1956-05-10

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
GOVERNMENT NOTICE OF MOTION APPEARING ON today's ORDER PAPER
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to a point of order. I note that a notice of motion which was under discussion yesterday is on today's order paper. Without repeating in detail any of the arguments which were presented yesterday-


Mr. Speaker:: Before he proceeds further, may I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that his point of order can properly be raised when we reach the item in question. At this moment the routine proceedings must be gone on with. He can raise his point of order when I call the item "Government Notices of Motion".


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, without debating what you have just said, I would point out that this subject was under discussion yesterday; that there was an extended argument about the effect of the rules with regard to having before the house two motions of the same nature at the same time in the name of the same member; and that the matter stood over. It will not be possible, I submit, in the ordinary calling of the motion to discuss the point of procedure which was raised yesterday. I would submit with deference that it would be satisfactory that the question of procedure be dealt with at this point because, when the motion is called, we shall then be dealing with another matter.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might make a comment?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I rose to support your suggestion as to when we should deal with this matter. Although I may disagree with your ruling yesterday which put this motion on the order paper, you made the ruling and it is there. But as I indicated yesterday, when we reach the point where you are asked to put the motion to the house it is my intention to raise the point of order that this question should not be put to the house. I would hope
that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) might support me on that point of order when I raise it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in order that there may be no doubt about it, may I say that there will be no question about our supporting the hon. member. I trust that he will support us in the stand that we will take at that time. However, I was pointing out to Your Honour that there is a question of procedure which has been under discussion and which will not, I suggest, be subject to discussion in the same way at the time the motion is called. In view of the fact that Your Honour had this matter under advisement and of the fact that the motion now appears on the order paper, I would again submit for your consideration the advisability, for the purposes of record, of dealing with this question as to whether the two motions should be on the order paper. Then, when the matter comes forward as a motion, we can deal with it on the other grounds.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot rule on a point of order in anticipation. The hon. member knows that, according to standing order No. 15, we must adhere to the order paper, and my duty today is to call the routine proceedings. When we come to government notices of motion, then that is the proper time for hon. members to rise on the point of order if they so wish. I submit that at this moment it is my duty to proceed with the other items on the routine proceedings.



CRIMINAL LAW


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: I wish to rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The joint committee on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries has been holding sessions in camera for the purpose of considering a report to both houses of parliament. In the Ottawa Citizen of May 8, 1956, there appeared an article headed, "Abolition of Prison Lash Urged by House Committee", which quoted from a confidential document circulated amongst the members of the committee for study and consideration.
While there is no intention of pursuing the matter further, it is my duty to point out that the article in question did not quote

Labour Conditions
the various alternatives set forth in the confidential document, and therefore has tended to mislead the public as no decision has been reached by the committee on these alternatives, nor has any report been made in connection therewith to either house.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine)
presented the second report of the standing committee on public accounts, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: In view of the request made yesterday and the interest that has been shown by a great many members of the house, and also because of the fact there may be some delay before we reach orders of the day, I should like to make the report I promised yesterday. It is in the form of a message received by the Minister of Labour at 12.25 p.m. today containing a joint statement issued by the railways and the unions regarding the railway dispute. This was reported as being given to the press by the parties within the next hour. I shall quote it as follows:
Although the meeting held on Tuesday, May 8th, at the request of the Minister of Labour made no progress towards a settlement of the dispute the railways and the 15 non-operating unions, having in mind their responsibility for maintaining uninterrupted railway service to the Canadian public, have arranged for a further meeting tomorrow for the purpose of entering into an agreement implementing the terms of settlement recommended by the board of conciliation notwithstanding that both parties disagree with some of the principles underlying that report.
I have nothing to add, except to say that, on behalf of the Department of Labour, the Canadian government and, I think, every hon. member of this house I express congratulations and appreciation to the two parties to this pending settlement for their patience, perseverance and patriotism. I say patriotism advisedly because I know that, in all the consideration of this dispute by the two parties, the public welfare and the national interest have been paramount as they always must be in free collective bargaining in Canada.
Commendation is due to the board of conciliation for being successful during the long hearings last winter in finding ground on which both sides can now get together.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Government notices of motions. Before hon. members rise may I take up the point where I left off yesterday. I quote from Hansard at page 3726, where I said:
Now, I offered earlier to delay the judgment in this case until tomorrow. Hon. members have indicated that they wanted to have a ruling now. I have given my ruling and I think we have had a discussion of sufficient length. I will say this to hon. members. If after reading Hansard tomorrow morning and after consulting with the Clerk there is any reason why something should be done in order to remove the resolution from the order paper, I will see to it that that action is taken. But if, on the other hand, after carefully reading all the arguments that have been put forward and all the authorities that have been cited and after discussing the matter fully with the Clerk and his assistants I have to come to the same conclusion that the matter may still be considered by the house, then it will be on the order paper tomorrow.
Now, immediately after the termination of the discussion yesterday I asked the Clerk to prepare a written opinion on the matter. As hon. members know, I left the chair at some time after four o'clock yesterday afternoon, and I must admit that I did not have as much time as I would have liked to consider the points that have been raised. There are many witnesses who can testify as to where I was last evening, and I want to say that, like all those who were there, I found the evening most enjoyable. This morning it was my pleasure and privilege to meet two groups, one of students and another of members of a very well known service club in Montreal, and I received other persons. Therefore, I have not had very much time, but the Clerk, fortunately for us, has spent most of his time since four o'clock yesterday afternoon on the matter, and he gave to me around one o'clock this afternoon the following opinion:
Dear Mr. Speaker:
With reference to the proceedings on the government notice of motion respecting the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation, the following observations are submitted for your consideration.
On Tuesday, May 8, the new notice was received from the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, and as is usual in every case, I carefully considered the matter before I authorized the printing of the new notice at the back of the Votes and Proceedings.
The new measure contained provisions not provided for in the original resolution and since it would not be in order, without unanimous consent, to propose the new provisions as amendments to the initial resolution in committee of the whole, the second resolution, in my opinion, presented a new proposition.
In regard to the moving of amendments to a money resolution, May's fifteenth edition, page 750, states:

"Accordingly, in this case the committee's power of amendment is strictly limited to reduction of the demand thereby made. This limitation on the power of proposing amendments applies equally to ministers of the crown as to unofficial members"-
There is no rule that I know of which prohibits the presentation of two money resolutions relating to the same subject and containing different provisions. In the second session of 1945, two resolutions relating to the Senate and House of Commons Act were on the order paper at the same time. The resolution, presented secondly, was adopted in committee of the whole and, subsequently, the order for the consideration of the one first presented was discharged. (See Journals, 1945, second session, p. 481).
There are several cases where money resolutions have been amended by means of supplementary resolutions before the consideration of the initial resolution was undertaken in committee of the whole. For examples of such amendments see Journals, 1926-7, pp. 213-15; also 1932-3, p. 431; also 1945, second session, p. 370; also 1951, first session, p. 322. On the other hand, an extensive search of the Journals has failed to produce a precedent wherein a supplementary resolution has been introduced to amend a resolution which had been partially considered in committee of the whole.
It is my contention that a money resolution is an integral and inseparable part of a money bill and that the stages of such bills include any necessary financial resolutions. May's fifteenth edition, page 503, in a paragraph entitled "Synopsis of Stages of a Bill", states that "such stages may be taken to include the stages of any necessary financial resolution".
At page 487 of the same authority, it is also stated:
"A certain class of bills, the main object of which is the expenditure of money or the imposition of taxation, must, in accordance with the requirements of the standing orders regarding charges on the people, originate in committee of the whole house".
Beauchesne's third edition, citation 433, in part, reads as follows:
"All bills providing for the payment of salaries or for any expenditure whatever out of the public funds of the dominion must be first considered as resolutions in committee of the whole" . . .
Consequently, in my opinion, a money resolution is subject to the principle which permits the presentation of two or more bills relating to the same object, provided that when a decision is rendered upon one proposal, the other measure cannot be proceeded with.
In the fifteenth edition of May at page 499, it is stated:
"There is no rule or custom which restrains the presentation of two or more bills relating to the same subject, and containing similar provisions. But if a decision of the house has already been taken on one such bill, for example, if the bill has been given or refused a second reading, the other is not proceeded with if it contains substantially the same provisions" . . .
Bourinot at page 548 of his fourth edition states:
"Whilst a bill is still pending, and until it is completely disposed of, there is nothing whatever to prevent another bill for the same object being introduced" . . . No objection can be raised to the introduction of a bill into the House of Commons on the ground of there being a similar bill already before the house.
It is the rejection and not the pendency of a bill that creates a difficulty as to the ulterior proceedings" . . .
Business of the House
The memorandum concludes:
In view of the foregoing, it is my duty to recommend that the notice of the proposed new resolution be printed as a government notice of motion on Thursday's order paper.
Respectfully submitted,
Leon J. Raymond,
Clerk of the House.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I submit that in connection with the proceedings before us we have covered the ground fairly fully. There may be many added arguments to be put forward but I would point out that what happens in this case is in effect an amendment to a motion already before the house and under debate.
Whatever may be the form, the fact is that the core of the new motion now put on the order paper is precisely the same; that is, to set up a crown corporation.
The new motion adds certain additional powers or rather proposes that certain additional powers shall be given to the crown corporation, but basically it is a motion to set up a crown corporation for a particular purpose.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the precedents have already been stated that the position is clear that you cannot achieve by indirection what is not permitted by a direct course. In this case it is not possible to amend except by the procedure laid down, as you pointed out yesterday.
I submit that in this case the net result is to permit an amendment rather than a completely new motion, if this motion is actually permitted to stand on the order paper.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, the point I wish to take up at first is the point which you yourself mentioned as your first point in the course of the reading of the memorandum from the Clerk.
In discussing this memorandum and the decision made I want to make it quite clear that we are addressing our remarks to Your Honour. As I understand it you have made your decision on the matter as your own decision.
You referred first to a citation in May's fifteenth edition at page 750 in which the question of amending or altering a money resolution was being discussed. You relied upon that portion of the paragraph on page 750 to establish the proposition that it was perfectly within the powers of the house or committee to amend such resolution, although the powers were limited. The extraordinary thing about your ruling in so far as it is based upon that citation is that you stopped

Business of the House at the very point at which, had you proceeded, you would have found that May entirely supports our proposition. Therefore I think I should read the whole paragraph, which is as follows:
Under the method prescribed by S.O. No. 84, the resolution which has received the King's recommendation is the resolution actually considered by the committee. Accordingly, in this case the committee's power of amendment is strictly limited to reduction of the demand thereby made. This limitation on the power of proposing amendments applies equally to ministers of the crown as to unofficial members.
That is the point at which Your Honour stopped. However, May continues:
If the government themselves wish to extend, or to accept amendments extending, the charge thus proposed to a committee, it is necessary to withdraw the resolution and submit another containing the desired modification, as was done in the case of the coal mines bill, 1929-30, and the agricultural marketing bill, 1930-31.
Our argument yesterday and today has been that the only way by which the government can introduce a new or modified proposal is to withdraw by whatever method may be open to them the resolution now standing on the order paper, the first resolution standing on the order paper, and submit a new one. I would hope that Your Honour would not base your ruling on the very narrow point that what May was referring to was, to use his words, to extend the charge thus proposed to a committee, in the sense that your ruling would apply only if the government were seeking to increase the amount of money asked for. That would place an entirely unduly restrictive interpretation upon the authority. What the government is seeking to do here actually is to substitute-


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -hon. members should not be mpatient-for a resolution containing a li-nitation on the amount to be granted another resolution which provides that while the amount to be loaned by the Minister of Finance to the corporation cannot exceed $130 million, the purposes for which the money can be used are entirely different from the purposes for which the first resolution would give authority to lend money. So in effect you have an extension of the charge and you have a complete extension of the purposes of the resolution with respect to the use to be made of the money to be provided by your bill.
Your Honour has referred us to a passage in Bourinot with respect to bills indicating it is possible to introduce another bill dealing with the same subject as a bill presently before the house. On that point may I refer ycm to May at page 500? This passage depends,


of course, on the passage referred to yesterday at page 499 where May himself says that bills with the same purpose as other bills of the same session may be introduced. But, in giving examples of the occasions upon which members have been allowed to introduce bills dealing with the same subject matter as other bills of that session, May himself points out at page 500 that one of the grounds upon which the Speaker ruled that such a bill might be introduced was that it had been introduced before the decision of the house had been taken on the earlier bill. Perhaps I should read the citation at the top of page 500:
Objection was taken on 20 July 1870, that one of the objects of a bill then under discussion was to effect the repeal of an act, a proposal which the house had negatived during that session, and that therefore the bill could not be considered, but the Speaker overruled the objection. As he pointed out, the bill had been introduced before the house had arrived at that decision . . .
So he made his ruling there dependent on the fact that the second bill had been introduced before the house had arrived at any decision on the first resolution. Our point here is that the second resolution is being introduced after the house has arrived at a decision with respect to the first resolution, so that the authority of May and Beauchesne with respect to the bills is clearly not applicable in this case, because a decision has already been arrived at with respect to the resolution.
On that point, because I see Your Honour shaking his head-and I take it you disagree with my position that a decision of the house has been arrived at with respect to the resolution-let me go back to Campion, page 178, the reference given by yourself yesterday. It was Your Honour's point yesterday, as I understand it, that no decision of the house has been taken with respect to this resolution, and therefore we cannot rely on our part on the grounds that a decision has been taken, and this new one asks the house to repeat a decision already taken. This, of course, has reference to the rule against anticipation. I want to deal with that at this stage. Campion states:
The anticipation rule, which forbids discussion on a matter standing on the paper being forestalled, is dependent on the same principle as that which forbids the same question being twice raised in the same session.


Mr. Pickersgill:: That applies to the hon. gentleman's speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When the first proposed resolution was committed for decision by the committee of the whole, there was a question before the house. The question was: "Shall the Speaker leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee on the proposed resolution?" The proposed resolution

was before us on the order paper and, that question being put to the house and a division being called, the house by a majority vote decided that question in the affirmative. The question was: "Does this house want the Speaker to leave the chair so that the committee can embark upon consideration of the proposed resolution?" This house decided by a majority vote that it did want that to take place.
Now this house, by the resolution that now appears on the order paper at page 2, is being asked to make the same decision again. The same question is being submitted: "Does this house want the Speaker to leave the chair in order to go into committee to consider a proposed resolution?" The proposed resolution embraces exactly the same considerations as are embraced in the original resolution.
I do not want to take too much of the time of the house, Mr. Speaker, but it would be interesting to know just why it is that hon. members say we are not being asked to decide the same question as we were asked to decide before. Let us read the two resolutions and compare them. The resolution that we were faced with on March 15 reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the constitution of the corporation to be known as the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation for the purposes, inter alia, of constructing, maintaining and operating a natural gas pipe line between the Ontario-Manitoba border and Kapuskasing, Ontario and of leasing, with an option to purchase, the said natural gas pipe line to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited-


Mr. Tucker:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out that we are now discussing a point of order.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am rising on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes; but a point of order cannot be raised on another point of order, I am sorry to say.


Walter Adam Tucker: Then I rise on a question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: To continue:
-and carrying out such leases, including the disposal by the corporation of the said pipe line in connection with such purchase option;-


Walter Adam Tucker: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) rises on a question of privilege, I am obliged to listen to him.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of privilege, I suggest, arising out of the violation of the rules by the hon. member who has just been speaking.


Mr. Fleming:: That is a point of order, not a question of privilege.
Business of the House


Walter Adam Tucker: He is insisting that the rules be adhered to. I think he should be ready to have the rules applied to him if he wants them applied in this regard. I cite to Your Honour standing order 12 which definitely lays it down as follows:
Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the house without debate.


Mr. Sinclair:: Without debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a bogus question of privilege.


Walter Adam Tucker: The rule states "without debate". The Speaker has made a ruling in this matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, he has not.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, he has.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I listened carefully to the point raised by the hon. member for Rosthern. So far I have read an opinion from the Clerk. Because hon. members have indicated their willingness to discuss the matter of order, I have acceded to their wishes. I should like to say this, however. Hon. members should be reasonable, should make their point as briefly as possible, and should speak to the point of order.
There is another matter on which I should like to make my position clear. If there are 15 hon. members who would like to take part in this debate on the point of order, I want to say that I will reduce the number considerably. I would point out that I am not obliged to listen to advice on a ruling that I want to give. The standing order says that I may listen to arguments presented. That word "may" is not mandatory; it is permissive. However, in the execution of my duties I have always felt that it was preferable, in order to maintain the good will of the house, to listen to the arguments which may be presented on a point of order that is raised. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) raised the point of order. I understand that the hon. member for Kamloops is now completing the stating of the point of order. I will listen to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and to the leader of the C.C.F. party if he wishes to speak. I will listen to the leader of the Social Credit party if he wishes to speak and to one member of his party besides. I will listen to two members of the party on my right if they wish to take part in this debate. Following that I want to indicate that I will be more than ready to give my ruling.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I was just endeavouring-


Walter Adam Tucker: On a question of privilege, I want to point out to Your Honour-
3756	HOUSE OF
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: No, no. At the moment I must tell the hon. member that his question of privilege is a fraudulent one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the question of whether or not this resolution that we are now asked to commit to the committee of the whole raises the same question as that which was before the house on an earlier occasion. I assume this time that hon. members opposite have read both resolutions, a position which they apparently did not enjoy yesterday. Hence I will not proceed further with the reading of the resolution. However, I will say that a comparison of the two resolutions indicates that they are in exactly the same terms, paragraph by paragraph, with the addition of only one new paragraph in the new resolution. We are therefore being asked to make the same decision as was made on an earlier question, and that is this: Does this house desire that the Speaker leave the chair so that these terms may be referred to the committee of the whole for discussion? Those of us who think that the Speaker should not leave the chair for that purpose and that we should not proceed one day, one hour, one minute or one inch with the government's proposal will be faced with the necessity of making the same decision as we made and on which we voted on an earlier occasion. Those opposite who think that the proposal should be proceeded with and should be proceeded with as soon as possible will be faced with the same question for decision and it is extremely likely that they will be required once again to vote on that question. How then could it be more clear that the same question is going to be before the house again for decision if the motion now standing on the order paper is allowed to stand there and be submitted to the house for its decision in due course?
If Your Honour-as you did-places considerable reliance on Campion with respect to the rule of anticipation and the application of the rule, then I submit on that ground alone, even if the others did not exist, it is clearly out of order for this resolution to remain on the order paper because Campion says that the principle is one which forbids the same question being raised twice in the same session. Hence there are three points, as I see it. The way for the government to deal with the problem is not to introduce an amendment, because that procedure is out of order on the basis of the authority of May; and not to introduce some resolution which raises the same question-for even although something additional may be added to it, there is still the same question for decision-because that offends the rule against anticipation. In short. I submit that
{Mr. Tucker.]

the only way for the government to resolve its dilemma is to comply with the rules of order and to rely on the authority of May, page 750, which states the thing more clearly than anything else could state it and with which I will therefore conclude:
If the government themselves wish to extend, or to accept amendments extending, the charge thus proposed to a committee, it is necessary to withdraw the resolution and submit another containing the desired modification, . . .


