1958-09-01

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for all hon. members in paying tribute to labour, whose day this is. We honour the contributions made by labour during the years since unions were first recognized in the early 1870's, when, as a result of the bill introduced by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald, recognition was given to the right of labour to organize.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Then in 1894, during the regime of Sir John Thompson, legislation was passed both in this country and in the United States making the first Monday of September a day on which tribute would be paid to those who labour and to the importance of labour in the lives of all of us.
It is well that there should be this day when we give national recognition to the fact that every advance in our development is made possible by work. Labour has done much ffnd will do much now and in the future for the achievement of Canada's undeniable destiny. My hope is that on this day, as we review the contribution made by organized labour and by labour in general, all Canadians will join in paying tribute to those belonging to the ranks of labour.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to comment on what the Prime Minister has said, may I say that perhaps one of the best ways in which we can give recognition to labour is to ourselves labour, as we are doing, on Labour day. May I also join with the Prime Minister in saying that increasing recognition of the rights and importance of labour has been given over the years by Canadian governments representing both our parties.
May I also put a statement of mine on the record for Labour day, Mr. Speaker, because it expresses, in perhaps better words than I could find on the spur of the moment, my views on this matter. This statement was issued by myself on behalf of our party on Saturday last, and is as follows:
It is with great pleasure that I join other Canadians in paying sincere tribute to the working
men and women who have contributed so magnificently to the growth and prosperity of our country.
Labour day is a good occasion to recall that the rights of labour, at times hard won through stern struggle, are now regarded by all good citizens as an indispensable element of a free society.
These* rights must be maintained and even extended just as the responsibilities that go with them are accepted and discharged.
I am certain that labour will continue to make an invaluable contribution to the development of Canada, and to ensure that all citizens participate to the fullest extent in the benefits that will flow from that development.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the C.C.F., I wish to associate myself with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in paying on this Labour day a very well deserved tribute to Canadian labour. The whole fabric of our Canadian society, a free society, depends in large measure on the welfare, the freedom and the responsibility of labouring people in this country.
We have been fortunate in Canada in the past to have had a responsible trade union movement representing, as it does, more than 1,250,000 trade unionists, and we pay tribute at this time not only to organized labour but to all those Canadians who earn their living by toil.
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, we recognize Labour days in perhaps the best way in this house by conducting the public affairs of this nation. I think the greatest tribute we could pay to organized labour, to unorganized labour and to all Canadians who have labour in mind at this time would be so to order our affairs as to guarantee full employment and a high standard of living to all the working people of this country.



LEAD AND ZINC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he would care to comment on an Associated Press dispatch to the effect that President Eisenhower is now considering recommendations to raise the tariff on lead and zinc imports into the United States?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that dispatch, but I will look at it and have an answer for the hon. gentleman tomorrow.

Inquiries of the Ministry CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, while I was unavoidably absent from the house, the Leader of the Oppositipn and the hon. member for Kootenay West asked questions relating to a charge laid against Dr. Michael Ash, a physician employed by my department to care for the Indians of Manitoulin island and attend the small cottage hospital operated by Indian health services at Manitowaning.
Dr. Ash is an eminently qualified English physician, who served with the R.A.M.C. in Africa and Burma and practised for ten years as a general consultant on London's Harley street. He became interested in coming to Canada and made inquiries at our medical immigration office in London. As the director of Indian health services was passing through that city on his way to the world health organization meeting in Geneva, Dr. Ash was interviewed and careful inquiries were made as to his ability as a physician. He was highly recommended by senior officers of the British ministry of health and others. Dr. Ash took up his present position as medical officer, grade 2, in March of this year.
Naturally it is the policy of this department, wherever possible, to employ Canadian citizens licensed to practise in the province where their duties take them. Licensing of physicians is under the college of physicians and surgeons in each province. I might point out, however, that there is a serious shortage of doctors who are prepared to take up duty in some of the more remote areas where the services of medical officers are required for the care of Indians and Eskimos.
In view of this shortage it has been necessary on occasion to employ physicians from outside Canada. Reciprocation exists between the United Kingdom and six or seven of the provinces, but unfortunately this reciprocation for registering and licensing does not exist between the province of Ontario and the United Kingdom. To obtain a licence to practise in Ontario, Dr. Ash would have to write a set of examinations set by the dominion medical council in order to obtain the degree of licentiate of the medical college of Canada.
It has been ruled by the Department of Justice that physicians fully employed by the federal government do not, of necessity, have to be licensed in any particular province unless they "profess to practise for gain". In other words, as long as they confine their

