1956-03-21

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West) presented the first report of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve) presented the first report of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the federal district commission, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two copies in French and in English of a letter addressed on March 19, 1956, by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to the premiers of all the provinces with regard to fiscal matters. Hon. members will probably wish to have these letters printed as an appendix to Hansard, as was done with the previous correspondence on this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to agree to this suggestion of having these documents printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of letters see appendix, page 2484.)



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Follwell: Is any research on cerebral palsy being assisted under the health grants program?


Mr. Robertson:: Yes; assistance is being
given under the national health program to studies being carried on in Winnipeg on the causes of cerebral palsy and its relationship
to premature birth. Special attention is being given to a study of the effect of jaundice on the brain of newborn infants. The information obtained as a result of this research is expected to be extremely useful to doctors in their efforts to develop ways of preventing this serious affliction. In Ontario, other studies are being assisted under the health grants program on the relationship of heredity to cerebral palsy and on the assessment and evaluation of methods of treatment.


LOGGERS SENT TO BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Barnett: 1.	Has the government received a request this year for assistance in a special arrangement to send loggers to British Columbia? If so, from whom was this request received?
2.	Have objections to such a proposal been made to the government? If so, by whom?
3.	What action, if any, has the government taken on this request?


Mr. Gregg:: 1.	No; but in January, 1956, the national employment service cleared to the Atlantic region an order for 100 chokermen for British Columbia in accordance with normal clearance order practice. This order originated in Vancouver.
2.	No record of any such objections.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Lennard: 1.	How many fur pelts were imported into Canada from January 1, to December 31, 1955?
2.	How many of each variety and from what countries were they imported?


TRADE WITH COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
Mr. Holowach: 1.	What was the total value of exports and imports between Canada and any of the following countries: U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, Hungary, communist China and Taiwan, for the calendar years 1954, 1955?
2.	What were the principal items of (a) exports; (b) imports?
3.	Were any of these acquired on a credit basis?
4.	If so, what are the outstanding amounts owing Canada to this date?
5.	How many pounds of aluminum, lead, copper, nickel, have been sent to these countries, during each of the above years?
6.	What was the total value of such shipments?

Motions for Papers
FEDERAL PRINTING CONTRACTS* N.B.

Question No. 308-Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):
1.	How many companies or persons in New Brunswick were awarded contracts or worked on any other basis for the federal government, with respect to printing, in the fiscal years ending March 31, 1953, 1954 and 1955?
2.	What are the names and head offices of the companies or persons and what were the amounts of such contracts or work?


FEDERAL SCHOLARSHIPS TO FOREIGN STUDENTS
Mr. Tustin: 1.	Does any department, agency or crown company of the federal government give scholarships to foreign students?
2.	If so, what are the details?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 31
Mr. Caslleden:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, maps, agreements, proposals and other documents exchanged between the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, to date, relative to the expropriation of land from the Caughnawaga Indian reserve.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I would ask that this motion be transferred to notices of motions'.


Mr. Speaker:: It shall be transferred accordingly.
CAUGHNAWAGA INDIAN RESERVE Motion No. 32-Mr. Castleden:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, maps, agreements, proposals and other documents exchanged between the band council or members of the Indian band of Caughnawaga reserve and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, since April 1, 1955, to date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would make the same request in respect to this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion shall be transferred accordingly.


George Hugh Castleden: May I object to the motion made by the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is not making a motion. He is simply taking advantage of the provisions of standing order No. 47 which says:
All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of ''notices of motions".
Any hon. member of this house may ask that a notice of motion of this kind be so transferred.


Mr. Knowles:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; does not someone have to express a desire for a debate? No one has expressed any such desire.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I express that desire, sir, in both cases.


Mr. Fulton:: Surely it is up to the member who moves the motion to indicate that he desires a debate. Surely the government cannot defeat a desire for papers by the subterfuge of having it transferred to an order for debate which will never be reached.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members find, perhaps, that this procedure is unusual because it has been customary for us to accommodate ourselves and to allow the minister to explain his reasons for opposing the motion. Hon. members will have to bear with me if they insist that I give a ruling. I am sorry; it will not be a periodical lecture but it will be a very unscheduled lecture. However, I am prepared to deal with the point right now.
I have to refer hon. members to the time when standing order 47 was adopted in the session of 1909-10. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in moving the new amendment which is the standing order as it now reads, had this to say to hon. members who complained that it should not be up to the government to decide if a debate be desired and a motion be transferred. Sir Wilfrid Laurier agreed to that suggestion and amended it so it would not read, "If on such motion the government would desire a debate", but would read, "If on such motion a debate is desired". Later some hon. members contended that notices of motion may never be reached. In reply Sir Wilfrid Laurier at that time said this was possible, but it will take that chance. With those comments the new rule 47 as we have it today was adopted.
Now, there have been notices of motion that have been placed on the order paper with no asterisk. It is unusual, but it has happened. I can refer hon. members to one that was placed on the order paper under notices of motion and fully debated, in volume II, April 11, 1921, and the debate appears on pages 1846 to 1851 inclusive. What they attempted to do when they debated the adoption of the standing order was to make a difference as between opposed and unopposed motions. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that there are many notices of motion that go through every day unopposed, so let us make those non-debatable. Later, when he was in the opposition a member moved a motion which was opposed by a minister. I refer hon. members to volume I, 1915, March 3, page 611, where it says that a notice of motion for the production of papers being called, moved by Mr. Ross, the Hon. J. D. Reid, minister of customs, said that it had not been the custom of the department to bring down papers of

this kind. They are always treated as confidential. And he proceeded to give the reason why the motion should not be acceded to. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
If there is objection to the motion it should be transferred to notices of motions for discussion when it comes up again.
Advantage of this provision has been taken in 1922, April 19, Debates, volume I, when Mr. Martell, the hon. member for Hants, asked Mr. Speaker:
Mr. Speaker, I asked that this notice of motion for the production of papers be transferred to the debatable motions, and I understood that an order of the house was issued accordingly. I should like that to be done if possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion will be transferred
accordingly.
Then again, in 1926-hon. members may look at the Journals for Monday, March 15, at page 138-Mr. Stevens took objection to that practice and the Speaker made a ruling which was appealed. It was sustained by the house, and on that very day 10 notices of motions for production of papers were thus transferred to notices of motions at the request of Mr. Boivin and others. I would like to point out to hon. members that in 1926, although the rule had been in effect since 1909, and taken advantage of on certain occasions, Mr. Meighen himself was very much surprised, and he had this to say in asking himself that the motion be transferred. I quote his words at page 1561 of Hansard of March 15, 1926, volume II:
Mr. Speaker, I know of no rule whereby a motion can pass subject to a qualification. Now that we have this new rule that anybody can transfer debatable questions, I think it would be much better to have this motion so transferred.
Later on, in 1938, at the request of the Right Hon. Mr. Howe, a motion moved by Mr. Stevens was transferred, and the text of this motion appears on pages 442 and 443 of the Journals of June 13, 1938. There again, the ruling was appealed and it was sustained by the house.
Perhaps I could refer the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has made some remarks in this connection, to an intervention that he made when a point of order was raised in 1948, (see Debates, volume II, March 10, 1948, page 2073) in which he himself said:
My point of order is that when the Prime Minister goes beyond stating that he is opposed to the passing of the motion, is he not debating it from his side of the question?
Now, it is precisely this point that standing order 47-it used to be 51-intends to meet in the last part. If the minister would like to take advantage of what has been our custom with respect to opposed motions, he could simply stand up and say: "The
Standing Order No. 47 government cannot accept this motion", and proceed to give briefly the reason; but if it is not his intention to do only that, it is his right to take advantage of the standing order as it reads, and which, as hon. members well realize, I cannot change, and I cannot go against the exact wording of the standing order. It is just as clear as this:
All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "notices of motions".
I have no alternative; if any member asks that a motion of this kind with an asterisk be transferred to notices of motions, according to this context, as long as it remains unchanged, I cannot do anything else but stand up and say: "It shall be transferred accordingly", and the Clerk will do whatever is necessary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say a word or two? First of all, I wonder whether the material that you have at hand includes any instances of this being done since 1938? Your Honour quoted a number of instances. I notice you are now shaking your head in the negative. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, if we are confronted with something today that has not happened in the House of Commons for 18 years, it is a matter of considerable significance.
I do not have before me the material you were reading from 1909. I was not very old at that time myself. As I recall it, however, there was some discussion then as to whether this was a device to enable the government to avoid voting on a motion or whether it's purpose was to avoid debate if a private member sought to have debate on the question.
All told, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the matter might be given further study. I think there is something to the point that was suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), that under Your Honour's interpretation of standing order 47 all a cabinet minister has to do is to stand up and say he desires debate when apparently all he wants is to say no. Why should not that end be accomplished simply by having a vote, by obeying the first part of the standing order and deciding the question forthwith?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of what was just said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He expressed some doubt as to the accuracy of my claim that I wanted this subject to be debated. I am not opposing these motions; I do want them to be debated.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, what the minister has said lends force to the point I was about to make. You have referred us, sir, in the

Standing Order No. 47 course of your references, to a number of statements made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and others at the time in 1909 when I gather the rule was changed. I submit to you with the greatest respect that it is a well understood principle that the meaning of a statute or a rule of order has to be taken exclusively from the language of the rule itself and not from what was said about it at the time it was passed. That is a principle of law which I do not think requires any elaboration. Regardless of what Sir Wilfrid Laurier or anyone else may have said-prominent as he and the others were-as to why it was desirable to have this rule, what they said on that score is' not a matter to be considered when we are interpreting the words of the rule itself.
I suggest to you, sir, that this rule as it appears has to be interpreted in the light of its workability and what appears from the words itself it is intended to accomplish, and the relative words are:
All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "notices of motions".
Now, sir, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has just stood up and told us he does genuinely desire debate. I suggest to you that if we accept the minister's words, and if that be the case, then this rule should only be applied under one circumstance and that is that the minister will have the leader of the house say he will now undertake to arrange for debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I say that because the transfer of the motion to notices of motions is to be made only if debate be desired and that rule becomes intelligible only if the house is to interpret it as sensible people: that is to say, we are going to transfer it under circumstances that make debate possible because we really desire debate. In other words, it becomes obvious from considering the words of the rule that it was not intended and should not be interpreted now as being intended to provide the government a device for avoiding both a decision on the motion and a debate on the general question, and if the interpretation which Your Honour is suggesting be given to this rule it becomes a rule which accomplishes both those purposes and most certainly it will not be transferred because debate is desired but simply because debate is not desired and the government wants to avoid assuming its responsibility-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh yes, it wants to avoid its responsibility of passing the motion. Under

those circumstances the rule becomes absurd. I suggest to you that the House of Commons would not adopt a rule which in itself was absurd.
I submit that it is quite clear that if a minister stands up and says, "I do not wish at the moment to oppose this motion but I wish to have it transferred under certain circumstances where debate will be possible," then the rule would be applied and the motion might be transferred. The rule provides two alternatives. One is that the government can oppose the motion by a minister simply stating, "We do not accept the motion." The other alternative is to transfer it if debate be desired. I suggest that that alternative is open only if it can be transferred and will be transferred under circumstances where debate is possible. A logical interpretation of the rule does not permit the government to avoid all its responsibility and avoid debate at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course the hon. member
will realize that it is not up to me to provide opportunities for debate. He has agreed that standing order 47 does two things: it provides for motions to be opposed without debate; we are dealing with a motion which is called upon to be debated. If there is any desire for debate there is nothing in the standing order that authorizes me to provide for debate. That may be requested through the usual channels.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would you permit-


Mr. Speaker:: We are discussing a point of order now; we should not be taking up time for a discussion as to whether time will be provided for debating a certain matter. I submit that I am bound by the wording of standing order 47 as it now reads. I realize that it presents certain difficulties, but I pointed out to the hon. member that even back in 1909 when they adopted it a member pointed out that a motion for the production of papers without asking for debate might be transferred and never reached and Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that it would have to take that chance. See Debates, volume V, April 29, 1909-10, columns 8370 and 8371. The standing order was agreed ito at that time under those circumstances. It has not been taken advantage of very often, but when it has-


