1956-03-22

Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston) moved:: That the petitions for private bills of Canadian Pacific Railway Company and of Richard Gerald Maclsaac and others for an act to incorporate the Albion Insurance Company, together with the clerk of petitions' reports thereon of March 20 and 21, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for such recommendations as may be deemed advisable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the discussions which have taken place and the fact that many hon. members will be going home to their constituencies shortly, I thought I should give them a favourable message to take along with them. We have decided to continue the 58-cent floor price for butter on the same basis as throughout the present year until the 30th day of April, 1958.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: May I ask the minister whether he has given any further consideration to discontinuing the subsidy to hospitals and other institutions as he mentioned earlier in the session?


James Garfield Gardiner: The question, Mr. Speaker, is as to whether any further consideration has been given to whether or not we would continue to supply butter to institutions at lower prices. We are still continuing to do so and no final decision has been made with regard to what will be done in the future.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Elmore Philpott (Vancouver South):: should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the British Columbia
centennial committee suggested any design for the proposed stamp to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the founding of British Columbia? If not, would the minister welcome the same?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: In answer to my hon. friend's question I would say we have had considerable correspondence with the British Columbia centennial celebration committee and it is hoped that the committee will provide the department with some material which could be used as a basis for a commemorative stamp.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Are any Russian airfields established on ice floes and presently in Canadian Arctic waters, known as severnyi-polyus No. 6 and severnyi-polyus No. 4?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I shall have to take my hon. friend's question as notice and look into the matter.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister inform the house whether the proposed civil service salary increases will be on a percentage basis or will they be on a basis fairer to those in the lower and middle salary brackets?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: think the announcement, when it is made, will indicate the basis on which it is made.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimall-Saanich):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production? Were any Canadian

Inquiries of the Ministry contractors given an opportunity to provide personnel to man and operate this D.E.W. line located in Canada?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: Canadian contractors were invited to tender and at least two Canadian contractors did tender. Unfortunately their tenders were out of line with the tender that was finally accepted. I may say our Department of Defence Production has been in constant touch with the United States department of defence, and with the successful contractor. We have reason to believe that at least 80 per cent of the personnel employed on the section of the D.E.W. line within Canada will be of Canadian citizenship, and we also have every reason to believe a fair number of Eskimos and Indians resident in the area will be employed on the line. I think that when the situation can be put before the house in some detail, hon. members will not be disappointed at the extent of Canadian participation in the plans for operation of the D.E.W. line.


Mr. Drew:: Does the minister suggest that Indians and Eskimos are going to take part in the manning and operation of the D.E.W. line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. There is certain work in connection with the manning which they are capable of performing, and I understand that a study of the situation has indicated there will be opportunities for employment for Indians and Eskimos to a limited extent.


Mr. Hees:: Could the minister advise the names of the unsuccessful Canadian contractors?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has never been the custom to mention the names of unsuccessful contractors. The successful contractor was the Federal Electric Company of the United States.



BACON-SUGGESTED ATTEMPT TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACT WITH UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melfori):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I am sorry I have not given him notice. Is the minister's department attempting to negotiate a bacon contract with the government of the United Kingdom?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, Mr. Speaker.
fMr. Pearkes.l

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION B-National Gallery of Canada-
548.	Payment to the national gallery purchase account for the purpose of acquiring works of art in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act-further amount required, $885,000.


The Chairman:: Shall this resolution carry?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, further to some remarks I made on this item yesterday regarding the purchase of these paintings from the Prince of Liechtenstein, there are one or two further questions I should like to place before the minister, and I hope to get some answers. This is a very extensive item indeed for the purchase of paintings. We have heard that in the past deception has been going on in the purchase of paintings. For instance, it is a well known story that the late lamented Hermann Goering was properly swindled in the purchase of paintings once by a very great expert reproducer of old masters. I am not suggesting that the paintings of the Prince of Liechtenstein are in that class, but I would like to know how many experts, if any, examined this collection to make sure that they are what they are supposed to be. That is something that is well worth looking into. Did Mr. Jarvis, the director of the national gallery, see these pictures, or did the agent of the broker through whom they were bought examine them? Just who did examine these pictures? That is information the committee is entitled to. In addition to that, would the minister give us the name of the firm of brokers through whom those pictures were purchased?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the brokers were Agnew and Sons Limited, London, England.
As to the former question, my recollection is that the prince's collection of paintings is probably as well authenticated as almost any, in that there have been records of the paintings published over several hundred years, and that in questioning the background there is less chance of that occurring under these circumstances than would be if there were no record kept for some considerable time.
As to the number of experts who examined these paintings, I must say that I have not the information; but I do know that long before the current series of purchases began three or four years ago, the prince's collection had been examined not only by experts on behalf of the national gallery but by the

director of the national gallery himself on more than one occasion and at a time when probably it was not in their minds that we would be purchasing some of the paintings. However, on the main estimates I think the minister will give my hon. friend full details as to the steps taken to ensure that there is no mistake made.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I should like to follow up that question. Is it the purpose of the trustees of the national gallery to endeavour to the utmost to encourage the development and expansion of Canadian art? I ask this question because when I look at the expenditures that have been made since 1945 it is apparent that for every $22 spent on pictures painted elsewhere than in Canada, $1 is spent on Canadian paintings. I feel that a larger percentage of the expenditures should be directed to the encouragement of Canadian art. Canadian artists have a very difficult time to make their way. While they are impelled by their art, none the less they have to make a livelihood. When they have paintings that are worthy of the national gallery as being representative of Canada, indeed representative of Canadian nationalism, I feel that more encouragement should be given to them than has been given heretofore. If we are to build here in Ottawa a great national shrine, one that will memorialize our achievements, I feel that to a greater extent than ever before there must be as a target on the part of those charged with transforming Ottawa into the city beautiful, the national capital, a greater emphasis on things Canadian.
We have many French Canadian artists whose work is directed to the perpetuation of the life of the areas occupied in the main by those of French origin.
We have an important artist who comes from the province of Saskatchewan whose name is Henderson, a man who was laughed at when he first started to paint the barrenness of Saskatchewan. That was the view of those with a classically artistic turn of mind. He was able to perpetuate in art something of the spirit of Saskatchewan which to those who live in other provinces is difficult to discern on a visit there. He caught this spirit very imaginatively. It is the same with artists in other parts of this country. Another example is Miss Emily Carr whose art made her famous in her lifetime. I believe her work will live as representative of the generation in which she participated in the artistic life of this country.
With all due regard to the benefits that flow from viewing art for art's sake and pictures that are painted outside of our country, I feel that first and foremost the
Supply-National Gallery national gallery in the capital city should be one to encourage, develop and expand Canadian art.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I must say that I cannot get too enthusiastic about this expenditure, despite the fact that I may be accused of lacking culture. Nevertheless when I look at the sum of $885,000 for four paintings I begin to wonder if the government is bringing Liechtenstein into the Colombo plan, or if we are extending them lend-lease or something of that nature. In the original estimates the government proposed to spend $130,000 for acquiring art works this year. Parliament passed the policy on the basis of such a figure, and it seems rather strange to me that the government now comes and asks, in addition, seven times as much as the original sum.
The national gallery has a new director. I understand that Mr. Jarvis is an extremely capable man. Sometimes he likes to make speeches. Down in Montreal a few weeks ago he was apparently rather disdainful about hardware merchants and others who take it upon themselves to criticize expenditures for art. There may be some justification for his disdain and certainly he is entitled to his opinion. But I would remind Mr. Jarvis that it is the people of the constituency I represent and others, who have to pay the bills for these paintings. Indeed it is these people who pay his salary. I therefore think we are perfectly entitled to be critical at times of his spending.
What does the expenditure of $885,000 mean in terms of farming? I would point out that it represents about 650,000 bushels of wheat, the total output of approximately 125 prairie farmers for a year. It represents about 6,000 steers, I suppose-grain-fed ones at that. I think this sum is a lot of money and I wonder if it is wisely spent.
I have been told that we have literally thousands of paintings at the gallery today which are not on display. Some are stored in the basement and some are stored in other warehouses. I do not know whether or not this is correct, but if it is, I feel we should take some action to put on display the paintings which are presently in storage, before we expend such huge sums in purchasing additional works.
I should like to ask the minister what is being done to get these art treasures out to other parts of the country, so people other than those living in Ottawa can see them. I know there are some tours, but I do not remember an exhibition being held in my constituency. If we are going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on new paintings

Supply-National Gallery I think the government should give consideration to arranging more extensive tours in all provinces, where many more people can see them.
Perhaps this particular expenditure is not going to be repeated, but if it is, I think the estimates for the national gallery should be referred either to one of the standing committees or to a select committee to be appointed. I do not like to see money being spent in such quantities without some kind of supervision. I hope the minister will give the matter consideration.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I must protest against this hill-billy approach to this particular question. I know that when it is in one item it sounds like a great deal of money, but we must remember that many organizations and many hon. members of this house have urged the government to build up a national gallery and national library in order to develop a cultural centre in Ottawa. I for one cannot see how anyone could reasonably protest at an investment of about six cents per capita in order to obtain a choice collection of world-known paintings.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise at this time to speak for the C.C.F., I am speaking for the people whom I represent in Selkirk. I think it is a shame that we should vote $885,000 for pictures. I have nothing against the finer arts but I had to work too hard when I was young to be able to participate in or enjoy them. I do not wish by any means to deprive other people of that pleasure, but in a booming economy such as we have here in 1956 we should be able to do something for poor people who have neither feed nor seed in the north of Selkirk constituency. I drew the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that this government had collected $300,000 from the people under the P.F.A.A. and they have not received any benefits in return.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


William Scottie Bryce: Just let me go on for a couple of minutes and I will sit down. I want to go on and tell you what I have to say. I think it is a disgrace for the parliament of Canada to do that sort of thing today and now we are being asked to vote $885,000 for the finer arts when people are going hungry, when they have not the necessities of life. They do not know what to do and neither this government nor the provincial government will do a darn thing about it.
I appeal to the Prime Minister because he is the only man who smiles when I ask him. Mr. Prime Minister, please do something for these people because they are in terrible straits today.
(Mr. Thatcher.]


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I raised objection with respect to the payment of commissions which I felt were unnecessarily excessive. If this whole transaction was necessary, and I have grave doubts, it could have been carried on by the director of the national gallery. Accordingly I move:
That item 548 be reduced by $35,000.
This is the amount of the commission.


Mr. Quelch:: I should like to ask the minister if any of this money is being spent to buy so-called abstract paintings. I attended an exhibition last year of what were called abstract paintings and I think they could have better been called a chamber of horrors. If we are spending money on such grotesque things as that, I think we might as well say-


Lester Bowles Pearson: They did not paint them in those days.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: I remember that this item came before the estimates committee, that is, if I am correct in assuming that this item has nothing to do with the purchase of the Liechtenstein collection. Am I correct in that? Am I correct in assuming that this particular item of $885,000, or some of it at least, is in connection with the Liechtenstein collection?


Walter Edward Harris: No, these are paintings the purchase of which has been initiated recently. I do not think they would have come before your committee last session.


Colin Cameron: At that time,
when this matter came before the estimates committee, there was an attempt by some of the committee members to get some idea of the individual cost of the pictures. I do not think it was anybody's fault particularly that they could not get a very clear picture of it. The curator of the national gallery was not very well acquainted with the actual financial transactions, and as a consequence most of the members of the committee were, I think, left in doubt, as I was, as to the exact cost of that particular collection.
At that time I raised a question-not necessarily an objection but a question-as to the wisdom of devoting such large sums of money to the purchase of pictures from one particular school of painting of a very much earlier period. Whilst I recognize the necessity, if our gallery is really to assume the proportions of a representative art gallery, of having representatives of various schools of painting, I still thought that the fundamental purpose of our national gallery should be to establish, first of all, the world's outstanding collection of at least North American, if not of Canadian, paintings, and that we should be careful not to expend all

our funds on the collection of paintings that would constitute a selection very similar to those to be found in the other parts of the world.
I may say that when I raised that point in the estimates committee the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration listened to me with considerable sympathy, because, as he explained, I was speaking just the way his wife did almost every day on the matter. I think that we should perhaps question these purchases on some such basis as that. I agree, of course, that we have engaged art experts to make these purchases for us but, on the other hand, I think we should bear in mind the general social purpose of a national gallery, and I think that part of that social purpose is to put on display the various periods and developments of our own native painting, even though it might include some of the deplored abstract paintings that my hon. friend from Acadia mentioned just now. Whilst I also have great difficulty in comprehending abstract paintings when I see them, I am forced to the conclusion that there must be people of more discriminating taste than I who do find some satisfaction in them. I should think the gallery is not going to be complete in these days unless it does in its collection embody certain of these types of paintings.
I hope the minister, or possibly the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when he comes with his main estimates, will be able to give us a more detailed account of the type of expenditure for which this money is being appropriated. Perhaps the Minister of Finance should tell us now, though, whether there is a certain level at which the national gallery seeks to leave funds at hand for the trustees to expend as they see fit. From the statements made last year, I rather gather there is some such item, but this appropriation this year seems to alter the picture in that regard.


Mr. Ellis:: In connection with the commission paid on these paintings, I think the minister pointed out that it was five per cent on the first $400,000 and I believe it was four per cent on the balance. While not being familiar with the procedure in the buying of paintings, in a general sense it seems to me that the government and the national gallery, in making from time to time substantial purchases of paintings, could use some method whereby the taxpayers of Canada could be spared the inordinate amount of expense involved in commissions. If you are going to pay 5 per cent on the first $400,000, or the amount of $20,000, it seems to me that there are officials of the national gallery who should
Supply-National Gallery be able to negotiate purchases on behalf of the government at a great saving to the taxpayers.
There is one other matter with which I should like to deal. I should like the minister to inform the house just what percentage of paintings now owned by the national gallery are not on public view because of the lack of space and lack of facilities for showing them. It seems to me that I have heard many estimates of the numbers of paintings which are now stored away and which are inaccessible simply owing to the lack of sufficient space. If we are to be called upon to approve expenditures for the national gallery it seems to me that the government should be taking serious steps to make sure that when paintings are purchased, including all those which have been purchased in the past, they are made available at all times to the general public. There is not much point in having paintings if they are to be stored away down in the basement or in some place where they are not available to the citizens.
Then there is this other point which I think was raised by another hon. member. I think greater use should be made of the paintings in various parts of the country. While something has been done in this direction, I think perhaps more exhibitions in the principal centres throughout Canada would enable all Canada to get better value out of the money which we are appropriating at the present time.


Mr. Holowach:: This item is for additional funds which are needed to finance the department because of acquiring further works of art. I am not objecting to the amount because if all of the facts were known I think the present government seems to be giving less recognition to the fine arts than is any other country in the world, including small countries. However, I am concerned about the veil of secrecy which seems to prevail in the matter of the purchase of these fine works of art. These paintings are being acquired by public funds for public enjoyment. I should like to know just what steps are being taken to protect the public, what process is being used in discovering the merits of certain valuations, and just what manner of protection is given to the public against fraudulent valuations. I do not think we have had enough information on that matter.
In the public accounts of Canada at page CC-24 the credit balance of the national gallery purchase account as of March 31, 1955 is in the amount of $425. That represents a decrease of $109,738.96 from the balance of $110,163.96 as of March 31, 1954. How many pieces of art were acquired during that time? I think the minister mentioned

Supply-National Gallery that a commission was paid. I should just like to know why a direct approach was not made in the matter of these purchases. Had the government taken that direct approach 1 think there would have been a considerable saving.


Mr. Caslleden:: I am one of those who believe that our Canadian economy can afford a good living to the Canadian people and also supply us with some of the fine arts for the work of a good national gallery. I think it is a valuable asset to Canada. Apparently, from what has been said here, in some places we are not getting either. I think parliament should be concerned with what is to be obtained for that $885,000 or practically $1 million. I was reading over the committee report on the estimates last year. At that time when there was discussion about what the purchases would be, the item before the committee was for only some $130,000. On reading over the report it seemed to me that there were times when the committee was not given a satisfactory explanation as to the pictures which were being bought, the amounts which were being paid for them, the commissions that were being paid and the persons involved. I understand from the minister, however, that this $885,000 is for new purchases, or more recent purchases than the ones referred to in the estimates last year. If that is the case, I do not think parliament should pass these supplementary estimates until we have a statement in detail from the minister as to what these paintings are, how many paintings or pictures there are, who is receiving the commission for them and exactly what the item covers. In the estimates, as I see them here, there is certainly not sufficient explanation to cover that item. I should like to have a statement from the minister in that regard.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting to do that, of course, until all the other speeches were made. If there are any more, I shall have to wait further.


Mr. Trainor:: I must confess that I know little about the procedure that is used in acquiring old masters. However, I should like to ask the minister just what the company or firm which got this $35,000 did to earn it? It is a considerable sum of money. One would wish to know just what services were given in return for this amount of money.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, in the art world I understand that there are agents comparable -if I may use such a mundane comparison -to real estate agents. But in this particular case it goes much further than that. Thomas Agnew and Sons Limited are an old and

respected agency in London for the handling of paintings and art treasures. Their reputation is such that, when they sell a picture, it is something that they have handled it and certified it from the standpoint of authenticity. In addition to that, it is the practice in the trade to pay a commission to the agent of the vendor. I would rather hope that the hon. member for Oxford would withdraw his amendment for that reason. This matter could have been gone into in some detail during last year's session when this department was before the estimates committee. I do not know whether or not it was gone into. But on every occasion when we have purchased paintings from this collection we have paid the commission. That is traditional and customary. With that, however, we get the advantage I have mentioned, namely that this firm with its reputation at stake is involved in the transaction to the point where they would not, in all probability, seek to sell to the national gallery of Canada something that might be questionable in the future.
The commissions are, I admit, negotiable in the sense that you do negotiate the commission but there is a range within which the settlements are made. The figures I have given you are not out of place for a $850,000 sale. For that reason we are obliged to pay it. If the amendment is carried, aside from whatever result it might have here, you destroy the sale, of course, because it is part of the transaction that we have agreed to go through with.


Owen C. Trainor: Am I correct in understanding the minister to say that this service that is supplied by the broker carries with it a guarantee that in the event of a picture turning out to be not authentic, the government might expect to be indemnified against loss?


Walter Edward Harris: No. I did not mean to go that far and I carefully avoided doing so. I did not mean to misrepresent the matter at all. We do not get a written guarantee. On the other hand, this firm is one of the most reputable in the art world in London, England; and when you deal with them, you get something by way of assurance that they would not under any circumstances handle a picture about which there was any doubt in their minds.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Can the minister say whether the Prince of Liechtenstein paid any commission for selling these pictures?


Walter Edward Harris: That I do not know. I doubt it, but I do not know. I think this is the commission in the trade.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Is the minister suggesting that no sales are made in the art world except through this middle man, the commission agent?


Walter Edward Harris: No, what I am saying is that the director of the art gallery can, of course, make purchases of art where he will. He may be able to buy from certain living painters without paying a commission, but in any substantial collection of recognized masterpieces, old masters, he will have to pay a commission to an agent.


Mr. Small:: Is there any breakdown of the classes of pictures which have been purchased by the art gallery showing how many are old masters, how many are moderns and how many are of the abstract school?


Walter Edward Harris: I can answer that along with the questions that have been asked previously. At frequent intervals the national gallery publishes a current catalogue not only of purchases but of paintings and other kinds of art that have been lent to them for showing. There is a complete catalogue of the holdings of the gallery in the possession of the gallery but it is such a lengthy document I do not believe hon. members would want to have it printed at public expense. On the other hand, as I have said, there is a complete catalogue but we have not got room, as has been suggested here, to hang all these paintings at one time. However, that is not the purpose of a gallery. The purpose of a gallery is to provide showings from time to time of various kinds of art and various periods of art.
I can assure the hon. member for Acadia that there is no chamber of horrors. At least, I will put it this way, they are rather ancient compared with those about which he was thinking. There is one by Rubens, "The Entombment of Christ"; there is one by Simone Martini, called St. Catherine; there are two by Simeon Chardin, "The Governess" and "Returning from the Market". The first one is alleged to have been painted in 1615; the second was in 1320 and the last two were sometime in the eighteenth century. These are recognized works of art of some substance in the art world as well as in the financial world and they are being added to the collection in accordance with a policy which I think was begun four years ago when it became known that some of these paintings would be available.
I point out to hon. members that practically all the old masters are either in private hands or galleries in the United States or in Europe. You cannot buy them from national galleries. You can only buy this type of painting from a private owner -<nd there are very few private owners left.
Supply-National Gallery The Prince's collection is by long odds the largest single collection of this kind of art which is available for purchase and that is why the national gallery is taking the opportunity to buy these paintings. Perhaps this will be the only opportunity. I admit there is a question of Canadian art entering into this. Hon. members will recall that for the three or four years after the end of the war we were voting $100,000 a year for the purchase of art. I think it was then raised to $130,000 and that is the level at which it has continued. But you simply could not buy anything of this standard with money of that kind. It is for that reason these are extraordinary arrangements arrived at from time to time and brought forward as supple-mentaries, just at the time when the negotiations have been completed.
The hon. member for Prince Albert quite properly stressed the part that the national gallery would play in sustaining Canadian art, in the sense not only of purchasing some of it from time to time but putting it on exhibition. But you must remember that we do that. Quite a considerable sum of money has been expended on Canadian art, but Canadian art does not cost $885,000 for four pictures. It may be worth that some day and I sincerely hope it will. But one should not compare the amount of money spent. One should remember that these are almost priceless assets to the national gallery and naturally you are going to pay a good deal to get them.
On the other hand, I fully subscribe to the theory that at all times the director and board of trustees ought to be conscious of their responsibility to Canadian artists and to the Canadian public, in seeing that those paintings which have merit are given attention and shown at the proper time. My hon. friend asked how many paintings we had in the cellar and not on public view. I must say I could not tell him but I will see if I can get it. I would point out that even if we had larger quarters the purpose of a gallery is not to have everything on exhibition at the one time.