work to the position they occupy with this department, they cannot be legally required to obtain a licence, but if they were to practise medicine with the public it would be an infringement of the medical act of the province concerned.
This situation was explained to Dr. Ash, and he was instructed to treat non-Indians only when emergency cases came to his attention. This understanding was known to the other doctors of Manitoulin island and had their full approval.
The Ontario college of physicians and surgeons saw fit to send an investigator to Manitowaning who posed as an emergency case requiring treatment and medicine for the relief of severe pain. Dr. Ash treated him and gave him some tablets known as 222's, containing aspirin and codeine. He charged his patient $5 and issued him an official receipt, so that this money is returned to the Receiver General of Canada.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that officials of my department suggested to the president and the registrar of the Ontario college of physicians and surgeons that they withdraw the charge that was laid as a result of this incident, but they refused to do so. In consultation with the Department of Justice, legal counsel was appointed to defend Dr. Ash. The charge was dismissed by the magistrate in Little Current on August 27 of this year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the minister for the statement he has given, and express the hope that the experience to which Dr. Ash has been subjected will not discourage the doctor in the fine service he is giving in Manitoulin island.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister know that according to a press statement of August 30, patients who want treatment must telephone a doctor in Sudbury to obtain his permission before Dr. Ash can treat them, and then only on an emergency basis?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not believe that is exactly the situation, Mr. Speaker. If an emergency does exist I understand the patient is free to go to Dr. Ash directly.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday the hon. member for Laurier asked a question regarding the arrangements made at the Department

of National Defence school at Rockcliffe for children whose parents desire that their children should be given their education in the French language.
In the past, through arrangements with the city of Ottawa, parents of French-speaking elementary pupils have been permitted to send their children to the French-speaking elementary schools in Ottawa. This year parents of 28 children ranging from kindergarten to grade 8 applied for attendance at French-speaking schools in Ottawa. Unfortunately, on August 15 last the superintendent of the Ottawa separate schools advised that there would be no accommodation available for these 28 pupils this year.
These children may now attend the Rockcliffe school. At Rockcliffe the instruction is given in English but there are French-speaking teachers on the staff. This education is strictly in accordance with the educational laws of the province of Ontario, the province in which these children reside. It would be impractical to set up separate classrooms for these 28 children, as they range widely in grades, from kindergarten to grade 8.



DOMINION DAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am in a bit of a dilemma and I hope the Prime Minister can resolve it. Whereas the Prime Minister in a recent official communication referred to our national holiday of July 1 as Confederation day, and whereas the Department of the Secretary of State continues to use in official communications the name established during Sir John A. Macdonald's time, namely Dominion day; in order that hon. members may write and speak with exactitude on this question, which is of national interest, would the Prime Minister inform the house what is to be the correct designation for this national holiday during the period of his administration?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that this question is appropriate at this stage of the house's proceedings. It does not seem to relate to any urgency. As July 1 has already passed, perhaps the hon. member would raise his question next year.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is of great public interest; I have had inquiries about it.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not very clear what
responsibility of government the hon. member is inquiring about. Perhaps he can rephrase his question.
57071-3-278
Privilege-Buying Prices for Grain


