish to have the minister's hands tied so that during the year he is unable to do what it is necessary for him to do in order to protect the public interest. However, last year at the end of March in supplementary estimates he asked for an amount in excess of $4 million. I hope the minister can give a further reply in addition to what he gave me the other day with regard to why not more of these items could be left until the last week in March when the house has, I believe, always been most reasonable and, upon satisfactory explanation, has never yet failed to vote the money in emergency funds that he found it necessary to ask for at that time. I am sure the minister misunderstood me last time, and therefore I am unwilling to let this item pass before I receive an answer as to why more of these items could not well be left to the supplementary estimates.


Robert Henry Winters: I presume the hon. member
is referring to what are known as the further supplementary estimates. That is a clean-up operation at the end of the fiscal year to take care of expenditures in the year behind rather than the year ahead. This item seeks parliamentary authority to spend money in the current fiscal year rather than a cleanup in respect to the past fiscal year. That is why we are asking this amount now to enable us to plan in this present fiscal year for projects we will wish to undertake in some future year.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I do not feel
very happy about that explanation. After all, it is only reasonable, when a daughter of mine goes out for the evening and says, "Daddy, I will need $3.65", that I give her $5 saying, "Here is a little bit extra; after all, you never know what emergency you may run into as you may have to hire a taxi to get home." However, when the minister is asking us for a sum, and I believe we will have to agree that his figures are right, which amounts to a cheque for $4,600,000, I feel that is a rather high proportion of the amount of money his department spends in a year. I feel the minister is showing a lack of confidence in the house, and in the good intentions of the members of this house, because he is afraid that in the last week of March they might not grant him the money that he has found he needed for emergencies during the course of the year. If they are not emergencies then he should not be asking for this money under these headings. The items should be listed in the estimates along with all the other projects. I cannot see how, in a country such

as Canada, emergencies are known to exist that will total $4,600,000. I think it is a little unreasonable to ask the house to grant this large amount.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, we have
had no explanation from the minister at all as to why this year he is asking for an increase in this item of $250,000. We all know that the coming year may be a year of a national event, and that another quarter of a million dollars to play around with-I notice two or three of these items here-would naturally enable the minister to establish his popularity in those areas to which he advanced this extra amount. There is another strange thing and that is the tremendous desire on the part of the Minister of Finance for economy and yet an item like this is passed by the treasury board with an increase from $1,250,000 to $1,500,000. The minister in charge of the department says, I have no plans that I can place before the committee; I do not know what expenditures I am going to make. I am unable to advise what advance planning of projects is going to be done. All I ask for is an additional quarter of a million dollars.
Now, I know that there is nothing more attractive for the minister's millennium than a melon like this to be distributed without giving to parliament even a rough outline of the need for the increase. I feel that with this item there should be a protest made against this type of financing. In the United States the Hoover commission went very carefully over the items that had been budgeted for and that had been in the accounts for years. One thing that they found that was a dangerous item was an item such as this. It is an encouragement to overexpenditure. One million and a half dollars is given by parliament without strings attached, without even a suggestion by the minister as to why the additional quarter of a million dollars is needed, without even a general outline as to how it is going to be expended. This is the type of item that encourages departmental officials to spend, spend and spend.
In view of the lack of any explanation by the minister, in view of the fact that his department has no general outline of how this money is going to be spent and the government has gone no farther than to say this department needs its money, I move:
That item 390 be reduced to $1.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: I have listened to the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Public Works, and I have noted some of the statements that have been made within the last few minutes. The hon. member who has just taken his seat stated that this is the 67509-228
Supply-Public Works
type of financing which encourages overexpenditure. I can assure him that if encouragement for over-expenditure is looked for, all the minister has to do is to follow the speeches that have been made by the opposition during the perusal of his estimates. He will find many suggestions there that would cost the taxpayers of this country hundreds of millions of dollars. I would take it for granted that it would be rather difficult to estimate exactly how much the minister would want after the discussion that has taken place on his estimates. I am sure there are few members who have taken any part in the discussion of these estimates who have not suggested that a new public building or something of that nature be constructed in their constituency. I feel that the minister, regardless of the amount which might be provided for his department, will spend wisely and for that reason I will reject the amendment which has been moved.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, let me say just a word on this. I think the hon. member for Prince Albert has a great misunderstanding of how departments operate, in fact I believe of how parliament operates. There is one further thing I should say, and that is that he is displaying a tremendous lack of confidence in his colleagues in the Progressive Conservative party. I say that for this reason. When this item was first put in the estimates in 1953-54, when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was the official critic of the Department of Public Works-he did the job very well-he discussed the vote. Two other hon. members participated in the discussion. It passed very quickly with less than two columns of discussion in Hansard. I reviewed that at noon.


John George Diefenbaker: We have had the experience since.


Robert Henry Winters: Last year the same item
passed without a word of comment or criticism from any hon. member of the official opposition.
The hon. member said that this was an opportunity to cut a lemon. I think that demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the purpose of the vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have your fruits
mixed up.


John George Diefenbaker: It was a melon.


Mr. Nowlan:: We hope it will be a lemon.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps it is too good an opportunity to miss the association of ideas there.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is a citrus fruit, anyway.

Supply-Public Works


Robert Henry Winters: No melon is being cut here nor is any lemon being cut that anybody can participate in. This is an opportunity to plan for future construction and quite the reverse is the case from what the hon. member said, that this is an opportunity to inflate the estimates. What the Minister of Finance is quite rightly trying to do is to economize and he is doing it successfully.
This is an attempt to avoid large amounts in the estimates that we do not spend. The old technique meant that in order to plan and acquire sites we had to include specific items in the estimates with amounts that often remained unspent. By consolidating the opportunity to plan and acquire sites in this vote we can reduce the number of individual items and thereby keep down the total amount of the estimates in line with the program the Minister of Finance is so ably following.
On that basis I see nothing in the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Prince Albert to warrant the amendment he has submitted and I must therefore inform the committee that I will vote against it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, would the minister just go back and answer one question. Why is the minister asking us for a quarter of a million dollars more this year than last year? These estimates must have been made up four, five or six months ago and it must have been known that the amount required in 1956-57 would be a million and a half dollars.
Does the minister say that no portion of the million and a half in the last six months has in any way been proceeded with by way of planning of any project? Have none been planned within that period? If that be so and the minister is unable to give us any record of any new projects, it indicates that there is going to be a lot of money ready just before the election.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Diefenbaker) negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 62.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
391.	To supplement, on approval of treasury board except where less than $1,000 is required, any of the appropriations of the Department of Public Works, $750,000.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this is a general item to supplement, on approval of treasury board, any of the appropriations of the

Department of Public Works and the amount is $750,000, which is almost double the vote for last year which was only $400,000. There is no information given in the details as to how much was actually spent during the last fiscal year. I would ask the minister to explain why it is necessary to have this very large increase in this vote.
Perhaps at the same time the minister could deal with the question I asked him a week ago today when one of the dredging items was under discussion, as to whether or not he would table a report entitled, "Analysis of Tides and Currents in Burrard Inlet". That report was the result of a study of the effect of dredging on the first narrows in Vancouver and it should be of great interest to various bodies in greater Vancouver. I hope that the minister will be able to table the report today so that it can be studied by the public generally.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me, I will have copies of the report sent to the table now.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I do not want to become unnecessarily technical but if the minister would revert to motions at five o'clock with Mr. Speaker in the chair I think it would be the proper time for the tabling of the document so that it can be entered into the records of the house.


Robert Henry Winters: I will do that, thank you. The answer to the question is that out of the total amount of $400,000 the sum of $393,410 was spent.


Howard Charles Green: I asked the minister why it is necessary for this present' fiscal year to have an increase of $350,000 which is almost double the amount spent last year? This amount is not an item having to do with one particular project; it is another of these general items, a sort of catch basin item, from which the department can draw for any one of its many votes. Why is it necessary to double this vote?


Robert Henry Winters: It was considered necessary, Mr. Chairman, because last year we did encounter some trouble with one or two appropriations in which we overspent and had to rearrange through transfers and otherwise. This is an attempt to include an amount which we think will be more realistic and cover the possible over-runs on any of the large number of projects we have in hand at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

General-
392.	To provide for balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years and for which no specific provision is made in the fiscal year 1956-57, $650,000.
Mr. Montgomery:: This is an item which, as I understand it, covers unpaid balances similar to item No. 391. Could we not have some information as to where this will be spent? I presume the minister should have some idea where this amount of $650,000 is going to be used.


Robert Henry Winters: This is a different item from No. 391. Item No. 391 is intended to provide for over-runs, as indicated, of any moneys in the estimates for the previous fiscal year.
Item No. 392 is to provide for an instance where a project is in hand but for which no money was requested in the estimates in the immediately preceding fiscal year but for which some funds are now required to clean up and finish the operation. This is the traditional item which has been carried for years. The hon. member will note that we are asking for the same amount of money this year as we did last year.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Do I understand that the minister is unable to tell us where this money was spent?


Robert Henry Winters: I am unable to say where it will be spent this year, but I can say where it was spent in past years. That is all a matter of record and detail.


Gage Workman Montgomery: In other words we will not know until next year where this money has been spent?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
393.	Statue of the late Sir Robert L. Borden, $20,000.
George Clyde Nowlan: Last year the minister said that the location had been selected and borings made at the west corner of the parliamentary grounds. Can he tell us whether that site has been definitely decided upon? I notice there is a reduction in the amount. Last year we voted $45,000 and this year we are being asked to vote $20,000. Is that to be a final payment? When is it expected that the monument will be erected and unveiled?


Robert Henry Winters: This amount is required to complete the project, as far as the sculptress is concerned. There were some delays, and when I had a discussion with the sculptress Miss Loring just a few days ago when she visited my office I asked how the project was developing. She has now completed a half-sized figure which she proposes to have reproduced in bronze in full size. She told me it was 67509-228J
Supply-Public Works
expected the figure would be ready for mounting in November of this year. I told her that I would not hold her to any specific date because of the uncertainties that are sometimes encountered in producing a statue of this kind. In the meantime we propose to erect the pedestal on the site west of the west block and have it ready to mount the statue when it is completed.


Erhart Regier: How much is it expected that the whole thing will cost?


Robert Henry Winters: Fifty-three thousand dollars.


Erhart Regier: I do not intend to oppose this vote or to move that it be reduced, but I do feel that we have reached the stage in our history when we might consider that we have enough of these things on the grounds surrounding the parliament buildings.
I have another little problem in mind, that faced by students of political science at the Canadian universities. I feel that if Sir Robert Borden had been asked when he was living whether he would like to have a statue erected in his memory or have a trust fund set up which would return about $2,120 per year to be used as scholarships for outstanding students of political science attending Canadian universities, he would have said that he was not particularly anxious to have copper go green with age, moss set in, birds roost on his head and ears and so forth. I think he would have preferred to have had his memory perpetuated by means of scholarships for students who are studying the particular field in which he spent so many of his years. The opportunities available to students of political science in our universities in the form of scholarships are few and far between.
After the completion of this project I think serious study should be given to a more moderate means of commemorating the services of those who have played a great part in our public welfare. The next in line will most likely be the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. Since the late William Lyon Mackenzie King was a great believer in things spiritual, I think he would have been the first to agree that he would not want erected to his memory a monument made of stone or copper, that he would prefer something along the lines of the proposal I am now putting forward. I mention these things now because I do not want to be placed in the embarrassing position, when the next case comes before this house, of being wrongly accused of not wanting to pay a proper tribute to those men who have so well served their dominion in years gone by.