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to make it clear that in arguing with the memorandum that Your Honour has read, I am, with great respect, arguing with you rather than with our esteemed friend who prepared the memorandum for you. I am also in the fortunate position, I believe, of being able to address my remarks to the statements which you made in reading from that memorandum. In other words, my homework since yesterday has been along parallel lines. If I may say so, I believe I am in a position to answer all of the points that you made a few minutes ago. I may add, Mr. Speaker, that I will be calling some rather eminent authorities, not only the books to which we usually refer, but I shall also quote either the words or the actions of Right Hon. James Ilsley, Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, Hon. Walter Harris and Hon. Louis Rene Beaudoin, than whom one could hardly find better authorities.
You said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that this new motion was regarded as containing new matter and therefore as a new motion that it was in a category sufficiently different from the first one that it was proper to place it on the order paper. I am not now arguing with the fact it is on the order paper because that decision has been made, and it is there. What I am contending on this point of order is that Your Honour should not put the question to the house. The fact of the matter is that the new motion contains all that was in the previous motion plus additional matter, which makes it, along the lines of a precedent to which 1 will refer in a moment, substantially the same as the one already on the order paper.
Your Honour has quoted the authorities and made the assertion that there is no rule against the presentation or the introduction of two bills or two resolutions on the same subject matter. That is a correct statement based on the authorities, but I would point out that in May's fifteenth edition, at page 499 where the quotation appears, the word "presentation" is in italics. In other words, there is a distinction between being permitted

to present two resolutions or two bills dealing with the same subject and being permitted to proceed with two bills or two resolutions dealing with the same subject matter. That is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce is now asking the house to do. The house has already proceeded to a certain extent with this first resolution and he is asking, by the motion which he has now made, to proceed with the second resolution which is substantially the same as the first in that it includes everything that is in the first resolution plus some additional material.
From that point, sir, you moved on to quote a precedent which it so happens is one of the precedents upon which I rely for my side of the argument. When I quote the words of Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, I think it will be made clear that this witness is mine rather than yours. The reference you made, sir, was to the bill amending the Senate and House of Commons Act in the second session of 1945. All members who were here at that time will have vivid memories of that bill which was the one that provided for our $2,000 expense allowance. May I remind hon. members what happened. Mr. King put the resolution on the order paper quite early in the session and it remained there for quite a number of weeks. Finally, after considerable discussion mainly out of the house, the government decided to change that resolution and substitute for it a different resolution which had in it everything that was in the first resolution plus some additional material. I emphasize the fact that that is exactly what is before us now.
In 1945 there was a resolution that called for certain expenditures and a substitute resolution calling for those original expenditures plus something further. The first resolution on this matter went a certain distance and the second went that distance plus a little more. What did Mr. King, that master of parliamentary finesse, do when he had to deal with this matter in 1945? Up until December 12, the first resolution was still on the order paper and it was the only one on the order paper. On the night of December 12, Hon. Ian Mackenzie, who was house leader, in moving the adjournment of the house, said this:
Tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock the Prime Minister will ask the house to consider No. 7 on the order paper of today-
I have that session's order papers here and No. 7 on the order paper of that day was the first resolution on the expense allowance proposition. Mr. Mackenzie went on:
-in regard to allowances to members of parliament for expenses incidental to the discharge of their
Business of the House
duties. I believe the Prime Minister will ask that the present order be discharged and a resolution relating to both houses substituted therefor.
Accordingly the next day, December 13, under notices of motions, although the second or substitute resolution appeared in Votes and Proceedings only on December 12, the very next day, without waiting the 48 hours, Mr. King who was then prime minister asked the consent of the house to move the second resolution. Now, in your memorandum, sir, you do include the sentence that the first motion was subsequently withdrawn, but please note what Mr. King said when he asked the consent of the house to move a substitute resolution. I will not read all of it because all of us who know Mr. King know the statement would be rather lengthy. This is what he said, as recorded at page 3412 of Hansard for December 13, 1945:
At this late stage of the session, Mr. Speaker, I may have to ask the house for its unanimous consent to allow me to proceed a little more rapidly with consideration of the motion now before us than might otherwise be the case. When the orders of the day are reached I shall ask that the house allow the motion No. 7, which is now in its possession, to be withdrawn and the order to be discharged.
Note these words:
I make that intention known immediately so that we may be in a position to discuss the resolution that now appears under government notices of motion.
In other words, Mr. King knew he could not ask the house to proceed with the second notice of motion unless the house was prepared to give unanimous consent to the withdrawal of the first notice of motion. The house took a more liberal attitude toward that subject than it is taking towards pipe lines; consent was given and the house moved on.
So much for my calling Mr. King as a witness. As I say, he was very careful, very astute about these things. He took no chances that the house might use its rule about unanimous consent to block any measure that he was anxious to get through.
Now, I said I would also bring in as one of my witnesses the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris).


Mr. Harris:: You had better be very careful of that one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance, when he was minister of citizenship and immigration in 1952, was responsible for certain bills having to do with redistribution. I know someone may say that these were not money bills, but the principle is exactly the same as to whether or not it is possible for the house to proceed any distance at all with two measures that are in the same

Business of the House general field. I do not quarrel with your assertion, sir, that it is in order to present two bills, even though they may be exactly identical, but I do quarrel with the right of the house to proceed on more than one of them. It is my contention that the house has already proceeded to a considerable extent with the first resolution and the motion now before us is that we proceed a stage with the resolution now before us.
On March 10, 1952, as reported at page 246 of Hansard, first reading was given to Bill No. 8 known as the Representation Act. After considerable discussion of the matter in a special committee on redistribution it was agreed in that committee that there should be a different bill, and on June 25, 1952, the present Minister of Finance, in his capacity then as minister of citizenship and immigration, asked for leave to withdraw Bill No. 8 so that he might introduce a new bill, Bill No. 393. I am sure that you, sir, and all the house will agree with me that the Minister of Finance is also very careful; he tries not to get into trouble. This is what he said, as recorded at page 3690 of Hansard of June 25, 1952:
I presume that if leave is given to introduce this bill it will also be necessary to ask for leave to withdraw Bill No. 8.
Now, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that puts the present Minister of Finance in bed with Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, and both of them were quite clear that though two bills, indeed more than two bills, regarding the same matter could be presented to the house, you cannot proceed to deal with bills or resolutions that involve the same proposal contained in a bill on which the house has already proceeded to any extent.
I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I would make reference to Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley. I do that very briefly because I gave this example yesterday, but I also give it in rebuttal to your statement that no cases could be found of a resolution partially considered and a change being made along the lines that I suggested yesterday. Well, Mr. Speaker, that, too, happened in 1945 because on October 9 of that year, as recorded on page 827 of Hansard, Mr. Ilsley moved a resolution preceding a bill to amend the National Housing Act. Later, on December 3 of the same year, as recorded on page 2829, when the government had decided to extend the provisions of that bill beyond what was included in the first resolution, exactly what the Minister of Trade and Commerce wants to do now, what did Mr. Ilsley do? Did he do what the present minister is doing? No, he brought in a resolution, as found on page


2829 of Hansard of December 3, 1945, asking the house to amend the resolution of October 9, 1945. So, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ilsley joins the company of the elect who have made it crystal clear that you cannot violate the rule of repetition; you cannot violate the rule of anticipation, even if you sit on the government benches.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I said that I would also quote a very outstanding authority in the person of Hon. Louis Rene Beaudoin who, on April 19, 1955, at page 2973, said this to me:
Well, the hon. member of course will agree that we cannot anticipate a debate which has been put on the order paper for consideration at a later date.
I could of course give pages almost without number, where the same eminent authority has-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member be good enough to repeat the page number.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Page 2973 of Hansard for April 19, 1955.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member tell me what was the matter under consideration at the moment? Was that a bill, or a resolution, or what was it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has slipped my mind for the moment. I have not room to have all my books here. If Your Honour is asking whether it related specifically to a second resolution or a second bill being proceeded with, I think not. I think it related to repetition in debate, and Your Honour has raised that point a good many times. You have raised it, sir, this year in the debates on small loans; you have raised it in debates on wheat taking place both on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and on the government's bill regarding bank loans. It has repeatedly been Your Honour's contention that there should not be two debates on the same subject before the house at the same time.
Well, sir, what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is asking is that this house by motion instruct the committee of the whole to ascribe on its agenda two debates which are practically identical. They are debates which could not possibly be carried on together without considerable overlapping and duplication.
Oh, yes, I must not fail to give one or two other examples.


Mr. MacDougall:: Quote from another one that is in your pocket.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am awfully pleased to have the interruption of the hon. member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) because my next example involves him. He too will have the opportunity to join the company of the elect and be with us on the correct side of this issue. On February 7, 1955, as recorded at page 894 of Hansard, it is indicated that a certain order was reached. It was in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard and it had to do with war veterans allowances. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, sir, stood up to say one word, just one word; the word was "stand". Your Honour rose to your feet and said:
I do not think I will allow the hon. member to let his notice of motion stand.
You went on, sir, to point out that not only that motion but the motions of several other hon. members-I think three altogether-that dealt with the question of war veterans allowances would be handled in the same way. Since there was a government notice of motion on the order paper having to do with war veterans allowances you, sir, would not even allow the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard to have his notice of motion stand. You said that it had to be withdrawn from the order paper. You quoted the same authority that was thrown at us yesterday, namely, Campion. You quoted from Campion at page 144 where he says that certain items were inadmissible, and this is within quotation marks in your own words on that occasion:
Such as matters anticipating an order of the day.
What more clearly anticipates an order of the day than the motion which the Minister of Trade and Commerce seeks to move at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member whether he remembers the type of notice of motion? Was it a notice of motion in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, that is what I said.


Mr. Speaker:: A private member's notice of motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A private member's notice of motion; but there are some rules around here that apply equally to private members and government members, and I think there is no problem here. As I say, this motion was not only dropped from the order paper by your direction from the chair, the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, but the motions of two or three other members were also dropped. Two days later, on February 9, 1955, as recorded at page 985 of Hansard, you gave the same treatment to another one. I do not have it in my notes, but I think it was a motion in the name of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor).
Business of the House This year, on January 30, 1956, Your Honour gave the same treatment to a motion in the name of the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy), as recorded in Hansard of that date; and so I might go on. The records are full of instances where such items have been allowed to reach the order paper, but Your Honour has refused to allow them to go one inch farther because of the rule that though more than one bill dealing with the same matter may be introduced, though more than one bill or resolution may be presented, it cannot be proceeded with. That is what the minister now seeks to do. I submit, Mr. Speaker, with the conviction that I am right, despite what you said about such an attitude yesterday, that what this house has already done is to start proceedings on the resolution of the Minister of Trade and Commerce; it has moved it from the government notices of motion stage to the government order stage, and it has moved it a stage farther into committee of the whole, and we have had a debate on it. The house has already proceeded with that resolution. The Minister of Trade and Commerce today- if there is any culprit around today it is, of course, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, not Your Honour-is trying to move up one stage another resolution which is substantially the same; and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that for the government to try to do this is playing fast and loose with the rules and privileges of this house, and we should not stand for it. The rule books point out very clearly that when a controversial issue comes before the house-I believe it is in citation No. 1 of Beauchesne's third edition-the government and the opposition are equalized. I believe what is meant is that they are equalized in the sense that the government always has its majority to rely on and the government can always win in the end by the use of that majority, but the opposition has a particular protection under the rules and forms of the house.
I insist we should have the right not to have the rule which we are not permitted to violate, violated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That is my contention.
I have spoken to a good many points of order during the last fourteen years but seldom have I been so convinced as I am today that you should not put this question to the house.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, you were good enough to say that you would see me if I rose at this stage of the debate. I may say that such an irrefutable case has been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that I have nothing further to say.

Business of the House


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated to enter into such a technical discussion and I am afraid I shall not add much to it that will in any way clarify the situation. I assure you, sir, that I have read very carefully what took place in this house yesterday. I listened carefully to the memorandum given to Your Honour by the Clerk which you read into the record today and I have listened attentively to what has been said by those who have attempted to make a case here today.
Again I say it is an extremely technical discussion. It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, the authorities that have been cited are at variance one with another. There is no clear-cut case for either side in the argument although I am personally inclined to believe that we had better place our reliance upon Campion rather than upon May.
Our rules, it seems to me, are for two main purposes: (a) for the orderly dispatch of public business and (b) for the protection of the rights of minorities.
1 can see no way in which what the government proposes by way of placing this second resolution on the order paper interferes with the rights of minorities; consequently, it would appear to me to be the better part of judgment in such a case to fall back upon the adage that this house is the master of its own procedure, and to settle the whole argument by having Your Honour put the question and give hon. members a chance to say how they wish to vote. When that time comes, Mr. Speaker, I will indicate how I shall vote.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the government nothing to say?


Mr. Speaker:: I want to say now that I greatly appreciate the careful preparation of the case which has been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think he has proved one point indubitably by quoting at length what Mr. King had done in 1945 because at that time Mr. King was asking the house to proceed with another resolution when there was one on the order paper. Such is the case today. At that time another one was on its way. This illustrates the point that was stressed by the memorandum given to me by the Clerk that there was no obstacle to the presentation of the resolution. No one objected when it appeared on the order paper. No one objected during the 48 hours it was there serving its notice time. No one objected when it appeared on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, just one slight correction.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just to keep the record straight, there were only 24 hours between the giving of the notice and the time it reached the house on that occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: Nevertheless no one objected to having the two resolutions come up and therefore the point was made in the memorandum prepared by the Clerk that there should be no objection to the presentation of two resolutions on the same subject.
The hon. member argued that the resolution which is now under government notices of motions and the other one under government orders are two similar resolutions. The point is made in the memorandum of the Clerk that in his view it is a different resolution. We can argue this at great length but the fact remains that there is, in our standing orders, standing order No. 18. I am not going to use my own version; I am going to take Redlich about whose work in The Procedure of The House of Commons the greatest compliments have been made. I am quoting from volume 3 at page 17:
There is yet one more regulation as to arrangement which finally establishes the commanding position of the government. Standing order 5-
In the United Kingdom, which is our standing order 18.
-provides: "On days on which government business has priority, the government may arrange such government business, whether orders of the day or notices of motion, in such order as they may think fit".
Under this order the government have the power at all times of arranging their parliamentary action in accordance with the political and administrative needs of the moment, without having to ask for the consent of the members of the house, or even of their own party. They occupy the house on government days to suit their own convenience, and in accordance with the requirements of their own political strategy.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask how that is relevant to this particular discussion?


Mr. Speaker:: Concerning its relevancy, I say this. Hon. members will recall that earlier I made the point that there should be no objection to the presentation of the resolution-because that point has been made. But now we are faced with the resolution on the order paper and are about to take the motion that the house do go into committee at the next sitting of the house in order to consider the following proposed resolution. Then it will go on the order paper and it will be a government order. The only reason we have to appoint another day for the house to go into committee of the whole at the next sitting is because of standing order 61 and the requirement of the royal recommendation is also contained in the British North America Act.

If the two proposals are similar the government will have two orders on the government order paper. It will have, let us say, No. 7 and No. 15. Are there any requirements under the rules anywhere-
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) apparently did not understand the reasoning I have just presented.


Major James William Coldwell: I am following it very carefully, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot understand the logic of it.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member does not understand the logic of it so far but I am very hopeful that he will in the end.
At that moment there will be two items under government orders, let us say item No. 7, the old resolution, and let us say item No. 15, this one. If, then, a member of the government moves that the order be discharged, one of the two-I want to make a distinction. The presentation of resolutions on the order paper by way of notice as our rules require to bring them to a stage where they can be taken up and the proceeding with the two resolutions so as to avoid duplication of debate are different propositions.
I want to assure hon. members they will not proceed with the two resolutions; they will proceed only with one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But this is a proceeding today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They have proceeded with one.


An hon. Member:: Can the Speaker not be heard?


Mr. Speaker:: At that moment one of the two may be superseded. One may be taken up in committee of the whole and a motion may be made that the chairman do leave the chair without reporting, which kills the resolu-lution, or a motion may be made that the order be discharged and, as hon. members know, a motion that the order be discharged is not debatable. I should like to quote a motion moved by Hon. Mr. Stein which appears in Hansard of May 30, 1921, page 4107, as follows:


Mr. Adolphe Stein (Kamouraska) moved:: "That the order for further consideration in committee of the whole house of Bill No. 120, intituled 'An act for the relief of Alphonse LeMoyne de Martigny' be discharged, and that the said bill, together with the evidence taken before the divorce committee of the Senate, be referred back to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills for further consideration, with instruction that the said committee have power to hear further evidence concerning the facts set forth in the preamble of the said bill."


Mr. Speaker:: I think there is no question that this motion is quite in order. Perhaps X had better point out at this stage that the motion is not debatable, under rule 17A.
That is now standing order 32. I would refer hon. members to page 478 of the
Business of the House Journals of 1953-54 where the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) moved:
That the order of the house in respect of item numbered 6 under the heading, "Government Orders" on today's "Order Paper", be discharged and that leave be granted to withdraw the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act to provide for the carrying on of research and production activities in the atomic energy field by a minister or by companies reporting to a minister . . .
And the question being put on the said motion, it was agreed to.
The point at issue is, should the motion to discharge item No. 7, and I am taking a number from the air-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is order No. 13.