Alfred Claude Ellis: In the one place.


Walter Edward Harris: In the one place. On that point, there is a regular rotation of exhibitions in Canada. If the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre feels that the citizens of Moose Jaw could provide certain fireproof arrangements and certain costs in connection with a travelling show, I am sure it would be arranged. Normally, these showings are made at the request of local galleries or art centres in Winnipeg, Regina and other places of that kind. But I am satisfied the board of trustees would be glad to fall in with any suggestion.

Supply-National Gallery I just add this warning; there is a fairly high standard of fireproof building that is required or else these paintings will not be sent on tour.
Now, if I have forgotten any particular question asked, I am sorry but I shall be glad to answer. I do ask the hon. member for Oxford if he will reconsider his amendment in the light of what I have said. This is part of the transaction. While he may not agree with our having purchased this group of paintings from the Prince that we should go on and pay the commission, the fact of the matter is we will not be able to get the paintings unless we do. The director of the gallery, who is experienced in these matters and knows the customs of the trade throughout the world, says that this percentage of commission is not unreasonable; that it is about the average that is paid under these circumstances. I think that yesterday my hon. friend said that, while he had no way of knowing the real value of these paintings,- none of us have-he suggested we might consider one particular painting that is in the possession of the Prince, along with any other purchase we might make. I might say to him that the particular painting he mentioned was, in fact, considered along with the other paintings. It was decided to buy these four on the assumption that we were getting not only full value but a more representative group of paintings than if we concentrated a million dollars in the one particular painting he had in mind.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of what the minister says, I am curious about one thing. The minister has just said that unless this amendment made to reduce this item by $35,000 is withdrawn, the whole deal will fall through. Just a few minutes ago I asked the minister if the Prince of Liechtenstein had paid a commission to this agent to sell the pictures. As I understand the transaction, the Canadian government has employed this firm of brokers, Messrs. Agnew, I believe, to carry on this deal for the Canadian government with the Prince of Liechtenstein. Now, it may be some unusual custom in the trade with which I am not familiar and I will be grateful if the minister will explain what it is, but I take it that the Agnew people are acting on behalf of the Canadian government in buying these pictures from the Prince of Liechtenstein. What I am getting at is this. If these pictures had been placed in the hands of Agnew and Company by the Prince of Liechtenstein for sale and they had the exclusive agency for selling them, I can understand the minister's argument; but since it is the reverse procedure I do not understand why the deal would necessarily fall

through if the government merely discontinued the services of Agnew and Company. Apparently, the Prince of Liechtenstein did not place the pictures in the hands of Agnew and Company to be sold; rather, the government has employed the brokers to purchase the pictures from the Prince of Liechtenstein. Is that correct?


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the opposition on this amendment. It is the first time in a long period that the opposition has asked to reduce government spending. I should like to see a whole lot more spent on art, because there is so much to pull us down and so little to lift us up. If anybody wants to see beautiful pictures all he has to do is to go to the fourth floor on the Senate side. There he will see many beautiful pictures. The cheapest picture is valued at $50,000 by Senator Paterson. I congratulated the opposition on this amendment because it is the first time in a long time that I have heard them wanting to reduce government spending. I do not think it is wise.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: That is not so.


Mr. Fleming:: The hon. member has a short memory.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. member for Oxford is concerned with the principle of the matter, not that he would be unwilling to save $35,000 for the taxpayers of Canada, as I would be. I take it it is the principle involved that is bothering him a little bit; that is, whether or not Agnew and Company in London are the agents for the prince and, if so, did they receive a commission, or should we pay one to them? In the art world there is a certain faith and trust built up by people who deal in pictures. Agnew and Company have that respect not only with the vendor but with the purchaser. If the Prince of Liechtenstein says, as I take it he has said in the past, that these people will be relied on by him to negotiate arrangements with Canada for the purchase of these paintings, and, if we must go through them for that purpose as we have had to do over the last four or five years, and as the trade requires the payment to the agent in these circumstances, we have agreed to make payment. I suggest to him-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Subject to the approval of parliament, surely?


Walter Edward Harris: Quite so. That is taken for granted so much on this side that it is not necessary to be said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The trouble is you take too much for granted.

Mi. Harris:	If my hon, friend wishes to
pursue the more minute details of the transaction with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on his estimates I am sure he will have the opportunity. Perhaps it would take a certain amount of time to do it; nevertheless we are not doing anything unusual here at all in any sense of the word.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Is this the final purchase
from this particular collection, or is it the intention of the gallery to acquire more of those paintings later on? Will the minister say whether he does not think it might be wise for the government to state what its policy on spending is for each year?


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration will deal with that on his main estimates. I want my hon. friend to understand what I have said. The information which came to us some four years ago was that this collection was available for purchase. That was the information on which we learned for the first time that one of the few remaining collections in private hands that could be acquired by the gallery was being made available. Under these circumstances it would be a matter of consideration as to how many of these paintings could be acquired or should be acquired by the gallery. My recollection is that this is the third purchase in the four years. No other commitments have been made. We are not obliged to buy anything else. If my hon. friend inquires of the minister he will give him a statement on the policy as to whether or not he would continue negotiations in the coming year. I do not really know myself.


George Hugh Castleden: I asked a question as to
how many pictures were involved in this amount of $885,000.


Walter Edward Harris: Four.


George Hugh Castleden: Four pictures involving
$885,000?


Walter Edward Harris: Right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whatever happens to the
amendment moved by the hon. member for Oxford, I hope the government will review its policy with respect to these commission payments, at least in so far as any future purchases are concerned. Frankly, I do not want to go any farther in commenting on that because I would prefer that any words of mine might be by way of support of the national gallery in its efforts to establish a collection worthy of this country. I want also to support the view expressed by my colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk, that there are some other needs of the people of this country that should be met. I do not 67509-1584
Supply-National Gallery feel that expenditure on art needs to interfere with the meeting of these other needs; but the fact that this item passes should not be taken to mean that the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister can slough off the appeal that was made here today by the hon. member for Selkirk.
While I am on my feet I should like to say just a word about this question of abstract paintings. I confess that, like my friend, the hon. member for Acadia, and my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo, I find it difficult to understand these abstract works of art. At the same time I do not think that the only words spoken in the parliament of Canada today on this question should be words that might be interpreted as discouraging to modern Canadian artists. After all, I believe there are in the files of the director of the national art gallery letters written a number of years ago condemning the work of the group of seven. In their day their work was looked upon as hideous and monstrous; whereas today all of us value the Canadian landscape paintings of the group of seven very highly. It may be that our children and our grandchildren will understand the abstract painting that is being done today, and may even come to value it very highly. It seems to me that whether we can understand it or not we should try to do so, and we should not discourage modern Canadian artists who are experimenting in all the different fields of painting. As a matter of fact, they may be reflecting the times through which we are passing in a way that will be understood in the years that lie ahead. Some works of the past were once thought of as a bit horrible; let us hope we in our day can add to our heritage.
The other word I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, is this. I want to support what others have said about the desirability of the collections of the national gallery being taken on tour throughout Canada. I recognize the point made by the Minister of Finance and I have heard the director of the national gallery make it as well, that the value of the gallery's paintings is such that they cannot be set up in any tent anywhere in Canada. Proper fireproof buildings with other protection have to be made available. That is one of the reasons I hope the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance will soon get together on the establishment of the Canada Council. I believe that the establishment of such a council would give encouragement to the arts throughout Canada and speed the day when it will be possible to take various collections from the national gallery on tour.

Supply-National Gallery


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, in view of what the minister has said I might be prepared to withdraw my motion, in view of the fact that I intend to pursue the matter much further when the estimates of the department come up. There is one thing I would like to know, possibly as a result of my making this motion. There has been considerable discussion of the matter in the house. I would like to ask the minister this question-I believe I asked it yesterday. I am given to understand that the director of the national gallery, Mr. Alan Jarvis, is most highly qualified. I received that information from those who are in a position to know. Why cannot arrangements be made to have Mr. Jarvis himself go out and try to make those transactions with the Prince of Liechtenstein and other such persons?


Walter Edward Harris: I will have that examined, of course, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have just one question.


The Deputy Chairman:: Just before the hon. member for Peterborough proceeds, I do not want to put words in the mouth of the hon. member for Oxford, but I do not understand whether or not the hon. member has asked leave to withdraw the amendment.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I will be prepared to withdraw the amendment in view of the fact that I intend to pursue this matter further on the main estimates.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Withdrawn.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask one question. The minister mentioned that, if the amendment were put forward and carried, the deal would be off. Is it not true that Canada has already contracted for these pictures?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, Mr. Chairman, that is my point. We have agreed to buy at this price. If parliament refuses us the authority to do so I presume we would have to negotiate a new transaction and then ask for authority later. I was not suggesting this by way of threat at all and I hope hon. members will not take it that way.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The pictures are already bought?


Walter Edward Harris: They are bought by agreement and will be coming to this country next month but they will not come if this item is not passed.


Mr. Leboe:: At the risk of being laughed at,
I want to ask the minister if it is possible that the national art gallery could receive paintings as a gift with the artist's card attached to the painting advertising his position. In this way we could perhaps get away from the expenditure of large amounts of the taxpayers' money.


Walter Edward Harris: The national gallery does, of course accept donations along this line but they do avoid advertising, as my hon. friend,
I think, would understand they should.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, I have just one comment to offer. It is not of a technical nature at all because I am not qualified to comment in a technical way as far as art is concerned. It seems to me that the old masters have acquired their value for two reasons and the value is made up of two factors: First, the true worth of the painting from an artistic point of view and, second, the value which is acquired merely because the article is extremely scarce. That is a factor of the value which is acquired by many rare objects such as old coins and old stamps and many things which have no artistic value at all. Their cost increases merely because they are in short supply or because there is only one example in existence. It would seem to me that we should not tend towards the idea that our national gallery is an agency for acquiring exclusively articles which are extremely rare. For my part I would be perfectly satisfied to have a picture by some artist of perhaps the same era or school who was much more productive in his time, and more examples of whose work exist, if the quality of the work is somewhat of the same order of that of a less productive contemporary of his although the painting itself may be less valuable from the monetary point of view. I think the artistic point of view should be the main factor considered in purchasing paintings.


Robert Hardy Small: Mr. Chairman, in asking for a breakdown a moment ago, it was for the purpose of enabling hon. members to decide for themselves exactly what they were purchasing. The minister gave us that information. What I was trying to get at at the time was what would be the proportion that might be made up of abstract paintings.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, the group of seven at the turn of the century were trying to develop in this country a style of painting that would depict the ruggedness of Canada and they developed it to an extent of which we are all proud. I do not know what artists are trying to depict in abstract painting. Perhaps it is nightmares in colour or colour frustration, or perhaps you could call it artistic

garbage. When the amendment was made to reduce the amount of the commission I was wholly in support of it because while we may have to pay a certain amount of money for artistic garbage I would strongly object to paying commission to secure it. I feel this way because I think you can get a load of that type of garbage any time you want it by going to a place where they are studying art and asking for it. They would give it to you, on your undertaking to take it away with you. I repeat that I would object to paying a commission on what is artistic garbage and colour riot gone rampant.


Ambrose A. Holowach: I am certain that the department is exercising good judgment in the matter of selecting abstract paintings for the national gallery but I was just wondering if the minister would amplify his explanation as to why a direct approach was not made in the matter of purchasing paintings from the Prince of Liechtenstein. I would also like to ask what protection is being given to the public against fraudulent valuations of these paintings. I think there should be a panel of experts set up to advise in such matters because while the field of art is a noble one we know that unfortunately there are pretty smooth operators and "pitch" men operating in this field. I should like to know what protection is being given to the public.


Walter Edward Harris: I can only repeat my former explanation that the situation described by the hon. member is one reason why we retain a responsible agent, or do business through a responsible agent, one whose reputation in the art world is such that most people will feel they are not having anything of doubtful origin foisted upon them. In addition to that, the director of the national gallery, of course, has friends and acquaintances in the art world. I am quite satisfied that he will receive advice from the curators of other galleries as well as from other dealers. In fact, I am convinced that he would feel that would be a part of his responsibility to us. In addition to that, the board of trustees, while laymen, are nevertheless chosen because, as far as Canada is concerned, they have more than an average amount of experience and knowledge in this field. While I do not suggest their knowledge is equal to that of the director, it is a matter that can be used to weigh in the balance of good judgment.
I should add, in addition to that, that to my knowledge more than one of these directors had seen this collection before we purchased any of the paintings some three, four or five years ago. I can assure you that the director is quite knowledgeable in these
Supply-Finance
matters and is conscious of his responsibility to parliament in asking parliament to vote this sum of money.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would answer a question on this point. I noticed that he used the word "retain" in relation to the agent, and then he changed it. Was that a slip of the tongue or does the department pay him a retainer?


Walter Edward Harris: No. I changed the word deliberately because I should not have used the word "retain".


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Payments to municipalities-
554.	Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property-to provide for payments to municipalities in accordance with the Municipal Grants Act, and the rural municipal grants regulations established by order in council of January 11, 1956, P.C. 1956-38, and to provide for payments to municipalities under order in council of October 6. 1954, P.C. 1954-1497, in respect of the cost of medical and hospital services and supplies furnished to federal employees and other persons specified therein-further	amount required, including
authority, notwithstanding section 7 of chapter 49 of the statutes of 1955 (an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act), for payment of grants under section 5 of the Municipal Grants Act to the municipalities of Midland and Welland, in the province of Ontario, and Ste. Foy, in the province of Quebec, $530,500.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct the minister's attention to some anomalies and unfairness in the administration under the Municipal Grants Act. I understand that representatives of various urban bodies in Canada, including the city of Toronto, my own city of Prince Albert and various others, recently communicated with either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance requesting a conference in order to place before the government the unfairness of the operation of the act.
Certainly as it now stands many cities and towns with government buildings, institutions, crown companies and the like, are receiving benefits from the municipalities in which they are located. It is far beyond anything in the nature of the contribution which they make to the taxation levies of the cities, towns or municipalities in which those public institutions are located.
When the Municipal Grants Act was passed in 1941, 4 per cent was the percentage which the total amount of government institutions and buildings assessment bore to the total assessment. That was the base upon which taxation was levied. As I remember, later on that was changed to 2 per cent which removed in part some of the injustice suffered

Supply-Finance
oy municipalities through not being able to impose ordinary taxation on federal institutions. I realize the benefits that come and flow from having these public institutions located in a city, town or municipality in one's constituency, but it seems unfair that an extra load of taxation must be levied against the citizens of that municipality in order to meet the needs of supplying municipal conveniences and the like to those institutions.
With the government in business today to the extent that it is, there can be no possible reason why public corporations or public bodies should be subject to any less taxation than should any other institution which is subject to taxation within the municipality. I would ask the minister what consideration is being given to the changing of this act in order to meet the justifiable requests of municipalities across this country.
Each level of government today requires a field of taxation and the municipalities are placed in the position where they have these public institutions and yet are not able to impose that taxation which would be fair and reasonable in connection with the rate of taxation which is applicable to other institutions and public bodies within the municipality. There was a request, and it was a reasonable request, made to the government that it receive a delegation representing the municipalities of Canada in order that this whole question might be discussed and a new base arrived at. Why was that request refused or ignored?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not know that it was. If my hon. friend is asking for information, no such request has been refused. A request came from the city of Toronto while I was in Paris and the Prime Minister pointed out in his answer that I was in Paris and not available, and that with the Christmas season and the opening of parliament coming along it would be doubtful if a delegation could be received up until that time.
On the day before parliament met I met the mayor and members of the board of control of Toronto in Toronto and discussed this very matter with them.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not the information that I got from the association of municipalities.


Walter Edward Harris: That may be, but I can assure my hon. friend that that is exactly what happened.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is referring to a meeting with representatives of Toronto, but there was a request from the representatives of municipalities in all parts of the country.


Walter Edward Harris: The cabinet met with representatives of the mayors and reeves somewhere about the middle of February or the first week in February.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not my information before me at the moment, but the last complaint I received about the government not giving consideration to this was, I believe, around February 28.


Walter Edward Harris: We do not need to waste any time on this. We met a large delegation in room 497 headed by Mr. Stewart, the president of the association of reeves and mayors, who is now the mayor of Charlottetown.


John George Diefenbaker: The last word I got was around the last week of February complaining that there had been no meeting. The minister has said that he met with representatives of Toronto in Toronto after his return from Paris, and subsequently with other representatives in Ottawa. I should like to ask what decision the government has arrived at in connection with ameliorating legislation to relieve the municipalities from their present unjust responsibilities of adding to the taxation of people living within the municipalities in order to meet the need of supplying conveniences to the federal authority?


Walter Edward Harris: The answer is of course
obvious, that we have not concluded our consideration of the request. When we do we will make an announcement as to the decision we reach.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the minister give any indication to the representatives he met that any amelioration was anticipated by legislation at the present session?


Walter Edward Harris: No. In the case of the city of Toronto I did ask them to communicate with the Department of Finance, which they have since done-they had not up to that time-for the purpose of coming to an understanding, if that were possible, about the assessments on the various properties in Toronto. That is as far as I went with them, and that has been done since. So far as the association is concerned, the promise was made at the end of the meeting with them that every one of the many things they had brought to our notice would receive careful consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it the present plan of the government to deal with each of the municipalities on an individual basis in order to arrive at what would be regarded as an equitable assessment within the municipality, or is there going to be a general rule to apply across Canada?


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend does not understand what I meant about the city of Toronto. When we make a grant under the Municipal Grants Act we do so if the assessment on federal property is above a certain percentage of the total. In order to decide whether a grant is in order there must be an agreed figure as to both the general assessment and the assessment on federal buildings. That is what has been going on with respect to the properties in Toronto. If the time comes when there is no limitation, that is if the federal government should agree to pay on its properties, and not just on the excess over a certain percentage, I am quite satisfied that the federal government would have to continue its present practice of arriving at agreements with the municipalities as to assessment on its properties. My hon. friend asks if we will be dealing with each municipality, and to that extent we would.


John George Diefenbaker: I might just follow that one bit further. What was the suggestion by the representatives of the municipalities as a whole as to changes in or amendments to the Municipal Grants Act in order to meet their needs and remove the injustices claimed by them?


Walter Edward Harris: Their representation was that we should eliminate the present restrictions where we pay only on the excess over 2 per cent.


John George Diefenbaker: In other words, they asked that federal institutions be placed on the same level of taxation as everyone else within the municipalities without restriction?


Walter Edward Harris: That is not quite so, because only two provincial governments pay the full amount of taxation on their properties. While I do not want to interject this as an argument, to that extent my hon. friend would not be correct.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether the representatives of the two provinces in question-and he might name them- were willing to accept a different basis of assessment from those from the other eight, or why he injected the reference to two provinces?


Walter Edward Harris: I injected it merely to correct the question my hon. friend asked, because I could not answer it with a yes or no. As I said before, only the two provinces are to pay taxes on the basis of full assessment.


John George Diefenbaker: Which are those two?


Walter Edward Harris: Ontario and Saskatchewan, I am told. If the other provinces do not pay on full assessment and if the federal government ultimately does, it would still not be correct
Supply-Finance
at that time to say that all these people wanted was that the federal government should pay as everyone else does, because it would not be true in the other eight provinces if they did not change their present practices.


Mr. Jones:: Could the minister inform the house how many municipalities now qualify for the grant?


Walter Edward Harris: Something over 100.


Owen Lewis Jones: What percentage of the whole would that be? Ten per cent of all the municipalities in Canada?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think my hon. friend wants that information. What he wants to know is the percentage of municipalities in which we have property on which we do not pay.


Owen Lewis Jones: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall get that for you.


Mr. Starr:: Under the Municipal Grants
Act, there is a good deal of unfairness in the making of grants in lieu of taxes. Many municipalities * are in the position where they just come under the wire of the 2 per cent of 75 per cent of the assessment and, therefore, they do not qualify for the federal grant in lieu of taxes on federal property and crown property located within their borders. In most cases these properties are in very expensive or highly assessed areas in the municipality. If some other type of business was instituted in that particular piece of property, the municipality would derive from that property a fairly substantial sum in tax money.
We all know that the municipalities are hard pressed in the field of education and in the services they must render to the municipal taxpayers. I feel that this restriction in the Municipal Grants Act is most unjust to the municipalities at the present time. I hope that the government will see its way clear to consider removing this basis of grants in lieu of taxes, so that each and every municipality which necessarily must have these funds at the present time has the opportunity of participating in the grants under this act in lieu of the taxes on the properties within their borders.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
555.	To provide for the expenses of a committee to review and advise upon certain technical questions relating to the administration of the sales and excise taxes, $20,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask a question on that item, Mr. Chairman? First, what are the total expenses of the Carter committee and, second.

Supply-Finance
is it intended to have copies of their report printed? The minister tabled the report in his budget address on Tuesday evening. I ask if copies are going to be made available to members of the house so that they may more intelligently discuss the matter in the course of the budget resolutions.


Walter Edward Harris: We bad not come to any decision about that, but I shall look into it. This vote covers all the other costs. There will not be a further vote. This figure is an estimate of the total cost. It will not exceed $20,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is this the first one?