Mr. Small:: Following the statement by the minister that this project will be completed about November, may I suggest that that

Supply-Public Works
will be rather late in the year and probably it would be more appropriate to leave it until next year when there will be a change in government and the new government could carry this through.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
395. To provide for the expenses incurred by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in constructing and supervising construction of married quarters, rental housing, schools and related services on behalf of the Department of National Defence, $1,000,000.
George Randolph Pearkes: Could the minister explain this item a little more fully, as practically no details are given. Where is this money to be spent and on what type of building?


Robert Henry Winters: This is in connection with housing, schools and ground facilities that may be installed for housing for the Department of National Defence. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation acts on an agency basis for the Department of Defence Production in the building of these facilities for the Department of National Defence. This vote is to cover the expenses of the corporation in carrying out that agency arrangement.


George Randolph Pearkes: The vote last year was $1,450,000. Could the minister state whether that full amount was spent? In view of the amount of housing going on, that amount would seem to be totally inadequate. I cannot apply it to realities.


Robert Henry Winters: The amount was spent last year. That was not the total cost of construction; it was money paid to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for carrying out the total volume of construction. This year that total will be in the neighbourhood of $22 million.


George Randolph Pearkes: Does that mean that this is simply an administrative item to cover draftsmen and clerks that may be employed for the purpose? Apparently it has nothing to do with the actual construction and therefore the minister is unable to tell me where this money is to be spent, or will it be spent only in Ottawa?


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct. This is an administrative item for inspection, drafting arid engineering services, as well as the other items which enter into the general administration of a construction program.


George Randolph Pearkes: I know the answer which the minister will make to my next question is obvious; I know he will say it is because of the efficiency of his department that he has been able to reduce this vote.


Robert Henry Winters: The construction program has been slightly reduced and the administrative expenses are related to that program.


George Randolph Pearkes: This would include the construction of camps such as Gagetown?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, sir.


Mr. Nicholson:: It seems to me that this is quite a large item to have in such little detail as the minister has so far given us. I wonder whether he could not give us a better breakdown as to exactly how the $1 million is to be spent next year.


Robert Henry Winters: It is to be spent for the general administration needed for the construction program required for the armed forces. For example, at camp Gagetown there is a very large project for which the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is building the houses, and their costs of administration of that operation come out of this vote. Across the country there are housing projects for the Department of National Defence, schools are being built on locations and ground services provided. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been given the job of supervising that construction program, and this is their cost in that regard.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Could the minister indicate whether any of the operations are carried on in Europe, that is, does his department supervise any of the construction there?


Robert Henry Winters: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was it this item or the one under loans and investments that the minister said would be the appropriate place to ask general questions on housing administration? I believe it was this item.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not mind. I do not think that either item actually is too appropriate for a general discussion on housing, but I think the loans and investments item would be the more appropriate of the two.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe that this matter was raised on item 1 of the minister's estimates and he indicated he would prefer to have the housing discussion on one or the other of these items. I am in the minister's hands. Which does he prefer?


Robert Henry Winters: This is a specific item to cover construction for the armed forces. The other one is perhaps more general. If he would not mind discussing it on item 530, I think that would be a little better.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Just before this item is completed, in view of the interchange that has just gone forward between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Minister of Public Works, I might say that I have both items before me. One deals specifically with rental housing, and so on, on behalf of the Department of National

Defence. The other deals specifically with housing projects for veterans and two named projects, one at Gander and one at Pembroke.
I do not wish to assume the responsibility for curtailing the debate too much, but perhaps I should state to the minister and the hon. member that I do not think it would be fulfilling my duty if I permitted either item to branch out into a full-scale debate on the administration or the accounts of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Having said that, I shall try not to be any tougher than I think I should.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize you do not wish to be tough, and neither do you wish to be too lenient. I think this point was dealt with when we were on the first item of the minister's estimates. He indicated then he would prefer any discussion of housing to be delayed until we came to this item, rather than taking it under general administration. I think that conforms with the practice in the last few years, and I think that is what the committee would expect to take place today.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loans, investments and advances-
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
530. To provide for advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 37 of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of housing projects for veterans and for housing projects at Gander, Newfoundland, and at Pembroke, Ontario, for sale or rental, $1,462,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Under this item, I should like to ask the minister whether he can say anything further with respect to the matter to which I drew his attention yesterday on the orders of the day. I asked him then whether he had yet seen the press report by Gerald Waring concerning the extent to which the chartered banks have reduced their lending for the construction of new homes. The minister indicated that he had not yet seen that report and he also suggested that, if the government had any thought of going more directly into the field of lending by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that would be a matter of government policy, to be announced in due course.
It seems to me that a report such as that which Gerald Waring gave in his column, Which was published in a number of newspapers yesterday, does call for some comment by the minister. As I interpret this report, it seems that, as a result of the advice given by the Bank of Canada to the chartered banks to put certain brakes on credit, the banks have carried out that advice with respect to housing. I understand that the advice given by the Bank of Canada was
Supply-Public Works
that housing was the one field where credit should not be curtailed; yet Mr. Waring's report is that this is the very field in which it has happened. His report indicates that loans by the banks for new housing so far in 1956 are 30 per cent below what they were at the same time last year. In the light of that, it seems to me that the question I put to the minister yesterday is more than appropriate, when I asked him if the government would consider expanding its activities in the field of direct loans for housing construction.
It should be pointed out to the minister that the suggestion contained in my question of yesterday, the suggestion contained in Gerald Waring's report, could not have come as any surprise to the minister. Indeed, on January 18 of this year, my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, as recorded on page 249 of Hansard, asked the following question of the minister:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of yesterday's announcement by the banks indicating a decline in money being available for housing, would the government consider again supplying a portion of N.H.A. funds as it did before the first session of this parliament?
The minister asked permission to take the question as notice. He answered it the next day in what we must take as a considered fashion, and this in part is what he said, as recorded on page 281 of Hansard:
There has been no indication by prospective borrowers that there is a general shortage of mortgage money under the National Housing Act. As the hon. member knows, the act contains authority by which Central Mortgage may make loans directly to borrowers if loans are not being made available by approved lenders. If a shortage of mortgage money did occur it would be a matter of government policy, in light of the circumstances at that time, to determine to what extent the corporation's power to make direct loans should be used. At the present time this authority is being used in the smaller communities. It is the government's intention to insure that a high leveL of house building continues.
That was the declared position of the minister on January 19, but we are now led to believe that there has been a considerable reduction in the lending of money by the banks for the construction of new homes. In the light of that, it seems to me that the time has come for the government to implement its indication, as set out on January 19, by expanding its activities in the field of direct loans for housing construction. I think it would be appropriate that the minister make some statement on this matter at this time.


Robert Henry Winters: This is rather far afield when one relates it to the wording of the item but, since the hon. member did have the impression he could discuss some general

Supply-Public Works
items on housing, I shall comment. But at the same time I hope that we will not widen this discussion to a general debate on housing, particularly having in mind that we have just had two full-scale debates on housing, one on the resolution stage and the other on the second reading stage of the amendments to the National Housing Act. The situation, as the hon. member knows, is that money has tightened up and the flow of funds available for mortgages has tightened correspondingly. It was for that reason that we gave very serious consideration to this matter recently and took the step of raising the ceiling for mortgage money under the National Housing Act from 5J to 5J per cent, which restored it to the level at which it was established in 1954 when the act was amended to enable the chartered banks to make loans against the security of residential mortgages. That has stimulated a flow of mortgage money. It is still below last year's level.
But on the other hand we came into this present year with a carry-over of some 80,000 units under construction and to date starts have been above the level even of last year which was a record level in itself. A great deal of that is because of forward commitments by lenders but the fact is we are still getting a very high level of house building activity. What the future monetary trends will be it is hard to tell at this moment, but we are in the fortunate position of having a heavy carry-over coming into this year and having a high level of house building activity that has prevailed up to this time and shows healthy signs of continuing. Basically those are the factors that confront us now. As I have said, the government wishes to see a continuing high level of housing activity and we are studying the situation at all times, as my hon. friend can well imagine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have one or two other questions. Since I have referred two or three times to Gerald Waring's report and since the minister has now repeated the information he gave on another occasion about the greater number of starts this year, perhaps I might indicate that Gerald Waring included in his report these two sentences:
Housing starts have remained high on the strength of bank commitments made before credit was tightened. But housing officials expect the dollar downhold will show up markedly in a month or two, at a time of year when home construction normally would be approaching peak activity.
It seems to me that the time to face a crisis such as that is in advance rather than after it has come upon us. I wonder whether the Minister of Public Works has had a heart to heart discussion with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, about this matter. It

seems to me that it was a logical and commendable bit of advice to give the banks that in curtailing credit they should not apply the brakes on credit for the construction of homes. Banks are in business for the purpose of making money and one cannot blame them if they have a particular interest in their better customers, if we may call them that. But surely if advice is going to be given to the banks with respect to lending for home construction the government should pursue the matter and see that that advice is acted upon.
I am glad to note that the minister is studying the matter but I suggest that it requires pretty active consideration right now rather than after the slow-down has become evident, which in turn involves another delay before anything is done. May I ask one other question. Has the minister any comment to make on the rumour that the government might try to meet the situation by buying such mortgage paper as the banks hold so as to increase to that extent the credit they might have available for housing?


Robert Henry Winters: There is provision made for that operation under the statute now. I do not think I should comment beyond that on the government's intentions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then can the minister indicate to the committee the extent to which direct loans by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for housing are in operation?


Robert Henry Winters: The policy is that direct loans by C.M.H.C. are made where the lending operations of other lending institutions are not the normal practice. As I said when discussing the amendments on second reading, two years ago before the banks came into the picture there was quite a high level of direct activity on the part of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but the need for that has dropped because the 4,000 odd branches of the chartered banks have in effect been lending agencies in many communities that were not previously served by mortgage money under the National Housing Act. To date there has been no decided trend one way or the other in that feature of operations under the act.
But all these things are matters which we are studying and, as I said, the situation is that so far we have a high level of housing activity. We have been observing the trends and studying every feature of the situation. The hon. member advocates that we keep as close to it as we can. I can assure him that we are doing that.


George Randolph Pearkes: A portion of this amount is allocated to housing projects to aid veterans.

Under the veterans legislation there is the Veterans Land Act which, under the small holding section, takes care of the general housing of veterans. I know that a certain size of lot is required, approximately 1-6 acres, but there are many veterans who are asking for housing assistance with respect to much smaller lots in cities or their suburbs and I understand that they apply through the Department of Veterans Affairs to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and from there they obtain assistance. I have had recommendations made to me by veterans, members of the Legion and officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs in widely scattered places throughout this country that it would be far more satisfactory to the veterans if they could process the whole business of acquiring the land and building the house under the Veterans Land Act rather than having to deal with this other organization which is concerned with loans under this item.
It seems to me there is undoubtedly duplication in so far as the Veterans Land Act and loans made under this item are concerned. Would the minister explain exactly how loans for housing projects are made under this item? I should like to have his comments and I hope I will be able to obtain the comments of the Minister of Veterans Affairs when his estimates are being considered because there seems to be a widespread opinion among veterans that they would prefer to complete the processing of the loans through the Veterans Land Act administration.


