1957-10-17

Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the house I am sure will be happy to hear the gracious message received from Her Majesty by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) yesterday afternoon. The Prime Minister wired her subsequent to her departure in the following words:
As Your Majesty and Prince Philip leave Ottawa to visit the United States of America I send you, with humble duty, a message of loyalty and love from all Canadians. During this historic stay Your Majesty has strengthened in us all our pride in Canada and in Canada's Queen. It is with high hope that you will come to us soon again that I bid you au revoir. May God bless Your Majesty and Prince Philip.
And the reply from Her Majesty reads as follows:
The very kind telegram which you sent to me and to my husband reached us as our aircraft took off from Uplands. I deeply appreciate the message of loyalty which it contains. We have both enjoyed to the full our days at Ottawa and keenly look forward to our return. We send our best wishes and thanks to Mrs. Diefenbaker and yourself.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. James Sinclair (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of National Defence whether he can tell the house what action his department will take to replace the bridge at Peace river on the Alaska highway which yesterday, unfortunately, fell into the river and so disrupted communications to our northland.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I was advised by the commander of the northwest highway system that the north anchor and the north cable bent of the bridge on the Alaska highway over the Peace river at Taylor flats had moved some six feet during the night of the 15-16 October.
Hon. members will recall that the bridge was built in 1942 by United States army engineers during the construction of the Alaska highway. Traffic across the bridge
was stopped immediately, and we are seeking suitable means to keep it moving by other routes.
The premier of British Columbia with whom I spoke yesterday afternoon offered the use of the new P.G.E. railway bridge. The feasibility of using that bridge is now being looked into. It is some miles upstream from the site and would require the construction of seven or eight miles of new roads and would also require planking; the rails of the railway have not yet been laid across the bridge. There is also a ferry at Clayhurst which is some 10 miles downstream. That is now operated day and night, and we have made arrangements to collect material nearer to the site of the Peace river bridge in the hope that a larger ferry may be operated there immediately. I have also sent Dr. P. L. Pratley, a well-known engineering consultant from Montreal, to carry out an on the site inspection and he is now flying to the Peace river.
I had further word this morning before I came into the house saying that the Peace river bridge is all down from the north abutment to the north pier including north cable bent. The remainder was intact, as at 2200 hours last night, but the north pier and tower may be slightly shifted.


James Sinclair: Thank you.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is there any provision in the contract to be let for the pipe line east of the lakehead under the aegis of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation for the clearing and rock work to be started during the late fall and winter season as a means of easing the growing unemployment problem in this area?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I would also like to welcome him to this house as a former comrade in arms in the 12th Manitoba Dragoons, and to congratulate him on his campaign last spring which was as successful in its results as his campaign in the second world war.

Inquiries of the Ministry
With regard to his question, the contracts for the new construction that will be done on the second main leg of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation line, running from, say, Port Arthur to Kapuskasing, will be let very soon. Whether or not the clearing may be done in the winter is something which will be looked into, and I thank the hon. member for drawing this to my attention. It may not be possible to do much of the rock work in the wintertime because of the very extensive blasting which is required in some of these sections, but I will have this matter investigated, and should I receive further information I will bring it to the hon. member's attention.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Douglas S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the house that an outbreak of hog cholera has occurred, and I think it advisable at this time to make a statement in connection with it so that exaggerated rumours may not be circulated. The statement is as follows.
Hog cholera was identified on October 15 by clinical and post mortem findings on premises at Leamington, Ontario. Forty-five swine were involved. The premises have been placed under quarantine and the hogs were slaughtered on the same date. Payment of compensation to the owner will be made.
The swine were purchased through a community auction sale on September 26. As a precautionary measure the auction premises were placed under quarantine pending a thorough cleaning and disinfection, which has now been accomplished. All recent swine sales from the auction premises and all possible contacts with the herd are being examined for evidence of the disease. No further cases have been identified to the present. Hogs on all premises adjoining the infected farm are being treated with antihog cholera serum as a precautionary measure.
The last outbreak of hog cholera occurred in western Ontario during May to December, 1953. We hope that the prompt action taken to control this outbreak will be successful, and that it will be confined within a very small area.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of his

statement on the outbreak of hog cholera. Has any decision been made as to the basis of compensation to be paid to the owners of animals that are destroyed, and is the department or the minister giving any consideration to bring in amendments to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act setting forth the basis of compensation so we shall not have any risk of repeating the situation which occurred this spring in regard to the fantastic payments for sheep?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me right the basis for compensation as far as swine are concerned is the market value at the time of their destruction.



INQUIRY AS TO COMPLAINTS CONCERNING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Notice has also been given in this instance. During the past eight months, has the minister or livestock division of his department received complaints respecting the grading of hogs in Alberta by federal government graders? If so, what action was taken with respect to such complaints?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wish to thank the hon. member for his notice in connection with this question. The answer is as follows. The only complaint with respect to the grading of hogs in Alberta received by the department during the past eight months was a resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Alberta Livestock Co-Operative Limited alleging severity and inconsistency in grading and requesting that graders be rotated weekly from plant to plant. The complaint was of a general character containing no specific charges or evidence to support the general charges.
The application of national standards for hog carcasses on a uniform basis is recognized as being of prime importance and regular checks are made to achieve this objective. The rotation of graders between plants has been a recognized part of the program. They are rotated on a monthly basis, and it is not felt that more frequent rotation would add to the efficiency.
The situation was fully explained in a letter dated September 17, 1957, which I addressed to the secretary-treasurer of the Alberta Livestock Co-Operative Limited.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. When the minister was out west recently, was he able to discuss with the Saskatchewan government the building of the Flin Flon-Hanson lake mining development road as a joint project? If so, does the minister expect that an agreement can be reached in time to begin construction in 1958?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mackenzie was good enough to give me notice of this question two days ago, and I have the answer to the first part of his question. Yes; there was an oral discussion with one of the members of the government of Saskatchewan on my trip west.
In answer to the part of the question dealing with construction, I think it should be made known at this time that several provinces are concerned in this general policy of the development of northern roads, and that several departments of government are also concerned. In view of the priority being given this session to the needs of the aged, the veterans and the farmers, we have been unable to move as fast as we in the department would have liked.
I may point out that in the speech from the throne it is stated that there will be announcements from time to time regarding these projects, and knowing my interest in this matter I think the hon. member can be assured that as soon as we are able to get agreement with the province of Saskatchewan and some of the other provinces an announcement will be made in this house.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister inform the house whether a request has been made by any of the provincial governments to the federal government for the enactment of a national all-risk crop insurance act, and if so by which provinces?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. We have had no official request from any of the provincial
Inquiries of the Ministry governments in connection with an all-risk crop insurance act. However, when the provincial ministers of agriculture met with me here on September 5 and 6 we had a good deal of discussion in connection with this particular matter, the desirability of putting some form of crop insurance into effect was spoken of by most of the provincial ministers present, and we in the department have been giving a considerable amount of study to this matter.


Mr. Pefer Slefura (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the government plan to bring down legislation this session to inaugurate an all-risk crop insurance plan in conjunction with the provinces interested?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated more or less a few minutes ago what was the answer to that question. The matter is under study, and we have no definite representations from any of the provinces as far as any particular scheme or schemes are concerned.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister advise the house what progress is being made with respect to the release of certain waterfront property in Prince Rupert, B.C., now held by the Canadian National Railways, the request for the release of the property being made by an individual who wishes to build a manufacturing plant revolving around the lumber industry?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, such an application has not been brought to my notice. I shall inquire of my department and give an answer tomorrow.



CHIGNECTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henry Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in view of his answer on Tuesday that his department has

Inquiries of the Ministry under consideration transport and allied problems. That was in answer to a question about the Chignecto canal.
Could the minister tell me what persons are engaged in inquiring into the technical aspects of the Chignecto canal and what is the experience of these persons in determining the present day costs of a project of this kind?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious to all members of the house that this type of question should be placed on the order paper, and I would ask that this be done at the present time.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, we appear to be keeping the Minister of Transport busy this morning. My question is also addressed to him and it is this. Is the minister now prepared to release the findings of an inquiry which was held in Saint John, New Brunswick, on February 6, 7 and 8, 1957, into the sinking of pilot boat No. 1 with the loss of seven lives on January 14 last?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the hon. member for his thoughtfulness in providing me with notice of his desire to ask this question. The findings of the board of investigation are now available for examination and will be made available to any interested party.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works, notice of which has been given. Can the minister indicate to the house whether or not Polymer Corporation intends to proceed with its original plan to establish a subsidiary near Red Deer, Alberta?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I am very glad to be able to assure him that it is the intention of the Polymer Corporation to proceed with the establishment of a subsidiary near Red Deer.
[Mr. Murphy (Westmorland) .1



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. M. T. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take time from the opposition today, but as a supporter of the government I would like to ask a technical question of the Minister of Transport. Is the government giving consideration to the application of the Hamilton harbour commission for a loan to assist in the construction of additional harbour facilities in the third largest harbour in Canada?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, later this session I expect to be presenting a bill to parliament asking for authorization to make a loan of $4,100,000 to the Hamilton harbour commission to assist that commission in the construction of three additional and much needed port facilities for that harbour.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: What about
Windsor?



CROWN CORPORATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of certain information that was obtained in this house during the closing week of the last session can the minister now assure the house that there are no instances of heads of crown corporations being at the same time directors of private companies or corporations?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will take notice of that question, Mr. Speaker, and make a statement later on in reply.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) asked me a question dealing with the freight rate application now before the board of transport commissioners. In a supplementary question he said, as reported at page 35 of Hansard:
Is it not true that the 4 per cent of that 10 per cent which was granted on September 24 will become effective unless some steps are taken by the government?

I replied to him yesterday that I was not aware that any award of 4 per cent had been made but that I would make inquiries and answer today. I am glad to assure the hon. member and the house that no award was made on September 24, but simply the hearings before the board were resumed on that date.
The case which is now proceeding before the board of transport commissioners is in continuation of an application made on May 15, 1956, for authority to increase freight rates, with some exceptions, by 15 per cent. On June 18, 1956, the board permitted an interim increase of 7 per cent and later, on December 17, 1956, allowed an 11 per cent increase in lieu of the 7 per cent.
On August 30, 1957, the railways amended their application to seek a further 10 per cent increase instead of the 4 per cent left in abeyance. It is only this matter which is now being heard and which, as I stated yesterday, will not be concluded until all parties are given an adequate opportunity of being heard. Of course I should state, as has been stated previously in this house, that the board of transport commissioners is a court of record, constituted as such by parliament. Its decisions are subject to appeal, as the Railway Act provides, but meanwhile the matter is sub judice.
Yesterday the railways completed their evidence before the board. Starting today those opposing the application will begin to present their evidence and, as I said yesterday, everyone who desires to make a presentation before the board in this case will, of course, be given adequate opportunity to do so.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister bring the house up to date as to the progress the board is making in the equalization of freight rates, so that any future increases in freight rates may be applied in an equal and equitable manner instead of the discriminatory manner in which they have been made in the past?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather large subject. I will take the question as notice and deal with it tomorrow.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the first lady to be a member of a Canadian government.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After that applause I should get a favourable reply. May I ask the Secretary of State whether the government has received representations from the typographical union concerning the failure of the late government to increase the rate for the printing of voters' lists, which resulted in it being impossible for many regularly equipped printing plants to take on this work? Is consideration being given to increasing that rate so that the next time voters' lists are printed-which might be soon, for all we know-they can be printed in plants that observe proper working conditions and trade union rates of pay?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member may I say that so far as I know no official representations have been made. It may be that the chief electoral officer has something in his office and I will be glad to inquire, but nothing has come to my desk.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) asked whether there has been any change in policy by the present government in regard to the carrying out of geological surveys in the Northwest Territories. The answer is no. He then asked a supplementary question as to why it was that this summer the work of the geological survey parties in the Mackenzie river district of the Northwest Territories was stopped when only 80 per cent of the work was completed. The answer is that our geological survey parties operating in the Mackenzie river district this year completed more work due to favourable weather conditions than was originally planned. Had it been possible to divert extra funds for this purpose, some additional work could have been completed while good weather conditions existed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) asked me a question relating to the number of persons registered
62	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry as unemployed in New Brunswick, and particularly in the Campbellton area, both at the present time and at this time last year.
I have obtained figures from the unemployment insurance commission relating to the number of persons who have registered in the offices of the commission as of October 10 this year. The comparable day for last year is October 11, one day later. The total figures for New Brunswick are as follows: October 10, 1957
Men registered	 8,581
Women	 2,620
Total	 11,201
October 11, 1956
Men registered	 4,445
Women	 2,126
Total	 6,571
There is an increase of 4,630 in the total for the province this year. This is made up almost entirely of male workers. In the Campbellton area the local office reports the following registrations:
October 10, 1957
Men	 659
Women	 Ill
Total	 770
October 11, 1956
Men	 193
Women	 68
Total	 261
The difference, Mr. Speaker, is 509 persons. In order that my hon. friend may have complete information, I shall provide a break-down by categories of employment of the registrations in the Campbellton area. Miscellaneous categories, which embrace some 95 classes of occupations, account for 324 registrations this year compared with 175 last year. Other categories are as follows:
Logging, 114 registrations this year, 18 registrations last year; construction, 146 registrations this year, 45 last year; pulp and paper, 57 registrations this year, 9 last year; longshoremen, 81 registrations this year, none last year. I should add that in Campbellton longshoremen depend for a large part of their work on activity in logging and pulp and paper operations. Truck drivers and taxi drivers, 48 registrations this year, none last year.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can she inform the house whether any amendments to the Civil


Service Act are under consideration for this session? If so, would she define them as major or minor changes?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I hardly think that is a question for an answer at this time. If and when changes are to be made in the act they will appear on the order paper.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. I have not given him notice of this question, but I notice that he has not had one directed to him and I would not want him to feel neglected. My question is this. Has the minister taken any steps to terminate the investigation into the affairs of the united fishermen and allied workers' union of British Columbia by the combines investigation branch? That is a nice easy question.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had notice of this question. As far as I know no action has been taken, but I will take the question as notice and give a fuller answer tomorrow.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) asked me the following question:
Does the government intend to proceed, as soon as possible of course, with the construction of the new postal terminal in Quebec city?
The following is the answer. The Department of Public Works acquired a site for the new postal terminal in the city of Quebec and preparation of plans and specifications commenced. This site had the approval of the mayor and city council. Subsequently the planning board of the city of Quebec took exception to the proposed site and refused to give approval. Further discussions ensued with the city, and it was finally arranged that the city of Quebec acquire the new site and that an interchange of properties would take place between the department and the city. The site which the city of Quebec desires us to use is occupied by the Canadian National Railways station and tracks.

The understanding of the department is that negotiations continue between the city of Quebec and the Canadian National Railways. However, no progress can be made in commencing the construction of the new postal terminal until the C.N.R. property can be made available to us by the city.



STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER ON ASKING OF QUESTIONS ON ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members will permit me to say one word on the subject of oral questions before we proceed with orders of the day, I should like to give one or two references which, being put on the record, will make it more convenient for members to find authoritative statements of the practice on this rather difficult subject. At the beginning of each new parliament the Speaker has made a statement on the subject of the latitude allowed in asking oral questions of the ministers or of others.
There is no express provision for these questions but there is a practice which is more or less well defined by decisions of the past. I should like to refer to the Journals of the House of Commons, volume C of 1956 at page 299 and the following pages, where the Speaker of the last house made his own statement and collected the statements of previous Speakers for several parliaments. The principal citation or the important citation from Beauchesne's third edition is citation 297 which I will read inasmuch as it is quite short. I think it summarizes the situation:
297. A certain number of oral questions are permitted in practice by members, without notice, before the orders of the day are called; but these are merely allowed by courtesy in connection with the business of the house or with very urgent and important matters of public concern. They are always brief, no debate being permitted, and the replies are as concise as possible. The minister interrogated may reply at once or may direct that the usual notice be given. Such questions are governed by the same rules of order as questions of which notice has been given.
One further reference is to the Votes and Proceedings for Thursday, January 24, 1957, where a further statement on the subject is given. That may be useful, particularly to the new members of the house, in ascertaining just what is the scope of this practice, in order to save the Speaker the unpleasant necessity of endeavouring to apply these rules which I myself find are a little bit uncertain and a little bit difficult to understand.
Interim Supply SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr. Fleming moved:: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $260,912,255.50, being one-twelfth of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, except items 52, 57, 116, 117, 131, 132, 156 , 248, 281, 322, 324, 328 , 333, 334, 335, 336, 355, 399 and 460, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $165,433.34, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of items 100, 307 and 365 of the said estimates; a sum not exceeding $2,576,712.09, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 69, 306, 313, 359, 373, 389, and 518 of the said estimates; in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $1,497,738.25, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958 laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $2,138,888.89, being one-ninth of the total of the amounts of items 669 and 670 set forth in the further supplementary estimates (1) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and a sum not exceeding $125,000, being one-twelfth of the total of the amount of item 668 of the said estimates; in addition thereto a sum not exceeding	$27,108,666.34,	being	one-third	of	thetotal of the amounts of the items set forth in the further supplementary estimates (2) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; a sum not exceeding $280,974.17, being seven-twelfths of the total of the amounts of items 754 and 759 of the said estimates; and a sum not exceeding	$10,416,666.67,	being	one-third	of	the
amount of item 692 of the said estimates, be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958.
He said: Mr. Chairman, I think I speak for all members of this committee in extending to you in your first appearance in the chair our hearty congratulations and good wishes for a happy and successful discharge of the duties of your very important office. To those of us who knew you and were your associates in the twenty-second parliament it is a pleasure indeed to welcome you back to membership in this chamber. We know you will discharge the duties that have devolved upon you as chairman of the committees of the whole house with equity and good judgment.
Mr. Chairman, this is the first occasion on which this new House of Commons has been called upon to deal with the matter of supply, and as a vote of interim supply is not a matter which is always easily understood, I shall with the indulgence of the members of the committee who have been here in the past, say a brief word on the subject in the hope that it may clarify for

Interim Supply
the newer members of the committee precisely what we are doing at this time. The situation with respect to the vote of interim supply at this new session of the new parliament is more complicated than usual and, if the hon. members will bear with me, I should like to explain it as best I can.
We are asking the committee today to approve a vote of a total sum of $305,222,335.25 as interim supply, and we wish to do that on the basis of retaining to the committee the fullest measure of control over the voting of supply. The estimates of expenditure are normally prepared in the fall of the year and are tabled in the house early in the normal session, let us say the month of January. Then as the session proceeds, because the estimates are already then three or four months past the date on which they were prepared in the departments and reviewed by treasury board, it becomes necessary for the Minister of Finance from time to time on behalf of the government to introduce supplementary estimates, then sometimes later in the year further supplementary estimates and, indeed, on some occasions a second group of further supplementary estimates. The main estimates are introduced normally prior to the commencement of the fiscal year to which they apply; in other words, let us say in a normal session in the month of January, for the fiscal year which will commence on the following April 1.
Before April 1 comes the estimates for the previous year and all its further supplementary estimates, of course, have 'had to be voted; then the government will begin a new fiscal year on April 1, without normally having made any provision for the supply for that ensuing year. Consequently as the voting of supply occupies a good deal of the time of the committee, it is necessary for the government to ask for votes of interim supply to meet the expenses of government until the time comes when the committee has completed its review and has voted all the items in the estimates. Often that is not done until the month of July or August, that is to say the completion of that voting. Consequently it is not unusual for the committee to be asked to vote interim supply in the spring of the year on several different occasions, usually one month at a time. The purpose of confining votes of interim supply to one month at a time is to ensure to the committee the preservation of control over public expenditure, control over the public purse being one of the principal functions of the House of Commons.
This year, as I have said, the situation is somewhat more complicated than usual. Prior

to the dissolution of the twenty-second parliament the former government had, in the ordinary course, introduced the estimates for the year. Then at a later stage of the session it introduced supplementary estimates and later, prior to dissolution, it introduced further supplementary estimates. Two days ago I reintroduced those same estimates on the terms which I stated at that time, and with those introduced another group of estimates which are called further supplementary estimates No. 2. So now the committee has before it four groups of estimates, the main estimates, the supplementary estimates, further supplemenary estimates No. 1 and further supplementary estimates No. 2.
At the earlier session this year, that is to say the last session of the twenty-second parliament, some of those estimates had been passed, the estimates of the Post Office Department and several other items drawn from other places; but those were the only estimates in the main and supplementary estimates which had been approved in full. What the government has been functioning on-both the former government up to June 21 and the new government since that date -was a vote of interim supply which was granted by the twenty-second parliament prior to dissolution.
Actually at the earlier session this year five appropriation bills were passed. The first two related to estimates for the fiscal year which ended March 31 last, and three appropriation bills were passed with respect to the estimates for the current fiscal year 19571958. The first of those appropriation bills provided one month's interim supply, intended to be for the month of April. The second bill provided a vote of six months' interim supply, intending to carry the government through to October 31. There was a third appropriation bill passed which was designed to carry into legislative effect the approval given by the house to those estimates -all the items of the Post Office Department and some of several other departments- which had been finally passed.
It may seem an extraordinary situation that now, after nearly seven months of the fiscal year have passed, we should be asking for a further vote of interim supply before the main estimates have been adopted, but the situation was inevitable in view of the fact that the government, by reason of legislation passed at the spring session of parliament, has been carrying on merely on a vote of interim supply.
It is recognized by the government that control by the House of Commons over public

expenditure is difficult in this situation because of the fact that when this new house is dealing with the vote which it is now being asked to deal with, and when it comes to deal with the whole range of estimates in final form, those amounts provided for in the estimates have been substantially spent already. That is the situation which confronted the new government as well as the new parliament; the programs involved in these estimates are, naturally, substantially advanced already, and the new government, like the new parliament-I emphasize this- lacked a free hand with respect to the programs involved in many of the items.
I mentioned that the votes of the last session of the old parliament earlier this year were intended to provide the government with supply until October 31, the conclusion of the seventh month of the fiscal year, but as it turns out they will not be adequate for this purpose. Unless the house authorizes a further vote of interim supply now there will not be sufficient money available to meet the expenses of government which would normally be payable on October 31. The reason for that arises from the fact that increases in the salaries of the civil servants, the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were brought into effect by a decision of this government as from May 1, and because those increases have been paid in this intervening period there is now not sufficient money to meet the expenditures of government which will normally fall due on October 31.
May I say also-and this may sound very pedantic and didactic to hon. members who have sat in this house previously-that the government meets its bills twice a month, on the 15th and on the last day of each month. We had enough to meet the expenditures which fell due on the 15th, but we now do not have enough to meet the expenditures which will fall due on the 31st of this month.
It is not possible for this government to defer until the end of the month this request for interim supply because, as members of previous parliaments are so well aware, the cheques have to be made up somewhat in advance; they go to distant places and have to be sent out at least several days before the due date of the payment. In addition, the measure which the government is asking the house to approve today must then go to the Senate. It is hoped to have the measure before the Senate when it reconvenes on Tuesday, and that the measure may be quickly given royal assent so the cheques may be made up and sent out in time to reach the recipients by the end of the month.
I wish to say a word about the manner in which the bewildering series of figures and 96698-5
Interim Supply calculations that were read out by you, Mr. Chairman, in the resolution were arrived at. We are asking, broadly speaking, for a sufficient vote to meet the expenses of government until the end of November. Broadly speaking this is one month's vote, but there are some instances, for example in some of the items, which were introduced early in the fiscal year or prior to the commencement of the fiscal year, which relate to programs which have not simply proceeded on an even basis throughout the whole 12 months of the fiscal year. For instance, some items appertaining to construction, which proceeds more rapidly during the months when it is possible to carry on building under fair weather conditions, fall into this category. Then with regard to the third group of estimates, the so-called further supplementary estimates, some of those involve increases in social security payments which came into effect on July 1. Therefore they apply only to nine months of the fiscal year. One month's vote on account of these items would necessarily be one-ninth of the total of those items rather than one-twelfth, which would be the case with regard to those which were intended to have effect from April 1.
Then with regard to the fourth group of estimates which I tabled two days ago-the further supplementary estimates (2)-those were, broadly speaking, intended to have effect for approximately six months of the fiscal year running from October 1. Therefore to provide sums with respect to those items sufficient to meet the expenditures to November 30 it is necessary to ask for one-third of those items.
In general, however, the pattern is a request for one month's vote and one month's vote only. Those items that I have mentioned particularly are exceptional for the reasons I have indicated. In no case, even though a program is completed or virtually completed, is the government asking for a vote of the entire item. Some of the construction items, for instance, have been completed in full but in every case we are reserving at least one-twelfth of the total in order that the house may have full opportunity of debate, discussion and questioning of the government on such items before it is asked to give final approval to them.
We intend to be jealous to preserve the rights of the house with respect to the control of public expenditure. I assure the committee that it is not, by the measure to be introduced today, being asked to give final and complete approval to any item. In this respect I would remind the committee that there were a few items which were finally approved by the old parliament. Those, of