Walter Edward Harris: This is the first vote, yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask a question about this item. It states:
.	.	. a committee to review and advise upon
certain technical questions . . .
Under the Excise Tax Act there is a tax on cartage charges. Supposing a firm manufactures a certain article which costs $100, and if it receives a rush order for a number of them and delivers them, they charge the firm to which they deliver, say, $2 for each delivery. There is sales tax on that delivery, the $100 cost plus the $2 delivery charge. However, if the firm that purchases the same goods pays the delivery charges, there is no tax. It works a hardship on the manufacturing firm, because in many cases of rush orders they have to use their own trucks to get them out, and they have to pay the $2 on them. I wonder if the minister has had cases like that brought to his attention and if he would take them into consideration and see whether something could be done to get away from that, because it has worked hardship. I have one firm especially in mind, which caters to the tourist trade. It had to pay substantial sums to the excise office this year.


Walter Edward Harris: It was just this very point, among others, that caused us to appoint this committee. It has made what I think is a very thorough study of the subject; so much so that, as hon. members remember, I was not prepared to make any recommendations, or very many, based on it, because we want more time to study it. This kind of complaint has been received, and we shall look into it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
556.	To provide for the expenses of the royal commission on television and radio broadcasting, including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $34,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this is an
item of $34,000 to provide for the expenses of

the royal commission on television and radio broadcasting. This is the royal commission the appointment of which was announced in December and whose sittings are to commence on April 30 next. The announcement that the government intended to appoint the royal commission-


Mr. McCann:: May I correct the hon. gentleman? The board of inquiry has been sitting and has been studying briefs, but the sittings that will be open to the public commence at the time he mentioned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am referring to the public hearings. The royal commission has had certain private meetings as is known and they have invited the submission of briefs. They have announced publicly that they are going to commence their sittings on the 30th of April. It was on July 26 last that the government made the announcement of its intention to set up a royal commission, and in making that announcement the Minister of National Revenue said, as recorded on page 6875 of Hansard:
I am prepared to announce, on behalf of the government, that there will be either a commission or a board of inquiry set up some time within the near future to study the whole situation.
The "whole situation" embraces a great many problems that have been raised and were keenly debated last session in regard to radio and television policy in Canada. I do not think it can be said, when the government waited from July until December even to announce the setting up of the royal commission, that it moved very quickly. Nor can it be suggested that the royal commission has moved very quickly in commencing its public hearings only on the 30th of April.
The matters that have been referred to the royal commission are matters of high-indeed, I should say sweeping-importance in this field, and my personal regret is that the commission was not set up at a much earlier date than it was and that it has not found it possible to launch its hearings at a sufficiently early date to hold out some hope that its report might be available soon. Especially do I express that regret in view of one of the uses that the government has made in this house of the appointment of this royal commission. As hon. members will recall, on March 14 the government gave the appointment of the royal commission as a reason why it would not agree to the establishment this year of a committee of this house to review any aspect of policy or administration on the part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I have some observations to make in regard to this matter and also several associated

problems. So far as the attitude of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation toward the royal commission is concerned, it seems to me that the corporation ought to avoid saying or doing anything that is going to inject it into the realm of high policy in this regard. It seems to me that the proper view that the corporation should take of its responsibilities in this matter is that it should not be an advocate of any course of policy but should be merely the public servant which will carry out the policy that is decided upon. When it makes its submission to the royal commission I think it should be prepared-as I am sure it will be-to give to the royal ' commission all the information it requires and seeks. But I urge that it is not the function of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be the advocate of any particular line of policy, having regard to the fact that it is a body responsible to parliament.
I raise this question specifically because it has come to my attention that the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in the course of an interview on the radio network, expressed some views that it seems to me could be interpreted-I do not say it was done deliberately for that purpose-in some quarters as calling upon organizations to rush forward and to make representations to the royal commission against any change in the present method of dealing with the licensing of broadcasting or television stations in Canada. I am the more concerned when I find that the text of the remarks made by Mr. Dunton in the course of the radio interview was published at the expense of the corporation-which means at the public expense-in the C.B.C. Times of March 11-17. This is the concluding paragraph. The question is this:
.	.	. what about the matter of licences and
regulations?
This question was put by Mr. Willis the interviewer. Mr. Dunton replied:
On this point there certainly have been quite a lot of differences of opinion. First of all I would like to point out that the C.B.C. doesn't set down its own responsibilities and powers, nor does it set the scale and shape of the development of broadcasting in Canada. These are all set by the Canadian people through their parliament. It is not for us to say what law should be or try to plead that it should be one way or the other, especially when a royal commission has just been set up to study the whole matter of broadcasting in Canada.
Here let me interject this remark. That last statement of Mr. Dunton seems to me to be a perfectly correct statement of the position that the corporation ought to take in relation to matters of policy and the royal commission. But Mr. Dunton went on to add this:
I would like to say this, though. The over-all broadcasting system that has grown up to serve 67509-159
Supply-Finance
Canada represents close and complex association of public and private enterprise, of commercial and public resources. Something is obviously needed to co-ordinate such a system under the difficult conditions set by the nature of Canada and under the various pulls and pressures coming from our great neighbouring country to the south. Where that responsibility for co-ordination should lie is for others to say. Indeed it is for the public and parliament to say if they do want the continuation of one over-all integrated system, or to split it into two or more different disintegrated systems, or to drop out one of the elements entirely and change the whole form of broadcasting in Canada. I think it would be too bad if, without people wanting it or realizing what was happening, the kind of integration we have was lost unconsciously through some change in the form of authority and responsibility, or if such a change led to duplication and confusion.
I think it would have been much more correct had Mr. Dunton paused where I paused this afternoon to offer my interjection. It is not the function of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in a matter of this kind, where a royal commission has been appointed by the government with the full approval of parliament, to inquire into such questions as Mr. Dunton is there referring to. I do not think Mr. Dunton should undertake to be making statements with regard to that matter.
I mention the use that the government has made in one particular, at any rate, of the fact that this royal commission is sitting. It used that fact as the excuse or pretext for denying the house the opportunity of considering this question, as has been the practice in times past, by a select committee of the house. An several other features of administration on the part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have been the subject of questions and, to a lesser extent, of answers, in the house at this session, I feel called upon to say a word about the responsibility of this house in relation to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The corporation has traditionally taken the position that it is responsible to parliament. Parliament is called upon to vote money. At almost every session we are called upon to vote money. We were warned by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday evening in his budget speech, that we shall be called upon to vote moneys for the support of the corporation. Parliament votes these moneys on the recommendation of the government. Indeed it has no right, no authority or power to vote moneys for the support of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation without a recommendation by the governor in council. Under this system the government takes the responsibility of recommending and proposing to the house that sums be voted for the support of the corporation and its programs. The house therefore, it seems to me, has the right and duty to consider everything that

Supply-Finance
has a bearing on the administration of the corporation, including the use of public funds for programs.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I make this observation at the present point? We are dealing with item 556 of the supplementary estimates which provides for certain expenses of the royal commission on television and radio broadcasting. At the commencement of his remarks on this item the hon. member said that he had, as I recall his words, certain observations to make with regard to this matter and several associated matters. He has now been dealing for some minutes with a subject which he himself described as the relationship of parliament to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I feel that, in the words of the hon. member himself, his observations at this time are not relevant to the item under consideration. Of course in committee of the whole we are bound by the strict relevancy rule.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I think you are overlooking the terms of reference of the royal commission under the order in council that set it up. Anything that appears in the terms of reference is, in my submission, open to proper discussion in this house in relation to the proposal of the government that $34,000 be set aside in the estimates for the expenses of the royal commission. Let me read to you the various subjects that are included in the terms of reference of the royal commission:
(a)	the policies to be followed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in its television broadcasting activities and the relation of such policies to the finances of the corporation;
(b)	the measures necessary to provide an adequate proportion of Canadian programs for both public and private television broadcasting;
(c)	the financial requirements of the corporation for television broadcasting and the relation of these to the extent, nature, standards and distribution of programs;
(d)	the financial requirements of the corporation for sound broadcasting in the light of the development of television and the growth of population in new areas of Canada;
(e)	the manner in which the finances for the television and sound broadcasting operations of the corporation should be provided and managed;
(f)	the licensing and control of private television and sound broadcasting stations in the public interest; and
(g)	such other related matters as the commissioners consider should be included in reporting properly upon those specified.
I am not going beyond any of these matters in what I have to say today, but in my respectful submission anything that has a bearing upon these terms of reference to the royal commission is a proper matter to be

discussed today when the house is being asked to vote money for the purpose of this royal commission.


Walter Edward Harris: I appreciate that my friend would no doubt want to make remarks on all these points, but may I point out there is an item in the main estimates for this coming year covering a substantially larger part of the cost of this commission and it would be, I think, more to his satisfaction if he discussed these points on that item in the estimates for the coming year rather than on this which is, after all, just money we are asking parliament to vote for the cost up to date of this commission, and not for the purpose of discussing all the principles involved either in the order in council or the work of the commission. I am sure my hon. friend would want a more extended discussion on this point, not only by himself but by others in the house, which he could have on that item and which I doubt if there is time to have if we are to pass these supplementaries by tonight as I hope they will be.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope I am always co-operative in a situation of this kind. I was not proposing to make extended remarks.


Walter Edward Harris: But others may follow your example.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not overlooking that, but this arises from some remarks that have been made in recent days by some members in the house, notably the Prime Minister on March 14, when he introduced a note about censorship. I think this is the time for me to make these remarks and deal with this subject, because I feel that in putting that kind of interpretation upon questions that are being asked by members of the house about C.B.C. affairs, the Prime Minister drew a red herring across this matter. In my view, he failed to have due regard for the responsibility that parliament bears in this matter in relation to the voting of public money for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation purposes.
Now, I do not propose to be long, Mr. Chairman. The matter that gave rise to the question was a program-I am not going to refer to it at length-in which there was shown on television a film of the marriage of a T.V. performer and director. I asked certain questions as to this matter because it seemed to me that this is the place where questions of that kind should be asked.


William Alfred Robinson: Does the hon. member for Eglinton seriously contend that remarks with regard to a particular radio program are in order under this item of the supplementary

estimates? If he does so, I must say that I disagree with him most heartily.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What we are dealing with now is not a matter of the T.V. program in question; it is a statement by the Prime Minister in relation to the raising of such questions in the house. It is a very much broader question than the basis on which you have put it. I was not going to say anything about a program, except to ask-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, does not the type of question the hon. member is asking now relate to the administration of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, rather than to the functions of the Fowler commission?


William Alfred Robinson: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has expressed in other terms what I was trying to express possibly in less apt terms. But I feel quite sure that the hon. member for Eglinton is not adhering to our rather general ideas of relevancy in trying to pursue a discussion such as he has undertaken.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let me, for the purpose of your ruling, make it quite clear to you what I am proposing to say, and then you can make your ruling accordingly.


William Alfred Robinson: I am not making any ruling. I have suggested, in as kindly terms as possible, to the hon. member for Eglinton that certain remarks he has already made, in my opinion, do not bear direct relevancy to this item. I am asking him to discuss the item which, after all, is an item in the supplementary estimates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What I wish to say is, in my submission, directly relevant to a request by the government to vote money for the purpose of meeting expenses of a royal commission which is directed by order in council to report upon and make recommendations as to the policies to be followed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in its television broadcasting activities, and to relate such policies to the finances of the corporation. In my submission, what I wish to say is directly relevant to that issue.


Walter Edward Harris: No, the issue is much narrower than my hon. friend seems to think it is. The issue is, shall we vote this money to have a royal commission to do these things? What I think my hon. friend is going to say is something he has already criticized the chairman of the C.B.C. for saying in another place. He is going, I think, to try to say what the commission might do. Now, that is not the issue. The issue is, do we appoint one, and do we vote their money? The principle of having a commission he can debate, as I have suggested, 67509-159J
Supply-Finance
at some length on the main estimates, but at this point what he thinks the duties of the commission might be, even in a direct way, by criticizing the present policies of the C.B.C., as I take it he intends to do, seems to be so far off the item-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I may not have made myself very plain to the minister. Policy in regard to the various fields that lie now within the responsibility of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been referred to a royal commission for review. In the very wide reference, I say commendably wide reference, to that royal commission are questions as to policy. There are questions as to the form of licence and control of private television and sound broadcasting stations; indeed, to many other matters to which my remarks are directly related. Now, if we are being asked to vote money for the purpose of having an inquiry made by a royal commission into these matters of policy, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, quite relevant and proper that one should deal with the necessity of review of some of these matters by a royal commission, so long as the matters on which I ask the house to believe that inquiry on my part is directed fall within the scope of the reference to the royal commission.


Walter Edward Harris: On that, Mr. Chairman, may I point out that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is completely right. If the hon. member for Eglinton is free to debate these things we could have a general debate on the
C.B.C. on every form of its policy, such as you will have on the main estimates when they come before the house. In other words, on this vote, which is a strictly confined one, we may have a debate which will be repeated a second time on the main estimates, because if my hon. friend intends to use the order in council as authority for what he is going to say now it is so comprehensive he can say anything about the C.B.C. and so can every member of the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact that there is an opportunity later for discussion on the general estimates has no bearing on the question of whether remarks made today are in order.


Walter Edward Harris: No, I am not suggesting that. I am just suggesting we should not have two debates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact is that we have a matter that has freshly arisen and if the matter is of high importance, as in my humble view it is, I think this is the place and this is the time to clear up what I consider to be a very great misapprehension on the part of the

Supply-Finance
Prime Minister as to the function of parliament in relation to the voting of public funds for the support of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its work.


Walter Edward Harris: May I say just one thing?
There has been no complete agreement but it is my understanding that we were to complete these estimates tonight in order that the budget debate may continue tomorrow, and that we were to have a private members' day on Monday and the budget debate on Tuesday and Wednesday. If these estimates are not passed by tonight they cannot have royal assent by the end of the fiscal year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Louder.


Walter Edward Harris: If we do not pass these estimates tonight and report them I do not anticipate another opportunity, though we would have to make it, and I know it would upset a good many of the plans. If my hon. friend could make a speech without exciting others to make similar speeches, I think I would risk it, but I doubt it very much on this particular point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Similar, or dissimilar
speeches?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I think I
would have been through with my remarks by now if I had not been stopped in the first place.


Mr. Weir:: Not a chance.


Walter Edward Harris: We will give you 10 minutes.


James Joseph McCann: Do not forget you were the one who pressed for the inquiry in the radio committee last year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, and I still do, and I
will give the government my reasons now, if they are prepared to listen to them, as to why you ought to set up the royal commission.


James Joseph McCann: We accepted the reasons.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But not soon enough; you
did not act on them soon enough. The Prime Minister dragged into the discussion the expression "censorship" as applied to questions that were asked in this house.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I make it
quite clear that remarks with regard to these questions concern the proceedings in the House of Commons, and I feel on entirely sound ground when I say that is not relevant to the appointment of this royal commission. I do ask for the co-operation of the hon. member.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, to make it
quite clear, this is my speech. That is the
(Mr. Fleming.]
line I seek to follow. If you are going to rule that matters that in my submission are relevant to the subjects that have been referred to the royal commission cannot be discussed here now, then I am precluded from proceeding because my remarks today were directed-and let me make it quite clear-to things that have been said in the house in recent days. That is the subject of my intended remarks today. If the ruling of the Chair is going to be that those matters cannot be discussed, even though they relate so directly to matters that lie clearly within the scope of the reference to the royal commission, then in effect I am precluded from proceeding. With that explanation, Mr. Chairman, I think I had better await your decision because I wish to make it quite clear that the remarks I intended to make were prepared as an examination of the conceptions that lie behind some of the statements and remarks of the government, particularly of the Prime Minister, in recent days when questions pertaining to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were raised in the house.
Now, that is what I propose to follow, Mr. Chairman, unless I am precluded by your ruling. Perhaps I had better ask you.


William Alfred Robinson: I ruled that the remarks
which the hon. member for Eglinton had made prior to my rising previously were not relevant to this discussion. Now, I cannot be asked to assess in advance the relevancy or irrelevancy of any remarks which the hon. member proposes to make. That is entirely beyond my functions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then, Mr. Chairman, I shall just have to proceed and you will have to make your ruling accordingly. Your ruling will be respected, of course. On March 14, when asked a question about the government view in regard to-


Mr. Si. Laurent (Quebec East):: My personal view.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All right, the Prime Minister's view, without designating the difference between his view as an individual and his view as the head of the government. When the Prime Minister was asked a question about the use of time on a program and about the expenditure of public money for the purpose of having a marriage of two persons shown, the Prime Minister-


William Alfred Robinson: Order; may I make it quite clear that I rule without hesitation that this part of the hon. member's remarks is entirely out of order on this item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I will try this next tack. The Prime Minister brought in the word

"censorship" which I think was a gross irrelevancy in dealing with this question. When asked about it in the house-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I also rule that these remarks are entirely without relevancy on this item, and I must ask the hon. member to refrain from further irrelevancy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If you are going to rule out references to this subject that I have just now mentioned, then I am precluded from proceeding. I say this in conclusion. More will be heard of this subject. The need of a careful review of policies by the royal commission, within the terms of the scope of reference to it under the order in council, is greater today than it was before. We have, as related to the matter of policy in regard to the licensing of television stations in Canada, increasing reason for a review of that subject by the royal commission. It is an urgent matter, and a serious view of the urgency of the matter is being taken in many parts of the country today.
The Manitoba legislature has recently expressed itself on the subject. Recently, a resolution was passed in the legislature of Manitoba to the following effect. I am here dealing, Mr. Chairman, with this policy of local monopoly in television which the government has consistently followed and has imposed on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Mr. Goode:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I say with all respect that I have agreed with some of the views of the hon. member for Eglinton in other places; but he is taking me entirely unprepared in this matter. He is not speaking to the rules, and I am not prepared to discuss this matter except within the rules. I think he should wait until the appropriate time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Sir, the resolution reads as follows. I remind you that this was passed by the legislative assembly of the province of Manitoba.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Of course, it gives me no pleasure to be rising continually, but I feel sure that the hon. member for Eglinton must realize my feelings in respect to this particular item by reason of the fact that I have been obliged to rise so often. Now, I may be entirely wrong, but it seems to me that on a resolution of this kind we are considering one point and one point only, namely the advisability or the inadvisability of paying $34,000 to provide for the expenses of a certain royal commission. Surely, we can confine our remarks to this question. Surely, there is sufficient scope in this question to allow the hon. member to make a speech. I am afraid I cannot allow him, on this very
Supply-Finance
confined item in the supplementary estimates, to open up the whole subject of radio and television broadcasting in Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I am simply giving some recent reasons for supporting the appropriation of money for the purposes of the royal commission, and underlining the importance of the reference to that commission and the urgency of its proceeding with its work and making its report to the house.
The resolution of the legislature of Manitoba, to which I was making reference, was passed in that legislature on March 6 by a vote of 47 to 5. The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas Manitoba citizens have a wide choice of radio stations, and whereas there has been a demand-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Have I not sufficiently indicated to the hon. member that I really cannot see the relevancy of this type of discussion? For a few minutes, the hon. member was kind enough to co-operate with me and address his remarks directly to the question of the royal commission. May I express the hope that he will continue in the vein which I feel is relevant to this resolution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, Mr. Chairman, I cannot go on discussing your ruling. I am seeking to give you some very good reasons-


Walter Edward Harris: You have done very well.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -why this royal commission should be encouraged in its work, why money should be placed at its disposal for the purpose of carrying out that inquiry, why that inquiry ought to be complete and comprehensive, and why, in the light of recent events, the inquiry becomes more urgent and why the need for a comprehensive report is now greater than ever before.
One of the matters referred to the royal commission is the present policy in regard to licensing for television purposes. That is an outworn policy of monopoly, a policy which badly needs to be recast and reviewed. If I were given the opportunity today I could cite many reasons why that policy needs to be changed and reversed. There are many people in this country who are becoming more vocal on the subject and who dislike very much the idea of monopoly in reference to so important a form of communication.
I regret, Mr. Chairman, that the view has not been taken on this item, where we are asked to vote money for the purpose of conducting such an inquiry, that matters which are included within the scope of the inquiry, clearly within the terms of the order in council, should also be discussed in this house at this time, particularly in the light

Supply-Finance
of what I consider to be misleading remarks made by the Prime Minister in recent days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not intend, Mr. Chairman, to argue with the hon. member for Eglinton with respect to the statements he made when you ruled that he was out of order. I. would be out of order, too, if I did so. However, there was an earlier part of his speech when I believe he was in order, and it is with regard to something he said at that time that I should like to make a brief comment.
If I understood the hon. member for Eglinton correctly, he took exception to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, through its chairman, Mr. Dunton, making certain representations to the Fowler commission.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Policy.


James Joseph McCann: He has not made them yet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Public statements.


James Joseph McCann: This was an interview.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Eglinton objects to the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation making public statements of policy.


James Joseph McCann: He is doing it himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which, as the minister says, the hon. member for Eglinton is doing himself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I happen to be a member of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend may not be the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but he does a fair amount of broadcasting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is an agency responsible to parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the point I rise to make. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is an agency responsible to parliament. It is parliament's instrument in the broadcasting field; and far from it being suggested that that corporation should not make suggestions to the Fowler commission, I believe the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a duty to make recommendations and to appear before the Fowler commission, just as I believe it is the right and the duty of the Canadian Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters to make its representations.


James Joseph McCann: Surely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not hear any complaint from the hon. member for Eglinton today over statements of policy being made by private radio and television stations. I do not complain, either; they should appear.