Robert Henry Winters: That particular operation is not covered under this vote which is required to finance the housing projects that the government owns and operates and which are available for rental to veterans. I know my hon. friend is aware of them because we have several very good ones in Vancouver. What he referred to is housing under the Veterans Land Act which is administered by my colleague. There is one provision whereby the Department of Veterans Affairs has facilities for helping veterans to build their own homes. The arrangement has been for Central Mortgage and Housing then to go in, take over the mortgage and administer it. The Canadian Legion, when they presented their last brief, brought to our attention the fact that they thought there was some duplication between the branch of the Veterans Land Act administration and Central Mortgage and Housing, and expressed the preference to process their loan through the Veterans Land Act. That arrangement has now been made. That apparent duplication has
Supply-Public Works
now been removed and the loans are being processed through the Veterans Land Act administration.


George Randolph Pearkes: I take it that this does not apply to individual veterans' loans?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: This applies only to the larger projects which are handled by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Robert Henry Winters: This vote applies only to that; yes.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I also will have to crave the indulgence of the minister, hoping that he will not remind you of what may be your responsibility too severely. I had intended to speak on the subject of housing under item 1 of his estimates. I had not very much to say but I had a few points that I wished to make. I was advised rather officially-I do not know whether Hansard would have a record of it-that the minister did not wish at that time to have a general discussion on housing but that we were to wait until the item of housing appeared in the estimates. I should like first of all once again to repeat to the minister the plea of those who are engaged, in British Columbia at least, in building homes for senior citizens. In these homes and notably the ones built-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Perhaps I should disabuse the hon. member's mind immediately. I have no recollection of any such arrangement. We are here dealing with a particular item, and I hope the hon. member will confine his remarks to discussion of the particular item.


Erhart Regier: In that case, Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege I should like to ask the minister categorically to deny that he asked us to withhold our comments on item 1.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I have no right to establish any arrangement between the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the minister or any other individual members of the committee. I must owe my duty to the members of the committee as a whole and I must apply the rules, as they are applicable, to all.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, in that connection may I say just a few words. Perhaps this will help to clarify the matter. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni telephoned my office when these estimates were about to come up for consideration and asked on which item housing could be discussed. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that what they wished to discuss was related to the items set forth in the estimates under housing, and I said it would be more appropriate to discuss housing

Supply-Public Works
under those items than to discuss it under the general administration item of the Department of Public Works. That was the understanding I had at that time.


Mr. Barnett:: If I may, I should like to say a few words on the point of order. May I just point out that when another Chairman was in the chair when this item first came forward, there was a little bit of discussion on this point. At that time I understood the minister to say that he hoped there would not be any prolonged discussion on the question of housing but that if there was general agreement in the committee perhaps some discussion would be allowed to take place. As I recall the conversation to which the minister has referred, I pointed out that the items in the estimates on housing were rather specific in their reference and that, in view of that fact, 1 thought it might be desirable to have some understanding as to whether those wishing to make general reference to housing questions should do so under the first item or general administration item of the department if it was not going to be possible for a fairly broad interpretation to be given and for the discussion to take place on the particular items under housing. I suggested that if it was the general understanding that such discussion could take place on the particular items in the interests of orderly discussion we would be willing to co-operate on the first item of the minister's estimates on this point. I know that it was on that same understanding that my colleague the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam had with me that he deferred his remarks at that time, with the intention to bring them up when we came to the housing discussion.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: May I make one further remark on the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. The minister explained that the experts from Central Mortgage and Housing would be present later on but that they would not be on the floor when the first item was under discussion. Our understanding certainly was that an appropriate time would arise later on when the officials from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would be here in an advisory capacity and when it would be in order to raise problems which normally could and would be raised on the first item.


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps I should clarify the position with regard to these estimates. It seems to me that considerations relating to departmental policy should be discussed on the first item of the departmental estimates. That procedure, I suppose, is not strictly in

accordance with standing order 59, paragraph 2 which reads as follows:
59. (2) Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
By custom we have commenced to discuss departmental policy under the first item of the department which, after all, deals merely with departmental salaries. I must frankly admit that I erred a week or so ago when I allowed the minister to discuss under a supplementary item-I think it was administration of one of his branches-a number of subjects which to my mind might much more appropriately have been discussed under the particular items involved. I assure hon. members-and merely in fairness to other hon. members-that I will try my best not to make such a mistake in the future.
I feel that we must adhere more strictly to the rule of relevancy. I cannot from the chair recognize private conversations or any other arrangements which are entered into by ministers of the crown or by any other members of the house unless by unanimous consent of the committee of the whole. I think hon. members will realize that. I merely wish to say this. I am not going to do any injustice to any hon. member under this item. It is quite obvious that several hon. members have felt, as a result of conversations or commitments made to them elsewhere, that they would have an opportunity of speaking under this item. I therefore am not going to stop the hon. member. However, I feel that I should perhaps give notice at this time that I am here to attempt to enforce the rules which this house has adopted for the benefit of all hon. members. From now on, perhaps hon. members would wish me to enforce those rules strictly, especially when we have in these resolutions particular subjects to deal with.


Erhart Regier: Thank you very much for your consideration, Mr. Chairman. I was saying that for some time it has been of some concern to us that when we build homes for our senior citizens with the assistance of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we do manage to obtain a grant from the provincial government towards the cost of these homes of roughly one-third. I am referring specifically now to such organizations as the Burnaby New Vista Society. A large share of the money had to be raised by voluntary effort and that, to some degree, may be desirable and wholesome.
However, I never was particularly proud of the role played by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, because their assistance consists only of a loan which has to be repaid. If the minister were able to persuade

his colleagues in the government to aid the cost of housing for our senior citizens, at least to the extent of the provincial aid in this respect, we would be able to reduce the rental to these people on low incomes by a considerable degree. By the time these 40 and 50 year mortgages are repaid, in effect we have repaid twice the amount borrowed. If there is any way, therefore, in which the minister could clear himself with his colleagues and use the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation not for the purpose of granting mortgages on these homes but for the purpose of making grants towards the construction of these homes, I think it would be greatly appreciated throughout the country.
The other little thing I intended to say was on the subject of the insurance that now prevails on all N.H.A. loans. I should like to see this insurance feature extended to include insurance for the borrower as well as for the lender. I feel that, in the first place, we should have thought of insurance for the borrower. However, the government in its wisdom at the time decided that the welfare of the lender was more important and therefore the insurance feature was introduced. Everyone buying a house under N.H.A. is forced now to pay an insurance premium so that if he cannot meet his payments the lender receives full protection. I feel that the minister could, with very little administrative difficulty, extend the insurance feature to provide insurance for the borrower. I am sure that by now the minister must be well aware of the fact that when homes are financed by life insurance companies an insurance salesman shows up at the door shortly after the family occupies the home. He does his utmost to persuade the family to buy term life insurance or mortgage insurance as it is sometimes called, so that if the head of the family passes away the balance of the mortgage will be paid. There are other catastrophes besides the death of the breadwinner of the family, and I think at very little inconvenience to his department this insurance feature could be introduced and the government would not then be on record as being only interested in the welfare of the lender but would also have shown some concern for the welfare of the borrower.
There is one other minor detail I wish to mention, although in Burnaby it is now a major detail, and that is the apparent arbitrary ruling that now applies to some of the suburban areas that no N.H.A. loan shall be granted where septic tanks are planned. Our municipal council back home has attempted to get Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to modify this policy somewhat and they
Supply-Public Works
are asking that where the municipal engineering department can prove that plans actually are in existence for the sewer, the loan under N.H.A. be approved. However, the departmental officials have not yet seen their way clear to grant what I consider to be a very modest request. We almost get back to the old conundrum of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Unless the prospective house builder knows that he will be able to get an N.H.A. loan he is unwilling to buy the subdivision or the set of lots offered for sale, yet Central Mortgage and Housing say that until the sewer is in we are unwilling to approve these lots. The minister well knows that councils in suburban areas are not in a position to instal sewers through undeveloped areas. Things have, therefore, reached a sort of stalemate and a problem has arisen that will have to be resolved. While I should like to see sewers along every alley in these suburban municipalities, I think the minister will agree it is a financial and physical impossibility. I think a bit more leniency mght be extended and some agreement reached with these municipalities whereby if they express willingness to instal sewers, if and when the subdivision takes place, then the N.H.A. financing will be made possible.
I should like to close with a reiteration of the statement the minister made to me on January 19 when he said it is the government's intention to ensure that a high level of housebuilding continue. Today he said something to the effect that what future concerns will be no one seems to know at the moment. I hope the minister will not lock the stable door after the horse has run away. I hope he will keep the situation well in mind and also keep the situation six months or a year from now well in mind. I think he will agree that bank lending has been greatly reduced and that it is the intention of the banks to hold their percentage of investment in housing at approximately the level that now exists. Other sources of mortgage money, therefore, will have to be found. I should like to seriously urge upon him that he ask his colleagues to again consider having the governments supply a portion of N.H.A. funds.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to make a very few brief comments and I trust that, as usual, I am strictly in order. I believe my remarks are directly related to the item under discussion. I have some further remarks to make on housing, but we have some legislation before the house which will provide an opportunity for that.
I refer particularly to the veterans housing project at Sunning dale in Trail. I rise for two purposes, to make a brief plea on behalf

Supply-Public Works
of these veterans and to say that I take a somewhat unholy delight in proving the minister wrong when I have the opportunity. About a year ago these houses were put up for sale by the corporation. The veterans concerned, the city council of Trail, the legion and people generally in the district thought the price was too high. I made representations on their behalf and also suggested that, in view of this general dissatisfaction with the price established by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, there should be an impartial appraiser appointed to go into the situation.
The minister did not agree with that. In fact, in reply to my suggestion on the estimates, he wrote me on July 20 the following letter:
We are unable to accede to the request that an impartial appraiser be appointed for the purpose of establishing a sale value on the houses in question. We believe that a fair price has been established for the houses in Trail and that it is below the market value of comparable houses in the municipality. We therefore do not think any purpose would be served by following the proposal to which you refer.
In addition, during the debate the minister gave some figures to indicate how well these houses that were being put up for sale were selling generally across Canada. I do not think his figures referred to the Sunningdale project, because that has not been the fact in Sunningdale. As a matter of fact, according to information I received just a few days ggo, out of 175 houses put up for sale in the Sunningdale project to date, only seven have been sold. That is an indication of the attitude of the tenants and others generally toward the prices established for these houses.
What is the result? A great number of the veteran tenants, owing to the fact that they see little opportunity of purchasing houses at a reasonable figure, are vacating, going into other districts and building their own homes, which they claim they can do to better advantage. Those who are staying and the new tenants are definitely not taking the same care of the property; the maintenance is not being carried on as well, so the project as a whole is deteriorating at a much greater rate than it did prior to the government's announcement of the prices for the purchase of these houses.
It has been proven by experience that the minister's optimism in this respect was unjustified, with the sale of seven houses out of 175 in something under 12 months and the veterans concerned, or the majority of them, and those remaining there not maintaining the houses as well as formerly. In view of the attitude of the city council, of the Legion
IMr. Herridge.]
of the area and of the veterans' committee representing the veteran tenants, it does justify a reappraisal of the situation to see if the minister's officials have unwisely advised him. I urge that upon the minister, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to hear what he has to say in response to my suggestion on behalf of these very worthy veterans.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing new to add to what has already been said. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation hopes to recover only its costs from these houses. The hon. member indicates that they are not selling too well on the particular project he referred to. That, I might say, does not disturb us. There has been no sales effort put into this program. We have simply offered the houses for sale, if the veterans wish to acquire them, but there is no obligation and no compulsion.
The houses are 100 per cent occupied, and presumably there is no urge on the part of the occupants who are veterans to purchase them. That situation is perhaps the way all the veterans wish it, and we are certainly not going to push the sale of houses at them if they do not wish to purchase them; but if they wish to acquire the houses they may do so at prices which we think are fair and reasonable, particularly with regard to the fact that we aim at doing no more than recovering our costs out of the project.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he has available the number of houses which have been sold in the project at Courtenay on Vancouver island.