Interim Supply
course, are law today and they will not be reopened. But with respect to all the other items the house is not being asked to give final approval to the total amount involved in any item; and in keeping with the time-honoured practice I assure the committee that the passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of hon. members to criticize any item of the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply, and an undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and not curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.
May I now, sir, again ask the indulgence of hon. members who have sat in previous parliaments. I think it is only fair to the newer members of the house to say a word about the somewhat complicated procedure involved today. Speaking from my personal experience of 12 years ago I can say that the procedure followed with regard to a vote of interim supply can be very bewildering to a new member. In saying a word about this, and in saying what I have said today, which I realize may sound very pedantic to hon. members who have sat here before, I am, I hope, fulfilling on this occasion the undertaking that was given in the speech read by Her Majesty three days ago, namely, that her ministers will take steps to make both houses of this parliament more effective in the discharge of their responsibilities to the people of Canada. It is for this reason that I have trespassed upon the patience of the committee today in the hope of assisting the new members to understand precisely what the house is being asked to do.
We are now in committee of supply, which is one of the three committees of the whole house; and if the committee approves the resolution which is now under discussion the committee of supply will report that resolution to the house, at which time the house will be asked to give it two readings and concur in it. Then I shall offer to the house a motion that the house resolve itself into committee of ways and means and then, if that motion is adopted, in the committee of ways and means I shall move the adoption of a shorter but somewhat similar resolution to grant to Her Majesty the sums set out in the interim supply bill.
If that resolution is reported back to the house by the committee of ways and means and read the second time and concurred in there, I shall then move for leave to introduce the bill, and if that motion is approved the bill will be read a first and second time and then we shall go into committee of the

whole on the bill. If after having been reviewed by the committee of the whole the bill is then reported back to the house, the house will be asked to give me leave to move third reading of the bill in order that it may be passed today.
I emphasize all those stages in the procedure by way of stressing the importance attached to the voting of supply and the various safeguards that are provided by the rules of the house for assuring to the elected representatives of the people sitting here in the House of Commons the control over the voting of supply.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, my first words, too, sir, must be of congratulation to you in your occupancy of the high office of Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees in this House of Commons. I join with the Minister of Finance in felicitating you, and I am sure that because of your previous experience in this house you will fill your office with decorum and dignity.
I must start, too, by expressing my own personal pleasure at again taking part in financial debates in this house. During the last five years I have not spoken very often in this house and when I did speak it was on fisheries matters; but hon. members who were here in the twenty-first parliament will recall that at that time I had a junior post in the ministry as assistant to the minister of finance and took quite an active part in debates at that time. My hon. friend the new Minister of Finance, of course, also had a junior role at that time, since he was assistant to the chief financial critic, the hon. member for Greenwood.
Our roles are now reversed. We have both gained in seniority but now my friend the hon. member for Eglinton is Minister of Finance and my leader has honoured me by asking me to be the first financial critic of the official opposition. The minister, of course, now has the advantage of the very great resources of the Department of Finance behind him and an extremely capable and efficient staff, one which I think is the envy of the world in terms of financial matters; and I hope he makes good use of that staff, better use than he made of it at Mont Tremblant.
I have a very different advantage in my new role. Hon. members may recall the lamentation of the prophet Job, "Oh that mine adversary had written a book". Well, mine adversary has not written a book. After all. writing a book does imply some thought and consideration, forethought, afterthought and study. My adversary has done much more. He has filled many books, many volumes of Hansard with a torrent of words, speeches on

every conceivable subject as he hurled gratuitous advice to every corner of the house and there was no thought, or certainly little thought, and no revision of what he put in those books.
Since I have assumed the post of financial critic I have been studying these old speeches of the Minister of Finance. Hon. members who were here at the time he made them will recall how hard it was to sit and listen to his flood of words. I can assure you it is a much more appalling task to sit in the library and plunge through the jungle of his excess verbiage, his gross hyperbole, his endless repetition as he pontificated and cascaded advice on every subject to the members of this house. However, I am persevering in this task and summarizing these speeches so that as these financial debates unroll I can show the great difference between the policies preached by the hon. member for Eglinton in his role of opposition critic and the policies practised by the hon. member for Eglinton in his new role as Minister of Finance, and I intend to give some examples in this first financial debate, the granting of interim supply.
The minister has made a clear explanation to the house of the purpose of voting interim supply. It is normally just a routine matter and the necessity arises when parliament has not approved the estimates at the beginning of the new fiscal year and current expenditures have to be met. He has pointed out that because of the election we have already voted seven-twelfths of most of the estimates and even more of some items, without prejudice to our right of detailed examination, to cover the period between April 1, 1957 and October 31, 1957. However, let me tell this committee that the present motion for interim supply is certainly not a routine matter. It is without question the most extraordinary motion in this field ever presented to a parliament of Canada.
In the brief time at my disposal since the minister made his announcement yesterday I have been in the library trying to see if there is a precedent for this course, and I could find none back to 1867. The motion was presented in such a fashion that I was unable to find any precedent since confederation. I did, however, find an earlier precedent by another Tory government of 125 years ago, the family compact. Hon. members will recall the committee of grievance led by William Lyon MacKenzie which presented a petition to Queen Victoria protesting that that government did not inform members of the assembly of the purposes for which the money was requested, nor did they give an accurate account of how these moneys were spent 96698-5i
Interim. Supply
after appropriation by the assembly. It was these grievances in part which led to the uprising of 1837 and then to subsequent parliamentary reforms.
It is because of this action that since 1867 we in this parliament of Canada have followed the practice that only the government can initiate the expenditure of public funds, that a detailed account of the purpose for which the money is requested must be submitted to parliament well in advance of the money being voted, and that an independent audit of the expenditure of these funds after appropriation be made by the servant of parliament, the Auditor General of Canada.
In following this accepted constitutional practice of responsible government the Governor General last Tuesday sent us a message signed by his own hand in which he recommended certain estimates for the consideration of this house. Perhaps I should remind hon. members of exactly what was said. The Governor General's message can be found in volume II of Votes and Proceedings in these words:
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons, estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending on 31st March, 1958, and, in accordance with the provisions of The British North America Act, 1867, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
However, when the Minister of Finance tabled the estimates in the house he did not stand behind them in the constitutional practice of responsible government. He differed from the message of the Governor General and said the government did not intend to support all the estimates he was then submitting. He did not tell us what items in the books the government was not supporting, despite the Governor General's recommendation to this house, leaving the members of this chamber in the dark as to what items have or have not received the present government's support. In other words we are asked to vote public money blindly just as in the days of the family compact. His justification for this most unusual course is that it would save work and money to table the estimates of the previous government, and he mentioned $20,000 as the cost of printing new estimates.
Apparently parliamentary rights now have a price tag, and $20,000 is too high a price to permit the members of this free parliament to have accurate information before they are asked to vote over $300 million of the taxpayers' money in a single day.
I can assure hon. members, though, that even this figure of $20,000 is sheer poppycock. Everyone in this house will grant that the new government is under absolutely no

Interim Supply
obligation to support any or all of the proposals in the estimates tabled by the previous government. All that is needed is for the minister to submit the old book of estimates with a printed or mimeographed supplement listing by numbers the items he does not propose to put forward or the items he proposes to reduce. He surely must have such a list, and parliament is certainly entitled to this information. The cost of preparing such a mimeographed supplement would not be $20,000 but only a few dollars.
Yesterday, you know, we received our customary lecture or sermon from the Prime Minister on the rights of parliament, and today we find the Minister of Finance brazenly ignoring those rights. He violates the constitutional position of responsible government that the government stands behind all the printed estimates recommended by the Governor General for the consideration of parliament. He affronts the rights of members by blandly telling us that there are unknown items he is not supporting but about which we have no information. What a contrast here between his preaching and his practice.
There is a second criticism I have of the form of these estimates. We who were in earlier parliaments can remember the financial critic of the official opposition of that day, the hon. member for Greenwood, who is now a minister without portfolio, quoting with great support a British chancellor, I think Philip Snowden, to the effect that a chancellor who took one penny more in appropriations than he really needed-


Mr. Macdonnell:: Half a crown.


James Sinclair: I am talking about millions of dollars here. One penny or half a crown; I am glad to find the quotation is approximately right, that a chancellor who took one-half crown more in appropriations than he really needed was guilty of barefaced robbery of the taxpayers. Well, that is in effect what we have been asked to do today. The Minister of Finance is asking us to vote one-twelfth of the general estimates which were submitted by the last government, but he admits that there are amounts in these estimates he will not use; so in effect he is mulcting the taxpayers of unnecessary funds, the type of robbery that the hon. member for Greenwood used to deplore.
There is another aspect to this. The Financial Administration Act, which is the key act governing the finances of this parliament, an act which I piloted through this house when I was parliamentary assistant, does provide that within a department money can be transferred from one item, if it is not

used, to another item subject, of course, to the approval of the treasury board. In effect the minister can now, since we are giving blanket approval to these estimates which are not to be used, later transfer these moneys and add them to the amount of the estimates which he is going ahead with, thus inflating the estimates that we are actually assenting to at this time.
I have a third criticism of a different nature. Hon. members will also recall a speech made by the then leader of the Conservative party, Hon. George Drew, in Saskatoon in 1952, when he told his audience that he and his party knew that at least $500 million could be stripped out of the estimates of the then government without affecting in any way the essential services of government. Hon. members will recall that when Mr. Drew returned to this house the minister of finance first and myself secondly implored him to give parliament the details of those $500 million savings he could so readily effect so that we could strip them off the estimates and thus save the taxpayers that money, but he resolutely refused to give any detail. Nevertheless, Tory speakers on every husting in the country thundered away at the fact that they could strip $500 million off these estimates without affecting essential public services.
Well, today is the first opportunity for the new Minister of Finance to convert his preaching into practice. If he was sincere in his claim that $500 million could be stripped out of these estimates-that, is 9 per cent of the gross estimates-then this is the time for him to show it. Instead of asking for one-twelfth of these estimates to cover one whole month, he should be asking for one-twelfth less 9 per cent, one-twelfth less $27 million, and show that he is practising what he was so loudly preaching just some few months ago. Does he do that? Oh, no; he does quite the contrary. Instead of stripping 9 per cent off these estimates we And ourselves confronted with additional estimates, with his entire blessing, totalling an extra $80 million of the taxpayers' money. What a contrast again between his preaching and his practising.
What position does the official opposition take to this most unusual request for interim supply, a request which clearly violates every constitutional principle of this parliament in the voting of money? If we in the official opposition thought this affront to the parliamentary rights by the Minister of Finance was wilfully done, then we would hold up the supply until he had properly supplied this committee with a detailed list of the items which he and his

colleagues were supporting in responsible fashion, as was indicated by the message from the Governor General. However, since he is just a beginner at his new job, we want to be charitable, and so we believe that he did not do it wilfully but did it through sheer ignorance, through failing to do his homework, through failing to take advice from the very competent and capable advisers in his own department. In these circumstances we merely ask that some time during the course of the day he stand up and read to the House of Commons the list of items in this blue book that he does not intend to support, that he is either going to delete or reduce. In that way we members can properly discharge our responsibilities in voting the taxpayers' money for supply.
In addition, I would request him to ask his colleagues in the government to stay in the house today so our members can secure information from them on the various items they are now going to bring forward in this committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like at the outset to join with the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano in extending to you on behalf of this group our sincere congratulations on your appointment as chairman of committees of the whole house and as Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons.
I should like also, in my opening remarks, to say that in our view the comments just made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano cannot be regarded as captious criticism but rather that his points are well taken. The only thing that amazes me about the position of the Liberal party is that their members knew on Tuesday of this week that the Minister of Finance was overlooking the constitutional provision regarding the voting of money, yet yesterday the leader of the Liberal party stood in his place in this house and said that no matter what happened they would not at this time vote non-confidence in the government across the way. We have listened to a speech this morning with every word of which I agree, but I suggest it is a speech that raises a serious question with respect to whether the house should repose confidence in the government sitting on the other side of the house.
While the hon. member for Coast-Capilano was speaking I was reminded of the last time we had a Conservative government in Canada. One of the various phrases that will be remembered in relation to that last government are the words "blank cheque". We all
Interim Supply
recall how Mr. Bennett sought from the House of Commons in the early thirties what was known as blank cheque legislation. Well, the Minister of Finance is not asking today for a blank cheque, but he certainly is asking for an inflated cheque. He certainly is asking us to vote today a sum of money which according to his own words of Tuesday, if we are to take them at their face value, is greater than the government intends to spend.
I share to the full the sense of amazement expressed by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano at the action of the government in having the Minister of Finance present a message from His Excellency the Governor General and then say that the government does not necessarily stand by the estimates which have been tabled in the house. I hope that serious consideration will be given by the Minister of Finance to the criticisms he is now receiving from this side of the house. I think the point made by the last speaker toward the conclusion of his remarks is well taken, namely that the Minister of Finance should tell us today, before he asks us to pass this legislation, what are the items in the main, supplementary and other estimates which the government does not intend to support or which it intends to ask the house to reduce. I certainly will not be satisfied with just a general statement which seems to give the impression that the government is out for economy unless the minister backs up that statement with chapter and verse.
I want to support as well the suggestion made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano that the Minister of Finance ask his colleagues in the cabinet to remain in the house so they can answer questions that may be put to them on the various departments. That, I may say to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, will be a refreshing change. We had considerable difficulty in the last parliament in getting the then minister of finance, whose presence we miss in the house, to get his colleagues to remain in the house. He chose rather to pilot through all interim supply and sometimes supplementary estimates as well. The slogan just prior to the 10th of June was that it was time for a change. I hope that we will at least have a change in that practice and that we can get our questions answered not just by a know it all minister of finance but by the ministers in charge of the various departments. If what I have said sounds like "a plague on both your houses", that is what it is intended to be.
There are certain aspects of the resolution, Mr. Chairman, which interest us particularly. I think it is unfortunate that a lengthy resolution of this kind is presented to the committee of supply and read by the chairman with

Interim Supply
most members not having it before them or knowing what it is all about. I suppose there -are half a dozen typewritten copies of the resolution which were placed on the desks of certain members and I am one of the fortunate few to have received one, but there is no reason why I should have it and not those in the back rows. I feel that a way should be found for this resolution to be printed in advance so that all members can have it and see what it is on which we are voting.
As I look over this complicated resolution, which in typescript takes a full, legal size sheet of paper, with seven or eight paragraphs and figures galore, I find certain items omitted. First may I point out that so far as the main estimates are concerned we are being asked to vote one-twelfth of all of them except those, and they are numbered, concerning which previous votes have brought the total amount released to eleven-twelfths or more. I interpose that there is no suggestion that any items are being excepted from the main estimates today because they are the ones the government does not intend to support.
When we get to the supplementary estimates, and particularly to the document entitled "Further Supplementary Estimates (1)", I note that the Minister of Finance is seeking further votes of those estimates only with respect to items 668, 669 and 670. By this motion today he is not seeking any further vote with respect to items 663 to 667 inclusive. I hope he will make an explanation to us today as to why no further vote is being sought with respect to those items.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would be glad to do that at this very minute if my friend will permit. The reason is very simple. Those items to which my friend makes reference in the further supplementary estimates, No. 1, require no further vote. They are in effect because the item in the appropriation bill actually effected an amendment of the statutes in question. That applies to statutes like the Old Age Pensions Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Blind Persons Act, the Disabled Persons Act and so on.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Sections 10 and 11 of Bill 418.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The appropriation bill has actually effected the amendment of those statutes. Therefore nothing further is required with respect to those items in the further supplementary estimates No. 1. But with regard to the other three my hon. friend has just mentioned and which are included within the scope of the resolution now under discussion, those are not statutory items. I looked into this matter. I asked the same

question as the hon. member has asked: Why was there a difference with respect to those items affecting veterans allowances? The answer I was given was that those are not statutory items, and therefore require this vote today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the answer the minister has given. Perhaps before I reply to it I might put on the record just what it is we are talking about. Items 663 to 667, to which I referred a moment ago, provided for increases in family allowances, old age security, old age assistance, blind persons and disabled persons allowances. But when these items were put through at the session in April they were put through by the supplementary estimates to the extent of two-sevenths in the case of the family allowance dollar increase and by four-ninths in the case of the other increases. The family allowance increase was to take place on September 1. That meant there were seven months left in the fiscal year, so two-sevenths was the provision for it to be continued for two months, September and October.
In the case of old age pension and other increases they were to be effective on July 1, which meant there were nine months left in the fiscal year so that four-ninths made provision for July, August, September and October. In the case of the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act the provision was from July 1, and again four-ninths was provided, and I would point out that the wording of item 664, for example, is exactly the same as the wording of item 669, to provide, effective on a certain date, that a certain act is amended.
I bow to the wisdom of the officials who have advised the minister but I find it difficult to do so. It looks to me as though if in one case the act was actually amended by what was done with respect to the supplementary estimate, it should have been so in the other case. On the other hand, I put it this way. If it is necessary by a further vote to continue the increase in the case of the war veterans allowance, it would seem to me that it would be necessary to continue the increase in the case of old age pensions, family allowances and so on. But if the minister can assure us that the law officers of the crown are clear on this point that there is no question as to any lapse in the increase, that is fine; but it is fine only as far as it goes. It seems to me that now is the time for the Minister of Finance to tell us what are the government's intentions with respect to these increases in the old age pension and other benefits.
Today we are being asked to approve the general financial program of the previous

government. We are being asked to approve it with secret modifications that we have not yet been told about, but in general we are being asked to approve what the previous government proposed, which included old age pensions of $46 a month, that miserable sum which the Liberals will now admit was part of the reason for their downfall. But during the election campaign the present Prime Minister promised that if he and his party were elected they would call parliament in September, and would deal immediately with the question of the plight of the old age pensioners and see that the amount of the pension was raised in keeping with today's cost of living. The country had considerable difficulty in getting out of the Prime Minister a precise figure as to what the Conservatives would do with regard to old age pensions, but in this house and in other places he used the figure of $60 favourably. In any case, whatever the amount was to be, we were promised a session in September and immediate attention to the plight of our old age pensioners.
Here we are in October, not September. We have the promise in the speech from the throne, and we in this party welcome it wholeheartedly. But despite that fact I was unable to get from the Minister of National Health and Welfare the other day any indication as to when whatever increases are in store would be effective. Now today we are dealing with these estimates, on the basis of which we are determining the moneys that are going to be paid out by this new government in the month of November, and we are still not being told what the old age pensioners are going to get. Is the pension going to be back at $40 by virtue of our not voting on the supplementary estimate, or is it going to be continued at the level of $46, or is it going to be raised to a new figure?
When he spoke yesterday the Prime Minister more or less dared anyone in this house to suggest that parliament should have been called earlier in view of the fact that arrangements had been made for Her Majesty to be here on October 14. Important and historic as was the occasion in the Senate chamber on October 14, I suggest that it would have been even more historic and even more memorable if Her Majesty had been given an opportunity on that occasion to give royal assent in person to a bill increasing old age pensions and other benefits. That is a bill which would have been passed readily by this House of Commons, if this Prime Minister, who said over and over again that he would keep faith with the people of Canada, had kept his promise and called us here in September to deal with this important issue.
I call on the Minister of Finance, in the course of this discussion today, to do what he and
Interim, Supply
his colleagues told the previous government to do time and time again, namely-take the house into his confidence, tell us what his plans are and what they mean by keeping faith. I call on him to tell us what he himself meant when, shortly after he became Minister of Finance, he announced that there would be a budget this fall and that there would be an increase in the old age pension. In fact I hope he will now answer the telegram which I sent to him at that time congratulating him on his announcement and expressing the hope that he would spell out what he meant by an increase in the old age pension. I have before me a copy of the telegram. It was taken note of by certain newspapers but as yet I have not had a reply from the Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You will get your reply in the constitutional manner.


Mr. Pickersgill:: The usual courtesy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
constitutional manner-those words perhaps should be put in quotation marks-of the Minister of Finance is somewhat open to question in view of his action this week in presenting the estimates and telling us that he does not necessarily stand behind the recommendation of the Governor General.
I think we should also have a clear-cut statement on the family allowance question, as to whether any changes are planned there. As a matter of fact, if the minister has any memorandum from the law officers or officials with regard to this difference between old age security and family allowances on the one hand and war veterans allowances on the other, I think he should give it to us. Assuming that nothing has to be done with regard to old age security and so on, I point out that the fact that we have before us a proposal to continue war veterans allowances at the rate now in effect for another month means that the fulfillment of the promise to increase the rate to war veterans who are burnt-out pensioners is now being postponed.
One of the bitterest criticisms made by the Tories in the last parliament was that the government of that day had not increased the allowance to single veterans under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Yet we are now being asked to support a motion one section of which continues for another month the rates as put into effect by the late government, which included no increase in the amounts to single veterans.
In my view that is not keeping faith. It may be fine that these things will be done eventually, but in the meantime the senior citizens of this country die at the rate of 5,000 a month and our war veterans pass on steadily. These people who hoped that as a result of the change in government on June 10

Interim Supply
we would have a government that would keep faith, are wondering when these things are going to happen.
Mr. Chairman, I make it crystal clear that we welcome everything of a legislative character that the government has proposed. We want to see these things put into effect. I was glad that yesterday the Prime Minister suggested that there could be an interruption in the debate on the address-and we will agree to it-in order to put through some of this legislation. But this practice should apply not only to cash advances on farm-stored grain; it should apply particularly to these social security measures and to improvements for the war veterans of this country.
I may have something more to say later on this question of superannuated civil servants. Perhaps I might as well do it right now if I still have left any of my 30 minutes. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that, with the Prime Minister absent today, the person immediately to his left is the Minister of Public Works whom we have known so long as the active and aggressive member for Vancouver-Quadra; and I pay my respects to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, now Minister of Public Works, for the support he has given across the years to the demand for an increase in the pensions of retired civil servants, particularly those in the lower and middle brackets. Yet, Mr. Chairman, despite the hope we had that these people who took that position when in opposition would do something about it when in office, the answer that my friend the hon. member for Fort William received from the Minister of Finance the other day was such that I do not know why the hon. member said "thank you".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Because he is a gentleman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
answer was as inconclusive and as unhelpful as answers given in the past by Mr. Harris, Mr. Abbott and Mr. Ilsley. If the people of Canada voted for a change, let us have more of a change than we have had indicated in the house this week, and particularly let us have it in the field of these social benefits.
I call upon the Minister of Finance to answer the criticisms that have been made today by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, in which I join, concerning the constitutional provisions about government support of estimates placed before the house.
I also call upon him, before he expects us to approve of continuing all the former government's fiscal and expenditure policies for one more month, to tell us precisely what are the government's plans with respect, to old

age pensions, war veterans allowances and these other social security measures. What are the changes the government proposes; when are they coming into effect; and if they are not coming into effect soon, let him tell us why. The Prime Minister promised to call a session in September to do these things but, to the extent that he failed to do so, he has already broken faith with the people of Canada.


Mr. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, rising for the first time in this chamber I should like to pay a brief but deeply felt tribute. I must confess that whenever I hear a reference to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I instinctively still think of Angus Maclnnis, who from 1930 to 1957 I am sure earned respect and affection in all quarters of the house. I think all hon. members will be glad to know that Mr. Maclnnis is enjoying a well-earned retirement in Vancouver, which is that part of the country most richly endowed by nature and climate for good and healthy living.
Mr. Chairman, before the committee grants the interim supply requested by the minister I think we should be satisfied that something is being done about the unemployment situation on the west coast, particularly in the lumber industry. These things in my opinion should be dealt with before they reach crisis proportions. In the lumber industry, upon which British Columbia depends for perhaps 40 per cent of its payrolls, we do have an unemployment crisis developing. The production of logs from the forests of British Columbia is down about 50 per cent from what it was in October of last year. Sawmills are cutting lumber at about 25 per cent below capacity. The same is true in plywood, with layoffs for some mill workers and short time for others. These are people with families to look after. Even in the case of pulp and newsprint there is oversupply, something we have not seen in British Columbia since the end of the war.
Who knows but that this situation may not very well worsen in the winter months ahead unless something effective is done. Now, I appreciate that the government may not accept the necessity of economic planning for full employment, as advocated in this quarter of the committee. However, I think there is one thing they can and should do, and not delay it any further. I refer to the establishment of an embassy and a trade commission in communist China, with the necessary diplomatic recognition. I heard, as we all did, Conservative speakers in the last election campaign say how much this new government would do to expand trade with China. But how can you expand trade if

you are not even willing to go as tar as extending diplomatic recognition? I say it cannot be done.
I do not need to say to this committee that recognition does not imply approval. Of course it does not. No one could approve of the violence and dictatorial methods which have been part of the Chinese revolution, but at the same time I think no one should be surprised that violence and brutality have followed in the wake of such a shattering social upheaval. The fact is, however, that a new China does exist and we have to live with it. One cannot escape the facts of life and, in the atomic age, it would be very dangerous indeed to try to escape the facts of history. The old order in China will certainly never return, whatever new ideas or institutions may be thrown up before the Chinese revolution runs its full course. The moving hand of history writes and, always, moves on, never backwards.
My recollection, Mr. Chairman, is that in the last year, 1956, communist China sold to us about $5 million worth of goods. Canada, on the other hand, sold only $1 million worth to China. So they had a favourable trade credit in Canadian dollars in that year of about $4 million. I think in 1955 the Chinese credit vis-a-vis Canada was $3 million. That is not much in the total trade picture, but I do suggest that a beginning has to be made, particularly having regard to the need for a share in the market of 600 million people for Canadian wheat as well as Canadian lumber.
A beginning has to be made and the question of diplomatic recognition must be faced. My recollection is that Hon. Sidney Smith, when asked about this question by the press, replied that the matter was under study. Well, there are some times when study is a very poor substitute for decision, and this is one of them. The facts are in, and have been in for a long time. This is a time when the necessary first step-the inescapable first step-of recognition should be taken.
I hope this government will not tamely follow the policy of long delays in acting on this question which was adopted by the last government. If they do that, if they tamely follow that policy, the people of Canada will find that they have had a change without a difference. I would ask the new government whether it is not avoidable that Canada should always be bound to the chariot wheels of United States foreign policy. I would remind them that Britain took the lead in this matter some years ago, and that surely there are times when Canada can give a lead which is as much in the interests of 96698-6
Interim Supply
our American friends as it is in our own interests. I do not see the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the committee-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am here; go ahead.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: Before the supply is voted I would like either the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Acting Prime Minister to indicate clearly to this committee whether they will not, in view of the trade and peace considerations, take the necessary first step in extending diplomatic recognition to communist China. It should not be said that we are leaving the 600 million people of China without any voice or influence from Canada. It should not be said that China has no place to turn in the western world but that its only place to turn is to Soviet Russia. I therefore hope the government, through its appropriate spoke-men, will satisfy the committee as to this question and the trade question, which matters of course are closely related.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, I would like first to congratulate you, sir, upon your election to the office of chairman of committees and Deputy Speaker and to express, with others, the confidence we have in you and your ability to handle these very important duties fairly and justly.
I listened very carefully to the statement that was made by the Minister of Finance. I thought he made a very lucid explanation of the reason for the interim supply, perhaps the best I have heard at any time since I have been a member of the house. It certainly did provide for the new members, and perhaps a good many of the older ones who have not yet been fully immersed in financial affairs, the kind of explanation they require to be able to understand the complicated system that is used.
I could not help feeling as the Minister of Finance spoke and gave us his explanation that part of the complication which he had to face when he took over his new office was inherited from the old government. They certainly left things in a mell of a hess, if I can say that, in so far as the estimates were concerned with which we were struggling last spring.
That may perhaps offer some explanation for the items which have been criticized.
I cannot go along with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at all in demanding that at this time the specific details of the government's legislative program be revealed. It is not customary for any government to do that before the bills are brought down. We all wish to know as early as possible how

Interim Supply
much the old age pensioners are going to get. I would like to know that right now, and so would the old age pensioners, but it seems to me the thing to do would be to grant this interim supply measure as quickly as possible so we can have the bills brought here, and then give the government whatever advice and counsel we are capable of giving with regard to those bills. We want to get those bills here quickly, and while many of us would like very much to be the first to draw from the government the details regarding the amounts to be paid and the times when such amounts are to be paid, we quite realize that that is not customary, and we are prepared to do everything we can to facilitate the passing of other business in order to get the bills here as quickly as possible. We are as interested in war veterans and others as are members of the C.C.F. party, and I daresay the government can say the same thing.
There is one criticism that was made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano with which I think we must all agree, and that concerns the unusual nature of the request made to us today regarding interim supply, in the light of the statement made on Tuesday by the Minister of Finance. I cannot help but agree that in my judgment the house would be in a far better position to deal with interim supply if we had in our hands today a list of those items of the old estimates with which the government does not intend to proceed. At the same time it would have been much better for all concerned if copies of this mimeographed statement had been distributed to all hon. members, and I would certainly suggest to the Minister of Finance that if it is possible for him to do so he should hold over this request for interim supply, possibly for one day or even for two or three days, and give us in the meantime a list of those items in the old estimates which are not to be proceeded with.
It is quite true that if one wishes to make exceedingly fine distinctions and criticisms, the present request for one-twelfth of many of the items, one-ninth in certain other cases, and one-third in one or two remaining cases, if we were to take the minister's words spoken on Tuesday as authentic-and I am certainly prepared tc do that-means that today we are actually being asked to vote more than the government intends to spend, and that has been the object of very serious criticism in the past. I believe that in a situation of this kind there is yet time for the government to rectify its possible mistake and bring before us a list of those items with which it does not intend to proceed, and then we should be in a far better position to hurry estimates through.