But it seems to me that if we are going to have an objective survey of this matter by the commission that has been appointed by the government, and for which we are now voting money, that commission should hear all views on the question; and since the chosen instrument of parliament in this field is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation I hope the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will appear and make the best possible case it can before that commission.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the hon. member has completely misapprehended what I said. Of course the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will appear before that commission; of course it will be called upon to submit briefs. What I said was that the corporation within its proper role should not appear in the role of advocate, and that is the position which it seems to me Mr. Dunton was coming very close to taking in questions of policy. The corporation is an agency created by parliament for a particular purpose, and if it is to carry out such policies as parliament lays down it is not the function of the corporation or its principal officers, its extremely competent officers, to take the role of advocate in regard to matters of policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he contend that the Canadian association of radio and television broadcasters, which is concerned and involved in this subject, should be denied the right to appear before the Fowler commission?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a free country. Any person in Canada can make his submissions on a question of policy; but when you come to a parliamentary agency, an agency created by parliament to carry out such policies as parliament decides, I say again that it is not the function of that parliamentary agency to take sides in regard to policy and to be an advocate.


James Joseph McCann: I just want to say a word or two, Mr. Chairman, and I shall be very brief. I think the remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton come with very bad taste at this particular time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a good choice of words.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member has quoted from the C.B.C. Times, the issue of March 11 to 17, and in the Times, with regard to C.B.C. policy, it says:
About C.B.C. Policy-
The chairman of the C.B.C. board of governors, Davidson Dunton, interviewed by J. Frank Willis- as broadcast on C.B.C. trans-Canada.

That was an interview which was given as a broadcast, by a gentleman who was not connected in any way with the board of inquiry. It may well be that the board of inquiry will never see that, but the board does read the remarks in Hansard of the hon. gentleman who was attempting to use this forum to put before the board of inquiry his opinions and those of his party rather than going before the board of inquiry to do so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What the minister is doing, of course, is violating the rules by ascribing motives. When I speak in the house I speak for the hearing of the house and of those who wish to concern themselves with what goes on in the house. The minister is violating the rules of the house in saying that I am speaking here today for the purpose of having my remarks influence the minds of the members of the royal commission. The minister's remarks do not have the slightest foundation in fact. They are fiction, and I wish them to be withdrawn.


James Joseph McCann: All I ask the hon. gentleman is whether or not he will appear before the board of inquiry himself and make the same remarks he has been making here. I can say for the information of the house that the C.B.C. board of governors have their brief prepared after many weeks of study, and at the first opportunity, as soon as public meetings are held, they intend to present it to the board of inquiry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


James Joseph McCann: I might say that I think we have satisfied the hon. member for Eglinton, if he can ever be satisfied, by paying attention to the pressure and criticisms he put forward concerning the suggestion that was made in the Massey report that these matters should be brought before a board of inquiry at the end of three years. We have lived up to the letter of the recommendation in that respect; and while some time did elapse between the end of the session and the appointment of the board, it is not the easiest thing in the world to get public men to take on these special inquiries and obligations.
I can say that it was with some difficulty that we did get the type of people we thought would be satisfactory to the Canadian people to make the inquiry which they have undertaken. There is an outstanding gentleman in business life, one in banking life and another who has held prominent public office. Their staff has been set up, preliminary work is being done, briefs are coming in from all over the country which are being read and studied, and the public inquiry will start at the end of next month.
Supply-Finance
The hon. gentleman or anyone else will have an opportunity of going before this board and making either complaints or suggestions.
I have no doubt in my mind that this was well thought out, that on this particular appropriation there would be an opportunity to present to the Canadian people and to the board of inquiry just the very thing you condemned the chairman of the board of governors, Mr. Dunton, for doing, not at a public inquiry but during a radio broadcast.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is this not interesting? This is just a sample of the sort of thing I proposed to discuss this afternoon and was prevented from doing. The minister has chosen to equate the position of the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the highly respected Mr. Dunton, with the position of a member of parliament discharging his responsibilities in the House of Commons in relation to the voting of public money.


James Joseph McCann: I have not the slightest objection at the right time to my hon. friend criticizing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for weeks on end, if he can find words enough-and he has a pretty good vocabulary-but he will have the opportunity of doing that when the estimates of that board come up. It is true that we have denied his request for a public inquiry like the radio committee that we have had in other years, but I suggest that it would be in bad taste for the government to consent to setting up a radio committee this year when the board of inquiry is undertaking the particular large assignment that they have.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the meantime the government does everything to preclude proper discussion in the house. Talk about censorship; it is the government that is seeking to impose censorship, both on the house and on the corporation, as on the Ferns and Ostry book program.


James Joseph McCann: At this time I have no more to say.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister if he has seen the brief prepared by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for submission to the royal commission?


James Joseph McCann: The answer is positively and emphatically no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister in a position to make any comment on the position I sought to take earlier in regard to what I conceive to be the proper role of the corporation, that it should not be appearing as an advocate? I am sure that it will be helpful

Supply-Finance
in most particulars to the royal commission, but we are dealing now with the question of whether it is within the proper function of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, whether it is a proper expenditure of moneys made available by parliament, to be appearing in the role of advocate in regard to questions of policy as applied to the basis of licensing for television or radio purposes.


James Joseph McCann: May I ask my hon. friend if he has seen the brief?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What brief?


James Joseph McCann: The brief which the C.B.C. intends to present?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


James Joseph McCann: Then how can my hon. friend figure that they are going to appear in the role of advocate?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The loud laughter over there speaks vacant minds. I did not say that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was going to appear in the role of advocate. What I did point out to the minister a few moments ago, as he would have known if he had been following what I was saying, was that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has no right to appear in the role of advocate in that regard. I pointed out what I considered to be a trespass on proper functions by the chairman of the corporation in expressing those views which I quoted from his script on that trans-Canada network broadcast. The matter was not left there; the corporation went on to use funds voted to it by parliament to have his remarks printed and distributed widely through the C.B.C. Times.


James Joseph McCann: In an attempt to keep the public informed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The public informed, yes. It is all right to keep the public-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If the hon. member for Eglinton will bear with me for a moment, in view of the last remark of the minister I would submit to the hon. member for Eglinton and to the committee of supply that the question before this committee at the moment is whether we shall vote $34,000 for the expenses of the royal commission. Perhaps by our answer to that we decide whether or not there shall be a royal commission on radio and television.
I suggest to hon. members of the committee that we have that question to decide. We have not to decide at the moment matters which will come before that royal commission, neither have we to decide under this special

item whether or not the president or other officers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have been guilty of actions in their official capacities which they should not have committed. I think such criticism is perfectly in place in this parliament, but I do not think it is in place on this particular item, which boils down to whether or not we are going to set up a royal commission on broadcasting.
I do not think that any of us occupying the chair would wish to make it impossible for hon. members to criticize the actions of any official of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but I am afraid I cannot see where that criticism is in order on a special item to set up a royal commission and which does not deal with salaries or expenses of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as such. This item deals with the setting up of a royal commission which will deal not only with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but with all aspects of broadcasting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Without reviewing the matter that involved some discussion earlier of questions of procedure, I submit that appropriations for the expenses of this royal commission cannot be considered adequately apart from the reference to it under the terms of the order in council passed last December, and which were made a matter of record earlier. The remarks that have been made were related to the specific subjects that have been referred to the royal commission under the terms of that order in council. However, I do not propose to prolong the matter.
The minister has failed to grasp the point I have been trying to make in regard to the proper function and role of the corporation. No one is going to question the right of the corporation to make submissions or to give information within its experience to the royal commission. I am quite sure that the royal commission will require that if they are going to proceed effectively with their work. I am sure it is to be encouraged.
What I am dealing with is advocacy in relation to policy. Policy is for parliament. This royal commission has been asked to make recommendations on policy. The point I have tried to make clear today, and which did not register with the minister or with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, was that in relation to policy it is not the function of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be an advocate.


James Joseph McCann: Certainly you will agree that in order to get the background they will have to be consulted.


Donald Methuen Fleming: For factual information, yes. That is a different matter from being an

advocate. It will be remembered that some years ago the then chairman of the wartime prices and trade board went on the air in a series of speeches and made an extensive review of some things which brought him to a declaration in regard to policy. There was strong criticism in this house of that official of a government board undertaking to make declarations and statements in regard to government policy. That is the function of the government which is responsible to parliament. It is not the function of the head of any board, whether it be a board set up under a department and responsible to the minister of the department or a board directly responsible to parliament, to go out and declare policy. Nor is it his function to go out and advocate policy, or in this case to advocate any particular form or method of licensing in reference to radio and television.
I hope I have made that point clear. I do so with the utmost good will to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to its officials. No one in this house has given more steady recognition of the value of those officials and of their competence to do the tasks that are assigned to them than I have. It becomes the duty of members of this house-and I would hope the duty of all members of this house- where any official of any such board goes beyond the proper function of that board, to rise in the house at the earliest opportunity and express their views. That is what parliament is for, as I understand it; and if we do less than that we are failing in our duty and in our responsibility; for here, apart from other questions, we are dealing with the use made of the public's money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have just a very few more words to say. I think I have made our position clear. The hon. member for Eglinton is perfectly right when he says that policy in these matters is decided by the government. He is also right when he says that the Fowler commission will be expected in its report to recommend policies. Whether or not those policies will be carried out will be up to the government.
But I ask the hon. member for Eglinton to consider the position he is suggesting. He says he is quite willing that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation appear before the Fowler commission, along with all the other bodies and individuals that may appear. So far as the rest of the bodies that appear are concerned, they can state facts, they can give information and they can be advocates, but he suggests that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is the instrument of J;his parliament, should refrain from any advocacy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In relation to policy.
22,	1956	2507
Supply-Finance


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, in relation to policy. The hon. member is free to go back over my statement and amend it so the word "advocacy" would be changed to "advocacy of policy". But he wants to tie the hands of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is parliament's instrument, in a way in which he would not tie the hands of the Canadian Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters.
There is one other question I should like to ask the minister. Can he say whether this commission of inquiry will ascertain from the C.B.C. where it got the photograph of the hon. member for Eglinton that it sometimes flashes on the television screen when he is referred to in the news? Was it chosen with good taste?


James Joseph McCann: I doubt the propriety or the good taste, and I shall recommend to them-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I have to point out to the committee that the only place where the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might properly ask that question would be before the royal commission, certainly not under this item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Seeing that my name has been raised, I wish to say that I have never yet seen my picture on television.


James Joseph McCann: You probably would not know yourself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What a shock the hon. member will get when he sees it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have been told by a number of friends who have seen it that they did not think it was a very good picture.


An hon. Member:: They should get a new one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That might be a very good idea, and perhaps my hon. friend might be good enough to pass that on to the corporation.


William Gilbert Weir: They should pass the hat.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course the photographer had to work within the limits of his material, I have to recognize that.
May I ask the Minister of Finance a question? The item refers to;
. . . honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission.
Is it intended that honoraria or allowances -I am not talking of travelling expenses, but honoraria or allowances for services rendered-be paid in addition to civil service

Supply-Fisheries
salary, or is this simply to recompense individuals who are loaned to the royal commission and therefore are on leave of absence without pay from the civil service?


Walter Edward Harris: The intention is to pay, for those members of the civil service who are on loan, terminable allowances because of the extra work in which they will be involved during the pressure of the work of the commission.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is for overtime work?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is there any rule followed in these matters?


Walter Edward Harris: It often happens in committees and commissions of inquiry, that they require the assistance of civil servants, and treasury board has a standard practice of granting additional allowances, though it is related in some manner to their normal salaries. I could not give the formula, but there is a standard practice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
557.	To authorize the expenditure for international relief purposes, or other relief purposes authorized by the governor in council, of the unexpended portion of the grant made by the government of Canada to the Canadian national European flood relief fund by vote 572 of the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1953, $1.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister explain this item? I am not asking for a lecture on the purpose of a $1 item. We know what that involves. But I should like to know whether this has any relation to the suffering in Europe resulting from this winter's storms?


Walter Edward Harris: This is a legalistic item arising out of the fact that of the million dollar vote which parliament passed in favour of the Canadian Red Cross three years ago, I believe, in connection with relief in the United Kingdom, Holland and Denmark for flood victims, about half was spent. About half a million dollars is outstanding to the Canadian Red Cross at the moment. The question arises as to whether the money was in fact returnable to the consolidated revenue fund, since it had not been used for that particular purpose at that time. The reason for this vote, then, is to ensure in the hands of the Canadian Red Cross that amount of $506,000, so they may use it for other European relief purposes similar, or somewhat similar, to the original purpose of the vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister know whether it is the intention to make use of any of it at the present time?
Mt. Harris: No, I do not. There has been a good deal of thought given over the past

six or eight months as to whether this should be the way to deal with it. I am not sure of the actual plans of the Red Cross but I am quite sure it will continue to expend the money for the type of relief for which the original sum was voted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether the government has considered giving the Red Cross any additional money because of the needs at the present time?


Walter Edward Harris: No, we have not at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Field services-
558.	To provide for the destruction o£ harbour and gray seals-further amount required, $3,000.
Mr. Brooks:: I just want to ask the minister a question regarding this item. I assume this is for the protection of the salmon fisheries?


Walter Edward Harris: That is correct.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There has been considerable complaint that the provision made for protecting the fisheries against the gray seals has been rather ineffective in the Atlantic region. To indicate the great loss that has been caused in the Atlantic salmon fisheries, I would cite the following figures. In 1954 there was produced 1,100,000 pounds; in 1955 this was reduced to 474,000 pounds. In Newfoundland and Labrador in 1954 it was 2,400,000 pounds; in 1955 it was 1,600,000 pounds. The people in the Atlantic provinces are becoming very much concerned with reference to their salmon fisheries, and it seems to me that this amount-I believe $35,000 was voted last year-is very small for this particular purpose.
It is also stated in some pamphlets I have received that each of these seals destroys something like 15,000 pounds of salmon in Northumberland straits and around the coast of New Brunswick. It is also stated, I think, that the method used to destroy the seals is not effective, and that the boats do not get near where the seals are and are not destroying them at the rate at which they should be destroyed.
I would suggest that this amount should be increased for this purpose. I realize that it cannot be increased in these supplementary estimates, but I thought this might be an appropriate time to bring up the matter, with the hope that there would be some increase in the amount of money that is used for destroying those seals, which are one of the chief reasons the Atlantic salmon fisheries are being depleted at the present time.

The minister has not answered my question. I wanted to know whether this money was being used in the Atlantic provinces principally for the destruction of seals, or where it was being used.


Walter Edward Harris: I must apologize to my bon. friend. This is used both in the Atlantic and Pacific areas. During the current year the $35,000 has run to an almost even $17,000 in the Atlantic-Newfoundland area and $18,000 in the Pacific area. The $3,000 is going to be spent in about the same proportions. As to increasing the vote, of course the bounty is paid on the number of seals that are killed at $10 an adult and $5 a pup. Presumably if more seals were killed we would pay a larger bounty and would vote a larger sum.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is the money used entirely for bounty, or is it used also for destroying the seals?


Walter Edward Harris: No. It is a bounty paid to those who kill the seals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
560.	Amount required to recoup the fisheries prices support account to cover a payment that was made to the government of Newfoundland in the present fiscal year with respect to the 1953 production of salted codfish, $646,984.
Mr. Barneii:: I have one or two questions I should like to ask the minister on this item. I notice that it is to cover a payment with respect to the 1953 production of salted codfish. We are now almost at the end of the estimates for the fiscal year 1955-56. Because of the sequence under which this payment is made, it is a little bit difficult to keep abreast of the operations of the fisheries prices support board in this connection. I wonder whether the minister has any information which he could give the house at this time as to how many pounds of codfish are covered by this payment, what the average price per pound under it would be, and how much the payment of this sum would increase the average price per pound received by the fishermen in the province of Newfoundland.


Walter Edward Harris: This is an additional payment through the fisheries support board of 1 cent per pound for codfish. The reason it is only coming before us at this late date is that the government did not decide until some time in March of 1954 to make this additional payment on the 1953 catch. After the decision was made, however, it appeared that the government of Newfoundland chose to make a payment of $1.50 a quintal, which was slightly more than the amount of our vote, and it was agreed among the fishing trade and the two governments concerned that we should make our payment to the government
Supply-Justice
of Newfoundland, since they had made a larger payment. The delay has been in accounting as between the two governments. That accounting is now completed, and we are now prepared to pay it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
561.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $16,000.
John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister explain what are the extra items that make up this amount?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The principal item is an amount of $14,000 paid to Mr. Rivard who was counsel some years ago in connection with a government matter. His account was not submitted until the end of last year, and it has just been taxed at $10,000. The balance of the payment is for reporters' fees in connection with the corps of commissionaires and $2,000 for additional expenses for office stationery, supplies and equipment.


John George Diefenbaker: Even for a philanthropic profession like the legal profession, Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat unusual to delay for a long time the rendering of a bill. Who is this gentleman who failed for so long to render so large a bill? Would the minister say who this gentleman is?


Walter Edward Harris: I said that it was Mr. Rivard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
LEGISLATION House of Commons-[DOT]
562.	General administration-estimates of the Clerk-further amount required, $65,000.
John George Diefenbaker: For what is the further amount required? I cannot get the details from an examination of page 14. It seems to me to be a large amount.


Walter Edward Harris: The increase is due to the fact that in making up the estimates a year ago last December, I tried to get them down to the very minimum. At that time we did not perhaps take into full account the possibility that parliament might run until almost the end of July. There were additional costs for that period of time both for the maintenance of the House of Commons and for printing as well. That is the reason for the further amount required.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say what it costs to publish the debates? What is the total cost? This is an extra amount of $65,000. What is the total amount?


Walter Edward Harris: The main vote was $1,369,000


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2510	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS Surveys and mapping branch-
Canadian hydrographic service-
563.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $850,000.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: From the statement in the details I gather that this item of $850,000 represents the amount required to provide a new boat for the Canadian hydrographic service. I wonder whether the minister can give us some details as to just what this vessel is and where it will be put into service. Will he also state whether there is any special reason that the amount for construction of this new vessel is being brought in as a special item under the supplementary estimates rather than in the main estimates of the department?


Walter Edward Harris: The amount in the main estimates was $1,643,000. This is merely the further sum required by reason of the advance of the construction. They are advance payments to the contractor from time to time. He is making good progress, and therefore we require the money to pay to him. The hydrographic vessel is designed for charting northern waters and will be used in the Arctic and throughout the northeast.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In other words, this does not represent a new vessel that has been under construction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
564.	Payments to the Royal Canadian Air Force and commercial companies for air photography, and to provide for expenses of the interdepartmental committee on air surveys, including purchases of equipment-further amount required, $550,000.
John Angus MacLean: Will the minister give a more detailed explanation of this item?


Walter Edward Harris: As the hon. member knows, we have a system of acquiring aerial photography for the purpose of the public service. Commercial companies take aerial photographs and they are submitted to a committee of certain departments. If they are found suitable for public use, we purchase them. The result is that in this year more acceptable photographs have been submitted and we have decided to purchase them. This money will be used for that purpose.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I recall that last year there was a similar supplementary appropriation of some $1 million. At that time the minister explained that the reason for the supplementary expenditure was that the work was considerably in advance of that which had been contemplated. I presume that is partly the explanation again this year. While I am


on my feet I should like to ask the minister whether he could indicate how much of this expenditure went to the air force and how much went to the private firms concerned. Then as a further question I should like to know whether any of this money is used to assist the provinces in aerial photographic surveys.


Walter Edward Harris: The whole purchase is from commercial companies. I do not think any of it goes to assist provincial governments in this field.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
566. To provide for the dismantling, conversion and installation of existing equipment, acquisition of new equipment, removal expenses and other costs related to the transfer of the national film board to new building-further amount required, $67,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take just a moment to call to the attention of the government a suggestion that was made recently in the Saskatchewan legislature by Hon. C. C. Williams. The suggestion was that we are in a complicated1 situation in Canada because of the large number of boards of film censors that we have, and it might be a good idea to try to reduce the number. Mr. Williams' suggestion was that there might be two such boards, one in eastern Canada and one in western Canada, so there might be more co-ordination and cohesion in this work.
I recognize right away, before someone from the government side starts to tell me, that this is not something that can be done by direction, from the federal government. It is something that would have to come about by way of co-operation among the provinces concerned. But it does seem to me that the national film board, which is in this field, might take a lead in furthering Mr. William's suggestion. That is all I wish to do at this time, Mr. Chairman, just to draw to the attention of the government and of the national film board this matter, in the hope that they will give consideration to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
569. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-Prince Edward Island, $275,000.
John Angus MacLean: I should like a word of explanation as to why these supplementaries were necessary, and this applies to all three

items. Is the explanation that the construction in these places has gone forward more rapidly than expected, or is it that the cost is proving higher than was expected?


Walter Edward Harris: In each case it is the former; the work has gone forward much more rapidly than we thought it would when we first made the estimate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
580. Payment to the St. Lawrence seaway authority o£ an amount equal to the net proceeds realized from the sale of property under the administration or control of the authority and paid into the consolidated revenue fund during the current fiscal year, $80,000.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In connection with this matter, I presume that when lands that were acquired by the seaway authority are sold the money goes back to the receiver general. Can the minister give us any information as to what lands these were that were sold, and does it include lands only or other property as well?


Walter Edward Harris: This is real property. Might I add something more. The purpose of this vote is, as my hon. friend has seen, to deal with a situation that arises because we had not covered it in the original St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act. These lands, having been made available for disposal, went to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, which only has authority to pay the proceeds of any sale into the consolidated revenue fund, and it was not the intention to do that here. It was the intention rather that this money should be part of the St. Lawrence seaway authority fund, so this is a vote to put it back there. In order to overcome this situation in the future an amendment is going to be made to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act to provide that they may dispose of their own assets and keep the proceeds for their capital account.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thank the minister very much for his excellent explanation of the matter. Could the minister tell us where these lands were? Were they in the vicinity of Montreal or were they lands in the vicinity of Iroquois or Cornwall?