Robert Henry Winters: Out of a project of 40 houses, six have been sold.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
166. Departmental administration including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada, $513,658.
Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the minister has any statement or general review of his department to make.


Mr. Garson:: No, Mr. Chairman, I have not, but I would be very glad to answer questions if there are any.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, there are a few matters which I think should be referred to in a general way in considering the estimates of this department. Some of them could be related, of course, to specific items; but what I shall have to say at this stage at any rate

-will be by way of fairly generalized comments, so I think it is appropriate to make them at this stage on the administration item.
There are three matters I should like to discuss which arise out of recent cases, or in one instance out of recent discussions in the house of a general nature.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would meet with the convenience of hon. members if we were to take the estimates of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police first. The commissioner may be called out of the city shortly to confer with the provinces on some of these police agreements; and it would be of considerable convenience to the department if we could get the police estimates disposed of as the first item of our work this afternoon, if that will not discommode any of the hon. members in any way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no objection provided we can have one point understood; and I think you, Mr. Chairman, in view of your recent pronounciamento, will realize that we have to have this very clear. At least one of our members who is in committee this afternoon-in fact I am surprised that the minister is not there too-would want to have something to say regarding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I have no objection to our taking the Royal Canadian Mounted Police items now provided it does not preclude hon. members from speaking on mounted police matters when we get back on the first item of the minister's department.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have no objection to that course at all. It is not our intention to preclude anyone from discussing it. We might leave one item under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for any further observation to be made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That would be satisfactory, then, if it is understood that by agreeing to this course we are not giving any undertaking that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police items will be concluded this afternoon; I do not know whether or not they will be. We are also in the position of having some of our hon. members absent from the chamber at the moment who would, I know, want to be here, but subject to those reservations it is quite agreeable to us to proceed with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police item.


William Alfred Robinson: In view of the remarks I made earlier, may I make it clear that it is impossible for us from the chair to recognize these understandings or other commitments which may be made either by ministers of the crown or by any other hon. members of this house. We are sitting as a committee,
Supply-J ustice
and we must recognize the interests of all members of the committee as the committee is constituted at the time.
We have now called the first item of the Department of Justice and, as the rules require, I intend to allow by custom the discussion which would ordinarily take place on the first item of the Department of Justice. If the committee by unanimous consent decides to take an item which particularly relates to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, then I am in the hands of the committee; otherwise we are dealing with this item in the ordinary way and we cannot recognize any commitments which are made at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is there not a difference between commitments between individuals such as those that were made outside the house in relation to public works and understandings agreed to unanimously by the committee here on the floor of the house? Surely if there is unanimous agreement now as to what course we will follow that should be sufficient for the Chair.


William Alfred Robinson: I cannot agree with that principle. We have now a committee composed of certain personnel, but that personnel, as we all know, may vary in the course of 15 minutes. Last evening the leader of the house announced a certain order of business for today. We were to take the estimates of the Department of Public Works as the first order, and then the estimates of the Department of Justice. I take it that hon. members would have arranged their attendance accordingly and that certain hon. members might wish to discuss the first item of the Department of Justice. Unless the committee at this moment unanimously agrees to deal with a particular item, I feel I am bound to say that we will deal with the first item of the Department of Justice. I do not see how I can do otherwise. If the committee by unanimous consent directs me to call another item, of course the committee at this moment is master of its own destiny.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder if we could discuss item 397 and leave 396, the administration item, for some future date? Would it be satisfactory if there were unanimous consent to go on with item 397 and discuss all the other items of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police except that dealing with administration? That item could be held open for those hon. members who are not here but who normally would have been here if it had been announced last night.


William Alfred Robinson: Is there unanimous consent that we should deal with item No. 397 at this time?

Supply-Justice


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
397. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $976,592.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, first of all may I say that while we are glad enough to extend the accommodation it must be appreciated that it takes us somewhat by surprise. 1 am not saying this to you, Mr. Chairman; I am saying it to the minister, as we might have rather more particular questions to ask later on when we are dealing with the administration item than would normally be the case. What is the position with regard to the headquarters of the R.C.M.P.? There was a building acquired under a lease arrangement from the Catholic diocese, and my understanding was that was to be the main barracks and headquarters for the district.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, that is the case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This item would cover the construction or acquisition of buildings in the headquarters district?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The headquarters in Ottawa and the two training establishments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the main, to what does this item relate?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The operation and maintenance of the headquarters here, of the training establishment here, and of the training establishment at western headquarters in Regina.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May we have a general statement as to this item?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The particulars start at page 494, and my hon. friend will find there a breakdown of these items.


Mr. Simmons:: Is it proposed to proceed with the construction of the new jail at Whitehorse this year?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That would come under the estimates covering the administration of the Yukon and Northwest Territories.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Land and air services-
39S. Operation and maintenance of divisions, $24,677,749.
George Randolph Pearkes: Could the minister state what additional pay is granted to those members of the force who are serving in northern divisions, and where the line is drawn with reference to that northern pay? I raise this question because there is a very acute problem facing not only the mounted police but a
[The Chairman.]
number of other civil servants who are working in the northern parts of Canada alongside personnel employed on construction work who are drawing fabulous rates of pay. As far as the members of the force are concerned, their cost of living, their families and their general morale are affected by a comparison of the rates of pay which civilians are obtaining with those obtained by members of the force.
There has been a large influx of people into the north, with a corresponding increase in the responsibilities placed upon members of the force in the north, and I was wondering whether consideration has been given to increasing the rates of pay of the divisions of the R.C.M.P. located in the northern parts of Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, the problem to which my hon. friend has referred is an important and difficult one and is encountered by civil servants everywhere when comparison is made of their salaries and allowances with those of the more highly paid echelons of business and industry. I am sure my hon. friend is aware that a problem of this kind receives continuous study by the treasury board and the civil service commission; for those in the north who are affected very naturally and properly voice their sentiments in regard to this disparity to which my hon. friend refers.
The two governmental boards to which I have referred do the best they can to bridge the gap between the emoluments of civil servants, and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the one hand and employees of private concerns, on the other. To balance completely the amounts paid to civil servants with the allowances paid by private industry and contractors to employees working in the northern sections of Canada, I do not think could be justified to the taxpayer.


George Randolph Pearkes: I realize there is a problem, and it was that problem I raised. But how are you trying to effect a balance? What are the northern rates of pay and where are they applicable? I understand that an additional allowance is granted to R.C.M.P. personnel serving in certain parts of northern Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The special northern subsistence allowance is $1.50 a day. The special northern allowance is $3 per day in some cases and $2 per day in others. The special northern subsistence allowance provides for $1.50 per day for Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel serving in detachments which by their remoteness are designated as isolated. It is paid in lieu of meals or rations in kind.
The special northern allowance is as follows. The privy council recently approved

of an amendment to Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations granting the commissioner authority to pay a cash allowance in lieu of rations to members of the force stationed at points within the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, that part of the province of Quebec lying north of the 55th parallel of latitude, and Labrador, at which it is convenient to purchase food. The cash allowance approved is $3 per diem for married members not in receipt of rations in kind, and $2 per diem for single members not in receipt of rations in kind.
Prior to the approval of the northern allowances, members of the force in the areas defined above and not in receipt of rations, received the special northern subsistence allowance of $1.50 per diem.


George Randolph Pearkes: What was the date of that order in council? Was it this year, or ten years ago?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It was some months ago, not years ago. I can get the exact date for my hon. friend, but I do not have it at the moment. It was some months ago.


George Randolph Pearkes: That would really be before the tremendous development that has taken place in the north?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I would not say that.


George Randolph Pearkes: If it was some months ago it might well have been before the development of the construction of the D.E.W. line, for instance, had taken place. However, let that be. I should like, if I may, to make this observation. I think the members of the force who are stationed in the north are certainly to be very highly commended for the standard of discipline and morale they have maintained in spite of the very wide difference in pay rates between the members of the force and the civilians working in that area. I feel that it is most commendable, and I suggest to the government that I hardly think the special allowances the minister has mentioned are adequate in view of present conditions.


James Aubrey Simmons: I do not know why they are not entitled to the same consideration as civil servants in the northern part of our country. Single civil servants receive $900 and married civil servants $1,500 per year. I was wondering whether any consideration has been given to that problem.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I can certainly say without any question at all that very great consideration has been given to these matters, because they are considered by the treasury board and the civil service commission from time to time. But it is difficult to draw
Supply-Justice
comparisons under this heading without taking into account other circumstances of, say, civil servants in the north, in the matter of housing, for example, and practices in the departments concerned.
My information is that the allowances are not necessarily uniform as among other departments of the government, and there are reasons for that. In the case of Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel, for example, they receive housing for which they pay a rent not greater than that in the more settled parts of Canada, in spite of the fact that, as my hon. friend from the Yukon knows, it costs the federal government a very great deal more to provide that housing.
In that respect the government would not be getting an economic rent for the investment that would be represented by that house, though it would be high enough for the member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to pay in relation to his salary. The only way in which a balanced view can be obtained of any one of these items is to consider it in relation to them all, and that is rather a difficult comparison to make in the type of discussion we are carrying on this afternoon.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I notice that this item has increased by $1,205,000. I gather that, since the Minister of Finance announced the recent increases, it is necessary to make a further adjustment. I wonder whether in due course the minister could say how much the adjustment will be?
While I am on my feet I should like to say that the minister maintains very high standards for this service, and I think that is desirable; but I have a feeling the compensation provided for members of the R.C.M.P. is not adequate. I wonder whether the minister could give some comparison of prevailing rates paid in cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver to their police forces, if he has that available.
I have known a number of men who have given a lifetime to the service. I am sure they did not enter the service with a view to making a fortune, but I think they should not be expected to remain in the position where they will have to worry the rest of their lives and try to qualify after retiring age for jobs that are not too easy to find. I wonder whether the minister could also make some comment upon the medieval custom, that has existed for too long a time, that men should be denied the rights of married life for extended periods.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would my hon. friend permit me to reply to his first question. Then I would be very glad to deal with the question of marriage afterward.