Mr. Marler:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with others who have spoken in expressing good wishes to you for the successful carrying out of your duties as Deputy Speaker of the house, and I have no doubt you will bring your well-known talents in both languages to the execution of your task.
I would like to speak on much the same questions as were touched on by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. I think it will be interesting for the committee to consider this matter a little more fully than we have done up to the present time. I would like to emphasize that we are dealing here, as the Minister of Finance has said in what I might describe as his professorial remarks, with the main estimates, the supplementary estimates and the further supplementary estimates (1) and (2), and if one looks at the Journals for Tuesday one finds, with respect to each of these estimates, the traditional message from the Governor General concluding in each case with the formal statement, "The Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons."
Now, we all know that these recommendations are not made spontaneously by His Excellency; they are made, of course, on the advice of his ministers, and it is perfectly obvious that in the recommendations made to the house in these four messages we are being told that the government recommends the estimates to which they refer to the consideration of the house. And we know, Mr. Chairman, that this is the traditional way in which legislation to authorize expenditure is introduced. The reading of these messages was followed by a statement by the Minister of Finance. I will not read the whole of it, but I would like to read the qualifying phrase, which will be found on page 11 of Hansard:
However, this is not to say that the present government will support all of the detailed programs contemplated when those estimates were originally prepared. Rather, such changes as this government proposes to make in the current year programs will he brought to parliament's attention when the individual items affected are being considered by the committee of supply.
It seems perfectly manifest to me, and I am sure to other hon. members of the house, that the government has had several months, in fact, in which to go through these estimates and decide which of them it proposes to support, and I think this committee is entitled to know formally from the Minister of Finance which are the estimates we are being called upon to deal with, and which ones we shall be asked to consider in some modified form.
Mr. Chairman, I notice it is one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at one o'clock I had just reminded hon. members of the statement the Minister of Finance made after he had tabled the estimates the other day. I drew attention, by reading a brief extract from his remarks, to the fact that he had in effect said that in tabling the estimates he was not proposing that the government would support all of them when the discussion on the estimates took place, and that at that time changes in those estimates would be brought to the attention of the committee.
I think this is indeed an anomalous situation. In one breath the government formally recommends all these estimates to the consideration of the house, and in the next breath the Minister of Finance, one of those responsible for the recommendation, announces that the government does not intend to support its recommendation for which it and it alone is responsible. Coming from someone who has spoken so frequently about the rights and prerogatives of parliament, this statement by the Minister of Finance repudiating responsibility for an action taken by his own government is strange and makes me wonder whether the government's respect for the rights and privileges of parliament has not somewhat diminished since it moved from the opposition benches to those it now occupies. In fact one might be permitted to say, judging from the answers which have been given during the question period since the house opened, that the degree of transformation that has taken place is already manifest, and we find the same sort of answer coming from the ministers today as those which-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The former government
gave.


George Carlyle Marler: -the government members found so objectionable when they were in opposition.


Howard Charles Green: You are a bit transformed yourself.


George Carlyle Marler: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have lived more of my life in opposition than I have in government, and I am coming back to the point in the circle from which I started.
According to the statement made by the Minister of Finance the other day the changes which the government proposes to make in the estimates are to be revealed to us only when the individual items are being considered by this committee. I would like hon. members just to consider for a moment the situation which the government is thus creating.
96698-6}
Interim Supply
In the past the government presented the estimates. The minister gave the facts to the committee, questions were asked, the advisability of the expenditure in question was weighed, scrutinized and examined by the committee, and there was available to the minister who was presenting the estimates the permanent staff of his department which provided all the explanations which the minister himself was not able to present unaided. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the minister responsible for the estimate justified it to the satisfaction of at least a majority of the committee.
What is the new technique going to be? An item will be called. The minister, I suppose, is going to tell us that he does not support it or does not support it to its full amount. Whose function is it then going to be to support the recommendation which the government has made?
I would like to draw upon my own experience as an example. I was very much interested in the activities of the Department of Transport, and as hon. members of the committee know transport is a field of government activity in which substantial expenditures have to be made in order to keep abreast of progress in a field in which developments are continually taking place. My own experience while I was minister of the department was the difficulty of finding sufficient funds to provide for the activities which the department wished to undertake. In the experience I had during the making up of two budgets I found the estimates which I submitted to the treasury board always suffered a reduction because it was not possible to satisfy all the needs and, as there were limits on spending, it was necessary that my estimates should be cut down.
The process was a long and complicated one. The estimates, as certainly the older members of this house know, are prepared initially by the officials of each department. They are reviewed by the deputy minister with the minister and his officials, and then they are submitted to the treasury board. The officials of the treasury board go through the estimates with a fine tooth comb and weed out any expenditures that cannot be fully justified or which can be properly or usefully deferred. And then, as the Minister of Finance knows, these estimates which have been gone over at the official level are considered by the treasury board itself. When they have been finally adopted by the treasury board they are embodied in the estimates which are presented to this house.
Under this practice, Mr. Chairman, so far as the main estimates, the supplementary

Interim Supply
estimates and the further supplementary estimates No. 1 are concerned, these went through the process I have just described, and I assume the further supplementary estimates No. 2 have undergone the same rigorous examination. I ask myself what is going to happen when these estimates come before this committee. How is this committee going to know what action the government is going to take? Ordinarily we know when an estimate is submitted that the government stands behind it and is prepared to justify and defend it. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Finance should take us into his confidence. He should tell us what changes are to be made in the estimates. He should tell us, for example, whether the rumour which has received some circulation in the press to the effect that the estimates of the Department of National Defence are to be reduced by $200 million is a fact or whether it is mere rumour and nothing more than fiction. The Minister of Finance should lose no time in telling us exactly what estimates we are going to have to deal with.
I fully understand and appreciate the technical difficulties facing the Minister of Finance in the present circumstances, the main estimates, supplementary estimates and further supplementary estimates not having been voted. Nevertheless I believe the hon. member for Coast-Capilano this morning indicated a method which could very easily have been followed which would not have cost the sum of $20,000, the figure mentioned by the Minister of Finance the other day, but which would have given the members of this committee a complete understanding of what estimates we are being called upon to deal with and the amount of each of them.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, after the great constitutional issues that have been raised here the subject I am going to bring up will no doubt appear to some to be very trivial and insignificant, but there are several minor points in connection with the estimates as they affect the constituency of Port Arthur which I would like to refer to the ministers who answer for these departments.
Before I begin discussing that subject in specific terms I would like to mention that Port Arthur and Fort William form an economic and social unit. For the last 22 years they have been represented by a pair of gentlemen from the same political party and now that twain has been sundered. I might mention that colloquially around the lakehead the gentlemen who formed this twain were known as the gold dust twins. Now the one who has gone, of course, like the ship named after him is in very icy, far-off waters.

I would like to assure the hon. member for Fort William that when I ask questions that may affect the constituency of Fort William I am not doing so in an attempt to engage in controversial strife. Rather it is simply because our two constituencies are an economic unit.
In connection with the sum of $250,000 for the Fort William harbour works in the original estimates and a further $300,000 in supplementary estimates No. 2 for harbour improvements in Fort William, the Minister of Public Works has informed me that there has been an extension of the contract for the dredging in the west port turning base. I would like to know how much of the estimate has now been spent for this particular project in the Fort William harbour. I would like him to go further and tell me how much of the estimate of $500,000 for improvements at the Port Arthur harbour has been spent, and whether there is any money left for work to be carried on this winter.
Several years ago I believe an experiment was tried at the lakehead by a contractor by the name of Hacquoil, doing winter work over the ice in developing breakwaters and groynes. Because of the developing unemployment situation at the lakehead, an emergency program could be carried on in either or both harbours which would employ quite a number of men. If any funds are left it would be a wonderful boon to our particular community this winter.
I should like to ask the minister who answers for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation what research has been done in connection with the television satellite program. The Fowler commission recommends that areas with a population of 5,000 or more should be serviced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with some type of television satellite station. In both spoken and written answers from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation they advise me that they are in touch with events but that they have absolutely no money to go any farther or even to set up an experimental station. I just wonder whether any of the funds that are to be voted in the estimates for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are for this purpose. I might say it is a live issue in all the hinterland along the north shore of lake Superior.


Mr. Nowlan:: And elsewhere.


Mr. Mclvor:: In backing up what the hon. member for Port Arthur has said, I just wish to express appreciation to the Minister of Public Works for keeping the dredging going in Fort William. It was the first time we

were threatened with a lay-off in dredging before the freeze-up, and the minister has come through just like a Liberal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What an insult!


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: This applies also to the Minister of Finance, because I remember how he started as the shortstop on our baseball team. He was there on the job, and if he does as good a job on the team of which he is now a member I can tell you he will be No. 1. But I am anxious to hear from him today what is to be done with respect to increased pensions for retired civil servants. I have a resolution on the order paper and I shall have something to say when it comes up, but if I can get the answer before then it will make it easier. Thank you.


Mr. Herridge:: I want to say a few words on the question of unemployment because it is directly related, of course, to government fiscal policies. It is a matter of major concern to my constituents, because we have had an abnormal amount of unemployment in Kootenay West during the past summer, and conditions are growing, shall I say, darker every day.
I was rather disappointed with the answer given by the Minister of Labour to a question asked by a member on this side of the house with respect to this matter. He suggested that all his officers were being advised to search for all the jobs possible and to do what they could to provide employment for persons who are unemployed at the present time. I think that is rather a superficial approach to the situation, because as I understand it from the officers in my district that is exactly what they did all summer, without much effect. You cannot blame them, because it is going to take more than the harrowing of old fields to find the employment necessary to keep our working force employed at this time. It is going to take a change in government trade policies; it will depend on government trade policies and government attitude to public development at this time.
I am not one who is given to extravagant phrases or overestimating the situation, Mr. Chairman, but I do say in all seriousness that it is one of great concern to many of my constituents. We are faced with an abnormal unemployment situation at the present time for two particular reasons. The first is the problem facing the mining industry owing to the price of metals and the lack of markets. Then there is the problem facing the lumber industry owing to the loss of markets and the low prices prevailing. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that in that respect I can
Interim Supply
speak from somewhat painful personal experience. In addition to the loss of markets to the lumber industry, quite recently we found that all purchasing of cedar poles had been cancelled or discontinued. The same thing applies to fir poles. These products go largely to the United States.
This situation has not existed in my constituency since depression times, Mr. Chairman. Therefore you can understand the concern it is causing these men and the small operators who have been in the habit of making their living from processing of cedar, fir, tamarack and other poles. In addition to that, we recently had all our contracts for fence posts cancelled, and the market for piling is about 10 per cent of normal at the present time. For these reasons there is considerable unemployment in my district, and it will increase very rapidly in the few weeks ahead.
So far as the lumber industry is concerned, this is no doubt caused by the lack of markets on the prairies, occasioned by the economic circumstances of the prairie farmers, by the lessened housing program this year until recently, and the loss of markets in the United States.
With respect to the possible loss of markets for base metals, I do want to bring to the attention of the house the action that has been taken in my constituency, very largely, by the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers, to bring this matter to the attention of the government, of the members of parliament from British Columbia and of the public generally. I might say they have taken a most constructive approach to what I recognize, and we all recognize, as a most difficult problem. I think we are beginning to realize more and more that economic problems between the United States and Canada have been getting more difficult from day to day. The union drafted a very sensible and constructive brief and presented it to the cabinet. The members of the delegation were very pleased indeed that the Prime Minister saw fit, as I understand, to meet them on the front steps of the parliament buildings and show his interest in their proposal. I understand the brief was presented to the cabinet and every consideration was promised by those members of the cabinet who listened to it being read.
Later on the union called a meeting of the British Columbia members of parliament. Members from all parties in British Columbia attended the meeting and discussed this important situation for a whole day. At the

Interim Supply
conclusion of the day's discussion they came to a unanimous decision. In that connection may I quote the following:
Alter hearing national and local union officers present the union's concern and position, the M.P.'s found themselves in agreement to a man on the following public statement which they wired to Prime Minister Diefenbaker:
"As there is serious danger of unemployment in base metal industries because of depressing prices, the following British Columbia M.P.'s urge that the federal government be prepared to take emergency action to keep base metal mines open."
This was signed by all members present. They represented all parties in British Columbia. The union's efforts in this respect have been so constructive and the matter is one of such great concern to the Kootenays particularly and to British Columbia in general that the union has received the support of the Trail city council. At the regular meeting held on July 5 the council expressed approval of this protest and unanimously passed the following resolution:
That your government take whatever action is felt necessary to protect the interests of our mining and smelting industries.
In addition, chambers of commerce throughout British Columbia and other organizations, including quite a number of unions, have expressed their support and approval.
This is a very serious situation so far as the mining industry and the miners of British Columbia are concerned, and we do urge the government to face up to the problem and take courageous action. It may take some strong action on the part of the government to prevent an increase in duties on imports of base metals into the United States. While the situation is, shall I say, somewhat dormant at the present time, there is no question but that the mining interests of the western states are going to do everything possible to get the United States government to increase these duties at the next session of congress.
I want to say a word or two with respect to the lumber industry. That industry can be assisted by the development of markets in Great Britain-there are possibilities there-and by government policies which will improve our markets in Canada. In addition, I think this is the appropriate time for the government to consider a revision of taxation policies in so far as they apply to the forest industry, and that section of that industry which is practising conservation methods.
In the past income taxation policy has been one of dealing with these cases on their merits. Each individual case was dealt with on its merits and, in my opinion, much to the advantage of the large operators. Like other members of this group I believe in a mixed economy. We believe in a diversified

economy, and we know the value of the small businessman, small industries and the small service operator to our economy in maintaining its diversity. I suggest in all seriousness to the Minister of Finance that this is a very appropriate time for a reconsideration of the taxation levied on the lumber industry, and particularly that section of the industry which practises conservation in its operations.
In that respect I should like to quote briefly from an address given to the 1956 British Columbia natural resources conference by D. M. Carey, assistant forester, working plans division, British Columbia forest service. Mind you, this is a government servant speaking, and in his very excellent address he says in part:
Thus many influences tend to squeeze the smaller forest owner and operator out of independent existence. We have heard it said, "The small logger is doomed." This may well be so in that his days of independence are numbered as things stand on the coast. In the interior he may survive for a few years. Before going any further let me say that personal views which follow are my own views as a forester and therefore they are not necessarily the views of either the B.C. government or the forest service.
I do not think anyone wants to see the small logger liquidated. Is it not better to convert him into an independent logging tree farmer rather than into just one of many wholly dependent subsidiaries or employees of large corporations?
It is the responsibility of the provincial government, Mr. Chairman, to deal with provincial taxation and to determine the type of forest tenure that shall exist in British Columbia, but it is the responsibility of the federal government to devise income taxation policies that will promote the conservation of our natural resources, that will deal fairly with those who are willing to protect them and will protect the interests and rights of the smaller loggers, lumbermen, tree farmers and so on. I do ask the minister to review the policy that has been followed in the past and give consideration to the matter at this time. This is an appropriate time in that those in the lumber industry, particularly the smaller operators, are having a most difficult time to survive and in most cases are not receiving any compensation, shall I say, for trying to preserve the forests for future generations.
However, while we may do something by government policy to increase our trade with Great Britain and improve our markets in Canada, and may do something to a limited extent to improve our markets in the United States-I am not certain what we can do in that respect-only so much can be accomplished because we are harrowing old fields. We are intruding into developed fields while at the same time half the world goes hungry

and lacks the ordinary necessities of life required for a civilized existence. If we face this fact fairly and squarely I think we must realize the limited opportunities there are in the fields that are more generally mentioned compared with the opportunities presented to us in the other half of the world that lacks so many things that we enjoy.
In British Columbia both management and labour recognize this fact. As was so well expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway this morning, they have indicated their recognition of this fact and their support for policies meant to improve the marketing situation in this country, to prevent unemployment and at the same time accept some responsibility for the other half of the world which, as I said before, lacks the things we enjoy. Together with other members of this group and industry and labour in British Columbia I do urge the government to face the situation realistically and recognize the government of China. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said, that is not recognition or support of their policies and principles, but we have got to face facts. In recognizing China we will be able to try to develop trade with China, and trade with China means trade with 600 million people who at present require many of the products that we produce.
I might say in passing that the Conservative candidate who ran against me in the last federal election, a very fine gentleman indeed and a good friend of mine, was most ardent in his support of recognition of China and the development of trade policies with China.
I hope the government will listen to the policies advocated by some of its defeated candidates now that it is in power, and will do what some of these candidates were suggesting it should do.
I mention this particularly, Mr. Chairman, because, as I said before, we can only do certain limited things by harrowing old fields. We have got to broaden out. We have got to find other markets that exist, and accept our responsibilities on a world-wide basis. I urge the government to act boldly, recognize China, develop trade with China and in so doing prevent unemployment in Canada and assist the hungry and underprivileged people of the rest of the world.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to pursue a particular matter, but before doing so may I inquire what are the intentions of the Minister of Finance with respect to replying to the very valid observations, I think, made this morning by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano on the important role which parliament must exercise as a result of the particular procedure proposed
Interim Supply
by the Minister of Finance. It seems to me that it would be very helpful and would also be calculated to encourage progress if we knew the extent to which the Minister of Finance, after listening to the able arguments of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, was prepared to accede to his submissions.
I am prepared to go on and discuss the particular matter I have in mind, but it seems to me that it would be helpful and more orderly if we dealt first with the fundamental question of whether or not parliament is going to be called upon to vote under the unprecedented circumstances postulated by the Minister of Finance.
If the Minister of Finance could say whether he is prepared to reply now, I will recognize that as the proper arrangement. Then those of us who have particular questions to ask might submit them to the particular ministers concerned.
If the minister does not intend to reply, then I might as well continue with what I have to say on another subject altogether. But I would think that the interests of parliament, particularly those interests that were so vigorously championed by my hon. friend when he was sitting on this side of the house, require that an answer should be given now as to whether or not we are going to be called upon to vote under circumstances that are certainly contrary to the concept of a free, democratic parliamentary system.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Castleden:: Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Excuse me, but I had asked my hon. friend a question.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, have I the floor?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I had asked a question. I had the floor and I was proposing to go on to speak about another matter; but I was asking my hon. friend whether he proposed to reply now. Surely my hon. friend can say whether he intends to speak now or later or not at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Far be it from me to interrupt the speech of my hon. friend. I gather that he is fairly well through with it by now, is he not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has been in this house for 12 years, but he has always sat on the opposition side. Before too long he will learn that the quickest way for a minister of the crown to gain wide acceptance in this house is to recognize that he is not the only member in parliament.
I want to join with others, Mr. Chairman, in congratulating you upon your designation

Interim Supply
as chairman of committees of this house. This is an honourable role which I am sure you will discharge responsibly and prudently.
I have some observations that I wish to address to my successor, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. May I say to him, first of all, what I have said to him privately already. I am sure that every member of this house joins with me in extending to my hon. friend sincere congratulations upon his being designated as Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am sure he will find this department an extremely rewarding one. I hope his tenure is brief, but I hope and believe it will be constructive, as he will bring to his assignment the kind of energy and devotion of purpose which have characterized most of his activities, other than his political activities, throughout his life. I am sure he will find this department to be composed of men and women who are devoted to the public service and to the welfare of this country in the pursuit of matters having to do with health and welfare.
I fully appreciate the fact that one could not expect the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is responsible for the expenditure of a larger sum of money than that expended by any other department of the government other than the Department of National Defence, to have at his finger tips the answer to every conceivable question that might be directed his way. I do not want him for a moment to think I am taking advantage of this situation today. That is not my intention. If there are questions that I put to him the answers to which my hon. friend has not at his finger tips at the moment, I am sure we would all readily understand the reason. But I believe this particular question is of such a nature that at least my hon. friend would be expected to have the answers, as I am sure he has because they are of a general character.
I refer, of course, to the matter I raised when the house met on Tuesday last. I asked the Prime Minister whether any significance was to be drawn from the fact that in the speech from the throne delivered by Her Majesty no reference had been made to the matter of hospital insurance. I asked whether any significance was to be drawn from that omission, and the Prime Minister said that I would be unwarranted in drawing that conclusion. I therefore take it that the policy of the present administration is to do everything it can to bring about an implementation of the system of hospital insurance and diagnostic services which was proposed by the previous government and supported by every member of this house. But as we have not had much indication-if I may say so 
with great respect-of interest and have had little indication of detail, one wonders whether or not the government is vigorously pursuing the possibility of reaching at an early date some agreement among the six consenting provinces and others in respect of the matter of hospital insurance.
The other day, in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, my hon. friend said that six provinces had accepted in principle the proposals made by the federal government in this matter. My hon. friend will not misunderstand me when I say that information was not new. That information was available to the people of Canada before the election on June 10 last. The fact is that before the election took place six provinces had agreed to the proposal put forward by the federal government under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. Those six provinces had been named exactly in the manner and in the order which my hon. friend himself used the other day; that is to say, the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island had accepted the proposal put forward by the federal government.
One would want now to inquire what situation has developed since the announcement of the consent by these six provinces. Have any agreements been signed? If no agreements have been signed, when is it expected that agreements will be signed? What negotiations are now under way which could result in signatures by provinces of agreements put forward by the federal government or mutually devised or conceived by the federal government and the provincial governments? Has any master agreement been prepared?
The situation prevailing before the previous government went out of office was this. We had discussed with the province of Ontario the terms of a master agreement by which we hoped to be able to conclude the positions taken under the hospital insurance act and provincial enabling legislation. Has the work which resulted in the last conference between the federal government and Ontario been expanded, or has it been decided not to have agreements, as was proposed by at least one of the provinces? What is the situation with regard to the province of New Brunswick, the province of British Columbia and the province of Nova Scotia?
I had been informed, and I so announced in the house, that the premier of the province of Nova Scotia had indicated that he thought this was a measure deserving of support by that province. He told me that there were still some problems which were

concerning him, and I have since learned from the press that he has established some sort of commission to re-examine the whole problem in the light of Nova Scotia's special interest. In this connection it should be noted, of course, that the previous administration in Nova Scotia had set up a commission of inquiry, and that commission had come to the conclusion that it was in Nova Scotia's interest to accept the federal proposal.
Is the minister in a position to tell us whether or not he has reasons to believe that there will be some considerable delay on the part of Nova Scotia in accepting the federal proposal? I had been told some time at the end of May by the minister of health in New Brunswick, in the presence of the minister of health of Nova Scotia, that there was no doubt that the province of New Brunswick was going to come into the scheme and that we might look forward to ready acceptance at a fairly early date by that province of the proposal put forward by the federal government.
These questions are not idle questions, because this whole matter is an important one. The previous government did not arrive at the decision to put forward a proposal which involves very considerable expenditure of public funds without the gravest consideration. It followed as the result of careful consideration by the executive arms of government, both federally and provincially. It was the result and the product of many conferences between the federal and provincial governments. There can be no mistaking the fact that there is a wide acceptance throughout Canada of the desirability of having hospital insurance, and it would be nothing short of a calamity if any undue delay in this matter was deliberate on the part of the present government. I am not suggesting that it is-