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I suggest-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I suggest that Your Honour does have a responsibility of deciding whether or not debate is desired.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have stood up and moved a motion and have stated a certain purpose in that motion. Your Honour has stated that the motion would not achieve or would not be designed to achieve the purpose which I stated I had in mind, but if Your Honour ieels that way then Your Honour rules my motion out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the purpose of the hon. member's argument? The hon. member says he has moved a motion and that I contend that his motion is not moved with the design he has in mind. Am I understanding correctly the purport of his remarks?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am referring to the responsibility on Your Honour to assess the propriety of any motion which is brought before the house. I am not criticizing Your Honour for any application of a rule or a hypothetical rule. As far as I am concerned I am just engaging in a general discussion of your responsibility with respect to the propriety of statements made in connection with rules of order. I submit with deference, but I do so with absolute confidence, that Your Honour when applying this rule must make a decision as to whether or not debate is in fact desired because it seems to me that our whole proceeding would be rendered an absolute folly if an hon. member could stand up or a minister could stand up and say with all outward solemnity, "I desire debate and therefore wish to have this motion transferred", under circumstances where he knows and you know that debate will not be possible. I therefore submit that it is your responsibility in applying this rule, where you have two alternatives before you, to decide whether a minister making a statement is making it under circumstances where his purpose can be accomplished or is making it under circumstances where it will only have the effect of defeating the whole thing and making our rules quite senseless. I submit, sir, that you can never condone the application of a rule in a sense which would defeat the purpose of the house itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I add a supplementary point because I think it is a consideration that did not obtain in 1909. At that time when a notice of motion for production of papers was transferred to notices of motions at least notices of motions stayed on the order paper throughout the balance of the session, and at least there was some possibility of private members' days continuing for an uncertain length of time.
But we have changed the rules since then. We have prescribed that there will be only six private members' Mondays. This coming
Standing Order No. 47 Monday is the sixth and last of those Mondays. In addition, Mr. Speaker, by virtue of standing order 15 (4) we now provide as follows:
Notwithstanding the listing of "notices of motions" as an item of daily business in section (3) of this order, such notices shall not be printed on the order paper after the fifth sitting day following the expiry of Monday as a private members' day.
That means that if the request of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is granted my hon. friend's notice of motion for the production of papers will be transferred to notices of motion, will stay there for five more sitting days after next Monday and will then disappear from the order paper along with all the rest of the notices of motions.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that that change in the picture does call for further consideration on your part. I think Your Honour will appreciate the fact that the request made by the minister at this point takes the house by surprise. Your Honour admits that this has not happened for 18 years. If the result is the course of action that Your Honour suggests then the action of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, which has come without any warning and out of the blue, will mean that, as a result of the changed practice of the house, never again will we have a vote on a motion for the production of papers.
Any time the government wants to agree to such a motion it will agree but any time the government does not want to agree there can be no possibility of a vote because the government will say it wishes the motion transferred. The motion will be transferred as suggested and five sitting days after private members' Mondays are over the motion will disappear from the order paper.
I also ask you this question. What will happen two or three weeks from now if a private member's notice of motion for the production of papers is objectionable to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and he requests that it be transferred to notices of motion? At that time there will be no notices of motion. I have just read you standing order 15 (4), and there will be no notices of motion. So where is it transferred to? It is transferred to the wastepaper basket.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that Your Honour has to consider what is fair in all of this. Your Honour has to consider what has happened when one rule has been changed and another has not. True, standing order 47 reads the same as it did in 1909 but in the meantime there have been other changes, including the change with respect to private members' days, including the change with
2456	HOUSE OF
Standing Order No. 47 respect to what happens to notices of motions after private members' days have expired. I think that the very least Your Honour might do is defer consideration of this matter until all of us have had a chance to give more thought to it.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Kamloops should reflect a little further as to what they have just'been saying. They are now contending that because there is something in a standing order, which should be amended by the house, the responsibility should be placed on me of correcting a situation which is not mine to correct. I had the honour to sit with the hon. members on a committee on procedure and we went into this book from cover to cover. Because we did not find what now may be considered by many hon. members, and possibly by myself, as a loophole, something which should be corrected, do hon. members contend that by virtue of my responsibilities I must, by a ruling, change four lines of a standing order?
The hon. member for Kamloops has said: "It is your responsibility to examine the propriety of a motion." He was referring to standing order 50, and that is true, but I am not analysing the propriety of the motion.
I think the motion moved by the hon. member for Yorkton is quite in order. I am not called upon to make any decision with respect to the propriety of the motion.
But hon. members will have to agree with me that standing order 47, while certainly consideration might be given to a change in it, is absolutely clear to anyone in the way it now reads. It contains these words:
All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "notices of motions".
Hon. members have said that the last instance I can find is in 1938, 18 years ago, but prior to 1938 I would point out that it was 12 years before, in 1926, that a similar incident occurred, and the same request was made ten times on the same day by a minister. His words are to be found at page 1557 of Hansard of March 15, 1926, and are as follows:
I ask that this motion and, in order to save Your Honour reading them, several of the other motions that I will indicate, be transferred.
Then he proceeded to enumerate Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 22 and 23. He was asked to make the request when each one of the motions was called and he did so. My ruling comes after that of Mr. Speaker Lemieux in 1926 and that of Mr. Speaker Casgrain in 1938. I want hon. members to consider this point. From the strictly procedural point of 

view I contend quite sincerely and honestly that my position is unchallengeable. From the practical point of view I suggest that it is up to hon. members to correct the situation and not me.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, you mentioned a moment ago that in your position as Speaker you could not change the meaning of the rules. As a matter of fact, are you not in the position of a judge-


Mr. Harris:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: -upholding the rights
of parliament under your control?


Mr. Speaker:: So far as the arguments that are now being made are concerned. I know that the hon. member is very sincerte, but when hon. members find themselves in a situation where their own standing order is binding them, and perhaps in their view paralysing them, they wish, for various reasons, to put the responsibility on the Speaker of making a ruling which will help them to get around the rule. I cannot do that.
I try as much as possible to avoid these things. Some of my rulings may be unpopular at times but I sincerely try to make them based on authorities, on my predecessors' rulings, and I have quoted enough of them. Perhaps hon. members might consider the Speakers' rulings to which I have referred them and if there is a further occasion when a similar request is made perhaps they might enlarge on their views at that time.
I have listened today to the views of several hon. members. What do we do now with the rule which has always been observed, or is supposed to be observed, that rulings of the Speaker are not debatable? When am I going to draw the line? Are we going to spend the rest of the afternoon in listening to discussion of this matter?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The point has been carefully studied. I looked at it last year. Last year I tried to explain this very point that I am explaining today, much to the surprise of many hon. members. Today I was called upon to make a ruling and I made it. I might say that if some hon. members complain that my statements are too long, they may have a responsibility for that situation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to conclude what I was about to say, I should like to do so. A moment ago you mentioned that you would be placed in a position where-to use words that interpret the movement of your hands which indicated that this was1 your meaning-you would be asked to endeavour to evade the rules as they are. There has been a change

n the rules and the application of them to which reference has been made. If the rule s that a minister may do that which is being attempted in this case, then you, Mr. Speaker, as the custodian of free speech in parliament-
Standing Order No. 47 Mr. Speaker: As I say, I am not sure. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) has appealed the ruling I have just made based on the wording of standing order No. 47. Those who are in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not the minister.
[t is any hon. member. For instance, if the hon. member puts a notice of motion on the order paper and he places an asterisk before it indicating that he does not want any debate, the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) who sits next to the hon. member may stand up and make the same request as did the minister today, and I say it must be transferred accordingly. Why put in my mouth words that I have not uttered? I said, "any member". I will agree with the hon. member that a ruling was made to the effect that a minister was entitled to do that and it appeared in Mr. Lemieux's ruling in 1926 that no other member was allowed to do so. But I disagree with that ruling. I say that if a notice of motion for the production of papers is moved, and if it is the intention not to have a debate on it because the member placed an asterisk before it, then if any other member of this house-no matter where he sits, or whether he be a cabinet minister or not-asks that the motion be transferred I say that, according to the clear wording of this rule 47, I have no alternative but to say that the motion be transferred accordingly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that does not intimidate me.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. gentleman wish to appeal my ruling?


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to discuss with the house and with yourself-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to appeal my ruling? That is his right.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, absolutely. Otherwise parliament is stultified.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether or not the remarks that were just made were captured by Hansard as I heard them. I want to tell the hon. gentleman right now that I am not going to depend on my hearing on this occasion. I will wait until tomorrow to look at Hansard. But if the remark is as I think I heard it, I may tell him that he might consider having to withdraw it.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is on an appeal from the Speaker's ruling. Mr. Castleden had moved a motion for the production of papers, which is No. 32 on the order paper. Mr. Pickersgill asked that the motion be transferred to notices of motion, and I ruled that the motion should be transferred accordingly. A point of order was raised and I based my ruling on standing order 47, the latter part of which reads:
"All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of notices of motions."
I ruled that any member of the house may avail himself of the provisions of this standing order to ask that a motion be transferred from notices of motions for the production of papers to notices of motion. From this ruling, Mr. Diefenbaker has appealed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the Speaker's ruling sustained. This motion will be transferred accordingly.



NEW ROSS, N.S.  POST OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 39-Mr. Nowlan:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other communications exchanged between the Postmaster General or any official of the Post Office Department, and any other person or persons, during the year 1955, concerning the post office at New Ross, in the county of Lunenburg, province of Nova Scotia, and the appointment of postmaster thereat.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Johnston (Bow River):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged, during the past two years, between the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and Banff parks superintendent and/or other citizens, relating to the erection of gondola chair lift to the summit of Sulphur mountain in the Banff national park.
Mr. Lesage:: The motion reads in part as follows:
For a copy of all correspondence . . . exchanged, during the past two years, between the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and Banff parks superintendent . . .
I submit, sir, that these exchanges are privileged. I could not agree to this part of the motion. I have no objection to the remainder.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, it does seem to me that some of the correspondence which is exchanged between the park superintendent and the department is not departmental correspondence in the sense that you have the department here.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, since in the circumstances I wish to debate the motion, I ask that it be transferred to notices of motions.


Mr. Speaker:: It is transferred accordingly.


Mr. Fleming:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I make a submission to you with respect to the decision that I understood you just announced at the request of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources? Assuming that the ruling you made on the last motion before the house is
correct-and I cannot reopen or discuss it____
I do submit to you that if any request is to be made within the terms of the standing order on which you relied for your ruling,

it must be made at the outset and immediately, and not after the minister has made a different type of claim to take advantage of the position he is taking that the papers should not be produced. My submission to you is that if the minister rises and claims privilege and says the papers should not be produced he has no right then afterwards to say: "Well, I am going to ask that this be debated." Under these circumstances, my respectful submission to you, sir, is that that type of claim must be made by the objecting minister immediately and before he launches on any other statement or takes any other position on a motion for production of papers.


Jean Lesage: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-I will take only one minute-I objected to part of the motion as being a request for privileged documents. The hon. member for Bow River then rose in his place and started to debate the question. This question is not debatable. In order to provide him with an opportunity to debate it, since he wants to debate it, I expressed my wish to debate it. That is the reason I asked that the motion be transferred to notices of motion.


Mr. Speaker:: As a matter of fact this is precisely the reason why the last part is in standing order 47. If we were to carry the provisions of standing order 47 to their strict interpretation, the minister should not be allowed to give reasons why he opposes the motion. This is the point which was raised precisely by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when one day Mr. King explained why he was opposed to a motion. He had obtained a written opinion from the then clerk of the house, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said (see Debates, volume II, March 10, 1948, page 2073) something to this effect: If it is not debatable when it is placed with an asterisk on the order paper, should the Prime Minister be allowed to elaborate on his reasons why he is opposed to the motion? To quote his words, he said:
On a similar motion a moment ago Your Honour ruled that it was not debatable. Would that not also cover remarks made by the Prime Minister?
The hon. member said that himself in 1948.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Let us not have another long discussion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, you have read twice from words which I used in 1948. Your Honour has not read the rest of it. It does not at any point quote me as asking that the notice of motion for production of papers be transferred to notices of motion. The only point I was making was that if a private 67509-156
Standing Order No. 47 member is not allowed to debate one of these motions, the Prime Minister should not be allowed to debate it either. That is the whole point in what I said in 1948. I do not think Your Honour should try to put me on the other side of the issue that is now before us.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say to the hon. member immediately that he was never of the opinion that the motion should be transferred, and he never said that; but he did in fact indicate what is in my view the reason why it has been put in this standing order that a notice of motion which is to be debated goes to the notices of motion. It is to provide an opportunity to the minister to further explain his reason why he is opposed, and, in fairness, to give the hon. member the chance of rebuttal as to why in his view the motion should go unopposed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I continue for just a moment? Your Honour has referred to the strict interpretation of the standing order. The strict interpretation that I was trying to obtain in 1948 was that if debate was not allowed to one side it should not be allowed to the other.
With regard to the latter part of standing order 47, may I invite Your Honour's consideration of citation 6 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition?