Supply-Justice
On the floor of this house I do not like to make comparisons with, say, the Montreal police force or the Winnipeg police force or any of the other police forces in Canada. But I think the general statement can be made that the salaries of the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force compare very favourably with those of most of the police forces in Canada. It is very proper that they should, because in the selection of our personnel we maintain, upon the average, somewhat higher standards than those which prevail in many of these other police forces.
I have not the pay schedule of any of these other police forces here, but I have that of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force. The present annual salary of a third-class constable is $2,436. The revised annual salary that went into effect with the last increases as of April 1 this year is $2,640. For second-class constable the rates are $2,760 and $3,000. For first-class constable the salary in effect
now is as follows:
First year	 $3,240
Second year	 3,420
Third year	 3,600
Fourth year	 3,780
Fifth year	'	 4,020
Then we have corporal, from $4,320 to $4,500; sergeant, from $4,740 to $4,980; staff sergeant, from $5,220 to $5,460; corps sergeant-major, $5,640; sub-inspector, $6,660; inspector, ranging from $6,960 to $7,620; superintendent, from $7,920 to $8,580; assistant commissioner, $9,780, and deputy commissioner, $12,720. If my hon. friend has been taking these figures down I think he will find that they compare very favourably indeed with those of most police forces.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Can the minister tell me how many years men have to be with the service before they are permitted to marry? What are the latest regulations?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The general rule is five years. There are some limited exceptions at three years.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: At this stage in the history of our country, Mr. Chairman, when married life is taken to be the normal way of life, and in view of the fact that the wife of the member of the R.C.M.P. invariably makes a useful contribution to the life of the community, I would think we should not argue that the economy of Canada cannot stand supporting an adequate R.C.M.P. force if the members of the force marry when they wish and whom they wish.
I recall that last year the minister said we accept about one out of 14 applicants. When we have such rigid tests I think it should be left to the good judgment of those who are selected to decide when they have found

a suitable girl to marry, and that the economy of Canada should be able to stand the provision of married quarters and an income that is adequate to enable members of the R.C.M.P. to assume the responsibilities of married life without waiting for five years or even for three years in the very exceptional cases that the minister referred to.
What study has been made of the matter, and what hope is there for a revision of the regulations in order to offer those who are accepted into the service the same privileges that other citizens of the country expect and demand?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I think there are some in Canada who seem to be of the opinion that the rule of the force against marriage for the first five years is, as my hon. friend has indicated, a survival of medieval discipline that is imposed without relation to the normal needs and administration, of the force. But I can assure my hon. friend that that is by no means the case.
In the normal course of events about one year is required to train a new recruit to be a member of the force. During the next two years and to a lesser extent the two years following, in order for him to gain the experience he will require to discharge his duties as a member of the force-because, as I am sure the hon. member with his knowledge of Saskatchewan is aware, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are in small groups in places where they have quite a heavy responsibility-he will be moved an average of eight to ten times.
I do not need to tell the members of the committee that with the large number of isolated posts we have in the Arctic, and to an increasing extent since we have been building the D.E.W. line and so on, many of these places to which the younger men are posted are not places where they could take a wife and family with any degree of convenience at all. As a matter of fact it is quite a substantial problem just to see that the members of the forces are properly housed and fed. Therefore the purpose of the rule is to enable us to operate a force of the type of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the kind of country in which we do operate, and to train the men properly during the first five-year period so they can have that degree of responsibility which we expect of them. Everyone who enters the force knows perfectly well when he does so that these are the rules of the game, and he is not in the force for any length of time before he becomes aware of the very good and substantial reasons that there are for these rules.
It is only in the exceptional case that the all too human failing comes into play, a failing

that I am sure we all share, and a member of the force happens to meet with some lady of such great charm that he cannot reconcile his undertaking to the force with the beauty of his fair one; and he gets married. He knows when he does that, he knows at every stage of the game, just what the consequences of his step will be.
It might be argued that we should not have this period of training. I do not know how we can expect to have trained people unless we train them; and unless we put them through that training. I do not know how we can expect to maintain the morale and the quality of the force so that the individual constable, wherever he may be, even if he is by himself, is a credit to the force. I certainly do not know how we could ever expect to provide facilities for women and babies in these northerly posts where, as I have said, it is an extremely difficult thing for us even to provide accommodation for the members of the force themselves.
This is by no means confined to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The same problem is encountered by the northern contractors to whom reference was made earlier. If we are going to operate in that kind of country it is pretty difficult to operate in the same way that you would among the apartment houses of Ottawa.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, there are some questions on this item relating to discipline and similar matters that I think would properly be in order, but I do not want to anticipate a discussion that might well arise in connection with the legislation concerning the police which is to come before us later this session. I wanted to ask some questions and make some comments on disciplinary matters, but I will not do that now if I am correct in understanding that the legislation to come before us later will be bound to occasion a discussion of the code of discipline of the police force. May I have the minister's assurance on that point?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I want to be fair with my hon. friend. I do not think it will come in the amendments of this session. It will come in the general revision of the act when we get to it. If my hon. friend wishes to discuss that subject matter, I think perhaps it would be better for him to raise it at the present time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Very well. I thank the minister for that explanation. Looking at the details on page 497 I notice that there has been an increase of virtually 320 in the strength of the force, land and air services, this year compared with last year. Preliminary to some comments and questions on
Supply-Justice
discipline, I should like to ask the minister if he will tell us what the situation is with regard to recruitment and whether the situation with respect to the urgent requirement for personnel-there was a considerable shortage-is now approaching the break-even point or whether there is still some urgency with respect to further recruiting.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think the general statement could be made that the present situation with regard to recruiting is not only very good but is also quite promising, and that we are working now toward providing the increased strength for which this item provides.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I guess I do not quite understand the minister. I understand there will be a strength of 3,995 regular members of the force and 455 special constables and employed civilians. I do not take it that that is an establishment. I take it that those are the actual numbers for whom it is necessary to provide pay for the fiscal year now under review. Would the minister say whether 1 am correct there, or is this an establishment which we have still to recruit in order to fill?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This particular estimate, like all of these estimates here, is the amount we think we shall need to spend in order to carry out the program which we have planned for ourselves in the ensuing fiscal year. In that sense it is an establishment within the meaning that my hon. friend I think is giving to the word. But it does not necessarily follow that we have at this instant the number that is outlined in this estimate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There would always be variations from time to time within the year. If I can do so, I shall try to put it very shortly and simply. Are the 3,995 regular members of the force and 455 special constables and employed civilians the number which is deemed to be sufficient and adequate to meet the policing requirements of the force, or the duties of the force, during the fiscal year or do you still want more recruits to meet your present obligations?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer to that question is yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is estimated now to be the approximate shortage in personnel?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: You mean as of the present date?


Edmund Davie Fulton: All right; what is it as of the present date, or even when they have met what the minister says is what they anticipate they will require during the year? You just told me that is not enough, that it is not as
35S8

Supply-J ustice
many as you would like to have. By how much does it tall short of what you would like to have?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. What I said is that we have not now as many as we would like to have, but that the present experience in recruiting is not only satisfactory but promising; and that we think we shall be able to recruit sufficient additional members to those we now have to meet the requirements for which we are seeking authority.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In other words, the numbers which I have already read out, and which I shall not repeat, it is anticipated will be filled this year?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now what I am asking is this. Is that number going to be sufficient? Are you going to be able to say, "We have now got what we need"? Or does this number represent only what you think you will be able to get and would it in fact be desirable if we had more police personnel on strength?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sure my hon. friend realizes that neither the amount we have in fact nor the number we need is a static figure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Exactly.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sure he realizes that many of our needs we can foresee. Some of our needs we know we cannot foresee. Therefore as a practical matter we must review these figures from time to time; and some time this summer we will be reviewing these very figures that we are discussing. I do not know how I can make any more definite statement than I made when I said that we are in fairly good shape now; that the prospects are quite good; that we think we can recruit the additional numbers we require within what we can foresee at the present time; and that this summer we shall have to examine our position again in the usual manner in which we always do that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry we cannot get closer together than that, but I will leave the matter. At any rate, there is to be an increase during this year over last year of some 400 members of the force, regular and special.
That raises the problem of discipline. The minister has mentioned the training which recruits are required to undergo. I know it is dangerous and unfair to draw general conclusions from individual cases, and I shall not do so. But one cannot help being concerned about the type of case I have in mind, namely the case which occurred in Prince George during 1955, which was a great discredit certainly to the individual members

of the force who took part in it and which I know was viewed with great seriousness by the senior officers of the force themselves. But even in the spirit of what I have said, namely that it is unfair to make too much of any one particular case, this was to such an extent the sort of thing we have always felt that the R.C.M.P. was above that by that very fact and, if you like, by the excellence of the record of the force over the years, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
I refer to the case of the two constables- fortunately it can be said that they were relatively junior-who beat a prisoner and extorted a confession from him, and who were found guilty of having done so. They were fined. They were reduced in rank. They were sentenced to imprisonment. One was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour and recommended for dismissal, and the other was sentenced to four months' imprisonment with hard labour and recommended for dismissal.
Both appealed as to sentence only, with the result that their fines were remitted. I do not suppose there is any point in imposing a fine which there is no opportunity to collect. It becomes senseless and only involves administrative red tape and does not produce any result. But I am surprised that this punishment-which I must say I find to be not by any means excessive in the light of the seriousness of the offence

was in any sense reduced on appeal.
I should like an explanation of that matter, because I personally was surprised. I was surprised because I felt the feeling would probably have been to make an example of these men. I do not think a fine-though it is admittedly only part of the sentence and there are other and perhaps more serious parts-in one case of $100 and in another of $60 is in any way excessive even though, as I said before, it is only part of a sentence.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure none of the remarks which my hon. friend from Kamloops made with regard to the great embarrassment this incident caused the force, which has had a record from which this sort of thing is not ever expected, were in any way exaggerated. I am in complete agreement with him that this was a most regrettable episode in the history of the force.
As I understand my hon. friend's remarks with regard to the disposition of the cases of these two men, he does not disagree with the reduction in rank, with the imprisonment or with the dishonourable dismissal from the force, though he does think the remission of the fines was unwarranted. Well, that was ordered by the commissioner on the appeals which both these constables made to him. My