Donald Methuen Fleming: You had better not.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -well, my hon. friend says I had better not and I am glad he has made a speech, finally. However, the fact is that parliament passed the hospital insurance act and that measure was supported by the vote of everyone in the house, including the Prime Minister. Few took a more active part in the deliberations than the Minister of Finance who now looks on and listens to what I am saying, apparently with such great and understandable interest. Notwithstanding that, we have had very little mention at all about this question of hospital insurance by the present administration. With the sole exception of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I am not aware of anyone on the other side saying anything by way of support of this measure, except
Interim Supply
when the Prime Minister himself, speaking in Winnipeg, made reference to what he thought were some weaknesses of the project. Since the election, however, no one has made any reference to the matter of hospital insurance, certainly not a minister other than the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I commend him for the words he used when he recently took over the administration of his department. He said that this was one question that was going to engage his full attention, one matter to which he was personally greatly dedicated. Outside of this observation we have heard nothing from any of his colleagues, before or after the election, and since the election, so far as I am aware, nothing whatsoever from the minister himself.
Now, we are surely entitled to know whether any progress at all has been made in this matter. The province of Ontario has indicated that it proposes to implement its scheme on January 1, 1959, and when I last conferred with them in my own capacity as Minister of National Health and Welfare I was informed by the premier of Ontario that not later than the end of September he should be in a position to know definitely whether or not the federal government would be able, pursuant to the act, to provide the government of the province of Ontario with its share of the cost of the operation of the Ontario scheme.
Unless some progress has been made I am afraid this situation is not calculated to give much encouragement. If Ontario is going to begin its scheme on January 1, 1959, unless it is to bear the full cost itself it must immediately know whether the other five consenting provinces will have conformed to the requirements of the hospital insurance act, since that legislation provides that the federal money shall be paid only when the six consenting provinces have schemes in being and in support of which the proclamation of the measures under which they operate has taken place. In other words their legislation must be in force and their scheme must be in force. That certainly is not the case in any province except the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan.
What is the situation in Alberta? Does the minister regard the existence of what they have in that province now as sufficient to comply with the act? What about the province of Newfoundland? Does the existing scheme there satisfy his requirements or the requirements as envisaged by the law officers of the crown? What about Prince Edward Island?
If no agreements have been signed, well then, it is clear that Ontario's position, in

Interim Supply
so far as the starting date announced by the premier is concerned, is in great jeopardy unless the minister is prepared at some later date to suggest to this committee that there should be an amendment to the act to provide for payments on a basis not now envisaged by the hospital insurance act itself.
In the province of Ontario there is a demand now being made, and an understandable demand, by the insurance companies and by those who are beneficiaries or who are insured under private hospital insurance schemes, for information on the kind of rates that are going to be imposed under the scheme to be brought about at some future date by the government of Ontario. The trade unions and employers of labour are also very interested in knowing what are to be the rates under the hospital insurance scheme in the province of Ontario and, as my hon. friend knows and as I know very well, there are literally thousands of groups all over the country-I mentioned Ontario particularly since that is the province where the greatest job has got to be done because of the numbers to be covered-who are all awaiting very anxiously to know what will be the situation in that particular as well as in other particulars.
What is the real situation? Are any negotiations under way between the federal government and any one of the provinces? Are there any negotiations under way right now between the province of Manitoba and the federal government? The premier of that province is reported as saying that Manitoba is just as good as in. What is the situation in that province? Perhaps the Minister of Finance, either today or on some later occasion soon, will be able to give us some indication. Has an agreement been signed with Saskatchewan? There should be no delay there now because they have a scheme in being; they were prepared to accept the basic proposals embodied in the main agreement that we had worked out in a general way with the province of Ontario. Surely there should be some agreement signed between that province and the federal government. Has any agreement been signed with any province? If no agreement has been signed, what exactly is the situation?
The present Minister of Finance will recall that his party took a strong position in the matter of certain exclusions. The minister moved an amendment in this house to the effect that tuberculosis and mental illness should be provided for in some form. We maintained that as the act was designed to help individuals and not to subsidize provincial governments, as long as provincial governments continued to bear, substantially,

the cost of the care of those two illnesses, that should not be a continuing charge on the federal exchequer. But that was not the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. You voted against it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is going to speak later, and I welcome it. Notwithstanding that, he took the position that those two forms of illness should be included and covered under the hospital insurance act. What is the position of the government now? Does it intend to include tuberculosis and mental illness? I am not arguing whether or not this should be done at this time; I am simply wanting to inquire. Is that one of the reasons why the government is not proceeding with the measure? I am told on fairly reliable authority that the Minister of Finance, whose generosity knew no limits when he was sitting on this side of the house, said to his colleagues, "We certainly cannot do all the things that we promised; there is not enough money".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, such rot.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says "such rot". It is certainly the kind of rot given out during the election, because there was no limit to what was promised. But I am told the Minister of Finance has taken that position, and he can deny it if he wishes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Who told you?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend would be very surprised if I were indiscreet enough to inform him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Go ahead; don't be so discreet. Tell us.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the position? Are tuberculosis and mental illness to be included in the deal with two of the provinces. One of them, in the maritime area, is prepared to go in right away if the government will live up to the position it took when it sat in opposition. I do not know whether or not that is the case, but surely we ought to be informed about this measure by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member for Essex East permit a question? He will feel it is quite natural to receive a question from me. Would his party now support legislation to extend this coverage?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member may on occasion find it would be possible, sitting in that eternal position of opposition as he does, but I am expressing my personal view. As long as the provinces continue to bear the substantial responsibility for the

care provided to their citizens in the matter of tuberculosis and mental illness, then the hospital insurance act should not be used to subsidize provincial governments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then you have been asking the government to do something that you are not prepared to do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I don't think the hon. member is fair. I am not asking the government to do something I am not prepared to do myself. I am trying to ascertain if despite the position taken by the government when it was in opposition they are now prepared to oppose that position, that opposition being, I am told, one of the reasons why at least one province is not coming in. That is surely a consistent and honourable position for me to take. But if the provinces and the federal government are able to agree on the assumption of this responsibility under the hospital insurance act, then I would have no quarrel, and then it would be the responsibility of hon. gentlemen opposite who have close and influential connections with provincial governments to see that those governments do something, for instance, by way of paying adequate supplementary old age pensions in their respective provinces with the money thus saved.
What is going to be done about depreciation? Hon. gentlemen opposite argued that we were at fault in not including depreciation in the shareable cost. Is that still the position of the government? Is the Minister of Finance now prepared to say through his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or on his own assertion, that the government is now willing to include this additional item? The Minister of Finance says nothing on this subject. He says nothing on whether or not they are going to include tuberculosis and mental illness, and his silence on these matters, as well as the silence of all others in respect of this particular situation, is responsible for the feeling that now exists in all parts of Canada that this government is going to find a convenient way out of doing anything about the matter of hospital insurance so far as the federal government is concerned.
If that is not the situation, why was it not mentioned in the speech from the throne, and why have we not been informed in this house, or before we met, of the progress that was being made? Why have we not got agreement with the provinces in respect of a matter which was brought before this house and which was referred to by the present Prime Minister as the most important social act ever presented to this parliament
Interim Supply
in the field of health and welfare? If this is an important matter, then the Minister of Finance should, not tomorrow but right now, give an answer to what I have asked and take the opportunity of saying when we may expect action on the part of the government in respect of this vitally important matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I should first like to express to the hon. member for Fort William my thanks for his very kind reference this morning, and to say that I hope the same kind of team play can be observed here as was observed on the baseball field out in front of these buildings in days gone by.
I should like also to thank the hon. member for Peace River for his generous remarks on the effort I made this morning to explain the business we are trying to do here today. It is only fair, I think, to tell the newer members of the house that we are witnessing an unusual procedure today on the part of the opposition yonder. In times past these requests for interim supply have been dealt with with celerity, and they have not been made an occasion for such long speeches as the one to which we have just listened-a speech which, no doubt, would have its place in the debate on the speech from the throne but which in this debate is quite out of keeping with the practice of this house in times past under the government of which the hon. member was a not altogether silent member for a good many years.
I shall say no more to my friend the hon. member for Essex East except to comment that I am gravely concerned about the degree of over-anxiety he has displayed in the chamber in the last few days. He is covering a great deal of territory in his outbursts and working himself into a lather much too often. I am concerned that he will not be able to last the three months until the 16th of January.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you for the solicitation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suggest to him that he play it a little more easily because there is quite a while to go yet.
To the hon. member for Coast-Capilano who this morning informed us that he had been chosen by the Leader of the Opposition to be the spokesman of the official opposition on matters pertaining to finance I should like to extend my congratulations and assure him that at all times I personally, and I am sure my colleagues, will be delighted to receive the assistance of his constructive criticism, if any.


James Sinclair: You will get it.

Interim. Supply


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Coast-Capilano this morning was quite concerned about the use I am making of the services of the officials of the Department of Finance. I am glad indeed to embrace this opportunity of paying tribute to the officials of that department. I have never withheld my expression in times past of my sincere praise of the officials of any of the government departments and I may say to the committee that when I was honoured by being invited to accept the portfolio of finance in my first remarks to the officials of that department I assured them of the high regard in which I have always held the officials of that department, many of whom I had known well personally, some of whom I had known slightly and some of whom I had not met before. I made it very clear that I would ask nothing of them except their frank advice fearlessly given and that I would never ask any one of them nor did I want any of them to give advice simply because they thought it was the advice I wanted to hear.
I might tell hon. members opposite they need have no fear about the calls that will be made upon the services of these exemplary servants of the public in the Department of Finance. I would point out to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano that they have been working harder since the 21st day of June than they had been accustomed to working before.


James Sinclair: Because they now have a stupid minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My friend the hon. member for Coast-Capilano has also informed the house that he has been reading my speeches. Well, I must thank him for that. I am sure he will find them fair and factual, and I commend to him the example. I hope he will derive some benefit from the effort he is now applying in that direction. He has advised us that he is working now. Well, we will all be glad to hear of that and I must say that after all these years it is not too soon.
As to the quality of his speech I make no comment beyond saying it has been a typical speech of my hon. friend, a flamboyant and demagogic display, an histrionic exhibition of the first order. There were times when the hon. gentleman found it very difficult to keep a straight face and certainly throughout the greater part of his speech I observed that his colleagues about him were also having difficulty keeping straight faces when he rolled out these old expressions to which we have all grown so accustomed. I suggest to my hon. friend that he should vary his technique now that he has been transformed into a member of the opposition. He used to talk

to us about the family compact and the Tories. Well isn't it about time he found a new record to play or wrote at least one new speech now that he is working?


James Sinclair: But the Tories have not
changed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will have something to say about what I think was the only point my hon. friend made during the course of his remarks. I might comment that the hon. gentleman tried to make it appear to be three points. I will come back and deal with the first one which I thought was his real point, but let us now have a look at what he said were his second and third points.
Concerning the measure before the house today he said his second criticism was on the ground of the form of the measure. It simply follows the time honoured form. Somehow or other the hon. gentleman led himself on from that assertion to say the government was mulcting the taxpayer of unnecessary funds. That was a remark made about the estimates which he and his colleagues drew and introduced in this house last spring, and if there is any mulcting of the taxpayer of unnecessary funds the responsibility lies and will continue to rest on him and his colleagues.
I simply make this observation in passing, that no item is being passed finally today. If the measure the government has introduced passes there is no final decision on any item.
The hon. gentleman has been out of touch with finance, as he revealed today, much too long notwithstanding his experience at one time as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. He undertook to tell the committee that there was power on the part of the government once these items were voted to transfer moneys back and forth. He ought to know and surely I should not have to remind the hon. gentleman after he has been in the house for 17 years that it is not possible to transfer money from one item to another.


James Sinclair: Within a department?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, not within a department. It is not possible to transfer moneys from one item to another. The items are statutory when they are passed and all that can be done is transfer amounts within the details of an item. No money can be transferred from one item to another and it is high time the hon. gentleman learned that if he is going to discharge his new function.
And then in dealing with what he called his third point the hon. gentleman went back to Saskatoon in 1953.


James Sinclair: 1952.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member got his
tenses all mixed up; one minute he was out in Saskatoon and another minute he was in Ottawa; one minute dealing with 1953 and the next minute back dealing with 1957. He referred to a statement made in 1953 by the then leader of the Conservative party about a reduction of $200 million which Mr. Drew said should be made in national defence. We in this house lived to see the reduction made which he said could be made without any impairment of our national defence.
Of course the hon. gentleman did not go on to say that the items we are dealing with are already committed, that the present government today does not have a free hand. We are not starting a new fiscal year. We are dealing with estimates that were already introduced, with programs that were already far underway before we came into office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is three months now since you came into office.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish now to come back to the one point of the minister's speech.


James Sinclair: Thank you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: However, before dealing with the only real point of the hon. member's address, that part of the speech which he called point No. 1, I have a word or two for my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He began by complaining that copies of the resolution were not available. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been in the house for some 15 years and I have been here for some 12 years. Never once in that time have copies of the resolutions been circulated. Indeed, something has been done today by the Minister of Finance that has never been done in the 12 years I have been in this chamber. The Minister of Finance today furnished copies of the details of the resolution to all of the three parties in the opposition and I must say that in times past sitting in opposition my question always was when such resolutions were introduced: will you tell us something about it? Give us the breakdown? Of what items are you voting one-twelfth? What items are not being voted simply on the basis of one-twelfth? We always had to take up time asking such questions. I am glad the sheets we distributed served some purpose today, but I think my hon. friend might have recognized that this is the first time this kind of co-operation has been extended by a minister of finance to members of the other parties in the house.
To my very great surprise indeed the hon. gentleman complained that parliament had not been called in September. It is well that we should pause for a moment to consider
Interim Supply
the significance of what the hon. member has said and the fact that on this complaint he built a baseless assertion that the Prime Minister of this country has broken faith with the promises made in the election campaign.
What was the fact, sir? When we came into office we found that the previous government had already long before committed the use of these buildings to an international conference. We did not have the details of the sittings of that body, but the fact is that the meetings of that international postal conference did not end in this chamber until October 3. What was much more significant, as the Prime Minister explained yesterday, was that the plans made for the visit of Her Majesty had been substantially advanced.


John Whitney Pickersgill: By a Liberal government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I say that had the incoming government not proceeded in the light of the plans that had already been made and invited Her Majesty to open parliament, such a loss would have fallen on the Canadian people that no amount of talk on the part of my hon. friend until doomsday would ever repair; for something has been given to the soul of the Canadian people this week by the visit of Her Majesty and Her Majesty's opening of the Canadian parliament that will enrich that soul for generations to come.


Mr. Chevrier:: Your speech will not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend then went on to say that he wanted to know what was to be the basis of the new pensions that the government is proposing in the throne speech, and he wanted those included in the scope of the present measure. For one who is supposed to know something about the rules of the house, did you ever hear anything more utterly outlandish, did you ever hear of anything as unconstitutional? We are not including in the scope of the measure today payments for measures that have not even been introduced in the house, let alone brought here with a recommendation of His Excellency. Are we to be told now by the hon. member that we should be making disclosures here and now of the intent of the government with respect to the contents of legislation long before the resolutions, which must have the approval of His Excellency, are introduced in the house? I was surprised beyond measure to hear doctrine like that coming from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I can assure him that it is the intention of the government to follow strictly constitutional practice in this matter, and those measures that I think all hon. members, those on this side of the house as well as those

Interim Supply
on the other side of the house, are awaiting with no little interest will be introduced in this house just as quickly as the transaction of business in the house will permit. That means the completion of the speech from the throne debate and the emergency measure with respect to cash advances on farm-stored grain. We hope then to get on with all dispatch with these measures respecting increases in social security benefits and I hope we shall have my hon. friend's support in trying to expedite the program.
I may say to him when he complains that I did not answer a certain telegram he sent me back in the summer that I would have been violating my constitutional duty as a minister of the crown to have informed him of the contents of whatever it might be that the government intended to bring in later on by way of a measure, and that, from an hon. gentleman who has devoted long years to the assiduous study of the rules of the house.
Now, sir, he has asked for some further assurance in regard to these items in the further supplementary estimates, No. 1.


Mr. Richardson:: May I ask a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am afraid I will have to ask my hon. friend to wait until the conclusion of my thirty minutes. My time is limited. I will be glad to deal with all questions if he will permit me to conclude my remarks. I am a little concerned about the time.
My hon. friend wanted some further assurance about the position of the items in the further supplementary estimates, No. 1. There were eight of those items and five of them were carried into effect by the form of legislation that was contained in the appropriation bill. Those are statutory items and I am assured by the law officer of my department that no further vote is necessary in that respect. Those payments are provided for fully for the remainder of the current fiscal year to March 31 next.
But the three final items, which are the ones referred to in the sheet which I sent him, have not attained statutory effect as a result of the appropriation bill which was passed. It may be that they were intended to have that effect, but I am informed by the law officer of my department it is necessary to make a special provision in the present bill in order to continue payment of those items, and I hope we shall have the support of the committee in seeking to do so.
Sir, I wish to come now to what my hon. friend from Coast-Capilano had to say, echoed as it was by the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount. Let me say to the committee that the government is today not only following the constitutional course, it

is following the only course that was physically open to it in the circumstances. It was a physical impossibility to rewrite the whole volume of estimates in the time available. The work that has been indicated with respect to seeking to find savings, where savings could be made, in the volume of estimates that has been re-introduced in the house, is a continuing task and it is going to be carried on.
The committee today is not being asked to overvote any sum, and we stand as a government behind every item for whic'h we are asking today; that is to say, to the extent to which we are asking for it. We are standing back of it and it is perfectly clear and was made perfectly clear this morning.
What is the great to-do that was made by hon. members opposite? What is the substance of it all?
There are 802 items in these four groups of estimates altogether. In the main estimates there were 537 items. Four of them were finally adopted by the former parliament; 533 remain. Of these 533, there are 15 on account of which we are not asking any further vote today; on 10 we are asking for a little more than one-twelfth; on the remaining 508 we are simply asking for one-twelfth, the equivalent of a month, and that does not carry them beyond their proportion of seven-twelfths. There is therefore ample room to do all that the government may wish to do by way of saving without trespassing one inch upon the prerogatives, the duties and responsibilities of parliament.
Of the supplementary estimates there were 47 items. One was finally voted by the former parliament; 46 remain. On two of these we are not asking for anything further. On the other 44 we are asking for only one-twelfth, the equivalent of one month. Of the further supplementary estimates No. 1 there were eight items. Of these five were finally voted by the former parliament and three remain. On these three we are asking simply for one-twelfth, the equivalent of one month.
Of the further supplementary estimates, No. 2, I should note that it was clear to hon. members opposite that the government, having introduced these, is standing behind them all 100 per cent. But if hon. members opposite are still querulous on that subject, let me say to them that of the 110 items therein, on 107 of them we are asking simply for one-twelfth, the equivalent of one month's vote. That means that out of 802 items there are only 13 of which we are asking for more than one-twelfth, and with respect to every one of those 13 there is an explanation which I shall be happy to give and which I know

will satisfy the committee and even hon. gentlemen opposite because I miss my guess if they are prepared to challenge what we are asking for in any of these. I shall be glad to give full details of these. There is a special reason in every case and a satisfactory reason.
I repeat the undertaking that I gave this morning and which in the 12 years that I have been in this house has been given by ministers of finance on every request for a vote of interim supply, I suppose 50 times in those 12 years, that the passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply. The usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.
The hon. member for Coast-Capilano said this morning that there was no precedent for what is being done here, a government submitting to the house a message from His Excellency recommending certain estimates to the house and then not being prepared to stand behind them. Precedents, he says! Well, sir, what are the facts? I wish there were time, Mr. Chairman, but I have time only to give the house 13 precedents on the subject. I have not gone back of the fiscal year 1940-41-


Mr. Stick:: That is an unlucky number.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -but there is a series of items in estimates from that time down to the past session where items were introduced by the government in the form of a message from His Excellency recommending them to the consideration of the house and ministers of the last government when those estimates were reached, in many cases after portions of them had been voted by way of votes of interim supply, rose and withdrew them or submitted to reductions in them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not a precedent at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not quarrel with their reduction or withdrawal of those items. I believe that they should have withdrawn or reduced a great many of the items they tried to stuff down the throats of members of the last three parliaments.
But where is this great principle? We were told there is precedent for such a thing! I well recall an experience of my own when Mr. Winters was minister of public works. You will find it recorded at page 4263 of Hansard of April 29, 1954. An item was called of something over $1 million. I asked some questions about it and it turned out
Interim Supply
that there was a whole lot of money in that item that was not required. What happened? The government of that time did not even wait for me to move a reduction. The gentleman who two months later became minister of finance rose and moved the reduction in that item, an item that had come to the house with the approval of the governor in council.
Was there any shrieking then about the violation of some constitutional principle? Oh, no! It just depends whose ox is gored. But I will be glad to give chapter and verse for what I have said in regard to all of these items of estimates in the years from 1940 to 1957. In the fiscal year 1940-41 there was item 38; in 1941-42 item 137; in 1942-43 item 200; in 1949-50 item 607, in 1951-52 item 650; in 1953-54 item 487; in 1954-55 item 535; in 1955-56 items 331 and 544; and in 1956-57 items 386 and 289.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: When I have completed my remarks I will be glad to have any questions that hon. gentlemen wish to ask. I made that clear already.
Now, Mr. Chairman, because we are subject to a time limit I hope that hon. gentlemen opposite will have the goodness and the responsibility to come back and ask me with regard to these 13 items for the reason why in every case it is necessary to ask the house to vote more than one-twelfth. I remind the house, as I said this morning, that in no case is the total vote being exhausted. There is still ample room for the exercise of the responsibility of every member of the house. There is at the same time ample room for the efforts that the government is assiduously making to achieve savings in the interests of the taxpayers and of sound government.
But let me say this in the several minutes that remain to me. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano spoke in a loud voice today and with great assurance until he came near the end of his remarks. But then we witnessed what we witnessed yesterday in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, a bold start, a strong middle part of the speech and then in the conclusion a sad faltering.
If this government is guilty of what the hon. member for Coast-Capilano said about it this morning, then it is perfectly clear that as a government we have no right to sit in these places. We ought to be discharged from office if we have violated the decencies of the constitution and the rights of parliament as he asserted today. But by the same token, having regard to the responsibilities

Interim Supply
of an opposition and, above all, an official opposition and, above all, that of the spokesman on financial matters-


James Sinclair: Watch your temper.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -for that official opposition, what have you to say, sir, about the sense of responsibility of a spokesman for the opposition who in a matter of that kind accuses the government of violating the rights of parliament and constitutional decencies and then stops short of being prepared to challenge the right of the government to retain office? I say that that weak-kneed course of action is a demonstration of irresponsibility, and I warn hon. gentlemen opposite that if they think that they can deliver these sniping speeches, deliver themselves of these hit-and-run efforts and not be called to account in the house, they are mistaken.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Don't threaten.


Donald Methuen Fleming: After what was said this morning I can assure them that they will have full opportunity to declare whether they have confidence in the government or whether this government is no longer to retain office, for it is my intention-I make it quite clear now-to press for a division on every stage of this measure today in this committee, in the committees that follow and in the house. Personally I am going to watch with the closest interest the vote that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano casts. I shall be asking myself how he is going to cast his vote. In the first place, is he going to vote?


James Sinclair: He will vote.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is one question. Question No. 2: If he is going to vote, is he going to vote in the vein in which he spoke for the first 90 per cent of his speech today or is he going to turn tail on his speech and run?


James Sinclair: I am sure there is no question in hon. members' minds who has delivered the louder speech today.


George Harris Hees: Or who has delivered the best speech.


James Sinclair: Now that the sound and fury have temporarily subsided, I want to return to my original point. When I spoke this morning I drew the attention of the committee to the remarks that the minister made on Tuesday, October 15, though not in quite the same loud voice, remarks unique in the history of this parliament. The so-called precedents he has now recounted to us are not,
[Mr. Fleming.!
as I will point out in a moment, precedents at all. But this is what he said, as found at page 11 of Hansard for last Tuesday:
However, this is not to say that the present government will support all of the detailed programs contemplated when those estimates were originally prepared. Rather, such changes as this government proposes to make in the current year programs will be brought to parliament's attention when the individual items affected are being considered by the committee of supply.
All we asked this morning was that the minister tell the committee what items he is supporting in accord with the governor general's recommendation and what are the items which, as mentioned here, he has not committed himself to support. That is what I asked the hon. gentleman, and in the midst of all this crescendo of sound coming from this little man there was one thing he said: We stand behind every one of these estimates presented this day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no.


James Sinclair: That is exactly what we asked him to say.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


James Sinclair: Those are the very words, the very words-


An hon. Member:: Behind the bill.


James Sinclair: -and I thank him for that assurance because now he is showing more good sense than he has showed so far-


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are running out.


James Sinclair: -in his conduct of affairs as Minister of Finance. Let me tell you about these estimates he is standing behind. These estimates, concerning which he has been unable to give us one single item that he will not approve, were prepared by the gentlemen who now sit on this side of the house, and naturally we are going to support every single item of these estimates that we prepared.
We are not turning our backs on our own work. What we wanted from the minister was some indication of those items for which he was not taking paternity. He has apparently taken paternity for all these estimates. He went to some trouble to build up a straw man about those items for which he is only asking one-twelfth and those for which he is asking other fractions.
We understand perfectly the reason for that. He dealt with it very carefully and cleverly for new members in that rather professorial speech with which he began his morning's remarks. But I am glad, as are all members of the opposition, that we have smoked out the minister and that he is unable to provide us with this list of items which he

is not prepared to support. He said that in the short time that he was having lunch he was able to find these thirteen precedents-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say anything about lunch.


