1956-02-28

DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS    TABLING OF TELEGRAM AND LETTERS OF REPLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Hon. members will recall that on February 22 I laid on the table a copy of a letter I had addressed on February 18 to the premiers of the provinces concerning fiscal matters. I should now like to lay on the table copies of the replies I have received from all provinces. It appears from the contents of these replies that a number of the provincial governments desire to resume the conference on fiscal arrangements early in March. I therefore sent a telegram to the premiers proposing that we have another meeting in Ottawa on March 9 next. I might also table a copy of the telegram. Perhaps hon. members would wish to have this correspondence printed as an appendix to the Hansard report of today, as was done with the former correspondence.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fleming:: Will that conference be held in camera?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes. It will be a continuation of the meeting in committee which was held in camera when the premiers were here last October.
(For text of letters and telegrams see appendix, pages 1657-60.)


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: May
I ask the Prime Minister, following what he said previously, whether the fact that there is to be a conference of dominion and provincial governments early in March indicates that the matters under discussion are still open for further negotiation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the terms of the letter I wrote to the premiers, a copy of which I tabled in the house on February 22, expresses exactly what is the attitude of the Canadian government at this time.
67509-102J



INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he at this time prepared to bring the house and the country up to date on the negotiations in connection with the international wheat agreement? Is he in position to give assurance to the house and the country that, regardless of the number of bushels agreed to by the several nations, Canada is prepared to enter into an agreement whether or not Great Britain is a member?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to give the house any information on the international wheat agreement negotiations. We have a team there but the reports to date are not conclusive. It is the intention to largely follow the advice of our farm leaders who are there on the ground. When we have more definite information I shall be glad to make it available.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if the evacuation of our major cities in the event of a national emergency has been accepted as government policy for civil defence?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of this question from my hon. friend only a few moments ago. The federal civil defence authorities in co-operation with the civil defence authorities of the various provincial governments have been engaged in evacuation tests in certain communities in Canada to determine the feasibility of this method of defence. Likewise we have been co-operating in this particular with the authorities in the United Kingdom and in the United States.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Pearkes: That does not quite answer	NATIONAL REVENUE
my question. I asked whether it had or had	request for change in application of
not been accepted as government policy.	automobile excise taxes


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, I think I have answered. I said we have been cooperating with the provincial authorities with a view to determining the feasibility of the evacuation of Canadian communities. Once we have determined that in co-operation with authorities in other countries who are engaged in this matter, final decisions will be taken.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then it has not been accepted yet?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to say that my hon. friend has been constructive in this matter year after year, and I know he would not want to add to the problem, which obviously is a very difficult one. I would hope I might say that his remark is not intended in any way to discourage the effort now being made by various communities throughout the country. I know I express a view that my hon. friend fully shares.


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no thought of discouraging anybody. I should like to be helpful if I can.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is always helpful.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
,	INCREASES FOR STAFF
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance? Will the necessary steps be taken so that employees of the House of Commons, and of the other place as well, will participate in the salary increases of which the Prime Minister gave notice to civil service organizations a day or two ago?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: I answered this question some time ago, when I answered my hon. friend by saying that we were giving consideration to all these questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that my previous question referred to prevailing rates employees, may I now take it that sessional employees in this building are also covered?


Walter Edward Harris: You may take my answer precisely as it was, that we were giving consideration to all persons concerned.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government considered the advisability, in view of the fluctuating nature of special excise or luxury taxes, of introducing legislation to make automobile excise taxes payable on the basis of actual sale to new owners and not, as at present, when the automobile is shipped to the dealer for subsequent sale?


Walter Edward Harris: The house will recall that we had some discussion of the problem of excise taxes on motor cars during last session. In the interval we have had representations from both the dealers' association and the association of motor car manufacturers. My recollection is that the matter my hon. friend has just mentioned was included in one, if not both, of those representations. That being the case, we shall of course consider it, though this is not to be taken as a statement that we will adopt it.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY EXPROPRIATION OF PART OF CAUGHNAWAGA INDIAN RESERVE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkton):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Have negotiations been completed between the St. Lawrence seaway authority and his department for the purchase of that portion of the Caugh-nawaga Indian reserve which is being expropriated for the seaway construction?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: I have not been so advised.



PROTECTION OF CANADIAN PROPERTY AGAINST CHANGE IN WATER LEVELS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: On February 22 last the hon. member for Lambton West asked me if I could say what the level of lake Huron would be upon completion of the St. Lawrence seaway, and if it would be at all possible to divert more water to the Chicago drainage system. I gave a provisional reply at that time which I can now confirm.
I should point out that while it is not possible to predict what the level of lake Huron will be at any time in the future,

I am informed that the levels of this lake will not be affected by the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. Therefore the question of increased diversion at Chicago as a consequence of the seaway does not arise.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a further question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps the question I asked originally was not as clear as I intended that it should be. I was not concerned about the effects of the St. Lawrence seaway project on the great lakes levels. Previously I think the Minister of Transport said that upon completion of the seaway the great lakes level would remain more or less constant. He was referring to the lower lakes, lake Huron and lake Michigan. My concern was about the damage to property from high water levels even at the present moment. I was hoping the minister would consider the effect of the high levels because of the diversion of the two streams into lake Superior which are man-made and whether, apart from the St. Lawrence project entirely, more water could be diverted through the Chicago drainage scheme.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be very glad, Mr. Speaker, to look into that aspect of the matter and give a reply as soon as possible.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister noticed in this morning's Globe and Mail the suggestion by Magistrate Hopkins of Hamilton that there be more rigid supervision of the supplying of sleeping pills without doctors' prescriptions? Could the minister indicate what action, if any, his department is taking?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I saw the story in the papers this morning I suggested to our offices that we make an examination of the alleged facts. But I might say in addition that under the Food and Drugs Act sleeping pills are required to be sold only on the prescription of a doctor, a dentist or a veterinarian. Control is constantly being exercised by the inspectors of
Inquiries of the Ministry the food and drug directorate. Anyone selling sleeping pills other than on the prescription of a doctor, a dentist or a veterinarian violates the Food and Drugs Act and is liable to penalty.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Paiierson@Fraser Valley: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister comment at this time on the results of his recent conversations with the representatives of the British Columbia berry and small fruits growers?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. Representatives of the British Columbia berry and small fruits growers discussed their problems with the provincial authorities before coming to Ottawa and expressed their intention of doing so again on their return to British Columbia, after which we will probably hear from them again.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware that informed prediction indicates that there is every likelihood of a very serious flood condition along the Assiniboine river valley this coming spring? If so, can the minister state whether or not his department or any other department of government is taking any steps to mitigate the impact of this condition on the citizens of the communities there?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are always, of course, possibilities of floods in the Assiniboine valley, and of course there has been a very heavy snowfall in Manitoba this year. No doubt many persons do have the idea that there may be high water this spring. We have been building dikes along the river in the neighbourhood of Portage la Prairie, and they are not quite complete. That work will be going on during the coming summer. Other matters which are being checked and dealt with are the possibilities of controlling floods from higher up the Assiniboine, partially in Saskatchewan and partially in Manitoba.

Inquiries of the Ministry



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Hugh Castleden: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a supplementary question in view of the reply given to the question by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor). What action has been taken to prevent a recurrence of the floods on the Assiniboine river in the Kamsack area in Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice and answer the question later.



SUGGESTED ASSISTANCE TO BE GIVEN EUROPEAN NATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister now inform the house whether the government is preparing to make any contribution to the relief of the current distress in Europe?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No decision has been made in that regard up to the present time, Mr. Speaker. ILater:]


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should
like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of his reply to the hon. member for Nanaimo. Will the Prime Minister, in his forthcoming visit to Washington, discuss with President Eisenhower the possibility of a joint disaster assistance program for Europe in order to avoid any possible conflict in the disposal of food surpluses?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think I
will have to use my best judgment in my conference with the President at the time it takes place.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the Minister of Public Works received a resolution passed by the Quebec municipal council and the Quebec chamber of commerce suggesting that the new post office site be changed? If so, what steps are being taken in this connection?


Hon. Roberi H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: I have not received a resolution.
[Mr. Gardiner.)

(Translation) :


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General whether he has received this resolution from the Quebec city council, along with the resolution passed by the Quebec chamber of commerce?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put by the hon. member, I will say that I did in fact receive such a resolution, together with a brief from the chamber of commerce, and that I have duly forwarded them to my colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters).
(Text) :



SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
SINKING OF DEPARTMENTAL VESSEL "hILUNGA"
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: I should like to answer a question
raised on February 24 by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in which he asked whether or not the public works vessel Hilunga, which foundered on the west coast, was designed only for service in minor waters, class 1, whereas she foundered in minor waters, class 2. The answer is that the Hilunga was designed for home trade voyages, class 3, and home trade voyages, class 2, in the summer season only. The vessel foundered within home trade waters, class 3.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Is it not true that the Hilunga was en route to
the Queen Charlotte islands when she foundered, although she happened to go ashore on the mainland? Would a trip to the Queen Charlotte islands not take her beyond the class of waters in which she is supposed to be used?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I think that is the case. But the fact is that she foundered within waters for which she was designed.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Can the Postmaster General inform the house whether his department plans to have new and improved engravings prepared for the issue of stamps which was announced recently, in the light of press comment and certain criticisms levelled at them recently?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether amendments to the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act will be introduced at this session along the lines of the discussion at the federal-provincial conference last October and in the light of the request made by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker. It is not probable that any amendments to that act will be introduced at this session, although there has been no formal decision in that regard up to the present time.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on February 16, a week ago last Thursday, the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska asked me the following question:
I regret that I was unable to give the Minister of Labour notice of this question because I just received a telegram concerning the matter. What action, if any, is being taken to overcome the terrific tie-up and delays in the unemployment insurance offices in Campbellton and Edmundston?
I replied that I would take the question as notice and give a reply. I did look into the matter immediately and on Monday, a week ago yesterday, I was prepared to give a reply to my hon. friend but I should like to give it to him now since he is in his seat.
The reply is that at no time this winter has there been a "terrific tie-up" at these two unemployment insurance offices. Furthermore, following the heavy pressure of work on all offices during the first two weeks in January, there has been no undue delay in the processing of claims either at Campbellton or at Edmundston.


Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a supplementary question. I thank him for his answer, but I should like to know what action is being taken with regard to the 1,172 cases from Campbellton and Edmundston that have been tied up in Moncton. I might mention the fact that I made a survey-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, what I have said with regard to delay in taking care of claims applies to those two offices mentioned originally by my hon. friend.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is the precise question, sir. Apparently-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am asking the question as to what action has been taken with regard to the 1,172 cases belonging to the Campbellton and Edmundston offices which have been tied up for up to seven weeks in the Moncton office of your unemployment insurance commission.


Milton Fowler Gregg: What I have said applies to those workers in those two counties that are served by the offices mentioned, wherever their claims may be. Since my hon. friend has shown some disbelief in my reply, Mr. Speaker, I should very much like to have your permission to make a little longer reply than that which I made a few minutes ago.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: When I received that complaint a week ago Thursday I immediately investigated the matter, as I have told the hon. member. On that Saturday I was in New Brunswick myself. I was not at Campbellton or Edmundston, but I did take steps to satisfy myself that there was no undue delay.
I returned to my office and on Monday morning I received this wire, dated Campbellton, February 18. It is addressed to me:
Unless immediate action is taken to remove the bottleneck and mixup in Campbellton unemployment office I seriously fear that a riot will occur very soon. Seasonal workers are up in arms and many are experiencing delays of up to six weeks while their families live in utter poverty. Immediate action is required by you.
J. C. Van Horne
I am sure this is a matter which, since it affects two municipalities in New Brunswick and workers who are fellow New Bruns-wickers, is one that particularly affects the hon. member and myself. I should like to have the opportunity of explaining to him through you, and to the house, that no steps were left untaken to see that there was no hardship being experienced by the workers in those two communities.
The commission told me that since the usual New Year's rush several weeks ago, both offices had been able to bring their work well up to date. About the day the hon. member made his complaint there was only a total of nine claims uncompleted which were over three weeks old, and these were being dealt with; some of them were under adjudication by a board of referees.

Inquiries of the Ministry I was informed also that there was no evidence of confusion at either office.
These things I was prepared to convey to the house last Monday when I received the wire which I have read to the house. When I received that wire I again checked through the unemployment insurance commission. After another inquiry they told me there were no serious delays in these offices. I told them I had received contrary information from a source which I was bound to consider completely responsible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Milton Fowler Gregg: While I did not doubt their word, I proposed to telephone an independent source of information on the spot. It appeared to me that in a town of less than 10,000 people, if such a crisis existed as to warrant the terms "bottleneck", "mixup", "riot", "up in arms", "utter poverty", then surely the mayor of the town of Campbellton would know all about it. I called the mayor of the town of Campbellton by long distance. I asked him if he would tell me of the unfortunate things that were happening m the town, due to delays in dealing with claims at the unemployment insurance commission. He replied that nothing of that kind had come to his attention. I then asked him if he had had or had heard of any complaints of delays or difficulties at the unemployment insurance office. He said he had heard of none. I asked him if I could quote him in regard to this question and he said I could.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I ask a supplementary question? My information comes-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My question is that I would like to know what action has been taken in regard to the 434 cases at the Campbellton office as of last Friday, and there were more the week before that. I should like also to know what action has been taken in regard to the 740 cases from the Edmundston office which are tied up in the Moncton office.


Mr. Sinclair:: Tell us about the riot.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Because of the variation in figures I will take this question as notice.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N. B.h May I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture? Is the minister now prepared to make a further statement with regard to the tolerance in
[Stage Direction]

potato grading as requested by the New Brunswick potato industry? If the minister has no announcement to make today, when would he expect to be in a position to do so?
James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to forward me a copy of his question and I presume what he refers to is the answer to the question asked by the member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery). The question was asked on February 23, that was last Thursday, and had to do with the visit of the potato producers committee from the province of New Brunswick.
The position at that time was that the potato producers committee from New Brunswick interviewed the agricultural prices support board on February 16. They asked for an increase in the spot grade price from $1 to $1.20. It was indicated to them by the agricultural prices support board that could not be done.
They asked for a tolerance in connection with the spot grading, a guaranteed tolerance of 20 per cent. There is a tolerance in the proposed agreement which is estimated on each load of potatoes delivered at the starch plant to be spot graded. They asked to have that guaranteed at 20 per cent. The answer they received was that the request would be given consideration. A representative of the agricultural prices support board is going [DOT]to New Brunswick tomorrow to discuss the question with the government and the potato committee. If and when they reach agreement the decision will be announced forthwith.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? Is the minister yet in a position to answer my question of February 10 as to whether any necessary steps will be taken to provide for the continuation of all certifications under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act despite any changes in union names that may result from the coming merger of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Canadian Congress of Labour into what will be known as the Canadian Labour Congress?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The matter is still under discussion with the unions concerned, and I hope to have a reply soon for my hon. friend.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is it the minister's intention to recommend special security measures to be taken upon the return of Tim Buck from Moscow?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have given no consideration whatever to the question.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: May I direct exactly the same question to the Minister of Justice?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I have nothing to add to the answer given by my colleague.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries if he is in a position to make a statement to the house as to what consideration the fisheries prices support board is giving to the establishment of a floor price on dogfish livers?


James Sinclair: The fisheries prices support board asked that a study be made, and a study has been made of this question. At the meeting next month the board will study the report.



PROVISION FOR GUARANTEE OF BANK LOANS TO PRODUCERS IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES, ETC.