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the Prime Minister's use of the word "Confederation" in one international communication and the use by the Department of the Secretary of State of the words "Dominion day", I am asking what is the correct term to use during the period of his administration.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. gentleman knows that this is not a proper question for the orders of the day, but recognizing that care for small things which characterizes him, I find it may be necessary simply to point out that on July 1 a message was received from Mr. Khrushchev, chairman of the council of ministers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, extending-I think I have it here-congratulations as follows:
On the occasion of the national holiday-confederation day-I send you my sincere congratulations. I beg you to convey to the Canadian people from the Soviet people and from the government of the U.S.S.R. the best wishes for peace and prosperity.
As is the custom in the Department of External Affairs when a reply is given to a message such as that, the words used by the nation conveying the congratulations are repeated in order to prevent misunderstanding. I am sure under those circumstances the use of the expression, coupled with the congratulatory message, will clarify this matter for the edification of the hon. gentleman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister say that the name of this national holiday is a small matter to Canadians?


John George Diefenbaker: My understanding is that the name was fixed long since, and I think the hon. gentleman realizes this. The day has had its official designation fixed by parliament.



PRIVILEGE


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of questions and answers as reported in Hansard on August 13. On that day, as a second question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I asked:
-whether the wheat board has yet been able to establish buying prices for grain this year and, if not, whether those prices will be established within
the next few days.
In answer to my question the Minister of Trade and Commerce replied as follows, as

Privilege-Buying Prices for Grain reported at page 3455 of Hansard. I had asked two questions, and the minister said:
In answer to the second part, I have been advised that the wheat board has established buying prices for the various grades of wheat it sells, and an announcement to this effect will be made very shortly.
Then I asked a supplementary question as follows:
I wonder if the minister is able to say now whether those buying prices will be the same as last year or whether there would be some differences.
The minister replied:
When the announcement is made and the prices are published a comparison can be made with the prices for last year, but I have not got the figures in my head now.
I hold in my hand the Canada Gazette, part II, dated Wednesday, August 27, 1958, and on page 953 there is a copy of an order in council dealing with the establishment of buying prices for wheat, oats and barley. After the proper preamble it reads as follows:
Therefore, his excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, pursuant to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, is pleased hereby to approve the sums certain to be paid to producers selling and delivering to the board wheat, oats or barley of the grades set out in the schedule hereto during the period commencing on the 1st day of August, 1958, and ending on the 31st day of July, 1959.
My question of privilege is that the minister did not inform the house that he had recommended these buying prices two days before I asked my question; and since they were established on the recommendation of the minister I believe he would have knowledge of the action that took place. The second question had to do with the exact buying prices, to which the minister replied that he did not have the figures in mind at that time. I had asked whether the figures were the same as the previous year. There are a great many grades and if there had been changes I would not and did not expect the minister to know, but on checking the figures set forth in the order in council and the prices for the grades in the previous year I can find no change in the grades set forth. I find that they are exactly the same.
I feel that the answer was misleading, though I do not suggest deliberately so. The minister had the information, he recommended the order in council two days before, and the information was not given to the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, there was no intention whatever to mislead the hon. member or any member of the House of Commons. The order in council had been passed and was transmitted to the wheat board. It was left to them to make the announcement in due course.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, if I can talk with the cold I have I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour, and in his absence to the acting minister. Has the attention of the Minister of Labour been drawn to a court decision in Vancouver that electricians, members of the international brotherhood of electrical workers, local union 213, were illegally locked out? Since a worker illegally locked out is entitled to unemployment insurance, will the minister inform the house if these electricians, illegally locked out for many weeks, will now be paid the unemployment insurance benefits which they were unjustly denied?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: I shall draw the question to the attention of the Minister of Labour.