James Sinclair: Oh, he did not have any lunch. For the benefit of new members he pointed out that these main estimates are actually prepared by the various departments of government in the early fall and cleared through treasury board generally in December. Then before the actual reference of the estimates to the house there are other things which arise which sometimes occasion the need for more money and sometimes occasion the need for less money. But when these estimates were presented by a government in good faith the government believed that all the money they asked for was needed and they stood behind that submission of estimates.
Naturally if, during the course of the year as the months rolled by it was found that some requirements were not going to be needed it was of course the proper action for a minister to take to stand up and inform the house, as did the Minister of Finance, apparently to the chagrin of the hon. member for Eglinton. He beat the hon. member for Eglinton to the punch and apparently the recollection of it still rankles. It is the proper function of the minister to inform the house that this money is not needed. But that is a very different course of conduct from what we saw on Tuesday when he announced to the house that he was at that time supporting only some of the estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, in his remark a few moments ago the Minister of Finance chose to criticize me for having suggested that the Prime Minister should have kept his election promise to call parliament in September to deal with the question of old age pensions. Let me make it clear that the Prime Minister made that promise not just once but on several occasions. He did it in a speech at Toronto on April 25. He repeated the promise in the city of Hull on May 7 and in Guelph, Ontario, on May 13. He gave the same promise again in a telecast over the C.B.C. on May 22 and in a C.B.C. radio talk from Vancouver on May 24. As a matter of fact, he made the promise in a speech as late as June 9, the day before the election, that if the Conservatives were returned to power they would call a September session of parliament to deal with the question of old age pensions.
The Minister of Finance suggested that that promise could not be fulfilled for two reasons, both of which he blames on the previous administration. He says, first of all, that the
Interim Supply
previous administration had made an arrangement a number of years ago for the universal postal union to meet in this chamber during the month of September. I remind hon. members opposite-and I call the Postmaster General as witness-that they knew of those arrangements. Those arrangements were debated in this House of Commons last March or April and I presume the Prime Minister was here. At least he should have known what was going on.
The present Postmaster General who then sat near us on this side of the house complained about those arrangements. The Conservatives knew that this building was committed for September to the universal postal union when the Prime Minister made this promise to call parliament in September. If he did not intend to carry out the promise because of that fact he should have said so or, having made the promise, he should have made other arrangements so far as the universal postal union was concerned.
The other excuse which the Minister of Finance now puts forth for the Prime Minister's not carrying out this promise-and this is the Prime Minister who on election night and several times since then said, "I will keep faith"-was the arrangement made by the previous government for Her Majesty to be here in mid-October. I am satisfied that the Prime Minister knew of this arrangement as well.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am going to give this house the reason why I think he must have known. Last April, shortly before we came to the end of the session, the former prime minister chose to call in spokesmen of groups on this side of the house in order to indicate what the plans were for the balance of that session. My leader happened to be ill at the time and when it was the turn of the spokesman for the C.C.F. to be called in, I was called to the office of the former prime minister. He told me-and I think he would not mind my saying this-that he had already spoken to the then leader of the opposition. I do not know what he told the then leader of the opposition but I know what he told me. He told me, amongst other things, of the plans for Her Majesty the Queen to come here in October. He also told me that the reason supply was being asked for to the end of October rather than to the end of September, as had been originally planned, was so that the opening of parliament, if it was so desired, could be delayed in order for Her Majesty to carry out that function.

Interim Supply
I do not know what the then prime minister told the then leader of the opposition but I would be greatly surprised if he told me, the second spokesman of a minority party, more than he told the then leader of the official opposition. I suggest that not only was there that private discussion-and I am sure that I am not breaking any confidence now in referring to it-but there were references in the house to the fact that Her Majesty the Queen was coming to the North American continent this fall. I am satisfied that the Prime Minister, when he was campaigning for the election and promising a September session of parliament, knew that Her Majesty was going to come here in October.
The Minister of Finance cannot get away with the display that he tried to indulge in and the suggestion that I would have robbed the Canadian people of the experience we have had this week because of the presence of Her Majesty. I recall to the Minister of Finance and repeat what I said this morning, namely that I think it would have been even more memorable and even more historic and would have given something even more lasting to the Canadian people if Her Majesty, on October 14, the day that she was here, had been given the opportunity, not just to open parliament and wonder what was coming but to give royal assent in person to a bill increasing the old age pension, a bill increasing the war veterans allowance and some of the other things that could have been passed by now if the Prime Minister had kept his sacred promise to call parliament in September. It is not good enough for the 5,000 senior citizens who die every month, the 5,000 or 10,000 who will never get whatever increase is in mind because the present government found a way to wiggle out of the promise it made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh,
yes; to wiggle out, to renege on the sacred promise made to the people of this country, particularly to our senior citizens, who incidentally were singled out for particular notice by being mentioned first with regard to domestic matters in the speech from the throne. I say again that it would have been far more memorable if Her Majesty had been given this other opportunity.
This idea is not original with me. In the press comments as to what would happen after the new government took office some newspaper columnists suggested that this was a solution to the problem of what to do because Her Majesty was coming in October, namely that the session could be called in September as planned and arrangements
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
could be made for royal assent in person in October. I suggest that it would have been just as much for the pleasure of the Canadian people to have that happen as to have the interesting experience that we have had this week.
The Minister of Finance twits me for asking him for something which he says is unconstitutional or not in keeping with the rules of procedure. He says that I must not ask him in advance of resolutions being placed on the order paper, with the approval of the governor general, as to what the government proposes to bring down. The Minister of Justice will recall that last year or the year before he complained because the then prime minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, announced certain proposals regarding university grants and the Canada Council in advance of the speech from the throne. He complained that this was giving, before the governor general read the speech from the throne, information that should not be given until the speech from the throne was brought down.
Well, the Minister of Finance did the same thing this year. Toward the end of June or early in July he made a speech or gave a press release in which he announced that there would be a budget this fall and that there would be an increase in the old age pension. In other words, he committed the same sin which the Minister of Justice complained about when it was committed a year ago by the then prime minister.
I do not say that it is a sin to announce some of the intentions of the government, so long as the government makes it clear that it will merely recommend certain things to parliament but recognizes that parliament has the final word with regard to these matters.
I suggest to the Minister of Finance that if it was competent for him, in advance of the reading of the speech from the throne, to announce something which was going to be in the speech from the throne-that is to say, an increase in the amount of the old age pension-then it is competent for us to ask him for further details with respect to the matter. It was in that spirit that I sent him the telegram to which I referred and which I think should now be placed on the record: It is dated at Winnipeg July 2, 1957:
Hon. Donald Fleming,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Your announcement of an increase in old age pension this fall heartily welcomed by all. It would mean a great deal to our senior citizens if you would confirm now by further public announcement that the government will recommend that the pension be increased to not less than $60 a month in keeping with the figure mentioned by

Mr. Diefenbaker when he spoke In the House of Commons on March 28 this year. Retired federal civil servants also counting on early announcement of pension increases for those in lower and middle brackets in line with support to our demands for same given in past by prominent members of your party. Remember also Mr. Diefenbaker's support of our insistence on a substantial increase in basic $25 pension paid to C.N.R. employees. Trust announcement of action on this matter will be made soon. Please reply.
Stanley Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre.
As I say, I have to date received no reply to that telegram which was simply a request that the minister make more clear and more precise the details of an announcement which he had chosen to make, despite the fact that it was dealing with a matter which was to be included in the speech from the throne. As for chiding anyone on this side of the chamber for seeking information as to the intentions of the government, I suggest that no member on the other side who was in parliament before can do any such chiding and get away with it.
My hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, tried time and time again when he was on this side of the chamber to get information out of the late government. Constitutional and procedural technicalities did not seem to bother him then. Now, all of a sudden constitutional and procedural technicalities seem to be something behind which he can hide because of his unwillingness to disclose this information. In that connection the motion which is before the committee of supply today asks us to continue for another month, the month of November, the expenditure programs of the old government, with a few changes involving the further supplementary estimates No. 2. I submit that a parliament which was told there was going to be a September session for dealing with old age pensions and was told that information would be given has the right to that information now. Are we going to have to wait, no one knows how long, until these changes are brought into being?
If the members on the government benches really believe in the supremacy of parliament and if they believe in the right of the members of parliament to be given information and not to be met with an iron curtain of secrecy, about which they used to complain,
I submit that they have no right to stand up and make speeches of the kind that was made today by the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to return for a moment to the question of the large number of unemployed and the increasing unemployment problem. In my own constituency at least seven or eight lumber mills have closed down throwing out of work some four or five hundred lumber workers.
Interim Supply
The Prime Minister in his pre-election promises indicated that he was prepared to increase the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Now while that is simply a palliative and it would not increase the market for lumber, I think in view of the rising cost of living something should be done in this regard and that it should not be left to the end of the session. Some action should be taken immediately.
I want to touch also upon the matter raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West. You will recall that I raised this question on the second day on which parliament convened. I asked the Prime Minister if he would be prepared to carry out his promise to consider the question of stock piling base metals and maintaining a floor price on those metals, that is to say, lead, zinc, copper and so on, metals which have depreciated in price to such an extent that many hard rock miners, particularly in western Canada, are being pressed to the wall. They too will, of course, be seeking unemployment insurance this winter and will be looking forward with very great interest to any increases that the Minister of Labour may be prepared to recommend. I was disappointed by the answer which I received from the right hon. Prime Minister and I hope that this is not another example of breaking faith with the people of Canada.
When the officers and other delegates of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers waited upon the Prime Minister and his cabinet there was undoubtedly a threat of increased tariffs on lead and zinc entering into the United States, but that was not the basis of their representations. The basis of their representations was that because of the price of metals at this moment, and at that moment in which they appeared which I believe was on August 6 last, many mines were being closed down. The large producers were curtailing production. As a matter of fact, in the paper-the Mine Mill Herald-which is distributed to its various members, they show pictures of deserted mining camps and ghost towns.
Now while the Prime Minister appeared to give very careful consideration to the delegation, it is quite obvious that he missed the point, and that is that prices are such at this moment that mines were being closed and miners are being thrown out of work. This was not something in anticipation of action by Congress of the United States. For that matter it is being discussed at this very moment.
I read in the paper while I was coming here on the train that the western metal mining interests had been granted another

Interim Supply
hearing on the question of the increased tariff against our metals, so that question was not the paramount one in my mind. The Prime Minister promised consideration of this matter, and I simply asked the Prime Minister if he was still giving consideration to the question; not to disclose the policy of the government, but to let us know that he is still giving continuous attention to the subject and not forgetting it, as he appears to have done judging from the answer he made to my question yesterday.
I cannot help but take a few minutes in which to congratulate the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the very good work which they did during the visit of Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. There is no doubt that it was the finest effort on a large scale that has ever been carried out anywhere on the North American continent and I am indeed grateful that the result will remain on the record for all time and that it will be shown, undoubtedly, for many years to come. I am pleased that all Canada and all the western world will, no doubt, be able to see the pageantry that marked the occasion and the history that was made here during that visit. But there is one thing on which I am not quite clear. I have been unable to determine, despite my inquiries, just where the authority arose for the installation of television cameras in the Commons chamber for the purpose of telecasting the actual proceedings of the house. Much of the speech made yesterday by the Prime Minister had to do with the rights and the supremacy of parliament and the rights of members of parliament, and I am wondering how many members of parliament were contacted in order to determine whether they were prepared to accept this change in procedure. I know this sounds like a very small matter, but when the question of rights and privileges is being discussed in such glowing terms by members of the government I think it is appropriate that we should look into the whole question.
In 1954 the former leader of the Conservative party, the Hon. George Drew, took very great exception to the fact that a wire recorder was used experimentally in a committee-the committee on external affairs- and he had this to say in the House of Commons on a question of privilege. I will read part of what he said to show that he and many other members of his party felt that there should be no encroachment on the prerogatives of hon. members of this house. On page 3845 of Hansard of Wednesday, April 7, the Hon. George Drew said, and I quote in part:
I place this before you, Mr. Speaker, because there has been a very strong objection to the

Introduction of recording devices here in this house except in those cases whereby, with consent, the speeches of persons such as President Eisenhower or Mr. Churchill or others who recently visited us were broadcast.
Then he goes on to say:
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that is is not within the authority of any committee to depart from established practices in regard to methods of procedure even though the committees have full right to decide their own procedure within well established rules.
I go on, quoting from the hon. gentleman's remarks:
If the committee has the right to start taking tape recordings by microphones which could then in turn be broadcast, either in whole or in part, then the next step could easily be television.
I think it is a wonderful thing that the people across Canada should be enabled to see the opening of parliament and procedures in this house, but I do inquire with regard to the change in procedure that was made and the encroachment on members' prerogatives by the action that was taken. I do not know where this action originated; I have not been able to contact the former Speaker. Perhaps those in authority on our side of the house agreed with the arrangement; nevertheless, when members of the present government feel so strongly about the supremacy of parliament and the prerogatives of hon. members within this house I feel that they should at least have contacted the 260 or more members who were to be televised on that occasion.


Mr. McLeod:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few general remarks to make, more particularly on one or two of the items dealing with the Department of Agriculture. I understood the Minister of Finance to say during his statement that the passage of this motion for supply would not in any way prejudice our rights to have full discussion of agriculture or other estimates during this session. If that is right, and if the minister can assure me that we will have the privilege of discussing the estimates of the Department of Agriculture for 1957 and 1958 during this session I will expedite the matter by taking my seat at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I gave that assurance in the most explicit terms. There is not one item here which will not be before us again in committee of supply, and there will be the fullest opportunity for examining it. It is not a question of privilege; it is a question of hon. members' rights which are fully preserved by the undertaking I gave in time-honoured terms during the debate.


George William McLeod: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, then I will resume my seat.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, the debate on supply provides hon. members of this house with an opportunity to draw the attention of the administration to problems or difficulties which exist within their part of the realm, and which affect the constituencies they represent here. I rise at this time only to point out that there are very serious difficulties and problems in the prairie region, problems which have reached disastrous proportions.
The ruinous policies of the former government are only too evident in our part of the country, and at the present time in the particular area from which I come 60 to 75 per cent of the agricultural producers have not been permitted to deliver even one bushel of the grain on their farms this year. As the result of "flooded" elevators and the inability to get box cars farmers are in a disastrous position.
I wish to say that the hopes of all agricultural producers rose very rapidly when they heard from the present administration that it was the intention of this government to see that those engaged in agriculture would be assured of their fair share of the national income.
They are watching this house very closely and waiting patiently to see that this promise is carried out in meeting the dire situation that exists at the present time. I do think, however, immediate action is necessary to prevent a further decline which might occur even within the next few weeks before the debate on the address on the speech from the throne is completed and legislation is put through. I rise at this time because I firmly believe immediate action is necessary.
Agricultural producers in that area who are unable to deliver any grain have undertaken the arduous task of feeding much of that grain to livestock. Much of that livestock in the form of hogs is ready to market and cattle now constitute practically the only means by which they can receive remuneration for their year's work. The price to the producers of that livestock is dropping rapidly and they fear that a continuation of this trend will produce disastrous results.
I urge this as an immediate course of action on the part of the present administration and I direct my remarks particularly to the Minister of Agriculture because the people in that area are looking to him for action. In order to prevent a decline we urge that two steps be taken. The first is that an immediate floor price be established on all livestock products. Already the prices of these commodities on the market are below the costs of production. Should a further decline
Interim Supply
occur it cannot fail to have disastrous consequences. At this time of year particularly on the regular market operations a decline seems to be inevitable.
The second step we would urge the minister to adopt, if necessary by order in council, is that he immediately set up a board of livestock commissioners to ensure that livestock, and particularly cattle as it is taken from the producer, is properly graded. At the present time there is no proper grading of livestock to protect the interest of the producer. When he brings his livestock to the stockyard he has to accept whatever grade and price the packing house buyers offer him for his commodity. It then goes on the market and he has no assurance that his animals are graded properly and must accept whatever price and grade they see fit to place upon it.
I outline these two steps as a matter of deep concern and as a course of action which will do a great deal to restore confidence in the hearts and minds of Canadian agricultural producers that this government intends to see that this important segment of our population receives a fair share of the national income. I do not believe these producers can be assured of their share of the national income unless these two steps are taken. I sincerely urge the government to do this now in order to prevent a further decline and increased suffering on the part of those who are looking to this government for some remedy for this grave situation. I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance and seriousness of this question and it would be a matter of extremely wise policy on the part of the government to immediately carry out the two steps I have indicated.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on this motion because I have been endeavouring to find out something concerning the promise of an amount of money that was to be made available for extra work on the Canadian National Railways in Moncton and at other terminal points.
On July 10, 1957, His Worship M. M. Baig, mayor of Moncton, Hon. Joseph Bourgeois, minister without portfolio in the New Brunswick government and I sent a telegram to nine of the cabinet ministers of the present government in which we protested the layoff in the shops, asked reconsideration of the matter and recommended the building of additional railway equipment in Moncton. This was not a strange request at all because a few years ago the present Minister of Transport came to Moncton as the president of the

Interim Supply
Progressive Conservative association and at that time termed the existing layoff as deplorable and unnecesary.
However, when I ask him about the same matter now he does not give the same answer. Instead, when I ask him about layoffs although he still continues to say he considers them deplorable he brushes off the subject very quickly and advises that layoffs have to take place from time to time. Apparently now he believes that layoffs have to take place from time to time on the C.N.R. in Moncton and at other points and although I agree with him that this is true under the present circumstances I contend, as he did, that they would be unnecessary if more equipment was built and repaired at the Moncton shops, especially dining car equipment which used to be repaired and built there. There would then be more employment available and these men would not have to be laid off.
When a proposed layoff in the C.N.R. was suggested some two or three years ago the present Minister of Transport as president of the Progressive Conservative association was reported in the press as offering an explanation for the layoffs in these words:
Mr. Hees charged that the situation created by shops lay-offs in this area was aggravated because the work was being shifted to Montreal where the additional employment would mean little, if anything, to that city.
Apparently there is lots of work available in Montreal. The press report continues:
''But," he said, "it is a very serious blow to the Moncton area."
If that was the policy of his party at that time, and he was speaking as president of the Progressive Conservative association, it should be his policy today as Minister of Transport and that of his party.
In answer to our telegram and to the many others addressed to the minister on the same subject we were advised that money would be made available to the Canadian National Railways for the purpose of carrying out extra work in the C.N.R. shops. When I left Moncton a short time ago the men who had been laid off were still not working. The minister advises that the offer is still open to the C.N.R. to institute such a program but apparently that is where his sense of responsibility toward these men who are now walking the streets of Moncton ends. Incidentally some of them told me they voted for the Progressive Conservative party.
What I and the people of my constituency and people in other C.N.R. points as well want to know is how much money has been set aside by this government for extra work at the C.N.R. shops in Moncton and how

much has been set aside for additional work at other points on the C.N.R.? I want to know if this situation is going to be corrected or if that is as far as the minister intends to go.
The minister made an interesting statement which is reported in the August 21 issue of the Moncton Times. He said:
"As far as the federal government Is concerned, X feel we have done our part."
I do not for one moment believe that the federal government has done its part and it will not have done it until these men are again working in the C.N.R. shops. As the minister said on a previous occasion, the layoff is unnecessary and deplorable and should be remedied by the creation of additional employment in the Moncton shops.
He told us before that the layoff was caused by work being shifted to Montreal. I want to know whether that has any effect on the present layoff. Is that what is happening now? Is work being shifted to Montreal? Besides those men who are laid off from the Canadian National Railways, which is making our unemployment situation worse and worse because there are twice as many people unemployed in the province of New Brunswick now as there were a year ago, there are the former employees of the Canadian government railways and C.N.R. who are on very small pensions.
On May 6, 1957, the former leader of the opposition visited Moncton. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Moncton Times in which the present Prime Minister promised a reconsideration of the Canadian National Railway pension schemes which he claimed were "totally inadequate". The Minister of Transport, in an answer to my question concerning these pensions, gave me the old "due course" answer; when there was anything to announce that he would do it in due course. Well there are not too many pensioners of the old government railway in Moncton; there are several Canadian National Railways pensioners and in due course they are all going to die. I want to know from the minister what action is going to be taken to assist these aged pensioners of the C.N.R., and whether he believes, as his leader does, that these pensions are wholly inadequate.
I have taken up this time to put this on the record because I find there is a great deal to be learned from new cabinet ministers. They are not the same people that they were when they were private members sitting on this side of the house. They are now very concerned with following the rules and that questions must go on the order paper. They disregard your questions by suggesting that

you put them on the order paper. This is a practice that I can well remember was not carried out by the new Minister of Transport when he was a private member.
These matters concern money and the voting of money and I would like the answers some time before this motion is passed. How much money has been allotted to the Canadian National Railways for extra work at C.N.R. points? What is the authority for granting this money? I should like also to know how much money has been set aside to look after these-to use the words of the Prime Minister-wholly inadequate pensions of the former Canadian National Railways employees? I know the minister will not repudiate his statement of 1954 and I urge that answers be given and that he tell us what is being done to assist these men in Moncton and in other centres.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Mr. Chairman, there is a matter which I wish to raise at this time. It has considerable urgency or else I would not be taking up the time of the committee in raising it. It is also a very practical matter. I assure the committee that there will be no sound and fury connected with this. It is a modest request which I think the Minister of Finance will appreciate very well, and which I am sure his colleagues will be willing to go along with at the earliest possible opportunity.
Hon. members will recall in previous sessions the question of aid to municipalities, so far as this parliament grants aid, has been brought up on a number of occasions. One particular field in which this government could help many municipalities at this time would be in making available funds for capital outlay which today is costing the average municipality a large amount of money. I think it is commonly known that the issuing of debentures for capital expenditures is becoming more and more expensive. Because of the increase in the cost of such debentures and the discounts which the municipalities have to offer at this time the problem is becoming of very serious concern to municipalities right across the country.
The former member for Okanagan Boundary on many occasions raised the question of reactivating, or making use of the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, which was placed on the statutes in 1938 and which has a provision under which the Minister of Finance, with the consent of the government, may advance moneys to municipalities at 2 per cent for self-liquidating projects. We know that this act has not been used for a number of years. The standard reply, whenever the hon. member, and others to whom I
Interim Supply
shall refer in a moment, asked the government to put the provisions of this act back into practice was that this was designed primarily as a relief measure during the days of unemployment, and that it was not considered desirable to use the act in recent years.
From that point of view alone, considering the speech we have just heard from the hon. member for Westmorland, and from hon. members who have spoken in the last day or two, it would appear that the situation now calls for a re-appraisal of this act. Perhaps the unemployment situation alone would warrant the use of this act, but there is a more important reason than merely the unemployment situation, namely the financial position in which the municipalities find themselves.
I do not need to weary the committee with many statistics. All we need to do is to look through the accounts of the municipalities of Canada and we shall find that they are going into debt. Not only that, they are finding it increasingly difficult, even at an enhanced interest rate, to sell their debentures unless they offer them at a considerable discount. The result of that is that many very desirable projects either are being postponed or delayed by the municipalities because of the cost of money during these inflationary times. The cost of materials and labour is high. The cost of raising capital, in addition to other costs, is becoming prohibitive. If the government were to reactivate this act, put it into effect and make use of it, I feel sure that they could make a very substantial saving for the municipalities right across this country.
I have hope that the government will do this because looking back through the record I find that not only did the former member for Okanagan Boundary champion this cause in the house very ably but to his assistance came various other members of the opposition, including the then official opposition. The hon. member for Greenwood spoke on this question as late as the 21st of February of this year and in order to show how strongly the Progressive Conservative party was behind the idea of granting some assistance to municipalities he put on the record an amendment that had been moved by the former leader of the Progressive Conservative party, Mr. Drew, on April 30, 1956. I should like to quote that part of the amendment dealing with the question of aid to municipalities. It can be found at page 1510 of Hansard of February 21, 1957 and is in these words: This house is of the opinion that immediate consideration should be given to measures to assist the municipalities of Canada to meet their mounting financial problems . . .
That is not the end of the amendment but I stop there because that is the part having

Interim Supply
to do with the matter I am now discussing. I draw to the attention of the government the fact that that amendment was moved on April 30, 1956, and the speeches which followed indicated that the problem was immediate and urgent at that time. A considerable length of time, approximately a year and a half, has elapsed and the problem has become more urgent and more immediate. I think that the government should now be prepared to make use of that act to help to alleviate the situation.
I should also like to mention that later the same day the hon. member for Vancouver East made a very strong plea for the use of this legislation in order to help municipalities to obtain capital funds at a reasonable cost. Referring again to the record, we find that on the 21st of February the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary once more made his plea, and as we go through the record we find that even as late as March of this year all three parties then in opposition were advocating strongly that the act should be used for that purpose. I do not wish to take the time to find the references but members of the Social Credit party also took the same position.
In view of what had taken place I wrote to the Minister of Finance about this matter on September 30 this year and in that letter I brought to his attention by way of reminder the demands that had been made by the three parties in opposition which, incidentally, now control a majority of the house and are in a position to carry out the things which they advocate. I asked him if he would be prepared to recommend to the government at the earliest possible opportunity that the act be put back into operation. I received a reply from the minister on the 5th of October, and I will only quote that part of the letter having to do with this matter. It is in these words:
I have carefully noted your suggestions concerning the revived use of the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act. This subject has been given some consideration. I know that you realize that the concurrence of the provincial government in each case is required with respect to every project under the terms of that legislation.
That is the end of the letter so far as this question is concerned. I am going to make particular reference to the last part of the minister's reply where he points out that in each case the concurrence of the province is required with regard to funds advanced for a particular project because I would not want the committee or the public to get the impression that the concurrence of the provincial government is required for the purpose of putting the act back into business. That is not the case.
[Mr. Zaplitny.l
All that is required is an order in council by the government. The matter does not even require parliamentary action. The act is now on the statute books. It has been there since 1938 and is still valid legislation. All that would be required would be for the government to pass an order in council proclaiming that the act is available to municipalities requiring such funds. It is only if any municipality then applied for a loan under the act that the provincial government would come into the picture. The way that the government of the province comes into the picture is simply that they have to guarantee to the federal government the loan advanced to the municipality, something which in the natural course of events I feel sure any provincial government would do.
In fact some provincial governments are now doing something similar to what is provided in this act without any participation by the federal government at all. They are doing it on their own. It would be very much easier for them simply to have to guarantee such loans than actually to have to advance the money involved.
That being the case and considering the history of the demands made by the members of the parties then in the opposition I would expect that with the least possible delay and at a very early date the federal government would make such an announcement. If they feel that they would like to consult with the provinces before doing so, I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is one reason why I am raising the question at this time. We know that in a reasonably short time there will be a dominion-provincial conference at which this and other related matters will be discussed. That would be a most appropriate and convenient time for the federal government to consult with the provincial premiers as to their readiness to participate in the operation of the act if the federal government should decide to put it into effect.
I do wish to make an earnest plea to the government not to forget the provisions of this act and I do so because of the plight in which municipalities find themselves. I suppose examples could be given by any member of the house. I refer only to those that concern my own constituency, and I happen to know that there are municipalities in my constituency which are finding it very difficult to sell debentures at the interest rate to which they have been accustomed traditionally, and even at the higher interest rate at which such debentures are now being offered they are finding that they have to sell them at a considerable discount.
This means that there is a totally unnecessary drain upon the taxpayers of the particular municipality in providing funds which

are available under federal legislation which the government of recent years has not seen fit to use, but which I hope the present government will be prepared to make use of in view of the attitude they took even as late as February and March of this year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am rising to say a word or two about the further supplementary estimates, No. 2, the part of the estimates for which I imagine the Minister of Finance takes full responsibility along with his other colleagues even though he seems, in a singular display of lack of collective responsibility, to have dissociated himself from his other colleagues with respect to the earlier estimates. However, my hon. friend, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, smoked out from the Minister of Finance an admission which we were all interested and, I think, surprised to hear, that after four months in office he had not yet been able to find any savings he could make in the estimates we brought before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said no such thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And he hoped that by trying hard for the next six months he would be able to find something somewhere.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Are you preaching for a call too?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That bears no resemblance whatever to what I said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not preaching for a call nor am I preaching. I leave that to the Prime Minister. I, sir, have no pretensions of being a Billy Sunday or even a Billy Graham.