Mr. Speaker:: I know that one by heart.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You and I know it by heart, but there are other members of the house who may not. It reads:
In the interpretation of the rules or standing orders the house is generally guided, not so much by the literal construction of the orders themselves as by the consideration of what has been the practice of the house with respect to them.
I submit that the practice of this house for as long as both you and I have been here, indeed for 18 years, should be considered in making decisions with respect to matters of this kind.


Mr. Speaker:: May I submit to the hon. member, and to all hon. members, that the practice of the house is not changed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: No; it has been customary for the house, on a motion which is not debatable, to allow a minister summarily to give his reason why he is opposed. It has been customary-


Mr. Lennard:: He did that today.


Mr. Speaker:: That practice is not changed. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources did precisely that today. I did not object. Nobody objected.

Standing Order No. 47 The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) probably wanted to give some reason why he disagreed with the minister and the motion was being debated. The minister said that if debate is desired he would ask to have the motion transferred to notices of motion. What I want to tell hon. members is that what is happening in this case is not that we are changing our practice under standing order 47. What has happened today is that two ministers have taken advantage of the provision which is in standing order 47 and which has not been taken advantage of very often in this house but when it is taken advantage of-with the rule book in my hands, what can I do?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker-


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


George Alexander Drew: I have the floor, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Minister of Finance.


Frank Exton Lennard: Oh, gosh, there he goes again.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if at this time I could make a suggestion which would be agreeable to both the hon. member for Bow River and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are you discussing a point of order?


Walter Edward Harris: I am speaking to a point of order. As I understand it, on this particular motion for papers I am sure neither hon. gentleman actually wanted to take the house's time on this point to explain why or why not the statement made by the minister was correct with respect to certain correspondence. If they would just let this motion stand and perhaps exchange their own views they might be able to agree that certain communications are in fact privileged and therefore that would not be a part of the motion when it came before the house. Under those circumstances we could then avoid the question of whether or not this particular motion would be debatable and no doubt my hon. friend in the end would receive all the papers he desires to have if the motion could be adopted in that manner.


Frank Exton Lennard: That is not a point of order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this now is a matter before the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would allow the hon. member for

Bow River, who is the mover of this motion, to say whether or not he agrees with the suggestion.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the suggestion made by the Minister of Finance.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, of course I do agree; it was my first suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion will stand.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, will Your Honour declare whether a motion that has been called can be withdrawn without the consent of the house?


Walter Edward Harris: It is not being withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not being withdrawn; it is merely being allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: That was the suggestion made by the Minister of Finance and that is the suggestion to which the hon. member for Bow River has agreed. It is easy to clarify the situation.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Speaker, were not the former motions requested to stand as well? I understand that my hon. friend, the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), did ask that the two motions be allowed to stand and that that privilege was not granted.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that I understood the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did suggest that the motions be allowed to stand in order for me, I take it, to give some further consideration to my judgment. It is not up to me to suggest that a motion be allowed to stand. If someone on the government side had suggested it, it would have been a different proposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that the difference, Mr. Speaker, whether the request comes from this side or the government side?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am quite serious; I made the request in the other case, but Your Honour went ahead and ruled. In this instance the request is being made and Your Honour is granting it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows as well as anyone else that I do not move any motion in the house. When a motion is moved it is frequently asked that it be allowed to stand and I will let a motion stand on my own responsibility only when the mover is not here and nobody has been authorized to move the motion in his absence.
I do think that subject to general approval it has been customary for Speakers to do-

that. But when a motion is moved and I propose it from the chair it is not up to me to ask that it be allowed to stand. I did not accede to the request of the hon. member to consider further the remarks I had to make because I felt that I was just as prepared to deal with the point now as I would be tomorrow. If I had wanted to accede to his request I could not have said "This motion will stand". Even if I were to ask that, the house could say no. Motions do not stand at my request; the hon. member knows that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, there is no agreement that this motion stand. The motion has been called and the minister rose to say that these documents were privileged. Obviously the purpose of stating that was that he felt this motion should not be dealt with.


Walter Edward Harris: In part.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He did not say, "in part".


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, he did.


George Alexander Drew: Then when the hon. member indicated his desire to proceed the minister said he wanted this debated. That is making a farce of these rules.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I will not be accused of making a farce of the rules without rising in my seat to state the facts as they are. I objected to a part of the motion. The hon. member for Bow River stood up in his seat and started to debate the point I had raised.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, I did not.


Jean Lesage: I got up and said that if the hon. member for Bow River wanted to debate the point I would make the motion for transfer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was an afterthought.


Mr. Speaker:: We have had some business announced for today. I do not think the house would want to take any more time in dealing with these technical points on procedure. May I suggest that the following course be followed: The minister on his own responsibility felt that he could not accede to a part of the motion of the hon. member. The hon. member who has moved the motion is in this position. If he wants to have his motion remain as it is, it is evident that it will be opposed. If he wants to agree to have it amended, unanimous consent must be given. If unanimous consent is not given the question will then have to be put because the motion is proposed from the chair.
Coming to the point raised by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming)-
Standing Order No. 47


Donald Methuen Fleming: On which I would like to say another word, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will not feel required to say anything more because I am inclined to agree with him to a certain extent. I want to look at the point further. I am inclined to agree that when the minister rose he could have asked that the motion be transferred if he wanted a debate right there and then, but having taken the other course, which was the course provided in the first part of standing order 47, that he opposed the motion and therefore it should be disposed of forthwith, I do not think he can come back later and say that he wants to have a debate. I think he should have made up his mind right at the beginning. There is something in what the hon. member for Eglinton has pointed out to me which is striking. It strikes me as perhaps being the correct interpretation. I think the hon. gentleman has a good point there. What I suggest is that the minister either withdraw his request to have the motion transferred or, if he does not, I will tell him immediately that I will have to rule against him on that score.


Jean Lesage: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it was agreed the motion would stand.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Jean Lesage: I opposed the motion in part.


Mr. Speaker:: We have to give a certain amount of protection to the hon. member for Bow River. Knowing that his motion is opposed in part, is the hon. member prepared to have his own motion as a whole opposed, or does he wish to have his motion amended?


Charles Edward Johnston: I will be satisfied to abide by the regulation dealing with communications, telegrams, etc., to be produced so long as they are not confidential because I am quite sure that if I had asked for it the other way I would not get anything.


Mr. Speaker:: In other words, the motion is carried subject to the reservation indicated by the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, the motion moved by the hon. member for Bow River is in the possession of the house and as such I submit it cannot be withdrawn or amended except with the consent of the house. That consent has not been given. Personally I have deep objection to the giving of consent, for this reason. If we do it it would mean that motions moved by different hon. members for the same purpose, namely to get information, would be given different treatment. I do not think that that is something to which this house should consent. It may be that ministers are changing their minds because
2462	HOUSE OF
Standing Order No. 47
they see the error of their ways, and I hope so, but I do not think it is proper for this house-


Mr. Speaker:: On the point raised by the hon. member for Kamloops, the motion is in the possession of the house and cannot be amended unless by unanimous consent. I should like to point out to him that it has been our practice-this is an unwritten rule perhaps-and I would refer him to the citation read by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a moment ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would refer Your Honour back to it in your turn.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but my knowledge of English is not so refined that I can grasp all the flavour of the hon. gentleman's remarks. Citation 6 is to the effect that rules should not be interpreted literally. There is a distinction between a standing order which is clear and something about which the Speaker may be called upon to give an interpretation. At this moment we are dealing with general principles regarding motions. The motion before the house is in the possession of the house and I understand that the mover is ready to agree to its passing with the amendment suggested by the minister. It has been customary for the house to give its consent to that sort of proposal. If the hon. member objects, and I take it that he does, all I can do is put the motion.
Those who are in favour of this motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members. I beg your pardon, there were only two members who rose. Now I see five; call in the members.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: I said, call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



KENT COUNTY-HUNTING AND FISHING

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47-Mr, Murphy (Lambion Wesl):
For a copy of all agreements and leases, from 1947 to date, between any department of the federal government and all lessees of Indian lands or other lands and waters in the county of Kent, particularly concerning fishing and hunting privileges and rights, and for a map or maps showing such leased areas.
He said: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this particular motion may I say that I have discussed the contents with the minister and I am asking that it be dropped in order that it may be reworded.
An hon. Member:: We cannot hear a word.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Do some hon. members say no? May I point out to hon. members that this question has not been proposed from the chair yet. It is not in the possession of the house. If the hon. gentleman wishes to have his motion amended before it is proposed from the chair, it is his right to go to see the clerk of notices and orders and amend it. I do not think he was obliged to bring the request to the house. The motion is dropped.
(Translation) :

Inquiries of the Ministry parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport. Could he tell the house whether he is acquainted with an agreement between the national harbours board and the Three Rivers Grain and Elevator Company concerning the construction of silos and of grain elevators at the Three Rivers harbour at a cost of about two million dollars, such costs to be spread over two years?


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Champlain for having given me notice of his question. I congratulate him on the interest he takes in the Three Rivers harbour.
The national harbours board informs me that the Three Rivers Grain and Elevator Company which owns and operates a grain elevator on land leased to it by the board has made known its intention, some time ago, of enlarging its premises so as to increase its capacity by approximately two million bushels, as well as to construct other facilities. The company has rented the land required for this project the plans for which are subject to the board's approval. Since this is a private undertaking, I feel that any statement regarding the estimated cost of the project should be made by the company itself.


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to put to the Minister of Transport. What is the contribution of the Department of Transport or the national harbours board to this undertaking?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I think that if the hon. member had listened carefully to the answer I have just given to the hon. member for Champlain, he would have found the answer to his question.
(Text):



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance tell the house when the gold mining communities may expect to learn the government's views about the further extension of emergency gold mining assistance?



REPORTED CONSTRUCTION OF GRAIN ELEVATORS AT THREE RIVERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. I. Rochefort (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the


Walter Edward Harris: My understanding is that the present gold mining subsidy does not run out until the end of this current year. Government policy will be made known in due course.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Daniel Roland Michener: Would the minister say that "in due course" meant within the period of this session?


Walter Edward Harris: I do surprising things occasionally, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Where is the resolution respecting the bill to amend the Income Tax Act forecast in the minister's speech last night?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is not completed yet but it will be distributed very shortly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? When that resolution is distributed, will it indicate whether convention expense deductibility will extend to delegates attending trade union conventions?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that we wait until the resolution is distributed in order to find out what is in it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the budget resolutions are usually tabled on the night the minister makes his budget speech. The income tax resolution was not tabled last night. His speech refers to it. I think we are entitled to know what is involved in this proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. gentleman contend that we ought to spend time now, when in reply to his question the minister has said that the resolution will be distributed shortly, in order to have him tell us what is in it? I do not think that is the purpose of question time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence in connection with the last paragraph of the statement he made yesterday and the first answer, he gave to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) ? Does the presumption that he made that the United States contractor would undertake the manning and operating of the D.E.W. line apply as well to the mid-Canada line? In reading the two together, it would seem that
fMr. Harris.]
his answer was that the United States contractor would operate and man both of those lines.


Mr. P. T. Hellyer (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to leave that implication.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Defence Production happens to be handling the negotiations for the operating of the mid-Canada line. I may say that it will certainly be operated under a contract with a Canadian contractor and manned by Canadians.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the Prime Minister whether he is ready to answer the questions I asked yesterday on the manning of the distant early warning lines.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. It will take some days to look at several things that might be considered as similar though not at all of the same importance in the general picture.


George Randolph Pearkes: Might I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question? In looking over those regulations would he give consideration to the possibility of the application of the Visiting Forces Act to those personnel of the United States contractor?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will take note of the hon. gentleman's question and see whether it can be fitted into the information I will be obtaining in order to answer the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with the matters already dealt with. Can he say whether or not there is full protection for Canada's sovereignty in the erection and the manning of the D.E.W. line? Second, can he say whether the action of the Governor General in flying over that area and dropping his standard is a reassertion of Canada's sovereignty and is designed as such?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
think any reassertion of Canada's sovereignty was required, but I think it is a demonstration to the whole world of the fact that that is territory within Canadian sovereignty. In all these negotiations we have been very careful to consider what the repercussions might be about the extent of Canadian sovereignty and the necessities of the real situation, to have an effective joint operation conducted for the benefit of both Canada and the United States.



INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say what progress is being made in the current negotiations for a new international wheat agreement and whether, from the reports he receives, he is hopeful one may be signed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can give no progress report. The negotiations are proceeding in camera and all I can say is that they are still in progress.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

Walter Edward Harris: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $528,819,279.84 being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1957, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and in addition thereto, a sum not exceeding $479,979.00, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of items 197, 199, 202, 203, and a sum not exceeding $714,781.42, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 15, 425, 426, of the said estimates be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1957.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Does the minister give the usual undertaking in this case?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I give the usual undertaking that the passing of this motion will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize or discuss any item in the estimates which will come up for consideration from time to time during the balance of the session, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Walter Edward Harris: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year
Interim Supply
ending March 31, 1957, the following sums be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely:
1.	The sum of $528,819,279.84, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1957; and
2.	The sum of $479,979.00, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of items 197, 199, 202, 203 of the said estimates;
3.	The sum of $714,781.42, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 15, 425, 426 of the said estimates;
as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 206, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1957.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: When shall this bill be read a second time; now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On schedule A.
Stanley Howard Knowles: In connection with schedule A, I should like an explanation of the wording. Can the minister explain the phrase, "including share of the former printing of parliament"? It appears twice in schedule A, once in item 199 and once in item 202.


Walter Edward Harris: I must be frank and say I cannot explain it, unless it is that we have accounts outstanding at the moment that have been held over. I must say that the explanation for this wording was not drawn to my attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister will get an explanation for some future occasion.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: When shall this bill be read a third time; now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.

Supply-Agriculture


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Health of animals-
S3S. To provide for payment of compensation to owners of animals affected with diseases coming under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, which have died or have been slaughtered in circumstances not covered by the above act and regulations made thereunder, and to provide for payments to owners for loss of cattle during treatments for immunization against hemorrhagic septicaemia, and sheep and goats that reacted to tuberculin tests, all as detailed in the estimates, $2,304.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: This is an item dealing with the health of animals, and I wondered whether the Minister of Agriculture would take the opportunity to inform the house about the serious outbreak of scrapies, a disease in connection with sheep, in Alberta. I understand that there has been quite an outbreak and, as a result of the fact that some of these sheep have been shipped to certain fairs in other provinces, there is likelihood of a further outbreak. I think the minister should give assurance to the house that steps have been taken by the health of animals branch for the careful supervision of this disease so that it will not break out in other flocks in other provinces.
Since press reports indicate that considerable compensation is to be paid in respect of one particular farmer, I should like the minister to give some information to the committee to show what has been done in that respect. If he can indicate the amount of compensation paid per animal, and what the total amount is likely to be, I might have something further to say.


Walter Edward Harris: Just before the Minister of Agriculture makes his statement, may I point out that there is nothing in this item relating to the outbreak of scrapie. This amount is for the payment of animals slaughtered. It is a small amount of money having to do with certain animals that died under circumstances as set out in the resolution, and is merely to bring up to date the amount which was voted last year. Normally on this occasion one does not debate something of the future. It is a principle which has been adopted by parliament that this particular vote should be paid to various persons concerned.
If my hon. friend goes along with me I am sure he would prefer to debate the other point on the normal agricultural items at another time.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, there is a certain urgency to the information. There have been many press reports on the matter, and it would be beneficial to hon. members if the minister would see fit to give this information at this time. I realize that this item has to do with another branch of the Department of Agriculture. In view of the public interest in the matter, it would be well if the minister would give us some information.


Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Chairman, the matter on which the hon. member has based his question is not covered by these estimates at all. There is no item here covering those particular sheep.


Edward George McCullough: I realize that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that this is the time to discuss it, in any case. There is certainly no further information that can be given other than that which has already been given to the house. The matter is being discussed with the breeder in Alberta who is affected, and a decision has not yet been reached.


Mr. Quelch:: Can the minister define the basis upon which compensation is paid, first of all for commercial stock and, second, for purebred stock, not necessarily in regard to scrapie but any disease?


James Garfield Gardiner: The general position, of course, is that there are certain payments made on different kinds of livestock based upon whether they are grades or whether they are purebreds. Of course, this particular herd of sheep were all purebreds and of the highest quality of purebreds. The matter is under negotiation between officials of the department and the breeder concerned. There is no definite basis upon which it can be dealt with, because there would not be sufficient paid if you were to just put it at so much per head in accordance with the other regulations.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister this question. Under what section of the act or under what item of the estimates will compensation be paid for this particular flock of sheep? As the minister said, this is an extremely well known and very valuable flock. I have seen them at the Calgary exhibition on numerous occasions. There is a very considerable amount of

interest in the province of Alberta, and I should think in other parts of Canada, particularly amongst sheep breeders, as to what the compensation is going to be in this case, and the provision for payment. I had thought probably the provision for payment would have been made in these supplementary estimates, and that was the question I had in mind to ask from the start. I had intended to ask how this was going to be provided for, since I noticed it was not here.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it will be provided for out of the estimates. I do not think it is possible to make the payment before this financial year ends. It will have to be provided for in votes for the next financial year, not for this one. These are further supple mentary estimates for this financial year. It will be in the June supplementaries. That is where it will come in.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The point is this. These sheep have been killed in the year we are now discussing. They have been done away with in this year; therefore I would have thought provision would have been made for them in this year. I would hope there would not be any difficulty in providing for the compensation next year, because the sheep have been killed this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Payment is not made this year, and the settlement is not yet made. I do not think it will be completed before the end of March. For that reason it will not be paid this year. The money will have to be voted in the supplementaries next year.


Edward George McCullough: Can
the minister indicate whether this disease is infectious or contagious? According to press reports, sheep from this particular flock have been shipped to various places, and there is some indication that it is an infectious disease and not purely hereditary. Can the minister indicate what his department has done with respect to confining the disease to this particular flock?


James Garfield Gardiner: All the sheep that have been sold by Mr. Rock over the months there was any suspicion of any disease in the flock at all have been checked right down to the people who bought them. The flocks have been checked, and there is no indication that any disease has been carried anywhere except into the flock where it was found down in the state of Massachusetts, near Boston; somewhere around there. They were the first sheep that showed suspicion of the disease. It was checked back to Mr. Rock's herd. All other sheep that have been sold in the meantime have been checked right through. The 67509-157
Supply-Agriculture
disease is largely carried through the breeding. It is not carried so much in any other way.


Edward George McCullough: Can the
minister give an assurance that no sheep from this particular flock have been shown at any fairs subsequent to the determination that there was scrapie in the flock?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I can give the assurance because they were all killed and buried, just as were the animals that had foot-and-mouth disease. The animals have been slaughtered, so there is no possibility of any further movement. To go back to the beginning-the sheep that had scrapie apparently were imported from Britain, and since the time these sheep were imported into the flock every animal that has gone out of the flock to anywhere has been checked right through to the flock where it went, and no sign of any scrapie has been found in those flocks. Therefore, so far as one can say, while I cannot give any assurance that none of it will break out anywhere, I can give assurance that the United States inspectors and our own are in touch with every flock to see that if it does break out the flock is immediately destroyed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Before this discussion goes any further perhaps I should point out to the committee that what we are dealing with today are the supplementary estimates for the year which ends 10 days from today. I do not think I would be carrying out my duty if I were to let the discussion carry on in this way. The purpose of these supplementary estimates is to decide whether the commitments of some of the departments shall be taken care of now. I can assure hon. members-and I think they will agree with me-that the widest form of discussion can take place at the time the main estimates are under discussion.
I would point out to hon. members that we have before us a few isolated items for some of the departments; and though I have no desire to stop hon. members from bringing to the attention of the minister some things which hon. members consider to be vital and emergent-perhaps it was my mistake-yet I think we should restrict our questions to the items that are actually before the committee at the present time, and why the money is needed or why it is not. Because we happen to have an item dealing with sums payable to certain farmers in Ontario and Quebec, I think is hardly an excuse to enter into a discussion as to what we are going to do about paying compensation to some similar group of farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan in the next fiscal year. With those thoughts in mind I hope the committee will co-operate.
2468	HOUSE OF
Supply-Agriculture


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, I would like to co-operate with you, of course. I believe this item has to deal with the immunization of sheep and goats and of course-


Walter Edward Harris: No, no. It has to do with
the payment of losses for particular animals, not for the animals my hon. friend was talking about at all.


Edward George McCullough: I quite agree they are not the particular sheep I am discussing; nevertheless it should be understood by the committee that the general policy of the health of animals branch toward immunization and the policy of the government with respect to the health of animals throughout the country would of course have an effect in any part of the dominion.
We have had the experience of the foot-and-mouth disease. In some way or other it was brought into this country and we suffered severe losses, particularly in western Canada. The minister has told us that apparently this disease was brought in by a flock of sheep which came from outside the country; namely, I think, from Great Britain.
I was wondering what policy is followed in respect of these animals coming to Canada. Apparently they have come from outside the country. They got into this important purebred flock, and for a number of years these sheep were shown at various fairs throughout the country. It has meant that we have had to take out of the treasury certain amounts of money for compensation. According to the press I understand that it will amount to over $100,000.


Walter Edward Harris: 


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think the hon. member is really putting himself out of order, because the amount it is going to cost is $2,304, and that is the amount we are discussing today. Shall the item carry?


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, before that item is passed I should like to ask a question. Some of the cost regarding scrapie was no doubt incurred last year. Since scrapie appeared in a flock of sheep in the United States, no doubt many inspections have been made by the department.


James Garfield Gardiner: That could be discussed on my general estimates, which will be up in a few days.


Victor Quelch: This is a question I would like to have answered, because I have received many inquiries about it. There is a great deal of concern about this matter. Sheep from this flock have been shipped all over the dominion, and carloads have been shipped
[The Deputy Chairman.]

down to the United States. From the information given in the press I gather that this disease is mainly transferred through breeding. The stock that has been shipped has all been breeding stock. You could not have a better way of spreading the disease than has been provided by the process of shipping this breeding stock across the country.
We are also informed it may take two years before the disease develops. Every individual who has obtained stock from this flock may find that scrapie will break out in his flock at any time within the next two years. Breeders are very much concerned about this. We are glad to have the assurance of the minister that every breeder who has obtained stock from this farm will be kept in close touch with the department and that his flock will be inspected, I presume from time to time, to insure that scrapie does not break out.
I understand that you can have this disease in your flock but you might not recognize it until it is in the advanced stage, when the sheep start to become paralysed or fall off in condition and begin scraping themselves against posts. I suppose that is why it is called scrapie. Could; we have the minister's assurance that this is being checked?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have already given you my assurance.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a number of questions to the minister. On page 10 there is an item of $173 to Canada Packers Limited, Toronto, Ontario. Does that cover sheep which had been transported across the country, or was it something that developed in the yards? I should like to have the details of this item.


Walter Edward Harris: The bill I have before me does not have a page 10 but I will take my hon. friend's word for it.


William Scottie Bryce: I am referring to page 10 of the supplementary estimates.


Walter Edward Harris: The item for Canada Packers?


William Scottie Bryce: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: One animal at $173.


William Scottie Bryce: It was not a sheep or a hog. It was a cattle beast?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, it was a cattle beast.


William Scottie Bryce: How come they get compensation for that?


Walter Edward Harris: Sometimes they are slaughtered just after having been tested in the normal way. For some reason or other the tests may not have detected the disease, but on the

animal being slaughtered we make a point of paying compensation if, on inspection, there is T.B.


Hazen Robert Argue: The heading in the details shows that part of the payment is for animals slaughtered in circumstances not covered by the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. I understood the minister to say that the test is made on the carcass, and if the animal is shown to have the disease payment is then made. Apparently it is for diseases other than those found in animals slaughtered under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. I wonder if the compensation in this item is for one disease in the main, and if so, what the disease happens to be?


Walter Edward Harris: There are actually four different classes. There is the animal that was slaughtered at the abattoir and was found contaminated. There are those which react to the test but died before they could be slaughtered in the abattoir. In theory under the regulations they do not get paid, but we pay them in any event. There are a number of animals. I think it was a total of something like 18 or 19, coming to a figure of $1,509, the largest single item being $199 and then a number of other items totalling nine in number and coming to a figure of $795. Just to read one explanation, it says, "Slaughtered for beef and carcass condemned for tuberculosis." Another one I see says, "Steer died while under observation". It is that type of thing.


Edward George McCullough: Could the minister tell the committee if any of these animals came from T.B. restricted areas?


Walter Edward Harris: No. There is no note here to indicate that, but as I have all the names and addresses I could have it checked and let the hon. member know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
540.	Freight assistance on western feed grains- further amount required, $500,000.
Mr. Brooks:: I should like to ask one question regarding this item. I assume this is for freight assistance on western grain going to the eastern provinces?


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Could the minister tell us just how much is assigned to each area?