Walter Edward Harris: These were near Montreal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
Airways and airports-
583. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, including authority to charge to vote 499 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1955 (as supplemented) , the cost of lands purchased, by means of loans provided for the acquisition of land required to control properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports in order to prevent the
22, 1956	2511
Supply-Loans, Investments and Advances erection of hazards to flying and for future development of those airports, that are not held for resale, $4,000,000.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This amount is of some considerable proportions, $4 million. I notice that according to the main estimates we are budgeting this year for a decrease in this item. What is the cause of this supplementary increase of $4 million? Can the minister indicate how much of this is going toward the construction of runways, as contrasted with the construction of buildings and so forth?


Walter Edward Harris: This is not a construction item, Mr. Chairman, nor is it even a purchase item. This is a bookkeeping item designed to charge to current account $4 million which is presently carried in loans and investments. When we purchased the land originally it was on the assumption that the land might, at some time, be disposed of, but it has now been decided not to dispose of this land but to hold it in perpetuity. It is, therefore, charged against our current outgoing rather than as an advance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Loans, investments and advances-
586.	To provide for an advance to the cash reserve fund of the administrative budget of the intergovernmental committee for European migration in an amount of $85,100 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of March, 1956, which is, $84,990.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was wondering if the minister could give us a brief explanation with regard to item 586?


Walter Edward Harris: The various governments that comprise the intergovernmental committee for migration have to make a contribution towards the working funds of that committee. This is a vote for that purpose. It is in the nature of an advance in the sense that if we were ever to withdraw from the committee there would be a refund coming.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
NATIONAL FILM BOARD Loans, investments and advances-
587.	To provide that during the current and subsequent fiscal years the expenditures made by the national film board and shown in the national film board operating account referred to in section 18 of the national film act may, notwithstanding subsection (4) of that section, exceed the receipts shown in the account by not more than $900,000 or such lesser amount as may be fixed by the treasury board, $1.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am always suspicious of these $1 items because they might mean a million dollars or $10 million. Will the minister say what this is for?
2512	HOUSE OF
Supply-Loans, Investments and Advances


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. This is for the purpose of increasing the operating-I will call it revolving-fund, although it is not quite that, of the national film board. When set up under the act it was limited to $700,000, but under the Financial Administration Act there is authority to increase the revolving fund and it is proposed to increase that to $900,000, as the amount of money that can go into this fund to be used by the film board for its normal operations.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: According to this item they cannot go any higher than $900,000?


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What were the receipts they had last year in this revolving fund?


Walter Edward Harris: I am sorry, I cannot give that. I assume it was probably over $700,000 and that is why they feel inclined to have the ceiling raised. I have not that information, but I will see that it is given to my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it, Mr. Chairman, from what the minister says that this $1 item is in lieu of an amendment to the act?


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the minister knows, some of us do not object to that as a temporary measure, but as I read the first few words of this item it strikes me that it is making a permanent change. It says:
To provide that during the current and subsequent fiscal year-
In other words is this not a case of the minister finding an easier way to amend the act than is usually followed?


Walter Edward Harris: I know the house would appreciate anything the minister might do to ease legislation through the house. The fact is the situation is just as described. We are in fact, as appears by the wording of the item, amending the act. This has been done on previous occasions, and I am quite prepared to defend the increase in the same manner as I would have to defend an amendment to the act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where does the Financial Administration Act come into the picture?
I do not see it mentioned in this item.


Walter Edward Harris: If my hon. friend will look at section 58 of the act, there is a reference to the procedure that is being adopted here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
Air services-
5S9.	To provide for the acquisition of land required to control properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports in order to prevent the erection of hazards to flying and for future developments of those airports-further amount required, $3,700,000.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Can the minister tell us what is the difference between item 583 and item 589? This amount is to provide for the acquisition of land to control property in the vicinity of main terminal airports, and so forth. It seems to cover much the same purpose as item 583, and both are substantial amounts.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The difference is that the latter item is for the current purchase of land, as my hon. friend thought the former was. The former is a bookkeeping entry to take care of those that have been dealt with in past years, and which were shown as loans and investments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
['Agreed.\nProgress reported.']
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 ending 31st March, 1956, the sum of $26,213,628 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 207, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1956.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill be read the 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, considered in committee, and reported.
['the second reading of the bill.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill be read the third time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


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



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for the second reading of Bill No. 84, to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
Mr. G. S. White (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who adjourned the debate does not seem to be here; I do not know whether he is going on or not. I shall be only a moment. There are a few things I should like to suggest to the parliamentary assistant in connection with this bill. The parliamentary assistant, being a member of the legal profession, will understand and appreciate that some of the complaints I offer probably can be rectified.
The first one I should like to suggest to him is that in the whole matter of obtaining a loan under this legislation there is too much red tape from the day you start to the day you finish. The parliamentary assistant is no doubt familiar with the application form, which should certainly take the prize for being the most complicated and complete form that anybody has ever been asked to fill out. I would suggest to him that something be done to simplify the application form.
Other hon. members have mentioned that there should be more offices in eastern Ontario. I think the parliamentary assistant will agree that there have been fairly few applications under this legislation. One of the reasons for that, apart from the red tape, is that the office is situated in Toronto.
I should like to impress upon the parliamentary assistant the fact that in the matter of the evaluation, not too much attention should be paid to the municipal assessments. It is quite true that in the last two or three years there have been reassessments in many counties, but he knows, and as all other members of the legal profession know, the assessment of property in many instances has little relation to the real value of the property.


Mr. Benidickson:: The appraiser is not supposed to note municipal assessments.


George Stanley White: I quite appreciate that, Mr. Speaker; nevertheless you will find your evaluator or appraiser does pay considerable attention to the assessed value of the property. I would suggest to the parliamentary assistant that the evaluator or appraiser pay a great deal more attention to the individual himself who is making the application, to his background, to his character, and to what he has been able to do in farming in the past.
Canadian Farm Loan Act
I do not want to repeat all the other suggestions that have been made to the parliamentary assistant except one, and that is that the percentage of the loan could and should be increased to 75 per cent. He is quite aware of the amounts that are lent under the Veterans' Land Act, under the Central Mortgage and Housing Act, and also under the act administered by the province of Ontario.
If the parliamentary assistant would do something to see that the red tape in the application form is eliminated, that evaluations are speeded up, and that something is done about the members of his own profession who handle these loans, it would be a great help. I know the blame is generally placed on the lawyer, which not always is the case. I have found that in many cases before the loan is completed the applicant is very much annoyed, and in many instances wishes that he had never bothered to make the application in the first place.
As far as the rate of interest is concerned, I would suggest to the parliamentary assistant that surely this government could well follow the example of Ontario and make money available at 4 per cent.


Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Baillefords):: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion I would like to make a few comments. The bill proposes to make some changes which I hope will be beneficial to the farmers. I hope they will be able to get loans put through with a little less red tape. I believe some of the methods used by the department should be changed. For instance, I know of a case where a farmer made an application for a loan and this is the reply he received from the Canadian farm loan board:
Your preliminary application for a loan from this board has been carefully reviewed.
As the amount you require on the security offered is very much in excess of what the board may be able to lend, it appears that we are unable to be of assistance to you at this time.
I consider that an extremely abrupt refusal. I think the board should have some method worked out under which they could have said that in this case the greatest amount of money that could be loaned was such and such. This method would give the farmer an idea of how much he could borrow, and he could then make another application.
My request at this time is that some of the red tape be done away with, and that some of the methods currently used in turning down an application for a loan without giving the applicant any indication of what he could borrow should be changed. I think such a policy as is presently in operation is not in the best interests of either the farmers themselves or of the operation of the act.

Canadian Farm Loan Act
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel):	Mr. Speaker,
before the bill goes to the committee I would like to address a few words in respect to some of the amendments which have been introduced.
I wonder what the purpose of the farm loan bill is at the present time. Is it to give agriculture some sort of an impetus, or is it to say that the government has done something for the farmers, or is it merely to waste our time in this house through introducing this measure? The reason I suggest that is because the amendments which have been offered are extremely insignificant, and the increases are of no consequence.
In leaving the interest rate at 5 per cent we have an indication that the government is not able to handle money as efficiently as other institutions in this country. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant or the minister could tell us the spread in the cost of the money they are lending to the farmer. By that I mean the difference in the cost of the money to the board and the cost to the farmer. What is the percentage difference in the actual cost, and what is the cost of the administration of these loans?


William Moore Benidickson: The board's administration cost is 1-39 per cent.


Mr. Palleit:: In other words you are paying 3-1 per cent for the money?


William Moore Benidickson: Administration costs are 1-39 per cent.


John Cameron Pallett: The question I asked concerns the rate you are paying for the money you are lending at 5 per cent. I am leaving that question in order that an answer may be given at some future date.
Another point I would like to mention is that you have here an arbitrary valuation for the farm loan. I know that in the amendment to the Industrial Development Bank Act there is no arbitrary figure for valuation as there is for farm loans. Is this a form of discrimination between industry and agriculture? Are we going to encourage young people in this country to go on farms and develop that industry by not leaving some flexibility in the assessing of one farm against another, or are they to be treated exactly the same? You have a discriminatory clause in the Industrial Development Bank Act. I suggest there is a different approach here. Shall we give industry as much as they want within certain limits, as far as valuation is concerned, but not as to the percentage of the loan, whereas if a farmer wants a loan he is to be bound by the hard and fast limits of the valuation?
Other hon. members have already suggested that another comparison may be drawn by

reference to the limits of the National Housing Act. There is a much higher lending value under that act, and again we have a discriminatory factor. Agriculture is in a position today which does not compare favourably with other industries in the country. The government comes forward with an amendment to an act that could assist the farmer, yet the government is not brave enough, shall I say, to make the amendment something with teeth in it.
If we are going to keep our young people on the farm, Mr. Speaker, we will have to give them some encouragement. Apart from the other problems which face these young people there is a problem which is particularly peculiar to agriculture. I am referring to the necessity of refinancing every 20 years. Statistics now show, and have shown for some time, that the average farm in this country is refinanced every 20 years. That is not the case in industry or in any other type of business. If we are going to keep young people on the farm, and if we are going to preserve the industry which has been of such benefit to this country, we have a responsibility to approach it on that basis.
I close my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the lending possibilities under this act are too restrictive, and that in comparing it with the National Housing Act and the Industrial Development Bank Act there appears to be considerable discrimination against the farmer in the government's approach to the handling of money.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will conclude the debate.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I must say that I am astonished that the hon. member for Peel would recommend that we increase the rates to farmers. I take it that that was the purpose of his comparison.
Mr. Pallet!: No, Mr. Speaker. If the minister reads my remarks he will realize that there was no suggestion that the rate be increased. I suggested that the amount of the loan be increased.


Walter Edward Harris: May I point out to the hon. member that the rates charged to farmers under this act are less than those charged under the Industrial Development Bank Act, yet he was making an unfavourable comparison as between these two acts.
With respect to the other questions which have been raised in the course of debate, most of them were the sort of questions we anticipated when we decided to send this bill to

the banking and commerce committee. While I do not propose to suggest that the questions should not have been put to the house, I do suggest that they be remembered by the hon. members who should put them forward in the banking and commerce committee, for which answers will be prepared after second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 165, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I think this matter was adequately dealt with at the resolution stage, and as it is going to the banking and commerce committee I shall not have more than a word or two to say at this time. I am particularly glad that this bill is going to that committee, because I think there are certain things which need to be explored a bit and upon which we should be enlightened.
I was very surprised to find, as a kind of offshoot of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines proposal, that the well known Mr. Murchison explained that he had asked the industrial development bank to commit itself for $70 million in securities. I do not suppose he found his way in there entirely on his own, and I confess I was surprised that that had even been contemplated. I shall be interested to learn more about it.
Furthermore, I think it is important for us to explore in greater detail the relationship between the chartered banks and the industrial development bank. The theory is that the industrial development bank steps in only where the other banks have stepped out. I think we might well have further information as to just exactly what is meant by other banks stepping out, whether perhaps they do it under suggestion. At any rate I do not propose to take up any more time because these matters can be discussed better in the committee.


Ambrose A. Holowach: Mr. Speaker, this bill to extend the lending field of the government's industrial development bank is to be sent to the committee on banking and commerce for further examination. Therefore I shall make my remarks with as much brevity as possible, in the hope that when the bill reaches the committee stage some of my principal observations will
22. 1956	2515
Industrial Development Bank Act be gone into thoroughly along with other critical remarks made by previous speakers, and thus help to eliminate some of the unfavourable aspects of the lending policy of the industrial development bank.
I was pleased to see the general view held by those who spoke during the resolution stage of this legislation, when they emphasized the initial purpose of the bank, namely to facilitate and make more easily available loans for the little enterpriser. I am in full agreement with that, because it seems to me that it is the little enterpriser in our country who needs help at the present time. The big fellows seem to be doing all right. I am thinking of the financial dilemma faced by many businessmen in this country when they make application to the chartered banks, the insurance companies or other commercial agencies for long-term loans at reasonable rates. In most cases they are discouraged and are unable to obtain loans.
The result is that many of our small businesses in this country are unable to expand, are unable to acquire necessary premises, are unable to replace obsolete machinery with new equipment and generally to streamline their activities in order to meet competition from the big corporations. Such expansion is necessary for the little Canadian businessman if he is to survive. The only way he can survive is to match competition by the giant corporations.
Since the opening of parliament on January 10 a variety of subjects have been discussed and just about every segment of our community has been involved. A few minutes ago hon. members quite properly indicated the difficulties of the farmer and urged policies that would alleviate some of his troubles. On previous occasions hon. members have referred to the difficulties which face labour as a consequence of being unemployed. A few days ago the house was in debate on a resolution with respect to inducing heavy industry to locate in depressed areas of our country. However, very little reference has been made to the man who constitutes the majority of the commercial units in our country, the small independent Canadian businessman, in connection with the loaning facilities of the industrial development bank. I think it is proper for us to focus attention upon that little businessman, because he certainly is deserving of attention at this time.
It seems to me that there are two obstacles which face the small Canadian businessman. The first is the taxation policy of this country, which places an extremely heavy burden on him, which strikes at him much harder than it strikes at the large corporations which

Industrial Development Bank Act have access to long-term loans at reasonable rates of interest or which can float stock issues to finance their needs.
Another obstacle is the fact that the little businessman is unable to float long-term loans at reasonable interest rates in order to finance his expansion and at the same time sustain himself when credit and instalment buying are the fashion as they are at this time. I have discussed this problem with many of the small businessmen in my community, and I have found that while they have been able to perfect their skills, while they have been able to invite new business, while they have been able to establish themselves in the community and provide necessary services, invariably they have had difficulty in obtaining sufficient money to bring about the expansion needed to meet new business. As I indicated before, the large corporations are able to do this.
Under present circumstances, in the case of the little businessman one of three things is bound to happen to him. He becomes discouraged and goes out of business, he becomes stagnant, or he loses his independence. By losing his independence I mean that he succumbs to the various inducements held out to him by the giant corporations, and eventually a merger results. I do not think that that is a healthy thing because if we eliminate the little Canadian businessman from our midst we eliminate the most important factor which provides the competitive atmosphere required in our economic life.
Naturally the proper step would be to bring about a certain amount of tax exemption. The Minister of Finance knows very well that the little Canadian businessman is taxed twice, first as a corporate body and then in the form of personal income tax. I submit that the main policy of the industrial development bank should be to indicate that it has a little more confidence in our small businessmen and their enterprises. As I say, if we eliminate the small businessman from our midst there will be in the future serious implications, both in the social and economic sense.
As I understand it, one change to be made is to increase the amount available for loans of over $200,000 from $50 million to $75 million. We must realize that the influx of United States capital during the last ten years has been very heavy, the yearly average being close to $400 million. Therefore it is quite obvious that we should give preference and some sort of inducement to Canadians to invest in Canada.
In addition we should recall that during the post-war years over $4,000 million has
I Mr. Holowach.]

been provided to help economies outside of Canada. No one is criticizing the wisdom of our having done that; we did it voluntarily and I think part of that program has been most successful, but it is strange that our government should be so inept in giving this treatment to our own small Canadian businessman.
I am not interested in the applicant who is thinking in terms of a loan of over $200,000, but I am very concerned that priority should be given to the little Canadian businessman who requires a much more modest accommodation, not to get rich in a hurry but to sustain himself in our economic life.
We should consider the trend that is taking place today, and there is statistical evidence to prove that this is a fact. Big business is becoming bigger while the little merchant, the little retailer, the wholesaler, the little processor, is becoming smaller all the time. If that trend continues then I submit that in the next 25 years the little Canadian businessman might well be completely eliminated from our midst. As I stressed before, if we allow that to happen there will be serious implications involved as far as our social and economic structures are concerned. I once again urge that in the matter of lending policy the industrial development bank give high priority to the little Canadian businessman.
There is one more point I wish to emphasize, and that is the need of setting up more offices across Canada in connection with the activities of the industrial development bank, not only in those areas which are developed or undergoing development but particularly in those areas which are underdeveloped. I certainly would like to see also some representation in the province of Alberta.
In concluding, let me say that I think we should do everything we possibly can to induce Canadians to invest in Canada, and a good start would be for the industrial development bank to give incentive to the little Canadian businessman to invest in his own enterprise and in his own country. If we think this matter through carefully I am sure we shall realize that we cannot sustain a healthy prosperity unless we look after him.


Colin Cameron: I should like to emphasize again one of the points I raised at an earlier stage on this measure. Now that I have seen the bill I realize that what I had hoped might be done is apparently not going to be done. I note that the measure we have before us proposes to widen the areas in which the industrial development bank may make loans. I presume that means that the government considers that those particular fields are fields

in which we require an expanded investment, and it wishes to make that investment more readily available to those wishing to enter those fields.
I am going to suggest that it is not sufficient merely to widen the scope of the bank in this way if we are not at the same time going to widen its capacity to enter that field. I believe that the industrial development bank offers us an opportunity to undertake something that we are going to have to do sooner or later in this country, and that is to direct as well as we can the flow of investment into those areas which in the consideration of this parliament are the areas in which the Canadian economy requires development.
I imagine that a great many hon. members listened yesterday, as I did, to Mr. James Duncan, the president of Massey Harris, speaking to a meeting in Ottawa on his recent experiences in the Soviet union. Like me, they must have been impressed with Mr. Duncan's report of the vigour with which the Russian regime and the Russian people were pursuing a policy of carefully considered economic development. They were, according to Mr. Duncan, directing their efforts to development in those fields in which the Russian regime considered the Russian economy required development.
They, of course, are doing it there with a particularly ruthless hand and without any regard whatever for the individual comforts or desires of the Russian people, at least, not further than they require to attend to those desires and wishes. But it is becoming increasingly evident that it is this carefully designed and carefully controlled flow of investment in the Soviet union that has created the menace, economically, which now confronts the western world.
If we are going to meet that menace, if we are going to be able to compete in the world for the survival of our political and social ideas, then we are going to have to meet them in the economic field. I suggest that the industrial development bank, an instrument that has already been developed in this country, could have its scope very much widened and could accomplish that end. At the present time, of course, it is severely limited by the fact that its total assets for lending do not exceed $100 million; $25 million in capital and the power to issue debentures for an additional $75 million. A $100 million investment is not a very large item in the sort of economy that was described to us the other night by the Minister of Finance.
I should hope that the government would see fit, if not this session then in the next session, to consider seriously making the
22, 1956	2517
Industrial Development Bank Act industrial development bank a deliberate instrument for the direction of investment in the Canadian economy. I noticed, for instance, in the papers the Minister of Finance tabled before his budget speech, the figures were given for the increased disbursements in the different sectors of our economy. He reported that the corporation investment income in Canada had increased last year to, I believe, some $756 million.
One of the complaints that have been made both in this house and outside this house by people who should know-people such as Mr. Coyne, the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. James Muir, the president of the Royal Bank of Canada and many other leading industrialists and financiers in Canada-has been that the Canadian investor by and large is not particularly interested in moving into the more venturesome fields of investment and that he has, on the other hand, tended to invest in safe, fixed-yield investments rather than take the risks in developmental types of investment, with the consequence that we have had the vast inflow of foreign capital into those fields of investment.
Whilst we may take the position that investment of this sort from any source does have the effect of developing our Canadian economy, we should bear in mind that it has the effect of removing completely from the control of the Canadian parliament the fields in which our economy is going to expand. I would suggest that, since the Canadian investor appears to be a rather cautious soul, we might meet his cautious desires for safe investment by providing the opportunity in the form of very little expanded debenture issues of the bank of industrial development, which would then be available for investment in the areas of our economy that are now virtually a foreign preserve.
Before this measure goes through the house I hope there will be an opportunity for the government to reconsider the rather restricted increase in the powers of the bank proposed in this measure, and to take some steps toward making it an instrument of investment direction in our economy.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
THE ROYAL ASSENT Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to inform the house that I received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 22, 1956.
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the
[Stage Direction]
Industrial Development Bank Act
Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 22nd March, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative).

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for the second reading of Bill No. 165, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.
John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few remarks to make on second reading of the bill to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act. The first is that I am pleased to see that the amending bill indicates that the scope of operations of the bank is to be enlarged. I would suggest for the minister's consideration that the scope be enlarged a little bit further. Industrial development in Canada is going into fields which are not yet covered in the Industrial Development Bank Act and which may well need certain large-scale assistance.
In my own county of Peel we are much concerned with the specialized types of agriculture. I suggest that the development of agriculture in that county, in certain types of crops such as fruit, vegetables and indoor crops, is actually approaching the development stage of a small industry. Even individual farms must be capitalized on a large scale. The machinery required for their operation is extensive. They cannot be dealt with properly under the farm loan acts, on the capitalization set out in those acts. They are progressing from the stage of family farms to that of more commercial enterprises.
Two sessions ago, Mr. Speaker, in the debate that took place with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), I recall that he said that in some provinces of Canada farming was a way of life but in Ontario it was an industry. Referring to those words of his, I would suggest that we who are giving second reading to the bill amending the Industrial Development Bank Act recognize that progress and enlarge the scope of this act to include agriculture. I would suggest that we recognize the much larger capitalization required today by young people to get into agriculture, and at the same time recognize the fact that agriculture is becoming more scientific and in many ways more nearly based on the industrial approach.