Mr. Speaker:: Should the motion to remove item No. 13 on the order paper have been made before the notice of motion was placed? The hon. member says yes. The memorandum which I have read is to the effect that a decision rendered about a certain matter will block the introduction of further legislation, but not the pendency of a measure until its second reading has been disposed of. There is nothing to prevent another bill on the same subject being introduced, and I refer hon. members to page 499 of May's fifteenth edition. I refer also to the following to be found on the same page:
There is no rule or custom which restrains the presentation of two or more bills relating to the same subject, and containing similar provisions. But if a decision of the house has already been taken on one such bill, for example, if the bill has been given or refused a second reading, the other is not proceeded with if it contains substantially the same provisions.
The distinction is between presentation and proceeding. I suggest that as far as presentation is concerned you can go as far as second reading, but as far as proceeding with it and providing the opportunity of debate are concerned, then the rulings of mine which the hon. member has quoted are pretty good. I have made rulings about repetition and duplication and I would certainly rule again if the government should attempt to proceed on a parallel basis with the two items. One would have to be pending at one point or another, there is no question about it; they could not proceed with the two, that is certain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what is happening here. The house is being asked to proceed with the second one.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and all hon. members who have taken part in this debate have done so with the utmost sincerity, but I say to them that I am in exactly the same position. It

Business of the House
is my duty to make a ruling and I base my ruling on the information I have received from the Clerk. I concur in the opinion that he has expressed.


George Alexander Drew: With deference, I appeal your ruling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect, I do likewise.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Drew has appealed the ruling I have just made. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Before I put the motion- this is merely a technical point-I am just wondering on what the point of order has been raised, because there is no motion before the house. I think that the motion should have been placed before the house, and then the discussion of the point of order should have taken place after the motion was proposed from the chair.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it was an appeal from your ruling that it go on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I can put the matter straight now-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe we are under standing order-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: -by saying that government notices of motions having been called, Mr. Drew raised the point of order that it is not in order to proceed with a government notice of motion since a similar proposition stands on the order paper for consideration in the committee of the whole. I ruled that it was in order to present a proposition dealing with the same subject matter when it contained additional provisions. From this ruling Mr. Drew and others appealed for the ruling of the house.
The house divided on the question: Shall the Speaker's decision be sustained? And the decision of the Chair was sustained on the following division:
YEAS Messrs:
Blanchette Boisvert Bonnier Boucher Bourget Breton
Anderson
Applewhaite
Ashbourne
Batten
Bennett
Blackmore
Brisson
Brown (Brantford)
Brown (Essex West)
Bruneau
Buchanan
Byrne
Cameron (High Park)
Campney
Cardin
Caron
Carrick
Carter
Cauchon
Cavers
Cloutier
Dechene
Decore
Denis
Deschatelets
Deslieres
Dickey
Dumas
Dupuis
Eyre
Fairey
Follwell
Forgie
Fraser (St. John's East)
Gagnon
Gardiner
Garson
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Gauthier (Portneuf)
Gingues
Girard
Gour (Russell)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Gregg
Habel
Hahn
Hanna
Hansell
Hardie
Harris
Harrison
Healy
Hellyer
Henderson
Henry
Hollingworth
Holowach
Houck
Howe (Port Arthur)
Huffman
James
Johnston (Bow River) Jutras
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Shelbume-Y armouth-Clare) Laflamme
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere)
Langlois (Gaspe)
Lapointe
Lavigne
Leboe
Leduc (Gatineau)
Leduc (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle)
Leduc (Verdun)
Lefranqois
Lesage
Low
Lusby
MacDougall
MacEachen
MacKenzie
MacNaught
Macnaughton
McCann
McCubbin
McCulloch (Pictou)
Mcllraith
Mclvor
McLeod
McMillan
Mang
Marler
Martin
Menard
Meunier
Mitchell (Sudbury)
Murphy (Westmorland)
Nixon
Patterson
Pearson
Philpott
Pickersgill
Pommer
Poulin
Power (St. John's West)
Proudfoot
Purdy
Quelch
Ratelle
Reinke
Richard (Ottawa East)
Roberge
Robertson
Robichaud
Robinson (Simcoe East) Ross
St. Laurent (Quebec East)
St. Laurent (Temis-couata)
Schneider Shipley, Mrs.
Simmons
Sinclair
Smith (Battle River-Camrose)
Stick
Studer
Thatcher
Thibault
Thomas
Tucker
Viau
Vincent
Weaver
Weir
Weselak
White (Waterloo South)
Winters
Wylie
Yuill-144.
Aitken, Miss
Argue
Barnett
Bell
Blair
Bryce
NAYS Messrs:
Bryson
Cameron (Nanaimo)
Campbell
Cardiff
Castleden
Charlton

Churchill
Coldwell
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale
Drew
Dufresne
Fairclough, Mrs.
Fleming
Fraser (Peterborough) Fulton.
Gillis
Green
Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace)
Hamilton (York West)
Harkness
Hees
Herridge
Hodgson
Howe (Wellington-Huron)
Johnson (Kindersley)
Jones
Knight
Knowles
Lennard
Macdonnell
Maclnnis
McBain
McCullough (Moose Mountain)
McGregor Mitchell (London) Monteith Montgomery
Murphy (Lambton West)
Nesbitt
Nicholson
Pallett
Pearkes
Rea
Regier
Robinson (Bruce)
Small
Stanton
Starr
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Tustin Van Horne White (Hastings-Frontenac)
White (Middlesex East)
Winch
Zaplitny-62.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the Speaker's ruling sustained.



MOTION THAT ORDERS OF THE DAY BE NOW READ

Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of standing order 44 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair):
That the orders of the day be now read.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Fulton) which was negatived on the following division:
YEAS Messrs:
Aitken, Miss
Argue
Barnett
Bell
Blair
Bryce
Bryson
Cameron (Nanaimo)
Campbell
Cardiff
Castleden
Charlton
Churchill
Coldwell
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale
Drew
Dufresne
Ellis
Fairclough, Mrs. Fleming
Fraser (Peterborough)
Fulton
Green
Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace)
Hamilton (York West)
Harkness
Hees
Herridge
Hodgson
Howe (Wellington-Huron)
Johnson (Kindersley)
Jones
Knight
Knowles
Lennard
Macdonnell
Maclnnis
McBain
McCullough (Moose Mountain)
McGregor Mitchell (London) Monteith Montgomery
Murphy (Lambton West)
Nesbitt
Nicholson
Pallett
Pearkes
Rea
Regier
Robinson (Bruce)
Small
Stanton
Starr
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Tustin Van Horne
Business of the House White (Hastings-	Winch
Frontenac)	Zaplitny-62.
White (Middlesex East)
++NAYS
Messrs:
Anderson
Applewhaite
Ashbourne
Batten
Bennett
Blackmore
Blanchette
Boisvert
Bonnier
Boucher
Bourget
Breton
Brisson
Brown (Brantford)
Brown (Essex West)
Bruneau
Buchanan
Byrne
Cameron (High Park)
Campney
Cardin
Caron
Carrick
Carter
Cauchon
Cavers
Cloutier
Dechene
Decore
Denis
Deschatelets
Deslieres
Dickey
Dumas
Dupuis
Eyre
Fairey
Follwell
Forgie
Fraser (St. John's East)
Gagnon
Gardiner
Garson
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Gauthier (Portneuf) Gingues Girard
Gour (Russell)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Gregg
Habel
Hahn
Hanna
Hansell
Hardie
Harris
Harrison
Healy
Hellyer
Henderson
Henry
Hollingworth
Holowach
Houck
Howe (Port Arthur)
Huffman
James
Johnston (Bow River) Jutras
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare)
Laflamme
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere)
Langlois (Gaspe) Lapointe Lavigne Leboe
Leduc (Gatineau)
Leduc (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle)
Leduc (Verdun)
Lefrangois
Lesage
Low
Lusby
MacDougall
MacEachen
MacKenzie
MacNaught
Macnaughton
McCann
McCubbin
McCulloch (Pictou)
Mcllraith
Mclvor
McLeod
McMillan
Mang
Marler
Martin
Matheson
Menard
Meunier
Mitchell (Sudbury)
Murphy (Westmorland)
Nixon
Patterson
Pearson
Philpott
Pickersgill
Pommer
Poulin
Power (St. John's West)
Proudfoot
Purdy
Quelch
Ratelle
Reinke
Richard (Ottawa East) Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Roberge
Robertson
Robichaud
Robinson (Simcoe East) Ross
St. Laurent (Quebec East)
St. Laurent (Temis-couata)
Schneider Shipley, Mrs.
Simmons
Sinclair
Smith (Battle River-Camrose)
Stick
Studer
Thatcher
Thibault
Thomas
Tucker

Business of the House
Viau	White (Waterloo South)
Vincent	Winters
Weaver	Wylie
Weir	Yuill-146.
Weselak


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



MOTION THAT THE HOUSE DO NOW ADJOURN

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 25 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue):
That the house do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: I am on my feet announcing the result of a division, and I have called the heading "Government Notices of Motions".


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I have. A point of order was raised and we were caught between the heading and the motion to be moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Just as I was concluding announcing the result, the Minister of Trade and Commerce was about halfway up on his feet and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, of course, was quicker; he had risen to his full height. Now, at this moment the hon. member is putting me in a very difficult position because it is customary to give the floor to a privy councillor in preference to another hon. member, and-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, standing order 25 is very clear. A motion to adjourn the house is always in order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not made it yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I made it, sir. I will move it again. I move:
That the house do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is going to allow the Speaker to do whatever he has to do before he steps in with another motion. The Clerk had not concluded giving the result of the division, and I have to give the result and declare that the motion is either lost or carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought you had done so, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes; I was on my feet; I was still on my feet and the hon. member was on his feet proceeding to read something which purports to be a motion to adjourn the house. I wanted to have the floor to indicate to him that at the moment that he was rising to his feet the Minister of Trade and Commerce was also rising. Now, in my position I have to give the floor either to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or

to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and in this instance I recognize the Minister of Trade and Commerce.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the constitution of a corporation to be known as Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation for the purposes, amongst others, of constructing, maintaining and operating a natural gas pipe line between the Ontario-Manitoba border and Kapuskasing, Ontario, and of leasing with an option to purchase such natural gas pipe line to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and carrying out such leases, including the disposal by the corporation of such pipe line in connection with such purchase option, and to provide that the Minister of Finance may lend money to the corporation for such purposes.
To provide also that the corporation may, on behalf of Her Majesty, out of moneys advanced by the Minister of Finance, make short term loans to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for the construction of a natural gas pipe line from a point on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border to the vicinity of Winnipeg, such loans not to exceed in the aggregate eighty million dollars or ninety per cent of the cost of construction of the said pipe line, whichever is the lesser, and to be made upon such terms, conditions and security as approved by the governor in council.
To provide also that the corporation may do such things as are conducive to the attainment of the foregoing purposes, and that in the event of default of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in carrying out any agreement for the foregoing purposes the corporation may take possession and control of any or all assets, rights and undertakings of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and conduct the business and operations of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited with respect to such assets, rights and undertakings, and that if such default should occur prior to completion of the pipe line mentioned in the last preceding paragraph hereof the corporation may complete its construction and manage and operate it and that it may, out of moneys advanced by the Minister of Finance acquire shares of the capital stock of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
To provide that the aggregate outstanding at any time of the amounts authorized by the measure to be advanced for the foregoing purposes by the Minister of Finance to the corporation together with the loans authorized to be made by the Minister of Finance to the corporation shall not exceed one hundred and thirty million dollars.
And to provide further for the appointment and remuneration of directors, officers and employees necessary for the administration of the act.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in view of the position we have taken in regard to this motion, we must oppose the motion just moved.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have yet not put the
question, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question, under the provisions of standing order 25, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) :
That the house do now adjourn.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is out of order under rule 21, which reads:
Government notices of motions for the house to go into a committee of the whole at the next sitting of the house when put from the chair shall be decided without debate or amendment.
After the motion is put, Mr. Speaker, nobody has any right under that rule to take the floor until that vote is held.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has cited a rule which speaks for itself, but there is another one which also speaks for itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Rule 25.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall read rule 25.
A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance), shall always be in order, but no second motion to the same effect shall be made until after some intermediate proceeding has been had.
Therefore, at this moment what has been done is that I put the motion moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and at that juncture the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is, in my view, in order in moving the adjournment of the house. This is not a debate; it is a superseding motion.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Knowles) which was negatived on the following division:
YEAS Messrs:
Dufresne Ellis
Fairclough, Mrs.
Fleming
Fraser (Peterborough) Fulton
Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace)
Harkness Hees Herridge Hodgson
Howe (Wellington-Huron)
Johnson (Kindersley) Jones Knight
Aitken, Miss
Argue
Barnett
Bell
Blair
Bryce
Bryson
Cameron (Nanaimo)
Campbell
Cardiff
Castleden
Charlton
Churchill
Coldwell
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale
Drew
Business of the House
Knowles
Lennard
Macdonnell
McBain
McCullough (Moose Mountain)
McGregor Mitchell (London) Monteith Montgomery
Murphy (Lambton West)
Nesbitt
Nicholson
Nowlan
Pallett
Pearkes
Rea
Regier
Robinson (Bruce)
Small
Stanton
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Tustin Van Horne White (Hastings-Frontenac)
White (Middlesex East)
Winch
Zaplitny-59.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Anderson Applewhaite Ashbourne Batten Bennett Blackmore Blanchette Boisvert Bonnier Boucher Bourget Bourque Breton Brisson
Brown (Brantford) Brown (Essex West) Bruneau Buchanan Byrne
Cameron (High Park)
Campney
Cardin
Caron
Carrick
Carter
Cauchon
Cavers
Cloutier
Dechene
Decore
Denis
Deschatelets
Deslieres
Dickey
Dumas
Dupuis
Eyre
Fairey
Follwell
Forgie
Fraser (St. John's East)
Gagnon
Gardiner
Garson
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Gauthier (Portneuf) Gingues Girard
Gour (Russell)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Gregg
Habel
Hahn
Hanna
Hansell
Hardie
Harris
Harrison
Healy
Hellyer
Henderson
Henry
Hollingworth
Holowach
Houck
Howe (Port Arthur)
Huffman
James
Johnston (Bow River) Jutras
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare) Laflamme
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere)
Langlois (Gaspe) Lapointe Lavigne Leboe
Leduc (Gatineau)
Leduc (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle)
Leduc (Verdun)
Lefrangois
Lesage
Low
Lusby
MacDougall
MacEachen
MacKenzie
MacNaught
Macnaughton
McCann
McCubbin
McCulloch (Pictou)
Mcllraith
Mclvor
McLeod
McMillan
Mang
Marler
Martin
Menard
Meunier
Mitchell (Sudbury) Monette
Murphy (Westmorland)
Nickle
Nixon
Patterson
Pearson
Philpott
Pickersgill
Pommer
Poulin
Power (St. John's West) Proudfoot

Business of the House
Purdy
Quelch
Ratelle
Reinke
Richard (Ottawa East) Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Roberge
Robertson
Robichaud
Robinson (Simcoe East) Ross
St. Laurent (Quebec East)
St. Laurent (Temis-couata)
Schneider Shipley, Mrs.
Simmons
Sinclair
Smith (Battle River-Camrose)
Stick
Studer
Thatcher
Thibault
Thomas
Tucker
Viau
Vincent
Weaver
Weir *
Weselak
White (Waterloo South)
Winters
Wylie
Yuill-148.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Do hon. members consider that the members have been called in?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.

To provide also that the corporation may, on behalf of Her Majesty, out of moneys advanced by the Minister of Finance, make short term loans to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for the construction of a natural gas pipe line from a point on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border to the vicinity of Winnipeg, such loans not to exceed in the aggregate eighty million dollars or ninety per cent of the cost of construction of the said pipe line, whichever is the lesser, and to be made upon such terms, conditions and security as approved by the governor in council.
To provide also that the corporation may do such things as are conducive to the attainment of the foregoing purposes, and that in the event of default of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in carrying out any agreement for the foregoing purposes the corporation may take possession and control of any or all assets., rights and undertakings of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and conduct the business and operations of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited with respect to such assets, rights and undertakings, and that if such default should occur prior to completion of the pipe line mentioned in the last preceding paragraph hereof the corporation may complete its construction and manage and operate it and that it may, out of moneys advanced by the Minister of Finance acquire shares of the capital stock of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
To provide that the aggregate outstanding at any time of the amounts authorized by the measure to be advanced for the foregoing purposes by the Minister of Finance to the corporation together with the loans authorized to be made by the Minister of Finance to the corporation shall not exceed one hundred and thirty million dollars.
And to provide further for the appointment and remuneration of directors, officers and employees necessary for the administration of the act.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Howe, Port Arthur) which was agreed to on the following division:


Edmund Davie Fulton: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the whip be kind enough to so indicate? Call in the members.
The question is the following:
Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) seconded by Mr. Harris, moves that the house go into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:-
Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Mr. Speaker:: Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the constitution of a corporation to be known as Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation for the purposes, amongst others, of constructing, maintaining and operating a natural gas pipe line between the Ontario-Manitoba border and Kapuskasing, Ontario, and of leasing with an option to purchase such natural gas pipe line to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and carrying out such leases, including the disposal by the corporation of such pipe line in connection with such purchase option, and to provide that the Minister of Finance may lend money to the corporation for such purposes.