Clarence Decatur Howe: the third reading of Bill No. 82, to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that in recent days there have been those on the government side of the house who have contended that we of the opposition have been taking too much time in the discussion of this bill, the events of the last few days have entirely 67509-103
Grain
supported the stand we have taken, in particular the change that was made on Thursday afternoon in connection with clause 9 of the bill. This has proved that out of debate and out of consideration by parliament, changes do take place.
When some three weeks ago I advanced the argument that clause 9, subclause 3, would have the effect of bringing about imprisonment for debt in the cases of those who had been convicted of deception in connection with the loans they had secured by reason of false statements, that suggestion was ridiculed by members of the government. But on Thursday last the government without any hesitation removed that particular portion of the section. Several ministers of the crown who a few days earlier had ridiculed the argument that imprisonment for debt was thereby being brought into effect joined the general clamour in favour of the removal of that subclause. Each and every one stated that he realized the effect of the clause, though only a matter of a few days earlier their attitude was one of contemptuous ridicule of those members of the opposition who advanced the argument as to the danger inherent in the clause in question.
We of the official opposition have made our position clear. We are opposed to this legislation. The right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has stated that in taking that stand we do not represent a majority opinion of the farmers of the western prairies. In support of his statement the minister said that he had visited western Canada and that almost on every hand the attitude of the farmers was that this was a good legislation.
I did not find such an attitude among the farmers in my constituency or in those portions of Saskatchewan which I visited. In every case, and there was no exception, I found the sternest opposition being expressed to this legislation in that in effect it means that the farmer is substituting one debt for other debts, and is paying interest on his earnings in the preceding year, something that cannot be justified in any way.
The government has tried piecemeal means to meet the demands of the western farmers. First it brought into effect legislation by an order in council allowing farmers to exchange good wheat for poor wheat being stored in the elevators. That legislation was proclaimed as the solution of the problem of storage facilities being used to store wheat that was more or less unsaleable. That stopgap proved unsuccessful, as only a few bushels of wheat were exchanged as a consequence of the introduction of the measure to provide for such exchange.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but on two or three occasions he has referred to cash advances. Perhaps he will agree with me that at this moment the same latitude which is afforded on second reading of a bill is not afforded on third reading. Furthermore, debate must be restricted to what is in the bill, and not take in any other policy that might have been proposed. Furthermore, the subject of cash advances is certainly one which must be out of the question in debating third reading of the bill, because there was an amendment on this very question which was defeated by the house. On second reading I understood it was very difficult to eliminate the possible references to cash advances, but I should hope that on third reading we would not have to have second reading speeches.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly I should have said earlier that I intend to move an amendment to the motion, and I shall tell you now what the amendment is. It is designed to give the government a longer opportunity to consider whether or not cash advances on farm-stored wheat are not indeed the most appropriate means whereby the present financial situation on the prairies can be met. The motion I intend to move is as follows. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming):
That the word "now" he left out, and that the words "this day six months" be added to the end of the question.
I so move, and the arguments I advanced were all preparatory and anticipatory of the amendment I intended to move, in order to indicate the reasons for so moving.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is moving the six months' hoist. That certainly does not give him the opportunity of discussing a matter which has already been decided upon by the house. The hon. member for Prince Albert moves, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton:
That the word "now" be left out, and that the words "this day six months" be added to the end of the question.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was first introduced into the house, we in this group objected at every opportunity. In doing so we stated we did not believe that the principle involved in the bill was going to fulfil the requirements of the situation. We do not believe that the farmers can borrow themselves into prosperity. We do not believe that the farmers can borrow themselves out of debt.
Certainly the clauses and the conditions that were discussed in connection with this bill the other day would lead us to believe that our decision to oppose this legislation was completely justified. By amending certain clauses the government gave evidence that it saw in many instances that the clauses were unrealistic. Of course we maintain and always have maintained that both the bill and the clauses were unrealistic, because of the government's misunderstanding of the true situation farmers in western Canada are facing.
It seems that in drafting the clauses and the conditions the government did everything possible to discourage farmers from taking advantage, if there was any advantage, of this legislation, rather than encouraging them to do so. Certainly the risk that was involved in this legislation with regard to interest did not seem to be warranted. Certainly, on the admission of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, from the 1951 experience it would seem that even at that time there was very little risk involved.
When we consider the difference between the circumstances that exist today and those that existed in 1951, surely the risk today has been almost completely eliminated. In 1951, as we know, the grain was out in the field, and there was a considerable risk involved in loaning money under those conditions. Now the conditions are different. As far as the quality and condition of the grain are concerned, the farmers have harvested possibly the best crop they have had for several years. So we believe that the risk involved certainly does not warrant the 5 per cent interest charge being levied in this case. By increasing the guarantees to the banks, any risk the banks might take are completely ruled out. By the same token the government leaves no question regarding risk, in so far as any of the other aspects are concerned. As I mentioned a moment ago, the grain is in good condition, and I see no reason why there should be an interest rate of 5 per cent.
In regard to the penalties under clause 9, the government again realized how unrealistic this was, and was prepared to make certain amendments to that clause. When we read clause 9 as it was presented to this 67509-103J
Grain
house, we cannot help thinking the government feels that the farmer must be quite a questionable character as far as living up to obligations of repayment is concerned, because clause 9 left no risk whatsoever with regard to repayment by the farmer.
Every one of the clauses seemed to be purposely provided to limit the uses of this bill, and went a long way to discourage farmers from taking advantage of it. Listening to the Minister of Agriculture, who just returned from a trip to the west, one gets the impression that he is convinced in his own mind that farmers are quite happy and quite satisfied with this legislation. He mentioned in particular the information he had that the farmers in my riding were quite satisfied with it, and he gave as evidence of that the fact that he talked to a certain individual in Winnipeg.
My guess is that he was much more concerned about the coming provincial election in Saskatchewan, and I presume he went out there to oil the old Gardiner machine. Certainly he still has lots of oil, but the parts Of the machine are not as new as they used to be. The minister prophesied that those who had spoken against the legislation in the house will go back to Saskatchewan and sing a different tune, but he should disabuse his mind completely of that idea because we intend to go back and talk exactly the same in the west as we have talked in the east. There will be no difference, and I am sure nobody in the house knows better than the minister that that is exactly what we are going to do.
As I mentioned in the first instance, we have consistently opposed the legislation. We do not believe it is just in principle, and we can see now that so far as carrying out the provisions of the legislation is concerned, the government has done everything possible to make sure that it is not going to give the assistance that is necessary. On third reading of the bill we in this group will continue to oppose the legislation, and once again I take the opportunity to say on behalf of the group I represent that our opposition is as adamant as ever.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker,
I think I should perhaps say a word or two before the question is put. I am not going to enter upon a lengthy debate. I simply wish to state our position on third reading.
I have not spoken on the bill before with the exception of the one clause having to do with the interest rate, and at that time I moved an amendment. I have scanned Hansard over the weeks with a view to finding something new to say on the subject, and I cannot find anything new. Everything

Grain
that can be said has been said. Somebody to my right whispers that perhaps I am a little previous in making that observation. Perhaps my friends have more brains than I have. I will give them credit for that, but I cannot see that there is anything new to say.
In scanning through Hansard I was rather impressed with one thing, and I offer this criticism in a gentlemanly fashion. It occurs to me that my C.C.F. friends to the right, for whom I have the greatest regard as friends even though I do not have much regard for their political philosophy, seem to assume that perhaps they alone are the champions of the wheat farmers, that nobody else is interested in the wheat farmers and that therefore they are putting up the one and only great fight. I do not think that is right. I will even give the government credit for being humanitarian enough to be interested in the western farmers. I think they are humanitarian enough and smart enough politicians to be interested in the western farmer.
It is not a matter of being interested in the economic welfare of anyone. It is a matter of arriving at the best possible decision in order to meet an emergency. That is the issue and the government have evidently decided that this bill best mee*s that emergency. We in this corner of the house do not believe that it best meets the emergency. We do not think the farmers believe that it best suits the emergency. The reason is that there is only one agency through which the farmer can sell his wheat for export. We are entirely in favour of that selling agency, the Canadian wheat board, because we believe the wheat board can go out and find markets just as easily as any other selling agency.
Nevertheless the wheat board is the only selling agency. It is an arm of the government; therefore if markets are not found the government must take the responsibility. They have assumed that responsibility only to a degree. They have said that the best they can do is this bill. We do not believe it is the best they can do.
I cannot go into the subject of cash advances, Mr. Speaker, because you have already ruled that out of order, and I will not do so. If I did I would only be repeating what has already been said a dozen times in the previous debate. Our position is that we are going to vote for the amendment. We are against the bill because we do not believe it represents the best that can be done under the circumstances. If we were in the position of being the responsible government we believe we could bring down a much better

bill to meet the emergency. I do not think I need to say any more with respect to the matter.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say once again very briefly that this whole mess into which the government has got itself and the country with regard to wheat is due to one thing and one thing only; that is, the government's complete inability to sell our wheat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At page 1436 of Hansard I find the speech the hon. member made on second reading, in which he said:
... I should like to deal briefly with the basic reason why this government finds itself in such an unholy mess today with regard to wheat sales. The simple reason is that the government's selling efforts have been inadequate and utterly pathetic.
If the hon. member intends to repeat the same speech may I say now, although I do not want to rule in anticipation, that if he intends to deal with sales he will be completely out of order, because debate on the third reading of a bill is limited to what is contained in the bill. I would refer the hon. member to May, fifteenth edition, page 554, where I find the following:
The procedure on the third reading of a bill is similar to that described in relation to the second reading, but the debate is more restricted at the later stage, being limited to the matters contained in the bill.
At page 504 there are these words:
The purpose of the third reading is to review a bill in its final form after the shaping it has received in the earlier stages. For this reason amendment, other than verbal, is no longer permissible on third reading. Hence also debate is confined strictly to the contents of a bill, and cannot wander afield as on second reading.
May I say in passing, having read the hon. member's speech on second reading, that I do not think it should have been allowed either.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the amendment, which is that the bill be given the six months' hoist, to give the government more time to consider how it could better handle the whole wheat situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should bear in mind that the six months' hoist is merely an amendment which is traditionally moved in order to kill a bill, but the discussion must still be relevant to the bill and limited as it should be on third reading.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the shipments of wheat which the government makes have a great deal to do with the wheat situation that we-


Mr. Speaker:: There is no doubt about that, but it just so happens that Sir Erskine May,

who has been Clerk of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom for many years and is a recognized authority on procedure, tells us that on third reading debate must be confined to the contents of the bill. Is there anything in this bill pertaining to the sale of wheat?
If there is not, the hon. member may not debate that subject.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise at this time to make a further protest with regard to the passage of this legislation. There may have been some doubt in the minds of some hon. members on the opposition side when this debate began some weeks ago as to whether there should be all-out opposition to this bill. But as the days have gone by we have become more and more convinced that the prairie producers, almost unanimously, are opposed to this kind of legislation. In the years I have been in parliament since 1945 I think it is correct to say that on no other issue has there been the same degree of unanimity, the same degree of bitter

Grain
opposition amongst prairie producers, as there has been to this very bill that is now before us.
I am amazed when I think of the record of the government in this regard. When the government has it within its power to carry out the wishes of western producers at no great cost, actually for a charge that in relation to other charges made by the government is very small, it seems to me there is one main reason why the government has not agreed with the prairie producer. It is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not prepared to admit at any time that he has made a mistake.
I think any democratic government and any minister in a democratic government should be prepared to take a second look. Any one of us can make a mistake and judge a situation incorrectly. I believe the minister judged this situation incorrectly, and when he saw widespread determination amongst the producers he should have agreed to their request.
I do think the type of situation we had last fall is likely to be repeated many times in the future. As a matter of fact I would expect that in the majority of the years that lie ahead we will find widespread congestion, we will find the producers having great difficulty in delivering their grain. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, some kind of system will have to be implemented to make it possible for farmers to obtain money before they are able to deliver their grain.
One of the reasons they are going to be faced in the years ahead with the same kind of situation they are faced with today is the fact that modern methods of production-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I quite understand the wish of the hon. member to revive this debate. It may be that in the past I or my predecessors have shown more latitude with respect to third reading, but the principle of this bill has been passed and we are now dealing with third reading, and debate should be confined to the contents of the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to keep my remarks strictly, referring to the contents of the bill. The main content of the bill to which I object at this time, as I have objected time and time again, is the 5 per cent interest clause, an onerous burden on the prairie producers. The prairie producers are objecting to the 5 per cent not only because they dislike paying interest, but because they are opposed to the principle of being forced to pay interest on the fruits of their year's labour.


Mr. Richardson:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Surely.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: This is February 28. I should like to ask the hon. member if he agrees with what he said on January 26, as reported at page 563 of Hansard:
In certain fields credit has been provided at reasonable rates by government legislation. We have a National Housing Act which enables a great many people who own their own homes, paying an interest charge of 5] per cent. That is good legislation. We have the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which is another example, under which farmers can obtain credit at a rate of 5 per cent. That, too, is good legislation.
Does the hon. member not think this, too, is good legislation?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at a question like that, because this legislation is not comparable in any respect to the legislation that has been referred to.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask the hon. member who asked the question whether he would support legislation in this house which forced him to pay 5 per cent on his monthly cheque that he gets from the accountant's office; that is, the indemnity he receives? That is precisely what the government is suggesting.


An hon. Member:: It is not the same thing at all.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to answer that question. It is an entirely different principle altogether.


Hazen Robert Argue: In other words, since it is an entirely different principle, I take it that the hon. member would join with the opposition in such an instance in opposing legislation requiring members of parliament to pay interest on their own wages or salaries. Therefore I suggest to him-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member asked me a question. The loan is partly on wages, if you will, but it is also very largely upon inventory.


Hazen Robert Argue: That shows, Mr. Speaker, what little knowledge the hon. member has of the situation in the prairie provinces. I would ask some of the hon. members from Saskatchewan and Manitoba in the Liberal party to explain to him that $1,500 does not even cover the wages a prairie producer should be entitled to for one year's work. I do not know how the hon. member can imply that a prairie producer should be satisfied with $1,500 to cover wages and a substantial part of his inventory. This shows just how little grasp of the situation has been obtained by

hon. members on the government side of the house. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture understand the grain problem, but they have made a very poor job of explaining the situation to their colleagues.


Mr. Sluder:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question? What kind of job has the opposition been doing here for the last six weeks if they have not been able to convince anyone? They had better go home and stay there.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not going to endeavour to speak for the whole of the opposition, but I think I can say for the hon. members of the C.C.F. group that we have been doing a wonderful job, and that we have been convincing people since this debate started on January 27. We have convinced the Social Credit party, and they have changed their position. We have convinced the Progressive Conservative party and they, too, have changed their position.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Speaker, I might say that the statement about our having changed our minds is not a statement of fact. We explained fully at the resolution stage why we voted in favour of the resolution, in order to enable the government to bring down the bill. Once it was brought down we did not like certain things in the bill and we therefore voted against it. There has been no change.


Hazen Robert Argue: I take it from the explanation offered by the hon. member for Acadia that when he votes it has nothing to do with the state of his mind or what he thinks, and that his mind has not been changed but his vote has been changed. I should like to see some changes in the votes of hon. members opposite. I should like to see the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) endeavour to change the opinions of some of the hon. members who sit around him. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker-


Irvin William Studer: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek 'and all hon. members who wish to ask questions, if the hon. member for Assiniboia yields, to relate all this discussion strictly to what is contained in the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: I shall endeavour to do that, Mr. Speaker, but because of the many interruptions and questions from hon. members on the government side of the house who
Grain
apparently know very little about this legislation and are endeavouring to get some of the facts at this very late date, I was endeavouring to make some explanation.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that even at this stage some hon. member on the government side of the house would see the justice in our position and would join with the three opposition groups in opposing this legislation. We have consistently opposed it; there is no doubt about that. We have taken a good deal of the time of this house in opposing this legislation. We are now on the fourteenth day, all or part of each of those days has been spent in opposing and discussing this legislation.
During that time hon. members of this group have made 37 speeches, hon. members on the government side have made 25 speeches, hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party have made 20 speeches and hon. members of the Social Credit group have made 20 speeches. We have not been endeavouring to stage a filibuster. We have not been endeavouring to block this legislation or to prevent the government-


Mr. Speaker:: I can find nothing in the bill which refers to filibusters or to the number of speeches that have been made.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wish you had given the Minister of Trade and Commerce that statement after the debate had been going on for one day. He would not then have needed to use that word. Then at a later date state he was very fearful lest this discussion might degenerate into a debate. We are thoroughly opposed to this legislation, and our opposition is based mainly on the interest clause, clause 3 of the bill. We believe that the banks are not the institutions to be making advances or loans. We think the basis on which loans are made, namely up to a maximum of $1,500 without the farmers having an over-all right to obtain loans, is inadequate. We would like to see different legislation. We would like to see the producer given the fundamental right of obtaining an advance on grain in suitable storage.
As I say, we are opposed to the interest clause of this bill. Because we are thoroughly opposed to it I have a further amendment that I intend to move in the hope that the government will reconsider clause 3, or preferably that the government will take out all provision for interest to be paid by the farmers and that the costs of these loans will be paid for by some other means. Failing this, at least the government should take the position set forth the other day which asked for a reduction in the interest charges. Therefore, I

Grain
move, seconded by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell):
That Bill No. 82 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering clause 3 thereof.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, I could have risen on a question of privilege a few minutes ago, but as I proposed to make certain remarks on the motion for third reading I deferred my comments until now.
With much that has been said by the hon. member for Assiniboia during the course of this debate I have been in agreement, but I thought it was an unfortunate attempt to make a silly and smart remark when he said that the arguments of the C.C.F. had convinced the Progressive Conservatives. I may have hoped that some of their arguments, along with the arguments made by other opposition members, would have reminded private members opposite that they have some obligation in regard to this, and that if the government is able to ride roughshod over the house it is only because of their willing support.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member should say of a group of members that if the government is riding roughshod over the house it is with their willing support. I do not think any hon. member-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Change it to unwilling.


Mr. Speaker:: There are many expressions that can be changed and they would still mean the same. I do not want to make a case of this, but I do suggest that it is far from relevancy to a motion for third reading of this bill.


George Alexander Drew: I am not going to debate the point, but I must confess that a certain delicacy seems to be creeping in here if the high-handed attitude of the government cannot be described as riding roughshod over the house. As to whether hon. members opposite are willing or are not, that is something that must be left entirely to themselves. If they are willing, that of course is their choice; if they are unwilling, then that is another thing. But they themselves can best indicate their attitude toward this measure. However, I do want to say that a measure of responsibility, a very large measure of responsibility, rests upon private members opposite in regard to the passing of a bill, particularly in regard to the passing of a bill against which such strong arguments have been made.
I am going to point out once again that it has needed no convincing by the C.C.F. so far as the Conservative party is concerned. The Conservative party had taken a perfectly

clear position long before this came into the house. I had stated our position clearly as being in favour of cash advances without any interest, in fact before that was stated definitely with the same clarity by the C.C.F. party.


Mr. Ellis:: You voted for the resolution.