Walter Edward Harris: There is no particular area, Mr. Chairman. As everyone knows, we subsidize feed grain coming from the west to Ontario and down to the Atlantic provinces. This is merely an amount to make up the 67509-1574
Supply-Agriculture
vote of last year, which was $15,500,000. We found that we ran out of money because a little more grain came down than was expected, and this is the further amount required. Some goes to other provinces, but it is not a case of allocating it. It is a case of paying the bills as they come in upon receipt of the shipments.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How do the quantities and the payments compare with the previous year?


Walter Edward Harris: It is heavier this year both from the point of view of the amount of money being paid and the amount of grain coming down. I think you will find there was not much of a grain crop in the east last year, generally speaking. It was all right, but it was not as heavy as the year before. That accounts for the miscalculation, although there has been a heavy movement to all provinces.


Daniel Roland Michener: Has the minister the number of bushels that were moved? It would be interesting to know just how many bushels have been moved through the assistance of this subsidy, which will now amount to $16 million.


Walter Edward Harris: I just have the monthly
amounts which run from April and May, 1 * 8 million; June, 1-4 million; July, 900,000; then they run 1*3, 1-5, 1-7, 1-4. There will be a heavier run in February and March.


Daniel Roland Michener: Is the subsidy paid on the basis of so much a bushel?


Walter Edward Harris: So much per ton and on various bases for Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes.


Daniel Roland Michener: Depending on the length of haul.


Hazen Robert Argue: We in this group are certainly prepared to support this item, under which the government pays a subsidy on the shipment of western feed grains to feeders in other provinces. We regret that the rate of payment was reduced last year and we recall that at that time the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other farm organizations protested very strongly at the reduction which was then made effective.
There is always an argument as to who is the main beneficiary from this type of subsidy, but I think it is generally agreed that the feeders of western grains would suffer considerably if the subsidy were removed. Certainly as long as it is maintained it does assist in providing a market for western feed grains. I imagine that the subsidy does in fact benefit both the producer of feed grains and the feeders who obtain the grains with a subsidy on the freight.

Supply-A gricultufe
As I said, we were sorry last year when the government decided to reduce the rate.
I imagine it is because of that reduction in the rate that the item in the estimates was reduced from $17 million the year before to $15-5 million. If my information is correct, and I think it is, we voted a year ago a further supplementary of $2 million to the $17 million, bringing the total up to $19 million. The further supplementary item which we are being asked to vote at this time is for $500,000.
In other words, in addition to the reduction which took place in the supplementary estimates from $17 million to $15-5 million, a decrease of $1-5 million, there has been a further decrease from the supplementary item a year ago of from $2 million to $500,000. I may be wrong, but it appears to me that there will be a reduction in the amount paid under this subsidy, not only of $1-5 million in the main estimates but of a further $1-5 million in the supplementary estimates, or a total reduction of $3 million.
I should like an explanation of this further reduction in the supplementary item as compared with a year ago. I ask this question. Has there been a further reduction in the rate of subsidy on the shipment of feed grain?


Walter Edward Harris: No, there has been no reduction since the announcement was made a year ago February. That announcement was made at a time which would give my hon. friend an opportunity to debate the new rate. I have a distinct recollection that he did so. I can only add that the principle on which we are paying is precisely the principle on which the main item was carried last spring.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister give the main reason for the reduction in this supplementary item? Has there been a reduction in the amount of grain being moved, particularly in view of the statement that there had been a crop failure in many parts of eastern Canada?


Walter Edward Harris: Of course this is the kind of question my hon. friend would like me to answer just in the form in which we have to answer it. He knows perfectly well that the reason for the reduction in the amount of the subsidy is the reduction in the rate. As I said before, there was a greater demand for feed grains in eastern Canada. There has been a reduction in the vote of $3 million for the twelve-month period. That is the actual reduction, as the hon. member has said, and it stems from the fact that the rate of the subsidy was in fact reduced by the government last year.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the reduction in the item was from $17 million to $15-5 million because of the reduced rate the government is paying, and then if following that there was a large increase in the volume of grain moved, what would be the explanation for the larger proportionate reduction in the supplementary item?


Walter Edward Harris: The answer is that we are paying all claims that are made; that is, we are not refusing any that are justified by the act. The hon. member for St. Paul's asked what quantities had been moved. We will be glad to provide that information during the debate on the agricultural items, but in the meantime we have merely estimated that we need $500,000 to cover the period up to two or three days from now.


Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Is this subsidy paid on grain moved from the prairies to British Columbia?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, on movements east and west.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I just want to say that we appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia, who says they are pleased to approve of this reduction in the subsidy on rates to other parts of Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not the reduction.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The reduction in the subsidy on the freight rates.


Hazen Robert Argue: We are for it. I wish the government had not reduced it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In order to keep the record straight I want to say that we who come from other parts of Canada were ready to approve the $35 million which was paid to western farmers for the storage of grain and so on.


Mr. Bryson:: I would certainly have no objection to an increase in this item. I should like to see more grain shipped from western Canada to eastern feeders, but I do not think they are getting the type of grain they should get. I have wondered if it would not be possible for western producers to ship grain to eastern feeders. We know that theoretically this can be done, but actually the obstacles in the way are almost insurmountable. I think it would be advantageous to both the producer and the feeder if more western grain could be shipped direct from the producer to the feeder in eastern Canada without all the red tape which now makes it almost impossible for such a transaction to take place.
I am wondering if serious consideration could not be given to ironing out some of the difficulties which now exist, in order that

western feed grains could be shipped direct to feeders in eastern Canada. I am sure they would benefit, and so would the producers. Would the minister care to make any comment at this time?


Walter Edward Harris: This has been a recurring problem for a number of years, and a great deal of consideration has been given to it by government departments and I think by every recognized farm organization. The hon. member himself admits that there are difficulties involved which so far have not been overcome, but that is not to say they might not be overcome some time. I think we all agree, at least those of us who live in the east do, that this is a most useful method of transporting grain to the east for feeding purposes. If there is any way we can improve the arrangement, of course we ought to do it. He knows as well as I do that there are those who do not think that direct shipment will be * beneficial. It is a matter of judgment, and it is very difficult to say which is right or wrong. But under the present arrangements I think we provide most of the requirements of the east and, after all, perhaps that is the real purpose of the subsidy and also, of course, to dispose of excess stocks in the west. I assure him that the problem will continue to receive our consideration.


Mr. McBain:: Is the subsidy paid on feed screenings as well?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


James Alexander McBain: I suggest that a subsidy should not be paid to bring screenings from western Canada. The subsidy should be increased on better quality grain in order to bring more of that type of grain to eastern Ontario farmers.


Walter Edward Harris: I quite appreciate that, but it is paid on all grades of feed, and if my hon. friend does not want to buy screenings of course he does not have to.


Mr, McCullough (Moose Mountain):: It was
not my intention to speak on the item. I thought the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort had put the case very clearly. But I want to assure the house that to my knowledge I have never heard of anyone being against the shipment of feed to eastern Canada. As the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort points out, it is very beneficial to the western producer and to the feeder in eastern Canada. I have had many people in Ontario who are feeders come to me and say that often the type of feed they get is of very poor quality. If we had some method whereby the eastern feeder could get good quality feed from western Canada, I am sure the movement of feed grain from there would certainly
Supply-Agriculture
increase. Then we could have a proper type of agreement between the western producer and the eastern feeder whereby we would have carload shipments in bulk so the eastern feeder would be assured of a better quality of feed.
At the present time the eastern feeder is complaining simply because on many occasions he has to buy inferior feed at very high prices. Certainly that is not conducive to the welfare of the western grain producer. Where the discrepancy comes in I do not know. I know that we grow a lot of fine feed, barley and oats, in western Canada. But many complaints come to us through members of parliament who are interested in this subject, indicating that the eastern feeder often gets very poor quality feed.
I support the suggestion of the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort that the government should give serious consideration to trying to bring about bulk shipment from the producer in the west directly to the feeder in eastern Canada.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I do not want to labour the matter at all, but I should like to ask a question for clarification. Is it a fact that if a feeder in eastern Canada applies to me as a producer I can ship him a carload of barley through the wheat board, provided I can supply that carload of barley and be within the limits of my quota? Is that substantially correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: The wheat board has very definite regulations in addition to the legislation. The legislation sets out what it can do and what it is not able to do, and then there are regulations based on the legislation. The main difficulty in connection with shipment is the fact that the grain is pooled in the west and there has to be a price received for the grain that goes into the pool, which amount is afterwards divided among the farmers in the west. Therefore the wheat board takes the position that the grain first must be delivered to the elevator in order that the individual may get his advance payment from the elevator for his wheat or whatever it may be.
Then the grain has to be purchased at this end in a similar way. There is some difficulty in keeping track of a farmer's carload of grain, if he attempts to ship a carload of grain from the west to a farmer in the east, and giving the farmer in the east the same grain. But there is no difficulty in getting him another carload of grain out of the elevator, and when he takes it out he has to pay the price at which that grain is selling on that day. At the one end the farmer gets an advance payment and at the other end the

Supply-Agriculture
farmer pays the price of the grain on that day. There is accounting involved all the way in between so that when you are making interim payments and final payments everyone gets what they are entitled to receive. For these reasons the wheat board has to be very careful just what does happen in between, and that makes it a little difficult.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I can certainly appreciate the inconvenience that would be caused and the trouble the wheat board would be put to. However, there are specific regulations in connection with the shipment of seed grain from a grower to an individual or a plant. I wonder whether those same rules could not apply or similar machinery could not be set up in connection with feed grain.


Walter Edward Harris: I will give consideration to that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
541.	To provide for quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs- further amount required. $290,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I presume the increase of $290,000 is due to the fact that there was a considerable underestimate made last year as to the number of A and B-l hog carcasses which would be eligible for this premium. Can the minister tell us how many of the hogs covered by this item were grade A and how many were B-l? Can he also tell us whether the increase in the number of A and B-l carcasses was due to an increase in the percentage of carcasses grading sufficiently high to receive the premium, or whether it was merely due to a general increase in the number of carcasses and not an increase in the percentage of the better carcasses?


Walter Edward Harris: I cannot answer the latter part of the question; but as to the former, hog marketings for the calendar year 1955 were 16J per cent greater than in 1954, and there seems to be a similar increase continuing through 1956. That is why we are asking for an additional sum of money.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does the minister know how many are A and how many are B-l?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


James Alexander Smith: Would the minister consider paying a higher premium for grade A hogs? We in the west have found lately that there is a tendency for our farmers to put lower grade hogs on the market. That is particularly noticeable as a result of the Toronto fair last year. I wonder whether any thought has been given to increasing the premium paid on grade A hogs.


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member will appreciate the fact that this is a matter of principle and policy which I think could be dealt with at length and with much greater satisfaction to my hon. friend on the main agricultural estimates for the coming year.


James Alexander Smith: I just wanted to bring it to the minister's attention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
542.	Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural prices support account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural prices support board during the fiscal year 1955-56, including authority to credit to the account the net revenue received into the agricultural products board account from the sale of New Zealand meat received in exchange for beef shipped to the United Kingdom, $5,757,483.
Hazen Robert Argue: Could we have an explanation of what this item is mainly for?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There are several items making up the total involved. They are as follows: 1953, butter, $1,001; 1954, butter, $5,317,596; 1954, shell eggs, $428,453; 1955, shell eggs, $45,427; 1952, canned pork, $4,747; 1955, potatoes, $1,000. There is a slight credit for apples and beef of about $40,000 to come off the total, leaving in the result the amount of the vote.


Hazen Robert Argue: Was not the loss of $5,317,596 on 1954 butter in fact the whole loss paid out on 1954 butter? If my memory serves me correctly, the item in the estimates covering this matter was just a nominal item.


Walter Edward Harris: I think that is so.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to make one observation. Some time ago the Minister of Agriculture put statistics on the record as to the production of butter in this country.
He showed that over as much as 20 years there has been little variation in the annual production of butter in the country, and that while some people may say the floor price on butter is leading to increased production, the statistics show that there is little in that statement.
I think it is true that members of all parties in the house support the government's floor price on butter. But time and time again you read in daily newspapers reports and editorials which suggest that the country is losing a huge sum of money on the floor price that is being paid for butter, and that by some means the producer is getting a huge hand-out while the consumer is being rooked.
I want to point out that butter production in 1954 was some 334 million pounds, which was worth approximately $200 million. In

stabilizing the $200 million payment to the cream shippers and butter producers, and also to play an important part in the stabilization of the whole dairy industry and therefore to a substantial extent the stabilization of the whole agricultural industry, we were able to accomplish a great deal by the payment of what in my opinion is a nominal sum of $5,317,000 when related to the accomplishments of this program.
I do not think it would be in the interests of either the producer or the consumer that this policy be changed in the direction of reducing the floor. While on many occasions in the past I have quarrelled-and will no doubt continue to quarrel-with various aspects of the government's agricultural policy, I want to go on record as saying that in many respects the government's policy in relation to butter is a good one, and one the government might establish in other fields of agriculture.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Would the minister repeat the figure in connection with pork products?