++YEAS
Messrs:
Anderson	Deschatelets
Applewhaite	Deslieres
Ashbourne	Dickey
Batten	Dumas
Bennett	Dupuis
Blackmore	Eyre
Blanchette	Fairey
Boisvert	Follwell
Bonnier	Forgie
Boucher	Fraser (St. John's East)
Bourget	Gagnon
Bourque	Gardiner
Breton	Garson
Brisson	Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Brown (Brantford)	Gauthier (Portneuf)
Brown (Essex West)	Gingues
Bruneau	Girard
Buchanan	Gour (Russell)
Byrne	Gourd (Chapleau)
Cameron (High Park)	Gregg
Campney	Habel
Cardin	Hahn
Caron	Hanna
Carrick	Hansell
Carter	Hardie
Cauchon	Harris
Cavers	Harrison
Cloutier	Healy
Dechene	Hellyer
Decore	Henderson
Denis	Henry

Hollingworth	Nickle
Holowach	Nixon
Houck	Patterson
Howe (Port Arthur)	Pearson
Huffman	Philpott
James	Pickersgill
Johnston (Bow River)	Pommer
Jutras	Poulin
Kirk (Antigonish-	Power (St. John's West)
Guysborough)	Proudfoot
Kirk (Shelburne-	Purdy
Yarmouth-Clare)	Quelch
Laflamme	Ratelle
Langlois (Berthier-	Reinke
Maskinonge-	Richard (Ottawa East)
Delanaudiere)	Richard (St. Maurice-
Langlois (Gaspe)	Lafleche)
Lapointe	Roberge
Lavigne	Robertson
Leboe	Robichaud
Leduc (Gatineau)	Robinson (Simcoe East)
Leduc (Jacques Cartier-	Ross
Lasalle)	St. Laurent (Quebec
Leduc (Verdun)	East)
Lefrangois	St. Laurent (Temis-
Lesage	couata)
Low	Schneider
Lusby	Shipley, Mrs.
MacDougall	Simmons
MacEachen	Sinclair
MacKenzie	Smith (Battle River-
MacNaught	Camrose)
Macnaughton	Stick
McCann	Studer
McCubbin	Thatcher
McCulloch (Pictou)	Thibault
Mcllraith	Thomas
Mclvor	Tucker
McLeod	Viau
McMillan	Vincent
Mang	Weaver
Marler	Weir
Martin	Weselak
Menard	White (Waterloo South)
Meunier	Winters
Mitchell (Sudbury)	Wylie
Monette	Yuill-148.
Murphy (Westmorland)	
NAYS Messrs:
Aitken, Miss	Herridge
Argue	Hodgson
Barnett	Howe (Wellington-
Bell	Huron)
Blair	Johnson (Kindersley)
Bryce	Jones
Bryson	Knight
Cameron (Nanaimo)	Knowles
Campbell	Lennard
Cardiff	Maclnnis
Castleden	McBain
Charlton	McCullough (Moose
Churchill	Mountain)
Coldwell	McGregor
Diefenbaker	Mitchell (London)
Dinsdale	Monteith
Drew	Montgomery
Dufresne	Murphy (Lambton West)
Ellis	Nesbitt
Fairclough, Mrs.	Nicholson
Fleming	Nowlan
Fraser (Peterborough)	Pallett
Fulton	Pearkes
Hamilton (Notre Dame	Rea
de Grace)	Regier
Harkness	Robinson (Bruce)
Hees	Srhall
Business
Stanton
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Tustin Van Horne
of the House White (Hastings-Frontenac)
White (Middlesex East) Winch
Zaplitny-59.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.




Mr. Speaker:: Earlier today the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) moved that the house do proceed to orders of the day, and later the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) attempted to move that the house do now adjourn. The first motion was moved by virtue of standing order 24 and the other by virtue of standing order 25. I think perhaps I should have listened more carefully to the intervention by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker).
I should like to say that these two motions are superseding motions; therefore a motion should have been before the house first to be superseded by the motion made by the hon. member for Kamloops. It so happens that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was allowed to make his motion to adjourn the house after the motion was moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the house do go into committee of the whole at its next sitting on the resolution. The motion to adjourn the house was in order.
I should like to refer hon. members to standing order 24, which says;
A motion for reading the orders of the day shall have preference to any motion before the house.
There has to be a motion before the house before that motion can be entertained. Standing order 25 says:
A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance), shall always be in order, but no second motion to the same effect shall be made until after some intermediate proceeding has been had.
The words "shall always be in order" must be understood to mean providing there is a motion before the house.
I should like to refer hon. members now to Bourinot's fourth edition, page 322, where he says:
There is a class of motions, common to all parliamentary assemblies, intended to have the effect of superseding or delaying the consideration of a question. For instance, motions for the adjournment of the house or debate, for reading the orders of the day, and for the previous question, are all in this direction.
The term "dilatory" is used by most writers on parliamentary law as a convenient means of grouping together such motions as postpone a question for the time being.
3768	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
Motions of adjournment-When any question is under the consideration of either house, a motion to adjourn will always be in order.
Then he cites rule 39, which is now our rule 25. On page 324 he says:
A motion to proceed to the orders of the day is another mode of evading a question for the time being.
He cites rule 35, which is now rule 24. Then he says:
If a question on the motion paper is under consideration, any member may move, "That the orders of the day be now read," or "That the house do now proceed to the orders of the day," or "to the public bills and orders."
Now, having said that, I think we are protected for the future.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister advise the house whether any provinces, in addition to British Columbia and Saskatchewan, have indicated they will accept the federal government's recent offer to provide financial support and technical assistance for a hospital care insurance program?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we received an official communication from the government of Alberta, through its minister of health, saying that they accepted the federal government's proposal in principle.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Have arrangements been made for the minister or a senior official of his department to meet with the Alaskan delegate, Mr. E. L. Bartlett, who is expected in Ottawa shortly, to discuss the Alaskan panhandle problem? If so, would they give consideration to putting forward the suggestion that the port of Skagway be made a free port or a port of free entry so as to avoid customs duties and the necessity of goods passing through that port in bond to the Yukon and northern British Columbia.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I understand that the delegate to congress from Alaska is visiting Ottawa informally and unofficially, and there


is no question as to official conversations on this matter with him, though some of us hope to have the pleasure of meeting him while he is here. If there were any such conversations or discussions they should, of course, take place with representatives of the United States government.


Mr. J. A. Simmons (Yukon):: I should like to ask a supplementary question to the one raised by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. Does the minister not think that the first step should be to set up an international committee composed of men who reside in the areas concerned, who are familiar with it and with the actual problems and conditions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is an important matter and should be given careful consideration. I am not in a position now to give my own opinion on what would be the best procedure to achieve the end in view.


WORLD ALLIANCE FOR PEACE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he would care to comment on the noble and challenging concept that was enunciated today by Sir Winston Churchill of a grand alliance for peace, and whether anything that has taken place, in particular during the recent NATO meetings, would indicate such a change of mind on the part of the U.S.S.R. as to permit of such a concept being implemented?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I agree that anything Sir Winston Churchill says is likely to be important and imaginative. I think, though I have not read the text of his speech, that, from the press reports, this statement of his would qualify under both categories. I do not believe, however, not having read the statement, I could comment on it usefully at this moment.


REPORTS OF WHEAT BOARD AND GRAIN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? When does the minister expect to have the reports of the board of grain commissioners and the wheat board before the committee on agriculture and colonization?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The reports of the board of grain commissioners and the wheat board are

filed with this house and have been referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 248, respecting construction of a line of railway in the province of New Brunswick by Canadian National Railway Company from a point at or near Bartibog in a westerly direction to the Tomogonops river in the vicinity of Little River lakes-Mr. Marler-Mr.	Robinson
(Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Construction and completion.
Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, this bill was given careful consideration by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. During the course of the discussion in the committee we heard evidence from Mr. S. W. Fairweather, who is the vice-president in charge of research and development for the Canadian National Railways, and because the story he told about this proposed branch line in New Brunswick was so interesting, and 1 think of such great importance to the whole of Canada, I am trespassing on the time of the committee for a few moments this afternoon to emphasize some of the statements he made.
He told us he was happier over this branch line than he had been over any other branch line of the Canadian National Railways in recent years. Then he went on to point out the significant mineral deposits that have been found in this particular part of New Brunswick. I hold in my hand the evidence taken in the committee, and at page 51 Mr. Fairweather had this to say:
The area in. New Brunswick in which the Heath Steele mine is located has developed into one of the major mineral belts of Canada.
And again, at page 56, I asked him this question:
I understood you to say that Heath Steele mines was getting established and that you expected that there would be quite a large number of mines in that area? Is that correct?
A. Yes. I am distinctly optimistic about this area. I would say that we have in this area one of the major mineral deposits in Canada. I think that is emerging. It is a zinc-lead-copper area, and the favourable area, so far as now known for prospecting would extend all the way from-let us say-a point 20 miles to the north of Newcastle up to, let us say, the vicinity of Campbellton, and halfway over to the Saint John river. It is an enormously large area, and we now know that, in addition. Heath Steele mines have proved an area of ore deposits of 7,200,000 tons of ore.
A few miles away you have the New Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation, and they have 50 million tons of ore that have been demonstrated: and in the same general area you have Kennco 67509-239J
Canadian National Railways mines with their prospecting, and the Texas Gulf Sulphur in prospecting, and the New Larder "U" Island mines, and while we have not shown them-
He was referring to the map which he produced in the committee.
-there are other substantial mining companies which are prospecting in the area and they are, according to my information, getting indications. Therefore I think you can say that this area is one of the prosperous spots on the mining horizon.
Q. You say that the whole area of mineral formation is lead-zinc-copper?
A. So far as is known it is zinc-lead-copper, with some gold and silver.
Then on page 57 Mr. Fairweather said:
This area has turned out in such a short period as has elapsed from the time of the first discovery-it has turned up something in the order of 60 million tons of ore, which moves this area right up into the topnotch areas of the world.
That is very significant evidence and very encouraging not only to the people of New Brunswick but also to the rest of the Canadian people because, as we all know, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have not had the advantage of northern areas through which the great shield in Canada runs, which is so heavily mineralized; and it is almost a miracle that here in New Brunswick these vast deposits have been discovered.
I also asked Mr. Fairweather about the possibility of a smelter to fabricate those ores. The questions and answers are found on page 57. I think this particular aspect of the development is of vital importance, because someone will have to take the responsibility of aiding in the development of a smelter and a refinery, and I believe the dominion government should give a lead in that regard. I asked this question:
We hear a great deal about a smelter to be erected, and of course if that were done there would be greatly increased freight traffic, I presume. Has your company given any consideration to that possibility?
A. Oh yes, we have given a great deal of consideration to the location of a smelter. It may be recalled that when I was giving evidence on the Chibougamau line I pointed to the strategic importance of the Saguenay river, and there is now under development a smelter in that area.
This New Brunswick area is creating quite a problem because the ore is a highly complex ore. The metallurgy is very difficult. But at some stage I am hopeful that a smelter will be located and a refinery will be located, and that is probably as good a place of assured supply as any that I know of.
From a development point of view we are keenly interested in getting a customs nickle smelter-
I think that is a misprint. I think he said "zinc smelter". I continue:
-located somewhere in eastern Canada and we feel that from the development standpoint that it is a logical development. We have had talks with many industrialists and they have all agreed that at some stage we should have a zinc refinery-

Canadian National Railways
That is in addition to the smelter.
-a small refinery-in eastern Canada. It is already the hope of the chemical industry, and it is purely a matter of timing; but one of the things that has to be considered is an assured supply of zinc concentrates.
Q. You have that in this area?
A. In this area there is such an enormous amount of zinc that anybody controlling the mining here would know very definitely that for a period of a hundred years at least he would have no question at all as to the supply of zinc concentrates.
That shows just what the possibilities are arising out of those mineral discoveries. We also asked Mr. Fairweather what power would be required for the smelter. For example, I asked:
How would a smelter and a refinery derive their power? Would it be from electricity, or from coal, or from what? What would be the fuel used?
A. A smelter of course is a thermal process and it would be based largely on present knowledge, either on coal or on petroleum, one or the other, as a source of energy.
Of course that is so important because of the coal in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia. By the way, it would not be of much help if oil were used rather than coal for fuel in such a smelter. I continue:
With a refinery, so far as zinc is concerned, you have your choice; you could either use a thermal reduction process, if you want to get high quality zinc, followed by redistillation, or you could use [DOT]electric reduction, and in the latter case of course you would have to have a cheap source of power. Speaking as a maritimer, I would be delighted if I could see a cheaper source of power developed in the maritimes than now exists.
Q. Would the development of the Saint John river mean power which was cheap enough for that purpose?


The Chairman:: Order. May I, with some deference, interrupt the hon. member. I do not wish to interfere with his train of thought, and I think he is in order to deal with this development to show the necessity of building this branch line of railway. On the other hand, under our rules of relevancy in committee, I do not think he should deal too extensively with the power to be used in a smelter. I think he will agree with me that the other line of thought is more relevant.


Howard Charles Green: I had practically finished, Mr. Chairman. Of course the erection of a smelter and a refinery is of great importance to the railway as well as to the whole of the area there, Mr. Chairman.


William Alfred Robinson: I have indicated that that, in my opinion, was quite relevant; but when the hon. member proceeds to discuss the power which is to be used in the smelter, then in my opinion he is straying from relevancy.


Howard Charles Green: Well, it would appear that' there is the possibility of a smelter using coal or oil and a refinery using electric power, or
[Mr. Green.l
possibly using other fuel. We asked about atomic energy, and he said they were investigating that possibility also. This whole prospect is so promising that I hope the appropriate department of the government is making investigations having in mind taking steps that will encourage the opening up of those mineral deposits and that will also lead to the erection of a smelter and a refinery in that part of Canada.
We have heard Mr. Fairweather from time to time before the committee. I believe he is an extremely competent and reliable official of the Canadian National Railways who is vitally interested in the development of those different Canadian resources. Here, as he said, is a branch line which has excited him more than any other. By the way, I have heard him deal with the branch lines from Terrace to Kitimat, from Sherridon to Lynn Lake, Manitoba, and then in the Chibougamau area and the branch line to lake Manitou-wadge in northern Ontario, all of which were exciting in their own right, but I feel there is an outstanding potential in this development in the province of New Brunswick. I hope the Minister of Transport or some other minister of the government will tell us whether there is in mind any policy which will promote the widest possible use of these mineral deposits for the benefit of the people of New Brunswick.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
make a few brief remarks on the first clause of this bill. As a member of the committee on railways, canals and telegraphs who had the opportunity to hear Mr. Fairweather, who I understand is a vice-president of the Canadian National Railways connected with development and planning-


Mr. Marler:: Research and development-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I heard Mr. Fairweather
give his evidence in connection with the necessity for the building of this railway. It was most interesting for me to hear his evidence as to the great possibilities in the development of mining in New Brunswick, possibilities which apparently have come to the fore in the last three or four years, and his relation of that development to transportation necessities in the whole area and his reasons for the necessity for building this railroad to take the concentrates from the concentrator to seaboard or to other markets.
I was particularly pleased to notice his opinion that it would be necessary for a custom smelter to be built somewhere in the maritimes to serve the mines that are coming in the future. I must say I think we are very fortunate in Canada to have a gentleman

of such high capacity and vast ability as Mr. Fairweather rendering the service he does to the people of this country.
I have had the opportunity, as has the hon. member who preceded me, to hear Mr. Fair-weather give evidence on a number of occasions in connection with bills that were coming before the house, and transportation problems. It clearly indicates to me that he is an expert in his field and believes in planning. His evidence is of such a nature that one sees that he believes in relating one set of circumstances to another and acting as a result of a planned and co-ordinated approach to transportation and economic problems. We in the C.C.F. are very pleased indeed to see at least that aspect of C.C.F. policy being given effect by one of the government's most prominent servants.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, the witness, Mr. Fairweather, in giving the information he did, was certainly most free and willing and he did not hesitate to answer any questions that were put before him. I was particularly interested in noting some of his observations with regard to the development that is expected to take place in the New Brunswick region and the part the Canadian National Railways hopes to play in it. I was somewhat disappointed, however, in the point of view the Canadian National Railways is apparently taking today in the development of such regions.
I refer specifically to what in my view should be the purpose of a railway. It should not be simply to develop an area; that is, to project a line into a particular area with the hope of making a profit, especially when it is a government-owned railway. I feel it should be for the purpose of opening up that country. As was indicated by Mr. Fair-weather, the railway may in the course of events assist other mining industries; however, the witness indicated to us in his evidence that he did not think it was up to the railway to provide bus transportation, for instance, or other means of transportation from the homes of the miners to the mine as the case might be. The purpose of this rail line was for making a profit out of the concentrates being taken from the Heath Steele mines to the main branch of the Canadian National Railways and off to Newcastle or some other port.
It is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that while there is a road which the Heath Steele mines helped to build, it is not up to the railway to tell the mining company or the miners that those who work in the mines shall now use bus transportation which is not being provided on that road. If the rail line is going to provide cheaper transportation with respect to hauling concentrates
Canadian National Railways certainly the miners should have the right to expect that other means of transportation by rail should be offered to them as well in so far as getting to and from the mine is concerned, especially when it is considered that a good portion of the concentrates will be sent eventually to Newcastle and out through the seaport there.
The fact that the Heath Steele mine helped the province of New Brunswick build the road indicates that the mine felt some responsibility to the miners beyond getting rid of the concentrates. On page 51 of the evidence we find Mr. Fairweather's own words:
[DOT] * * we had actually to canvass this mining company and convince them that they would be better off if they were served by a railway than if they depended solely upon highway transport.
I have no objection to them making it possible for the Heath Steele mine to reduce the price of the mineral by making available to it the Canadian National Railways transportation system. However, I do object to the fact that we have here an instance wherein all the lucrative cargo is taken from the trucks and the skim or poorer part of it is passed on to a bus company which does not even exist.
When questioned concerning this point, Mr. Fairweather indicated there were automobiles that would transport people from Newcastle to the mine. It was the intention of the mine-and it is a policy that is being followed quite freely in other mining areas today-to have the miners live about 38 miles from the mine, at Newcastle or some other central point, and travel back and forth each day between Newcastle and the mine. It is possible that this in itself would be quite satisfactory, but no means is available today for those people to get back and forth, nor is it the intention of the Canadian National Railways to provide such facilities. I feel that some such means of transportation should be made available to them.
I am not suggesting for one moment that the miners would ride back and forth in the trucks that would haul the concentrates, but if the Heath Steele company felt it was necessary to assist the province of New Brunswick in building a road they would in all likelihood continue to feel a responsibility for helping to maintain that particular road. We understand that the province of New Brunswick is in need of assistance from time to time, and the assistance the Heath Steele company would give them in the building of their road would, I am sure, be very much appreciated by the people of that province. If this bill passes and this method of moving the concentrates is accepted, then these people will feel they have no obligation in respect to providing transportation back and