George Alexander Drew: I hear that interjection again, that we voted for the resolution. Of course we voted for the resolution. Resolutions are often voted for in order to have the legislation brought forward. This particular legislation was brought forward and we voted against its second reading, and we are going to vote against the third reading for the same reasons.
But I want to make it quite clear that our position in regard to cash advances without interest has been consistent right through, and since long before this arose. In fact it is more than three years since we urged the introduction of legislation which would provide such advances with the authority of parliament, not under some letter written by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) to authorize the banks to do something which had not yet been authorized by parliament.
I do want to mention one particular matter which I think should be of concern to everyone in this house. One of the points we brought forward early in this discussion and in regard to which there has been no statement whatever by the government is the need of some clear statement to the prairie farmers as to what their position is going to be only six months from now, when the 1956 crop is going to be harvested.
That suggestion very much amuses the Minister of Finance. Of course his chuckles are not recorded on Hansard, but it will be recognized by hon. members that the Minister of Finance regards the plight of the prairie farmer as something funny when this suggestion is made.
I want to point out that as yet no explanation has been given as to what the government proposes to do. The Minister of Finance need not pretend that all government action is in suspense until his august voice has been raised on the budget. After all, this government did not hesitate to commit parliament while parliament was not sitting. This government did not hesitate to have the Minister of Finance commit this parliament by a letter. Then we were told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that since that had been done, the government was going to go ahead with it no matter what arguments were made.

1 hope no suggestion will be put forward that section 13, subsection 1 of this act is an answer to that question. That subsection reads:
The governor in council may, by order, extend the application of this act to authorize and govern guaranteed loans that may be made by banks on or after the 1st day of October, 1956 and before the 1st day of June, 1957.
We have had no indication from the government as to whether it would be their intention under this act to extend those provisions if the same conditions prevail this coming autumn as prevail at this time. Our position is that inadequate though that may be, we should know whether the government feels that this will meet the situation if on top of the large crops we have had we have another bumper crop this year, as we may well have with the weather conditions we have been experiencing in western Canada during the past few months.
The prairie farmer is going to be in a most uncertain and precarious position in planning for his coming crop year unless he has some indication from this government at this time of what it proposes to do. There is no more appropriate time for that statement to be made than on the third reading of this bill, before it becomes law and is made a part of the statutes of Canada. Therefore at this stage I once again point out that we have had no indication of the intentions of the government.
I point out that it is of the utmost importance to the prairie farmers that an indication be given as to what are the intentions of the government. It is no answer to say that under subsection 1 of section 13 the government would have the power. Let the government tell us whether they will exercise that power if conditions are similar to what they are now, or if they have been aggravated by another very large crop.
The opportunity presents itself for the government to make this statement now. May I repeat that whether the government makes that statement or not, the government is still failing the prairie farmers. One of the best possible pieces of evidence that it is failing the prairie farmers is the fact that it is necessary for it to bring in other legislation, with which we shall deal after this has been disposed of. The fact is that the other legislation, which will receive the support of the house, has become necessary simply because of the failure of this government to move the wheat crop, a failure with which they must deal in that way.
So far as this legislation is concerned, before it passes third reading and goes forward to become law, let us hear from the
Grain
government as to what their intentions are under that clause which they have drafted, clause 13 (1), and whether it is their intention to extend the application of this bill if conditions remain similar to what they now are.


Victor Quelch: I am going to say only a very few words, but I should like to reiterate what I have already said as to the reasons for voting on the bill and on the resolution as we have done. I should like to point out that we have voted against this bill ever since it received first reading. True, at the resolution stage we voted in favour of the resolution to allow the government to bring a bill down, and we were hoping at that time that the government would allow that bill to be sent to the agriculture committee so the farm organizations could express their views on it to members of parliament. In that way we would have obtained the real feeling of the farmers, and there would have been less talk by the Liberals as to what the farmers really thought about it. We should have known exactly what they thought about it. From what we have already heard from them, we are satisfied they would have expressed opposition to the bill.
Since we have received the bill we have opposed it because there are a number of features in it that we dislike. It is true that when we were in committee the government did remove two of the clauses that we considered were of a somewhat vicious nature. True, the bill now cannot be described in any way as vicious. I would just say that it is of little value. Rather than have our statutes cluttered up with a bunch of valueless acts, it would be just as well for the government to withdraw this legislation, which would pave the way for the government to bring down legislation that received the approval of the various farm organizations.
When we were in committee we moved that the interest rate be reduced from 5 per cent to 3 per cent. We pointed out that all that would be necessary would be for the government to borrow whatever money was necessary from the Bank of Canada and place that money to the credit of the wheat board, so that we could make these payments at a lower rate than the 5 per cent set by the bill. The amendment now before us proposes that the rate of 5 per cent be reduced, and therefore we intend to support the amendment.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in compliance with your wishes I

Grain
intend in my remarks to keep strictly to the bill. This bill is entitled:
An act to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain.
This bill has been brought before the house because of the reason expressed in the title, the inability of the farmers to deliver all their grain. If they had been able to deliver all their grain there would be no bill before us. Why have they been unable to deliver all their grain? Simply because the elevators have been full and there has been no room for their grain. Why have the elevators been full? Simply because this government has not been able to move the grain out of the elevators. Therefore I submit respectfully that the ability of this government to ship that grain, to move it out of the elevators, has a very direct bearing upon this bill before us.
Before making suggestions as to how the government could do a better job of moving that grain out of the elevators so the farmers could move their grain from their farms into the elevators, let us examine this government's shipping activities as compared with those of others with whom they are competing on the same basis. We know from the figures supplied by the minister's own department that during the past crop year our four main competitors have shipped on the average 40 per cent more grain than they did in the previous crop year. During the last crop year Canada shipped 1-3 per cent less grain than during the previous crop year.
Now let us examine our efforts in the first quarter of this year as compared with our efforts in the first quarter a year ago, and see how we are doing this year. This year, in the first quarter of the crop year, we shipped 20 per cent less grain than we did in the same quarter a year ago. Then in the most recent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot agree with the hon. member. I was looking again for the page of his speech on second reading that I quoted to him earlier. I recall that at that time he quoted the figures on exports by other countries, but I cannot allow him to discuss the sales of wheat now. In his reasoning a moment ago I followed him, as every hon. member did, and he could have gone on and on as to why they had not been able to sell the grain and, once he had found the reason for that, why they had not been able to do this. He could have gone on to cover the entire political and economic situation on an international basis.
A debate on a bill is one debate through all its phases. On second reading the hon.

member has spoken on this very reason that he is now trying to put forward on third reading. Unfortunately the rules do not allow him to do that.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, what I was just going to say, and to say briefly, was something which I think has great significance and which has not to do with the international situation. It has to do with our efforts to move grain out of the elevators in the month of December as compared to what we were able to do in this country during the same month a year ago. The latest figures are available for December, showing that in December we shipped 30 per cent less wheat than in the same month a year ago. The significance of that is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I shall have to bring this to a conclusion. The hon. member knows very well that I should love to see him put his remarks on Hansard concerning any subject on which he wishes to speak, but it just so happens that at this moment he cannot. Unless I am to establish a bad precedent, which I cannot allow myself to do, he will have to bring his remarks to a close, unless he wants to speak to the contents of this bill.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, naturally I shall bow to your ruling. If you feel my remarks are out of order and I should not speak any more on this bill, then of course I have no alternative but to resume my seat.


George Hugh Castleden: The fate of most of the members who had the opportunity of speaking here this afternoon has been that they were ruled out of order, because they were not allowed to speak on any particular clause on this third reading or because what they wished to discuss has already been discussed on second reading or in committee.
I suggest that at the present time we are speaking on an amendment. The amendment is that this bill be referred back to the committee to discuss the interest clause, which is clause 3, and the suggestion that it be reconsidered by the government. Therefore, in discussing this, we are discussing the matter of interest, and the question of whether or not the producer should bear the burdens of that interest. I am not going to enter into the question of whether or not members of the other opposition parties supported our position on this measure throughout the whole debate. I should like to say that we welcome their support and are glad to be with them.


An hon. Member:: You will be glad to be with us.

Grain


George Hugh Castleden: Well, since the hon. member has interrupted I will read to him a passage from the speech-


Mr. Speaker:: Is this quotation on the interest rate, which is the subject matter of the amendment?


George Hugh Castleden: At the resolution stage the hon. member for Acadia made a statement as to what was their stand.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that matter has been fully dealt with not only by the manner in which hon. members have voted at previous stages but also by the speeches that have just been made. The hon. member will certainly do well at this moment to speak to the amendment.


George Hugh Castleden: Well, I should like to refer the members of the Social Credit party to page 618 of Hansard, where they can read the final statement of the hon. member for Acadia at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Hugh Castleden: We are very pleased to have them supporting us and we support them at this time in opposing the legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Hugh Castleden: Surely the responsibility of placing the interest charge on the producers rests squarely on the government. We are discussing a clause which we think should be referred back to the committee so the interest charge may be deleted. The bill introduced is referred to as a bill to provide loans for producers in farm areas. I maintain it should not be called an act to provide prairie producers with interim financing, but rather an act to provide guarantees to bankers with respect to loans. Also I think the producers should not be compelled to carry the burden of interest because of a situation that has been brought about by the actions of the government.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) stated, "It is the duty of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to sell wheat and it is the duty of the Minister of Transport to move the wheat." I understand the Minister of Transport has given his answer. We maintain it is because of the failure of these two ministers to carry out their duties that the present situation has been brought about. Therefore if the government is responsible for the situation it should bear the burden of interest. That is why we want this clause taken out of the bill. We say that the government should assume the cost of carrying the interest charges on all these loans.
Opposition to the measure largely stems from the fact that members of the opposition
feel that an injustice is being done. We have tried to be as emphatic as possible. We have filled some 254 columns of Hansard with our opposition, the official opposition 150 columns, the Social Crediters 108 and the government 98.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am getting to be of the temper, if 1 may be permitted to have one, to use the provisions of standing order 34, paragraph 2, to the full. If it becomes obvious to me that hon. members have nothing else to say with regard to the bill which is relevant to what is supposed to be a debate on third reading, then I do not think I should sit here merely to preside over debates where members are doing nothing but repeating what has been said over and over again. Standing order 34, paragraph 2, reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker or the chairman, after having called the attention of the house, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if then the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him, or, if in committee, the chairman shall report him to the house.
I want to tell hon. members that they can debate as fully as they wish the third reading of this bill within the limits prescribed by the rules, but I will not stand for any abuses of the rules.


George Hugh Castleden: I shall be very pleased to bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I do submit, however, that these figures have not been used before.


Walter Edward Harris: That is not the point.


George Hugh Castleden: In speaking in opposition to this measure again, may I say there are very many reasons for us to oppose it and almost any reason we give from now on must be based on the fact that the government has failed in its duty. We oppose the bill because it does absolutely nothing to remedy the cause of the situation existing in the west today. We are opposing third reading of the bill to show that we are continuing our opposition throughout. The bill before us is a bill to relieve what is called a temporary cash shortage situation, I note that under clause 9 it can be perpetuated by order in council of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The amendment deals with clause 3.


George Hugh Castleden: I can probably return to that after we have dealt with the amendment now before the house. I think the points I wish to make are clear. We think that the responsibility for carrying the burden of interest should not rest on the backs of the producers. Therefore we support the amendment which will send the bill to a committee

Grain
to reconsider it and, if possible, wipe out the clause having to do with interest.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the house ready for the question? The question is on the third reading of this bill. Those who are in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members. Do hon. members consider that for the purpose of this division their members have been called in?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the whips so indicate? The whips having so indicated, the question is on third reading of this bill.



PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF CARRYING COSTS OF TEMPORARY EXCESS RESERVES

Clarence Decatur Howe: the third reading of Bill No. 83, respecting the payment of carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves owned by the Canadian wheat board.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of the Prime Minister:	That a select committee
to he designated be appointed to consider such of the estimates as may be referred to it and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):
I think it would do to call it five o'clock, sir.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that I do now call it five o'clock? Hon. members realize we must have unanimous consent for this purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 109 (Letter W-3 of the Senate), intituled: An act for the relief of Morris Gilbert.-Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Speaker:: There are several divorce bills that are coming up for second reading. What are the wishes of hon. members at this time? Shall I call them all in one motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not my wish, speaking for myself only, to discuss any of these bills individually today. They will come back to us on another occasion. I would make the request, however, that with respect to the bills in connection with which we have not received the evidence, they might be allowed to stand. I recognize that this is only a request and that I cannot demand it, but on that basis I would be willing that the other 30 bills be considered in one motion if the house so wishes. However, with respect to the five bills for which we do not have the evidence, I suggest that they stand. They are Bills Nos. 124, 125, 139, 141 and 143.


Mr. Speaker:: As I informed the house the other day, I do not recognize that the hon. member has the right to make that request but I said it was a matter of accommodating ourselves. I do not suppose hon. members have any objection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The alternative would be to call them one at a time and I could move the adjournment of the debate on each of those five bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, and the hon. member may speak on any bill and we may not pass any of the bills today. I understand that, but as I said, we want to accommodate ourselves and I think hon. members will agree to have Bills Nos. 124, 125, 139, 141 and 143 stand. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all the other divorce bills standing on the order paper be read a second time now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Morris Gilbert.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Margaret McDonald Williamson Gebbie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Gwytha Olwyn Lillian Pring Evans.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Georges Durand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Mary Rose Kenny Deline.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Katherine Marie Saretski.

Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Rose Juliana Evelyn Kedroskie Quincey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Jeannette Morin Parent.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Mona Ruth Davis Goldberg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Ruth Goodman Silverstein.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Simonne Auger Boule.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Leslie Archibald Hood.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of George Hugh Wadge.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Marion. Mildred McKnight Newman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Marie Laura Francoise Lamothe Newcome.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	128,	for	the	relief	of	Frances
Caplan Sirota.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Joyce Smith Gwinnell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Joan Sheila Rosser Roland.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Shprintza Gelber Shildkraut.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	132,	for	the	relief	of	Sabina
Rosenzweig Rosenblum Faust.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	133,	for	the	relief	of	William
Eugene Chabot.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	134,	for	the	relief	of	Joseph
Charles Sylvio Demers.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Florence Ethel Bigelow Hamilton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	136,	for the	relief of Amy
Katharine Newman Cowans.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Sara Martin Lesser.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	138,	for	the	relief	of	Annetta
Smith Marchand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	140,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Mary Humphreys Pepper.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Hilda Sarah Twyman Gagnier.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 144, for the relief of Donald Henry Emslie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of John Wesley Hamilton.-Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Speaker:: These bills are referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



QUEBEC NORTH SHORE AND LABRADOR RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 148 (Letter Z-2 of the Senate), intituled: An act respecting Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company.-Mr. Brisson.
Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of the sponsor this bill will stand.



CRIMINAL CODE


John George Diefenbaker: the second reading of Bill No. 66, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in rising to move
the introduction of this amendment, I will first read the amendment and then refer to the pertinent section. The	amendment,
165(A), which I move, is that:
The Criminal Code, chapter 51 of the statutes of Canada, 1953-54, is amended by inserting therein the following section:
"165A. Every owner, lessee, or person operating any industrial plant, oil refinery, chemical works, sawmill or other plant or works, or any other person, who discharges or throws or allows to be discharged or thrown any noxious waste product, raw sewage, oil, sawdust, chemical or other matter or thing into a river, stream or other water any part of which is interprovincial or which flows into any interprovincial water, which has the effect of endangering the lives, safety, health or comfort of the public is guilty of
(a)	an indictable offence and is liable to a fine of twenty-five thousand dollars for a first offence and of fifty thousand dollars for a second offence or
(b)	an offence punishable on summary conviction. The section of the Criminal Code to which
I wish to add the section in question is section 165, which reads:
(1)	Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby
(a)	endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b)	causes physical injury to any person, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
(2)	For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby
(a)	endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public, or
(b)	obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.
In other words, the amendment which I am suggesting is to cover the general situation
Criminal Code
arising out of the pollution of interprovincial streams in Canada. In the case of navigable streams offences are created in so far as the Fisheries Act is concerned when anything in the nature of an effluent and the like is dumped into a stream and causes harm to fish; but in so far as interprovincial rivers are concerned, as the law stands today there is practical immunity for those who dump effluents into the river because of the wording of the section in question which permits wanton and wilful pollution of streams when there is no effect upon the health and comfort of the individual.
There are many examples of this, one outstanding example being the majestic Ottawa river which adjoins these parliament buildings. I believe that in the realm of God's richest bounty clean river water should have a high place and ought not to be allowed to be sacrificed to private greed or to wanton and wilful pollution. There is nothing today in the law to protect the public against wanton and wilful pollution by a small minority who for their own purposes contemptuously disregard the public interest in so far as interprovincial rivers are concerned.
This problem has been before the house on two previous occasions. At the time the amendments to the Criminal Code were before the house I placed before hon. members details of a situation which had arisen on the North Saskatchewan river whereby the residents of North Battleford and Prince Albert in Saskatchewan and The Pas in Manitoba were for a long period of time unable to utilize the waters of that great river because of acts of pollution taking place in the province of Alberta. Those acts of pollution took place east of Edmonton and because there was little or no interference with personal enjoyment of those waters in the province of Alberta we in Prince Albert found ourselves in the position where there was little or nothing we could do to protect our people-the same applied to North Battleford and The Pas-from the action of those who were pouring effluents into the stream in Alberta.
There was a time when there was little interest in this matter, but today more and more people are commencing to realize the awfulness of the possibility that these magnificent streams will be so polluted as to constitute nothing but floating sewers. Forest and Outdoors of June 1945, the official publication of the Canadian Forestry Association, summed up the situation in these words:
Dump a few tons of muck in the middle of Lafontaine park or the C.N. exhibition grounds and such screams of indignation will rise that the noise will sound like an H-blast.