Thomas Miller Bell: There is another form of "Billy" though.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You certainly do not have the qualifications.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor do I pretend to have them. When hon. gentlemen opposite have finished their jeering, perhaps I can, following the example that the Prime Minister gave us yesterday, continue with my remarks, which are serious. When Mr. Harris was minister of finance I was able to persuade him to put into the estimates a sum of some $40 million for the department for which I then had responsibility.
I observe that far from finding any savings to make in that department, the new government has increased the estimates of that department-and has done it entirely on its own responsibility-by practically another $10 million which is a 25 per cent increase. That 96698-7
Interim Supply
is, I suppose, as big an increase as there has ever been in the estimates of a peacetime department since confederation.
I had lunch, unlike the Minister of Finance, and therefore I was not able to look up any phony precedents. But I should be greatly surprised if halfway through a year, the estimates of a civil department in peacetime ever before had to be increased by 25 per cent. No doubt that was because Mr. Harris was so very thrifty and I was so very willing to go along with him.


Mr. Fulton:: It might be bad estimating.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not bad estimating on the high side, as I think the acting minister will be obliged to admit, because he must take the responsibility for asking for this amount of money, namely nearly $10 million. I would not be greatly surprised if the minister asked for more and, like Oliver Twist, got treated by the Minister of Finance in the way in which Oliver Twist was treated, this Minister of Finance who is trying to give the public the impression that he is the same kind of overseer as there was in Oliver Twist, but who is not making much of a job of it.
I should not be at all surprised if the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, for whose abilities I must confess I have more respect than I have for those of most of the other occupants of the treasury benches and for whose abilities the Prime Minister evidently has more respect than he has for those of most of his colleagues because he has given him two extremely heavy portfolios to carry, has good and adequate reasons for all these increases.
I am not rising with any suggestion that they should be opposed, at least until I have heard the explanation of them. I am rising for another reason. A good deal has been said since the election about the subject of immigration and something was said about it before the election. What was said before the election, by hon. gentlemen opposite, is so different from the things they have been saying since the election that I feel that before this large sum of money is voted we should be given some kind of explanation of this light which they saw, not on the road to Damascus but on the road to office, which seems to have changed so completely the kind of opinions they expressed before the election.
The Prime Minister made a speech to an organization which we all know and which I certainly respect greatly. This organization has done a great deal to help in making better Canadians of the newcomers who have come to our country to become citizens. I refer to the Ethnic Press Association. The Prime Minister made a speech to them which is

Interim. Supply
reported in the Globe and Mail which at that time was an almost slavish organ of hon. gentlemen opposite. I understand the Globe and Mail now sometimes criticize them but at that time it did not do so. I would presume that the Prime Minister and his colleagues would be quite satisfied with the Globe and Mail report. It appeared on April 27 of this year and states as follows:
At his first stop of the day-
That refers to the present Prime Minister. -a conference with the Ethnic Press Association in Toronto-Mr. Diefenbaker filled in the detail of one aspect of that program.
I may say that the previous part of the report refers to his program generally.
Development, he told the editors of foreign language publications, demands manpower. The only way to meet the needs for skill and talents is through accelerated-
And I emphasize that word "accelerated". -immigration.
Mind you, this was in April of this year.
A government formed by the Conservatives, he added, will undertake an intensive immigration policy that will make available to all sections of the country those talents and skills.
The Conservatives, he continued, will end the arbitrary and unjust interpretation of immigration regulations which have been a feature of Liberal immigration policy and which have constituted a denial and vote of immigration legislation.
I think there must be a misprint of some kind there.
The only limit on immigration-
And this is the part I should particularly like to draw to the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite.
__should be the capacity of Canada to absorb
newcomers into her economic life.
That, I may say, is straight Liberal doctrine taken from Mr. Mackenzie King's statement in this house on May 1, 1947, a statement about immigration policy that has worn very well and one that I think the present government will find it fairly hard to depart from without getting themselves into serious trouble.
Australia's forward-looking immigration policy,-
In those days the Prime Minister was perhaps a greater admirer of Australia than he was after he came back from London.
__Mr. Diefenbaker emphasized, has produced the
conclusion that it can absorb just under four per cent a year of its total population.
Such a yardstick applied to Canada would establish the target of 640,000 immigrants a year, or more than four times the number that came to Canada in 1956.
I leave hon. members to form their own estimate as to why this speech was made to the Ethnic Press Association instead of, for example, being made to the Loyal Orange

Association. However, it was a fairly definite statement that the Prime Minister intended to increase immigration by two or three times what we were achieving in the year 1957, which is, or will turn out to have been, the greatest year for immigration since 1913. Of course I regard the figure of 640,000 as being a completely fantastic figure for any one year. However that is the figure the Prime Minister used, presumably when he was appealing to the people to vote for him to carry out his policies, and presumably he meant what he said. Of course, if he did not mean what he said, those of us on this side of the house would think that he should not have said it.
But what do we find? The first thing this government did, the very first action they took to change anything after they came into office, was to restrict the existing immigration. Far from accelerating it or intensifying it, they restricted it severely and handled it in such a ham-handed fashion, if I may use that expression, that the officials of the department for days afterwards were obliged to explain what the minister had meant by the original statement he issued.
Those of us who have had some experience in this field know that after the efforts that had been made by Mr. Harris, myself and the officials of the department under our direction for a good many years to build up a service in the United Kingdom, we were really getting a response this year and were getting the best class of immigrants that we have obtained for years from the United Kingdom. This whole movement had cold water poured on it by the hon. gentleman who was giving his spare time to the immigration department while he was learning how to be Minister of Justice evidently because his colleague the hon. member for Three Rivers was not considered to be worthy of occupying the post of Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There may be another explanation, but that is one the press gave.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Pretty mean!


John Whitney Pickersgill: In any event, whatever the reason the Prime Minister may have had for giving no departmental responsibilities to the hon. member for Three Rivers, the hon. member for St. John's West or the hon. member for Greenwood and giving two portfolios to the hon. member for Kamloops, I do not know it.


An hon. Member:: And you will probably never find out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps, but I do know that there are probably very few members on either side of the house who will accuse me

of being indolent in the performance of my duties when I occupied the office of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


An hon. Member:: Not indolent but
ineffective.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, of course, I think the proof of the pudding is probably in the eating. Yes, I was ineffective. I was ineffective because I encouraged immigration, but the hon. gentleman is effective, yes, in stopping it.
Now it has always been the policy of the Liberal party, and it still is our policy, that we should not encourage people to come to this country to be unemployed. I would not for a moment advocate an immigration policy which was going to bring more people into Canada than could be absorbed and be absorbed fairly readily and quickly into the economy. That was our policy and it was one which proved pretty successful over the past 10 years when we had a greater growth in our population than in any previous period in our history. It may be that it was wise in all the circumstances to give careful consideration-as I had planned to give had I remained in office-to what should be the course to be taken later in the year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You had already decided to restrict immigration and issued instructions on April 12.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That statement, Mr. Chairman, is not in any proper sense of the word correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is absolutely correct and I have the departmental papers in front of me to prove it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I may say that I did ask the officials of the department to make a very careful study of what should be done after the election. I made no final decision except with respect to certain arrangements that had been made with regard to transportation and certain other technical arrangements which it had begun to appear to me would not be necessary. I did consider, however, that later in the year-and this has happened of course every year-it would be desirable to discourage persons coming into Canada to seek employment. It has been our experience in every year but one since the war that it was not wise to encourage people who were coming here to look for employment to come in the later months of the year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.
96698-7i
Interim Supply


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the hon. gentleman says no decision was reached before the time he relinguished office, how is it that a memorandum was issued to officers overseas on April 12, 1957 instructing them not to make visas valid after July 31, 1957, and I include in this question the question of the shortage of employment, which is the point the hon. member is making.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I can answer that with the greatest of ease. I think perhaps this may be a very dangerous confession to make in this chamber but perhaps I was not so optimistic of my chances of remaining in office as some of the hon. gentlemen opposite were of the chances of the Liberal party remaining in office. I tried in the period from the time of dissolution of parliament on not to commit myself or the government to any course which I was not quite sure I would have the responsibility to carry out.
However, I had a second reason for doing this. It was perfectly apparent in the middle of April that the number of immigrants who were coming this year-particularly from the United Kingdom-was so great that before the end of July, it seemed to me, it would be necessary to take another look at the numbers involved. This instruction that no valid visas for open placement were to be issued after July 31, 1957 was simply a precautionary measure which any prudent minister should have taken and which, it happens, I did take.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was the decision to which I referred.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the minister first made his statement he did not try to blame it on me or on the Liberal government but, when the Tory newspaper began to criticize him-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -then he went about the country saying that all he had done was what we had decided to do before he took office. I had thought better of him than that. I had thought that the hon. gentleman could stand on his own feet and take the punishment for his own acts and not try to shift responsibility onto others.
No, the fact of the matter is that after the election I made only one decision which was not purely on a day to day matter. In the interval between June 10 and the day I relinquished my portfolio I made a decision to continue the airlift to Vienna until July 31. The contract expired on June 30 and I thought it only fair, right and proper to give my successor a reasonable opportunity to decide what policy he wished to follow with respect

Interim Supply
to the Hungarian refugees. I had to make up my mind whether to extend that contract for another month and I thought, "Now, if I were coming into office what would I consider the fair and decent thing to do?" It seemed to me it was to give a reasonable time for a decision to be made. I therefore extended the contract until July 31. What is more, and I am sure my hon. friend will corroborate me, I telephoned him and told him what I had done and I said I thought I ought to bring this matter to his attention because there was a question of policy involved.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I felt he was entitled to have time to consider what policy he would adopt. Perhaps that is not the way party politicians should behave but I think it was the proper way, if I may borrow a word from the Minister of Finance, for gentlemen to behave.
I come to another aspect of the immigration policy which I must say shocked me even more and I think it shocked a great many Canadians even more than this matter to which I have referred. There are some of us who have the most vivid recollections of those days at the end of October and the beginning of November last when the world situation was even more tense than it is today and when one part of the soviet world was in flames and the Eussians, with a brutality that some of us have not yet forgotten, came and crushed a people seeking to be free when a quarter of a million human beings had to flee from their country with nothing but the clothes they were wearing.
At that time the present Minister of Justice, the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, made a statement which is reported in the Ottawa Journal of November 6, a statement which I think I should read:
Davie Fulton proposed Monday that Canada give unrestricted asylum to Hungarian refugees fleeing from Soviet butchery.
The Conservative member for Kamloops, B.C., candidate for the national Conservative leadership,-
That is in the story; I would not have brought it up otherwise.
-said this was the least Canada could do.


George Harris Hees: You are making a pitch, are you Jack?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish the hon. member for Broadview would answer the questions that are directed to him by other members of the house instead of interrupting those who as private members are making their maiden speeches.


George Harris Hees: Is this your maiden speech? It is an awful poor one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My hon. friend from Essex East says that the Minister of Finance has instructed the Minister of Transport not to reply to the questions asked him. This is my maiden speech as a private member in opposition, and if I am behaving too responsibly I can only apologize to the house.


An hon. Member:: You are shivering.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very nervous, I admit, and perhaps it is rather unwise for a novice to advertise an experienced politician like the hon. member for Kamloops as I am doing, but I still think we ought to have on record in Hansard these words from the article in the Ottawa Journal on November 6, because they have a bearing upon what that hon. member did later.
An offer of immediate asylum by Canada would, I believe spur other free nations to similar action, he added in a statement released in Ottawa and at Kamloops.
We are all in full accord with the resolution of the United Nations assembly condemning this latest butchery on the part of the soviet. But it is essential that the free nations do something to prove to those who risk their lives for freedom that their efforts are supported by more than the passing of resolutions.
I believe Canada should offer immediate and unrestricted asylum to all those Hungarians whose efforts in the cause of liberty now force them to flee as homeless refugees. They were in fact fighting our battle, too.
This is pretty eloquent language. I continue to quote the brief statement:
There is little enough we can do to assist by direct intervention and the task of those trying to liberate their countries from the iron yoke of communism must be almost beyond bearing when they see how remote are the prospects of immediate help.
Just let me repeat one sentence of those I have just read:
I believe Canada should offer immediate and unrestricted asylum to all those Hungarians whose efforts in the cause of liberty now force them to flee as homeless refugees.
That was said by the same gentleman whose first act as a minister of the crown which was not a purely routine act slammed the door in the faces of these Hungarian refugees.


Mr. Cameron:: Mr. Chairman, it is with a certain diffidence that I enter this discussion which to a large extent appears to be in the nature of a family quarrel between the ardent supporters of the government on the other side of the house and their no less determined supporters sitting on this side. And I am sure we who belong to the only opposition party will be forgiven if we derive a certain sardonic amusement from watching the embarrassments of the late administration. The first thing they should remember is

that like the ancient mariner in Coleridge's poem they always have the albatross of their past misdeeds hanging around their necks.
However governments come and go but our constituents still have a number of urgent problems, and it is some of these urgent problems which affect my constituents that I wish to bring up now.
I was very pleased when I saw that one of the cabinet offices had been filled by a friend from British Columbia in the person of the Minister of Public Works. The matter I want to discuss comes within his department and it is a matter whose importance we have always had great difficulty in impressing on previous holders of that office. I refer to the very serious situation that now exists on the Pacific coast with regard to the provision of small boat harbours on Vancouver island and the adjacent mainland. I have a suspicion that previous ministers, not being fortunate enough to come from the Pacific coast, tend to look at the map and to see a very serrated coastline and to imagine that there must be unlimited numbers of safe harbours in the region. However anyone who is familiar with the situation knows that this is not the case and that the number of harbours in which small boats can tie up in safety in all weathers is extremely limited.
The problem is becoming very acute because of a new development-one which I presume is taking place on the Atlantic coast, too-namely the tremendous expansion of small boat ownership. There are places in British Columbia where small harbours are literally carpeted from side to side with boats, and there are innumerable small boats which are unable to find safe anchorage at all; indeed, some of my neighbours are obliged to haul their boats up by tracks to safety rather than leave them at anchorage in the event of the mildest of storms.
I would urge the new Minister of Public Works to have a very comprehensive survey made with regard to the need of the people of the Pacific coast for a large extension of small boat harbours, and to do so in connection with what I believe is the projected plan of the provincial government for the development of marine harbours. Here, I think, is a sphere in which the Department of Public Works should take the initiative more vigorously than it has done in the past.
There is another matter I wish to deal with, one that I have already taken up with two of the incoming ministers. It is a question I took up two years ago with the then minister of labour, and that is the employment of Canadian welders on the new pipe line project now going on throughout the country. I made particular reference to the
Interim Supply
fact that in British Columbia two years ago I had received complaints that Canadian welders were not being given employment on these pipe line jobs. In most instances the contractors in charge of construction are United States firms, and in many instances the companies for which they are operating the pipe lines are controlled by United States capital. I received numerous complaints that it is virtually impossible for Canadian welders to get employment.
I brought this up in the House of Commons and asked the then minister of labour to investigate the matter. He did so, and gave me a reassuring answer that the only United States personnel being admitted to the country to work on these pipe lines were a limited number of supervisory personnel. Later, I received still more complaints, very well substantiated, and these I investigated as fully as I was able. I interviewed those in charge of the technical school in Nanaimo, I interviewed the graduates at that school, and some men who were personally known to me as having worked on engineering projects. Everywhere I found the same story and it was to my mind a shocking story.
It was brought extremely forcibly to my attention during the election campaign when I was speaking at one of the large construction job sites in my constituency. The first man I encountered was one with whom I had worked four or five years previous in the shipyards at Victoria. When I knew him he was a highly skilled welder and in addition to that he took extra courses to familiarize himself with the specific job of pipe-line welding. He told me that the first job he went on required the service of 24 welders of whom 23 were American citizens and that the company and the 23 American welders made life so miserable for him that he quit within six weeks. This story was repeated to me over and over again by responsible people.
I wrote to the Minister of Labour and to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and I have no complaint whatever with regard to the replies I received from those two gentlemen. I have no suggestion whatever that their replies were anything but perfectly sincere replies. I feel, however, that they were grossly misinformed, otherwise they would not have been able to write me in the reassuring terms in which they did.
I found for instance that the union which has the certified bargaining rights for these jobs in British Columbia is called on to supply welders. They do supply welders

Interim Supply
and within about three weeks these men are eased off the job and the company concerned applies to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration advising that there are no more available welders, they having exhausted the supply from the union, and then welders from the United States are permitted to enter and this is done under somewhat dubious classifications. In fact they invented a new classification of a pipe-line specialist which does not explain exactly what they are a specialist in.
I suggest to both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that they should have a much more thorough investigation made of the situation before next spring when work is going to open up again on these projects. I think everyone knows that at that time we are going to be facing a rather high level of unemployment and there is going to be gross unrest if this same situation continues as has obtained in the past.
I would also suggest to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that he should consider some revision of our immigration relationships with the United States because no Canadian can go down to the United States and obtain work on projects of that nature in the way in which citizens of that country have been able to enter Canada.
Many of them, I might add, come into Canada deliberately under false pretences and make no bones about it. In fact, some of them boast of it. Some of them boast of coming to Canada pretending to come in as landed immigrants to be settlers and then they jeer and say, "The only reason we came here is to skim the cream off and we are going back to the United States when this is done". Such things are happening and I suggest that this new government had better twist the arm of some of their officials in order to obtain a more realistic report than they have had in the past.
There is one other matter with which I want to deal and it is a subject of wider importance than the two I have already discussed. I note that in the measure before us we are to vote one-twelfth of the estimates for the Department of National Defence which will mean if my arithmetic is approximately correct the sum of $145 million. I am, of course, quite ready to admit it may be very difficult at this particular time to suddenly terminate certain projects that have been undertaken but I do hope that some time before this session ends we shall have from the Minister of National Defence an indication that he and his officials are making a realistic survey of

Canada's defence position in light of the new technological achievements of which there has been so much publicity in recent weeks.
I was particularly pleased when I heard the Minister of National Defence, as reported at page 38 of yesterday's Hansard, say these words:
I am confident that the militia-
In its new role of civil defence-
-will render the same patriotic service in this role as it has always done, rather than seeking some phony, glamorous role which hardly exists.
I submit that only a gentleman with the impeccable military record of the Minister of National Defence perhaps would dare to make such a statement but I heartily applaud him for having done so and I trust he will apply the same rather brutal realism to some other aspects of our armed forces in light of the developments that have taken place.
I think there is very little doubt that it would be quite difficult for the minister or his colleagues to justify from the point of view of actual real defence the expenditure of the $145 million we have been asked to provide today. As I said at the beginning, I can appreciate the difficulties at this time of suddenly chopping things off but I do hope that the new minister is going to be as courageous as I know he can be and face this matter courageously and tell the Canadian people exactly where they stand in the age of the spudnik.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring to the attention of the new government some of the problems that exist under the Disabled Persons Act. This act has never worked satisfactorily. In my estimation a disabled person is a person who cannot earn his livelihood. People in various provinces who have applied for the disability pension have been denied it because they are not confined to bed or because they are able to dress themselves or for some other reason. I want the new government to do something about this problem.
I believe I have been in every province in Canada and when travelling I always make inquiries concerning the administration of this act. I have learned that in some places the disability pension can be obtained easily and the doctors who examine the applicants are humane. On the other hand it is denied to applicants in other provinces.
I appeal to the appropriate minister to do something about the situation. I appealed to the former minister to call a conference of the doctors involved in the administration of the act across the dominion with a view

to obtaining agreement between them as to who should be awarded the disability pension. I know people in my own constituency who are unable to earn their bread and butter and who are unable to draw a pension under the act.
I also wish to draw to the attention of the government the fact that in the Red river valley we are having trouble getting our boats out to the lake. This is a matter which requires immediate attention because the men in Selkirk and in various towns around the lake depend on the boats bringing in the fish for their livelihood. I appeal to the Minister of Public Works to do something about this very soon.
We will have to have a survey at the end of the lake. Perhaps if the department investigates the situation it will be decided that a better outlet could be provided. There are quite a few outlets at the mouth of the river and perhaps it would be desirable to open up a new one to prevent the boats being held up for eight or nine hours when entering with a load of fish.
I am not going to take up the time of the committee in speaking at length and I have no wish to delay the rest of the debate. However, I am not going to say I do not want results from my plea because I do want results, if you please.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
if I could have the ear of the Minister of Public Works for a moment in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister and, I presume, Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am not sure whether the minister was in the house this morning when the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway made his excellent maiden speech in which he urged the Prime Minister to give careful consideration to the question of recognizing the government of the mainland of China.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway indicated that he expected Vancouver to become the principal city in Canada some day, and if we would face up to the potential trade with the vast area of the world that is close to Canada it would establish the right of the city of Vancouver to become one of the largest Canadian cities. Because of the situation of our trade position today and because of the large number of people in China who are potential customers the government of Canada might follow the pattern of the British government rather than the pattern of Washington and try to promote trade with China.
As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway pointed out, the recognition of the government of China does not mean the approval of what has happened in that country. I think the time has come now, because of the large
Interim Supply
volume of commodities that are piling up in Canada, when we should explore potential trade with China. I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister would give some indication that his government are prepared to change the attitude of the previous government of Canada on this important question.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, I have always been interested in national hospital insurance.
I am sure that most of the people of Canada are greatly interested in this matter, and particularly those connected with hospitals.
I would respectfully ask the Minister of Finance, or the Minister of National Health and Welfare to answer some of the questions that were asked in the debate today.
Mr Herridge: It was not my intention to speak again in this debate but I am moved to do so by the matter which was brought before the committee by the hon. member for Nanaimo. I heartily support his remarks with respect to the immigration of certain United States workers into Canada, because the same situation has existed in southeastern British Columbia in the building of the pipe line, which the hon. member so ably described.
I have had a number of cases brought to my attention where these men freely admitted to fellow workers that they came in as landed immigrants and our immigration officials knew nothing about it. They work on the pipe line until it is completed and return to the United States. In addition to that, there are others coming in as visitors. I know our immigration officials are doing the very best they can in the circumstances but certainly some amendment to the regulations is required in order to correct the situation.
The immigration officials in the ports in British Columbia are keeping a very close watch on this situation. I told them these immigrants were coming from somewhere else and they discovered that quite a number of these chaps were coming in through Coutts, I think it is, in Alberta. Whichever way they come in, it is difficult for the immigration officials to do anything about it when they come in as landed immigrants. I was very interested in a story which one immigration official told me. A Texan came in and he had a gun on each hip. He was told he could not bring his weapons into Canada and he said he had never been separated from his shooting irons at any time in his life before. Anyway he was persuaded to leave them on the desk in the immigration office and the immigration officer had a peek through the barrels and found that both of them were plugged with rust. This is a sample of the importance of the attitude of mind in understanding Canadian procedures. I do urge that an amendment be considered.