Canadian National Railways forth because of the lack of a road. I think our railway company should accept the responsibility in this matter.
Another matter that arose in committee had to do with agreed charges, and the witness is reported on page 51 as having said: We did a pretty fair job, and not only did we convince them that they would be better off with the railway but we also convinced them that they could afford to give us a traffic guarantee of substantial volume sufficient to lift this branch line from a speculative position to a straight business proposition.
There was a guarantee given by the mine to the C.N.R. for the building of the branch line. If they did not carry out their guarantee then I understand the mine would have to pay a penalty to the C.N.R. In other words the mine has guaranteed the C.N.R. that either it will supply sufficient concentrates to be hauled over the line to make it pay for itself within a period of ten years, or in the event of not having the concentrates to ship over the line the mine will pay a penalty. The C.N.R. lose absolutely nothing, but they are not willing to accept the responsibility of providing other means so the miners and other people in that area may travel.
Coming back to this question of agreed charges, Mr. Fairweather indicated that he did not think this was a case of agreed charges. Hon. members of the committee can read his suggestion on page 62 in respect to agreed charges, where he indicated that this was different from the agreed charges normally entered into. Technically there might be some slight difference, but certainly there is an agreement with the Steele people as to the rate they are going to be charged and the traffic load they are going to guarantee, or in the event that the guarantee is not lived up to a penalty will be paid by the Steele people. This in effect means that there are agreed charges.
What is actually going to result is that a group of truckers will be put out of business in that province, truckers who have helped to maintain the road. When we enter into such agreements I think we have a responsibility to find out how many people are going to be put out of business. If small businessmen such as these truckers are going to be put out of business we will not be helping the people there.
I know it is not the responsibility of the C.N.R. to go around and find out what people are being put out of business and then give them jobs, or something like that; but the committee should have information as to how many truckers are going to be put out of business. We have not seen the exact terms of the agreement or how much they are


being guaranteed in the way of haulage, but I can well imagine that there will be few truckers left on that road. The result will be that the province of New Brunswick will lose revenue in the form of licence fees and taxes from those particular people.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I sat in on the committee meetings, and like other hon. members I was very interested in the evidence given by Mr. Fairweather. I find myself rather bewildered by the statements just made by the hon. member for New Westminster. If I heard him correctly, the hon. member was suggesting that truckers were going to be put out of business in the province of New Brunswick. My understanding of the evidence given to us is that the particular mine to be served by the proposed branch line is in the development stage and that some time in the future, probably a few months before it is anticipated the branch line will be constructed, they expect to begin stockpiling a certain amount of concentrates. I fail to understand the reasoning of the hon. member for New Westminster in suggesting that truckers are going to be put out of business in the hauling of concentrates that are still buried in the ground within the limits of that mining property.
There is another way in which I find myself bewildered. The hon. member seems to be concerned that the C.N.R. should be hauling people back and forth between Newcastle and the mine. If I understood Mr. Fairweather correctly he intimated that under certain terms and conditions the C.N.R. would be quite prepared to provide passenger service if there were any call for such service. According to the map shown to the committee the proposed route of this line is more or less in the shape of a dog's leg between the mining property and Newcastle, whereas the highway, which I gather is quite adequate to permit people to travel back and forth, goes along the other side of the triangle, a much shorter and more expeditious route for people to travel back and forth.
I fail to understand the reasoning of the hon. member for New Westminster. Where it is necessary and reasonable for a railway company to provide passenger service, by all means they should be prepared to do so; but under these conditions it seems to me the hon. member's argument is a little absurd.


Frederick George Hahn: Here is the question I asked of Mr. Fairweather and his answer, as reported on page 56:
Q. Do they operate their own trucking line at the present time?
A. No, they hire truckers.


William Alfred Robinson: May I take this opportunity to throw out the suggestion that perhaps a

discussion of the trucking aspect of this matter is not entirely in order under this clause.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: May I say a
word on the point of order, because I had intended to say a few words later on about that particular matter. In the agreement there is a definite provision whereby the railway is given a monopoly on about 90 per cent of the freight to be hauled, and the question of agreed charges does enter into it. You can call them agreed charges or a guarantee. I hope you are not coming to the point now of saying that we cannot discuss that aspect when it is actually in the bill.


William Alfred Robinson: I listened to the hon. member for New Westminster discuss agreed charges, and I felt he was in order, but on the other hand I merely suggest that I do not think we should wander too far afield in discussing the trucking business. This is, after all, a railway bill, not a trucking bill.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I must say with reference to this point that neither as a result of the discussion in the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee, nor here, am I too sure as to whether or not the hon. member for New Westminster and his colleagues are supporting this bill.


An hon. Member:: You will find out.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: But I did draw some inference from his remarks that in effect he might be suggesting it was advisable that we should not build this railway but that we should let truck lines haul out the concentrates from the mines. If that is the conclusion at which he arrives eventually, I must say at once that I do not agree with him, because on the face of the economies that were admitted to us I am utterly at a loss to understand why he should suggest that the people of the province of New Brunswick should be saddled with the cost of building and maintaining a highway to haul out heavy loads of zinc, lead and copper concentrates when it can be hauled out on a short spur line at about one-fifth of the cost, according to the evidence.


Frederick George Hahn: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni is quite definitely putting words into my mouth. I suggested no such thing. I was merely asking for an additional service by the C.N.R.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I realize that the hon. member's argument seemed to revolve around two points. One was the fact that the C.N.R. should provide a passenger service, in addition to a freight service, and his other argument seemed to be that the C.N.R. should not provide either. I find it a little difficult to
Canadian National Railways decide which line of his argument I ought to pursue at any given moment. I must say that I do not know how you can have it both ways. If the railway line is not to be built at all, I do not know how you can be expected to provide a passenger service.
However, to come back to the point I was on, I fail to understand why the member shows such concern over the idea of having these concentrates hauled by truck, saddling upon the people of the province of New Brunswick the very expensive job of maintaining a highway adequate to do that job, for the benefit of a few truck drivers. One would almost think all the people of New Brunswick were suddenly going to become truck drivers to haul this ore. To me that just does not add up to plain, ordinary common sense, and for my part I support the measure.


Mr. Mclvor:: The hon. member for Pictou, the chairman of that committee, brought in his report, and it was adopted. We received a good deal of information, and I think the committee was unanimous in passing it. Like the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, I think this bill should go through and we should not have very much more talk about it.


Mr. Bell:: This is one time it is a pleasure to agree with the hon. member for Fort William. But two thoughts come to my mind in reading the report of the committee. It was not my pleasure to serve on the committee, but in reading through the verbatim reports of the proceedings a few matters caused me slight concern. First of all I should like to say this. I know everybody has indicated how pleased we are that New Brunswick is prospering with these new discoveries that Providence has provided. We should give credit to the industrialists and promoters who went in and undertook the initial work, and we should give credit also to the aggressive political leaders of that province now.


Mr. Robichaud:: When was it started?


Thomas Miller Bell: However, I do want to mention the fact that the real battle has just begun there in the province, as far as this ore development is concerned. Everybody in the province-and I say this regardless of politics -wants to take full advantage of these discoveries. They want to develop them in our province and to gain every advantage from that development.
Having said that, I might add that these two thoughts come to my mind as a result of reading the committee report. I note that there was some discussion about the ports through which the ore concentrates would be shipped.

Canadian National Railways I was taken aback-in fact, I nearly fell out of my chair-when I saw Halifax mentioned. Coming from New Brunswick and the good old port of Saint John, I realize that reference should be made to that port. The minister certainly appreciates that, because he knows what great facilities we have in Saint John.
I do not have any quarrel with the ports in New Brunswick, the warm-weather ports of Dalhousie, Bathurst and Newcastle, but I want to say that with the government railway concerned in this project in which there is a certain amount of direction of traffic, with cars being made available, discretion comes to the fore and Saint John should be given every preference, because it is within the province. The facilities are provided there, and the government can step up those facilities.
The second matter-and it will only take me a minute to mention-concerns contracts. There was some discussion in the committee regarding the contracts that will be let to construct this railway. We have a difficult problem in New Brunswick with the contracts that are being let for all our new development work. It may be the army camp; it may be the construction of this line, but the problem is this. We do not have large operators down there in the construction business generally. We cannot keep up with the tenders of concerns outside the province, and consequently all we can get for ourselves are small contracts.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What about the Diamond Construction Company?


Thomas Miller Bell: That is a general statement.


George Carlyle Marler: I have a higher opinion of your contractors than you have.


Thomas Miller Bell: Well, I do say this, without prolonging the argument, that the contracts for the army camp generally were in large amounts, and our concerns in New Brunswick and throughout the maritimes could not tender on these large $2 million jobs. That is a true statement. I am not saying there has been unfairness. I am simply saying we have to be given a break with regard to these contracts, and those for large amounts should be made available to our contractors. This would apply to the construction of this railway line. We have already had two or three failures, in regard to work on the army camp, of small contractors trying to step up their businesses in order to be able to meet that situation. I leave those few thoughts with the committee and I hope they will be considered, because they mean a good deal to us in the province.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I desire to make just a few remarks on this proposed railway line in the newly developed mining area of New Brunswick. I want it plainly understood that never have we taken the position that the line running into this area should not be gone on with. We are firmly of the belief that it is high time there was some development in the province of New Brunswick.
It is an amazing thing that in New Brunswick, which now seems to have such a tremendous amount of natural wealth, it has taken so long to develop it. A while ago a reference was made to politics. Hence I should not be out of order if I say that under the Liberal regime in New Brunswick and under the present Conservative regime in New Brunswick little progress has been made. New Brunswick is considered to be one of the more unfortunate provinces in Canada having regard to any major developments. I think we can only thank the two administrations that have been carrying pn in that province. Don't let anybody say that anything I might state could be construed in any way to prevent the development of the natural resources of the province of New Brunswick.
A while ago the hon. member for Comox-Alberni tried to leave with the committee the implication that the hon. member for New Westminster was adverse to the development of this railway. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. He has never advocated any such thing. However, he has pointed out clearly that in order to have a proper and orderly development in the province of New Brunswick there should be free competition.
I want to speak about that free competition for a minute, Mr. Chairman. In the agreement between this company and the railway, there is a clause which states that before the railway will be proceeded with the company must guarantee to the railway a certain amount of traffic. I believe Mr. Fairweather stated on that occasion that it was something about 90 per cent.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member should either reread the evidence or read what I said when the bill was before the house on second reading or at the resolution stage. There is nothing about 90 per cent anywhere in the evidence. I would remind the hon. gentleman that the traffic guarantee contemplated that the Heath Steele mining company would ship 75,000 tons of concentrates, and that if they failed

to do so there would be a penalty which would be paid by the mining company to the railway company. There was nothing about 90 per cent of anything.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I am quite glad the minister made that interjection because if my memory serves me aright, when we were before the committee Mr. Fairweather said the company had agreed to give a certain percentage-and according to my memory it was between 80 per cent and 90 per cent-guarantee to the railway before it would build. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni stated a while ago, when the hon. member for New Westminster was speaking, that the hon. member for New Westminster should remember that this mine would not be developed were it not for the railway. Of course that is not true.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I say that I said nothing of the sort.


Charles Edward Johnston: The mining company have already taken the lead and they have established a going concern there. As far as the railway is concerned, it was stated to us that if there were other forms of competition it would not interfere greatly with the business of the railway because under the present agreed charge-and I am going to call it an agreed charge, not a guarantee, because we must call things what they are-


George Carlyle Marler: I think the hon. gentleman should follow that rule and not call an agreed charge something that does not even resemble an agreed charge.


Charles Edward Johnston: When a railway goes in and makes an agreement with a company for a certain percentage of the business-


Mr. Byrne:: Where is the election next month?


Charles Edward Johnston: When the railway goes in and makes an agreement with a company for a certain percentage of the business, that is exactly the same procedure that is carried on in an agreed charge.


George Carlyle Marler: The evidence does not support that contention at all.


Charles Edward Johnston: The witness the other day certainly gave that impression. Not only did he give us that impression but he stated it quite clearly.


George Carlyle Marler: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: When we were talking about the cost of the railway Mr. Fairweather told us that it would cost about
Canadian National Railways $2,800,000. When I asked him how long he expected it would take to pay that back, he said this, as appears at page 52 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee:
A. On the present level ot traffic on this line-
Not on increased traffic, Mr. Chairman, but on the present level that is there now:
-we would have amortized our capital in a little less than 10 years.
The expected life of this mine is about 20 years. I therefore think it is quite evident that the railway cannot lose anything on this deal. I am going to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that there should be no agreed charge with the railway. I do not want that statement interpreted to mean that I do not want a railway built into that mining area. I certainly do. But I also want to see the province of New Brunswick in the position where they are going to get some decent hardsurfaced roads so as to develop the rest of the economy in that province. The railways are certainly better equipped to haul concentrates from the mine to the smelter or to the export ports, and there should be no difficulty at all in that matter.
If we are speaking about the trucking industry-and I am not particularly concerned here and now about the trucking industry-I would say they could not compete in the hauling of that type of freight. But certainly there should be no impediment to other forms of transportation entering into the development of this very rich area in New Brunswick which is just now being opened up. I think we are setting a poor pattern in Canada when we allow the railways to do everything in their power to create a monopoly in transportation in this country.
This is just another instance of where the railways-and it does not make any difference to me whether it is the C.N.R. or the C.P.R. -are entering into an agreement and the result of that agreement is that they are pushing all other forms of competition out. Certainly they are pushing them out of that field which would be in a position to give them some return. Those who are engaged in transportation in New Brunswick cannot develop an area in there in competition with a railway which has the whole business tied up.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member suggest that truckers would be prepared to build a highway into this mine to take out the ore without a firm guarantee of revenue from hauling?

Canadian National Railways


Charles Edward Johnston: Nobody is suggesting any such thing. I do not think the trucking concerns, if we want to confine our remarks to them, should be asked to do such a thing. Under the terms of this bill the whole government of Canada is behind the railway. It would seem that whenever a socialized project-and the Canadian National is a socialized project-is being put into operation, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and others say it should not run any risk. That is what this railway is doing. The business is established there and, in fact is guaranteed. Now, the socialist attitude would be, and the government is getting itself right into that line, that we have to have the line there and we should cut out all forms of competition.
Certainly we want competition. How does the province of New Brunswick or any other province ever develop if it is not through the energetic efforts of private enterprise?


Mr. Argue:: Through the efforts of the people.


Charles Edward Johnston: My friend from Saskatchewan interrupts. I should like him to explain to this house in what single instance the province of Saskatchewan has ever had any profitable development that has not been developed by private enterprise?


Hazen Robert Argue: Every crown corporation.


George Carlyle Marler: Let us talk about the bill.


Charles Edward Johnston: I agree with the minister that we should get along with the bill, but I hate any steps toward socialization and the exclusion of all other forms of transportation.


Hazen Robert Argue: What is your policy on the pipe line?


Charles Edward Johnston: I will talk to you about that tomorrow, and it will not be on a selfish basis. It will be on a broad Canadian national basis.
Coming back to the bill, I wish the government would consider, when they are entering into a project like this, that every encouragement should be given to free enterprise, I do not care whether it is trucking or what it is. Free enterprise should be given an opportunity. Let me correct that and say private enterprise, so there will be no misinterpretation put upon it. Private enterprise should be allowed to enter into competition in the freight hauling, passenger hauling or any other kind of hauling along this new proposed line, so the province of New Brunswick and particularly the new area which is being developed will be able to expand and give the people of New Brunswick a chance for a better standard of living than they have had to date under the two old line parties.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: When this bill was presented for second reading I had occasion to express my appreciation to the government and to the Canadian National Railways for wanting to proceed with the construction of this spur line in connection with the development of the minerals in New Brunswick. I can understand the enthusiasm which was expressed by Mr. Fairweather because it is in line with the report which was made in 1953 when the discoveries of minerals in northern New Brunswick were mentioned as the mining discovery of the year.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised to see that the members from the other end of Canada, the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, are somewhat embarrassed by that situation in New Brunswick. The hon. member for New Westminster mentioned that the construction of this railway would have some effect in reducing employment for truckers and others in New Brunswick. I want to make it clear that before the mining companies approached the Canadian National Railways for the construction of this line they made a complete study of the situation. They studied the different ways of transporting minerals to the main shipping points. I have had occasion to have private discussions with certain officials of these companies, and they have been studying even the possibility of transporting minerals by air. But after careful study they decided that the cheapest, most economical way was to use the Canadian National Railways.
So far as this penalty clause is concerned, it has been mentioned as one that might restrict employment. On the contrary this penalty clause is one which means the company will have to have a certain minimum tonnage per year, and I think that will force the company to continue operations, not to curtail them, for if operations were curtailed it would also curtail employment.
Just before the recess the hon. member for Saint John-Albert expressed the opinion that the port of Halifax should not have been mentioned. I agree with him that we have in New Brunswick the port of Saint John, but we do not have to go to Saint John, which is 200 miles from the mine. Only 30 or 40 miles from these mineral deposits, we have shipping facilities just outside of Bathurst harbour. In fact last year two test pits were dredged outside the port of Bathurst as an experiment. It is proving very satisfactory. Should it be that this is not altogether satisfactory to the mines for shipping minerals out of the country after they have been processed, we have at Pokesudi, as I have mentioned previously in this house, only 60 miles from the mine, sufficient depth of water

within 200 or 300 feet from the shore to provide for deep water shipping 12 months of the year.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert also expressed a desire to have the contract given, if possible, to a New Brunswick or maritime company. He expressed the opinion, too, that we did not have contractors able to undertake such projects. Well, I cannot agree with that statement, because in New Brunswick we have such companies as the Diamond Construction Company which already has contracts for $2 [DOT] 5 million in Halifax for the construction of an airport and contracts for over $3 million at Gagetown. We have other companies, such as Modern Construction and Dexter Construction, which could easily undertake such projects. All I would add is that if and when contracts are given by the Canadian National Railways, they should follow the policy of granting the contract to the lowest tenderer, if he is qualified to do the job, and not do as the province of New Brunswick did when the Beechwood contract was awarded.