Criminal Code
Yet every day millions of tons (correct: millions of tons) of sewage and industrial waste are dumped into Canada's rivers, streams and lakes, and few people give it a thought.
The article then goes on to indicate the terrific nature of this problem which has intensified in extent and amount during the last 25 or 30 years to a degree that never could have been contemplated at the beginning of that time. There is reference to the Ottawa river as follows:
Two provinces get into the Ottawa river picture. The unsavory, bacterial and chemically poisonous flotsam of Ontario (thus runs the report by Dr. Lucien Piche available from the Quebec biological bureau. University of Montreal, in effect) flows into Quebec down the Ottawa river, and as it goes it mingles with similar outpourings and offscorings from Quebec itself. It is not what you might call a pastel picture.
There is no way of meeting this problem from the provincial point of view. I think it was the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) who suggested that there would be a right to proceed by way of injunction in the province of origin because of effects created in an adjoining province on an interprovincial river. An eminent counsel, a former president of the Canadian Bar Association, Mr. McCuaig, Q. C., of Edmonton, has said that he knows of no such right under the law as it is now constituted.
The situation in the United States became so serious that in 1948 a federal board was set up. In that country the criminal law rests with the state. The federal control board in combination with those who implement the criminal law in the several states has been able to meet this problem in part.
It is because this problem must be faced that I bring this amendment before the house. If it is not faced, in a very few years all over Canada interprovincial streams will be subject to the same pollution as the Ottawa river is today and as the North Saskatchewan river is rapidly becoming. When this matter was before the house beginning on March 18, 1955, the Minister of Justice claimed that it was a matter for the provinces. I face that challenge immediately and point out this fact: Not only is there no right for anyone in Manitoba to take proceedings even though he is adversely affected by the waters of the Saskatchewan flowing into his province because of what takes place in Saskatchewan; there is no means by which provinces can achieve that degree of united purpose which would meet this problem. In the month of July, the city of Ottawa asked the federal government to investigate the pollution situation on the Ottawa river. On July 14, 1955,
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
I brought this matter up in a question recorded on page 6109 of Hansard as follows:
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government received an application from the corporation of the city of Ottawa to investigate the pollution situation in the Ottawa river? Is it the intention of the government to set up a commission to investigate the question of pollution of navigable waters? If so, would the Prime Minister give consideration as well to having any commission investigating the serious pollution situation in the Ottawa river also include interprovincial rivers in other parts of Canada?
The Prime Minister used these words:
I have received no application yet from the city of Ottawa although I have read newspaper reports, which are frequently ahead of the actual accomplishments that they seem to be reporting. The matter of water pollution is a matter of concern to all forward-looking Canadians. We are going to have a larger population in this country than we have at the present time. It is a serious matter because, of course, pure water is essential to the comfort of the population. Nothing specific has been done about it yet but we are all thinking of what will be the best way to assure even to future generations that the bountiful supply of water with which nature has endowed this country is going to be available in potable form for their use.
I commend those words. They represent a statesmanlike view of the situation and of the need for action. That was on July 14, 1955. I then asked the Prime Minister a further question:
Would the Prime Minister say whether or not some amendment to the Criminal Code in order to punish wrong-doing of the kind might be within the consideration of the government?
The Prime Minister said:
All means should be explored and considered seriously to achieve the desired objective. I would not like at this time to say that the federal government is going to take the initiative. It is normally, or has been in the past normally, a matter of local and private interest for each locality. We do not want to be looked upon as going beyond what is reasonably within our jurisdiction. I regard it as something that is of concern not only locally but nationally for the future of the country. I am sure it is something which will be discussed, or at least will be talked about, at the next federal-provincial meeting. I think it will be possible to create an atmosphere where no one will regard the other one's activities as overstepping what he should be concerned about.
In that statement the Prime Minister said that it has normally been a matter of local interest. I immediately challenged that suggestion with reference to an interprovincial river. It is of more than local interest. When a river crosses the boundary lines of one or two provinces it immediately becomes the concern of the federal government. The federal government concerns itself over the comfort and health of fish in that type of river. Is it too much to ask that the same regard be given to the demands of human beings? Certainly the situation is very serious.

In Prince Albert today we are back in a position in regard to which, if I were to read some of the descriptive words about the nature of the pollution of the water in that city of 20,000 population, I would certainly be regarded as using unparliamentary words. I am taking the north Saskatchewan as an example because I live there. The situation is so serious that on two occasions for over two months one could not take water out of the tap. The stench was such that it was impossible to utilize that water. The situation is bad again this year but not as serious as it was two years ago. That is because one of the corporations has made a great effort and gone to great expense in order to remove its contribution to the pollution of that stream. The Prince Albert Daily Herald described it in these words on January 18 of this year in an editorial:
That we should be subjected to this annual scourge of polluted water is a crime, we are all in agreement. It is on the question of what can be done about it that opinion loses unanimity.
I am not going to read what has been done. There has been a great deal of co-operation on the part of the government of Alberta with the government of Saskatchewan and with the authorities in Saskatchewan, but the problem still remains. I repeat that it cannot be met through the courts under the law as it now stands. I mentioned Mr. McCuaig's opinion. I quote from the-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if my hon. friend would like to quote Mr. McCuaig's opinion in full, so that we shall know exactly what it comprehended?


John George Diefenbaker: I am quoting from the report on Mr. McCuaig's opinion by the mayor of Prince Albert:
I met with Mr. McCualg, who was our legal counsel in Edmonton, during the 1953 pollution outbreak. I discussed the possibility of obtaining an injunction against the city of Edmonton on the grounds of their polluting our water supply. He informed me of the legal difficulty of a city in one province obtaining an injunction against a city in another province, and stated that as yet he has found no legal method by which this can be accomplished.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask my hon. friend if we are clear that Mr. McCuaig's opinion did not deal with an invocation of the Criminal Code section dealing with common nuisance? I had rather understood my hon. friend on a previous occasion in this house to indicate that Mr. McCuaig had expressed an opinion that the nuisance section in its present form could not be invoked. Apparently that is not the case.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend will again bring up that argument. I am saying that there is no civil recourse, and it should not
Criminal Code
be necessary on an interprovincial scheme to have active and wanton pollution whereby people are denied the God-given water that in the years to come will become less and less available to the people of this country because of the improper acts of those who disregard the rights of others. There has been only one case on the subject since we dealt with this on the last occasion; that is an outstanding judgment by Mr. Justice Caron in the district of Montreal, in the case of Jacques Drouin and the city of Dorval. In that judgment, for the first time the judge goes as far as to determine that riparian owners on navigable waters have a right of action; but nowhere is there any authority for the right of an individual on an interprovincial river that is not a navigable stream within the meaning of the federal legislation applicable to navigable streams in this country.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is now speaking about civil action.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I am saying. I am saying there is no civil right and that therefore there must be something in the nature of criminal proceedings. That is what I am leading up to. There is not such a right today under the criminal law. The opinion of counsel has been given that the section in question, dealing with nuisance, does not allow for any proceedings being taken under the Criminal Code as now constituted.
Having first pointed out that the person has no civil rights on an interprovincial river whose water supply has been polluted, I am now endeavouring, following that, to show that the only means is to put teeth in the criminal law so that wrongdoers who would take advantage of the situation and thereby destroy this bounty of nature shall be severely punished. I have a description here of the terrible conditions prevalent on the Ottawa river. It is to be found in an article by Reg. R. Fife in the January, 1955 issue of Rod and Gun. He points out that today, as far as the Ottawa river is concerned, less than 150 miles of water takes the domestic and industrial sewage, including all effluents, of 800,000 people and several large polluting industries, or the sewage of 5,000 people per mile of river. The article goes on to say:
Now polluting industries are quick to point out that their effluent or waste waters have no harmful bacteria and so are not dangerous to public health. However, the power of the water to assimilate and destroy the bacteria ... is decreased because the water uses its oxygen to oxidize the industrial wastes.
I can see no reason why the attitude of the minister has been in opposition to such an amendment being made. Last year he raised

Criminal Code
objection to the fact that my amendment did not include municipal pollution. That was done for a purpose. Municipal pollution is a matter for each of the provincial health departments. The responsibility to assure that municipalities shall live up to the law becomes a matter of individual concern to the several departments of health in the several provinces. But so far as an interprovincial stream is concerned there is no responsibility on anyone, and why the minister should take the stand that a matter of serious moment such as pollution should not be covered by an amendment to the Criminal Code is rather difficult to understand. Indeed, in the March, 1956, issue of Rod and Gun there is an editorial that sums up the situation and I adopt what it says therein. It reads:
Before the House of Commons as we go to press is a bill which would make it a criminal offence to pollute interprovincial waterways beyond the point of human safety and comfort.
Then it goes on to say what the suggested fine is.
Rod and Gun readers will remember that pollution from the area of the city of Edmonton swept down the 400 miles of the North Saskatchewan river to Prince Albert in neighbouring Saskatchewan. It so affected the taste and purity of the water there that residents of P.A. were quite rightly up in arms over the whole thing. The water was unfit for human consumption-especially if you were the human that had to drink it. It is also almost certain that it had killed every game fish in the river over that 400 miles . . . There was enough evidence of dead fish around the P.A. water intake to further disturb the residents of that fine city.
In all the uproar that followed . . . the most significant thing to come out was that there is no legal machinery to properly handle pollution of interprovincial waterways. In fairness to the firm in Edmonton that some investigators feel was responsible for the first outburst it must be stated that they have, without any pressure from anyone, spent over $150,000 to try to reduce the noxious properties of the waste water they discharge into the river. However, just because one firm has done this is no guarantee that others will follow suit. And it may be stated with certainty that more than one Edmonton industry is discharging polluting substances into that river, just as there is more than one industry responsible for the deplorable situation on the once magnificent Ottawa river . . .
This problem is quite different legally from that posed by pollution entirely within provincial boundaries which then becomes a provincial matter unless the offence involves those waters affected by the Fisheries Act, regulations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, national harbours board regulations concerning the protection of navigable waters or regulations under the Canada Shipping Act.
Certainly there is a lot to be done within provincial boundaries, and in every province in Canada, where a shirking of responsibilities on the part of elected officials combined with a base display of public apathy has given us a situation that is close to desperate in several areas.
The Canadian parliament has before it a bill which can correct a long standing and evil situation. . . . For these public waters do not belong
[Mr. Diefenbaker.j
to us. They are there for us to use and to enjoy, for us to build a great nation upon. But they are not ours to defile and to destroy. They are a part of the priceless heritage it is our duty and our privilege to pass on to other generations of Canadians.
That in general is the representation I wish to make in support of the amendment I suggest. It will put teeth in the law. As the law stands today there is no right under section 165, the present nuisance section, or any other section of the Criminal Code, to prosecute wrongdoers on interprovincial rivers. All that section will do is to cover the individual who dumps a bit of stuff into a river within the province in which the prosecution takes place. But nowhere and under no authority can anything be done by people living in provinces adjoining the province in which the pollution has taken place. The penalty-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder whether my hon. friend would permit a question at this point? Under the amendment to the Code which he proposes, if someone in Edmonton were guilty of an offence under it, which offence caused difficulty in Prince Albert, would he not agree that the prosecution of that offence would have to be conducted by the Alberta law enforcement authorities?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not have before me the section of the Criminal Code that covers exactly that type of thing where an offence happens affecting two jurisdictions. One of the earlier general sections of the Criminal Code provides for eventualities similar to that; but whether or not my hon. friend is correct, suppose the pollution took place in the province of Alberta: all that would need to be done would be for a charge to be laid in the province of Alberta and the witnesses transported to the place of trial within Alberta.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask my hon. friend another question? If that be so, then would not the same condition of affairs and the same reasoning apply to a charge for committing a common nuisance which had been committed in Alberta, which caused a bad effect in Prince Albert and which could be prosecuted in Alberta by taking Saskatchewan witnesses to Alberta for that purpose?


John George Diefenbaker: With that general proposition I am not in agreement. In making pollution on interprovincial rivers a criminal offence I think the prosecution could be taken in either place, where the pollution actually took place or in the province in which the effects of that pollution were felt. The ordinary nuisance section as it now stands reads:
Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby

(a)	endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b)	causes physical injury to any person . . .
II the section as it now stands covered cases such as this, then a person in Prince Albert or any other place in Saskatchewan affected by the pollution would be able to take a prosecution against the Alberta company. But as the law now stands, there is no provision whatsoever. That is not my opinion, although I entirely concur in it; that is the opinion of counsel. Under the law as it now stands, there is nothing that can be done by a resident in one province to meet the nuisance of pollution in an adjoining province.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would my hon. friend permit a question at that point?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would he point out in his amendment the provision therein which makes it possible for a person in Saskatchewan to prosecute an offender in Alberta? What language in his amendment provides for that possibility?


John George Diefenbaker: I have already said it is the general principle covered by the general law and set out in detail in the earlier portions of the Criminal Code.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: Just wait a minute. I have already said that under the section as it now stands proceedings could be taken in Prince Albert if the present nuisance section covered the situation. I say that it does not cover that situation because pollution of an interprovincial stream does not come within the law as it is now constituted. It is because of that fact that I want this amendment added so as to cover interprovincial streams. Then immediately there will be available the right of action and there will also be teeth in the law.
As the matter stands today the maximum penalty-even if the present section applied -on indictment is two years or the matter could be proceeded with by way of summary conviction in which case the maximum penalty would be $500. But $500 penalties, even if they were applicable, would be simply nothing to corporations which wantonly and wilfully pollute these waters. I go back to this principle, and I am trying to make it clear to my hon. friend. As the law is now, or as the section reads now, there is no right of action for the pollution of interprovincial rivers. The amendment will make it an offence.
However, if my hon. friend wants to take the stand that the present section meets the
Criminal Code
situation, then I ask him why he stands so firmly against an added section which will reinforce what he says is already there. Last year he took a different stand. Last year he took the stand that this was not a matter for the criminal law at all, in spite of the fact that that is the manner in which the United States has met the situation. It has met it, first, by a federal board and second, by each of the states having the authority over the criminal law joining in punishing those guilty of pollution of interstate streams.
My hon. friend cannot have it both ways. If he says the law today covers the situation, my answer to him is that no counsel who has been retained anywhere has come to that conclusion. If on the other hand-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I be permitted to ask a question at that point?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Were not the opinions which were given by counsel based upon a stated set of facts relating to the question that was presented to them and were the opinions not dealing with those facts and not with a general statement of the law?


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, as an eminent counsel yourself you know that the only way in which counsel can come to an opinion is on the basis of the facts. There is nothing intricate about the facts in this case as far as Saskatchewan is concerned. The people cannot drink the water. Pollution takes place a few miles east of Edmonton. Those are simple facts. They are known facts. They are obvious facts. On the basis of those simple facts, unclouded in any way by any other considerations or any doubt as to the existence of any of those facts, counsel has advised that there is no right of action because this is an interprovincial stream and the section as it now stands does not meet the situation of pollution under those circumstances.
If my hon. friend were to say that possibly counsel did not get all the facts or that they might have been misstated, I would reply that there can be no mistake here. The simplicity of the facts is such that a child could understand them. The water is polluted. The people cannot drink it. They live on a river. They trace the pollution back to five miles or ten miles east of Edmonton. They establish that the pollution in fact took place there and on an earlier occasion. Those facts are simplicity itself. Upon those facts counsel gave his opinion.

Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not like to interrupt my hon. triend but may I say that these matters are all within his own knowledge and not within mine.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg the minister's
pardon?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I say that I do not like to interrupt my hon. friend-


John George Diefenbaker: That is all right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -but these matters are all within his knowledge and not within mine. May I ask him if one of these facts to which he refers was that it could not be established that the odour and the taste of the water in Prince Albert could be traced to a specific pollution which took place in Alberta? Of course, if that were the case, then counsel would give an opinion that there was no use of prosecuting because, on the facts, it would not be possible to bring the charge home to the accused.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is just a smokescreen, if I may say so with all due respect. On proceedings being taken, if the evidence was not available, then whether the law was changed or not, the result would not be a conviction. But accepting the facts that wrongdoing by pollution took place east of Edmonton and that the pollution which took place caused the noxious water in Prince Albert, counsel's opinion, on the basis of those facts, was that there is no right of action. He went even further and gave the opinion that there would be no civil right of action in our province for the wrong done in Alberta nor in the Alberta courts for the wrong done in Saskatchewan by an Alberta company.


Walter Edward Harris: What does my hon. friend think of that opinion?


John George Diefenbaker: I accept counsel's opinion. I do not place myself above a former president of the Canadian Bar Association.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Do you agree with it?


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, I agree that there is no right of criminal action and I take counsel's advice that there is no right of civil action. As a matter of fact, if you read the Caron judgment, you will find that while it says there is a right of action on navigable streams, it raises grave doubts as to whether on other streams there is any right of action. This is a most interesting judgment. I am not going into the facts. I have quoted the case so that anyone may read it. How doubtful the law is is indicated by the fact that this is the first case in which a riparian owner on a navigable stream has

been upheld in an action arising out of pollution. That is the first case in which such a thing has happened. The judge did not arrive at that judgment without considerable doubt with regard to several of the conclusions to which he came. If there is any doubt as to the right of civil action, I ask why it is that the government is standing so adamant against giving people a little bit of protection under the Criminal Code.
They protect you under the Criminal Code for petty pollutions, for common nuisances. I should like to know. Is it because there are some strong interests that are opposed? Is it because some strong interests realize that if teeth are put into the law those interests are going to be placed in a position where no longer may they wantonly disregard the rights of ordinary citizens? Is that why? When the situation is as serious as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) admitted last July, as serious as it now is-and in years to come it will become more and more serious-I put it to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson): why, in the face of the actions of individuals or corporations which put the public welfare at naught, does the government have such a resolute, such a relentless stand?
If my hon. friend says the amendment may not cover all the situations now, further amendments could take place. But give to the ordinary citizen in Canada this amendment and it will not be long before great corporations will realize that the public interest will hold them responsible under the code. I have exhausted my time, sir, but I do hope that the government has changed its attitude a little since last year, although I must say, having regard to the interruptions of the minister, it seems apparent to me that the crime of wilful pollution is still to be outside the ambit of the Criminal Code. I do hope he will give more consideration to it than he did last year, and thereby enable the preservation of one of the greatest resources that we have. Think of the magnificent Ottawa river, famed in legend and in history, and then think of it today, almost an open sewer because it is interprovincial. Surely that situation is but another example that calls for resolute action. The only way to do it is to put the fear of possible punishment in the hearts of those who would wantonly destroy God's greatest gift to mankind.


Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but while listening to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) a thought came to my mind which I felt I should put on Hansard and bring to the attention of the hon. member. I do not believe the solution

he proposes would be a practical one. It is not a solution for the difficulties that exist. It is not a proper method of preventing the pollution that is now taking place. I appreciate, as he does, the importance of the problem. He has indicated it to us very clearly.
But while listening to him I could not help thinking of the great pulp and paper industry in Canada, and especially in my province. When I think of the importance of that industry which produces 6 million tons of newsprint, of which 3 million are produced in my province, I cannot help but ask myself what would be the result of the legislation advocated by the hon. member. A good many of the mills engaged in the paper industry are situated on interprovincial streams. The object of my hon. friend would evidently be to prevent them from polluting the waters of these interprovincial streams. Unfortunately these mills cannot operate without dumping into the waters that run near the mill all sorts of refuse which, according to the definition of the amendment proposed to the Criminal Code, would be illegal. The amendment reads:
Every owner, lessee, or person operating any industrial plant, oil refinery, chemical works, sawmill . . . who discharges or throws or allows to be discharged or thrown any noxious waste product, raw sewage, oil, sawdust, chemical or other matter or thing into a river . . .
No paper mill can operate without getting rid of the chemicals that have to be used in the manufacture of paper. Those chemicals have to run away in the water near the mill.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: He raises a very challenging point, but is it not a fact a similar situation has been met in the United States by demanding that those companies use proper destructive measures to neutralize the noxious properties of the things that they dump into the streams.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I do not think it has been found possible, from a practical point of view, to do those things. In any case, there are also the waste wood products apart from the chemicals that flow into these waters.
My point is that the remedy suggested by my hon. friend would not be a practical one because it only consists of fines. Supposing you did condemn these paper companies to pay a fine. You could condemn them again and they would pay another fine. If you wanted them to observe the law to the letter and be absolutely immune from penalties, you would force them to close down. No
Criminal Code
one wants to see this great paper industry which produces 6 million tons of newsprint, a large percentage of which is exported, closed down. Everyone will agree to that. Therefore, I say it is not a practical solution. Some practical solution might be found if a committee were established to find a solution. But I say that simply passing a law to say that dumping refuse or matter into a river that pollutes it is illegal is not a solution to the problem. For that reason, I shall vote against the amendment if there is a vote called.


Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Battlefords):: I am
interested in this particular problem, Mr. Speaker, for the same reason that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is. I would correct him in one respect. I understood him to say that the water of the city of North Battleford had been polluted, but that is not exactly true. It is the town of Battleford that suffered from water pollution and not the city of North Battleford.
There was a lot of discussion and many questions were asked of the cabinet ministers during 1954 when the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river took place. It seemed to be almost impossible to establish what should be done to stop the pollution. We have not that immediate problem at the moment. The province of Alberta and the one chemical plant that was responsible for the pollution at that time have been doing good work. The question of pollution is not a problem today. There is always a chance of a recurrence. As I said last year, if we get another government in the province of Alberta or if that government gets lazy and careless and allows industry or whoever it is who dumps their refuse into rivers to get out of hand we will still have that same problem recurring.
The minister made a suggestion in 1954 which I thought was a good one. The people in my home constituency also thought it was a good one. We tried at that time to set up an interprovincial body to look after the water of the three western provinces. Two of the provinces were willing to work with that combination of the three provinces but one province refused to do so.
The only comeback that anyone has, as far as I can see, is to take action through the Criminal Code. This is probably a debate for lawyers rather than for laymen, but looking at it from a common-sense point of view, section 165 of the act is pretty vague. I know the minister takes a pretty definite stand as to its being strong enough but I would remind the minister that when the pollution took place in the city of Prince Albert in 1954 it took a long time to find out what the cause was and where the source was. Both the hon.

Criminal Code
member for Prince Albert and I asked questions of the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and others. We asked all the ministers we could think of who might be connected with the problem as well as the Prime Minister. I can recall the Minister of National Health and Welfare saying on many occasions how complicated the whole matter was and how difficult it was to put the blame on any particular industry that was located 400 miles away.
The amendment to the Criminal Code that has been proposed reads as follows:
Every owner, lessee, or person operating any industrial plant, oil refinery, chemical works, sawmill or other plant or works, or any other person, who discharges or throws or allows to be discharged or thrown any noxious waste product, raw sewage, oil, sawdust, chemical or other matter or thing into a river, stream or other water ahy part of which is interprovincial or which flows into any interprovincial water, which has the effect of endangering the lives, safety, health or comfort of the public is guilty-
It seems to me that it would be far easier for any lawyer or any court to find the source of the pollution and to get to the source of the pollution if this amendment were adopted. They will see that one industry is dumping refuse or that a certain city is doing so. They can see with their own eyes and the evidence is right there.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? If this amendment were passed would not his own city of Battleford, the day after it passed, be guilty of an offence under it?


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Could be; however, that does not absolve the town of Battleford if it is causing pollution in the river. It does not absolve it at all. I think the people of the town of Battleford are just as much interested as anyone else in the problem of pollution.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will the hon. gentleman permit another question? Would he then suggest that the day after the act was passed all the municipalities and counties in Canada that were breaking the law be prosecuted?


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: As I said, Mr. Speaker, when I began to speak, I am not a lawyer. It looks to me as if this amendment would clarify the act. I am not saying I am entirely in support of this amendment. What I want is something that will give us protection and I do not care whether the protection is the result of an amendment or a bill which comes from Tom, Dick or Harry, or the government or anyone else. I want protection for my people. If the minister can stand up and show us that this bill is no good and that it will not work, that is fine; what I want him to do is to give us a solution to the problem.


An hon. Member:: A solution to the pollution.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: We have had a lot of pollution in Eastern Canada about which I have been reading just recently in the report on the boundary waters commission that was set up in 1946 between the United States and Canada. Anyone who reads that report realizes the terrific problem pollution presents all over Canada. I have been speaking of only one small part of Canada.
The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and I and others are interested in seeing that what happened in 1954 never happens again, and if the minister has a solution that is better than the one proposed by the hon. member for Prince Albert, I will be all for it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, in the very few minutes that are left before six o'clock I should like to emphasize that so far as the government is concerned we are deeply sympathetic with the objective of the hon. member who has introduced this bill. What we doubt is the efficacy of the method which he proposes to use. The hon. member is quite right in saying that not only in Canada but throughout North America, and I dare say throughout most of the industrialized and civilized world, this problem of the pollution of water courses is encountered.


John George Diefenbaker: But others have acted.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend says that others have acted.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my friend had read some other issues of the magazines which he was quoting here today, Rod and Gun, for example, about the conditions in the United States I am sure he would not say others have acted. I am sure my hon. friend can himself recall many articles in various sporting magazines in which attacks have been made upon pollution in the United States, which indicated that the extent of pollution there was more widespread and much more intense than anything which we have encountered in western Canada.
The whole question here concerns what is the best method of solving this problem of pollution. With great respect to my hon. friend the member for Prince Albert who, as we all know, is one of the most able and eminent criminal lawyers in Canada, I might say I think he carries his professional complex into the present problem. I do not think a solution can be found for the problem of pollution in Canada by police court proceedings; I really do not think so; for as the

question which I asked the hon. member for The Battlefords just a moment ago would indicate-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -if we pass the amendment he has proposed we will be in the position to prosecute, I would just hazard a guess, at least 50 per cent of the industries and the urban municipalities of Canada the morning after it is passed. Let us suppose we prosecute them all, bring them into court and fine them. What contribution have we then made to the solution of the problem?


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question? Last year when the wording was identical the minister said it did not cover municipalities. This year he said it does. Is this not a fact?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. I think my hon. friend is wrong in that. If he will refer to Hansard he will see that my remarks had relation to an amendment to his amendment which was moved by the hon. member for The Battle-fords.


John George Diefenbaker: It is exactly the same.
On motion of Mr. Garson the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair. May I remind hon. members that at eight o'clock the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 9, consideration of the motion of the Prime Minister:
That a select committee to be designated be appointed to consider such of the estimates as may be referred to it and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, when this motion standing in the name of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for the appointment of a select committee to consider certain estimates was before the house some days ago I spoke briefly and in the course of my remarks dealt with the origin and purpose of the committee as they were revealed to us, at least in another
Committee on Estimates parliament, the parliament of the United Kingdom, and also with some of the thoughts expressed in this parliament when we first decided to set up such a committee.
I suggested that the proper purpose was not so much to relieve parliament as a whole of work as to enable parliament better to accomplish its job of reviewing government expenditures. In that connection I think I can say fairly that all are agreed that for the task of making a detailed review of the estimates the committee of supply is a somewhat cumbersome method of proceeding. Therefore it has been decided, if I interpret the feeling of the house correctly, that this committee should be set up which will make a detailed examination of such departments as may be referred to it and that in the course of those examinations it should do the job which the committee of the whole house sitting as the committee of supply cannot do.
What I want to suggest this evening in the few minutes remaining to me is that the special committee on estimates, as set up last year and as envisaged in the motion presented to us by the right hon. Prime Minister, cannot do the job which parliament desires should be done. It cannot do the job because it is much too limited and circumscribed by its terms of reference. The motion reads:
That a select committee to be designated be appointed to consider such of the estimates as may be referred to it and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.
There are certain very obvious limitations upon the power of that committee if the committee is appointed only on the basis of that motion. The first and most obvious limitation is that the committee will have no power to call for persons, papers and records; it will have no power to call witnesses. The second obvious limitation is that the committee will have before it for consideration only such estimates as the government by the control of its majority in the house may refer to it. I think in those two respects the committee will be seriously hampered in its job of making a detailed, impartial and independent examination of the estimates.
We saw last year in the work of the committee which was set up then for the first time, and which it is true operated to some extent on an experimental basis, just what those particular limitations meant. Let us take the first limitation I mentioned, namely that the committee has no power to call witnesses. What does that mean? It means that all that is to be presented to the committee is the evidence which the government is prepared to have presented to it. That was our experience last year.
1640	HOUSE OF
Committee on Estimates
We moved in committee that we be given the power to send for persons, papers and records, and that motion was denied. That motion and different variations of that motion were moved on a number of occasions and each time it was denied because the government spokesman on the committee said it was not the government's intention that we should have the right to hear anyone but the people the government wanted to present to us.
So what happened? I was a member of the committee while it was reviewing the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) had himself made a member of the committee. Every time we asked for power to call witnesses the minister said it was not desirable or necessary that we should call for witnesses, that he and his departmental officials were prepared to answer all questions we might lay before the committee. Well, sir, I know and you know as a practical politician that the only witnesses whom the department was prepared to submit to the committee were those who-


Mr. Speaker:: I object at the present moment to being referred to as a practical politician.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your Honour is not an impractical one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Your Honour is neither impractical nor unversed in the art of practising politics. Your Honour does not practise them in this house but you know what is meant by the term practical politician. What happened was what could be expected to happen. We got only those witnesses that the government was prepared to allow to come before us, and those witnesses were to say only those things which the government was prepared to have them say. So far as an independent expression of opinion in the operation of government departments was concerned, its ability to obtain an expression of opinion which did not reflect the government's point of view with respect to the operation of the department, the committee was completely ineffectual.
I think we should contrast the method of operation of the estimates committee in the United Kingdom. There the committee is master of its own procedure. It is true that on the committee there is a majority from the government party which is natural in the composition of a committee made up of members of the house, but they have established the principle, first, that the committee shall have the power to call witnesses as it


may determine and, second, that the committee itself will decide what departments or what segments of a department it shall investigate.
The committee does that without any prior notice to the department concerned or indeed to the government itself. They break up into a number of sub-committees and a subcommittee will decide what branch of the government's operations it wishes to investigate. The sub-committee reports back to the main committee and the main committee then authorizes it to proceed in that way. I am making these remarks on the basis of a memorandum supplied to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) by a member of the United Kingdom parliament.
The committee descends without warning on a government department and says, "We want you to tell us what you have in mind when you ask for this appropriation of X thousand pounds." The government department has no opportunity to prepare its case and it is not protected by the minister having the right to say what witnesses shall be heard by the committee or by the minister having the right to call upon only those departmental officials whom he is prepared to present.
That is a true outline of the conditions under which our committee was compelled to work last year and will be compelled to work this year under the terms of the reference we now have before us. We were confronted last year with the absurd situation that we did not have the power to call witnesses as a committee while the minister of the department under investigation had the power to say which of his officials would come and speak. The committee had no power to call witnesses while the minister was able to speak as a member of the committee and say, "I have decided that I shall get the deputy minister, or the director of this branch, or the director of that branch, but when he speaks he cannot speak as a witness, he speaks as the emanation of the minister." Those were the words used by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to describe the status of the officials of his department before the committee.
What more frustrating, what more absurd or ridiculous situation could a committee of this house be placed in? It simply could not come to grips with the department. It had to deal only with those who the minister said would be called before it. When they spoke, they spoke as emanations of the minister and, of course, they were bound to reflect and to defend the government's policy.
Whatever may be said as to the nature of this committee-and I am going to move

an amendment that the committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records-I fancy it may be said by the Prime Minister, or by the Minister of Finance in his capacity as house leader, that this committee is still an experimental committee. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if this experiment does not succeed it will be a sorry day for parliament, and this committee will not succeed unless it is given a fair chance. The committee will not be given a fair chance unless it is allowed to do the job parliament and the country would like to see it do.
I wish to impress upon the government the fact that the United Kingdom parliament, the parliament of a country which is sometimes regarded as essentially, I was going to say "conservative" but if you do not like the word I will say "cautious", in its approach to such questions, when it set up a committee in 1912 with some misgivings from some members of that house, did not hesitate to give it all the powers it needed to do the job. The motion, as I have said, was introduced by the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Lloyd George. It was an experimental committee. It was a new departure, but they set it up with all the powers it needed. Here are the terms of reference of the United Kingdom committee, as found on page 360, volume 37, fifth series, of the United Kingdom Hansard. It was decided that a select committee be appointed to examine into and report on such of the estimates presented to the house as might seem fit to the committee. The committee had the power to decide which departments it would examine. After discussion, when the motion to set up the committee was carried, as a matter of course- as we find recorded in the United Kingdom Hansard-after the vote approving the committee had been carried, the question that the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records was put and agreed to.
So in that parliament, from which to a large extent we take the guiding principles of the procedures we follow here-and in this connection I suggest we could take a great deal of guidance for the work of this committee on estimates, because they do most important, far-reaching and beneficial work- they had no hesitation in giving this committee the power it needed to allow it to function in the interests of parliament as a whole, and not just in the interests of the government to be, what it can only otherwise be, a whitewash committee to defend the government's program as revealed through the estimates. They gave it the power to send for persons, papers and records, the first time they set it up. That was in 1912, 67509-104
Committee on Estimates and it is now 1956. Surely this government is not so reactionary that after 44 years of the example of what they do in the United Kingdom and all the benefits that will follow, they will refuse to give the committee of parliament the power to do what a committee of parliament should do.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair):
That the motion be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"and that the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we in this group are pleased that the government has submitted once again a proposal for a committee on estimates similar to the committee that was established last year. We shall be glad to support the motion.
We are also pleased that the hon. member for Kamloops has moved an amendment that would give the committee power to send for persons, papers and records. I shall say something on the amendment a little later in my remarks, but I should like first of all to say that we do not take the position that the committee on estimates takes the place of the committee of supply. No one tries to argue that, but at any rate we are glad to know it is recognized that in the last analysis it is the committee of supply, consisting of all the members in the house, that is responsible for every dollar that is to be voted by parliament. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the committee of supply is the most important cog in the machinery so far as the voting of money is concerned, we feel that it is a good idea that year by year a few departments should be referred to a committee on estimates.
One of the values to be gained from such a committee may not sound like a political value in the sense of the word which offended Your Honour a few moments ago. Nevertheless it is a real value. The study that takes place in a committee of this kind can be quite educational for the members of the committee and through them for members of the house as a whole. Indeed it can go even further than that. I am satisfied, indeed, that one of the real values of some of the important committees that have been held across the years has been in the education that has been afforded to members and through them to the country as a whole. I think of the excellent committee that we had a number of years ago on the question of old age security. I believe more came out of that committee than a mere recommendation; I think it was educational in its effect. Those who were on the external affairs committee last year, when General McNaughton and