Interim Supply
I might say that in southeastern British Columbia the company refuses to have anything to do with the national employment service. They hire at the shed door every morning. They like to line up the workers for jobs, and they go down the line and say, "You, you and you", and so on. If they had co-operated with the national employment service it might have been of some assistance on keeping a check on who was employed and who was not.
I rose to bring this to the attention of the ministers concerned. I also thank the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for writing me fully, as he did. I am quite sure, as the hon. member for Nanaimo said, he wrote according to the information he had in hand.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, in an exchange during the question period the Minister of Public Works attempted to point with some pride to the new low-cost housing money which is being made available. However, I should like to suggest that the effectiveness or otherwise of the proposal to which some publicity was given in the papers not so long ago, depends on how is it working out in individual cases. I hold in my hand a report which I have received as an example of just how the so-called low-cost housing proposal, as it has existed up to now, is working out in many instances. I feel that it might be valuable, while we are considering this interim supply motion, to pass on this information to the minister and to the committee.
This report comes from a couple who are interested in the proposals as they read them in the newspapers. They report that they have been busy investigating, as they hoped it would be of help to them and many people in their category to get a start on owning their own home instead of paying out high rent which has no ceiling, as they say, in British Columbia. This is their report of their actual experience and what happened. They said:
First, my husband went to a bank for information which was not available from the manager as he said he knew no more than what was in the papers.
Then the wife went one day to the manager with some other questions and was informed that they would have to see the Central Mortgage and Housing office in Nanaimo, which is the nearest office to them. Her husband took a day off from work and they went to Nanaimo to find out about it. This resulted in the fact that they found the manager and his assistant both away from the office. There may have been a legitimate reason for that. They were able to get some little information from the stenographers in the office on the rules and regulations. The
[Mr. Herridge.l
next day they telephoned the manager in charge and were told that they would have to go and see the bank. They went to the bank and by that time the manager apparently was able to tell them what they could do and what they could not do and, as they comment, it was mostly what they could not do. This woman goes on to explain that her husband has a good job at a wage of approximately $2.00 an hour but they could not qualify because the wages would not come within the specifications required. I think this is important if one is going to think in terms of low-cost housing, because certainly to many of the citizens in many parts of Canada $2.00 an hour is not considered to be a low wage.
Following that, they went to see a contractor. He told them that a house with a thousand square feet of floor space and two bedrooms would cost between $13,000 and $14,000 and possibly more, if they had to follow the specifications laid down by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They go on to say that they cannot see how that kind of price can apply to people in their income category. They go on to explain that apparently they would need at least $4,000 to put into the project before the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation provision could come into effect. As they explain, if they had $4,000 they would not need to go to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation because they could easily use that $4,000 as a down payment on an older type of house and pay off the remainder on the basis of monthly rental payments.
They go on to say that they want something they can handle, that they need to have a two-bedroom house because the father of one of the couples who is an old age pensioner lives with them. They are anxious to get away from the never-ending payment of high rent which is, as we all realize, money down the drain as far as the position of these people is concerned.
I put this little story before the committee because it is an actual instance of the need and desire of a couple receiving what I imagine the minister would agree is not a low wage to be able to take advantage of the so-called new low-cost housing money that he mentioned was being made available when he answered a question the other day.
I submit that if the experience this couple has had in attempting to secure information and in finding how far the proposal actually goes when it is translated into an individual request is an example of what the proposal means, then certainly we should be looking for something much better before the minister has any right to suggest that he has

made any major change as far as availability of low-cost housing money is concerned.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very glad to have the officers of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation investigate this particular case but it happens that I have received a statement from the president this afternoon which reads:
The fifth week of operations under the agency arrangement was highlighted by a record volume of approvals and indications that both British Columbia and the maritimes are now taking fuller advantage of the facilities afforded.
This has only been in effect for five weeks.
The value of loans processed during the week-
That is, the fifth week.
-was in excess of $13,500,000 for 1,396 units. This brings the total for the period September 9 to October 11 to more than $34,100,000 for 3,440 units.
I point out to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that works out to an average loan of less than $10,000.
In addition, there still appears to be a potential of approximately $67,500,000, which comprises requests for loan amount or requests for approval in our offices, or applications still in the hands of approved lenders.
That would indicate that already the total is likely to be over $100 million, which I regard as a very satisfactory showing in view of the short time the plan has been in effect.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The statement made by the minister is quite an interesting one. Certainly it shows that some advantage is being taken of the plan. But I notice that no reference is made in the statement, nor have I seen any direct references in the press- there may have been some which escaped my notice-at what sort of income level the money is available. The question arises in my mind whether the money is going to people who are in a financial position far above the particular people I mentioned whose income is at an average level of $2 an hour. As I understand the announcement made by the minister before the house opened, the purpose of the new proposal was to make money available to people in the lower income categories who had not been able to take advantage of the provisions put into operation by the previous administration.


Howard Charles Green: That is correct.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like the minister to give us some indication of how far down the scale of annual or hourly income this money is being applied in the case of the applications now being approved. If in fact the proposal is making it easier for people in the lower income brackets to secure their 96608-8
Interim Supply
own houses, I am certainly glad to see it, but the information that has come to me is very similar to the kind of complaint I heard about the availability of housing money under the previous administration.


Howard Charles Green: I believe the plan has brought about a big reduction in the income level. I admit it would be much better if we could get it even lower. We are getting it down just as low as we can and it certainly has been reduced a great deal over what it was earlier in the year.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I should like a standing vote taken.
Motion (Mr. Fleming) agreed to: Yeas, 147; nays, 0.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, the sum of $305,222,335.25 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


Henri Courtemanche: Shall the resolution carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
this resolution is in effect a companion one to the resolution that was passed just before the recess, I would suggest to the Minister of Finance and some of his colleagues that it gives them an opportunity to answer some of the questions that were put to them from this side of the house today and which have not yet been answered. Perhaps I might draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to some of those questions but before I do so I should like to offer this comment.
It is interesting to us on this side of the house who in the last session supported the estimates that were placed before parliament

Interim Supply
to note that hon. members on the government side who were critical of those estimates are now in support of them. I wondered a bit why the Minister of Finance was so anxious to call votes on this measure. He now is prepared to vote for every stage of this resolution. That makes one wonder what he meant the other day when he said that there were some of these estimates that the government was not prepared to support. It looks as though the action today supersedes that announcement and we now know that the government is in support of the estimates that are before the house.
I should like to draw the attention of the minister and of his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the fact that no answer has been given to the questions that were asked earlier today by the hon. member for Essex East and also by the hon. member for Welland, if not by other members as well. It seems to me that when we are being asked to vote a portion of the moneys asked for by the Department of National Health and Welfare we should have a statement as to what, if anything, this government is doing with regard to the program of hospital insurance.
The other day I was told by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that no agreements have yet been signed. The only information he was able to give was information we had before we left here last April, namely that six provinces had agreed to the plan. I think we should be told whether any effort has been made to get those six provinces to sign an agreement. I think we should also be told whether this government has made any effort to get the other four provinces to enter into the agreement. I feel that he should also tell us whether consideration is being given to broadening the coverage under the plan along the lines which the members of the Progressive Conservative party supported at the last session. After all, this is an extremely important matter, despite the lack of attention paid to it by the Conservatives during the election campaign and despite the absence of reference to it in the speech from the throne.
I noted with interest the one or two statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the press shortly after he became minister; but so far at this session of parliament we have had nothing but silence from the government side on this question. I think the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East call for a reply and I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will seize upon this opportunity to tell us what is being done with regard to this matter.
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
it not possible for me to get a reply from the minister to whom I directed my question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, in order to set at rest the doubts that have been conjured up in the mind of my hon. friend, may I repeat what I am recorded at page 11 of Hansard of October 15 as having said in retabling the existing estimates. I said this:
Since the programs provided for in these estimates were already well advanced when the new government took office, and to avoid the expenditure of a further $20,000 for revising and reprinting them, retabling the existing estimates is considered to be the most reasonable course of action to take under the circumstances.
The word "and" should be in there before the words "to avoid".
However, this is not to say that the present government will support all of the detailed programs contemplated when those estimates were originally prepared. Rather, such changes as this government proposes to make in the current year programs will be brought to parliament's attention when the individual items affected are being considered by the committee of supply.
Every hon. member knows that one of the important tasks that confront this session of parliament is the voting of supply for the current year. Although there is, in relation to the season of the year, a heavy legislative program otherwise, nevertheless every hon. member knows that we shall require to spend not a little time in the committee of supply reviewing all of these items. At that time there will be a full opportunity for every hon. member to indulge to the full his rights as a member in relation to the voting of final supply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister vote for all the items then as he did today?


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: What did you do?


Stanley Howard Knowles: voted for them just as I did last spring.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister will proceed in accordance with the plan indicated in the passage which I have just read from page 11 of Hansard.


Henri Courtemanche: Shall the resolution carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am still waiting as, I believe, is my friend the hon. member for Essex East for an answer from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. What is this? Is this a form of closure?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; go ahead and talk all you wish. Nobody is closing off anything. Go ahead and talk all you like.


Henri Courtemanche: Shall the resolution carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not incapable of speaking. He has just as much right to speak as has the Minister of Finance or anyone else. Surely he can take the floor and answer the questions we have put.


Mr. Monteilh:: Mr. Chairman, if I may just interject a word, may I say this. The former minister of national health and welfare this afternoon prefaced his questions to me by a statement to the effect that if I were not prepared to answer this whole question in detail he would be delighted if I would answer at some time in the future. I trust the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will view the whole picture in somewhat the same light. I have not been in office so very long. I am studying the whole matter of hospital insurance in great detail and before too long I hope to be able to make a complete statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of what the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said, I think the house would find it desirable to recognize the fact that it can afford to be generous in. this particular instance,-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am not asking for
generosity.


Thomas Miller Bell: No generosity is
needed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -not because of what the Minister of Finance has said but because of what the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said just now. I think it is understandable that a man who takes on the heavy responsibility of Minister of National Health and Welfare should have the opportunity, if he finds that he is not in a position to answer in detail, to postpone his answer. I think the significant thing is not so much the reply that we have just received but the fact that it has taken so long in the course of this debate for this observation to have been made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is too much nonsense being talked on the other side of the house. That is the main reason why it could not be made before.


Paul Joseph James Martin: One reason is the attitude of the Minister of Finance who told the Minister of Transport today, who was about to reply, "Do not make a reply; I do not want any replies at this time".


Richard Albert Bell: Why do you not vote against the resolution?
96698-8i
Interim. Supply


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what we should object to in this house and that is what we are objecting to.
There is no objection to the attitude taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare but one could have expected that answer to have been given much earlier. Let it not be forgotten that the hon. gentleman who looks at me in such comfort and ease- the Minister Finance-has given an example today of the new form of closure which this government is going to impose on parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is utter rot and
nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
member for Essex East can, of course, speak for himself, but it does seem to me that at least some of the questions which were asked today could be answered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Surely he knows whether any effort has been made since he assumed his portfolio to have any of the six provinces sign an agreement. That is not a matter for study, that is a matter of fact. Surely he knows whether a master agreement has been prepared; surely he knows whether he has made any effort to get any of the other four provinces to agree. It would seem to me appropriate to have a more elucidating answer than we have had thus far, but if all the minister can do is ask for more time then I suppose we will have to give it to him.
I wonder if the Minister of Finance will permit himself to make a more complete answer to the questions which have been asked about superannuated civil servants. As he knows, when he and his colleagues were on this side of the chamber they were second to none in their insistence that something be done for the retired civil servants whose pensions are in the lower and middle brackets. This applies particularly in the case of the hon. gentleman's colleague in the cabinet, the Minister of Public Works.
We thought last spring that at long last we had made some headway and that we were getting some action on this matter from the former government, in which the Hon. Walter Harris was minister of finance. The last words we had on this subject, which I believe were in answer to the questions of the member for Fort William, gave us hope that something would indeed be done. That government went out of office without dealing with this matter after all. Now when the new government is in power, composed of members who supported the idea that the position of these people should be improved, all we get is the same answer that we got from Mr. Ilsley and Mr. Abbott and Mr. Harris-"The matter is under consideration."

Interim Supply
The minister made the statement that the government's intentions regarding other types of pension are referred to in the speech from the throne. Of course, that is part of the answer that the previous government gave. One of the answers given by the government to the Minister of Public Works when he was only the member for Vancouver-Quadra was that since we first started asking for improvements in the position of retired civil servants the universal old age pension had been brought into being and had in fact improved the position of these people. That did not satisfy the Minister of Public Works when he sat on this side of the chamber as member for Vancouver-Quadra. I cannot imagine he is satisfied yet. I believe the kind of representation he was making to the government last year he is still making to the Minister of Finance now that he is in a position where he has a greater influence than he had before.
Here too I do not think the Minister of Finance should impose any closure on himself. I think he should tell us whether the statement he made the other day, in reply to a request from this side that action be taken is just a stock answer or whether we can actually look to the new government to fulfil the implied promise that the lot of these people would be improved. This promise I think was implicit in the stand they took when they were in opposition to the government.
I have not the record before me but figures have been mentioned many times as to the large number of people who are drawing very low pensions despite their faithful service to the federal government. We think now, as the Conservatives thought before, that the government should be a model employer. I hope the Minister of Finance will take this opportunity to speak more fully and more hopefully on this question than he has yet done.


Mr. McCullough:: Mr. Chairman, I believe that already in this session we have found that the Minister of Finance is being quite coy with parliament in regard to exactly what the policy of the government is going to be. Coming back to a new session of parliament members are, of course, usually loaded with a lot of problems from their constituencies and indeed most of us are quite anxious to place on record some of these problems. It is not my intention this evening to try to exhaust all the problems confronting my constituents and the people I represent, or indeed the people of Canada, nor to even deal in their entirety with the

various matters I intend to bring out. However, I think when the government is coming to parliament and asking for more money with which to carry on its functions there are some things which should be drawn to its attention early in the session.
My constituency of course is mainly agricultural and the problems confronting that industry are foremost in my mind. This afternoon some of my colleagues brought to the attention of the committee certain conditions facing agriculture. Indeed one of the main problems and arguments during election time was just what each party was going to do for that key industry in Canada. I do not want to deal with all these problems now, but I would like to point out to the Minister of Agriculture and to the government that there is a trend in agriculture today that is certainly very alarming. It is not only the poor farmer who is leaving the farm but that some of our finest people are doing likewise. This is not the natural course of events which one might assume would follow increased mechanization of the farms but it is purely and simply the question of the cost-price squeeze in which the farmers are caught. Some of our best returned men, who perhaps have now had 10 years on the farm, are leaving farming completely, finding it impossible to continue.
It is very disturbing to me when I ride through my constituency to find, not one but literally dozens of these young men leaving their farms and giving up in desperation on account of this cost-price squeeze. I hope that this government, in its deliberations and in the legislation it brings before parliament this year, will deal adequately with this problem and not just give us stock answers or partially meet the problem.
One of the things I want to indicate to this government as something I think should be considered because of its inherent dangers is the large amount of financing which we know is required to start a young man in agriculture in western Canada. I suggest that it should be made possible for a young man to go on the farm without equity or other financial backing, but with the help of some kind of government loan at low interest rates so that he can profitably mechanize his farm and operate it efficiently.
Another thing which I would like to mention early in this session is something which we and the government members when they were formerly on this side of the chamber often brought to the attention of the then government. This is the question of veterans' pensions and the eligibility of a war veteran for such pensions. I had occasion to work very hard on one case for some two or

three years to get a pension for a second world war veteran who went into the service as an A-l man and came out in the lowest category. The board said he was not eligible for a pension.
I hope I can convince the Minister of Veterans Affairs that he should prevent this type of thing happening in Canada and ensure that a veteran who entered the service in the last great war as category A-l and who then for some reason came out in a low category on discharge should be eligible for pension.
Another matter I wish to deal with concerns the problems of road construction and maintenance throughout Canada. On reaching my desk today I found there a letter from the Saskatchewan No. 14 highway association. I am not going to talk about the route of that highway, but I do want to point out that in many parts of Canada we are facing the ugly head of increasing unemployment, and I suggest that not only will we benefit from an enhanced tourist trade but we would have better highway routes throughout Canada if this government would look across the border to the United States and observe what that government has done with regard to roads over the whole of that country. There is not a single state or county road in the United States which does not receive some federal money, but here to date former governments have seen fit to assist only the trans-Canada highway.
I may say that we in Saskatchewan are quite proud that we have this highway finished throughout our province, and during the summer we had a celebration in connection with that event, but I would like to point out that the suggestion I have made could be the means whereby the government could assist not only the provinces but the whole of the country.
Another matter with which I should like to deal concerns tax sharing, the sharing of taxation derived from corporation and inheritance taxes. All hon. members of the house know that the Rowell-Sirois commission recommended that taxation from these sources should be collected by the central government which would in turn allocate it to the provinces. Since 1947 when such a plan was undertaken by the provinces and the dominion government this program has always been carried out on the basis of fiscal need and the potential revenue of the various provinces. I wish to bring this to the notice of the government because I understand that later this year a dominion-provincial conference will be held and I am hoping that at this conference that the government, in agreement with what the Prime Minister said
Interim Supply
during the election to the effect that the government would see that there would be a more equitable sharing of taxation, will give this question very high priority and that provinces such as my own province of Saskatchewan will in fact receive a more equitable share of these funds in order to meet their fiscal needs.
I wish also to deal with the tight-money policy. Of course, such a policy was initiated by the former government and it certainly discriminated against a large number of greatly needed woiirs throughout Canada-
I am thinking chiefly of municipal endeavours such as the construction of schools, roads, sewage and waterworks. As a result of this policy many of our towns and municipalities were placed in the position that they were not able to get sufficient money to undertake these municipal responsibilities. I wish to urge the government to take a new look at this problem, and I hope the whole question will receive top priority at the dominion-provincial conference to be held later this year.
At the present time my own constituency is very adversely affected by the tight-money policy. As hon. members probably know, we have tremendous oil developments taking place in my constituency with the result that a great many people are flowing into the area. The city of Estevan has now a population of some 8,000 or 10,000 people, and towns or cities such as this are demanding the same kind of service as the larger urban centres are providing. However, as I have explained, many of these towns and cities are not in a position to go out and borrow money because they lack the financial backing. They have sold debentures and the province of Saskatchewan has bought up several million dollars worth of these debentures, but the fact remains at the present time they are financing their projects at interest rates of 6 or 7 per cent.
I want to urge the government to take into consideration the desirability of development being on an equitable basis throughout Canada. I would like to see some such money provided by the federal government as is provided for the assistance of many projects in the United States. This is not a new proposition. It has been done in the United States for many years and many hundreds of millions of dollars has been advanced to-municipal authorities and urban councils in. order that they may carry out such projects.
Members of the Conservative party, and in particular the Prime Minister, promised during the election to undertake a natural resources development program. I was happy to hear that. An announcement was made

Interim Supply
by the previous government that they, too, were prepared to undertake such a survey. This matter also affects my constituency as I think it affects most constituencies throughout Canada. I would like to bring to the attention of the government the fact that at Estevan at present the provincial authority is building a $40 million power project, and I think it is only fair to ask that even though this project is already under development it should be made eligible for some assistance.
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take the time of the committee any longer. I do hope, however, that the government will take cognizance of some of the points I have made and bring them into full Consideration this session.


Mr. Regier:: I would not have risen at all to speak on this resolution had it not been for an article which appeared in today's copy of the Gazette. The question I raised on the orders of the day yesterday was a vital one and an urgent one. I asked the Minister of Labour what this government intended to do to head off a serious, developing unemployment problem, having in mind especially the situation on the west coast. The article in the Gazette is set in heavy black type, and if I am to take it that that newspaper is a supporter of the government or reflects the thinking of the government, then I am indeed alarmed. The opening paragraph says "labour minister Starr was ready in the Commons" when I asked him about the problem of unemployment. But I am a little concerned that this government is not ready to meet the situation in any shape or form. Among the people in my province I noticed before I left for Ottawa a deep concern in all walks of life about the situation that is likely to develop this coming winter. The minister indicated in his reply to me that the government did expect seasonal unemployment. I attempted to call his attention to the fact that this unemployment already existed; it exists right now. It was there in August and September, and a situation like that must be recognized by the government.
The minister indicated a proposed housing program which might provide some relief. I am not going to deny that the announcement in regard to housing was a welcome one. However, I believe I should point out that the decline in housing will not be offset even by that most welcome announcement. The amount of money allocated by the government in that announcement is not sufficient to offset the decline in housing which is severe as compared to the same time one year ago.
fMr. McCullough.]
The recommendation made this morning by the new hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way-and I might say made so ably-should be given serious consideration by the government at a very early date indeed. It was promised to the people of Canada by Conservative candidates in the most recent election. My Conservative opponent, a most highly respected candidate for public office, gave us the assurance that the Conservative party would sponsor trade with red China if her party should form a government. The people on the west coast are looking to this new government to implement that promise.
We are urging this government to take action in finding additional markets for Canadian products in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth and thereby supply employment to Canadians. I personally was very discouraged when I found out that a member of the British government had to undertake to inform the Canadian people that they were willing to do business with us; yes, they were more than willing to do so. It was very apparent that the Minister of Finance did not want the Canadian people to know just how willing the people of the United Kingdom are to do business with us.
We have also urged that additional markets be found for Canadian products by the acceptance of foreign currency. I remember full well that the present Prime Minister of Canada at one time on a motion put forward by the Social Credit party in this house bolted his party and voted for the acceptance of foreign currency for Canadian products. I would like to know at this time whether those who are unemployed will have some reason to hope that this new government will find additional outlets for the products of Canadian labour. We need not necessarily go abroad to find markets for our products. A great many Canadian citizens are in want and an adequate welfare legislation program supplying all our people with at least a minimum of purchasing power will help create employment for Canadians.
In closing, I wish to point out that when we have unemployment everyone in Canada suffers, rich and poor alike. Perhaps the Canadian economy can tolerate a certain amount of unemployment but when it exceeds the danger point no government in office can handle the urgent problems created by that situation. If this government desires to avoid extremely serious difficulties both for the Canadian people and in terms of its own political future welfare I must say I hope the answer given to me yesterday by the Minister of Labour, especially as it was interpreted by the Montreal Gazette, is not an indication of the thinking of this government.


Mr. Robichaud:: It is not my intention to delay the passing of this resolution because I realize it is essential to keep the public service in operation. However, I would like to quote again those remarks of the Minister of Finance as reported at page 11 of Hansard for Tuesday, October 15 when he said:
However, this is not to say that the present government will support all of the detailed programs contemplated when those estimates were originally prepared.
I am aware that in Gloucester county, my own constituency, some of the public services have already been curtailed in spite of the fact that the estimates of the Postmaster General had been voted last spring. For example in Middle Caraquet a post office had been in existence for over 50 years. It has been closed since June 12 and up to this date the Postmaster General has not seen fit to recommend a postmaster to replace the one who has been dismissed. As a result those people who are normally served by this post office have had to walk four or five miles in order to pick up their mail or have had to pay anywhere from $1 to $1.50 a day for taxis in order to do this.
A similar situation exists in Shippigan Gully where a post office had been in existence for over 50 years. This was closed around the middle of June and the clients of this post office have had to go to the post office r Shippigan for their mail. This return trip of over 10 miles works a hardship on them. If they cannot walk the distance they too have to pay for a taxi. If that is the way the present government intends to save money I think it is high time they took a second look at the situation. I realize that there may be a shortage of money-


Mr. Fraser:: May I ask the hon. member a question?
Interim Supply
four or five months for the present Postmaster General to replace a postmaster in the meantime this important public service will suffer.
I now have something to say which may be of interest to the Minister of Justice. An account has been submitted by a gentleman in my constituency who acted in the purchase and transfer of lots for a public building at Bathurst. His account was submitted approximately the 1st of June and up until last week he had not been paid. In another instance a surveyor was engaged by the Department of National Defence to do some work in relation to the Eel River rifle range in Restigouche county. His account was submitted at the end of May and as of yesterday he had not been paid. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I realize just how essential it is that we pass this resolution in order that these payments can be made.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 11, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1958.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Surely.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If the post office was closed on June 12 that would indicate it was the Liberal government which closed it and not the present government.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the bill be read the second time?
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, in reply to this question I would say that the Post Office Department was fully justified in closing the post office at the time because there were irregularities.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Now we are hearing the truth.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Nevertheless there is no reason why another postmaster should not have been appointed to replace the gentlemen who were dismissed. If it is going to take


James Sinclair: Since the members of the official opposition took ample opportunity when the subject matter was in committee of supply to discuss the items they had in mind we do not intend to prolong the debate by adding anything at this stage of the committee proceedings.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is wise.


Henri Courtemanche: Shall clause 1 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask the minister one question? In view of the information that was obtained this afternoon to the effect that certain items in the supplementary estimates last session were actually given legislative effect on a permanent basis by virtue of the wording of the supply bill, may I ask whether there is any such provision in the bill now before us? Are any of these items being given legislative effect beyond the appropriation of money for the current fiscal year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I said a number of times today that no item is finally carried by the present measure at all. With respect to something like 98 per cent of the items it is simply one-twelfth. There are 13 items for which more than one-twelfth of the total item is being asked for and provided for in this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the minister did not understand my question. I know the answer that he has now given. He will recall that this afternoon or earlier today I referred to the fact that some items had been passed last session to the extent of only four-ninths. The minister replied that by virtue of the

wording of the appropriation bill, those items had the effect of amending certain statutes. I am now asking whether any of the sections of this bill have that effect.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect to these three items this bill has an effect corresponding to the effect of the appropriation bill that was passed last spring. In other words, the act is amended but the item does not become statutory. The only effect of this legislation tonight is to provide an additional fraction of the total amount for the year.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, one or two of the members are discussing clauses of the bill but there do not seem to be any copies of the bill around. How can a member discuss clauses of the bill when he has not seen it or cannot get a copy of the bill?