Walter Edward Harris: It was $4,747. It is carryover of accounts that have been long outstanding and that were finally settled.


Mr. Trainor:: May I ask the minister what proportion of this item for butter is represented by the loss on the sale of butter to iron curtain countries?


Walter Edward Harris: I am afraid I have not that information available at the moment. I will be glad to provide it for my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Indian affairs branch-
Welfare of Indians-
544.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $250,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: On looking at page 11 I note that this vote is for materials and supplies in the amount of an extra quarter of a million dollars. Can the minister give us some breakdown as to that item? I would be particularly interested to know whether this involves a considerable increase in what one might call relief payments, the issuance of rations and things of that sort, or whether it is mostly for materials of some other sort, whether construction materials or otherwise.


Walter Edward Harris: This item was largely for relief, as my hon. friend believes. Particularly in northern British Columbia and the prairie provinces the winter was not so good for the employment of Indians, the result being that we provided additional food, clothing and fuel and, for those who were
21,	1956	2473
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration physically handicapped, certain indigent payments as well. That is the reason for the increase.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am glad this money was supplied to those Indians, but I think the situation points up the fact that the government should be doing a great deal more to ensure that these people do not get into this position so they must be given relief in the form of rations and so on every year. Much better provision should be made for them so they can make a living for themselves on the reserves through their tribal activities, or by means of other employment. I know this is not the minister's department, so I shall leave the matter there and go into it further on the general estimates.


Walter Edward Harris: Thank you.


Mr. Leboe:: I have been told that Indians of a different faith in other than a residential school are not supported by the grant. Suppose a Protestant school is operating and that a child who is of the Catholic faith wants to go there? I understand that no grant would be paid to that child of the other faith. Is that right?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, up until about 2\ years ago I had those details in my mind, but I do not carry them in my mind now. However, I would doubt very much that any child would not be properly cared for.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Will the minister get the information for me?


Walter Edward Harris: I will.


Mr. Van Horne:: Just about a week and a half ago a few members of the Micmac tribe from the Restigouche reserve, which is in Bonaventure county, were up here to Ottawa and saw several of the members from my province as well as members from various parts of Canada who were interested in Indian affairs. The gist of their complaint is that the Indian agents seem to take the attitude that they should force these people off the reserves to fend for themselves andi make a living as best they can away from the reserves where they are no longer the responsibility of the government.
What happened was that several members of the Micmac tribe on the Restigouche reserve were forced to leave the country and go down to Texas or Florida and spend some months there during the winter. They took their families with them. Those children did not go to school. The Indians could not find a living down there. The Indian affairs department in the United States refused to help them because they were wards of the Canadian government. So then they limped
2474	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration home or made their way back to their reserves, and started the trek all over again one or two years later.
The complaint seems to be that the government has not taken a realistic enough approach to the conditions under which the Indians are obliged to live. It was mentioned, of course, that they had to get along on less than $30 a month when they were out of work. In my area, as you all know, there are about 6,000 people on unemployment insurance and another 4,000 who should be on unemployment insurance but who are not qualified. Then you have all these Indians who are placed in an almost impossible position in regard to obtaining work. There is no question about it that serious hardship exists on the Indian reserves in Restigouche and Madawaska counties and in the county of Bonaventure. I would certainly ask that something be done immediately in order to try to help these people out a little bit more realistically.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister in a position to say whether this item covers the novel departure in policy on the part of the Indian affairs department, whereby Indians are to be given training in identifying minerals and encouraged to engage in the search for metals? Personally I have been critical on many occasions with regard to the administration of the Indian affairs department. I feel that in too great a measure there is bureaucratic control which in too many cases denies justice and right to the Indian population resident on the reserves. At the same time I commend the government for the inauguration of this novel program to increase Indian opportunities and make it possible for the Indian to earn his way.
I do not know who was responsible for the development of the plan, but certainly it is going to encourage Indians to act on their own initiative after having received the training which they are to receive in the identification of some 50 different varieties of rock in which may be expected to reside the minerals that are identified to those who take the classes. It is a step in the right direction, and one that has infinite possibilities for exploration in the northern parts of Canada. It has in it the beginning of a system of education which will enable Indians to make their way to a greater degree than ever before.
I should like the minister to give the house and the country some idea of the inauguration of this plan. Certainly it is the first time in my experience with that department that there has been commenced a system which, now that it has been adopted,


seems to be the most obvious scheme to encourage the Indians in self-assistance that has ever been advanced.


Walter Edward Harris: Before the hon. member came in, Mr. Chairman, I had explained that this item did not cover that at all. This item is altogether for relief, so that actually what he has mentioned does not come within it. At the same time, I should tell my hon. friend that my successor in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is making a number of changes, particularly in the field the hon. member has mentioned, and I am sure he is going to discuss them on the main estimates whenever they are reached during the session.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Can the minister inform me what part of this amount would be allocated to the Restigouche reserve in New Brunswick?


Walter Edward Harris: No, this is a general vote to make up the balance required in addition to the main estimates. I will draw my colleague's attention to the hon. member's request, and he will receive full information about that particular reserve.


Mr. Campbell:: Has the minister any information, or has the government come to any decision about prohibiting the importation of peyote buttons. There have been religious organizations formed in my part of the country within the last year or two, and during what you might call religious celebrations these organizations have been importing from Mexico and the southern states what they call peyote buttons, that is a part of the cactus plant. While it is not classified as a narcotic, it has somewhat the same effect. These people all get around in a big circle, chew these buttons for a while and then become sick. After they become sick they are supposed to vomit up their sins. The next procedure is that they again chew these buttons but the reaction is different the second time. They go into a deep sleep which I am told lasts for 20 to 24 hours, and in that sleep they have beautiful dreams.
Is the government considering doing anything to prevent the importation of these buttons into Canada, because they are a form of narcotic and they are demoralizing to anyone who uses them.


Walter Edward Harris: I am not familiar with the problem, sir, but I will make inquiries.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I presume this item is strictly a relief measure. I have had a great many letters from people reporting to me about three reservations in particular where the Indians are suffering real distress. I was wondering how the money is administered.

Who informs the department? Is it through the Indian agents? I wonder if we could have put on Hansard some time a table showing the Indian reservations or agencies to which money has been allocated under this vote?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. I would tell my hon. friend that I do recall having put a similar statement on the record, I think in the year 1952, and he can compare it with the one he will get in a few days.


George Hugh Castleden: This is an item for about a quarter of a million dollars, and apparently is to be spent on relief for Indians who find themselves in difficulties. As we all know, Canada suffered a very severe winter this year and the Indians on a good many reservations, as the minister knows, have a great deal of difficulty in making a living. In many cases the reservations are on barren land and the opportunity of obtaining work in that particular area is not very great. In the province from which I come the Indians have been able to supplement their allowance by an increased catch of fur. The conservation program has contributed to this increase. But there are parts of northern Ontario and northern Manitoba, I believe, where special assistance should be given.
I was wondering whether the minister has any information as to the reservations in northern Ontario which need help. I know there was one not very far north of the city of Ottawa, near Maniwaki, where conditions were reported to be very severe. A few years ago the Indian affairs committee had some reports of serious suffering as a result of malnutrition because reservations were in an uneconomic position. I suggest to the minister that where Indians are in the position that they cannot make a living out of the resources on a particular reservation, it would be much better for the Indians and for the people of Canada to move those people to land upon which it was easier for them to make a living.
I was wondering if the minister had any information as to the particular reserves where this extra amount is required. I notice the estimates for this year concerning the welfare of Indians show an amount of $2,638,000, and the amount for 1955-56 was $2,665,000. Is the minister in a position to give us any figures or any details on the particular reservations where extra assistance is required in the way of relief?


Walter Edward Harris: When the item was called, Mr. Chairman, I explained that the estimate made last year was adequate except for the fact that there were severe winter conditions in British Columbia and the northern prairies, and that it was because of the extra amounts paid in those areas we are now asking for this vote. I am not in a position to say what
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration particular reservations ran short of money or required more relief, but it was in those general areas that we found we did not have enough money and we are now providing it.


William Scottie Bryce: Could we have just what has been paid out?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I will get that.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: From what the minister said I would judge that none of this money is going into reservations in Ontario?


Walter Edward Harris: No. The point is that there is a big vote of some million and a half dollars for relief and that goes to the Indians wherever it may be required, but because there was an extra demand we did not expect in the western part of Canada, we ran short of money.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to tell the minister that I have a couple of reservations in my riding. I believe it would be wise, in order to help the Indians on those reservations, if the department were to put a tractor on these lands so the Indians would be able to have their fields plowed, harrowed and seeded. There are no horses now, so the Indians have to take jobs in Peterborough, which is some miles away, in order to make a living, and then get back to the reservation at night.


Walter Edward Harris: I will give consideration to that.


William Scottie Bryce: I asked the minister whether he would be able to get information as to what was spent in Manitoba.


Walter Edward Harris: Right.


William Scottie Bryce: They are awfully hard up there.


Walter Edward Harris: I will get it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian affairs branch

Education-
545.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $854,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this and the following item are both for educational purposes for the Indians. It makes quite a considerable increase, over $1 million, particularly as related to the total in last year's estimates. Therefore it would appear that either there was a very serious error made in making up the main estimates last year, or there has been a change in policy. I notice particularly that there is an increase of $140,000 for tuition and maintenance of Indian children in non-Indian and joint schools. I would take it from this that there has been a very considerable increase in the attendance of children at these non-Indian and joint schools.
2476	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I am very glad to see that. Perhaps nothing will do more to break down the barrier between the Indians and the rest of the population than to have the Indian children attending the same schools as the neighbouring white children. But in addition to that I see that under residential schools there are per capita grants of $668,000. As I said, it would seem either that a serious error was made in estimating last year, or there has been a change in policy. Can the minister give us any information in regard to these particular items?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member has correctly interpreted the facts on the first item he mentioned, namely that there has been an increase in the number of Indian children attending non-Indian schools. I think we all are, as he is, very happy that that is so.
With respect to the residential school item, this amount arises because of a group of claims which were made under these items which came in, as a matter of fact, in March of the previous fiscal year but were not actually paid within the fiscal year 1954-55 and are now being paid because they have been audited and approved in the meantime. It does not mean a change in policy, nor does it mean a particularly substantial change in the numbers attending residential schools.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On that very point, I presume what it does mean is that the religious institutions running the residential schools have been out this $668,000 for a year or more owing to this mix-up that occurred. Is that so?


Walter Edward Harris: Not entirely. There was an underestimation, but the amount they have been out for the 12 months has been a very large part of the $668,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask the minister what is the increase provided in this $140,000 for Indians going to non-Indian and joint schools? How many more children are going than were estimated the year before would be going?


Walter Edward Harris: I have not the details, but I will get them.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to know that there is an additional vote here for the administration, operation and maintenance of the schools on the reserves. I do not intend to make any extended remarks at this time, but I am going to say to this government that any policy designed to increase the educational facilities for Indians throughout the reserves in Canada so they will have a higher education and be able to fit into various forms of employment will be all to the good, Unless


we do have an over-all policy under which these people may leave the reserves and be integrated into the economy of this country, we shall be heading into serious trouble.
On my own little reserve at White Bear we have about 600 Indians. The children are sent to Brandon; the girls take home economics and other types of education, and then come back on the reserves. The young men take courses in agriculture and come back and conform to the reserve type of living. If the situation existing on this reserve is typical of the reserves throughout Canada, then this government is going to have to take a very serious look at the whole Indian population of Canada and do something to bring about equity and fairness for these people, rather than merely provide a vote for welfare which is on the basis of a relief program. We have to look at this thing so these people will have a fair chance as citizens of Canada.
No more disgraceful situation exists in Canada, in my opinion, than the treatment accorded to the Indian population of this country. In my section, as I say, we have almost 600 Indians. Some of the young men are educated; some of them have the ability to go out and earn their own living. The situation is growing increasingly worse. They are getting into trouble with the law and with the white population there. They see other classes of citizens with a higher standard of living; they see young white people driving cars, and they are relegated to an impoverished type of living. I for one want to say in the most emphatic way that it is a disgraceful situation. When the main estimates come down I hope that we shall see that the government is taking a step forward in providing something better for this class of Canadian citizen.