Committee on Estimates other witnesses appeared before it to discuss matters in relation to our water supply and power resources, learned a great deal as a result of what went on in that committee. Similarly, it is an exceptionally good idea that a few departments each year can be scrutinized thoroughly and a few members become acquainted with the workings of those departments in the committee on estimates in a manner which is not possible in committee of supply.
However, it seems to me that the value of the estimates committee is greatly limited if it is not possible to call before the committee witnesses chosen by the committee itself. After all, if the only people who appear before that committee are those who are chosen by the minister, the value of that committee can be limited to such values as we get out of discussion here in the committee of supply. If members are going to learn what is going on, it seems to me they should have the right that is involved in the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Kamloops.
I think it is a fair question to ask, in this day and age, as to who is running the government in this country. Is it the cabinet or is it the civil service? I do not ask that question with malice aforethought, and I am fully conscious of our constitutional position, which specifies that the minister is completely responsible to parliament for all that goes on in his department, for the recommendations that he makes to parliament and for the positions that he may take on matters that are raised here on the floor of the house. Yet there are times when some of us wonder whether a particular minister exercises that responsibility merely by being the mouthpiece of civil servants who are behind him, civil servants whom we sometimes refer to, if we do not like their decisions, as bureaucrats. I know that the minister must protect civil servants and that it is the job of parliament to see that civil servants are protected, but I think the whole question of whether it is the cabinet or the civil service that is making the major policy decisions, that is really running the country, has become of such importance that it would be a good idea for the estimates committee to be able to call before it some of the senior civil servants and others in various departments so that they might be questioned along with the minister in order that we may, as I say, get this question sorted out as to who is really making some of the major decisions.
I do not think this is the time or the place to give examples and thereby to get into a discussion of one department or another. But all of us have various departments in mind where questions of the kind I have
[Mr. Knowles.}
alluded to might well be investigated. It seems to me that we would do well to have before the estimates committee some of the officials of the treasury board. It does seem to us that some of the most important decisions affecting government policy and national life are either made in treasury board or if there are policies or decisions that the government might like to consider they are vetoed or rejected by treasury board. I think it would be a good idea if we could have some of the senior officials of treasury board, and even intermediate officials, come before the estimates committee under the aegis of one department or another so that we could find out just how they work and who are making these major decisions.
I listened with interest to what the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) had to say regarding the practice of the estimates committee in the United Kingdom where it descends without warning on a particular department and inquires into its expenditures. I realize that that function is supposed to be performed by our treasury board, and I am satisfied that our treasury board does a good job in terms of checking the estimates of the various ministers to try to eliminate waste wherever possible and to try to cut down and avoid extravagance. But I confess that I am more concerned as to the part that treasury board plays in making major decisions of policy.
I find it very hard to discuss this matter in the abstract without at least mentioning some of the things in which some of us are interested. I could, for example, refer to questions such as increases in old age pensions or the question as to why it takes so long to get moving in the field of health insurance. I could raise the question of the pensions of superannuated civil servants or the question of the war veterans' allowance. I could raise any one of a dozen matters of this nature where what is involved is not waste or extravagance, in the terms in which my friends to the right so often use those words, but basic policy as to what the attitude of the country should be towards improvements in fields such as I have indicated.
I think it is a fair request that these people who are behind the ministers, and for whom the ministers, I admit, are responsible, should at least once in a while come before a committee of parliament so that we can find out whether the ministers are telling the civil service what they want or whether the civil service is telling the government what policies should be pursued. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think, it

will be clear that we not only support the motion to establish a special committee on estimates but we would also like to see it given the wider scope that is involved in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamloops. Therefore we shall support the amendment and we shall support the establishing of the committee itself.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak very briefly on the motion now before us. I am one of those who support strongly the setting up of the estimates committee. I certainly feel that it did valuable work last year. It has always seemed to me that one of the chief duties of an elected representative is to thoroughly examine government expenditures to see that the taxpayers' dollar is being efficiently, properly and economically spent. Yet the experience I have had as a back-bencher is that there is no task in the house which is more frustrating, more disappointing, or more baffling, than the attempt to carry it out.
As hon. members know, under our British system of government, parliament is supposed to be supreme where finances are concerned. Yet in actual fact that theoretical supremacy is so ineffectively carried out, that I often wonder whether or not it actually exists. What are the reasons for this situation? I believe the main reason is due to the fact that our parliamentary machinery for examining the estimates is hopelessly outdated and outmoded. Our present method was formulated back in the days of confederation, and there have been very few improvements introduced into parliament since that time.
In the days of confederation, government had few financial complications. The government had little concern about national defence. It did not have to worry too much about social welfare. Things like the gold subsidy, the grain subsidy and so on did not enter into the picture. Back in 1868 the total budget of this parliament was $7-6 million. For the year 1874-75 the total of the estimates was still only $42 million. In 1910 the total of the estimates was $110 million. In 1913, the year before the war, the total budget was only $150 million.
I suggest that in those days it might have been possible for parliament to examine the estimates in the committee of supply, but times have changed. Canada has developed into a modern nation. Our population has increased many times, and government has become more complex. Today huge sums are spent for national defence, social welfare and the like. It is no exaggeration to say that 67509-104J
Committee on Estimates this year our budget will be almost $5 billion. On top of this sum, government crown corporations will be spending additional hundreds of millions of dollars. In other words, the government will be spending more than one-fifth of our whole gross national product. That means in effect, that today we are spending about 650 times what we spent in 1868. Yet the parliamentary machinery for examining these expenditures is relatively the same as it was back in the days of confederation.
When the estimates are tabled in the house, when this blue book is brought down and placed in front of hon. members, we are literally drowned in a morass of statistics and figures. I say that any hon. member in this house, no matter how diligent he may be, finds it physically impossible to do a thorough job of examining the estimates in addition to his other work.
I say further that our method in this parliament of examining estimates is so inefficient and so unbusinesslike as to be almost unbelievable. What is parliament's vehicle for examining the estimates? As you know, Mr. Speaker, the vehicle is the committee of the whole which in effect is the whole House of Commons with the Speaker out of the chair. The government introduces these estimates-perhaps 600 or 700 pages of them- to the committee of the whole. That committee is unwieldly, clumsy and hurried. It is hopelessly large. Usually questions are mixed up and bandied across the floor with regard to details, with regard to policy, with regard to amounts. Often there is little sequence to the questions. Some of them have little relation to each other. Often they do not even appear to be coherent. While it is true that members in the back benches can question cabinet members, nevertheless it is extremely difficult to secure the kind of information that a member should have.
Not only is this house poorly equipped to deal with estimates, Mr. Speaker, but more and more in recent years, it has been inclined to treat estimates as matters of secondary importance, that can be dealt with after all other business has been finished. I feel that the time allotted by the government for the debating of estimates is not satisfactory. We have now been sitting for about seven weeks and I think we have spent one day in discussing estimates. Far too often, it seems to me, the early weeks or months of a session of parliament are spent in debating relatively minor issues and later on the estimates are brought forward in a last-minute rush. In

Committee on Estimates the last session the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), as reported at page 937 of Hansard of 1955, made this statement:
There has grown up In the country an impression that during the final week and especially on the final day, it has been our custom to pass large sums of money at a rate which is not in accordance with the seriousness of the subject. To my mind that opinion is false; . . .
In this connection I must say that I cannot agree with the Minister of Finance. Last year parliament had sat for five months. At the end of that five months' period it had passed only $189 million of estimates or 4-2 per cent of the total. The remainder was passed in the last few weeks. In the last week of the session of 1953-the last seven days-estimates totalling $866 million were put through. In the last week of the session of 1954, estimates totalling $2,715 million were put through. In the last week of the session of 1955 estimates totalling $563 million were put through. To anyone who studies the picture I think it is obvious that when estimates are passed with such speed they cannot possibly have been given by this parliament the kind of examination that they merit.
Who is to blame for the situation as it exists today? Since the government decides the order of business, I think it must accept a major share of the responsibility. In fairness I suppose I should say that the opposition is partly to blame because far too many of us are prone, early in the session, to make loquacious and sometimes repetitious speeches on matters which perhaps are not as important as are these estimates. Often the difficult but rather humdrum task of going over the accounts is neglected. I have a definite feeling that today, Mr. Speaker, it is not parliament which is the watchdog of the treasury, but rather it is a small group of civil servants. Even though those civil servants, mostly members of treasury board or the finance department do an effective job, I say that this is not a healthy situation. I think it exists only because private members of all parties, including the Liberal party, have permitted the control of the national purse to be gradually taken away from them.
The resolution before us tonight is going to improve the situation. I think it is a reform. It is at least going to mean that four departments will be thoroughly examined. But even if the resolution passes, as I know it will, I do not think parliament has gone far enough. I am still convinced that in this house too little use is made of standing committees. I think this fact is all the more regrettable because on the back benches, parliament has a great deal of effective

talent which is not being used. Many backbench members are able business and professional men. They come down here anxious to do a useful job. Yet usually they are not allotted specific work. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that these back-bench members could be effectively used, if they were put on committees-particularly estimates committees-to go over and examine government spending. I believe that every single government expenditure should be referred to one standing committee or another. I believe that every department should be referred in a similar manner. For instance, agriculture estimates should go to the committee on agriculture. The estimates of the Department of Finance, the Department of National Revenue and the like should go to the banking and commerce committee. Perhaps there should be a special committee on defence to examine defence expenditures, veterans affairs expenditures and so on. Before any estimate is brought into this house I repeat, that I believe it should have been thoroughly checked and gone over by some standing committee. Certainly any private business, before spending money in the way in which we are spending it in this parliament, would make absolutely certain that the expenditures had been thoroughly justified.
Mr. Speaker, there is another field of government expenditure with respect to which I do not think parliament is doing its job. I refer to our crown corporations. I have been here since 1945. There are many crown corporations that I cannot remember ever having come before parliament, except in the committee of the whole for a five-minute or ten-minute examination, which was more or less routine. I am thinking at the moment of the Polymer Corporation, Canadian Arsenals Limited, Canadian Government Elevators, the printing bureau, the Canadian farm loan board and so on. Federal crown corporations today number 30, I believe. In those crown corporations the taxpayer has an investment of several billion dollars. Some of them from time to time go to the treasury for substantial subsidies. Yet today the average member of parliament has less knowledge of the operations of those corporations, than have many shareholders of ordinary companies. It is quite true that some of the crown corporations such as Trans-Canada Air Lines, the Canadian National Railways and, from time to time, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation come before a parliamentary committee. But I say again to you tonight, Mr. Speaker, that that practice should be extended. Once a year every company owned by the government should be

obliged to come before one standing committee or another to be examined in detail.
I have one more suggestion to make tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I have made it in the past. It has always seemed to me that opposition members are handicapped in examining these estimates by a lack of research and technical assistance. Because of the time required by other parliamentary committees, without that assistance it is extremely difficult effectively to query experienced government officials. When a minister comes before the committee of supply or before a standing committee, invariably he is flanked by experts or by his officials, and their job is to justify the expenditures which the government is making. The opposition, on the other hand, has no such assistance. I think they could do their job a good deal better if they were given some kind of help in that regard. I believe that the importance of this committee which the minister is proposing to set up tonight cannot be exaggerated. It is a reform but it does not go far enough. It is a step in the right direction. It is going to mean that four departments will be examined, but in my opinion every department should be examined. Until we take such action parliament is not doing the job of examining estimates effectively.


Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: The resolution which stands in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) reintroduces a practice which was begun last year and which was found useful. I should like to add what has been said already tonight in urging the Prime Minister and the members of the government, in fact all members of this house, to consider the amendment as a means of doing better what this resolution proposes to do.
Last year the estimates committee did perform a very useful function in more than one way; that has been pointed out already. Certainly it helped to educate the members of the house in the details of administration. It cleared a great many of the inquiries which otherwise would have been made on the floor in the committee of the whole. The proposal introduces a very minor extension of the powers of the committee, because basically the committee will be a committee of the house constituted in the same proportions as the house is constituted with the supporters of the government in the majority and therefore with the basic decisions of the committee under the control of the administration. As I say, the extension is relatively minor, but it seems to me that in last year's committee we had a useful instrument which could be substantially better if it had the power to inquire a little deeper, to go beneath the surface
Committee on Estimates and bring out the real facts on which the decisions of economical and effective administration must be based.
Now, I concede that there might be objections to giving the power to a committee to inquire into the affairs of the department about which some minister may be touchy. He may fear that opposition parties will seek partisan advantage by the exposure of maladministration. I think if any member of this house, in fact if any member of this government will look at the matter fairly and [DOT]clearly, it redounds to the advantage of the government basically to improve the administration because the government takes the final responsibility for the quality and character of the administration which goes on in the various departments of government. If that administration can be improved through the medium of a committee of this house or by giving a committee more power to make such improvements, then in the long run the advantage will accrue to the government of the day as well as to parliament as a whole in the discharge of its traditional function of voting the funds the administration requires to carry on its duties.
In supporting this I do suggest that the members of the government regard this as one means of doing more effectively what has been done fairly well in some instances in the past, not only to the credit of this house and the committee but to the credit of the government itself whose administration can thereby be improved.


Colin Cameron: I wish to associate myself, Mr. Speaker, with those who have spoken earlier in asking that the powers of this committee be extended. I remember the committee last year, in its initial year, and I have a very clear recollection of the manner in which the committee found its work hampered by the lack of the power which is requested in the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I think perhaps that some of us who sit in this house have become, shall I say, rather insulated from public opinion and fail to realize that this institution of parliament is now on trial in the public mind. I think it is not too much to say that there is a most deplorable and dangerous attitude of cynicism towards parliament as a vehicle of democracy today.
I wonder sometimes if the reason for that is not to be found in the state of affairs that was described to me by a very eminent Canadian citizen who at one time sat in this house. He remarked to me that there is a popular illusion we have a government, whereas the real fact of the matter is that
1646	HOUSE OF
Committee on Estimates we have an administration with a political front. I submit, sir, that is a very dangerous situation. One of the ways in which this cynical attitude towards parliament can perhaps he dissipated is by parliament to display the intention of really examining the work that is done in its name, and revealing to the general public the results of that examination.
Sometimes it has been changes of procedure of an apparently minor character that have very drastically altered the whole structure of parliament. One could recall, for instance, that it was purely the accident of a monarch being unable to speak the English language that set up the beginnings of our cabinet system as we know it today. We should be very careful, sir, not to imagine that our very new institution of parliament, and it is a very new institution in the shape it has taken today, is one which could not very well be deprived of real effective power, not through any deliberate action on the part of its members but by the failure to realize the danger points in our procedure. I suggest to you, sir, that one of the most grave danger points is when the government of the day, the executive of this parliament, is afraid to entrust to a committee of this house the power to examine ruthlessly, without let or hindrance, into all the actions that are taken in the name of this parliament.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to add a word to what has been said in favour of the amendment. I think if any intelligent stranger were in the gallery, and I am sure there are plenty here tonight, and had listened to this amendment he would have said "Well, that is the most reasonable thing I ever heard; why would they not do it?" As I listened to the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) and the hon. member from farther west, I felt that way. I have got to my feet merely to say this. If the amendment is turned down, and we have some reason to think it will be by what I believe the great Disraeli once referred to as brute votes, I hope it will not be turned down without reason given. I hope it will not be turned down in the ordinary, rather mechanical way that we are so often denied what we ask. I do hope that reasons, or what hon. gentlemen opposite regard as reasons, will be given as to why this suggestion, so eminently reasonable on the face of it and in the light of the experience we have had in this house, is to be turned down. I hope every effort will be made to state a case against these reasonable arguments.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker,
I do not wish to take up the time of the house in making remarks in this regard that have 

already been made. I agree with the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) who said that the increased complexity of government since 1867 has made the proper examination of estimates in the committee of supply a virtual impossibility. Since 1867 government has become increasingly complex. Government departments have grown to such an extent that in effect most government departments are, through the very necessity of our modern way of life, run by civil servants. As a result it is almost impossible for any cabinet minister, no matter how brilliant and capable he might be, to fully understand and have complete knowledge of all the work of other government departments if for no other reason than the fact that cabinet ministers frequently change from one portfolio to another.
The present system we have in committee of supply is, of course, as every hon. member knows, that the minister is there usually with one or two assistants to advise him and to answer questions from hon. members of either the opposition or the government. Very often, in fact very often indeed, the questions which are asked are extremely detailed and the minister is unable to answer them and the assistants are unable to supply him with the information immediately. Consequently, the minister will acknowledge the question and say, "We can answer it tomorrow or the next day", and will undertake to furnish the information at a later date. I am sure many hon. members have had the experience of having this information supplied as the minister promised but often several months after the question was asked and frequently after the house has closed. I am not criticizing the ministers for this for I realize the complexity of their job and its great scope. Frequently, it is impossible to get the answers right away but it certainly is not very helpful for the proper examination of the estimates in the house.
The present committee the government is setting up is certainly a step in the right direction. Having been a member of the estimates committee for some of the time during the last session, I think it certainly is a help and a step in the right direction, but the suggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), which has been supported by other hon. members on this side of the house, is indeed an even farther step in the right direction.
Last year when the estimates of certain branches of the government were referred to the special committee on estimates the result was very much the same as what happens in the committee of supply. The government called or made available as witnesses various senior civil servants who had a considerable

knowledge of the departments from which they came. Some of them, however, are undoubtedly in the same position as cabinet ministers in that their departments are now so large it is almost impossible, even for senior civil servants who have been in the department for many years, to know all the facts about their own departments. As a result, last year in the committee on estimates questions which were asked frequently had to be put over until the next day in order that the answers could be looked up or some other official consulted. To a lesser degree, but sufficiently seriously so that it is almost in the same position, the same problem exists in the estimates committee which exists in the committee of supply.
If the committee on estimates were em-powdered to call witnesses before the committee and any particular witnesses that the members of the committee desired to have called, I am sure we would get a much more capable and complete examination of the estimates of this house.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I too will take only a few minutes of the house's time tonight in connection with this matter. Had I not heard the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre I perhaps would not have said anything at this time. However, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) referred at some length to the fact that many people here did not take a very active part in connection with the estimates which came before the committee of the whole, and perhaps that was because there was not ample opportunity to do so. I think that was perhaps an unwarranted criticism. When I think back to the many hours that I have stood on my feet in this house in connection with continual examination in relation to transport and national defence last year I feel there was plenty of opportunity and if people wanted to inquire into those estimates they had the chance to get to their feet.
That, of course, does not mean that we are going to obtain the answers which we should get. It seems to me that the hon. member for Oxford put his finger on one of the major problems, that is, in the examination we are constantly faced with a frustrating situation where we have two or three people standing between us and the person we are examining and it is most difficult to get a straight answer under circumstances of that kind. I do not think anyone who has not been accustomed to conducting examinations wherein one questions a witness directly can appreciate the frustration that arises in the house as one watches these conversations which take place between the minister and the experts
Committee on Estimates who sit before him. As long as that condition exists we are not going to be able to carry out a proper examination in this house and therefore any move which will give us an opportunity to examine the parties directly is going to be a step in the right direction.
A second point I would make is that we have reached a stage where nearly half of the total estimates refer to the Department of National Defence. If we are going to have a continuation of the policy as I have seen it here of getting down finally to the place where we get no answer whatsoever on the basis of security, and this has happened time after time, then the work of the opposition is going to become almost unbearable.
I think we all feel that conditions of security are most important. I would be the last one to suggest that we should cut away any cloak of secrecy that is required, but when you talk about frustration I must point out it is really frustrating to find that an answer is refused you in the house and when you pick up the newspaper next day, or Time magazine the next month, you find the answer that you could not get right in this very chamber. It seems to me that if there were an opportunity of examining the large masses of defence expenditures on the basis of direct question of the people involved there would be ample opportunity to discern very easily those matters on which we might be entitled to information and those matters on which, for obvious reasons of security, we should not be allowed to ask for the production of papers or witnesses.
As long as this portion of the estimates continues to climb and to amount to almost 50 per cent of the total budget, then I say a step must be taken along that line as well.
In connection with the suggestion of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, that we perhaps need some assistance, I would say this. Give us the vehicle here to enable us to get close to the problem and I am satisfied that there are people quite capable of conducting a thorough examination. I am quite satisfied also that there are those qualified in accounting and the other professions who will enable us to do a good job. All we have to have is an indication from the government that they are prepared to really face close scrutiny in connection with these expenditures.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this is not strictly a formal motion, this is a most important motion. For some years we kept urging that a practice similar to that which has been so successful at Westminster be adopted here. We urged that there be committees on