I note with interest and without further comment that in the act which is before us there- is no specific provision concerning the amount of interest that may be charged. I suppose that each individual loan is negotiated on its own basis. If there is good security the bank might possibly advance loans at a low interest rate, whereas if the loan is not so well secured the interest rate might be higher.
One feature of the operation of the industrial development bank that I am pleased to note is shown on the annual report to the Minister of Finance for 1955 at page 11. There we find that the revenue for the year ended September 30, 1955, is up over that of the year previous by $98,684, and that the bank has managed to decrease its operating expenses by $10,212. In those figures I suggest there is a good lesson for government. They show that this bank, operating on a business basis, can show a profit, can increase revenues and decrease expenses. Here is an example that might perhaps be followed by all branches of government, through adopting the system followed by the bank by means of which they have managed to decrease expenses in this year of expanding government expenses.
One other suggestion that I desire to make for the consideration of the minister and the house is that in industrial expansion there is a problem that was faced a few years ago in connection with housing expansion. In order to find accommodation, industry must resort to new sources of capital. People who could not afford to build their own homes were allowed to rent apartments. Those apartments were financed under the National Housing Act. I suggest that the same situation faces many small industries today. They have not the equity capital with which to furnish their machinery, keep available the necessary working capital and at the same time purchase a new factory. Today in Canada there is a shortage of money for people who would be prepared to invest some equity in a factory and make it available to an operating business of some sort on a rental basis.
To you, Mr. Speaker, and to this house I suggest that steps might be taken under this act whereby people who are prepared to build factories to enlarge the industrial capacity of this country, and to rent those factories to industries, might be able to borrow money under provisions similar to those at present provided for housing under the National Housing Act.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak for only a few minutes in connection with second reading of this bill, because I feel that at the resolution stage I expressed my views on as wide a basis as

possible. There are, however, a couple of observations that I should like to make and I shall avoid, if at all possible, repeating what I said on the previous occasion.
I believe there are a few matters which might be considered by the committee upon reference of this bill to them. One of the things that it seems to me will be required for the effective broadening of the scope of the work of this institution is the opening of additional offices of the bank in more centres in Canada. We referred to that matter previously. Apparently there are only four regional offices. If we are going to make this type of money available to smaller business institutions, we must get down to their level. I would hope that the committee might give serious consideration to a recommendation of that kind when it is considering this bill.
The second thing I want to mention is this. The additional funds that are being made available, it appears, are to be limited to those institutions which require loans of $200,000 or more. An institution of that type can ordinarily go into the bond market, through the usual financial institutions, and obtain the kind of money it needs. I would think that what the country needs is an expansion of funds for those institutions which require help between the help that can be given to them by ordinary banking methods and the help they can obtain in the bond market. I would suggest that more consideration might be given to this phase of the bank's activities.
I note with satisfaction one particular point, and that is that officers of the bank may be delegated considerably more power than they have had in the past. I understand that the supervisor for the whole of the Ontario area has discretionary power up to $5,000, but otherwise all applications made to him must be referred to the head office of the bank in Montreal. If we are going to have this type of business get down to the level I have spoken about, then obviously we shall have to have greater responsibility and greater authority placed in the hands of the people who actually deal with the applicants.
At this stage, too, before we embark on this type of endeavour on a grand scale, it might be wise if the committee to which this measure is to be referred called in representatives of the chartered banks to see if, in fact, those institutions might not be interested in expanding their activities in this field. You will recall that at one stage those institutions were not interested in loans under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. However, when the necessary legislation was enacted by this house they lost little time in getting into the field in a big way. Although there
22, 1956	2519
Farm Improvement Loans Act may have been some reluctance at one time about being involved in this field, it seems to me that before it is expanded on too large a scale we ought to hear evidence as to whether those institutions might see their way clear to provide funds on this type of security.
If that should not be the case, sir, then I say there is going to be a great deal more money required by this industrial development bank if it is going to perform its proper function. I was very interested to hear the president of Canadian National Railways say that the $500 million program of that company spread over the last four years and the year to come has been financed entirely through Canadian bond houses. It is an indication that there are people in this country who are prepared to invest in Canadian industry, that the money is here, and what is needed is the proper incentive to get it into the hands of the people who need it.
If it is the intention to spread the influence of this institution, then I would strongly suggest that some type of public offering of the securities which this bank will require to market to get the necessary money should be floated on the open market in Canada. We should not confine our efforts to loans or advances from the Bank of Canada. If we do this we will be seeing that industry in Canada is financed by money from this country. If there is anything we need to have proof of today, it is the fact that we and our financial institutions have faith in the future of industry here.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act by providing for a new three-year pool commencing April 1, 1956, and ending March 31, 1959; to provide further that the maximum amount of bank loans made in the new period and guaranteed under the act shall be three hundred million dollars.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Mr. Charlton:: Is the minister going to make any statement at all?


Walter Edward Harris: I could make a brief statement, though nearly the whole purpose of the bill is outlined in the resolution. I could add two

Farm Improvement Loans Act things. I should, perhaps, emphasize that as the resolution indicates the present authority of the Farm Improvement Loans Act expires in a few days, and the purpose of this bill is to renew it for a further period of three years. In addition to that, it is proposed to increase the amount of the permissible loan from $4,000 to $5,000. It is also intended to provide for an amendment which will take care of certain legal doubts which apparently have arisen as to whether or not the banks can give what is known as a guaranteed loan under the act in connection with certain assets which in certain provinces are the subject of statutory provision that those particular assets may not be charged. The increase in the amount of the revolving fund comes about as a result of the expected increase in the use of the act, and the increased amount of the individual loan.


John Alpheus Charlton: Will the minister indicate also whether it is his intention to send this measure to a committee?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I should have added that this will also be sent to a committee after second reading.


Mr. Argue:: We are pleased, Mr. Chairman, to support this resolution providing for the extension of the Farm Improvement Loans Act. We believe this is an excellent example of the type of system that should be used and could be used to provide loans to needy borrowers, good farmers, at a reasonable rate of interest. The act has now been in operation since 1945, and up to the end of 1954 loans had been made totalling more than $513 million. The government provides a guarantee of 10 per cent of the aggregate loans granted by the banks; therefore the total amount guaranteed in this period amounted to over $50 million. In spite of the very large guarantee, and in spite of the very large sums of money lent under this act, the losses in that period amounted to less than $150,000. The government's experience in this field, therefore, has been excellent. Within this period the government suffered a loss of only one three hundred and fiftieth of the guarantee involved.
I believe the government should consider adopting this type of practice in connection with other legislation. Here is a method the government uses in co-operation with the banks, and with a guarantee of only 10 per cent it has facilitated the making of many loans. I suggest that the experience of the government with respect to this act to date has been very happy. I am pleased that once again when this act is being extended the amount of the guarantee of a loan to an individual applicant is once again increased.


The last time the act was before parliament the amount was increased from $3,000 to $4,000. This time it is being increased from $4,000 to $5,000. I think the government might have increased that amount even further.
There has been a tremendous increase in the cost of the things farmers buy for which they obtain money under this act. The item that farmers have to purchase most frequently is farm machinery. As hon. members know, there have been tremendous increases in the prices of farm machinery. Knowing the amount of farm machinery, to say nothing of other improvements, that may be needed on a modern farm, I think the government might have allowed the ceiling for which a guarantee would be applicable to be considerably above the suggested $5,000 figure. I think it is generally agreed that an efficient farm today needs machinery to the value of about $20,000. I would suggest that as far as the ceiling on the individual loan is concerned, the guarantee might well have been doubled and applied to a maximum of $8,000.
There is one further suggestion I should like to make to the minister. I know he has already given some consideration to this matter. I hope he will call in the credit unions at an early date, and that the role they may be able to play under an act such as this will be actively considered. I hope the government will give favourable consideration, as I am sure it will, to co-operating with the credit unions in this field in so far as the credit unions themselves may request and within the terms of the legislation itself.
As has been pointed out in the past, the number of credit unions has increased very rapidly. Some 1,600,000 Canadians are members of credit unions. We believe that credit unions, and the whole idea of credit unions, should be encouraged by the government. What has actually happened in practice in credit unions in the making of farm improvement loans has very frequently been this. A farmer has gone to a bank and applied for a loan under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and for one reason or another the bank has turned him down. The farmer, following the rejection by the bank manager, has gone to a credit union, made an application for a loan, and very frequently has received a loan from the credit union for the same purpose. The records of the credit unions in regard to loans for farm machinery and farm improvements will show that their losses have been very small, in spite of the fact that the loans the credit unions have made in general have been loans that would entail a greater risk than similar loans made by the banks.

I am hopeful that before the end of this session the government, by new legislation or by regulation, may extend this act to credit unions so the full 10 per cent guarantee may be given to credit unions and that farmers generally will be able to take greater advantage of this method of obtaining loans at a reasonable rate, namely 5 per cent.
I want to point out again that this is a method by which borrowers can obtain loans at a reasonable rate of interest, and I hope the government will expand this type of legislation so that the very high rates of interest now charged by some other lending institutions in this country may be reduced from the very high rate of over 24 per cent to as little as possible, with the ultimate objective of getting the rate down to the same level provided for in this type of legislation.


Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Chairman, we in this group are prepared to support this resolution preceding a bill to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act. We are satisfied to reserve any comments we may have until the bill is introduced in the house. I would like to compliment the Minister of Finance on giving us the information at the outset that the bill will be referred to a committee for study at a later date.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 208, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the second time; next sitting of the house?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, on that point, since there seems to be general approbation of what we are doing, I wonder whether we can have second reading now. Immediately after Easter the committee will be seized of the bill, and hon. members will in the meantime have the bill to study. Unless someone feels there should be further debate I can really see no particular reason why the bill could not have second reading now and go to the committee, although it would not be discussed until immediately after Easter.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, we have not seen the bill yet. I do not know whether or not this is just the proper procedure. We are perfectly willing to put it through if the minister will assure us that it is going to committee.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, my point is this. It is obvious that the first two weeks after Easter, will be taken up with the budget
Trans-Canada Highway Act debate and other incidental matters. If this bill is passed now I assure my hon. friend that except for one item I mentioned, the resolution covers practically everything that is in the bill. I do not think the hon. member will be taken by surprise at all. We can have some useful discussion in the committee at that time. If, on the other hand, we do not give second reading to the bill tonight I am satisfied that it will not reach second reading, unless by agreement at some time, until at least some time in the third week after we come back.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill be read the second time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce?


Hazen Robert Argue: Might I make a suggestion to the minister? Does he not think that it would be more appropriate for a bill of this kind to be referred to the agriculture committee of this house where we do have the experts, I suggest, as far as farm loans are concerned?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, I certainly have no objection, sir. It has always been standard practice for bills of the Minister of Finance to go to the banking and commerce committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It might be a good experience for the Minister of Finance to appear before the committee on agriculture.


Walter Edward Harris: Since hon. members have been kind to me tonight, we shall change that to agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Harris moves, seconded by Mr. Prudham, that this bill be referred to the standing committee on agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide

Trans-Canada Highway Act that the Minister of Finance may pay a higher contribution for a portion of the highway in a province not exceeding ten per centum thereof; to extend contributions to costs incurred up to December 31, 1960 and to terminate all contributions on May 31, 1961; and to provide further that the aggregate of all expenditures under the act may be increased to a maximum of two hundred and fifty million dollars.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Mr. Hodgson:: Would the parliamentary
assistant make a statement?


Mr. Bourgel:: Mr. Chairman, the Trans-
Canada Highway Act, which became law on December 10, 1949, was enacted to encourage and assist in the construction of a continuous high standard highway following the shortest practical east-west route across Canada. The act provides that the federal government may make contributions to a provincial government of 50 per cent of the construction costs of the highway over a period of seven years, and the agreements under the act provide further that the federal government may pay in respect of highway previously constructed along the route of the trans-Canada highway between April 1, 1928 and December 10, 1949. The estimated cost of completing the highway was $300 million in 1949, and the amount voted by parliament as the federal government share was $150 million.
The total length of the highway along the designated route in all ten provinces is approximately 5,000 miles. Quebec has not signed an agreement under the statute and has not participated. The mileage in the nine participating provinces, including Banff and Yoho national parks, is 4,580 miles.
For distances totalling approximately 2,850 miles there is a paved highway, although to date the equivalent of only 1,600 miles have been constructed to the approved standard. Thus there remain approximately 1,545 miles of highway unpaved, and there are 185 miles on which there is no highway of any kind.
It is therefore now apparent that the terms of the present agreements, which provide for the completion of the project by December 9, 1956, cannot be met. There have been various reasons for delays, including weather, the necessity of diverting materials and effort into the defence build-up at the time of the Korean war, difficult terrain and others. In the over-all, however, progress has been disappointingly slow.
The purpose of this amendment is to seek authority to introduce a bill to extend the period of construction, to provide additional funds, and to alter the formula so as to enable the federal government to provide greater


financial assistance in constructing select sections with a view to closing at the earliest possible date those gaps in which no highway exists at all at the present time, or in which there is a road of inferior standard which needs to be rebuilt.
In no province does the gap or the combined lengths of gaps where there is no highway of any kind exceed 10 per cent of the total mileage in that province. The resolution therefore indicates that the bill will seek authority for the Minister of Finance to pay a higher contribution for a portion of the highway in a province not exceeding 10 per cent of the mileage. The federal government contribution for these gaps will be increased from 50 per cent to 90 per cent of the cost of construction.
The resolution also refers to the extended period for which contributions may be made. The present terminating date, as I have indicated, is December 9, 1956. The bill will seek authority to extend the period for construction to December 31, 1960, and a further five months to wind up the accounting. The termination date for all contributions therefore will be set as May 31, 1961.
The last financial provision which is set forth in the resolution has to do with the total amount of money authorized by parliament for federal contributions. As I have already indicated and as the committee is aware, the limitation in the present statute is $150 million. Authority will be sought in the bill to increase this amount to a maximum of $250 million.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, this legislation comes forward at a very timely moment in our nation's development, because the first act which became effective on December 10, 1949, will have lived its life on December 10, 1956, I suppose. We now have a new bill offering the provinces an additional expenditure of $100 million toward the completion of the road.
The first sum of $150 million which was the dominion government's share was too small in the first place, and this measure which is before us I suggest is too little and too late, because the cost of construction has increased a great deal in the last six years. The amount of traffic travelling on our roads has also increased, and the life of the roads is shortened. The sum of $150 million was spent on the construction of roads with a 22-foot top. Anyone who knows anything about building roads is aware that a 22-foot top is not adequate under present day circumstances.


Maurice Bourget: It is 24 feet maximum.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I think it is a minimum of 22 feet. A lot of the construction has been

with a 22-foot top. Anyone would know that kind of top will wear out in less than ten years. I can show you roads built with a top of 22 feet which were constructed approximately 10 years ago but which are worn out now.
The trans-Canada highway is a national highway. We as members of parliament like to brag about it as such as, I am sure, do hon. members of the government. But is it a national highway in fact? I have my doubts about this, because up until now the provinces have been paying 50 per cent of the total cost. The government now has come through with this bill extending the time limit for another five years and increasing the sum of money from $150 million to $250 million. The government has included a proviso that it will pay 90 per cent of the 10 per cent remaining gap. That is something new. I repeat, the federal government will pay 90 per cent of the 10 per cent gap.


Maurice Bourget: I am sorry, but I think the hon. member misunderstands. The federal government proposes to pay not 10 per cent of the gap but it proposes to pay 90 per cent of 10 per cent of the total length of the mileage in any province.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Are you sure it is not 90 per cent of the gap in each province?


Maurice Bourget: Yes, it may be the gap, but it is 90 per cent of 10 per cent of the total mileage in any province.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: For the gaps that are left,
I suppose. This little book says it is 10 per cent of the distances that are left in each of the provinces. Therefore the government is going to pay 90 per cent of the 10 per cent gaps that are left. I suggest that this government should pay 90 per cent of the cost of the construction of the whole road. As I understand it the dominion government has not the machinery or the ways and means for the building of roads and therefore they place the responsibility upon the provinces. But this is a national road and it should be built, not 10 per cent of the gap but all the gap, by this federal government at least to the extent of 90 per cent.
Then there is the matter of maintenance. It is estimated that this road will be completed in 1961, but I have my doubts. Some of these gaps are to be found in the most rugged country, and much of the trans-Canada highway is going to be worn out before it is completed, especially the 22-foot portions. This road should be built to a minimum width of 30 feet, and where the traific is heavy it should be at least a four-lane highway.
You are asking the provinces to pay 50 per cent, and they also receive 50 per cent on the 67509-160
22, 1956
Trans-Canada Highway Act old highways that are used or included in the national highway. It must be remembered that this is practically the only road in Canada to which the dominion government contributes one iota. Last year a total of $600 million was spent on highways in Canada, $426 million of which was spent by the provinces, $110 million by the municipalities and a measly $27 million by the federal government. About $17 million of that was in connection with the trans-Canada highway, with the balance presumably being spent on roads in national parks.
Highway traffic is increasing at a terrific rate, the number of cars having almost doubled in the last six years, as well as the number of trucks. The provinces are faced with a problem in keeping up their highway systems, especially if the present traffic trend should continue. The province of Ontario is hemmed in almost like a horseshoe by the United States, and it must have good roads. Good roads are necessary for defence purposes. In case of emergency the people of the cities of Ontario are not going to go east and west; they are not going to go south to the United States. Most of them are going to go north. It is fortunate that we have a great tourist development in Haliburton and Victoria which could take care of many people in case of an emergency. But there must be roads, there must be ways and means of getting them there.
We must have good commercial and tourist roads running north and south, not only in Ontario but in many other provinces. The provinces are hard pressed to find money with which to build these north and south roads. It is more important today to have north and south roads than it is to have east and west roads, because such roads are necessary for commercial and tourist purposes as well as for national and civil defence. There must be good roads to places like Sarnia, Detroit, Windsor, London, the Niagara district, Hamilton, Toronto, and do not forget Port Hope where our great uranium centre is located. Then there are the cities and towns and bridges along the St. Lawrence. The same applies to Quebec, and that is probably one reason Quebec did not come into this national highway scheme.
However, this is like a man who is hungry; half a loaf is better than no bread at all. I do not think the dominion government has an excuse in the world for not paying 90 per cent both of the cost of construction and the cost of maintenance. They will have to start maintaining some of it long before the last of the road is built. This government retains about 78 cents of every tax dollar collected
2524	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act in Canada, including the provinces and municipalities, and they pay back a much smaller percentage than that. I understand that last year they took $302 million out of the tourist industry, and for the first seven months of the last fiscal year they collected $116 million in excise and sales taxes from the motor industry. During that same period they spent less than $16 million on this road. They have taken the lion's share, they have grabbed off the taxes, they are grabbing off every bit of revenue that comes in.
Someone has said that there is a large stretch of highway in Ontario to be finished. Let us not forget that Ontario pays about 47 per cent of all the revenue collected by the dominion government, besides paying its share of the cost of building this road and everything else. I am not going to move an amendment to the resolution because I do not think it would do any good, but I submit that this government should get together with the provinces and decide on a design for this road which would apply to the whole highway. This should not be left to the provinces, and then have the onus placed on them because they have not done it this way or that way. Something should be organized so that a better road may be built than has been built in the past, much of it in the form of a four-lane highway.
I will support the resolution because, as I said before, half a loaf is better than none. However, I think the parliamentary assistant had better take this back to his minister, to the department and the government and let them understand that they are not paying within 40 per cent of their share of the cost of this road. They are paying too little too late.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Chairman, back in 1949 when the government introduced a resolution designed to assist the provinces financially in the construction of Canada's first national highway, I am sure those who voted for the legislation and Canadians generally felt that at long last the federal government had accepted its responsibility for the construction of an integrated system of highways in this country, and had acknowledged that it was absolutely necessary that the government take this step. I am sure Canadians thought that the commencement of the trans-Canada highway was the first step toward the realization of a system of integrated highways across this country.
Seven years have passed since the introduction of that legislation, legislation which Canadians thought would usher in a new era in motor transportation in this country. As has been mentioned already by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Public