Mr. Van Horne:: New Brunswick is indeed fortunate to be the resting place for the immense deposits of iron ore and other metals which have recently been discovered. I welcome the construction of this railway line, which is sorely needed. I consider it a step forward. I also feel that the Canadian National has shown considerable foresight in insisting on clauses which will serve to incite the mining companies to keep in operation.
I wish to point out also that more planning could be done by the federal government to serve the mining areas in New Brunswick. I heartily agree with the hon. member for Gloucester concerning the establishment of good ports. We have the Jacquet river in New Brunswick, for instance, which is an ideal location for a year-round winter port.


George Carlyle Marler: This is all very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the bill. I suggest that a winter port is a topic that might be discussed on the estimates of one of the departments, but it has nothing to do with the building of a branch line from Bartibog, New Brunswick.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the question of these ports is very important. Mr. Fair-weather dealt with them at some length in the committee, because they have a plan. Part of this plan is how the products of the mine are to be taken to the coast and shipped abroad. For the minister to say there can be no discussion about that, I submit, is entirely out of reason.


Ralph Byron Horner: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister will agree that the establishment 67509-240i
Canadian National Railways of winter ports in New Brunswick is certainly linked and should be in conjunction with the establishment of this spur line of the railway. Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, we in New Brunswick feel that this branch line is a step forward and we welcome the opportunity to support this move.


Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Chairman,
I just have a few brief remarks to make. I want to add my word of appreciation to the authorities responsible for the construction of this rail line. I also would like to express my appreciation of the interest that hon. members from the prairie provinces and the west have shown in the recent developments in New Brunswick. I realize that perhaps they did not appreciate my intervention in western matters earlier this year, but I would not retaliate in the same manner. I appreciate their interest in our eastern developments.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: We are glad to be of assistance.


Henry Joseph Murphy: However, the hon. member for Bow River did say something about politics, which I do not think really should enter into this discussion. He will find out after the next provincial election that the people of New Brunswick pretty much like the two old line parties.
The building of this railway will enable the mines to ship the concentrates to Newcastle and thence to the other ports of the world by way of Saint John, Newcastle or the north shore ports during certain months.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra put on record this afternoon the evidence given the committee of how vast our findings are. The vast findings are, of course, the reason this railway is being built. Of course other commodities will go over this line; pulpwood, for instance. Pulp boats have been coming into Newcastle and into the north shore ports for a number of years.
I stated earlier in this house that these mining discoveries in New Brunswick would necessitate improvements in transportation. The building of this railway from Bartibog to Tomogonops and to the main line at Newcastle is the first step; the second step is from Newcastle through the proposed Chignecto canal to the ports of the eastern seaboard of the United States. I will only be too happy if western members will show the same interest in the second phase of the transportation of concentrates from these mines by displaying an interest in the proposed Chignecto canal also.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, a while ago the minister made some reference
3778	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways to a remark I had made and said there was no indication whatever in regard to the percentage of traffic that would be hauled over this line under the government's guarantee. On page 59 of the proceedings in the committee I asked the witness this question:
You said that your outgoing traffic would be cencentrates?
A. Yes.
Q. About 90 per cent?
A. Yes.


George Carlyle Marler: That is of the total traffic, is it not?


Charles Edward Johnston: I was speaking about their orders; that is, the railways'.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I really cannot leave the hon. member for Bow River under the misapprehension he has with regard to this proposed arrangement between the mining company and the Canadian National Railways. He has referred to Mr. Fairweather's evidence before the committee, and during his remarks he kept insisting on calling the arrangement an agreed charge. Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to read to this committee one of the questions the hon. member for Bow River put during the course of the proceedings before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. On page 53 the hon. member asked the following question:
Q. You have a virtual monopoly on the freight hauled and on the passenger service as well?
A. There will be no passenger service involved in this. We made it quite plain to the company that the highway was a more efficient tool for transporting passengers than the railway; in consequence, we have no position with regard to that.
Moreover, you are in error. There is no monopoly. They do not have to ship one pound of freight over this railway-the only thing is that if they do not ship a certain volume of the production of the mine over the railway they would be obliged to pay us a penalty.
This is the significant question, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Bow River said:
Q. That is practically an agreed charge, is it not?
A. No, it is not an agreed charge. You could not possibly call this an agreed charge.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in the face of the evidence from someone who is in the railroad business and who knows what an agreed charge is, the hon. member has been trying to impress upon this committee the idea that the railway here is making an agreement which is tying up all the traffic from the mine. When he spoke about a percentage a little earlier I interrupted him to say there had been no question of any percentage in that. I was quite right. Ordinarily when railways do make an agreed charge there is a condition that the shippers shall give to the railways not less than a certain stated percentage of the freight which they are


shipping. The 90 per cent to which my hon friend referred a moment ago, and which is mentioned on page 59, has nothing to do with the contract. These questions were also asked by the hon. member for Bow River:
Q. You said that your outgoing traffic would be concentrates?
A. Yes.
Q. About 90 per cent?
A. Yes.
That means the concentrates represented 90 per cent of the total traffic. Well, now, that is not an agreed charge, Mr. Chairman. I hope the hon. member for Bow River will realize that what is at issue here is a traffic agreement between the Canadian National Railways and the mining company, the purpose of which is to assure the building of the line.
I explained how the traffic guarantee would operate when we were dealing with this matter at the resolution stage and on second reading. In essence what it means is this. The railroad must make an investment of approximately $3 million in order to build this line from Bartibog to the Tomogonops river, a distance of some 22 miles. It is perfectly clear from the bill and from the explanations that have been given that the cost of the work is going to be something slightly less than $3 million, and that money is going to be spent whether traffic flows over it or not.
Once the line has been built the money has been committed irrevocably; and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, it is perfectly logical that the Canadian National Railways, when requested to make an expenditure of this dimension, should say to the mining company which is quite anxious to make use of the railroad facilities-because otherwise they would never honour the agreements-"Will you guarantee to us that you will give us a minimum of 75,000 tons of concentrates each year, or if you do not that you will pay us a penalty" which I think I said the other day was $3 per ton.
I also explained that if in one year the concentrates shipped exceeded 75,000 tons, then the excess would be credited against a deficiency in any subsequent year. What surprises me, Mr. Chairman, when I hear the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for New Westminster, is that they seem to resent the fact that the Canadian National Railways are taking what I regard as an elementary precaution to protect themselves against loss. Ordinarily the criticism is that the loss has been realized and that the railroad has not taken precautions to avoid it. This time the criticism is that we are taking precautions to avoid losses.

The hon. member for New Westminster complains that the railway company is not going to provide a passenger service; yet it is perfectly clear from the evidence before the committee-and the hon. member for New Westminster was present-that the arrangement between the railway company and the mining company expressly excluded any obligation on the part of the C.N.R. to provide passenger service. Why? I think it was the hon. member for Comox-Alberni who explained the geography. First of all it is longer by rail, and second it is much more economical to use a highway for the transport of people from Newcastle to the mine.
Hon. members will recall that Mr. Fair-weather explained, too, that it seemed desirable that the community facilities which exist at Newcastle should serve those who would find employment at the mine, and it was much more desirable that those facilities should be used than that they be duplicated by building a community at the mine site itself.
The hon. members for New Westminster and Bow River also seemed to work up a certain amount of sympathy over the situation of the truckers. Is it not elementary, Mr. Chairman, that where we are dealing with such things as concentrates, a bulk shipment, it is natural for such shipments to be carried by rail and not by road? Hon. members know perfectly well that the concentrates, as was explained before the committee, may go almost anywhere once they have been produced; they will probably be sold and they may go overseas, to the United States or to some other part of Canada. They are not, however, going to be carried overseas by trucks, nor are they going to be carried to the United States by trucks.
The next point is that all the sympathy that is being worked up relates to truckers who do not yet exist, because there have been no shipments out of the mine. The hon. member for New Westminster was shedding tears over the unfortunate plight of those truckers who might carry the concentrates if the company decided to ship them by truck. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not ready to join in shedding tears over people who do not already have the business. If the railways were taking it away from them I would have a certain amount of sympathy, but not too much. Here is something that properly belongs to the railways. I do not think my hon. friends should shed too many tears over these mythical truckers who so far have not carried a ton of concentrates.
In essence, Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple transaction. Canadian National Railways is proposing to spend approximately $3
Canadian National Railways million to bring rail facilities into the heart of an area which seems most promising so far as base metals are concerned. We know how easy it is for truckers to pull up, move their trucks and go elsewhere, but we all should realize it is not possible for the railway to do the same thing. Once the line goes down it would take a great deal of time and effort to get it up, and there naturally would be a great deal of capital lost in the process.
It is for that reason the railways wish to insure themselves against loss by saying to the mining company, "If you wish to have our services and if you are going to be our principal client, then guarantee that you will give us the traffic". If the mining company does not wish to give the railway the traffic and wishes instead to ship by some other means it is perfectly free to do so, but it must make good on the guarantee which they have given to the railway and which is the reason the railway is going to spend approximately $3 million for the building of this line.
There is only one other observation I should like to make, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra seemed to think this was a good opportunity to get in a crack in favour of the dominion government giving the lead in the building of a customs smelter. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know that the words, "Giving the lead" are open to a very wide variety of interpretations. I can just imagine how the hon. member would lift his hands in horror if it were to be suggested that the dominion government was going to finance such a project as that-


Howard Charles Green: You prefer to finance United States pipe lines.


George Carlyle Marler: -and with his affection for private enterprise I understand that he would prefer to see it done by Canadian capital as soon as possible; but it seems to me that what we are doing now qualifies for just the sort of thing the hon. member must have had in mind, because I am sure he would not have been thinking about the things I suggested somewhat lightly.
I suggest that the government is giving a lead by seeing that the railway is built. It seems to me that is a function that can properly be carried out by the Canadian National Railways without our being accused of doing something that properly ought to be done by the provincial government, which has the primary responsibility for developing its own natural resources. It seems to me that we are giving the lead in building this line, and all I can add by way of conclusion is that everybody seems to be most enthusiastically in favour of building the line but we have been talking for an hour and ten minutes

Canadian National Railways without getting one clause through the committee. I suggest that if those people would demonstrate their enthusiasm by passing the bill then we could get on and do something about building the line.


Mr. Montgomery:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister one question because everything appears to have been pretty well covered. I am one of those who want to get on and see the bill passed. This is a forward step for our province. I did not have the privilege of sitting on the committee. A great deal has been said about the guarantee. I wonder if the minister would just explain how long that guarantee is to last. Is it just for the ten years during the amortization period?


George Carlyle Marler: No, the guarantee is for a period of six years. I think I can best summarize it by saying that in the six years the mining company must ship an aggregate quantity of 450,000 tons of concentrates, and if they do so there will be no penalties whatever payable under the guarantee.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word about this. I do not want the minister to think for a moment that I am against the government building the road in there; let us have no misunderstanding about that. What I want to straighten the minister out on, if I can, is that in effect the contract which is entered into is just as effective as an agreed charge and answers the same purpose. I wish to refer to the statement on page 53, where I asked a question. The minister read it a moment ago but I wish to repeat it. I asked the witness this question:
That is practically an agreed charge, is it not?
And the answer was:
No, it is not an agreed charge. You could not possibly call this an agreed charge.
The minister left it there, but let me go over to page 62 of the evidence, where the hon. member for New Westminster repeated the question. He asked this question of the witness:
In what way does it differ from the agreed charge that exists on the line we are speaking of today where the proposed branch line is 22 miles long?
The answer was as follows, and I want you to notice the definition of both these things:
An agreed charge is a particular definition of a term under which an industry in construction by a company give a certain operation rate and, given a tariff rate, contracts to send a certain proportion of its traffic by rail.
Now, let me add a word there.


George Carlyle Marler: Let us go on with the next paragraph.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will in just a moment. The company agrees to give the railway a certain percentage of its traffic and that is bound up by contracts.
Now then, the next paragraph contains the following question:
Is that what we are doing here?
A. No, no, this is quite a different matter, this is a traffic guarantee.
What is the difference between a traffic guarantee under which you have to ship 75 per cent of your goods over the railroad, and a guarantee under which you have to ship at least 75,000 tons over the railroad, and if you do not you pay a penalty? If that is not an agreed charge, if that is not bound up in the same term, I would like to know what it is. Mr. Fairweather continued:
Under an agreed charge, once a man signs it he has no option. In this arrangement he does not undertake to use the railway at all. If he does not like the colour of our hair or something like that he can stop using the railway.
Q. Is there not a guarantee?
A. As I say, if he ceases to ship, he has to pay a penalty.
That is just as effective as an agreed charge or as any other similar arrangement under a different name. The minister must not assume that I am arguing in favour of the truckers. What I am trying to point out is that if we expect to develop all or any part of Canada it should be done on a free competitive basis. These people should be able to compete with other forms of transportation. As the minister has indicated, trucks cannot compete with the railroad in hauling these concentrates. If that is so, why should a guarantee arrangement be made? They could push the truckers right off the road. When the witness was giving evidence before the committee I believe he said that the railroad could haul this traffic for 2 cents where the truckers would have to charge 10 cents. Under those circumstances the truckers could not compete with the railroad in hauling these concentrates, so why tie the thing up under a guarantee basis such as this. I think the thing should have been left wide open so that other forms of transportation could come in and compete with the railroad and thus help to develop New Brunswick.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, I rise because the minister seemed to think that I was shedding mythical tears over mythical truckers. If the hon. members will check my minutes I think they will find it is rarely I have occasion to refer to any questions I might have asked in the committee. However, if it becomes necessary at this time I am ready to do that.
The hon. member for Kootenay East has suggested that I am not a New Brunswicker,

but I would refer him to Beauchesne's second edition, section 21, where he will find that I have certain responsibilities in this house which I do not hesitate to share with other hon. members.
In respect to the mythical tears which I am supposed to be shedding, I would refer to page 56 of the minutes of proceedings. I referred to this specifically in the committee. I do not say that it was deliberate, but I think Mr. Fairweather misled me with certain of the information he gave. I quote from the evidence as follows:
Q. Could you give us the mileage by road from Heath Steele to Newcastle?
A. It is about 38 miles, as I recall it.
Q. Was Heath Steele mine the only mine contributing to that road which was built earlier?
A. Oh yes, Heath Steele mines to some extent, I understand, contributed to the cost of that highway.
Q. Do they operate their own trucking line at the present time?
A. No, they hire truckers.
Q. You say they hire trucks. You do not know how many truckers are in operation there at the present time?
A. No, I do not.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Does the hon. member know that the mine has not yet shipped any minerals?


Frederick George Hahn: I realize that.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: These trucks are being used to transport equipment to the mines.


Frederick George Hahn: I appreciate that question very much. That was my purpose in asking the question, and apparently there was a misunderstanding between Mr. Fairweather and myself as to the interpretation of the purposes of the trucking. His interpretation was that the trucking was as the hon. member for Gloucester has just pointed out, for the carrying of materials from Newcastle to the mine. Today the purpose of the proposed rail line is quite apparent.
I have one further remark to make in respect to my earlier observation to which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni referred. Anyone who is at all familiar with the strides we are making in Canada knows the enthusiasm with which I like to see those strides made in any part of Canada, whether in New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia or British Columbia. I am sure all hon. members will be fully aware that I am certainly in accord with the construction of this line, but I would like to see the C.N.R. take full responsibility for everything that is being done.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
10, 1956	3781
Supply-Agriculture SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration (including advisory committee on agricultural services), $670,015.
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at ten o'clock last Thursday I was in the process of pointing out some inadequacies in the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I had said that in my opinion the act seemed to be moving backwards instead of forward. I had drawn attention to the fact that I had placed on the order paper at the beginning of this session a resolution which had I had the opportunity to move it would have called for a considerable widening of the operations of that act.
In recent months there have been two events which have caused considerable anxiety in the prairie provinces, particularly in Manitoba, with respect to the small projects or special votes under the act. I had mentioned that one of the arrangements under which a certain number of special projects had been constructed in Manitoba was an agreement between the federal government and the province, involving also the municipalities, under which the federal government paid approximately 50 per cent of the cost while the province shared the other 50 per cent with the municipalities.
While those conditions were appreciated as being better than nothing we found that in many cases, because the full project hinged upon the ability of the local municipality to pay its share of the cost, which ran in the neighbourhood of one-sixth plus the right of way, those municipalities which most needed the drainage or flood control projects were least able to meet the cost. For that reason, in many cases where these flood control measures were required they were not carried out because, as I said, the first move had to be up to the municipality.
Since that time two things have happened that have caused concern in Manitoba. Earlier this year-I think I mentioned this in the house before-the Minister of Agriculture had notified the provincial minister of agriculture in Manitoba that when the provincial government wishes to have a survey made in order to establish the feasability of a particular project with regard to flood control, whereas in the past the federal government was willing to lend the services of the P.F.R.A. engineers at their own cost, in future the province would have to pay for any such survey out of their own treasury.