George Hugh Castleden: Will the minister permit me to revert to item 544, for a moment, which has to do with relief? It was drawn to my attention recently by one of the Indian leaders in Saskatchewan by the name of John Tootoosis that a lady by the name of Mrs. Katherine Thompson, of Assiniboine reserve No. 76, of Sintaluta, Saskatchewan, a widow with three children, had to enter a sanatorium on account of a tuberculosis infection. After some cure was thought to have been accomplished she went out to work to maintain her children, but the housing conditions were bad and she recently had to go back into the sanatorium. Her plea is that something be done to provide some form of housing and food for her children while she is away and when she comes back, so that there will not be a relapse. I believe it is a case of direct relief which I think should be drawn

to the attention of the government. I wonder whether the minister would do that?


Walter Edward Harris: I will, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Regier:: I notice in the details of this supplementary grant provision for textbooks and school supplies to the amount of $24,000. The original grant was $65,000. I think the minister will agree that $24,000 in comparison with an original estimate of $65,000 is rather a large supplementary grant. Has there been a change in policy? Are textbooks now being offered to Indians free of charge that originally were not offered, or was it only a case of very bad guesswork on the part of some official?


Walter Edward Harris: No, I think it is a case of providing more text books rather than a guess.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: In connection with the educational system now carried on, does the federal government have a separate arrangement with each of the provinces, or is there a general policy regarding Indian children going to schools being supported within the boundaries of provinces? Are separate arrangements made, or is there an over-all policy?


Walter Edward Harris: With respect to what schools?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Provincial schools.


Walter Edward Harris: If I understand my hon. friend correctly, the arrangements which are made for the admission of Indians to non-Indian schools are made directly with the school section involved, but of course with the consent and knowledge of the provincial department.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I notice that most of the schools are lower grade schools.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If an Indian child wishes to take higher education in a high school or an advanced school, is provision made for him to go to such a school?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes; my recollection is that we have some form of assistance even up to and including university.


George Hugh Castleden: I notice that the largest part of this item is an increased per capita grant to residential schools. Could the minister inform us whether that is an increase in the per capita grant and if that is why the increase is required, or if it is because there has been an increase in the school population?


Walter Edward Harris: I believe I explained that to the hon. member for Calgary North. This is to catch up on payments we agreed to make
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to residential schools but which were not made at the end of the last fiscal year simply because the accounts came in during March of that year and therefore they were settled this year. It does not represent an increase in numbers or a change in policy. It means we have had some large claims come in at the same time.


George Hugh Castleden: What was the cause of the claim? Did you not have sufficient money to pay the per capita grants?


Walter Edward Harris: No. A further study was made of the residential school costs. This is an adjustment, having in mind the cost of education in the various schools.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the per capita cost per day or per term?


Walter Edward Harris: It varies from school to school. I would have to get the details for my hon. friend.


Mr. Mclvor:: I want to say a word in favour of two schools about which I know something. I visited Maniwaki for ten years. I found the school there was manned by a young man and his wife from Fort William, which meant that the school was well manned by first-class teachers. We have two schools at Fort William, at Chippewa or Squaw Bay, one for beginners and one for more advanced pupils. These teachers were qualified to occupy positions in the public school system before they went there. They were highly competent.


George Hugh Castleden: Is that a residential school or is it a day school?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: They are both residential schools.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I wonder if later on, perhaps when the main estimates are taken up, the minister could tell us the number of Indian children who are attending high school and the number who are attending university. Perhaps he could also tell us how they are being integrated into the life of the country. We heard this afternoon that they come to these schools and get no advantage. It would be interesting to know what advantages are given to them.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. The annual report of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Indian branch, sets out in detail the number of Indian children attending all grades of school from primary kindergarten to university. I am sure that in addition the minister responsible will speak of the problem my hon. friend has mentioned, in view of the other remarks.
2478	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Erhart Regier: After listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William I cannot remain silent. I must inform the minister that there is something very much wrong with our system of Indian education in Canada. You can go to all the major urban centres of Canada and find that the Indian is finding a problem in acclimatizing himself to our present-day social life and economic life. I think the statement made by the hon. member for Fort William should not be taken by the minister as a general expression of satisfaction with the work our Indian schools are doing.
I can agree that they are manned by able teachers. However, at a very early date the department should attempt to find out for itself why, in spite of the efforts made by religious organizations, the Indian affairs branch of the department and the provincial departments of education, we are faced with this serious social and economic problem. It is a problem which is particularly noticeable in Vancouver by anyone who deals with the general public in that city. I feel that our method of educating the Indian population leaves much to be desired.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, I believe I made a mistake. I was asked if the schools I referred to were residential schools. The teachers are residential but the schools are run like ordinary public schools and they are first class, no matter what anyone else says.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian affairs branch-
546.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $162,000.
Mr. Dinsdale:: We are all interested, Mr. Chairman, in the emphasis on the education of our Indian population. I understand it is part of the program of attempting to integrate our Canadian Indian population into the general population.
One or two comments have been made on the general educational system. Under this item I notice that the emphasis seems to be on the construction of residential schools rather than day schools. The figure for day schools is $33,000 and the figure for residential schools is $162,000. In going back to the main estimates I notice there is a figure of something like $2 million which has been earmarked for the construction of residential schools. My understanding is that the new emphasis in the education of our Indian population is on the construction of day schools on the reserves, rather than on taking the children away from the reserves to attend residential schools. The former policy


will have the effect of transforming the general life on the reserve in preparation for the emancipation of the Indian from the reserve.
Could the minister indicate whether there is a large school construction program still going on in the field of residential schools?


Walter Edward Harris: The figures for the last fiscal year are roughly $2 million for day schools and $1,900,000 for residential schools. It is an accident that the balance should be one way one year and another way another year. The whole emphasis since the end of the war has been on the construction of day schools, and that emphasis has not been displaced by anything that has occurred during the past year. In the particular item we are discussing, of course, it happens that certain residential schools got along further with their work and we required more money to pay our bills; but as I pointed out at the beginning of the discussion, this is merely to pay money on schools which were already approved by parliament when the estimates were passed last year.
I do not intend to discourage my hon. friend, but if he wants to debate the principle of the construction of day schools as opposed to the construction of residential schools, I am sure he could do it to his satisfaction and the satisfaction of the public more effectively when he has the responsible minister here to answer. These sums are just clean-up items for buildings that have gone along closer to construction, and for which we need extra money to pay the bills.


George Hugh Castleden: Do these relate to any particular schools?


Walter Edward Harris: I can give you the names of three or four where the construction work was completed ahead of time and for which extra money is needed.


George Hugh Castleden: It is not a case of altering the contracts?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


George Hugh Castleden: I suppose we could obtain copies of the contracts or agreements by asking for a notice of motion for the production of papers?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes'.


An hon. Member:: Careful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Them days is gone forever."


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Chairman, in an area where a great many Indians are living but where there is no reserve, and where the Indians attend schools operated by the provincial department of education, is there a sharing of costs by this department?


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. friend earlier. That is a matter which I think my hon. friend should address to the minister in charge on the main estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Gallery of Canada-
547.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including industrial design division-further amount required, $29,600.
Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question I should like to direct to the minister. Was any commission paid on the transaction involving the purchase of paintings from His Highness the Prince of Liechtenstein? The minister nods assent; I presume it was 5 per cent?


Walter Edward Harris: No, it is not 5 per cent. It is 5 per cent on the first $400,000; 4 per cent on the next $200,000; 3 per cent on the next $200,000 and 2 per cent on the balance. It totals $35,000.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I can understand why a commission would be paid to a broker on the first deal, as it might be a question of getting the parties together. As I recall, the first purchase of pictures amounted to about $500,000, but this second purchase amounted to over $885,000. It seems strange to me that it would be necessary to go through a broker on the second occasion and pay a substantial brokerage fee of $35,000.
I recall asking this question a year or so ago, and I believe the minister in question said it was the custom of the trade to act through a broker. It seems strange to me that this is necessary on the second transaction. Relations had been established and the first deal transacted. More than that, as I have heard from many sides, we have a most capable president of the national gallery in the person of Mr. Jarvis. Surely he would be capable of judging the value of these pictures, and possibly making a trip to see the Prince of Liechtenstein. It seems to me that this amount of commission is rather unnecessary.
There may be an explanation, but it seems to me that this is an inordinate amount. I understand the commission in this case is $35,000 and last time the commission was $25,000, which makes a total of $60,000. A return was made to the hon. member for Prince Albert which indicated that the amount spent in the last ten years by the national gallery on Canadian paintings was about $88,000. In other words the total of these commissions was close to the amount spent on Canadian paintings during the last ten years. In that same period of ten years approximately $2,335,000 was spent in European paintings. I would be interested in
Supply-National Gallery knowing not only the amount that was spent but the number of European paintings that were purchased during this period, as well as the number of Canadian paintings purchased.
It seems to me that possibly the policy of the gallery might be changed. European galleries like the Louvre or the Tate gallery were able to buy paintings by Rembrandt, Rubens and so on at relatively low prices. It was like buying penny stocks, because during the years their values appreciated. What the Canadian national gallery is attempting to do at the present time could be compared with buying stocks at peak prices. With the restrictions that exist on the export of art objects from Europe it is almost impossible for the national gallery of Canada to hope to acquire collections equal to those of European galleries.
I think this policy might be looked into, and perhaps the gallery could buy greater numbers of Canadian, Mexican, American and British paintings at relatively low prices. I am sure Mr. Jarvis could give advice on these purchases. The works of many modern artists are going to be valuable in the future, and the national gallery should be getting together a collection, not just for the present but for a hundred years or more in the future. I submit they should adopt a policy of buying paintings by good Canadian, United States, British, Mexican and European artists of the modern school. These pictures would appreciate in value in the future, and we would thus have a fine collection. At the present time we cannot hope to have a large collection of paintings by the great masters of the past.
It seems to me that there is little value in trying to ape the great European galleries. The four pictures in question being purchased at this time consist of a famous painting by Rubens, one by Martini who was I believe an early Italian painter, and two by an eighteenth century French painter named Chardin. I should like to find out exactly what amount was paid for each of these pictures, and also if the national gallery is going to pursue this policy of acquiring expensive works by old masters. It seems to me that if that is to be done they might stress quality a little more than quantity. I am not suggesting that works by Martini and Chardin are not valuable, but they are relatively unknown artists as compared with men like Rembrandt, Leonardo da Vinci, Rubens and so on.
The hon. member for St. Paul's tells me that the Prince of Liechtenstein has a painting in his collection by Leonardo da Vinci which is presently for sale. I understand the price is rather high, being somewhat over $1 million, but there are no paintings by this

Supply-National Gallery artist in North America. If the government is going to pursue this policy of acquiring expensive works by old masters it might be a good idea if they purchased fewer of the works by less well known painters and bought one or two really good ones. They should have considered purchasing this particular painting by da Vinci.
I repeat that commissions such as this to some broker are excessive. I am quite sure these paintings could be purchased in another way. There should be a complete revision of this policy of purchasing a smattering of old works instead of good modem paintings which no doubt would have a considerable value in the future. If we are going to buy expensive works by old masters let us buy some really good ones, rather than those by artists who are not so well known.


Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):: I should like to say something on this item, but I do not want to hold up the committee. If the minister can say on behalf of his colleague that we will have an opportunity to discuss item No. 548 when we come to the main estimates I would be ready to expedite the proceedings of the house, but I do want to say something on this particular item.
Progress reported.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We will continue with this business tomorrow.


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

[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.	Has Canada given, or is she planning to give an atomic reactor to India?
2.	If so, (a) what is the purpose of the gift; (b) what is the total cost involved; (c) did India make any request for such a gift?
Answer by: Mr. Pearson:
1.	Yes. Canada is providing an NRX experimental and research atomic reactor to India under the Colombo plan. This proposal was announced in an exchange of messages between Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Nehru last year and it is expected that an announcement will be made shortly about the signature of an intergovernmental agreement which will set out the details of this project. Preliminary construction work at the site has already begun and officials from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited are in close consultation with the Indian department of atomic energy.
2.	(a) The NRX reactor which has served Canada so well in its research program for the peaceful uses of atomic energy will form part of a new atomic research centre which India is creating near Bombay. In addition to the Indian scientists who will use the facilities of the reactor the Indian government has agreed that subject to their approval the reactor will also be available for use by foreign scientists including those from other Colombo plan countries in the area.
(b)	The estimated total cost of this project is roughly $14 million. In accordance with normal Colombo plan practices, Canada will finance the external costs of the reactor, estimated at $7-5 million. The balance, which are local costs, will be met by the Indian government. It is possible that counterpart funds arising out of earlier Canadian grants to India may be used by the Indians to cover part of the local costs. While India will provide most of the labour, the equipment will be manufactured in Canada and installed under the supervision of Canadian engineers and scientists. Canada has also agreed that this reactor will be financed over the next two or three years by special Colombo plan funds which will be supplementary to India's regular annual allocations; part of the increase in the Colombo plan contribution which parliament will be asked to approve for 195657 will be used for this purpose.
Questions
(c)	The Canadian government was aware of India's desire to improve and increase the facilities which it had at its disposal for research in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. We knew in fact that India was making inquiries to several sources with a view to obtaining a research reactor. As a result of the close contacts which have been established between Canadian and Indian scientists it was realized that an NRX type reactor would make an extremely valuable contribution to India's research program as well as to scientists in the whole Colombo plan area.