Committee on Estimates estimates and that the procedure which had actually helped the government as well as the opposition should be employed so that in that way facts could be obtained which otherwise would not be available.
The procedure which was adopted last year as an experiment fell far short of the practice which has succeeded at Westminster. The fact is that this offers very little in the way of real information. We are here tonight to discuss a motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), but the Prime Minister has not even spoken to explain why we have this kind of motion before us.


Walter Edward Harris: That is not so. I spoke to it on behalf of the government.


George Alexander Drew: I will qualify that by saying that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) made a short statement which I would not have dignified as a statement on behalf of the government because there was no explanation as to why this procedure should be adopted. We simply had the statement that we were going to go ahead on an experimental basis again. If that is to be taken as the kind of statement this government makes in regard to this motion, then everything that has been said about the high-handed manner in which this government has acted is more than justified on this particular occasion.
This motion stands in the name of the Prime Minister. Let us hear from the Prime Minister why we cannot have a proper committee on estimates. Let us hear from the Prime Minister, in whose name this motion stands, why we cannot have papers produced, why we cannot have witnesses come before us in the proper manner so that we can get information. Since we have had no explanation it then becomes necessary to discuss the nature of this motion and what the results will be.
Under the terms of this motion we will have to rely upon the answers of ministers when we are in this committee. We have found during this session that we cannot rely upon the answers of ministers when they are given in this house. We have seen it over and over again where statements have been made which within a very short time were denied by the minister himself. We had the case here of the 15 aircraft sent to Egypt. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) made a statement just recently about the policies of the government, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs did ndt know anything about this when the matter was brought up in the house. First when he was asked about this shipment he said he had not heard about it. Then he was


asked whether the aircraft could be armed and he left the impression that they could not. Then we had pictures by the Royal Canadian Air Force to show that they could. Then later on we had a discussion on external affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I am quite prepared to wait until my words can be heard. When this subject was being discussed during the debate on external affairs it was pointed out that this was not a small matter involving a few aircraft and that we were asking for a committee to examine the export of arms. This Involved a matter of $81 million and the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that that of course included NATO shipments. It did not include anything of the kind. He did not even know that the NATO shipments were separate and that $202 million was the figure for NATO shipments during that year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I had hoped that the Leader of the Opposition would not go too far afield and I would not have to intervene, but having done so I hope he will come back to the motion before the house.


George Alexander Drew: I submit that I am directly on the motion. If Your Honour feels that you must intervene, then you must. I am pointing out that under this motion we will be called upon to accept the statements of ministers because there will be no other source of information. I have been pointing out how unsatisfactory that has been. It will be recalled that in the same discussion the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was most scornful when some question was raised as to the date of an order in council. He kept emphasizing that the order in council had been passed on a particular date, and then he had to come to the house and admit that there had been no order in council. The Prime Minister did not know whether there was an order in council or not and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) knew nothing about it. Those are the facts that have been disclosed already in the case of that particular shipment of arms.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: On a point of order, the
Leader of the Opposition is discussing exactly the same matter that Your Honour said was not in order.


George Alexander Drew: I do not recognize the hon. member who has just spoken in that quarter of the house, but in any event I must say that I am not aware that his point has any relation to the subject under discussion.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: If the hon. member who just made that interjection at this late date understands anything about the subject we are discussing I would hope that he would rise and make some contribution to this debate. It would be a novelty if we could have some opinion expressed by hon. members on the other side in regard to subjects of this kind when they come before the house.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: Unless it is a point of order or a question of privilege I am continuing my remarks. In so far as this procedure is concerned, in the case of the Department of National Defence, which deals with nearly half of our expenditures, we will be called upon to take the answers of the minister and I have shown quite clearly that he does not know what the facts are in regard to the department which he administers. That is the preposterous position in which we are left.
If this motion is to proceed, then let us have some reason why we should not have information that would be available to us in any ordinary procedure of committees that would be set up to inquire into the affairs of this house. It has been said in some publications which I have read recently that the parliament of Canada is no longer in a position where it can deal with public affairs. If there is any reason why this parliament is not able to deal with matters tonight it is because we are denied information. This is another example of procedures which stifle the true basis of discussion and the obtaining of facts upon which We should be informed.
What reason can there be why we should not have a committee empowered to call witnesses and to call for papers? In Westminster where they have a much larger field of responsibility the committee dealing with the national defence estimates was permitted to call the chief of the general staff and senior officers in different positions to give answers which informed the members of that committee in regard to essential facts. We have no such power.
It would be a pretence for any member of this house to suggest that a committee of this kind can present a finding actually based upon facts. I ask the Prime Minister in whose name this motion stands to give any reason to this house why we should not have the power that an ordinary committee would have to inquire into facts and to make recommendations which would assist the government as well as other members of this house and the public in regard to the affairs which are entrusted to our responsibility.
Committee on Estimates


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre wish to announce a pair?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: No, sir. I wish to move another amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Eglinton.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the government, looking down from its lofty height, does not deign-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -to participate-


An hon. Member:: Stand up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -in a discussion of this subject-


An hon. Member:: Stand up, Donald.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will stand up and I hope some of you over there will have the grace and courage to stand up and let your voices be heard. Most of you are mute and you might as well have been born mute for all the good you accomplish here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a commoner expression that is synonymous with "mute" that I could apply to a good many members of this house. It is a simple four-letter word.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this discussion is obviously not going to be allowed to degenerate into a debate if the government can prevent it. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) maintains his frigid silence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He has nothing to say to the house-


An hon. Member:: You might try that some time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -on this motion which stands in his name. Challenged by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), he chooses to ignore the house.


An hon. Member:: Which one? Which
leader of the opposition?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could hear all these interesting-


An hon. Member:: You heard that one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -if somewhat ludicrous interjections, but I cannot hear them all when they all come at the same time. If hon. members will take their turns I will be glad to deal with them individually.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask hon. members to remain silent so that the hon. member who has the floor may be heard, and I ask the hon. member to address himself to the Chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that some of the remarks I have been called upon to address were obviously not intended for you.


Mr. Speaker:: I was afraid at one time that that might be so. May I express my gratitude now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With the utmost earnestness may I assure you that I will never accuse you of being dumb.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not that this matter is lacking in importance but that the government just does not deign to discuss important business before the house, and they will not deign to discuss important business before the house as long as their submissive and so well disciplined followers are prepared to be submissive.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have a word to say now about the timing of this motion. It was introduced on the 9th of February and we have now come to it nearly three weeks later.


An hon. Member:: Three weeks of wheat.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The arrangement of the business of the house-


An hon. Member:: Stand up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will have something to say to you by way of substituting another word for the first word but the second one will be "up" too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I presume the hon. member is still addressing himself to me and that when he says "you", he means the Speaker. He has certain words, which apparently are not very flattering, to address to me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: By the same token I take it that the honourable but irregularly vocal member who offered his interjection was similarly addressing the chair.
I said that the arrangement of the business of the house is in the hands of the government. The government themselves must take responsibility for the fact that they have chosen not to bring this motion on at an earlier date. In sessions gone by we have repeatedly urged that the government should bring on early in the session the motions designed to set up committees. This motion as well as the other motions to set up committees which are going to be debated after this one, could very well have been brought up in this house some weeks ago and the committees that are to be set up could have been set up then and could now have had several weeks' work done. The fact that the government have chosen to put other business first is the responsibility of the government, and three valuable weeks' time have been lost to committees already by that government action.


Some hon. Members:: Wheat.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, wheat. The government chose to bring on the wheat debate and to keep it going.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government have chosen to keep it going because they called the wheat debate each day in the interval. They could just have easily called these motions some weeks ago. They knew perfectly well there was going to be a debate on wheat and they deliberately chose to call that item first. Hence the responsibility rests upon the government.
67509-105i
Committee on Estimates


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, how vocal these Liberal members are when they are in a seated position and how silent they are when they are in any other position. They are very heavy in some respects.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a member on this side of the house may I say that I do not like to be called giddy; neither do I like it to be said that I sit here dumb. When you are right and when you know your cabinet minister is right, I think it takes more courage to keep quiet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the record will show that I did not use the word "giddy". Some other words passed through my mind but the record will show that I did not use the word "giddy".
This proposal to set up an estimates committee appears in the same form as the government's motion of a year ago which they introduced on February 8, 1955. Actually they got it under way at a much earlier date in the 1955 session. We in this part of the house for years have urged the setting up of a proper committee on estimates. We have drawn attention to the fact that it is a paramount duty of the House of Commons to maintain strict control upon government expenditures. The control of the public purse must be exercised by the House of Commons. The committee of supply is an extremely old piece of parliamentary procedure. It goes back many years to a time when public expenditure was only a fraction of what it is today. The committee of supply is a clumsy, awkward piece of machinery for undertaking the function of a detailed review of proposed governmental expenditures. For this and other reasons, noting the shortcomings of the committee of supply in relation to its paramount duty, we urged the establishment by this house of a committee on estimates.
But, Mr. Speaker, the kind of committee that we are now offered-and it is the same kind of committee as the government proposed last year-is a very different kind of committee on estimates.


Mr. Reinke:: You are never satisfied.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Reinke) must be feeling his oats these days. Either that or he finds the discipline that has been imposed upon him most objectionable because of late I have noted that he just cannot keep that tongue of his from wagging when he is in a seated position.


Russell Earl Reinke: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.

Committee on Estimates


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member wishes to prove to the house that he can speak while standing on his feet, I suggest that he embrace the opportunity at an early date in this discussion and speak in debate in a proper way but not do it by defying the rules of the house as he has been doing so frequently lately. I suggest to the hon. member in good part that he observe the rules of the house. If he wishes to speak, I suggest that he rise and speak in debate.


Russell Earl Reinke: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have his opportunity if he chooses to use it in the proper parliamentary method.
This is a different kind of committee that is proposed. As we saw last year, this is a truncated and deformed committee. It is a committee on estimates in name but it is not a committee on estimates having any real power to discharge the proper function of a committee on estimates. There should be a standing committee on estimates in this house. We were prepared to have a committee like this set up on an experimental basis and if the house should feel that it wants to have the experiment continued another year before the committee is made a standing committee, we are not going to be critical of that procedure. But we wish to see the committee given powers which are adequate to enable the committee to discharge its duties.
The committee on external affairs to which the estimates of the Department of External Affairs have been referred now for a decade, is a standing committee of the house and as such it has power to send for persons, papers and records as it chooses. There is no reason whatever why such powers should be withheld from this proposed special committee on estimates. I quite agree with what was said earlier in the discussion tonight-I do not call it debate; I call it one-sided discussion- as to the desirability of referring the estimates of other departments to other standing committees of the house. For instance, the committee on agriculture could review the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and the committee on industrial relations could review the estimates of the Department of Labour and so on.
As the house has disposed of one amendment I wish to address myself particularly to another aspect of the powers of the committee than that which was the subject matter of the amendment introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I wish to address my remarks

to the matter of the business that is permitted to come before the committee on estimates.
There have been those who state that all the estimates of all departments should be referred to select committees. If that is to be done, of course more than one committee will have to be used for the purpose. There will have to be various committees among the group of standing committees of the house used for this purpose. It is not possible to have one committee carry out all the functions of reviewing the estimates of all departments. Therefore, as far as the committee on estimates is concerned, there must be a selection of the particular departments whose estimates are to come before that committee for review. In the United Kingdom the practice is for certain departments or even certain sections of departments to be selected for this purpose.
The rotation of departments is a good thing if we are not going to have the estimates of all departments reviewed in select committees. There is a great benefit to be achieved in the control of government expenditures by preserving so far as possible the element of surprise in the selection of the particular departments, sections or crown corporations whose estimates are to be reviewed in detail. There is such a thing as a department being so well prepared defensively on their estimates that they sometimes defeat the general purpose that a committee on estimates can help to serve in relation to all departments.
Now, sir, I come to the question of how the departments are to be selected. I say, in the first place, that there is much to be said for the idea of having these particular departments selected by the opposition. In the United Kingdom the practice in the public accounts committee is to allow the opposition to select the particular accounts or departments which are to be reviewed by the committee. Indeed, they have gone so far as to establish the practice of selecting a member of the opposition as chairman of the public accounts committee.


Walter Edward Harris: We are talking about estimates, not public accounts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I know, and I am referring to that as a useful guide. I will come in my remarks to the estimates committee at Westminster. I am pointing out here that the practice at Westminster in relation to the public accounts committee is a useful practice. In these committees, in the case of the public accounts committee, in the case of the estimates committee, indeed in the case of a good many other committees, it is the opposition members on those committees who do the work. Government members as a rule are

not interested in probing into expenditures or estimates. It is left to the members of the opposition to do that investigatory work. We have not reached the point here, of course, where the opposition is permitted to make the selection, even in the interests of a strict review of proposed departmental expenditures. The opposition did propose to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at this session that four departments should be selected for review in the committee on estimates, namely the Departments of National Defence, Trade and Commerce, Justice and Fisheries. The Department of National Defence is one that naturally suggests itself because of the extent of the expenditure in that department. The others are important departments, and at this particular time there is much to be said for taking the estimates of these departments before the committee on estimates.
But the government would not accede to that proposal, so we come to the second alternative, the one that is in effect here. It is that the government selects the particular departments whose estimates are to be referred to the committee. It is a strange thing, it is an anomalous situation indeed and one that could be found I am sure only in a House of Commons completely dominated by the government as the majority in this house has been dominated by the government, that a committee set up for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into proposed government expenditures is to have its work controlled for it by the government'. Think of it, sir, it is the government's administration; it is the government's estimates that are to be reviewed by this committee. Nevertheless, if the majority in this house remains submissive to the will of the government, the government will decide what amongst its estimates this committee will be permitted to review. I say you could not have a more effective hamstringing of the work of a committee on estimates than that. I urge upon the house that this committee is not going to be given an opportunity to do the effective work that needs to be done by a committee on estimates if the government is simply to dictate to the committee in the manner now proposed the work that is to come before it.
I come to the third alternative, sir. It is the alternative that the committee itself, instead of the government, should make the selection. We have been told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), as leader of the house, in his very brief remarks on February 9 at pages 1041 and 1042 of Hansard when introducing this resolution, that the estimates of the Departments of Labour, National Health and Welfare, National Revenue and Post Office are to be referred to this committee. This is the government's decision, the
Committee on Estimates government's selection. The committee itself is to have no opportunity to make a selection. I point out to this house that the committee on estimates at Westminster, a committee which we are told has functioned very satisfactorily in the opinion of all political parties since 1912, has the power to select the work it will do. It is not a case of dictation from the government and reference to that committee. The committee, being a standing committee, makes its own selections of the departments whose estimates it chooses to review. This preserves the freedom of the committee. It preserves the valuable element of surprise in reference to all government departments.
I imagine the Minister of Finance will be prepared to recognize the benefit of surprise in an undertaking of this kind because a great deal of his work is concerned with a similar responsibility of reviewing the estimates of other departments. We know from last year's experience in the committee that the minister whose estimates are under review has a great deal to say about the procedure to be followed in the committee. Here, we have a situation where the government is making the selections of the departments. I say that at the very least the committee should have the right to make its own decisions. I am not overlooking the fact the government is going to have a majority on this committee, but in relation to the exercise by that majority of its function in the committee I say that due regard should be had to the proposals put forward by opposition members in that committee.
Now, we are told that this committee is still in the experimental stages. It has been quite evident, sir, that there has been a division of feeling in the cabinet on this matter. There are some ministers who are prepared to be modern and bring their estimates before a proper committee on estimates. On the other hand, there are ministers here who have become so accustomed to the privileges and powers they enjoy that they look with the utmost disfavour on any proposal that their estimates should be brought under detailed review in any manner by a select committee of the house such as the committee on estimates.
The committee to which I am referring at Westminster is a committee of 36 members which divides itself into five subcommittees. Those committees carry on their detailed examination and sit extensively during the session. Indeed, sometimes they have sat while the house was not in session-even after the conclusion of the session. They make their own selection of the particular department, crown corporation, section or agency