Supply-Agriculture
That in itself, in my opinion, was instrumental in holding back a number of surveys the provincial government would like to have had carried out.
Later on this year there was another change made in the arrangements, and that involved the sharing of the cost. I have also already described this. Under a special vote the federal government was prepared to pay 50 per cent of the cost of these small projects. Later on the federal government took the position that any future joint undertakings of that nature would be carried out under the water conservation act rather than under a special vote of the P.F.R.A.
I have in my hand a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press dated March 7, 1956, which I think indicates how widespread the concern was in that province. In fairly bold headlines the news item reads as follows:
Ottawa Chops Aid In Flood Projects
It then goes on to describe what had happened in these words:
Ottawa has blasted Manitoba hopes for a possible 100 per cent federal payment on large flood protection projects in this province.
Speaking in the legislature Tuesday night, Premier D. L. Campbell said he understood that in future flood protection and remedial projects would come under provisions of the water conservation assistance act-rather than under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
Further down in this news item it describes what the effect of this new policy would be, in these words:
This would cut federal aid by 60 per cent in some cases.
Under the water conservation act, the federal and provincial government each pay 37i per cent of the cost for projects approved by both parties. The other 25 per cent would be levied against municipalities.
May I just pause there to point out that if this policy is carried out it will be adding a further burden to the municipalities, which already in many cases were not capable of carrying even one-sixth of the cost of these projects, which were very necessary in our province. If this policy is carried through they will be asked to contribute 25 per cent instead of approximately 16 per cent, as was the case before. The news item goes on further in these words:
The change has dealt a serious blow to Manitoba's hopes to ^ have P.F.R.A. undertake at least two large projects, the widening and controlling of the Fairford river channel, leading from lake Manitoba to lake Winnipeg, and some work on flood protection for the Red river valley.
Then it goes on in greater detail. Just in case the Minister of Agriculture might think this is only the view of one of the newspapers of my province-


Mr. Gardiner:: I rise on a point of order. The fact is that these particular works of
[Mr. Zaplitny.l
which my hon. friend has been speaking have never been under P.F.R.A. at any time. They are not even within the P.F.R.A. area. They are outside the P.F.R.A. area altogether. They have always been, if they are under any activity from here at all, under the same setup as now. The bill that was passed a few years ago was simply defining what share of the work was to be paid for by the province and what share by the federal government. It was 37J per cent for each, and 25 per cent was to be paid by the municipality concerned. That never was under the P.F.R.A. at any time. There has been no change in policy, and it has nothing whatever to do with my estimates.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If that is the case then certainly the minister of agriculture in the province of Manitoba should be so informed, because I was just about to place on the record the comments that minister made with regard to the very things of which I am talking. That is here in the next day's issue of the Winnipeg Free Press in the following terms:
Manitoba's agriculture minister Hon. R. D. Robertson, Wednesday expressed dissatisfaction of federal government failure to implement a single flood control and soil conservation policy for Canada, or at least for the prairie provinces.
At the same time, he said he was "displeased" over the dominion's new water control formula, under which Ottawa and the province bear equal shares of 75 per cent of the cost of such measures, with municipalities absorbing the remaining 25 per cent.
The minister may say that the water conservation act does not have any direct connection with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, or that these special projects do not come within the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and he may be technically correct.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not a matter of being technically correct at all. There is nothing in the P.F.R.A. estimates that touches anything of which my hon. friend is speaking. The activities in his own constituency, having to do with the Dauphin area, are under an agreement between the Department of Agriculture here and the department of agriculture in Manitoba. There is some money voted for that particular project, but it is not under the rehabilitation vote. The rehabilitation area is defined as the basin of the Assiniboine river, in so far as Manitoba is concerned-not in that section of Manitoba that is represented by my hon. friend from Dauphin. Nothing at all outside the basin of the Assiniboine river comes under P.F.R.A. It is all under some other special arrangement whereby the province does the work.


William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members will realize that I am perhaps fairly unfamiliar with

P.F.R.A., but the minister has raised this point of order. A short time after he did so the hon. member for Dauphin proceeded to read from a newspaper clipping which, it would seem to me, would indicate that the expressed point of order is well taken. I would therefore ask the hon. member for Dauphin to confine his remarks to subjects which could properly be taken up under the first item of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very glad to follow your suggestion. I shall not need to review what I have already said, but I think we can agree on this much with the Minister of Agriculture, that as he has himself stated just a few minutes ago, certain arrangements have been made between his department and the department of agriculture in the province of Manitoba. Certainly those arrangements must concern the administration of the Department of Agriculture here, and, to the extent they do, I submit that certainly it is in order to discuss those arrangements. I shall refrain from any further reference to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act until we come to that particular item, if that is more convenient.


James Garfield Gardiner: We had better get it all understood to begin with. My hon. friend was speaking of the connection between lake Manitoba and lake Winnipeg. That is not in the P.F.R.A. area, and we have no arrangements whatsoever with regard to that. He reads from the Winnipeg Free Press to indicate that at some time or other, P.F.R.A. had taken care of flood conditions around those lakes. P.F.R.A. does not take care of flood conditions around those lakes. Those are under the province, unless they make an arrangement under the act spoken of, which comes under my hon. friend the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and not under this department at all.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I fail to see why the minister should raise any further objection to what I am saying, Mr. Chairman, because I have already stated that regardless of what act may be involved with respect to the arrangement I mentioned between the Department of Agriculture here and the department of agriculture of Manitoba, it is a fact that to the extent that this Department of Agriculture is involved in these arrangements the matter comes under the administration of the minister; and without mentioning any act whatsoever, I think it is perfectly in order to discuss that phase of the department's administration.
In any event I have said almost all I need to say about that matter, except to indicate
Supply-Agriculture
that in Manitoba we have had, over a period of years now, extremely serious flood conditions in different parts of the province. The minister of agriculture of Manitoba has on many occasions stated that what is needed is an over-all policy or an over-all arrangement under which certain projects can be undertaken jointly by the province and the federal government. I agree with him. I am hoping that the Minister of Agriculture here will in the future be able to offer to the province of Manitoba something along that line under which there would not be placed upon the municipalities the burden that is now placed upon them. I want to say to him quite frankly, and I think he is well aware of this fact, that in many cases excellent ideas with regard to flood control projects have gone by the board.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but is this not the very type of discussion which the minister indicated most certainly did not come within the purview of his department?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I think you will recall, Mr. Chairman, that only a short time ago the minister said that certain arrangements were made between his department and the department of agriculture of Manitoba. If that statement holds true, then certainly it involves the federal Department of Agriculture. To the extent that it does so-


James Garfield Gardiner: If I might explain the position it might help. I think if my hon. friend would keep within the rules he would not get into any difficulty. In the estimates there is an item that covers what my hon. friend is speaking about. There is a particular item under the special votes. When we come to that item we can, of course, discuss the matter with the information here before us.
Practically the only undertaking of the kind which is referred to is the one which is in his own constituency and which results from water coming out of the government park, from the Riding mountains down and across toward Dauphin. There is an arrangement between the provincial government and the federal government-this department- with regard to that one project. But that project is done by the province and our share of the cost is provided for in a definite vote and it is not the appropriate thing to be discussing in general discussion on the first item.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be hard to get along with. I shall be quite content to wait until we reach the item the minister has mentioned with regard to this special vote in order to pursue this matter further. The minister has just said

Supply-Agriculture that under this first item it would be more appropriate to discuss general policy with regard to agriculture. In the time I have left at my disposal that is what I propose to do.
One of the matters to which I should like to make reference is the question of agricultural surpluses. From time to time in this house we have been told that we have surpluses of grain or surpluses of other farm products, and various ideas have been put forward as to what can be done about the matter. I notice that at their annual convention recently in Hamilton the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made some recommendations with regard to surpluses. I have in my hand a clipping, under date of January 27, 1956, which refers to one of the proposals in these words:
Delegates Thursday approved a plan calling for an international surplus disposal agency to distribute food with the least amount of disruption of normal markets.
Then further on:
The federation advocated an orderly food marketing program through international action and careful consideration of methods to distribute surpluses to needy persons in this country.
The reason I mentioned that recommendation at all is to underline the fact that if this parliament or this government is interested in an international food distributing agency, the first step that must be taken is to have a national food distributing agency which could work in conjunction with the international body. I think there is there a great field that has not been scratched, one in which nothing definite has been done.
While it also of course involves other departments besides the Department of Agriculture, I would certainly recommend that the Department of Agriculture make a study of what can be done first of all in our own country to set up something in the nature of what is referred to as a food bank, or a method of seeing to it that as long as there is need for food in any corner of the country, some method may be found to distribute that food to needy people. Then I would recommend that they take the next step and work out a system of co-operation between the national food bank and an international body in order that food which is produced may be used and utilized to the best advantage.
We often talk of surpluses as though they were a burden or a misfortune of some kind. I think it is time we realized that a good supply of good food is the greatest blessing known to mankind. It is the kind of blessing which is not known all over the world. I think we should turn that blessing to the advantage of the nation rather than to its disadvantage.


Along the same line I should also like to recommend to the department that a great deal more research be done with respect to the utilization of agricultural products other than as food. First of all, I want to say clearly that certainly agricultural products should be utilized as food as the No. 1 use as long as there is need for them in that form. But let us suppose that we have reached the stage in a certain line of product-say grain- where all the needs so far as food is concerned have been looked after both domestically and, so far as we can, internationally; yet we have an absolute surplus. In that case I think some attention should be paid to the finding of ways and means of utilizing these products for purposes other than as foodstuffs.
Some research work has been done by our own national research council and in other laboratories across the country and in the country to the south of us. I feel that all that kind of research is still in its infancy. If a concerted effort were made to do the necessary groundwork, the necessary pure research and then the applied research, I believe we could find perhaps hundreds of ways in which agricultural products can be used for purposes other than as food. It is not, of course a new thing. For example, we know that we are now utilizing sugar beets for the manufacture of sugar. We are utilizing many of our grains for what can hardly be described as food purposes. For instance, our brewing and distilling industries in this country are making a product which, in my opinion, is not a food but which is an extremely profitable product. In fact so profitable is it that those who utilize our malting barley seem to find it quite possible to make substantial contributions to political parties out of their profits.


Mr. Studer:: Not in Saskatchewan.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: In other words-


William Alfred Robinson: I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. McBain:: At the outset I should like to put on the record a few figures showing how the prices of agricultural products have decreased since 1952. Cash farm income from the sale of farm products and the participation payments in the previous year's grain crops in 1955 amounted to an estimated $2,352,600,000. This was 1-8 per cent below the 1954 total of $2,395,300,000. This figure was 17-4 per cent under the all-time high of $2,849,300,000 in 1952. I think we all agree and realize, as many speakers have stated, that the earnings of farmers are extremely low.

This fact is borne out by the statistics on incomes of the different occupations, and those statistics also make no allowance for the fact that the farmer requires very heavy capital investment. Interest and depreciation on that capital must be deducted from the reported earnings of a farmer if he wants to find out what he has got for his labour. When this is calculated the farmer finds he has been receiving a very meagre hourly wage for his labour.
I am going to take the year 1953, which was possibly an average year. In that year some 205,000 farmers in Canada filed income tax returns showing an average net income of only $2,125. These 205,000 farmers who filed returns paid in taxes some $25 million, or an average of $122. In that same year of 1953 only one-third of those who filed tax returns were declared taxable. I think I would be safe in saying that based on the figures of net return as tabled by the minister in his opening remarks, when the returns for 1955 are filed they will show that a very low percentage of those farmers will be taxable. Where else can you get a better picture of the depressed prices the farmer is receiving today?
Mr. Chairman, the farmers of Canada are now entering the planting time of another crop year. The future, so far as prices and cost of production are concerned, is not by any means bright. The importance of agriculture and of the farmer can well be exemplified by an article by Gordon Sinclair as taken from Liberty magazine and published in the weekly Dutton Advance of April 25, 1956:
With the bursting of the first furrow to ooze a fragrance of spring Canada's thousands of farmers are heading back to the soil to risk their health, fortune and patience on another crop year.
These farmers are the captains of the earth. We could do without politicians, bankers, or writers, but not without the farmers.
There is no urgent need for editors, broadcasters or salesmen. Stenographers are no more essential than are trappers, yacht-builders or diamond-cutters.
But the farmer is the one essential man without whom no city dweller can long survive. Yet he is often the patsy, the fall guy for costly schemes of someone else's design. He gets no paid vacation, no 40-hour week, no pension scheme and no paid time off for illness. He provides his own parking.
He has to possess, set up, and work his own business, depending on nature and his personal gifts of intelligence to make it pay. He takes daily risks of both financial and physical nature. Yet he is taken for granted, sometimes looked down upon, and occasionally ridiculed as a yokel or bumpkin.
No Canadian has more built-in integrity and self respect than the farmer, but he gets the worst deal of any citizen in this rich land.
Mr. Chairman, does the farmer have to wait for an expansion of industry that will provide
Supply-Agriculture
a large consumer market for farm products and which will provide also employment for that part of the population born on the farm but now no longer necessary as agriculture labour? Mechanization of the farm industry is steadily reducing the agricultural force. In the past 15 years the area under cultivation has increased but the farm labour force has decreased from about 1,300,000 to about 800,000.
The total population and the effect of immigration on that total is a factor that will influence the prosperity of farmers and all Canadians. If Canada had twice her present population, the whole market for farm products and all products would be just that much greater and dependence on foreign markets that much less. I think also the government should take another look at the trade agreements and tariff protection. I am sure many hon. members in this house have received a request from the turkey growers for a more equitable tariff. Why are these turkey producers asking for this more equitable tariff? I think the following figures will show why.
Inspected imports of dressed turkeys up to the week ending April 14 were 944,406 pounds, compared with only 303,605 pounds at the same date a year ago. This is an increase of three times, I would say. Total imports of all dressed poultry at the same date are high, being 3,058,166 pounds, compared with only 911,229 pounds at April 14, 1955. This aggravated the situation further. If this stepped-up trend of imports continues, it is more than likely the entire poultry industry will be adversely affected, as our total potential poultry crop is up. It is about in the same position as the turkey crop, as there were 10-1 per cent more eggs in hatcheries during the past 12-week period than during the same period last season.
At the same time we have had very little export of turkeys. As of April 14 of this year, 3,129 pounds were exported compared to 1,689 pounds in 1955, but none of this would be going to the United States. This whole lot could well amount to only some 150 turkeys weighing about 21 pounds each. For several years past this trade has been a oneway street from south of the border into Canada. The Canadian tariff is 12-5 per cent ad valorem, which on low-priced turkeys is not a reasonable protection. The rate of duty going the other way, from north to south, was a straight 10 cents per pound on dressed turkeys. United States interests readily agreed that it was not an equitable break, and they were largely instrumental in having their duty reduced to 5 cents a pound, a gesture of good will which may come in handy some

Supply-Agriculture
day though exports to the United States do not appear likely to be on the increase.
Canadian growers of turkeys are looking for some action by the federal government, and certainly are not unreasonable in their request that the present 12J per cent duty ad valorem be retained and that a minimum of 5 cents a pound be established. This should apply to both eviscerated birds and New York dressed birds.
This heavy tonnage of imported turkey meat affects the economy of Canada in another way. In round figures that tonnage if produced in Canada would consume approximately 1 million bushels of grain, and we have plenty of that which seeks a market at the present time. Consider another point; home dressed turkeys also need equipment and other requisites from hatching egg to grown birds. There is also a market in Canada, we understand, for some United States turkeys. I think in Canada we could probably consume up to 6 million or 7 million pounds a year, and we would expect a reasonable increase each season. But judging by 1955 and the four-month period of 1956, imports are too high and Canadian growers need a modest tariff to protect them against the lower production costs of the United States.
Over the past number of years the Canadian turkey producers' association have done an excellent job of marketing, and have created a market for their product 12 months of the year. I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture, along with the Minister of Finance, would give very serious consideration to this request of the Canadian turkey producers for more favourable tariff adjustment.
Not many years ago federal and provincial governments listened readily to the farm voice, because at that time the farm people made up a large percentage of the population. But that is true no longer. The manufacturing industry has taken over, and it now controls 25 per cent of the labour force as against 15-8 per cent in agriculture. It accounts for 55 per cent of the value of products produced in Canada, as against 15-4 per cent for agriculture. In the year 1901 about 40 per cent of Canada's labour force was engaged in agriculture, with about 16 per cent in manufacturing. The value of products produced was roughly in the same proportion.
What does this all mean? It means that we are becoming more of a manufacturing nation. At the present time Canada rates seventh in production in the world; therefore governments will listen more readily to the manufacturing people. The non-farm people will increase in number and therefore will acquire more voting power, so the government of necessity will turn its ear more in

that direction. It is true that more industry will provide more markets and help ease farm marketing problems, but it still will not give the farmers a bigger share of the consumer's dollar.
I have gained the impression that the majority of Canadian farmers are not strongly politically minded; that they are more interested in the quality and yield of their crops and the building up of their soil than in politics. On the other hand, farmers as a whole take more interest and are better versed in the affairs of government than many groups of people. Governments in the past have realized this and have devoted their efforts to helping solve the problems of producing quality products in paying quantities. But the success or failure of each individual farmer is his own responsibility, and this is as it should be. He should be in a position to make his own decisions on both production and disposal of his crops.
But what do we find now? We find that farmers have to depend more and more on the government for the marketing of their crops; but trusting all things to government is like trusting them to Providence. They have to accept whatever happens and console themselves with the thought that it is God's will.
This government is composed of mere men, Mr. Chairman, some of them tired men, men with other things besides agriculture on their minds and other fish to fry. Is their chief concern to keep themselves in office, and is their judgment at times so influenced? I know there are times when the Minister of Agriculture has been sincere in his efforts to bring in measures that would assist farmers and the agricultural industry, but he always has that old alibi that the cabinet will not consider it. I sincerely hope that before the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture are passed he will be able to assure this house and honestly assure the farmers of Canada that they are not entirely forgotten people.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, the question I have to place before the minister for his attention affects the largest number of farmers in the province of British Columbia. I notice in a table compiled in Country Life for the month of April, 1956, that the Fraser valley, which has a population of over 649,000 people has 44,961 devoted to farm work. The particular problem that faces them is this. It was my pleasure to be in a theatre one evening, and the story of the dikes under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act of 1948 was portrayed. The problems of those people are similar to the problems that we have in British Columbia along the lower mainland.