information is that the reason for the remission of the fines was that they were a relatively insignificant part of the total penalty. When a man is reduced in rank, imprisoned and kicked out of the force, it does not seem to me to make a great deal of difference whether or not he is fined a small amount such as $60.
Now, it may be that my hon. friend does not agree with that judgment, but it was one which the commissioner had the authority to make and which he did make, I am sure, with the same conscientious attitude toward his responsibilities that he shows on all occasions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not believe we are going to quarrel over what would perhaps be properly regarded as an administrative detail in the exercise of the commissioner's discretion, except that I have just regretted, and we will leave it there, that the punishment was in any way lessened.
This occurs to me. While I am not sure that it would be in any sense a legal responsibility of the force, and in fact I am not quite clear how the matter would be handled, there does arise the question of making some measure of restitution to the individual who was wronged as a result of this offence. Is there anything that can be done along those lines, or was there any request made? If so, how was it made?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the man who was prejudiced by this conduct has made a claim for compensation which is under negotiation at the present time. When the negotiation is completed, I presume the matter will be taken care of by an ex gratia payment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was in that respect that it struck me that, small in total amount though the fines may be, nevertheless as a gesture or something that might be meaningful the fines might have been allowed to stand. However, I will not press it any further.
May I ask this. Everyone must recognize that an organization such as this, confronted with the twin difficulties of a quite rapid expansion and the necessity to maintain a high standard, has a very real problem. In asking this question I am not trying to cavil or overlook the fact that when you take on a large number of new men you do have these difficulties, but I should like to know whether any statistics are available, and if so what is their general effect, concerning the number of cases in which disciplinary action has had to be taken. Do the statistics show any trend which should be regarded seriously, or do they indicate an increase in that type of offence as a result of or accompanying the
Supply-Justice
rapid expansion of the force? How is the problem being dealt with?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suppose what my hon. friend means is, is there any increase in the percentage of the total force represented by those who have committed offences of that type?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not mean small offences, but offences which would be regarded within the force itself as serious.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The commissioner tells me
that he has looked into this and that while he has no actual figures he has not been able to discern any noticeable or appreciable increase in offences of that character.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, on the point my hon. friend from Kamloops raised a moment ago about this fine and its remission, I quite agree with the minister that perhaps it was an insignificant part of the total penalty, and with the hon. member for Kamloops that there is no point in enlarging on it at this moment. However, I do think, as the minister said, it is something which is rather regrettable as far as the force is concerned. I think it is rather regrettable that there should have been any suggestion that it could be inferred that possibly this was condoned in some way. I know that was not the intention of the commissioner. I presume you are faced with constables who are in poor financial circumstances, and practically the same result was reached.
I know we are now approaching the hour of five o'clock, but when the item is up again -I presume it is not going to carry in the next few minutes-I should like the minister to be able to give us, for instance, the comparative figures on the strength of the force. We have the estimated strength for this year. What was the strength of the force say 10 years ago. I am somewhat concerned, because I have had something to do with this force in various ways, with the rapid increase and the fact that the junior men feel that perhaps they have to do things today to achieve a reputation and thereby obtain promotion which would be somewhat foreign to the officers and men of 10 or 20 years ago.
One does not want to be critical, but I just throw this out to the minister as a last word at this stage. I was talking to one of the superior court judges the other day, one whom I think the minister knows, and in speaking of the reputation of this force he said that if a senior officer came before him and gave evidence he would not have to be sworn; he would take his word. But if some of these junior fellows come before him and are sworn he still did not believe them because they were too anxious to get a conviction.

Public Works-Burrard Inlet, B.C.
Now, with these men coming into the force and belonging to something that is part of the fabric of Canadian tradition, I wonder if it is emphasized that although they have a responsibility for the enforcement of law, they have also a responsibility for maintaining the tradition of this force. If you have 10,000 where once you had 2,000, your chance of promotion may be lessened. There may be a tendency to think that if you get a lot of convictions, get enough scalps hanging from your belt, you will get promotion quicker. I think that is the view of some of the juniors with whom I have spoken. They seemed to express that view.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In order that the question which my hon. friend has raised might have the reply right next to it in Hansard, might I say that on March 31, 1946, the 10 years ago to which my hon. friend referred, the force had in uniform 2,526 men; special constables, 460; civilians, 212; civil servants, 441, or a total of 3,639. On April 28, 1956, the force had in uniform 4,604; special constables, 347; civilians, 495; civil servants, 912, or a total of 6,358. As my hon. friend knows, the ambit of the responsibilities of the force during that 10-year period has been greatly widened. We have a number of new contracts with provinces; we have a special division, and we have a heavier problem of security. Unless these differences in responsibility are taken into account it would not be fair to base any kind of judgment upon the difference between the 3,639 figure in 1946 and the 6,358 figure for 1956.


George Clyde Nowlan: I was not criticizing the increase in the force. I was just suggesting the difficulty in obtaining promotion because there ,was so much competition.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



PUBLIC WORKS


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to revert to motions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
it agreed that the minister has unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Henry Winters: According to the previous undertaking I would like to lay on the table of the house a report entitled "Analysis of

Tides and Currents in Burrard Inlet" by W. D. Baines, division of mechanical engineering, national research council.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister also tabling the document having to do with the breakdown of the $1,500,000 discussed earlier today.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall do that later, Mr. Speaker. It is only in longhand form at the moment and I wish to have it prepared in better form.



PRIVATE BILLS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: There is a large number of divorce bills on the order paper today for consideration in the committee of the whole. Under the new standing orders they can all be referred to the committee by one motion. Is that agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Mona Margaret McCastlin Adams.1-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Dorothy Joanne Campbell Mockeridge.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Edna Gertrude Neil Fry.

Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Madeleine Tremblay St. Jean.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Stephen Har-van.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Charles Lanny Catto.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Simonne Trottier Breard.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Mary Murray Snook.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Ruth Katie Brigden Battersby.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Marie Dicerni Arcieri.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Laurence Turgeon, otherwise known as Laurent Tur-geon.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Barbara Allen Deslauriers.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Henri Xavier Eugene Bernard.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Jeanette Cowan Weinstein.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Rina LeBreton Fleurent.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Hazel Annie Palmer Martel.-Mr. Henderson.

Bill No. 221, for the relief of Phyllis Matilda Clayton Sawyer.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Leonora [DOT]Cancelli Desgroseilliers.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Eugenia Towstuk Podilchuk.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Rose Rother Lewartt.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Marie Germaine Muguette Andree Brunet Sievert.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Joan Noble Rusk.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Joseph Edouard Walter Gerard LeBlanc.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Marie Jean-nine Eda Coderre Azaria.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Mary Margaret Florence Bradley Green.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Mary Wylie Johnston Haan.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Christina Walsh McBrearty.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Marie Anne Roy Suess.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Ray Israel Lieder.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Lillias Cushnie Dowden Grande.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Angelina Heylen Thirion.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of William James Munden.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Robert Raymond.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Jacqueline Gagne Brothers.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Nathan Fish-bine.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Dorothea Atkinson Bosse.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of George Evangelinelis.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Tatiana Holowko Kuczynski.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of May McMullin Bjornson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Adrienne Cote Souliere.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Imogene Eva Patricia Hayes Knox.-Mr. Henderson. ,
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Maria Domany Cap.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Elfrieda Eggert Nowinski.-Mr. Henderson.
Private Bills-Divorce
Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions to ask of the chairman of the committee on Bill No. 192; therefore I would ask you to exempt that one from the general motion.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, we have a batch of over 40 cases here. I do not propose to discuss them all but there are just a few comments I should -like to make on a few of them. On Bill No. 221-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. If I just call clause 1 on these bills the hon. member will be in order.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In Bill No. 221 I find that both the petitioner and the respondent appeared in person. It would appear that the husband walked out after they had been living together for some two years and proceeded to live with another woman. He appeared before the committee, and it was recommended that their divorce be granted.
I realize that in situations like this it is hopeless to repair the damage that has occurred but I consider it unfortunate that we do not have some recourse other than to simply grant the divorce.
Bill No. 228 was heard under the chairmanship of Senator Gershaw. I must congratulate Senator Gershaw again for the very careful work he has done in this committee and in respect to all the cases, the evidence of which I have read. I have a great deal of sympathy for Their Honours the senators as they hear these unfortunate cases. The man involved in this particular case came to Canada in 1948, after the war. After being married for eight' months he walked out and left his wife. In her evidence she spoke about the treatment she received at his hands. She was asked the following question:
Could you tell us how he treated you in those eight months?
She replied:
Yes. He started beating me very severely with his fists; and after I got pregnant the beating became more frequent-such things as being pushed down cellar stairs and knives thrown at me, and he threatened my life. I had to seek refuge at friends, and 1 became fearful for my life and the life of the child.
Apparently the husband is now contributing $30 a month toward the upkeep of their daughter who is now four years old. He started living with another woman and is raising a family with her. He appeared before the committee and admitted that everything his wife said was true. I am sure Their

Private Bills
Honours the senators had no alternative but to recommend that' the divorce be granted.
It would appear to me that where such an injustice is done to the wife and the little child somebody should take the responsibility for further action to see that justice is done for the unfortunate woman and child.
Bill No. 230 is a rather unusual case. The petitioner in this instance comes from British Columbia. She reported that she had been married some 24 years ago, in 1932. This woman was a particularly good witness. She was asked the following question:
Will you tell the committee what you think broke up this marriage? You seemed to get along all right until the forties.
Her answer was:
I think it was just bad luck, and the war separated us. Six years of separation is a long time. That is just about as near as 1 can make any comment on it.
The conclusion was, of course, that this was another war tragedy. The witness was given very sympathetic consideration by Their Honours the senators. Senator Smith asked:
Why is it that you come to us with this petition? Why have you not gone through this proceeding in the ordinary course down in British Columbia?
The answer was:
I cannot get a divorce out there, with my husband domiciled in Montreal.
This brings me to one point, Mr. Chairman. I think equality of the sexes should be established as far as granting divorce is concerned. These people were married in British Columbia; they spent none of their married life in the province of Quebec. As I recall the evidence they were both in Great Britain and Europe for part of their married life; but because the husband now happens to be living in the province of Quebec this unfortunate woman is placed in the position where she must come all the way from British Columbia to Ottawa to have her case presented and the divorce granted. It would seem to me that because this woman was domiciled in British Columbia with her husband for most of their married life, because she married, lived and made a living there, she should not now be obliged to come to Ottawa to place her grievance before us.
In Bill No. 233 we have a development which is occurring more frequently and which is going to eliminate the expense in connection with detectives to a large extent. In this case both the petitioner and the respondent appeared. In Bill No. 234 the respondent and the co-respondent came along. In Bill No. 240 the people concerned managed without any paid detectives.
In the case of Bill No. 243 I find that the evidence was supplied by two members of
[Mr. Nicholson.l
the Quebec provincial police. If members of the provincial police are available for the securing of information of that kind perhaps that is something people seeking divorces should consider. In the case of Bill No. 244 the respondent appeared. It would seem that if the respondent is ready to admit the charges which are made, that evidence is accepted. It takes a great deal less time than to hear evidence given by paid detectives.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bills reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Romuald Bourque (Ouiremonl-Sl. Jean>
moved the second reading of Bill No. 255, to incorporate the Canadian Provincial Insurance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is to incorporate an insurance company, and application is being made by three respected citizens. The capital stock is to be $1,000,000 with $500,000 to be subscribed before they organize. It is intended to carry on a general insurance business, and the bill sets out the classifications of insurance that will be written. They are asking for the right to make application at some time or other to assume the obligations and liabilities within Canada of Monument Insurance Company Limited, having its head office at Stramongate, Kendal, England. Of course that would be done only after acceptance by the Canadian and British insurance companies.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member is closing the debate will he state whether this company is in any way a subsidiary of the Provincial-it is either insurance or assurance-company of England which operates in Canada? Will this company to be incorporated have any relation to that company?


Mr. Bourque:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Romuald Bourque: This will be a new company and there is no connection with any other company except as stated in the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: There are on the order paper divorce bills Nos. 257 to 289 inclusive. Is it agreed

unanimously that second readings will be taken under the one motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you except from the wholesale operation Bill No. 266, as I should like to say a few words on the second reading of that bill.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, we received the evidence in connection with these bills only a day ago, or at the most two days ago, and I would appeal to the house to allow these bills to stand. The sponsor of the bills is not here, and I am sure no hon. member has had time to read any more than half this evidence.


Walter Edward Harris: That is quite all right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Perhaps I could put the question on Bill No. 257 and the hon. member could move the adjournment of the debate.