Trans-Canada Highway Act
I think what I have said sums up briefly a few of the reasons why we believe the federal government must accept, in greater measure than anything we have seen heretofore, its responsibility in connection with a highway program. After all, the magnitude of the job which the provinces are obliged to do to maintain the farm-to-market roads as well as the highways places them, as I said a moment ago, in an impossible position, and one which they are not going to be able to maintain in the future unless some assistance is forthcoming from the federal government.
What has happened to account for the fact that the present trans-Canada highway program has not become the success that it was hoped it would be by those who introduced it? There are several reasons. First and possibly most important is the fact that the 50-50 sharing of costs between the federal government and the provincial governments was not by any stretch of the imagination a realistic division of costs. It did not take into consideration the purchase of land for the right of way, nor did it take into consideration the substantial costs involved in moving telephone poles and many of the other obstacles the government found in many cases when they laid out the right of way. When you take into consideration the extra costs, instead of there being a 50-50 sharing of cost we find it is more in the neighbourhood of 40-60, with the provinces being responsible for the 60 per cent rather than the 40 per cent.
Another regressive feature was that the provinces were responsible for any clover-leafs that had to be built, and any overpasses that were necessary on the route. These two features are items of great expenditure. In so far as the provinces going ahead at a faster rate than they did is concerned, possibly one of the restraining factors was the fact I mentioned a moment ago, namely that they are responsible for their roads within their own boundaries. Everyone knows it is absolutely necessary that the provinces maintain and build to the best of their ability the roads which the people within the boundaries of each province necessarily are obliged to use for their day to day living. Increased construction costs have also added to the burden. Hence a combination of a great many factors has been the cause which appears to have retarded the construction of the trans-Canada highway.
As I pointed out, the amendment with which we are dealing this evening is not going to help this situation materially, because the 90 per cent the federal government is prepared to pay on 10 per cent of the total mileage within each province in effect amounts to only 4 per cent or 5 per cent of fMr. Bryson.]
the total cost of the trans-Canada highway. When we take the new proposal and add it to the original proposal of the 50-50 break in cost sharing, and when we take into consideration the fact that the provinces are responsibile for the things I mentioned a moment ago, we find that the breakdown in reality is still only 50-50 in so far as sharing of costs is concerned, and that is not enough.
The hon. member who just took his seat said this new proposal will end, in so far as the latest statement we have is concerned, in 1961 and he doubted whether the road would be completed by that date. I also doubt very much whether it will be completed then. I think we must remember that the job which must be done in British Columbia, for instance-the fabulous and fantastic job that the provincial government of British Columbia is facing today-makes it appear extremely unlikely that they will have their portion of the highway completed by 1961. Of course we also know that the terms of the proposal are that the money will be forthcoming, under the new terms, provided that each province allocates each year as much money as the average they have allocated in the last two years in connection with the ordinary construction of the road.
While I am not going to deal with the situation as we find it in the United States in so far as cost sharing is concerned between the federal government and the state governments, it is interesting to note that the federal government of the United States assists in the building and maintenance of all the roads in that country. Last year it budgeted for something in the neighbourhood of $700 million to help build and maintain a comprehensive road grid in that country. Hence we are somewhat disappointed that the new proposal that has been made is not going far enough.
We would suggest that an announcement should be made now as to what are plans of the federal government for when the trans-Canada highway is completed in the provinces. For instance, what is going to happen or what is the program going to be in the province of Manitoba, or the province of Ontario or the province of Saskatchewan when they complete their section of the highway while other provinces still have not completed their sections? We think some statement should be made now as to what the policy and program is to be in that regard.
While I am not prepared to argue highway construction in connection with civil defence, I think we must recognize the fact that we in this country are spending large sums of money on civil defence. We all know,

of course, that highways and roads are one of the most important factors in connection with civil defence. Is the government going to assist the provinces to expand their highway systems on completion of their sections of the trans-Canada highway? I think that is one of the questions which must be answered soon by this government. We believe that a more realistic proposal than the one suggested in the amendment with which we are dealing here this evening would be one under which the federal government would assume 75 per cent of the total cost of the trans-Canada highway. That should include the cost of the right of way and the other costs in connection with the right of way such as the overpasses and the clover-leafs that are necessary on such a highway. The government should now make known its intention if it intends to provide an overall highway program in co-operation with the provinces, and that proposal should not be delayed. Canadians should know now whether or not the government is prepared to go forward with this integrated system of highways which we all expected would result from the legislation passed in this house in 1949.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to make a few brief remarks regarding this resolution, Mr. Chairman. I think it is appropriate that I should do so, as I come from a province which has exceptional difficulties in so far as the construction of main and arterial roads is concerned, and a province which historically has seen the development of settlements in that province based upon roads which have been constructed by senior governments. From the very earliest days of the history of the province of British Columbia, roads constructed by the military during the days of the gold rush into the Cariboo have been examples of what could be done by senior governments in the way of helping to develop and colonize a province.
It was due to the fact that a road had been constructed by the royal engineers at the time of the Cariboo gold rush that miners, after they had reached their destination and explored their claims, found that they could settle not only on the mainland but also on Vancouver island. It is very largely due to that initial effort in federal road construction that the development of British Columbia proceeded.
We have peculiar problems so far as British Columbia is concerned, because we are shut off from the rest of Canada by great mountain ranges which have only a limited number of passes, and it is because of that fact that one road leading from the prairies and eastern Canada is inadequate. One east-west road is not sufficient because of the
Trans-Canada Highway Act terrain and the fact that the various mountain ranges limit north-south communication. It is, therefore, of importance that there should be at least three main roads leading from eastern Canada into British Columbia.
Now, of course, we welcome the fact that some assistance is being given to the provincial government in the matter of road development. I do feel, like the previous speakers, that the assistance is rather meagre and it is coming rather late. I realize the great difficulties in the construction of the road. I believe that in British Columbia the trans-Canada highway is costing somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200,000 per mile, which of course is a very large sum of money. It is beyond the powers of even a province as prosperous as British Columbia to develop more than one road.
I refer also to the need for more than one road in relation to defence. We have to have the opportunity of moving, if necessary, by road not only in a direct line east and west, but also to the northeast into that great country north of Edmonton. All these roads have to be developed. One point which causes me some concern regarding the construction of the trans-Canada highway along its present route is the strength of the bridges on that route. The weight of military transport vehicles as well as that of civilian vehicles is increasing all the time. One hears of immense vehicles which have to be moved for military requirements that only the very strongest bridges could support. I feel that the type of bridge now being constructed, as I have seen them along the trans-Canada highway, would not carry the heaviest military vehicles. There is no other way to move these vehicles in many parts of our province except by road. I would therefore call that point to the attention of the parliamentary assistant.
One other point I should like to make concerns the ribbon development which is taking place on the outskirts of so many cities. I know that on the new portion of the trans-Canada highway out of Victoria there are innumerable auto courts, all kinds of stores and small buildings being constructed. If we are going to have that sort of ribbon development we will defeat one of the main objects of the trans-Canada highway as well as add to the risk of the loss of life on the highway, where school children and others will run across. I would hope it might be possible, in view of the money which is being spent by the federal government, for the federal government to reach some agreement with the provinces, and possibly with the municipalities as well, to prevent this very serious handicap which is now arising, namely the ribbon development

Trans-Canada Highway Act on the outskirts of cities along the new portions of the trans-Canada highway.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for
Humboldt-Melfort, Mr. Chairman, has presented this party's general position with regard to this resolution. He dealt with some of the criticisms of the resolution and made some suggestions. I support his remarks and the position he has taken. In order to save the time of the house I am not going to repeat them, but I do want to deal with the situation of the trans-Canada highway as it affects the residents of the southern interior of British Columbia.
In British Columbia we are anxious, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich said, that there should be three highways across the province, but in the meantime we are particularly concerned about getting our first trans-Canada section completed. Everyone knows that in British Columbia we are faced with unusual physical difficulties, first with regard to selecting the right route and second with respect to the cost of construction. I wish to deal with a particular aspect of this question because it is of extreme importance and concern to the residents of southeastern British Columbia. I have been asked by a number of organizations in that area to put forward their views at the first opportunity.
The problem that is of particular concern is the route that will be finally chosen between Revelstoke and Mount Eisenhower. We are also concerned because a great part of that route will no doubt be included in this 10 per cent of abnormal costs. To date there have been three possible routes suggested between those two points. The first is the Big Bend highway, which has been in operation as a dirt road since 1941, if I remember correctly. Now there is to be a reconsideration of that route, owing to the proposals for the building of the Mica creek and other dams on the Columbia. The other route that has been under consideration is the Rogers pass route paralleling the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway between Revelstoke and Golden.
The third route that has received some consideration and a great deal of publicity and support' in the interior of British Columbia is known as the Jumbo pass route, going from approximately Windermere in the upper Columbia valley across the divide of the Selkirks and the Purcells, which are a spur of the Selkirks, to the southern end of Howser lake and north along Trout lake and upper Arrow lake and then into Revelstoke. This route was surveyed at one time by engineers of the Canadian Pacific Railway when they were considering the main line of that railway, and it was given up because of the desire


of the company and of the government of the day, I understand, to choose the present route through the Kicking Horse pass. However, we have engineers in our district who are well acquainted with the area.


Maurice Bourget: We do not make the choice of the route; the choice of the route is left to the provinces.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am coming to that point, and I am going to read some correspondence. We are unable to say who is going to make the choice, because I think the federal government has a finger in the pie at this stage of the investigation, and possibly the Canadian Pacific Railway. On account of the public interest in this question and the knowledge of the long-time engineers in the district, Mr. Boyd Affleck, a highly qualified engineer, and incidentally a very prominent supporter of the party to my left- he is a gentleman who is a strong opponent of the Kaiser dam-made an examination of the route from Howser lake to the Windermere area. As a result of that examination the provincial government undertook a reconnaissance survey a year or two ago between those two points. Since that time the associated boards of trade of British Columbia, together with other organizations and farmers' organizations, have been urging the provincial government to undertake a thorough survey of the route before any final decision is made with respect to the section of the trans-Canada highway that would connect Revelstoke with Mount Eisenhower on the trans-Canada. So far they have met with very little success.
* I raised the question in the house a few times, and the minister has always indicated that the choice of the route comes within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. All the federal government requires is that it be the shortest practicable route. Our organizations are very concerned about it, because we feel we have the time to thoroughly investigate all routes, that when you come to make a decision which will involve the expenditure of between $30 million and $50 million, when that decision will affect British Columbia seriously and all persons who use the route in years to come, every possible route shall be thoroughly investigated.
Now, to come back to the point the parliamentary assistant raised, I want to read two or three letters of recent date. The first was addressed by Mr. W. J. D. Walker, for the Kaslo board of trade, to Hon. Robert Winters,

Minister of Public Works, Ottawa, dated February 20, 1956. This is what he had to say:
Dear Sir:	re: Trans-Canada Highway
We notice that you have been quoted in the Revelstoke Review of February 2 as saying, "The Rogers pass is the answer and I have said so".
I read the same report. I continue with the letter:
This relates to the final choice of routes for the trans-Canada highway where it crosses the Selkirk range in British Columbia.
We do not have an additional copy of the above newspaper but we enclose a copy of the article in which you are quoted for your information.
You will note that they quote from an editorial in the Calgary Albertan which in turn quotes the Financial Times of Montreal which quotes your statement as above.
We would be glad if you would look into this and advise us if the statement attributed to you is correct or otherwise, and when and where it was made. It can happen that items taken from the context of a speech or article can be misconstrued. We have no wish at this time to be critical of the statement, or certainly not until we have first referred the matter direct to you.
As you are possibly aware we are a member of the associated boards of trade and chambers of commerce of southeastern British Columbia and as such are vitally interested in the ultimate and inevitable growth of the Kootenays. Through that body we, and all other member boards, have for several years now been advocating the thorough investigation of the Jumbo pass route as a possible alternative for the trans-Canada crossing of the Selkirks. Last fall the associated boards presented a brief to the British Columbia provincial cabinet demanding a survey of that route so that a full and proper comparison can be made of all alternative routes. When the taxpayers' dollar is to be spent to the tune of from $25 to $50 millions for such a project we feel that such a demand is fully justified, and we feel sure that when you consider it you will agree.
We would appreciate your early reply.
Yours truly,
W. J. D. Walker,
for Jumbo pass committee.
To that letter the minister replied on February 27, as follows:
Dear Mr. Walker:	re: Trans-Canada Highway
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 20, on the above mentioned subject.
The situation is that under the terms of the agreement, the provincial governments determine the route of the trans-Canada highway, subject to our approval. In 1949, the governments of British Columbia and Alberta jointly decided that the route would go through Calgary to Banff, then by way of Kicking Horse pass to Revelstoke, and thence to Vancouver and Victoria by way of Nanaimo.
That route was accepted, and a considerable amount of work has been done on it. It involves, as you know, the Big Bend route between Golden and Revelstoke. The highway distance involved is some 190 miles, whereas the airline distance between Golden and Revelstoke is of the order of 90 miles.
It seemed to me from the start that it would be justifiable to spend some effort in trying to find a suitable pass between Golden and Revelstoke as an alternative to the Big Bend route. The Rogers pass seems to provide such an alternative.
Trans-Canada Highway Act
The situation, therefore, is not that an entirely new route is being sought in British Columbia, but simply that an effort is being made to have the highway conform to the definition laid down in the agreement that it should constitute the shortest practical east-west highway along the designated route, which, as I have told you, was specified by the provincial governments in 1949 and agreed to by the federal government.
Yours very truly,
Robert Winters.
It is a very odd thing, Mr. Chairman, from our point of view, that the minister says the provincial government has the final say. I want to tell him that every engineer of the federal department of works is preaching the Rogers pass route, and every Canadian Pacific official in the area has also been preaching the Rogers pass route, which will, of course, parallel the Canadian Pacific tracks between Revelstoke and Golden.
Before concluding, I just wish to read the reply to the minister's letter, dated March 10, 1956:
The Hon. Robert Winters,
Minister of Public Works,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:
Re: Trans-Canada Highway
We acknowledge with thanks your letter of February 27th in reply to ours of February 20th.
From reading your letter our impression is that you favour use of the Rogers pass as an alternative to the present Big Bend route. However, you do not give any specific answer to our question concerning your statement that was quoted by the Financial Times of Montreal which was in turn quoted by the Calgary and Revelstoke papers and of which we furnished copies.
Also you made	no	mention of	your	reaction tothe possible use	of	the Jumbo	pass	as another
alternative route for the trans-Canada highway.
In the fourth	paragraph of	your	letter youmention that you felt it justifiable to spend some effort in trying	to	find a suitable	alternative
route to the Big Bend. As a result of that the Rogers pass was surveyed in 1955 and you now have complete technical data on two routes. It has been our firm contention all along that the third possible route, the Jumbo pass, should receive the same treatment the other two routes already have, namely a full survey so that proper comparisons can be made and to ensure that the final decision is a wise one.
When the route is chosen and constructed that will be a very final step, it will be too late then to rectify mistakes. As taxpayers it is our most emphatic opinion that when up to 50 million is to be spent for such a project all possible steps must be taken to see that it is spent wisely and for the benefit of the greatest number. Any other course would constitute a dire neglect of the duty of the government to the taxpayer.
You already have considerable data on the Jumbo pass submitted by the associated boards of trade of southeastern British Columbia and by certain member boards, and we will not elaborate further on it at this time other than to enclose a comparison chart of the three routes prepared by the Windermere district board of trade.

Trans-Canada Highway Act
We respectfully suggest that it would be your duty as the federal minister most concerned with this project to see that this matter is closely looked into and very carefully considered.
We shall await your reply with interest.
Yours very truly,
W. J. D. Walker,
for Jumbo pass committee
of the Kaslo board of trade.
This matter, Mr. Chairman, is of serious concern to the people of southeastern British Columbia. There is an unusual unanimous opinion that before any final decision is made the government of British Columbia and the federal government should undertake a thorough investigation of the Jumbo pass route.
I am not speaking tonight for one party or for one section. What I am saying tonight, Mr. Chairman, has the support of the residents of the southeastern portion of British Columbia, the various interested organizations and the great majority of hon. members of all political parties in that area. I think it is a fair request. They are not suggesting that this is the best route but the exploratory survey, the reconnaissance survey and the general knowledge of the topography possessed by qualified engineers, indicates it is a route that should be most carefully investigated before a final decision is made. That is all the people of southeastern British Columbia are asking.
I do urge that the parliamentary assistant and the minister give our representations very favourable consideration and do what we think is only prudent, wise and necessary; that is, undertake a thorough survey of the Jumbo pass route before a final decision is made as to the route of this section of the trans-Canada highway.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, I certainly am not going to take very much of the committee's time tonight, but I would like to make a few remarks concerning this resolution.
In the first place, as has already been pointed out, there are some portions of the highway on which the route has not yet been decided. As far as I am concerned I would prefer to leave that decision to the engineers. I understand that both federal and provincial men are now working together in the investigation of the best possible route. I will certainly feel satisfied that with the provincial and federal governments working together they will come up with the best possible route for the trans-Canada highway.
I am not considering for a moment that the trans-Canada highway is the answer to our problem. I think, of course, that we should

have a trans-Canada highway system; however, that is not within the scope of the resolution.
I believe that British Columbia is going to spend $80 million this year in its highway program. A great deal of that money is going into the construction of east-west highways. We realize, of course, as has already been pointed out, that much money needs to be spent in British Columbia, particularly in those difficult sections of the country where we have to pass through the mountains and where a great deal of rock work is involved. I believe these things will be worked out in due course.
I still feel, and I think justifiably, that while the department is moving in the right direction in contributing 90 per cent of 10 per cent of the highway, its contribution remains inadequate. I believe we should have a trans-Canada highway financed by the federal government.
There is one other point which concerns me, and that is the co-operation between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources as it has to do with the parks. I think we should now be budgeting for moneys to bring the park roads up to trans-Canada standards, not only those roads which pass through Banff and Yoho and the parks which trans-Canada will pass through but also in other parks such as Jasper. I think it is essential that there be co-operation between the two departments in having a through road for trucking and the free-wheeling of motor vehicles through these parks.
I cannot understand why trucks should be denied the right to travel on the roads in national parks through the mountains of British Columbia. They should not be told, "Trucks cannot go through here; this is only a tourist attraction". The passes through the mountains are in the vicinity of parks, particularly in the cases of Banff and Jasper. We must therefore have some co-operation and co-ordination between the departments in order to ensure that when trans-Canada is built and the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia have fulfilled their obligation, we are not going to have a bottleneck in the parks.
According to the report which I have in my hand dated March 31, 1955, it is evident that at the present time we are behind schedule in the building of the trans-Canada highway through the parks. I would urge that the government acquaint itself with the situation, knowing full well that once the green light is given to the government of British Columbia in respect of building their share of the highway, much pressure will be

brought to bear to get it finished. We would not like to see a situation where the Alberta and British Columbia sections were finished and we had a bottleneck for which the parks administration were responsible.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, in connection with this discussion of the resolution which stands in the name of the Minister of Public Works to provide for an increased federal contribution to the cost of construction of the trans-Canada highway, I think there are a number of things that have to be said. The first of these is a somewhat critical comment to the effect that there is no field in the general realm of national development in connection with which this government deserves more criticism than in the field of trans-Canada highway policy. The federal contribution is so insignificant as to amount to practically nothing. The lack of a trans-Canada highway is one of the most serious deficiencies in any program of national development, particularly in any program for the co-ordination of movement between provinces.
It is interesting to recall that the question of contributions by the dominion government to the cost of highways generally in Canada was first mooted in this house as long ago as 1912 under the government of Sir Robert Borden, when it was proposed that the dominion government should make contributions to the provinces on a per capita basis toward the cost of road construction. That bill passed the House of Commons but was defeated in the Senate. You will recall that in 1911 there had been a change of government after a long period under the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The political complexion of the house changed but the political complexion of the Senate remained as it had been since 1896, and the other chamber saw fit to defeat the bill introduced by the government and passed by the house.
The government introduced the same bill in 1913 to provide for federal contributions to the cost of highway construction in the provinces, but that bill suffered exactly the same fate. It passed the House of Commons but was defeated in the Senate. Of course the outbreak of the first world war in 1914 shelved proposals of that nature. The record is that the first proposal for federal government contributions to the cost of highway construction was brought in by the government of Sir Robert Borden and put through the House of Commons.
It is significant to recall that since 1913 the Liberal government, of which the present government is a descendant, has been in power for 28 years, with a Conservative government for only five years, regrettably of course. Out of that we would take the period 67509-161
Trans-Canada Highway Act of the war. Taking into account or not including the period of the war and the immediate first post-war years, we find that since 1921 this government or its predecessors, those who follow the policies of the party of which hon. members opposite forming the government are members, have been in power for 28 of those years and we have not yet got a trans-Canada highway.
It is late enough for this government or any government to be bringing in this halfway measure which is preceded by the resolution now before the house, which reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act . . .
Expedient? It has been a necessity for many years, but the government is just getting around to introducing a half-hearted measure designed to make it possible to complete the trans-Canada highway. They still do not contemplate it being completed until 1961, because in the resolution it is stated that the cut-off date will be May 31, 1961. They still are not prepared to take all the measures necessary to ensure that the trans-Canada highway will be completed by 1961 because there is a term of the proposed legislation which does not appear on the face of the resolution. The resolution provides:
. . . that the Minister of Finance may pay a higher contribution for a portion of the highway in a province not exceeding 10 per centum thereof . . .
We know as a matter of fact that the bill to be based on the resolution will provide that the federal government may pay up to 90 per cent of the actual cost of construction in a province, but not for more than 10 per cent of the length of the highway in that province. So this government is not yet ready in this year 1956 to accept its responsibility of ensuring that there shall be an adequate system of coast to coast communication in Canada. It is still a pass the buck measure. Having grabbed all the tax resources, having grabbed the financial buck, they pass the political buck back to the provinces.
That is the attitude of this government, and that has been its attitude throughout toward this vital question of the responsibility for ensuring a coast to coast highway system in Canada. The program of this government falls short of what is necessary, and it is interesting to compare the situation in Canada with that in the United States where they have had a federal highway system and a federal highway program in being for some 50 years. That federal highway system and federal highway program have resulted in the development and construction, if my information is correct-this subject was sprung on us without notice, and it has not been possible to gather together all the information one

The Royal Assent
might have available in his files-of at least ten main east and west roads and some 30 or 40 main north and south roads, a total of some 40 federal highways in the United States of America.
We in Canada have not yet one trans-Canada highway, not one. This measure will not provide adequately for the completion of that one trans-Canada road by 1961. The inadequacy of the proposal of the dominion government to pay up to 90 per cent of the cost of a maximum of 10 per cent of the length of one highway in any province can readily be understood when you look at the situation in the province of British Columbia.
I believe that in Canada there are two provinces which face the maximum of difficulty and cost in connection with road construction, these being Ontario and British Columbia. British Columbia is faced with the highest per-mile cost of road construction of any province in Canada. Taking the east and west roads, there are four major mountain ranges to cross. Starting on the east are the Rocky mountains with peaks up to 12,000 feet. Then there is the Selkirk range with peaks up to 10,000 to 11,000 feet. Then comes the interior plateau, on which my own constituency is situated, made up of rough terrain, broken rocky hills with some level valleys but still offering a difficult problem in road construction. Then comes the Cascades range with peaks up to 8,000 to 9,000 feet and then the coast range which comes within .a few miles of the narrow coastal belt along the Pacific coast. So there are those four major mountain ranges to cross.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of George Francis Alfred Yuli.
An act for the relief of Joyce Ethel Jaques Horgan.
An act for the relief of Jean Thomson Duquette.
An act for the relief of Rosa Straub Gehlsen.
An act for the relief of Cecil Bezeau Barnabe.
An act for the relief of Dora Gina Costello Dash.
An act for the relief of Fernand Desmarais.
An act for the relief of Elsie Abbott Marsden.