After seeing the story portrayed in that theatre I felt that what is good for one part of Canada is good for all of Canada, especially since that particular act is in effect in the maritimes, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in the Palliser triangle of the prairie provinces, and certain special grants are in effect in British Columbia and other regions of Canada.
In my own region we have certain problems with respect to diking. There are four diking areas which front on the Fraser river, namely the Derby diking district, the Barnston island, the East Langley region and the south Westminster region. Of those which are subject to tidal water there are the Surrey, the Cole-brook and the Mud bay diking districts. The problem in so far as drainage is concerned in this rich agricultural area, which is actually the area having most of the market gardens in the lower mainland, is a very distressing one for farmers. The problem of these people is almost identical in many respects to the problem of the marshland regions of the maritime provinces.
The dikes along the Fraser are subject to three causes of erosion, namely natural river erosion, swell which is caused by the river boats, and certain work left undone following the flood year of 1948, which actually causes the flooding. In the diking areas of Surrey, Colebrook and Mud bay there are two other reasons which make it necessary that this be given practically immediate attention. There is the drop of the land level which is caused by the working of the peat lands, and second the run-off of water has increased over the past few years. The diking areas of Surrey, Colebrook and Mud bay are on the Nicomekl river and the Serpentine river.
Four schemes have been proposed that might be of some help. One is the raising of the river banks to a height of possibly two to four feet. Another is dredging which could be used, of course, in cleaning out the rivers and for filling the banks to the level of two or four feet, whatever the case might be. There is also the possibility of straightening the rivers, and finally there is the diversion of the upland waters.
The minister is quite familiar with this problem, at least to a degree. I have a great deal of correspondence not only in relation to this diking area but in relation to many others. The minister received a brief from the three diking regions I mentioned earlier, namely the Mud bay, the Colebrook and the Surrey areas in which the problem of flooding was drawn to his attention and certain requests were made of him. The brief was dated February 27, 1956, from Cloverdale, British Columbia; it bears the
Supply-Agriculture
wording "Drainage of Serpentine river and Nicomekl river diked areas in British Columbia," and is addressed to Hon. J. G. Gardiner.
I do not intend to read the brief, but it explains very carefully and in considerable detail the reasons for the flooding of the land. It explains that the slopes above the valley have been cleared of some brush and trees, with the result that the water run-off is much greater than heretofore. It also goes on to explain that there are some 65,000 acres of rich farm land the run-off of which is running into the lower region consisting of some 13,000 acres or more of diked area.
The brief goes on to explain-and this thought struck me as I read the brief and as I remembered seeing the movie I mentioned-how realistic these people are in respect to their problems. I find that they draw attention to what they can see is happening at this time. As I remember the movie with respect to the marshland drainage area it became apparent to the farmers that something had to be done. When the assistance they called for in the form of neighbourly help was not forthcoming a mutual decision was finally arrived at because of the heavy rains that took place.
We have here an instance where the farmers were very realistic. They discovered the reasons for their problems. They have also seen what has happened with respect to their fine rich farm land. They are sufficiently realistic to realize that if something is not done at this time, the danger will be aggravated that much more in the very near future.
The brief goes on to point out that the losses in 1955 were well over $100,000. This is a matter which has not grown up overnight; it has developed over a long period of time. The brief explains that 30 years ago there was no need for dikes. The water run-off at that time was very slow; the hills had trees on them and the snow was slow in thawing. The run-off was very gradual, with the result that no dikes were required. Twenty years ago, however, the problem became somewhat aggravated and as the population increased it became apparent that dikes would be needed.
They began to do some diking. Approximately 44 miles of diking was done in that area, which caused the setting up of the diking boards. Ten years ago there was practically no problem, because the rivers carried the run-off; the dikes served the purpose for which they were built and the increased population, which of course brought about the clearing of trees from the hills, had not reached the point where the problem was affected materially.

Supply-Agriculture
Today, because of the tremendous growth in population, every acre of available land in that area is being used to supply the lower mainland with food products, and it has become necessary for the farmers and the government to take note of what diking is required in that area. The farmers are in the same position as they were in 1938 when they first began their diking projects. That is the situation which faces them today.
Let it not be said that these diking boards did not try to help themselves. Surrey has spent $764,976.62 on the building of dikes. Colebrook has spent $70,768.64 on the building of dikes. Mud bay has spent $38,236.51 on the building of dikes. This represents a total expenditure by the three diking boards of $873,981.77.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I enjoy all this but it does not come under my estimates. Any diking which this government does on the Fraser river and other navigable streams is done under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and the other portions are done under the British Columbia government which my hon. friend helped form. I think he ought to talk to them about that part of it.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture, whom I respect very highly and to whom I always enjoy listening because he is the finest skater in the House of Commons, has brought something to light here which I think is very important in relation to this particular problem. In view of the statement he has just made concerning the Department of Trade and Commerce I am rather surprised that he has not referred to that department for their consideration the correspondence sent to him by the various municipal bodies.
I have here a letter from Mr. J. G. Taggart, the deputy minister of agriculture, dated February 6, 1956, referring to this particular problem, which says in part:
In the third place, if for any reason the services of P.F.R.A. engineers are desired from municipalities or provinces we can make those services available only if the engineers are not fully engaged on their regular duties and on condition that the requesting authority will pay the actual cost of the work. That being the case, if the provincial authority is unable to do the work and wishes to have us undertake any survey work, the first thing to do is for that authority to define the work that is wanted and the reasons they cannot do their own engineering in order that we may indicate whether we can undertake it on their behalf.
In short, we can authorize our engineers to make general or particular surveys only with respect to projects which come within our field of responsibility directly or as a result of an agreement with the province.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct. The advice given is that if we have engineers who are not busy and either the province or the


municipalities require them, if it is a municipality they would make application to the province to have the work done. If the province said they had no engineers to do the work they would ask us to send engineers who were not employed, and they would agree to pay them. We would send out the engineers who would then become their engineers until the project was finished. That is a provincial and municipal job, it is not ours.


Frederick George Hahn: The minister has suggested a certain procedure. The brief I was reading was presented to the minister, and one was also presented to Mr. W. K. Kiernan, minister of agriculture of British Columbia. A copy of a letter which the minister of agriculture of British Columbia sent to the right hon. Minister of Agriculture here, dated March 21, reads as follows:
The provincial government is prepared to participate in the cost of such a survey, jointly with the diking district and the federal government.
The changing nature of this drainage basin, brought about by development of the surrounding lands creates a major drainage problem, the magnitude of which is beyond the scope and ability of the diking district.
A major engineering survey must be made. If the flooding is to be prevented in the future, all further construction work should be done in conformity with such a plan so that the end result of such expenditure would be the completion of a drainage system of sufficient capacity to cope with the total volume of water liable to originate in the drainage basin and run off through the constructed works.
The provincial government, therefore, endorses the brief of the above diking districts, that is the Surrey, Colebrook and Mud bay diking districts. and solicits the services of P.F.R.A. engineers and the financial support of the federal government in this project.
I think that complies with what the minister has said. That is the reason for my rising on this particular question. Then there is a letter dated April 9, 1956 from the Minister of Agriculture to Mr. Hugh, a copy of which was sent to me. This reads in part:
I should like to say in reply that this same type of drainage problem has been considered previously by the government and was rejected on the principle that the organization, financing, and administration of drainage areas falls strictly within the field of provincial and local responsibility. In the circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to raise the question again and become involved in direct negotiations with the local authorities on a question of this kind.
The minister was perfectly right in the answer he gave. He says it is not his job, that it is a problem for the local authorities. However, the provincial government have made representations to him. They have indicated that they are not in position to carry out this work and have requested assistance. Assistance of engineers is provided for in

the act. It now becomes necessary that representations be made here that such engineers be made available to do this particular survey job.
Someone in this group suggests that it is a case of passing the buck. I would prefer to think that it was a case of the three levels of government not getting together. I am satisfied that if the minister were to give this matter the consideration which he is probably capable of giving there would be a change, and he would indicate to the province that the P.F.R.A. engineers are not too busy and that this is one of the purposes for which they are employed. We cannot blame the municipal diking districts for the problem which is going to be theirs within a very short time.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You have a few unemployed engineers out there now.


Frederick George Hahn: The hon. member for Kootenay East made a very interesting point. Everyone in British Columbia knows that our engineers are so busy building roads, railroads and bridge projects that this government has failed to do, has failed to take the responsibility for, that they are not available for this type of work. We have no engineers who have made it their business to be familiar with P.F.R.A. or this special work.


An hon. Member:: Send some out.


Frederick George Hahn: I am pleased that the hon. member for Victoria suggests-


Mr. Fairey:: I did not say a word.


Frederick George Hahn: Probably it was the hon. member in front of him.


An hon. Member:: Wrong again.


Frederick George Hahn: It was suggested that they send us some. That is what we are asking for.


James Garfield Gardiner: Will my hon. friend permit me to give him this information? The P.F.R.A. does not operate in British Columbia, it operates only on the prairies or in the prairie farm rehabilitation area.


Frederick George Hahn: The Palliser triangle.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Veterans' Land Act people have established some veterans in British Columbia in the vicinity of Kamloops and in the Kootenay district. They asked to have some men who had worked on the P.F.R.A. give them some assistance, and offices were established at Kamloops and other places in British Columbia. They were prepared to do work having to do with the settlement of veterans on land. Those engineers are called P.F.R.A. engineers simply because they came from the P.F.R.A. service
Supply-Agriculture
and have been working in those areas, but their work has to do with work carried on as between the provincial government, the Veterans' Land Act people and this organization which operates chiefly on the prairies.
Because they are there to assist in that kind of work the government naturally suggested that these engineers ought to go and do some other work. However, the position taken by the government here, not necessarily my department but by the Department of Finance, is that when these men go out there they must be paid by either the municipality or the province and not by this government. To that extent they are just engineers who have been loaned by us to one or other of those authorities.


Frederick George Hahn: It was stated in the brief that in addition to the huge sum of money which I indicated earlier as being $873,981, the British Columbia government have contributed $10,000 to the Mud bay diking district to assist them in repairing a break in their dike.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What did the federal government pay in 1948?


Frederick George Hahn: That was declared to be a disaster area in 1948, and I am quite satisfied that the federal government was quite aware of its responsibility in that instance. No one appreciated that more than we in British Columbia did, but we would like to see them finish the job they left undone at that time. There are certain portions of the dike that have not been completed, and not all these particular ones to which I am referring at this moment. The petition reads as follows:
We believe that no other organization in Canada is better organized and equipped to make such a survey and report than the P.F.R.A. We wish to ask you to declare the drainage of the Serpentine and Nicomekl rivers to be a reclamation and development project, and to make a grant thereto sufficient to take care of the necessary survey and recommendations for its orderly development.
The minister in his letter, if he will recall, suggested that the province was quite willing to share in that cost, and I think it is only-


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not know whether or not the province was prepared to take part in it, except where we made definite arrangements through the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Frederick George Hahn: The letter dated March 21 from the minister of agriculture for the province, which the minister received some time after that, contains the following:
The provincial government is prepared to participate in the cost of such a survey, jointly with the diking district and the federal government.

Supply-Agriculture
The point I am trying to make is that there is a responsibility here. The diking commissioners realize they are going to have a very grave problem to face in the next short period of time. The fact is that they have a major degree of flooding each year at this time. All that is being proposed by the government of British Columbia in this particular instance is the assistance that we should be expected to get through these special engineers, or through the engineers whose job it is under the P.F.R.A. to work in special regions to get this engineering done. Until such time as they tell us exactly what needs to be done and how best to do it, nothing can be done on this particular project.
As 1 indicated when I began my address, if it is good for the maritimes to have this marshland rehabilitation act in effect, if it is good for the P.F.R.A. to be in effect in the Palliser triangle, I claim it is just as good- and I am satisfied the hon. member for Dauphin will agree with me-that this should become applicable across Canada, because we have that problem. The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, early in the year, said, "Let us change the name of the P.F.R.A. to the national farm rehabilitation act, and let us make it do a job for the people of this country." I am satisfied that the farmers in this country will thank the Minister of Agriculture if he sees fit to do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is almost ten o'clock. I think if my hon. friend will bring the matter up on items 44 and 45, those are items where there is money provided for British Columbia. It is not under P.F.R.A. I am just trying to straighten out the committee on what we are talking about. It is not a P.F.R.A. vote.


Frederick George Hahn: Before we go any further on that, may I say this. The minister suggested that it be brought up under item 44 or 45. Possibly item 45 would be the better one so far as I am concerned, because the $70,000 suggested under item 44 is hardly adequate to do a reasonably good job across this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall be telling you that we have discontinued it, and we have just put in enough to clean up what we are doing.


Mr. Nicholson:: I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will remember 1956. It was three months ago today that the minister proceeded to get his estimates approved by the house, and members will recall that that was the date we ran into some trouble with margarine in the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: The minister did.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, the minister did. The rest of us followed the incident with a good deal of interest. Then a week ago today-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He slithered out of it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -when we were on the estimates, we had the most unusual experience of finding ourselves discussing estimates without any minister in the house. Since I came here in 1940 that had never happened before. Whilst the minister said that his parliamentary assistant would be able to answer all the questions, it is a tradition that a minister responsible to the crown should be on hand, and it is usually a tradition that another cabinet minister be here in case certain amendments are to be moved.
There was another interesting development last Thursday. At the time when my colleague, the hon. member for Assiniboia, had a chance to speak, there had been four Liberals speaking, a Liberal for every member of the opposition. That is quite significant, because it points up the fact that, in spite of what the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce say about farming being so prosperous, four Liberal members in this house-the hon. member for Wellington South, the hon. member for Norfolk, the hon. member for Kent and the hon. member for Northumberland-all felt obliged to stand up in their places and make speeches which, though not as critical as the speeches we made, were nevertheless speeches that they will be able to take back to their constituencies, and they will be able to say, "When the Minister of Agriculture was before the house, I said so and so".


Mr. Weir:: Is that what you do?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is very revealing.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am suggesting that private members on the government side are taking out a little insurance so they will be able to-


William Gilbert Weir: That is what you have been doing all the session.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have not had a chance to review what has been said.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I shall have to wait until tomorrow.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Finance asked me to say that tomorrow we would conclude these estimates and then take up justice and transport.


An hon. Member:: In that order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In that order.


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

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

Mr. Caslleden: 1.	Who is the civil defence co-ordinator?
2.	Has he power to veto provincial defence programs?
3.	What federal control is exerted over provincial civil defence programs?
4.	Does federal civil defence make any financial grants to assist provincial civil defence programs organized to deal with peacetime disaster?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1.	F. F. Worthington.
2.	The federal co-ordinator has no power of veto over provincial civil defence programs. His function is:
(a)	to co-ordinate federal planning and
. action;	
(b)	to co-ordinate and advise provincial and municipal authorities; and
(c)	to maintain liaison with corresponding
agencies in the United Kingdom, United States and other countries.
3.	No direct federal control is exerted over provincial civil defence programs but every effort is made by co-ordination, liaison and advice to ensure that all provinces are planning, organizing, and developing civil defence programs along suitable and comparable lines.
4.	No.


R.C.A.F. TRANSPORT COMMAND
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What aircraft are operated by the R.C.A.F. transport command?
2.	How many air miles did each of these aircraft fly last year?
3.	How many multi-engined aircraft are required to make a fully equipped infantry brigade airborne portable?
Answer by: Hon. R. O National Defence): 1 and 2.	. Campney (Minister of
Aircraft operated by	Air miles flown in 1955
R.C.A.F. Transport	(Estimated from
Command in 1955	number of hours flown)
Lancaster			 772,570
North Star ....		 4,642,110
C-119 			 2,709,860
Canso 			 318,125
Dakota 			 1,797,690
Expeditor			 417,615
Sabre 			 2,754,450
T-33 			 627,900
Otter 			 629,600
Sikorsky-5 5 . . .		 327,860
Sikorsky-II-34A		 15,210
H-21A 			 50,720
Total			 15,063,710
Questions
3. The number of multi-engined aircraft required to airlift a fully equipped infantry brigade in one operation would depend on the type of aircraft used. If C-119 aircraft were used, the number required would be 148.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
Queston No. 462-Mr. Robichaud:
Has any attention been paid by the Department of National Health and Welfare to matters of sanitation at the federal construction project at Camp Gagetown, New Brunswick?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
Officers of the public health engineering division of the Department of National Health and Welfare have been very active in promotr ing a high standard of sanitation at the numerous construction camps established in the development of Camp Gagetown. This work comes under the Public Works Health Act and regulations which are administered by the department.
During the past year more than 75 visits to these camps were made by engineers of the public health engineering division in connection with matters of water supply, sewage disposal and sanitation. Conditions have been found to be generally satisfactory in the larger camps. Instances of non-compliance with recommended standards are immediately brought to the attention of the authorities directly concerned for necessary remedial action. Camp closure proceedings have been invoked in a few cases where camp operators have failed to maintain the standard of sanitation desired.

Mr. Boisvert: 1.	How many firms from other countries established manufacturing plants in Canada in 1955?
2.	How many of the abovementioned were established in Alberta, British Columbia. Manitoba. New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan?
Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
1.	134.
2.
Nfld. N.S. N.B. P.Q Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C.
U.S.	12	76 1	1	5U.K. 2 Others	3	17	1	1	2	9	1	2	13	2	15	102 1	1	4	6
Questions


PUBLIC WORKS-BUILDING RENTAL CONTRACTS
Mr. Hahn: What are the terms of contract agreed upon between the lessor and the government respecting the responsibility of maintenance and repair of buildings leased?
Answer by:	Mr. Bourgei, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
Normally, but subject to variations depending upon circumstances, the maintenance and repairs of a leased building are covered under the following lease arrangements:
The lessor covenants with the said lessee that the said leased premises are now in a good state of repair and tenantable condition and to keep said premises in good and tenantable repair and condition at all times during the term and, upon notice given by the lessee, to make good any defect or want of repair for which the lessor is responsible, namely major and minor repairs.
That he will pay all insurance, taxes and rates which may be charged in respect of the said
property hereby demised and will supply all water and pay all water rates and also supply and pay for janitor service and cleaning during the continuance of the term hereby created;
That he will heat the premises hereby leased in a proper and comfortable manner the minimum temperature to be not less than sixty-eight (68) degrees Fahrenheit, and furnish and maintain, at his own expense, good and sufficient lighting appliances and light for the demised premises;
That he will furnish lavatory and toilet room accommodation and keep the same constantly in good order and sanitary condition;
That he will furnish, operate and maintain in good working order in said building the elevator which ... to run during the ordinary business hours of every day of the year (Sundays and holidays excepted) and which the lessee shall have the right to make use of in common with the other tenants of the building.
Note: By negotiation any of the above covenants may become the responsibility of the lessee with appropriate consideration given to the rental rate to be paid in such cases.

Friday, May 11, 1956