ISLAY ISOBEL CAMPBELL JONES

Mr. H. B. McCulloch (for Mr. Henderson) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 257, for the relief of Islay Isobel Campbell Jones.
On motion of Mr. Regier the debate was adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is it unanimously agreed that the other divorce bills on the order paper shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TRANSPORT ACT


Thomas Speakman Barnett: the second reading of Bill No. 107, to amend the Transport Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the house that the subject matter of this bill is not new as far as discussion by myself is concerned. When the first item of the estimates of the Minister of Transport was under discussion last year I spoke at some length and outlined the problem that exists, in my view, in respect to coastal transportation by water in British Columbia. I pointed out that it appeared to me that this particular form of transportation was almost the only type of transportation in Canada without any proper form of regulation by a public authority.
I do not intend to repeat the remarks I made last year, or for that matter the year before, when the transport estimates were under discussion because they are to be found in Hansard of July 20, 1955, at page 6474 and the pages following. However, I should like simply to point out that on that occasion
Transport Act
I did mention several examples of the situation in which people had been finding themselves on the coast of British Columbia because in respect to services that are maintained or not maintained, in respect to the rates that are charged or the changes that are made from time to time in those rates. I mentioned as one example how one of the transportation companies had without any prior notice to its patrons increased its rates by 33J per cent. They had discovered it only through invoices which they received later from the firms from which they had purchased goods.
So I thought the time had come when this particular problem should be brought to the attention of the house in the form of a bill to amend the Transport Act to meet, in some measure at least, the situation that exists. The bill itself is a very simple one. It simply removes from the act a part which deletes from the general provisions that are in the act for the regulation of transportation by water, ports or places in the province of British Columbia.
The situation I described last year continues, and the problem affects not only areas I mentioned last year but areas I did not mention at that time. As a further example of the need for some proper action to bring coastal transportation under regulation, I wish to draw your attention in particular at this time to the situation on the west coast of Vancouver island. There a service is in operation by the Canadian Pacific Steamship Company, and has been in operation by that company for a long period of time. In years gone by the service was carried on by a very well known vessel, the S.S. Princess Maquinna, which had become quite a tradition on the coast of British Columbia. Over quite a number of years that service was in receipt of a subsidy from the federal government. But at the present time the service is carried on by quite a small vessel known as the Princess of Alberni, and no subsidy is being paid.
I might interpolate here that at the present time the only segment of the coastal transport system in British Columbia that does come under any form of government regulation, as far as I am aware, is one of the services operated by Union Steamships, which does receive a subvention from the federal government for the operation of that service and, therefore, is subject to some jurisdiction by the Canadian maritime commission.
In my considered opinion the service being operated at this time on the west coast of Vancouver island is a disgrace to the name of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that if the

Transport Act
president of the Canadian Pacific Railway-Company has any doubts as to the correctness of the statements I have made, he might very well try going out to the Pacific coast incognito and spending two or three months in one of the west coast logging camps. There I am sure he would come to realize, if he had to live in an isolated community depending entirely, as far as supplies were concerned, on the service which is being operated under the banner of his company, that something should be done about that situation.
I have a communication here that is in the form of a petition from one of these west coast communities to which I have referred. I am going to read a short excerpt from their remarks to illustrate my point. This was signed by practically everyone in this community. I shall not read the entire petition, but it says:
At present we rely solely on the C.P.R. for delivery of groceries, mail and bulk supplies. To say the least, this service is not adequate, e.g. "on December 9 the C.P.R. failed to deliver 11 bags of mail and when asked for this mail the crew replied that it wasn't on board. Later at Zeballos, on this same trip, the Gold River mail was discovered and was then carried back to Vancouver and then to Gold River on December 19, thus making it impossible for residents to send out Christmas parcels on time.
In addition, there are numerous instances of essential supplies not being delivered.
That is merely one example. I am sure that if only 10 per cent of the complaints that have come to my ears in respect to the kind of service presently being offered by the C.P.R. are well founded, the statement contained in this petition is more than borne out. I have heard of a situation arising when people were expecting a new chesterfield, and it happened for some reason or other to be dropped into the salt water and that was the end of it as far as the people were concerned. I have heard of shipments having been made and receipts having been given for them by the sender, but they were never received by the consignee. Apparently there is no recourse whatever in respect to this kind of situation.
Quite frankly I have not found the attitude taken by the officials of this company on the west coast to have been very co-operative. I have had the experience of approaching them and getting the impression that as far as I was concerned as the member representing the people of that constituency in this house, the kind of service that was given was just none of my business. I like to feel that I am prepared to listen to both sides of a question, but certainly my experience in this instance, when I was willing to hear the side of the company, was that I was simply given a rather quick brush-off.
Together with previous statements I have made, Mr. Speaker, that is an outline of some

of the reasons why I feel that I should bring this question to the attention of the house at this time in the form of a bill calling for an amendment to the Transport Act to provide some form of court of appeal for the people who are dependent upon coastal transportation services for all their supplies and transportation.
During the course of looking into the matter I took it upon myself to try to find out something of the background of the present Transport Act, and I discovered that the original act was introduced in the Senate in the year 1937 and was discussed by a committee of that house at that time, but that no action was taken on it in this house that year. However, in the year 1938 a rather modified bill was introduced in this house by the then minister of transport, now Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I find that some of the remarks he made on moving second reading of the bill are to me at least of considerable interest today. As found on page 1554 of Hansard for March 21, 1938, he had this to say in introducing the bill:
Mr. Speaker, the object of this hill is to promote the stabilization of the transport industry in Canada, in the public interest as well as in the interests of all those engaged in transportation.
Later, as found on the same page, he said:
It is a matter of public interest that transportation rates be reasonably stable, and applied without discrimination. Experience has shown that publicity is essential to prevent discrimination. Therefore the publicity of rates is a fundamental requirement in this bill.
We also appreciate that our transportation rate structure may break down completely unless some relation is maintained between transportation charges and the abilities of various commodities to stand those charges. There is also the problem of conditions of employment in transportation industries. It will not be a question that it is the duty and interest of all employers to endeavour to maintain reasonable standards of conditions and rewards of employment. The absence of regulation and the resulting uneconomical competition must inevitably bear heavily on the workers, since labour costs comprise such a large proportion of operating expenses. The wide difference in working conditions, as between regulated transportation and unregulated transportation, must be apparent to all. Apart from the effect on labour, the interest of public safety is also involved.
Objections to this bill have taken the form, not that regulation is undesirable, but rather that the means provided by the bill may work hardship in certain specific instances. Many have objected on the ground that the bill will have the effect of increasing rates. I see nothing in the bill which can reasonably lead to that conclusion. The fact is that Canadian railway rates, as established under regulation, are among the lowest in the world, and this has been accomplished notwithstanding the fact that Canada is a sparsely populated country. Regulation should have the effect of lowering rather than raising rates, by tending to eliminate wasteful and destructive competition among the various forms of transportation.

I think some of the statements made in 1938 by the then minister of transport hold equally good today and are applicable to the situation prevailing at the present time in the coastal areas of British Columbia. In looking at the debates of that time, Mr. Speaker, I was also interested to discover that the then member for Comox-Alberni, Mr. A. W. Neill, who represented that constituency in the house from 1921 to 1945, was also very much concerned with this problem. I may say I was also very much interested to discover that the conclusion Mr. Neill came to in 1938, after having had a good many years of experience in the house, was identical with the conclusion I have come to after having given some attention to the problem since I have been the member for that constituency.
Mr. Neill's remarks when speaking on second reading of the bill can be found at page 1560 of Hansard for March 21, 1938. He had been referring to some other sections of the bill, and then had this to say:
. . . but the part that I have more interest in is the next:
"5. The provisions of this part shall not apply in the case of ships engaged in the transport of goods or passengers
(a) between ports or places in British Columbia."
As far as we in British Columbia are concerned, that of course entirely annihilates the whole purpose of the bill.
In fact, Mr. Neill was so convinced of the correctness of that position that when the bill was being considered in committee he moved for the deletion of the particular section of the bill which my bill now proposes to delete from the act, that is, the exempting provision in respect of ports or places in British Columbia. Even at that time this was not a new matter as far as Mr. Neill was concerned, and although he was not a member of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines he took the trouble to appear as a witness before the committee when it was considering the bill. In his statement, as recorded on page 113 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines of 1938, Mr. Neill had this to say:
Bill B of the Senate of last year, on which the present bill is largely founded, when first introduced contained no such provision excluding the coastal waters, but it was amended to that effect, apparently, by the standing committee of the Senate . . .
A little later he had this to say:
I submit that it is highly desirable that such control should be exercised. The need for it is so apparent, in British Columbia at least, that in 1935 I introduced a bill to amend the Railway Act to that effect, which bill was defeated in the House of Commons. The debate will be found in Hansard of February 12, 1935, and later on in Hansard of February 22. There is a precedent of
Transport Act
long standing for this provision because some 30 years ago the then section 7 of the Railway Act provided that the Railway Act should apply to traffic carried by sea or inland waters between any ports or places in Canada. There was, however, a provision attached to it that it only applied to boats owned or chartered by a railway company.
I was interested in looking back in the record to discover just what that bill which Mr. Neill introduced at that time-that is in 1935-was all about. I discovered that in the course of debate on his bill, in which Mr. Manion, the then minister of railways, participated, it was brought out that while even at that time there had been in the Railway Act for 30 years a section calling for some exercise of control by the board of railway commissioners over water transportation carried on by a railway company, that section had never been put into effect.
As I understand it, that section is still to be found in the Railway Act and is section 363 of the present act. In order to be sure on this point I had a question on the order paper earlier this year which was answered on February 23. I asked whether this section had ever been applied. The answer I received was no. It is therefore apparent that neither as to ships operated by railway companies nor as to ships operated by independent shipping companies is there any form of public control over their operations, as to whether or not they maintain schedules, whether or not they stop giving service to the communities, or as to the question of the rates they may charge from time to time.
The purpose of Mr. Neill's bill back in 1935 was to broaden the application of that section of the Railway Act to include ships which were operated by companies other than railway companies. It was in the course of that debate that it was brought out that the section had never come into operation.
I realize that this whole question of transportation is an extremely complicated matter. I am putting this proposition forward in this amending bill in the hope that the situation which I have attempted to describe may be corrected. In a matter as complicated as this I realize that there may be aspects of the matter which have not occurred to me. To me this is the kind of bill which should be considered in a committee of the house where those concerned, such as transport companies and others, would have the opportunity of making representations. I say this in order to make it perfectly clear that if this bill is successful in passing second reading, as far as I am concerned I should be happy to have it considered by a committee of the house.