IRRIGATION


John George Diefenbaker: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan respecting the South Saskatchewan river project, signed cn the 25th day of July, 1958, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are things which one looks forward to achieving throughout the years. This is one of those days in that, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, I am able to move the motion in question to confirm the agreement for the building of the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project. Throughout the years I have been of those who have advocated the building of the dam in order to meet a situation which has existed in central and southern Saskatchewan for generations. Indeed, as one reads the history of the early development of the country and of our early explorers one is struck by the fact that from 1691 to the present time those areas in southern and central Saskatchewan, and also in the neighbouring provinces to a much lesser extent, have been subject to drought.
On July 25 the Minister of Agriculture announced that an agreement had been signed with the government of Saskatchewan providing for the construction of this project. As the house knows, this project has been under study for many years, and I am very

happy to be able to bring this agreement before the house, for it represents another of the promises made by this party in the days of opposition, as well as since forming a government, which is now being carried into effect.
While there have been conflicting opinions as to the usefulness of the project, the weight of official and public opinion is such as to justify the conclusion that the project will be of lasting benefit not only to the province of Saskatchewan and the people it will serve there, but that it will be a project which will constitute another major step in the national development plan of this government. The immediate benefits upon the completion of this project will be that an irrigation potential of 500,000 acres will be created; a power potential of 200,000 horsepower will be made available; ample water supplies for urban and industrial developments in southern Saskatchewan will be assured, and the water levels of the Saskatchewan and Qu'Appelle valleys will be placed in a position where use will be made of those waters which for tens of thousands of years have simply been wasted by working their way ultimately, without benefit to the surrounding area, into Hudson bay. In addition there will be the recreation and tourist values consequent upon this development. These benefits, of course, will not be realized immediately, but my hope is that within a generation this project will be an achievement of such importance that it will be recognized as an asset of national consequence.
The essential features of the agreement are that the dominion government will design and build the dam and the essential works required for creating the reservoir that will impound 8 million acre feet of water. The estimated cost of this reservoir is $96 million, of which the dominion government will pay 75 per cent and the provincial government 25 per cent. Whatever the additional cost may be, the provincial share will in no case exceed $25 million. Furthermore, the national government will pay 25 per cent of the cost of the penstocks required to produce that minimum of power to which I have referred already.
Furthermore, as to the province's share of the expenditure for the reservoir which, as I said, is 25 per cent of the amount and in any event, regardless of the cost of the reservoir, will not exceed $25 million, the national government will aid in financing one-half by an obligation under which the province has 20 years in which to repay at an interest rate representative of the current cost to Canada of long term borrowing, and a carrying charge of one-eighth of one per 57071-3-278J
South Saskatchewan River Project cent. In other words, Saskatchewan's share of the cost is to be paid annually as the work progresses, one-half of such share to be paid in cash and the remainder in 20 years under the loan plan to which I have made reference. Saskatchewan will construct, operate and maintain at its own expense all power and irrigation facilities. The province will relocate provincial highways and ferries affected by the dam and reservoir, and the national government will pay 75 per cent of the cost of this work up to the equivalent of standards existing at the date the agreement was entered into.
When the reservoir has been filled to a level that provides a minimum operating head, it and all related works will be transferred to the province of Saskatchewan and that province will be responsible for operation, water allocation, and other decisions arising from the use of the impounded waters. For a period of six years from the transfer of the reservoir to Saskatchewan the national government will furnish all work and materials for maintenance and assume the full cost. For the next four year period the Saskatchewan government will share such costs equally and will thereafter relieve the national government of all obligation for further construction and maintenance.
I believe, sir, that in presenting this motion I can say that it represents a step in the achievement of a national policy which is based on the belief that the national welfare demands positive action to meet maladjustment in particular regions and industries. I am hopeful that this motion will receive the general support of members in all parts of the house, and that in the years ahead we will be able to look back on this day, particularly in the province of Saskatchewan but in the western provinces as well and throughout the country, as having brought about the beginning of an achievement which will give hope to those in that area for the future and will lay still stronger the foundations of a national development program to assure a reasonable degree of equality of opportunity in all the provinces of this country.