T.B. MORTALITY STATISTICS
Mr. Hardie: What has been the reduction in the last 10 years in the number of deaths from tuberculosis in Canada: (a) among the Indian and Eskimo population; (b) among the white population?
Answer by: Mr. Martin:
The death rate from tuberculosis per 100,000 of the population of Canada has dropped during the past 10 years from 46-0 to 10-3 in 1954-1955 statistics are not yet available-or approximately 80 per cent.
(a)	Among the Indian population the rate has dropped 90 per cent from 565-7 deaths per population to 60-2.
Among the Eskimo population of the Yukon and Northwest Territories the rate has dropped 56 per cent from 568-4 deaths per 100,000 population to 252-5.
(b)	Among the white population the rate has dropped 75 per cent from 40-7 deaths per 100,000 population to 9-8.


BUTTER IMPORTS
Mr. Holowach: 1.	Has Canada imported any butter from New Zealand or elsewhere since January, 1954?
2.	If so, how many pounds of butter were imported into Canada?
3.	Who were the importing companies and at what price was the commodity purchased?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
1.	Yes.
2.	Imports of butter by countries, calendar years 1954 and 1955;
Calendar year Calendar year 1954	1955
Country	Lb.	Value	Lb.	ValueUnited Kingdom 2,749 $1,100 4,999 $2,079 United States ..	83	53 6,572	4,015Totals	
2,832	$1,153 11,571	$6,0943.	Section 15 of the Statistics Act precludes the disclosure of information relating to private business.
Questions


DORCHESTER PENITENTIARY, N.B.  EMPLOYEES
Mr. Murphy (Westmorland): 1.	How many employees are there at the present time at the Dorchester penitentiary in New Brunswick?
2.	How many new employees were taken on in each of the years 1952 to 1955, inclusive?
Answer by: Mr. Garson:
1.	At February 29, 1956-200.
2.	Fiscal year 1952-53, 10; Fiscal year 195354, 18; Fiscal year 1954-55, 16; Fiscal year 1955-56, 30. (To February 29, 1956).


C.N.R. CONSTRUCTION, ATLANTIC DIVISION
Mr. Murphy (Westmorland): 1.	How many contractors carried out maintenance of way or the building or the rebuilding of roadbeds or right of way and associated work for the Canadian National Railways in the Atlantic division, during the year 1955?
2.	How many men were employed by the contractors to do this work?
3.	How many Canadian National Railways employees were employed in the Atlantic division doing similar work during 1955?
Answer by: Mr. Marler:
The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	One.
2.	The average number of men employed by the contractor from July to December was 437.
3.	The average number of men employed by the Canadian National Railways was as follows: April to July 1955, 1,315 regular, 557 extra; July to December 1955, 1,315 regular, 722 extra.


C.N.R. RAILWAY CAR PURCHASES
Mr. Argue: What are the numbers, types and prices of railway cars, if any, purchased by Canadian National Railways during (a) 1950; (b) 1951; (c) 1952; (d) 1953, from (i) Canadian Car and Foundry; (ii) National Steel Car Company?
Answer by: Mr. Marler:
The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
(a)	(i) Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Ltd.-490 50-ton flat cars; 5 135-ton depressed centre flat cars; 20 sleeping cars; 25 first class coaches; 3 baggage cars (Nfld.).
(ii) National Steel Car Corporation, Ltd.- 50 baggage cars; 100 70-ton longitudinal hopper cars.
(b)	(i) Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Ltd.-2,000 50-ton box cars; 100 70-ton covered hopper cars.
(ii) National Steel Car Corporation, Ltd.- 1,500 50-ton box cars; 50 baggage cars.
(c)	(i) Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Ltd.-100 30-ton flat cars (Nfld.); 1,000 40-ton auto cars; 1,500 50-ton box cars; 6
sleeping cars (Nfld.); 3 mail cars (Nfld.); 6 multiple unit coaches; 12 multiple unit trailer coaches.
(ii) National Steel Car Corporation, Ltd.- 1,250 70-ton triple hopper cars; 800 50-ton flat cars; 75 70-ton longitudinal hopper cars; 500 50-ton refrigerator cars.
(d)	(i) Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Ltd.-125 70-ton covered hopper cars; 100 50-ton ballast cars; 1,200 50-ton box cars; 150 30-ton flat cars (Nfld.); 5 135-ton depressed centre flat cars.
(ii) National Steel Car Corporation, Ltd.- 200 50-ton refrigerator cars; 50 30-ton refrigerator cars (Nfld.); 150 70-ton covered hopper cars; 5 mail and express cars; 118 baggage cars.
It is not the practice of the management to disclose the unit price of railway equipment.


DAIRY EXPORTS
Mr. Hodgson: 1.	How much (a) butter; (b) cheese, was exported from Canada in 1955?
2.	To what countries?
3.	What was the price to each country?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
1.	(a) 74,032 cwt. (b) 137,390 cwt.
2 and 3. Quantity and value, calendar year 1955: -
Butter (item 2700)
Country	Cwt.	ValueUnited Kingdom	6	$ 357Arabia 	1	90Czechoslovakia 	12,109	502,738St. Pierre and Miquelon	1,662	105,272Japan 	1	61Netherlands 	2	82Alaska 	1	30Germany East	60,247	2,229,161United States 	3	208Totals 	74,032	$2,837,999Cheese, Cheddar	(item 2711)	United Kingdom	126,088	3,629,666Bermuda 	490	16,984British Honduras 	2	91Barbados 	94	3,306Jamaica 	4	146Bahamas 	500	20,949Leeward and Windward	Islands 	187	7,624Belgium 	1,702	53,652St. Pierre and Miquelon	2	97Guatemala 	5	280Haiti 	13	519Netherlands Antilles ....	1	44United States 	5,270	197,603
134,358 $3,930,961
Totals

Questions
Cheese, n.o.p. (item 2712)
Bermuda 	157	6,070British Guiana 	25	1,526British Honduras 	32	1,008Barbados 	38	2,142Jamaica 	67	3,671Trinidad and Tobago ....	154	7,659Bahamas 	36	1,503Leeward and Windward Islands 	137	5,424Belgium 	491	15,567Cuba 	4	239Guatemala 	6	240Haiti 	180	6,252Netherlands Antilles ....	2	59Panama	31	1,191Alaska 	2	47Venezuela 	8	350Lebanon 	1	36United States 	1,661	61,466Totals 	3,032	$ 114,450


NATIONAL GALLERY-PURCHASE OF LIECHTENSTEIN PAINTINGS
Mr. Murphy (Lambion West): 1.	When the paintings of the Prince of Liechtenstein were obtained for the national art gallery, were they obtained directly from the Prince of Liechtenstein or were they obtained through some agent, broker or dealer?
2.	What was the amount paid for the picture?
3.	Did the federal government pay a commission for their purchase? If so, how much?
4.	If the pictures were obtained through a dealer, agent or broker, or anyone other than the Prince of Liechtenstein, who was that dealer, agent or broker?
He said: I wonder if I might take advantage of this opportunity to change a word in the second part of question No. 332. I should like to change the word "the" before "picture". It should be "each" picture. I ask that that correction be made so there will be no misunderstanding.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I take it that this is considered by the hon. member as being a clerical error?


Joseph Warner Murphy: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The correction will be made accordingly.


ASSISTANCE FUND EXPENDITURES
Mr. Brooks: 1.	How much money has been spent under assistance fund (W.V.A.) in each of the provinces up to January 1, 1956?
2.	What amount is still remaining in the fund?
He said: With reference to question No. 262 standing in my name, I should like to ask that the second part be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Production Service-Health of animals-
538.	To provide for payment of compensation to owners of animals affected with diseases coming under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, which have died or have been slaughtered in circumstances not covered by the above act and regulations made thereunder, and to provide for payments to owners for loss of cattle during treatments for immunization against hemorrhagic septicaemia, and sheep and goats that reacted to tuberculin tests, all as detailed in the estimates, $2,304.
Marketing service-
539.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $1.
Terminable services-
540.	Freight assistance on western feed grains- further amount required, $500,000.
541.	To provide for quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs- further amount required, $290,000.
Special-
542.	Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural prices support account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural prices support board during the fiscal year 1955-56, including authority to credit to the account the net revenue received into the agricultural products board account from the sale of New Zealand meat received in exchange for beef shipped to the United Kingdom, $5,757,483.
543.	To provide a grant to the estate of the late Alfred Anderson, former employee of the department, in lieu of supplementary death benefits under the Public Service Superannuation Act, $3,546.


DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Indian affairs branch-
Welfare of Indians-
544.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required. $250,000.
Education-
545.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $854,000.
546.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $162,000.
B-National Gallery of Canada-
547.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including industrial design division-further amount required, $29,600.
[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Relations

[Stage Direction]
Similar letters sent to the premiers of all the provinces. The letter to the premier1 of Quebec was in the French language.

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, March 19, 1956.
The Honourable Leslie M. Frost,
Premier of Ontario,
Toronto, Ontario.
My dear Premier:
Since our meeting on March 9, my colleagues and I have given further consideration to the principal points raised there. A further review of our prospective budgetary position during the period contemplated has confirmed our view that substantially larger payments to the provincial governments, or greater tax abatements in those provinces where the provincial governments prefer to levy their own taxes in the three fields under discussion would likely require the federal government to find additional revenues from other sources in order to make such payments and still maintain a sound federal budget. Federal taxation is already at a high level and we do not believe that the interest of this country would be best served by further increase of federal taxes for provincial puposes.
Several premiers have referred to the possible inadequacy of our proposed stabilization payments. It was suggested that the "floor" should be, not 90 per cent, but 100 per cent of the average of the two preceding years. There was also some criticism that under certain circumstances the new formula might yield lower revenues than the existing pattern of rental agreements upon which our proposals are designed to be an improvement.
We attach considerable importance to the stabilization feature of these proposals and consider they will be of great value should our present prosperity falter in any significant measure.
On further consideration, therefore, we are prepared to meet these provincial suggestions on this feature to a substantial extent. We do not think it would be wise or proper to give a guarantee of 100 per cent, because there is inevitably some fluctuation from year to year in corporation profits taxes and succession duties. We are prepared, however, to amend our proposal respecting stabilization payments by substituting "95 per cent" for "90 per cent" in numbered paragraph 2 (b) of my letter of January 6. We are also prepared to add as a new subparagraph (c)
immediately after 2 (b) "the tax rental that would have been paid or available to the provincial government in that year had the tax rental system of 1952-57 been continued without change". This last provision will make abundantly clear that no province can under any circumstances suffer financially by the change from the present to the new system.
In the course of his statement relating to possible tax collection agreements, the Minister of Finance said that the fee we had in mind was 2 per cent. This was an approximate figure based upon the ratio of the expenses of the income tax division of the Department of National Revenue to the total revenue collected by that division, adjusted for such items of cost as office accommodation, etc., which are borne elsewhere in our accounts, and with a further allowance to cover the costs of altering our administrative processes as the result of the requirements of collection agreements. It is, of course, recognized that it costs less per $100 of revenue to collect corporate income tax than personal income tax, and accordingly the appropriate charge might well vary in the different tax fields.
If your government is interested in a collection agreement, our technical officials will be glad to confer with yours to ascertain as accurately as possible what those costs would be. As I said at our meeting, we have no intention of making a profit out of collection agreements, but we would expect to recover the additional costs to the federal treasury which they involve.
We are preparing now legislation to place before parliament, which would authorize us to implement the proposals which this government has made and which have been amended in various respects following consultation with the provincial governments. We believe that under such legislation it will be possible for us to introduce a new organization of federal-provincial fiscal relations which will retain many of the best features of the tax rental system developed in the past, while providing a new flexibility in provincial finance appropriate to the nature of the period to which we all look forward.
Reference will be made to these matters by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech on Tuesday evening, and I propose to table a copy of this letter on Wednesday.
Yours sincerely,

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 22, 1956


[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West) presented the first report of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve) presented the first report of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the federal district commission, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.