An act for the relief of Freda Ethelwinne Henders Jacobson.
An act for the relief of Hazel Loretta Noseworthy Johnston.
An act for the relief of Veronica Iris Collier Horvath, otherwise known as Veronica Cross Horvath.
An act for the relief of Maria Romano Bove.
An act for the relief of Nora Marian Tilley McBain.
An act for the relief of Marguerite Tremblay Nathan.
An act for the relief of Dolores Marion Zolov Karpman.
An act for the relief of Rosalie Rosetti Acason.
An act for the relief of Edmund Joseph Cochrane.
An act for the relief of Edna Hannah Keene Newberg.
An act for the relief of Charlotte Jean Mc-Andrew Boyd Thompson.
An act for the relief of Wilma June Keast Noel.
An act for the relief of Patricia O'Neill Primiani.
An act for the relief of Evelyn Nellie Keemer Mein.
An act for the relief of Pierre Roger Vuille.
An act for the relief of Marie Gertrude Antoinette Hotte Ouellette.
An act for the relief of Euphrosina Kowalyk iWhalley, otherwise known as Rose Kowalyk Whalley.
An act for the the relief of Matilda Stoner Adams.
An act for the relief of Gertrude Bailiss Goodlin.
An act for the relief of Leokadja Laura Rozycka Haber.
An act for the relief of Teofila Kurjata Marciniak.
An act for the relief of Shirley Gelber Kaufman.
An act for the relief of Margaret Pounden Greenstien.
An act for the relief of Gaston Maille.
An act for the relief of Mary Dufresne Cosco.
An act for the relief of Julienne Marchesseault Jasmin.
An act for the relief of Helen Mary Farrel Hickey.
An act for the relief of Hazel Mair Grant Mander.
An act for the relief of Joseph Roland Gaston Charette.
An act for the relief of Beulah Sybil Chapman Maus.
An act for the relief of John Elwood Way.
An act for the relief of Thomas Charles Desmarais.
An act for the relief of John Caldwell Scriver.
An act for the relief of Marie Therese Provost Lapointe.
An act for the relief of Margeryann Williams Farrow Chesney.
An act for the relief of Kathleen Birdie Mac-Phail Morgan.
An act for the relief of Sylvia Colato Le Pottier.
An act for the relief of Antonina Dienl Choumanchuk.
An act for the relief of Rena Amelia Duncan Chenier.
An act for the relief of Stanley Edgar Barnes.
An act for the relief of Molly Joyce LaPlante Baggott.
An act for the relief of Jean Dorothy McLean Lewis.
An act for the relief of John Walter Thoburn.
An act for the relief of Panorea Delaporta Alivizatos.
An act for the relief of William James Stoddart Edington.
An act for the relief of Audrey Hilda Voysey Beaudoin.
An act for the relief of Frederick Howard Blaikie.

An act for the relief of Muriel Tetreau St. George.
An act for the relief of Patricia Colleen Hewitt Nelson.
An act for the relief of Ruth Mildred Thompson McBain.
An act for the relief of Joseph Theophile Lambert.
An act for the relief of Lillian Baron Goodman.
An act for the relief of Madeleine Erna McArthur Blais.
An act for the relief of Queenie Molly Wolfson Phillips.
An act for the relief of Annie May Elizabeth Godson Brooks.
An act for the relief of Ada June Mannard Wilmoth.
An act for the relief of Rose Florczyk Greenwood.
An act for the relief of Beryl Grace Leaper Shufelt.
An act for the relief of Ralph Patrick Dowling.
An act for the relief of Alice Guemon Peladeau.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Baird McDowall Whitlock.
An act for the relief of Adrien Patrick Dicaire.
An act for the relief of Jessie Altha MacBride Burnside.
An act for the relief of Marianne Adorjan Balogh.
An act for the relief of Helene Marguerite Peck Cooper.
An act for the relief of Una Margaret Prower Douglas Heubach.
An act for the relief of Hilary Hope-Hawkins Hardie Henders.
An act for the relief of Marie Arthemise Marguerite Denis Laperriere Mercier.
An act for the relief of Harry Hood.
An act for the relief of Delima Chalifoux Prevost.
An act for the relief of Frances Raven Sherman.
An act for the relief of Constance Louisa Kelly McKenna.
An act for the relief of Jean Mailman Greenleaf.
An act for the relief of Grace Elizabeth Davidson Alexander.
An act for the relief of Frederick Arthur Waltho.
An act for the relief of Jean Decary.
An act for the relief of Sylvia Barbara Murphy Simon.
An act for the relief of Amy Elizabeth Torrance Fraser Walker.
An act for the relief of Margery Cooper Mason.
An act for the relief of Caroline Scortaru Ungariano, otherwise known as Caroline Scortaru Ungar.
An act for the relief of John Joseph Rahilly.
An act for the relief of William Ross Gould.
An act for the relief of Morris Gilbert.
An act for the relief of Margaret McDonald Williamson Gebbie.
An act for the relief of Gwytha Olwyn Lillian Pring Evans.
An act for the relief of Georges Durand.
An act for the relief of Mary Rose Kenny Deline.
An act for the relief of Katherine Marie Saretski.
An act for the relief of Rose Juliana Evelyn Kedroskie Quincey.
67509-161^
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Jeanette Morin Parent.
An act for the relief of Mona Ruth Davis Goldberg.
An act for the relief of Ruth Goodman Silverstein.
An act for the relief of Simonne Auger Boule.
An act for the relief of Leslie Achibald Hood.
An act for the relief of George Hugh Wadge.
An act for the relief of Martha Bailly Maher.
An act for the relief of Helena Roy Buckland.
An act for the relief of Marion Mildred McKnight Newman.
An act for the relief of Marie Laura Francoise Lamothe Newcombe.
An act for the relief of Frances Caplan Sirota.
An act for the relief of Joyce Smith Gwinnell.
An act for the relief of Joan Sheila Rosser Roland.
An act for the relief of Shprintza Gelber Shildkraut.
An act for the relief of Sabina Rosensweig Rosenblum Faust.
An act for the relief of William Eugene Chabot.
An act for the relief of Joseph Charles Sylvio Demers.
An act for the relief of Florence Ethel Bigelow Hamilton.
An act for the relief of Amy Katharine Newman Cowans.
An act for the relief of Sara Martin Lesser.
An act for the relief of Annetta Smith Marchand.
An act for the relief of Sybil Violet Godfrey Russell.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Mary Humphreys Pepper.
An act for the relief of Roslyn Yagod Kivenko Belkin.
An act for the relief of Hilda Sarah Twyman Gagnier.
An act for the relief of Jessie MacFarlane Boyle Roberts.
An act for the relief of Donald Henry Emslie.
An act for the relief of John Wesley Hamilton.
An act for the relief of Lillian Hannah Maxwell Gallant.
An act for the relief of Gordon MacKay Butler.
An act for the relief of Eleanor Jodelis Milius.
An act for the relief of Marie Madeleine Rachel Gregoire Shank.
An act for the relief of Shirley Mildred Glazer-man Wolfe.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Jean Midkiff Desnoyers.
An act respecting the general synod of the Church of England in Canada, the missionary society of the Church of England in Canada, the woman's auxiliary of the Church of England in Canada and the Church of England consolidated trust fund.
An act to incorporate Interprovincial Trust Company.
An act to incorporate the Canadian Equity Insurance Company.
An act to incorporate Hydrocarbons Pipeline Limited.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1957.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1958.
[Stage Direction]
Trans-Canada Highway Act TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Winters-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide that the Minister of Finance may pay a higher contribution for a portion of the highway in a province not exceeding ten per centum thereof; to extend contributions to costs incurred up to December 31, 1960 and to terminate all contributions on May 31, 1961; and to provide further that
the aggregate of all expenditures under the act may be increased to a maximum of two hundred and fifty million dollars.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: As it is past ten o'clock, shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
It being nine minutes past ten 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. Bryce: 1.	How many persons in Manitoba have applied for assistance under the Disabled Persons Act, 1954, up to 31 January, 1956?
2.	How many persons have been granted a full pension?
3.	How many persons have been granted a partial pension?
4.	How many persons have been refused a pension?
Questions
D.V.A. District	Amount
expended
Ottawa, Ont	 95,092.76
Kingston, Ont	 59,783.01
Toronto, Ont	 552,176.35
Hamilton, Ont	 104,259.30
London, Ont	 172,262.26
North Bay, Ont	 77,375.02
Winnipeg, Man	 264,035.60
Regina, Sask	 84,021.48
Saskatoon, Sask	 70,698.21
Calgary, Alta	 73,763.56
Edmonton, Alta	 104,124.04
Vancouver, B.C	 972,571.08


IMMIGRATION-EAST INDIAN APPLICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Answer by: Mr. Marlin:
Mr. Pearkes: 1.	2,462.
2.	652.
3.	70.
4.	1,484.
Of the applications received up to January 31, 1956, there were 256 classified as "pending" on this date.
The following table shows the case load of disability allowance recipients in each province as of January 31, expressed as a percentage of the provincial population:
Cases as
Provincial Cases in percentage population
B.C.		 1,305,000
Sask.		 889,000
Man.		 849,000
Alta.		 1,066,000
Nfld.		 412,000
Ont.		 5,183,000
N.B.		 558,000
N.S.		 683,000
Que.		 4,520,000
P.E.I.		 108,000
pay	of population
645	[DOT]049
701	[DOT]079
716	[DOT]084
1,135	[DOT]106
574	[DOT]139
7,425	[DOT]143
898	[DOT]161
1,140	[DOT]167
11,087	[DOT]245
290	[DOT]269


ASSISTANCE FUND EXPENDITURES
Mr. Brooks: How much money has been spent under assistance fund (W.V.A.) in each of the provinces up to January 1, 1956?
Answer by: Mr. Lapointe:
Statistics are maintained by districts of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The following table shows the location of the 18 district offices in Canada at December 31, 1955:
D.V.A. District	Amount
expended
St. John's, Newfoundland	 $55,326.56
Charlottetown, P.E.1	 37,483.33
Halifax, N.S	 181,175.11
Saint John, N.B	 225,345.16
Quebec, Que	 72,726.24
Montreal, Que	 487,151.64
1.	How many applications for permanent entry to Canada have been received from citizens of India, Pakistan and Ceylon during the years 1954, 1955 and to date in 1956, under the following quota allocations from each country: (a) spouses of legal residents; (b) single children under the age of 21 of Canadian citizens; (c) fiancees of Canadian citizens; (d) parents, single brothers or sisters of Canadian citizens; (e) persons for economic or cultural reasons; (f) other classifications?
2.	How many of the applications in each of these groups have been granted?
3.	How many were refused for no other reason than that the quota had been completed?
4.	How many East Indians are presently in Canada as temporary visitors?
Answer by: Mr. Pickersgill:
1. Statistics are not available in the break-			
down requested. 2. 1954	1955	1956(a) India .	. . 12	8	(to March 15) 8Pakistan	. . Nil	1	NilCeylon	. . Nil	Nil	Nil(b) India*	Not under	Not under Not under	Pakistan	quota	quota	quota itCeylon .	it	it	it(c) India .	.. 9	9	11Pakistan	.. Nil	Nil	NilCeylon	.. . Nil	Nil	Nil(d) India ..	. . 9	19	7Pakistan	. . 2	1	NilCeylon	.. . Nil	Nil	Nil(e and f) India**	. . 153	185	26Pakistan	.. 98	39	1Ceylon	. . 27	50	43
* Single children under the age of 21 of Canadian citizens are not subject to quota restrictions. Statistics are not available as to number of children admitted under this category.
** While the annual quota for citizens of India is 150, there were 33 additional quota numbers allotted in 1954 and 71 in 1955, to utilize unused quota numbers allotted in preceding years.
3. Statistics are not available.
4. Statistics are not available.

Questions


HANDICRAFT CONCESSIONS, NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Bell: 1.	How are the concessions that include the sale o 1 handicrafts and souvenirs administered in the national parks of Canada?
2.	What are the dates, terms, names of contractees and length of said concessions, in Fundy national park, New Brunswick?
3.	What efforts are made to encourage the sale of local enterprise in said concessions?
Answer by: Mr. Lesage:
1.	Concessionaires who hold a lease or licence of occupation on public lands that have been made available for business purposes may obtain a licence to sell handicrafts and souvenirs under authority of the national parks business regulations.
2.	There is only one lease or licence on public land in Fundy park in connection with which a business licence for the sale of handicrafts and souvenirs has been taken out. This was a lease issued to Oliver William Robert Smith and Marie Annie Helen Smith for lot 3, block 1, Fundy park townsite, for a term of 42 years from October 1, 1954, to September 30, 1996, at an annual rental of $20 with provision for review of rental at ten-year intervals. The business licence to cover the sale of handicrafts and souvenirs is issued annually at a fee of $15.
3.	The choice of articles to be sold is considered to be the concern of the person operating the business. It is left entirely to the discretion of the concessionaire, provided that the terms of the business licence are observed.


FISHING SURVEY, KITIMAT
Mr. Hodgson: 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries made any survey of the Aluminum Company of Canada at Kitimat to determine any damage that might be done to the fishing industry by the operation of that development?
2.	If so, to what extent?
3.	Will the waste from the plant or town contaminate or pollute the waters to affect the fishing industry?
Answer by: Mr. Sinclair:
1.	Yes.
2.	Before the project was commenced engineers and biologists of the Department of Fisheries and of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission spent almost two years assessing possible damage to fisheries from the whole project which involved the Kitimat plant and in designing remedial measures. As construction proceeded, each step was checked including the water supply to the town, sewage and other discharge.
3.	Officials of the department are of opinion that the waste discharge will not affect fishing. This is being closely watched.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OP CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
548.	Payment to the national gallery purchase account for the purpose of acquiring works of art in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act-further amount required, $885,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department and missions abroad-
549.	To provide for official hospitality-further amount required, $12,000.
B-General-
550.	To provide for the Canadian government's assessment for membership in international and commonwealth organizations, as detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay the amount specified in the currencies of the countries indicated, notwithstanding that the payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of March, 1956-further amount required, $16,229.
Terminable services-
551.	To provide for a gift of medical supplies and other emergency material as a contribution to flood relief for India and Pakistan, $100,000.
552.	To provide for a gift of flour as a contribution to hurricane relief for Barbados, Grenada, St. Vincent and British Honduras, $50,000.
[Stage Direction]
Administration of various acts and costs of special functions-
553.	Administration of the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Veterans' Business and Professional Loans Act-further amount required, including the costs of administering the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the prairie grain producers' interim financing program, $6,500.
Payments to municipalities-
554.	Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property-to provide for payments to municipalities in accordance with the Municipal Grants Act, and the rural municipal grants regulations established by order in council of January 11, 1956, P.C. 1956-38, and to provide for payments to municipalities under order in council of October 6, 1954, P.C. 1954-1497, in respect of the cost of medical and hospital services and supplies furnished to federal employees and other persons specified therein-further amount required, including authority, notwithstanding section 7 of chapter 49 of the statutes of 1955 (an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act), for payment of grants under section 5 of the Municipal Grants Act to the municipalities of Midland and Welland, in the province of Ontario, and Ste. Foy, in the province of Quebec, $530,500.
Special-
555.	To provide for the expenses of a committee to review and advise upon certain technical questions relating to the administration of the sales and excise taxes, $20,000.
556.	To provide for the expenses of the royal commission on television and radio broadcasting, including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $34,000.
557.	To authorize the expenditure for international relief purposes, or other relief purposes authorized by the governor in council, of the

unexpended portion of the grant made by the government of Canada to the Canadian national European flood relief fund by vote 572 of the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1953, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Field services-
558.	To provide for the destruction of harbour and gray seals-further amount required, $3,000.
Special-
559.	To provide for assistance in the construction of vessels of the dragger and/or long liner type, subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council-further amount required, $72,249.
560.	Amount required to recoup the fisheries prices support account to cover a payment that was made to the government of Newfoundland in the present fiscal year with respect to the 1953 production of salted codfish, $646,984.
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
561.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $16,000.
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons-
562.	General administration-estimates of the Clerk-further amount required, $65,000.
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Surveys and mapping branch-
Canadian hydrographic service-
563.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $850,000.
General-
564.	Payments to the Royal Canadian Air Force and commercial companies for air photography, and to provide for the expenses of the interdepartmental committee on air surveys, including purchases of equipment-further amount required, $550,000.
B-Dominion coal board-
565.	Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council-further amount required, $896,350.
[Stage Direction]
566.	To provide for the dismantling, conversion and installation of existing equipment, acquisition of new equipment, removal expenses and other costs related to the transfer of the national film board to new building-further amount required, $67,000.
[Stage Direction]
Northern administration and lands branch- Northern administration division-
Yukon territory including forest conservation-
567.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $14,000.
[Stage Direction]
Property and building management branch-
568.	Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, other than at Ottawa, including repairs and upkeep, rents, heating, etc.-further amount required, $200,000.
Supply
Building construction branch-
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
569.	Prince Edward Island, $275,000.
570.	Manitoba, $3,200,000.
571.	British Columbia, $650,000.
Harbours and rivers engineering branch- Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
572.	Newfoundland ($72,000, less the amount of $71,999 available from savings in other listed projects detailed in previous estimates for 1955-56 for this province), $1.
573.	Quebec ($16,500, less the amount of $16,499 available from savings in other listed projects detailed in previous estimates for 1955-56 for this province), $1.
574.	Alberta and Northwest Territories ($25,000, less the amount of $24,999 available from savings in other listed projects detailed in previous estimates for 1955-56 for this province), $1.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A-Department-
Marine services-
Pilotage service-
575.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $18,000.
Railway and steamship services-
576.	Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals deficit, 1955-additional amount in excess of the sum of $1,553,000 already appropriated, to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1955-56 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1955- further amount required, $71,639.
577. Maritime Freight Rates	Act-additional amount in excess of the sum of $10,575,000 already appropriated for the payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the act, during the fiscal year 1955-56, of the difference occurring on account of the application of the act, between the tariff tolls and normal tolls under approved tariffs (estimated and certified to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian National Railway Company and approved by auditors of the said company respecting the eastern lines of the Canadian National Railways, and in the case of the other railways by the board of transport commissioners for Canada) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1955 (chap. 174, R.S.) - further amount required, $605,342.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
Pensions and other benefits-
578.	Supplemental pension allowances to former employees of Newfoundland railways, steamships and telecommunication services transferred to Canadian National Railways-further amount required, $21,303.
General-
579.	To provide for reimbursement of the Department of Transport stores account for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $13,832.
580.	Payment to the St. Lawrence seaway authority of an amount equal to the net proceeds realized from the sale of property under the administration or control of the authority and paid into the consolidated revenue fund during the current fiscal year, $80,000.
Air services-
Telecommunications division-
Airways and airports-radio aviation services-
581.	Administration, operation and maintenance-further amount required, $50,000.
Meteorological division-
582. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $194,000.
Civil aviation division-
Airways and airports-
583. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, including authority to charge to vote 499 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1955 (as supplemented), the cost of lands purchased, by means of loans provided for the acquisition of land required to control properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports in order to prevent the erection of hazards to flying and for future development of those airports, that are not held for re-sale, $4,000,000.
584.	Contributions toward airport development and other airport projects on cost-sharing basis, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $63,000.
B-General-
Canadian maritime commission-
585.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $127,771.
LOANS, INVESTMENTS AND ADVANCES External affairs-
586.	To provide for the advance to the cash reserve fund of the administrative budget of the intergovernmental committee for European migration in an amount of $85,100 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of March, 1956, which is, $84,990.
National film board-
587.	To provide that during the current and subsequent fiscal years the expenditures made by the national film board and shown in the national film board operating account referred to in section 18 of the National Film Board Act may, notwithstanding subsection (4) of that section, exceed the receipts shown in the account by not more than $900,000 or such lesser amount as may be fixed by the treasury board, $1.
Trade and commerce-
588.	To provide, subject to regulations of the treasury board, for working capital advances in the current and subsequent fiscal years to posts and employees on posting abroad, and to authorize the creation of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to which shall be credited expenditure made by and advances recovered from the said posts and employees, the excess of the amounts charged over the amounts credited to the account at any time not to exceed $250,000, of which $200,000 was provided under vote 657 of the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1952, $50,000.
Transport-
Air services-
589.	To provide for the acquisition of land required to control properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports in order to prevent the erection of hazards to flying and for future development of those airports-further amount required, $3,700,000.
590.	To authorize the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with the provisions of section 58 of The Financial Administration Act for the purpose of financing the purchase of materials and supplies to be held in northwest communication system stores for use on both capital and maintenance works, the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed $250,000, of which $100,000 was provided under vote 559, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1952, and $25,000 under vote 632, Appropriation Act No. 2, 1953, $125,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 23, 1956