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: From July 25, Mr. Speaker, the day on which the Prime Minister made an announcement in respect to the South Saskatchewan river project, to date we have been led from one surprise to another. First of all it was an agreeable surprise when on July 25 the Prime Minister announced that the government had signed an agreement with Saskatchewan. Then it was a surprise also when on August 18 there appeared in Votes and Proceedings the motion which we are debating this morning. It is another surprise to see that the

South Saskatchewan River Project pay. In addition, the province will have to pay the cost of the power house, including 75 per cent of the cost of the penstocks, the federal government having agreed to pay 25 per cent of the cost of these installations. These, the province says, will cost $35 million.
There must also be taken into account the irrigation scheme. The building of canals and the pumping stations will cost, according to figures we read in the newspapers, another $45 million, and I think that estimate is conservative in view of the fact that so many pumping stations will have to be built. The share of the provincial government may eventually amount to more than $110 million, but if we take that figure it is surprising to see that it coincides with the figure mentioned in the report. In the report, of course, the cost of construction of the dam alone is estimated at $139 million, by which I mean the cost of the construction of both dams and of the facilities connected with them.
Thus we can presume that the cost of building those two dams and creating the reservoir will amount to much more than $100 million. We do not object to this, but we feel that the Prime Minister should have come forward and told us, "We are asking, now, for a revised estimate", or "We have asked the engineers to prepare new estimates".
However, this is not an objection. We do not object to that. What we object to is the fact that this motion has been presented in the form of a resolution simply to approve an agreement which has been entered into by both parties. The cost to the province will be quite high. I know that negotiations have gone on for 12 months because the province of Saskatchewan felt it should have had the same advantages that were extended to the maritimes with regard to the production of hydro-electric power. They certainly have something there. However, this government feels that all it can do in this respect is to pay 25 per cent of the cost of intall-ing penstocks in the dam and down to the power house.
There are many questions we should like to ask the Prime Minister, but I understand that Your Honour being in the chair we are not permitted to ask questions and have them answered back and forth. We can only ask the minister to give us some additional information, when he rises to reply and closes the debate, with regard to the timetable. When does the government intend to begin this work? I know the Prime Minister has said that as soon as an agreement could be signed the work would be started. When the Prime Minister said that,


he was anxious to see the work begun. However, we would like to be given this information with somewhat greater precision.
We should also like to ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to organize an authority to build the dam. I know that under the agreement there is mention of a board, and the duties of that board are outlined in part 6 of the agreement, on page 15:
21. (1) Canada and1 Saskatchewan will constitute a board of officials, to be called the South Saskatchewan river development board, to consist of seven members, four of whom, including the chairman, shall be appointed by Canada and three of whom shall be appointed by Saskatchewan, and the duties of the board shall be as follows:
(a)	to review the general design of the project with particular reference to the schedule of construction and the design relationships of the main dam and reservoir to ensure the most economic use of water for irrigation and electric power;
(b)	to maintain continuous liaison with the parties hereto and their agencies;
(c)	to correlate the planning and information required for the proper timing of construction;
(d)	to be fully informed of all construction work undertaken pursuant to this agreement; and
(e)	to advise upon accounting and records procedures required for the sharing of costs and the payment thereof.
But, Mr. Speaker, we are not sure if this board will decide on contracts, for instance. We do not know if the board will see that tenders are called. I can understand that this board would be a body acting between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Saskatchewan in respect to those matters which are outlined on page 16.
Another question to which we would like an answer is this. Has the government established a timetable for the work? We have read in various reports that the work will take a considerable length of time to complete. First there was mention of a period of eight or ten years, but now we are told in the report of the royal commission and by the P.F.R.A. that the work can be done in six years. So much the better. At the end of six years there will be a period during which the federal government will operate and maintain the reservoir, and then the reservoir will be transferred to the province following that period. These are matters on which we would like to have clear answers.
Another question of interest to us is this. Has the government prepared a final estimate? I mentioned that we were worried because we have had only a rough figure of $96 million. In view of the fact that some figures of the royal commission report for the construction of the dam have been used, we feel they will probably be closer to reality.
There are many other things we would like to know. For instance, is it the intention