Henri Courtemanche: Shall clause 1 carry? Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-$260,912,255.50 granted for 1957-1958.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, we have no bill. Apparently there are not enough copies to go around. I think we should wait until such time as we have copies of the bill to look at.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I say to the hon. gentleman that this practice is a time-honoured one because of the fact that the second reading is moved immediately after the bill has been given first reading. The bill simply follows the standard form of appropriation bills. The section we have just passed is simply the short title of the bill. It is "Appropriation Act No. 6, 1957".
The remaining clauses simply provide for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of the various amounts that have been under discussion throughout the day. Clause 11, the final clause of the bill, provides that sums expended under the authority of this act shall be accounted for in the public accounts in conformity with section 64 of the Financial Administration Act. But the terms of this bill are the standard provisions of the appropriation measures.


Henri Courtemanche: Shall clause 2 carry?
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 11 inclusive agreed to. Schedules A, B, C and D agreed to.
On the preamble:


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, we do not know what we are passing. We have not copies of the bill. We are just going over numbers. That is all we are doing.
Interim Supply


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has been in the house for four years and in that time he has participated in the passing of I suppose anywhere from 15 to 20 of these interim supply bills and he has never before raised this question. As I have said, the bill is simply in the standard form. There is no departure in any respect from the standard form. All that is changed in any of these measures is the amount in each of the various clauses and those are the amounts that we have been dealing with all day. The schedules to the bill simply contain those items of which I have already spoken several times today, namely the 13 items which are not within the ordinary monthly provision.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, -


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I see that my hon. friend is rising again. Notwithstanding my respect for him, which is great, I wish to suggest to him that there was a phrase once used by a former leader of this party which seems to be applicable now, namely that we should have some regard to "the immortal grounds of common sense."


Stanley Howard Knowles: The point made by the Minister of Finance is perfectly correct, namely that it has been the practice through the years to put this bill through without copies of it being in the hands of more than half a dozen members. But on June 10 we understood that a change took place. I suggest that in the future it would not be too difficult to have enough copies of these bills printed so that after first reading they can be placed on the desks of all hon. members. I think it would save time in the long run.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it should be said for the record that copies of this bill were placed in the hands of the spokesmen for all the parties. That is the practice which has been followed. There are only 20 copies of the bill available in this form. I come back to the point again, that there is nothing in the bill that calls for review except the amount in each case. Every clause is the same except the first and the last and in every case it has a provision that "out of consolidated revenue funds there may be paid-" and then the amount and the reference to the item follows.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South) for an
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Coldwell address to Her Majesty the Queen in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I know of nothing much worse- except perhaps the experience of Scrooge as recorded in "A Christmas Carol" regarding the undigested piece of cheese which caused him to suffer from indigestion-than carrying around for some time a half delivered speech. This has been my lot today. However, I am very happy to finish a speech which has been on my mind throughout the day.
Yesterday I interrupted my remarks when I was saying that the problem of farm surpluses was one of world-wide underconsumption, not of overproduction. Indeed it is still true that two-thirds of the human beings in the world go to bed hungry every night.
We should, as I have said, be proposing or considering worldwide policies to expand consumption rather than any policies which would restrict production. Such plans would require time of course in which to bring about any significant changes.
Thus we must take the long-term as well as the short-term view of the situation which confronts us and indeed confronts the whole world. As I said yesterday, we believe that economic planning under public control and public direction in the public interest is the only possible ultimate solution. This view we share, of course, with the democratic socialist parties in western Europe and in southeast Asia. It was from this position that our amendment was placed before the house yesterday. It is true that according to time honoured custom such an amendment is regarded as a want of confidence motion. Under some circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I submit that that might be unfortunate. Rather our intention was and is to place before the house the fundamental economic and social principle upon which our philosophy and program are based.
As to planning on a world-wide scale, neither the former government nor the new government have given support, for example, to the United Nations fund for economic development to enable countries like India, Ceylon, Pakistan-to mention a few that are vital to the democratic cause-to plan their development on a publicly conceived and directed economic plan though they are proceeding to do so.
Now as a result of our failure to support such proposals as a worldwide food bank, for instance, and the special United Nations fund which I have just mentioned, we, in common

with the United States, at the present time find ourselves in possession of a very large food surplus.
Those of us who have recently travelled across the western plains know to what extent the principal product of those plains is piled up in the prairie country. The warehouses are full, the granaries on the farms are full, every disused barn is full and every bit of space that has been provided by the farmers themselves in recent years is full also. As I came through the prairies the other day, at least in my constituency-the heart of the wheat belt as it is sometimes called-there were piles of No. 1 high protein wheat-some of the best wheat we have grown in years-piled under the snow.
I have already stated that until satisfactory arrangements for the sale of this wheat and other grains have been made, advance payments on farm-stored grain, as well as storage payments for grains stored on the farm, are absolutely essential and will I hope be met without delay by the present government. We have urged this and we have moved resolutions in the house to this effect over the years and at last, perhaps, we are within sight of seeing something done in this regard.
I might add that yesterday I welcomed the suggestion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) that we might interrupt the throne speech debate, as we have interrupted it today, in order to put through the necessary legislation and bring into early effect advance payments on farm-stored grain. I would like to say that we would be very happy to co-operate in the same way to facilitate the enactment of the necessary legislation to bring into effect the improved old age pensions which were foreshadowed this week in the throne speech.
Now let me repeat this: Until satisfactory arrangements for the sale of Canadian wheat and other grains have been made, advance payments on farm stored grain as well as storage payments are absolutely essential and should be made without delay by the federal government. We hope that this is now the intention.
Furthermore, recognizing as we do that the long-term solution rests in the sale of wheat wherever there may be a market for it, Canada should promote trade relationships throughout the world, whether behind the iron curtain or on our side of the iron curtain. As has been pointed out by other members of this group today, a vast potential market has been denied to Canadian producers by the failure of the government to establish diplomatic relations with the government of the most populous country in

the world, namely the government of China. It is clear that diplomatic relations must be established with potential customers.
May I say in this connection that if the hon. members follow the writings of one of the most brilliant commentators on economic and international affairs in our newspapers, Walter Lippmann, and will turn to page 16 of this evening's Ottawa Journal, they will find an article by him in which he takes his United States government to task for failing to be realistic and to recognize the fact that there is a government in China.
It is clear, as I have said, that there must be established diplomatic relations in order that our traders entering a country and looking for sales may be adequately protected and arrangements may be made for them to see the right people in any country.
Recognition of the actual government of China is right, not only in principle but is a necessary step in the approach to a solution of Canada's trading problems, and in particular the denial to Canada of the opportunity to sell to the vast Chinese market.
Other democratic countries such as Britain and the Scandinavian countries have recognized the Peking government. Denmark and Sweden joined India last month in urging its admission into the United Nations Assembly and in doing all this, of course, neither Sweden nor any other democratic country approved the policies or the philosophy of the leaders who today are in control of China. We do not either, but we believe that in the interest of world trade and in the interest of world peace the time has come when that recognition' should be given. It would, we believe, assist the Canadian people to dispose of some of their commodities in that country with its teeming population.
Thirdly, Canada must endeavour to provide potential customers with the opportunity to earn Canadian dollars with which they can buy goods from us. Trade is not a one-way street, and any policy predicated on such an assumption is doomed to failure. We must lower the barriers in the way of the importation of goods from the sterling area, for instance, so that our purchases will enable those countries to purchase more from us. About this I shall have more to say in a few moments. And we should take, at least in part payment where that is mutually agreed upon, local currency which we could invest in those countries or in areas developed by those countries.
Fourthly, we urge that Canada should be prepared to enter into long-term marketing agreements and if necessary even barter arrangements under which Canadian products
The Address-Mr. Coldwell could be exchanged for products we can use. Here again, of course, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations recognizes that the so-called free market is completely inadequate to deal with the problem of selling agricultural commodities.
Fifthly, the Canadian government should promote vigorously the establishment of a world food bank and a greatly expanded program of economic aid such as I have already mentioned-the special United Nations fund for economic development and other funds such as the Colombo plan.
May I say immediately that I am sure the people of Canada will be extremely disappointed by the summary way in which the Canadian government dismissed the trade proposals of the United Kingdom. This was particularly disappointing in view of the fact that statements by the Prime Minister had led people to conclude that the new government was prepared to make a new departure in Canadian trade matters. The Prime Minister announced his aim, hon. members will recall, of diverting 15 per cent of Canadian trade from the United States to the United Kingdom, but when the United Kingdom took up this suggestion and put forth a carefully considered proposal which might have gone some distance toward achieving this objective, the government adopted a most negative attitude. It seems clear that in spite of reports that Britain's proposal for free trade had been before the Canadian government since September 10, they had not been given any careful study at all and there has been increasing concern about the failure of the government generally to make positive decisions on economic and trade policies, an attitude which is so completely reflected in the Conservative reaction to the United Kingdom proposal.
The Canadian government did not even publicly pledge itself to give the United Kingdom proposal serious consideration, but contented itself, for the time being at least, with suggesting two or three steps which! while good in themselves, cannot even make a' dent in the trade balance. Let me put the three steps on record.
The first of these, indeed, which pledged to switch government purchasing from the United States to the United Kingdom, is an objective which we have urged in this house for the past ten years, particularly for purchases by the Department of National Defence both here and overseas.
The second was a promise by the Canadian government to consider some increase in the $100 tourist exemption granted to Canadians returning from overseas. I think that is worth while, but it is a very small thing;

The Address-Mr. Coldwell even if it were increased to $500 it would not amount to very much in the way of trade from the United Kingdom or anywhere else overseas.
And then, thirdly, was the promise of a high-level trade mission to visit the United Kingdom before the end of this year with a view to stimulating purchases from the United Kingdom of goods presently imported from elsewhere, that is to stimulate purchases not only from the United Kingdom but from other commonwealth countries.
Now these are mere patches on present policies and they will not suffice; a mere carrying over into the new government of Liberal trade policies which I do not think this house should support any longer. Surely a new approach must be taken. Surely the British proposals ought to be considered with the care and with the sympathy they deserve. We are living increasingly in one world. The time has gone by when nations can expect to raise tariff barriers high against the world and live in prosperity behind those barriers themselves.
We in the C.C.F. party have always felt that tariffs are an outmoded, archaic and ineffective way of planning the Canadian economy. For instance, at no time were Canadian tariffs higher than during the period between 1930 and 1940, yet I doubt whether there was any other period in which Canadian consumers and producers alike suffered such hardships as were suffered in Canada behind those tariff walls during those years.
Canadian tariff policies have placed a burden upon the consumer, and particularly on the consumer in some regions of Canada, and it has been demonstrated again and again that they are quite ineffective in safeguarding the jobs of Canadian workers. As for the regional disabilities, those of us who have lived in western Canada, as I have done now for nearly 50 years, can look back over those years and see how the west has been exploited behind tariff walls built up to protect so-called infant industries which have since become giants in our midst. Over a period of years those infant industries have grown up into lusty middle age, and when they heard the proposal for free trade with Britain they began to scream that it would never do, because it would ruin them. As a matter of fact, I believe some of these industries, such as the electrical industry and the automobile industry, would actually benefit from free trade with the United Kingdom because they would then be able to sell some of their products in the United Kingdom market which is virtually closed to them today.
We say there should be a vast change in Canadian trade policies. We believe that

rather than relying on a tariff structure to maintain a share of a restricted market we should be seeking to enlarge the market available to us, and not only to retain our proportion of that larger market but to free it and expand it. We believe that if the international trade organization which was proposed after the war had not been scuttled by those who were anxious to see the old trade policies of the world re-established, world trade today would be in a much healthier condition than it is.
One of the fundamental goals of the proposed international trade organization was to plan trade at the international level so as to ensure full employment and a high standard of living to all. The supporters of the international trade organization realized that international cartels were an important factor in some of the trade problems that were prevalent and it was to deal with these and other matters that it was proposed to set up the organization to assist trade between the nations on a freer basis.
The international trade organization was not established, but Canada should continue to press for this kind of development and as far as its own trade is concerned adopt a positive rather than a negative attitude. We believe that planned international trade through the establishment of national export-import boards would serve to enable us to carry out beneficial trade agreements, expand trade, safeguard our national interest and benefit our economy generally.
The magnitude of our trading problem can be seen when we compare the deficit on current account for the first half of this year with the same period of 1956. For the first half of this current year our deficit stood at $914 million as compared with $798 million for the previous year and $348 million for the first half of 1955. This is a phenomenal figure and when we consider that almost 25 per cent of this balance or $212 million arises from a deficit on interest and dividend accounts it becomes very clear that we cannot continue to rely as we have been upon the import of United States capital in order to balance our current account.
Interest and dividend payments have increased sharply from the level at which they stood in the same period for 1956, namely $154 million. As the total of outside investment in Canada climbs the deficit on interest and dividend accounts will steadily mount. That is why the reliance which we have had in the past on United States investment will pose a greater and greater problem for the future, leaving the deficit in our cash trade balance increasingly dependent on the flow of United States

investment in Canada. This leaves Canada most vulnerable not only to economic trends in the United States economy but also to economic pressure and I believe ultimately to political pressure from abroad.
I remember that, just a short time ago during the election period and since, the Conservative party made ardent declarations about the necessity of safeguarding Canada from the control of huge United States corporations that played a prominent part in United States investment in Canada. I read just a few days ago that the Conservative Minister of Finance appeared in New York to soothe the troubled minds of United States investors assuring them of an open-armed welcome into Canada.
We are not opposed to foreign investment where and when it will be beneficial. Let me repeat that what we need is the planned development of our resources and our industry. This requires control and direction of investment by a national planning board responsible to this parliament of Canada. Because we lack both planning and control in the public interest we have been plagued with uncontrolled inflation. I know for instance that the consumer price index has continued to climb and in August of this year stood at the highest level in Canadian history. The cost of living was one of the principal issues that concerned the Canadian public in the last general election. This matter, however, has been completely dismissed by the throne speech. We are anxious to know why the government has ignored this problem in the same way as the previous administration did.
Of course we know that our Liberal, Conservative and Social Credit friends united to oppose the efforts of this group in the House of Commons to retain the beneficial price controls which we believe are essential to deal with inflation, but it is surprising to discover that the new Minister of Finance should merely suggest that Canadians should fight the high cost of living by saving. Surely the minister should be aware that it is the high cost of living which makes saving difficult, if not impossible.
We have now seen that whenever as a result of defence expenditure or other causes a high level of employment has been obtained inflation has come to the fore unless there were social and economic controls and some economic planning as we knew it during the war. The unplanned economy has always shown this inherent incapacity to maintain both full employment and a stable price level so that today we hear prominent businessmen-indeed the general manager of
The Address-Mr. Coldwell the Canadian Chamber of Commerce-suggesting that the question is how much unemployment the people will stand in order to end or control inflation.
We do not believe the tragic wastage of human resources that is involved in unemployment can be supported at any time as a device for combatting inflation. We believe these twin evils inflation and unemployment must be eliminated together by the kind of public planning that was used during the war to put the tremendous productive capacity of this nation to full use. But we should also plan not only for ourselves but to make the world a better place in which to live instead of devoting so much attention as the nations of the world have been doing of late to providing instruments to destroy the world.
I referred to the attitude of some businessmen who have suggested that unemployment should be used to combat inflation. The alarming thing today is that while inflation is continuing-and as I said usually inflation is accompanied by full employment-in this instance we have increasing inflation and at the same time unemployment figures are showing a sharp rise over the figures for this time last year.
There is justifiable alarm in many sections of the country about the situation that might possibly come into being this winter. 1 think it is important that the government should indicate the steps it is going to take. In this morning's paper I noted that the city council of Toronto is highly alarmed at the sharp increase in unemployment in that city and is approaching the provincial government. The federal authority having control in a large measure of the finance and economy of this country has in my opinion a primary responsibility in connection with the problem of unemployment.
I suppose, however, the steps that will be taken will be nothing more than a modification of what the former government did. We should have an indication of a new approach, evidence of a determination to turn away from the unplanned private enterprise economy that has failed to meet some of these problems that confront this country and the world today.
According to the latest available figures I was able to obtain, those for August 22, 1957 compiled by the national employment service, unemployment stood at 249,000 as of that date compared with 170,000 at the same time last year. As I have said, the newspapers today indicate how alarmed the city council of Toronto is. The city council of Vancouver

The Address-Mr. Coldwell is alarmed, too, as is the city council of Winnipeg and other centres in Canada. Yet there is no mention of this important matter in the speech from the throne.
The government has left untouched the tight money policy instituted by the Liberal government when it was in office and which policy was so strongly criticized by the Conservative party when in opposition. Four months have passed since the new government was formed and a policy which did not require legislation to adopt and certainly would not require legislation to amend, change or rescind, has been carried on in the same form.
I am not suggesting for a moment that a mere change in monetary policy would suffice. Indeed without proper direction of investment, a loose-money policy would increase rather than diminish the inflation from which we are suffering. The crux of the situation is, as our amendment indicates, the planning of the development of our resources and industry under a national plan whose directors would be responsible to this parliament. This we believe is the only real solution to the economic and social problems which confront Canada today.
I am going to take the opportunity to turn to another topic for a few moments. I had thought of dealing with it today when we were discussing the interim supply bill, but knowing that I was going to speak tonight and not being quite as restricted in time as I usually am because of the amendment we moved, I decided I would include it in this talk this evening.
Naturally, I welcome the appointment of the royal commission to study the question of the use of Canadian energy resources and to ensure the most effective use of such resources in the public interest, but I am not unmindful of this, that the present party in power is faced with a problem in this regard because of its attitude in the house during the pipe line debate. I could not put my finger on it today but I know it is in Hansard where a former prime minister said that the establishment of a royal commission was often an excellent way of shelving a difficult problem. I hope that the setting up of this royal commission to deal with energy, oil, gas, pipe lines, and so on, is not being undertaken in order to shelve a very important problem. I think such a study is entirely desirable and, indeed, overdue.
However, there are a number of matters on which it is necessary that action should be taken before the report of any royal commission is available. Indeed, they are questions of policy that should not be shelved. I am thinking particularly of the reference of


the matter of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to the royal commission. I note that the question is referred in this way and I am quoting it:
Whether in view of its special relationship to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation and the nature of its financing and control any special measures need to be undertaken in relation to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in order to safeguard the interests of Canadian producers or consumers of gas.
I believe that immediate steps are necessary, not steps that may be taken a year from now, 18 months or two years from now, after a lengthy inquiry by a royal commission.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; I submit to Your Honour that what the hon. member is saying now is not in order. He is dealing directly with the terms of the royal commission and a subject referred to it and I submit that is not in order.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not dealing with the report of the royal commission. When does an announcement that a royal commission is being set up preclude discussion in this house?


Howard Charles Green: On the point of order, it is not a matter of a royal commission to be set up. The royal commission has been set up by order in council and it has been a recognized rule in this house for many years that such a subject cannot be discussed.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, I am astounded at my hon. friend making the statement he has. I remember a few years ago when I sat on the other side of the house an attitude such as he has taken tonight was taken by some hon. members then and he was the one who protested most. But let me say this. My hon. friend is discussing the speech from the throne. Under the rules, as I understand them at least, he has the right to discuss any subject. Certainly the Prime Minister when he made his point the other day and the announcement which followed did not indicate in any way that anyone was precluded from discussing the terms of reference. The commission has not made a report. There is nothing sub judice. In the circumstances I submit to you, sir, with deference, that the hon. member has every right to do what he is doing.


Howard Charles Green: If the commission had made a report that would be an entirely different matter. It has not made a report and this matter is sub judice.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have heard enough to determine the matter. There is nothing on the order paper which would preclude a discussion of this matter. The royal commission is not a court of record and matters before it are not sub judice. Therefore I see no reason why the hon. member should not discuss it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Closure by order in
council.


Major James William Coldwell: I will say immediately I will not refer to the royal commission again though I have the right to do so, but what I am going to do is to refer to some of the statements made by my hon. friends in this house in 1956. I submit that we have to look into this matter in this parliament apart altogether from the fact that it may be looked into elsewhere.
It has been suggested in this house by this group on a good many occasions that we should go into the matter of the trans-Canada pipe line and other matters associated with oil and gas very thoroughly in order to safeguard the public interest. Indeed it was suggested by the very Conservative party now in power that the crown corporation, that is the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, should be enlarged in its powers to do certain things in order to protect the public interest. I quote Mr. Drew on June 4, 1956, as reported in Hansard at page 4673:
Enlarging the powers of the crown corporation (Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation) so that the entire pipe line may be constructed immediately under public ownership.
So that there may not be any doubt about the position put by the Conservative party at that time, let me read something of what Mr. Drew had to say before moving the motion. I quote from Hansard at page 4672. Mr. Drew said this:
The Prime Minister said that we made no suggestions.
That is, the Conservative party made no suggestions. I continue:
We were not given the opportunity. There could have been proposals. Now, on third reading, we say to the government:	You want to get ahead
with the pipe line. All right, if you are determined to follow the course of going ahead with the pipe line with a crown corporation, go ahead with it but expand the crown corporation and give that crown corporation the power to build the whole line from the Alberta boundary right to the east. That was what 1 said on March 15, and I repeat it.
He went on:
Therefore if it comes to the stage where the government forces through an unnecessary venture of this kind, then there is only one thing to do and that is to build the whole pipe line and not just part of it and have control over the whole line.
The Address-Mr. Coldwell
Mr. Drew, on behalf of the Conservative party, issued a challenge to the government. He declared at that time:
Let them go ahead, let them introduce a bill to expand the operation of the crown corporation to embrace the whole line.
That is the challenge Mr. Drew made to the government on that day and that is the challenge that has returned to haunt the government of today, for that is the challenge I am making to them tonight. So that there may not be any confusion or any charges of misrepresentation of the Conservative position at that time, I would like to read the whole motion that Mr. Drew moved at the time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You forget that part of the line is already built; the circumstances have changed entirely.


Major James William Coldwell: The reference may be found at page 4673 of Hansard. This is what Mr. Drew's motion was on that day:
That the bill be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to amend sections 5, 6 and 7 thereof to include the agreements made with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited as schedules to the bill and add other sections necessary to ensure that the bill shall give effect to one of the following principles:
First, the immediate agreement of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to reorganize as a company under effective Canadian ownership and control and to undertake construction without a grant of public money, in accordance with the assurances upon which its charter was granted by parliament: or-
That is the assurance that the promoters gave to parliament five years earlier.
Second, failing such agreement, the immediate consideration of other proposals submitted by any other persons or companies for the immediate financing and construction of the pipe line under effective Canadian ownership and control and without a grant of public money; or
Third, enlarge the powers of the crown corporation so that the entire pipe line may be constructed immediately under public ownership.
Those were the three alternatives placed before the house by Mr. Drew. Let us examine these proposals for a moment. The first proposal immediately falls to the ground. The second is eliminated by the passage of events. The grant of public money has been made to the pipe line company. Therefore the Conservative party is driven back to the third proposal made in March, 1956 and reiterated on June 4 when Mr. Drew said:
Therefore if it comes to the stage where this government forces through an unnecessary venture of this kind, then there is only one thing to do and that is build the whole pipe line and not just part of it, and have control over the whole line.
That was the Conservative policy. What is their policy today? They called Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited the pet of the

The Address-Mr. Coldwell Liberal government. Whose pet is it today? The pet of the Conservative party? Apparently they are going through with the deal that they described as fantastic, rotten and every other adjective that could be used against it. We used them too in speaking against that proposal when the bill was before the house. What are they going to do about it now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have joined the Texas buccaneers.


Major James William Coldwell: The Liberal government forced through the proposal over the opposition of this group and of the Conservative party, and I want to say to my hon. friends of the Liberal party that I believe that more than anything else the pipe line was responsible for the position of the two main parties in the house at the present time. To repeat the words of Mr. Drew, "there is only one thing to do", and that is to bring the whole line under public ownership. It is inconceivable to me, therefore, that the Conservative party in power could consider supporting or maintaining the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation Act and not move an amendment to it in precisely the same form that they suggested should be done on June 4, 1956. Let them amend the statute according to their own suggestion of June 4, 1956.
What was the position of the present Prime Minister at that time on the Conservative amendment that I have read into the record? I see that on June 5, 1956-and I have Hansard here; it is to be found at page 4763- he voted in favour of it. I see too that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) also cast his vote for this policy, as did the present Secretary of State (Mrs. Fairclough), the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and so on. I cannot see how these hon. gentlemen can tolerate for one moment the carrying on in 1957 of a Liberal policy that they so thoroughly denounced in the house in 1956.
The people of Canada surely expect that the Conservative government will carry out the policy that the Conservative opposition recommended just a little over one year ago. The reference of this particular matter to the royal commission may be at the moment so far as the government is concerned a useful way of dealing with it temporarily but I say it is a complete abdication of the government's responsibility. I fear that this indicates that the Conservative party has changed its mind and that it is using this method of postponing until some future date when the line is built and when it can announce to the public with more safety the reversal of the position it took a year ago.
So, as I said, while I welcome the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the use of our resources, including oil and gas, I deplore the fact that it appears that some important steps are being postponed in such a way as to arouse the gravest suspicion about the government's attitude. There is other government action that should not be postponed until the report of the royal commission. I am thinking now of government action to prevent promoters of pipe line companies from making millions at the expense of the public. They are raiding the purses of the public by stock and other manipulations, by getting into their hands stock options for next to nothing, by insiders going out and selling stock to the people, raiding their purses and making millions and millions of dollars. I am thinking of that. It is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and as I want to say something about these raids on the purses of the public of Canada I shall hope to resume tomorrow.
On motion of Mr. Coldwell the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the government what the business is for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall continue with this debate.


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

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


Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Were tenders called for in connection with certain dredging and the erection of a retaining wall at Pike Creek in the constituency of Essex East?
2.	If so, was an award made by the Department of Public Works during the past summer?
Question
3.	Has the work been proceeded with?
4.	If not, for what reason?
Answer by:	Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Funds were to be provided jointly by the provincial and federal governments. The amount of the low tenderer was higher than estimated and the matter is being reviewed with the provincial government which has expressed reservation about participating in view of the higher cost.

Friday, October 18, 1957