Committee on Estimates they are going to investigate and that has been a most useful procedure.
In the interests of good government, in the interests of the control of expenditure, I say that the committee would do well to ponder these following words. I shall give the reference after I have read the words, Mr. Speaker.
If the order of reference is not wide enough and does not go far enough I suggest to the minister that it should be widened. This is something new; it is an experiment. If in the government's mind it is a reform let us treat it as a reform and see that it is properly framed so that it operates. If it is only a concession to my hon. friends of the opposition then let us make our concession freely and willingly, not grudgingly.
And further:
Nevertheless the control, criticism, and scrutiny of the estimates is one of the bulwarks of the opposition. The opposition should, if it is doing its duty, take every possible step to see to it that these expenditures are appropriate and in the interests of the country. May I say as one who enjoyed being in the opposition for two parliaments that I have great sympathy for the opposition, and believe it is the duty of the government and the house to give the opposition every opportunity to scrutinize these estimates.
Those references may be found on pages 953 and 854 of Hansard, February 8, 1955.
Those words are not the words of a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Those were words uttered in the debate on the corresponding government motion a year ago by the then hon. member for Quebec South, Mr. Power. I commend his words, not only to his successor but also to the Prime Minister, and I repeat the concluding remarks of Mr. Power when he said that he believed it is the duty of the government and the house to give the opposition every opportunity to scrutinize these estimates.
Mr. Speaker, does any member of the government seriously pretend that the opposition is given every opportunity to scrutinize the estimates when the government will not give the committee power to send for persons, papers and records-I say no more on that- or to give it power to select the business that it is to do? Is it giving the opposition the opportunity that Mr. Power recognized that it ought to have in the interests of good government when the government says, "We will decide what business shall be permitted to come before that committee on estimates and by the same token we will decide what estimates shall not come before that committee on estimates"? That is the position of the government to date in this debate. It is going to select the business to come before that committee.
I made mention of the way the committee on estimates functions at Westminster. The committee there decides what estimates-


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: May I ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Speaker? I should like to ask him if when the Conservatives were in power there was a committee on estimates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In Britain? I am sorry the hon. member has not been following the debate. It has been said by other hon. members and I said it not more than five minutes ago, that the committee on estimates has been a standing committee of the House of Commons at Westminster since 1912, and its function-


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I meant when the Conservatives were in power in this house; was there a committee on estimates?


An hon. Member:: Perhaps he cannot remember that far back.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, there was not, but I will tell the hon. member that the expenditure in those days was just 10 per cent of what it is today. In other words, that is a 900 per cent reason why there ought now to be an effective committee on estimates.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Is it a matter of figures or is it a matter of principle?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member, if he is concerned about the matter of principle, is apparently going to have to ask himself whether he even condescends to approve of the introduction of the motion to set up even this truncated and deformed committee on estimates. These members are so brave, Mr. Speaker, until they are called upon to make a speech and I suggest-


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think I can stand up and make a speech as well as anybody in this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Apparently the only time the hon. member chooses to make a speech is when in defiance of the rules of the house he gets up and smuggles a speech into the remarks of another hon. member.


An hon. Member:: That is not so and you
know it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the house would welcome a speech from the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member not to continue the incident by further provoking the hon. member who has interjected.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There seems to have been some disappointment at the remark which I just made and I should certainly like to clear up the matter. The hon. member may continue if no one wishes to speak further on the point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I should ever give provocation to the hon. gentleman. I can assure you that such a thought was farthest from my mind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to have to stop the hon. member again but when we debate a certain motion our remarks must be relevant to the matter that is before the house. Now, if the hon. member is to enjoy provoking other hon. members and then criticize them because they have made an interjection, we are not being relevant to the motion that is before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, X will make only one observation if you will permit me, and that is I do not think it is any part of the practice of the house that hon. members when they consider themselves provoked should be permitted to defy the rules of the house and get up and make speeches when others are speaking.


Mr. Speaker:: I fully agree with the hon. member; I fully agree with him. However, there has to be some understanding with respect to these things. The rules of the
Committee on Estimates house do allow certain interruptions and unless the hon. member resumes his seat no one will have the right to interrupt him, but when the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine stood up, the hon. member resumed his seat, thereby indicating that he was allowing him to put his question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But the hon. member did not put a question.


An hon. Member:: Yes he did.


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult to find out exactly what is going to happen until the hon. member has said something in order to discover whether he was going to ask a question or make a speech. The hon. member should continue to speak to the motion.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Apparently it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. Will you call it ten o'clock?
On motion of Mr. Fleming the debate was "adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	British Columbia seaplane floats
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:


[Stage Direction]
Question No. Ill*-Mr. Fraser (Peierborough):
1.	Did the "Trans-Canada Matinee" broadcast on February 1 deal with butter-coloured margarine?
2.	If so, was this program sponsored, and by whom?
3.	If not, were any organizations represented by the speakers on the broadcast?
4.	What were the organizations?
5.	Were those taking part in the broadcast paid?
6.	If so, how much did each receive, and what organization did they represent?
7.	What was the total cost of the broadcast?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
The C.B.C. answers as follows:
1.	Fifteen minutes of the one-hour broadcast consisted of two "points of view" on coloured margarine.
2.	No.	'
3.	The two speakers appeared as individuals. One is an officer of the Nova Scotia branch of the Canadian Association of Consumers.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	Yes.
6.	Statements of payments to individuals have been held to be not in the public interest as being detrimental to the position of the corporation in negotiating for such services for broadcasting.
7.	Total payments in connection with the one-hour broadcast were $200.
C.B.C. "newsmagazine"
Mr. Thatcher: 1.	What was the total cost to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of producing the feature "C.B.C. Newsmagazine", presented 7.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. last February 5?
2.	Where did the idea for the program originate? Answer by: Mr. McCann:
The C.B.C. answers as follows:
1.	$9,000.
2.	With the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Question No. 141-Mr. Barnett:
1. How many seaplane floats, or landings, in British Columbia are in operation under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport?
2.	At what points, or places, are these located?
3. How many seaplane floats, or landings, in British Columbia under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport are under construction, (including those for which tenders have been called) ?
4.	At what points, or places, are these located? Answer by: Mr. Marler:
1.	17.
2.	Alert Bay, Co-op bay, Ganges, Kamloops, Mayne island, Mansons Landing, Minstrel island, Masset, Nelson, Ocean Falls, Patricia Bay, Powell Lake, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Queen Charlotte city, Tofino, and Vancouver.
3.	1.
4.	Tahsis.



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO HOSPITALS

Mr. Garland: What response has been received from the provinces regarding the offer made by the federal government to assist the provinces in the matter of hospital insurance and laboratory and radiological diagnostic services?
Answer by: Mr. Marlin:
The minister of health of the province of British Columbia has advised that his government is prepared to participate in a program as outlined at the recent conference. No official communications have been received from the other provinces.



FISHERIES TRAINING PROGRAM


Mr. Balcom: What financial assistance, if any, is given by the federal government to provincial departments of fisheries towards a program of training fishermen in the repair and preventative maintenance of gasoline and diesel engines?
Answer by: Mr. Sinclair:
None.

Dominion-Provincial Relations



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN NATIONAL TELEGRAPHS RXMOA272 78-St Johns Nfld 27 448P-
1956 Feb 27 PM 3 34
Rt Hon Louis St Laurent QC MP Prime Minister of Cda Ottawa
In reply to your letter of February eighteenth I have to say that in our view no particular purpose is likely to be served by the holding of a conference stop We feel that any questions in which we are interested can be taken up with you or the Minister of Finance stop We are not however opposed to the holding of the conference and if you call one we will endeavour to be there stop Kindest regards

[Stage Direction]
PREMIER'S OFFICE Prince Edward Island
February 24, 1956.
Rt. Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, P.C., Q.C., Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
My dear Prime Minister:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 18th, with the enclosures therein.
If it is decided to hold another conference to discuss federal-provincial fiscal relations, I would be prepared to attend on either March 2 or March 9 if I received a few days notice of which date would be more satisfactory.
Yours sincerely,

[Stage Direction]
1956 Feb 24 PM 2 25 MOA234 32-Halifax NS 24 305P The Right Honourable Louis St Laurent Prime Minister of Canada Ottawa
Nova Scotia favours resumption of federal provincial conference stop Prefer March ninth but if necessary can arrange March second stop Would attend myself with provincial treasurer and one or two officials only HENRY D HICKS Premier of Nova Scotia
THE PREMIER Halifax
February 21, 1956. Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
This will acknowledge receipt of your lefter of February 18. After the proposals
therein contained have been studied by our officials, I shall reply further.
The only comment I might make at the present time would relate to the last paragraph of page two of your letter wherein you suggested that only two premiers had requested a resumption of the conference. Perhaps I was not specific enough at our meeting in Ottawa, or did not state our views with sufficient formality, but I did intend to convey the impression at that time that Nova Scotia favored a resumption of the conference. However, in view of your recent letter, this is perhaps not so important as we shall again consider our position to see whether, in view of certain other paragraphs in this letter, we still think it would be worth while to reconvene the conference.
Yours very truly,

[Stage Direction]
The Right Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent, P.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa,
Canada.
The government of the province of New Brunswick
THE PREMIER Fredericton
February 27th, 1956
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
This will confirm my telegram to you of February 24 last as follows:
"Further to your letter of February 18 we would greatly appreciate reconvening of conference preferably on March 9".
This is in further answer to yours of February 18 which has already been acknowledged.
Thanking you for your usual attention and courtesy.
Yours sincerely, HUGH JOHN FLEMMING
1658	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations CANADIAN PACIFIC TELEGRAM AA484 19/18 NL R
Feb 24 6 41 PM '56 Fredericton NB 24
The Rt Hon Louis St Laurent PC Prime Minister of Canada Ottawa Ont
Further to your letter of 18 February we would greatly appreciate reconvening of conference preferably on 9 March
Hugh John Flemming Premier of New Brunswick
THE PREMIER Fredericton
New Brunswick
February 20th, 1956.
Right Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
My dear Prime Minister:
I have before me your letter of February 18 regarding federal-provincial arrangements.
The object of this reply is just to acknowledge your letter, and you will be hearing from me again within a few days.
Yours sincerely,

[Stage Direction]
(Translation) :

[Stage Direction]
February 22, 3:40 p.m., 1956
RAA343 106/103
UQQ Quebec Que 22 326P
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent PC QC Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa
We are in the most active period of our parliamentary session which adds a great deal of work to the already very extensive duties created by the administration of our vast province in full development Stop It was possible for me to read today your letter of February 18 and your telegram of the 21st of the same month Stop With all possible dispatch in these circumstances and without delay I shall study with my colleagues of the provincial executive council the important problems mentioned in your letter of February 18 and I shall communicate with you again shortly Stop Sincere greetings.

[Stage Direction]
(Text) :

[Stage Direction]
Office of The Prime Minister and President of the Council
Toronto, Ontario, February 22, 1956.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 20, 1956 on the proposed fiscal arrangements and the attached memorandum of answers of the Minister of Finance for Canada to the questions raised by the provinces.
Certain features of the proposal referred to in your letter and in the memorandum of the Minister of Finance are improvements over the present fiscal arrangements, but it appears to us that the basic formula which uses the weighted average of the per capita tax yields of only Ontario and British Columbia-to all intents and purposes this means Ontario-does not recognize the heavy financial burdens that are imposed on this province and its municipalities in servicing a rapidly growing population and industry which produce such a large proportion of the federal government's revenue. In view of the enormous obligations and commitments that we face, we feel strongly that a formula that provides a special payment to all the provinces except Ontario fails to meet the special needs of this province. As a first step in this approach, we believe that the equalization payments should be calculated on the basis of the four provinces having the highest per capita tax yields.
We shall be glad to meet with you, your colleagues and representatives of the other provinces in a resumption of the conference preferably on March 9.
Yours very sincerely, LESLIE M. FROST
The Rt. Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, Q.C., Prime Minister of Canada,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Canada.
CANADIAN PACIFIC TELEGRAM Feb 27 12 21 PM '56

[Stage Direction]
FD Winnipeg Man 27 1107A
The Right Honourable Louis S St Laurent
Prime Minister Ottawa
Will attend meeting March ninth if decided upon
Douglas L Campbell Premier Manitoba

PREMIER'S OFFICE Saskatchewan
Regina, February 22, 1956.
The Rt. Hon. L. S. St. Laurent, Q.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My Dear Prime Minister: -
Thank you for your letter of February 18 and for the attached memorandum from the Minister of Finance.
I note you are desirous of ascertaining whether or not the provinces favour meeting again in committee to discuss the proposals which you advanced in your letter of January 6. In spite of the fact that the federal government feels it would not be warranted in making any increases in its basic offer, the government of Saskatchewan would favour a federal-provincial meeting for the reasons which I outlined in my letter of January 11. We would be prepared to attend on either of the dates which you have suggested although March 9 would probably be preferable.
There are still a number of matters which were discussed at the federal-provincial conference in October regarding which the Saskatchewan government feels there should be some further discussions. This is particularly true of resource development and also assistance to the municipalities by making operative the Municipalities Improvements Assistance Act. If the majority of the provinces indicate their desire for a meeting again in committee we shall be very happy to attend. If, however, there is no widespread request for such a meeting either Mr. Fines or I will be glad to avail ourselves of your kind invitation to discuss with you or Mr. Harris those aspects of the federal government's proposal about which we are particularly concerned.
Should it be decided to reconvene the committee we would appreciate hearing from you at the earliest possible date.
Yours sincerely,

[Stage Direction]
FD. Edmonton, Alta. Feb. 23. 242 P.M.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont. (care TC urgent)
Re your letter February eighteenth Alberta government believes fundamental changes are necessary in federal government proposals to fulfil adequately their intended purpose stop Unless federal government prepared to con-
Dominion-Provincial Relations sider such changes can see little value in further conference but will concur if majority desire meeting stop If conference convened would urge date to be deferred until early April as March most inconvenient for provincial treasurers engaged in piloting budgets through respective legislatures stop If deferment impossible would prefer March ninth.
ERNEST C. MANNING, Premier of Alberta.
518P.M.

[Stage Direction]
Victoria
February 21st, 1956
The Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
Your letter of February 2, 1956 and the memorandum from your Minister of Finance giving answers to a number of questions raised by treasury officials are acknowledged.
If a further meeting in committee is found generally desirable, I shall be glad to attend it. If, however, no general meeting is to take place, then I must press for a conference between our respective governments, further to discuss the terms of the proposed agreement, insofar as they apply to a province like British Columbia which is not dependent upon fiscal subsidies; is experiencing an unprecedented economic growth; and requires a greater allocation from the cultivation of income tax fields to keep pace with a development which, apart from its provincial worth, will yield vast returns to the nation.
Your letter indicates that discussions with the individual provinces will be conducted by yourself and Mr. Harris on behalf of the federal government. Mr. Bonner, our attorney general and I will represent British Columbia, and on the assumption that technical staff will be present, I propose taking with me Messrs. Fisher and Gunderson, and possibly Mr. Veitch.
Our current session of the legislature will not terminate its labours until the second week in March. I would, therefore, urge that our meeting do not take place before March 9, 1956.
The memorandum from Mr. Harris is being studied and comments thereon will be made either before or at the meeting suggested.
Yours faithfully,
W. A. C. BENNETT Premier
[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Relations CANADIAN NATIONAL TELEGRAPHS Ottawa, February 27, 1956
Hon. W. A. C. Bennett,
Premier of British Columbia,
Victoria, B.C.
Hon. E. C. Manning,
Premier of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta.
Hon. D. L. Campbell,
Premier of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Hon. H. J. Flemming,
Premier of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, N.B.
Hon. J. R. Smallwood,
Premier of Newfoundland,
St. John's, Newfoundland.
Hon. H. D. Hicks,
Premier of Nova Scotia,
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Hon. L. M. Frost,
Premier of Ontario,
Toronto, Ontario.
Hon. A. W. Matheson,
Premier of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Hon. T. C. Douglas,
Premier of Saskatchewan,
Regina, Saskatchewan.
As it now appears that a number of provincial governments desire to resume the conference on fiscal arrangements early in March and others are willing to attend, I am proposing that we meet in committee at ten o'clock March 9 in the railway committee room.

[Stage Direction]
(Translation) :

[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister's Office Ottawa, February 27, 1956 Honourable Maurice L. Duplessis,
Premier of the Province of Quebec, Parliament Buildings,
Quebec, Que.
As' it now appears that a number of provincial governments desire to resume the conference on fiscal arrangements early in March and others are willing to attend, I am proposing that we meet in committee at ten o'clock March 9 in the railway committee room.

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 29, 1956