Transport Act


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house feels indebted to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) for having raised this important subject. It is one of considerable complexity, and any change will affect the economy of all those people who live in the scattered communities of the west coast. When I say that we are indebted to the hon. member for having raised the problem, I do not want it to be construed that I am in favour of this bill.
I refer only to the importance of the problem. The problem is so important that the royal commission on shipping was given special instructions to inquire into conditions on the west coast of British Columbia.
It is well to get a picture of the types of communities involved and the conditions under which many of them live. Of course we have the great metropolitan area of Vancouver on the mainland. Then there are other cities such as Victoria and Prince Rupert. But along that very indented coastline there are innumerable villages and logging and mining camps, the vast majority of which are dependent upon sea communication for the bringing in of the supplies they need. At least they have been dependent upon sea communications until very recent years. I submit that considerable changes have taken place since this matter was previously discussed in the house in Mr. Neill's time.
In order to give some idea of the kind of shipping and the variety of types of vessels which serve these communities, I should like to give some statistics. From such research as I have been able to carry out I find that there are 54 passenger and freight vessels of a gross tonnage of over 80 tons operating on regular schedules on this coast. That is only one form of shipping. In addition to that, there are some 29 special purpose covered barges of 23,250 deadweight tons and some 310 open scows of 163,200 deadweight tons. They range from 350 tons to 2,000 tons per vessel. There are also some 781 open barges, and 52 towboat companies whose fleet numbers 315 towboats ranging from 100 horsepower to 2,600 horsepower.
That information gives you some idea of the vast amount of shipping there is on the west coast. It also gives you an idea of the range of types of vessels, from tugboats and scows to big steamships, carrying a great quantity of cargo. During 1954-that is the last year for which I obtained any figures-1,209 deep sea vessels entered British Columbia ports. These vessels brought into British Columbia 1,697,168 tons of cargo and exported over 6 million tons. To give some idea of the passenger traffic that is going on, I would point out that during last year in the harbours of Sidney

and Victoria combined, 89,398 cars were handled through customs and the number of passengers handled by the customs in Sidney and Victoria combined amounted to 265,915. I think those figures will give some idea of the volume of shipping and the amount of cargo that must be moved.
There is a considerable difference in the way the steamship companies estimate their charges and the way in which the tugboats estimate their charges and rates for carrying freight. The tugboats sometimes have a flat rate from point to point; sometimes a flat rate within a certain zone, but more usually they quote a daily rate and that depends very largely on the length of the tow and the weather conditions.
Now, the towboat industry has developed greatly during the last five years. The steamship companies are facing very serious competition from these towboat companies. Actually some of the runs which previously were profitable for the steamship companies through the gulf islands and up the west coast of Vancouver island are no longer profitable and the companies are faced with the choice of either reducing their services or operating at a loss.
From the steamship point of view, therefore, the officials of these companies feel that they must have freedom of action in making quotations if they are to maintain the traffic level which exists now. They must also be able to make competitive quotations at very short notice, and any attempt to regulate those quotations made by steamship companies in order to compete with towboat companies would present almost insurmountable difficulties.
Then, in addition to the freight and passenger traffic carried by water a new element has entered into the problem, and that is the large number of passengers and freight now carried by the air lines. A lot of freight is carried not only by T.C.A. but the other air line companies operating on the west coast. There is a continual stream of passengers being carried by the air lines. In considering the whole situation, it would be unfair to regulate the rates being charged for freight and passengers on vessels and not impose similar regulations to affect the movement of passengers and freight by air.
It seems to me that if this bill to amend the Transport Act carries, we have to go very much further than is indicated by the bill at the present time. Even if it applied to goods and passengers moving between ports and places on the west coast the smaller vessels would be excluded, and that would mean that many of the towboats, scows,

barges, etc. would be able to operate without any limitation. It should, therefore, not only apply to vessels which are over 100 tons but must be made applicable to this great fleet of smaller craft. If it were made applicable to the smaller craft, then I think it would be impractical to enforce. It must also be applied to passengers and freight being carried by air.
In addition we must remember that Canadian lines and Canadian merchants are in very active competition with the steamship lines and tugboat services from United States ports such as Seattle and elsewhere along the Washington and Oregon coasts. We have vessels from the United States plying between United States ports through Canadian waters to Alaska, and in some cases stopping off at various points along the Canadian coast. I am inclined to think that the competition at present is sufficient to assure equality without introducing further regulations.
I have endeavoured to find out what some of the organizations in my own constituency felt about this matter. I communicated with a number of organizations, some interested and some not biased in any way. I shall not quote what the steamship and tugboat companies have to say, but I think it is interesting to hear the opinion of the chambers of commerce of a couple of small communities.
We are most emphatically opposed to the amendment. We believe that to bring the public carriers by water under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners would greatly hamper our commerce and progress.
4, 1956	3607
Transport Act
That is a letter I received from the Sidney and North Saanich chamber of commerce, and is signed by the president. I have another expression of opinion from the Sooke-Jordan River chamber of commerce, and I am particularly mentioning the small places. This is what the secretary writes in answer to my inquiry as to how that chamber felt:
They feel opposed to the proposed legislation outlined as they think it would be detrimental to free enterprise.
Under these circumstances I would suggest that the mover of this bill consider the advisability of allowing it to stand until the report is received from the royal commission on shipping.
May I call it six o'clock?
On motion of Mr. Pearkes the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: On Monday we shall take second reading of the amendment to the Judges Act; then the house in committee on the Department of Transport Act; then the Canadian Farm Loan Act; then the Industrial Development Bank Act. If they are carried they may be followed, and of this I am not certain, sir, by the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of National Defence.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
«7509-229
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Thatcher: 1.	What was the total number of releases of
non-commissioned personnel during 1955, for the (a) army; (b) navy; (c) air force?
2.	Of those released, how many were of personnel with less than six months' service in the (a) army; (b) navy; (c) air force?
3.	Of the releases in (1), how many were at the end of their first term of service in the (a) army; (b) navy; (c) air force?
4.	How many non-commissioned personnel reached the end of the first term of service during 1955, in the (a) army; (b) navy (c) air force?
5.	What were the total enrolments of noncommissioned personnel during 1955, in the (a) army; (b) navy; (c) air force?
Answer by: Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):
(a)	(b)	(c)1	
7,609	2,401	5,7802	
356	390	6623	
3,521	620	1,9424	
6,975	1,237	6,7315	
5,556	2,808	6,766


WHARFAGE FEES, N.B. AND P.E.I.
Mr. Bell: 1.	Is a wharfage fee charged to fishermen on their lobster cars or crates in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island?
2.	If so, what are the fees and the names and addresses of payees for the last complete year?
Answer by:	Mr. Langlois, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1 and 2. Under the government wharves regulations no side wharfage is payable in respect of Canadian fishing vessels during the first 48 hours at any wharf, and no top wharfage is payable in respect of supplies or equipment for use on a Canadian fishing vessel or such vessel's catch of fish when loaded on or unloaded from the vessel.


D.E.W. AIRLIFT-ACCIDENT STATISTICS
Mr. Hamilton (York West): 1.	How many accidents of all kinds, to aircraft in Canada, were reported in the period from the commencement of the D.E.W. airlift to the date hereof?
2.	How many of the said accidents involved aircraft operating on the D.E.W. airlift?
3.	What were the total number of fatalities from all accidents during the said period?
4.	What number of fatalities occurred from accidents in planes operating on the D.E.W. airlift?
5.	How many planes of Canadian registry were involved in fatal accidents on the D.E.W. airlift?
6.	How many planes of foreign registry were Involved in fatal accidents on the D.E.W. airlift?
Answer by:	Mr. Langlois, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	460 reported.
2.	30 reported.
3.	100 reported.
4.	12 reported.
5.	5 reported.
6.	None reported.
The above figures refer only to civilian aircraft, as statistics as to accidents to military aircraft are not available. The figures given with respect to D.E.W. line airlift relate to accidents which took place while the aircraft were directly engaged in the supply work for the D.E.W. line.


MULTI-ENGINED AIRCRAFT STATISTICS
Mr. Hamilton (York West): 1.	How many multi-engined aircraft of Canadian registry were there in Canada at the time of the commencement of the D.E.W. airlift?
2.	How many multi-engined aireraft of Canadian registry are there in Canada as of this date?
3.	Of any increase in the said aircraft between the dates mentioned above (a) how many of the additional planes were of Canadian manufacture? (b) How many of the additional planes were imported from foreign countries, what was their country of origin and the number in each case?
4.	How many	of	the	said	additional	aircraft
imported into Canada between the dates mentioned above were (a) new aircraft; (b) used aircraft?
5.	How many	of	the	said	additional	aircraft
mentioned above were (a) twin-engine aircraft; (b) larger than twin-engine aircraft?
Answer by:	Mr. Langlois, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	286.
2.	454.
3.	(a) None, (b) 24 from Great Britain, 3 from Italy through U.S.A. agency, 141 from U.S.A.
4.	(a) 39. (b)	129.5.	(a) 121.	(b)	47.
Figures in respect of imported aircraft used in the D.E.W. airlift are as of January 1, 1955, the date generally regarded as the commencement of the D.E.W. airlift.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Regier: What were the payments to each of the directors of the industrial development bank for the calendar year 1955 for (a) salary or other remuneration; (b) expenses?
Answer by: Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of:
Finance):
Not of government record.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Regier: What were the payments to each of the directors of the Bank of Canada for the calendar year 1955 for (a) salary or other remuneration; (b) expenses?
Answer by: Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):
Not of government record. The bylaws of the Bank of Canada provide that "the fee to be paid to a director shall be $150 for attendance at board meetings and the fee to be paid the director who is a member of the executive committee shall be $50 for attendance at meetings of the committee, plus, in each case, $50 for each day in excess of one day which a director is absent from his place of residence in order to attend a meeting".
The governor of the Bank of Canada placed before the banking and commerce committee in 1954 a statement of operating expenses of the Bank of Canada from 1944 to 1953, which shows payments of directors' fees and expenses as follows: -
1944		$ 7,150
1945		 7,250
1946		 6,100
1947		 5,600
1948		 5,800
1949		 5,800
1950		 6,750
1951		 6,700
1952		 7,100
1953		 10,050



ARMED SERVICES


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many probationers from Canadian courts were accepted into the armed forces each year since 1950?
2.	How	many	of	these	successfully completedtheir probationary	term	while serving in the
armed forces?
3.	How	many	parolees	from Canadian penal
institutions were accepted into the armed forces each year since 1950?
4.	How	many	of	these	successfully completed
their parole while serving in the armed forces?
Answer by: Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):
1.	No known probationers have been enrolled.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No known parolees have been enrolled.
4.	Not applicable.
Questions



FOREST INVENTORY SURVEY, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Kirk (Anligonish-: Guysborough):
1.	Is the federal government participating financially with the government of the province of Nova Scotia in a forest inventory survey in Nova Scotia?
2.	If so. what is the basis for sharing costs?
3.	How much money did the federal government contribute in the past fiscal year, and how much to date?
4.	Is the inventory completed?
5.	If not, when will it be completed?
Answer by: Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of
Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Yes.
2.	The basis for sharing the costs is a payment of 50 per cent by the federal government and 50 per cent by the province.
3.	The federal government contributed $121,616 in the fiscal year 1955-56 and a total of $234,261 to date.
4.	No.
5.	It is expected that the inventory will be completed by March 31, 1957, with continuing work after that time being devoted to, keeping the inventory up to date.

 ,	*.f ;'' " "
IThe following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
390.	To provide for advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites, $1,500,000.
391.	To supplement, on approval of treasury board except where less than $1,000 is required, any of the appropriations of the Department of Public Works, $750,000.
392.	To provide for balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years and for which no specific provision is made in the fiscal year 1956-57, $650,000.
393.	Statue of the late Sir Robert L. Borden,
[Stage Direction]
394.	Emergency shelter administration, $1,500.
395.	To provide for the expenses incurred by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in constructing and supervising construction of married quarters, rental housing, schools and related services on behalf of the Department of National Defence, $1,000,000.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
530. To provide for advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 37 of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of housing projects for veterans and for housing projects at Gander, Newfoundland, and at Pembroke, Ontario, for sale or rental, $1,462,000.

[Stage Direction]
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
397. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $976,592.
67509-229i
[Stage Direction]
Monday. May 7, 1956