of the government to have this agreement approved by both houses of parliament and then perhaps next year present a bill to proceed with the work? Of course this would be quite good publicity for the government. One year we have a resolution and the next year we have a bill. I observe that the Prime Minister is shaking his head; apparently he is saying no. We would have hoped the government would have come forward with a bill in which would have been incorporated all the things I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks including the cost, the amount of money the federal government intends to spend to realize this project, and many other things.
There is another important question mentioned in the report of the royal commission of 1952. According to contractors, men who have had some experience in the building of large projects, it would be of advantage for the government to give one main contract. It may be that the government intends to give one main contract for the construction of both dams in order to fill the reservoir. On the other hand, perhaps the government intends to give separate contracts for each dam. Perhaps it intends to give separate contracts for building the construction sites and for building the necessary roads to proceed with the job. Those are the things we would like to know about, and when the Prime Minister closes the debate I trust he will answer these questions.
I do not wish to take too much of the time of the house. As I have already said, we were disappointed that a bill was not introduced. It is true that certain amounts of money are included in the estimates. There is a small amount in the main estimates and a substantial amount in the supplementary estimates; but those estimates came before the house on August 1, the day the agreement was tabled. I would not swear to it, but I believe it was not mentioned that the agreement had been tabled or, if it was mentioned, I would point out that it was tabled the same day the Minister of Agriculture completed his estimates. Therefore I will ask the Prime Minister to answer some of the questions I have raised.
May I repeat that we would have preferred to have a bill. While we are anxious to see this project proceeded with, and while we do not disapprove of the agreement contained in the document consisting of 17 pages, we do disapprove of the procedure adopted by the government in this regard. For this reason I move, seconded by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan):
That all the words after "1958" in the resolution be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"but that this approval be not given until a measure preceded by the recommendation of the
South Saskatchewan River Project Governor General thereto has been introduced by the government providing for the authorization of the necessary expenditures for the whole project."


Mr. Speaker:: While this amendment might be appropriate on a bill, I am not clear that it is in order on a resolution. I should like to refer the hon. member who has moved the amendment to the obstacles which I see to it, in case he has some citation or authority which would change the view which appears to me to be appropriate at this time. Citation 203 of Beauchesne's "Parliamentary Rules and Forms", fourth edition, deals with amendments. Paragraph (1) reads:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto.
This amendment does not propose to deal with the motion before the house at all; it proposes to declare that some other course of action should be taken which I think is really declaratory of a principle. That sort of amendment is dealt with by Beauchesne in his third edition, in citation 346 at page 137, where he says:
Moreover, the amendment could not be a declaration of principles because the only motions on which such a declaration can be moved are motions for the address in reply to the speech from the throne, motions to go into committee of supply or ways and means and for the second reading of public bills.
On that basis it seems to me that the relevancy of the amendment must be that it relates to the subject matter of the resolution. This proposed amendment does not seek to modify the resolution; it seeks to dispose of it altogether on the basis that the government should have taken some other course. Before I rule the proposed amendment out of order I would like to hear hon. gentlemen on it.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to citation No. 202, subsection 13 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
An amendment to alter the main question, by substituting a proposition with the opposite conclusion, is not an expanded negative and may be moved.
Now, we admit at once that this does substitute an alternative to the course proposed by the government. The course proposed by the government is that it is expedient that the two houses of parliament approve this agreement. We are not proposing to amend

South Saskatchewan River Project that part of the motion. What we are questioning is that this house should approve the same at this time. What we are suggesting is an alternative line of procedure. I suggest to Your Honour with deference that the amendment is not declaratory of a principle but is procedural, and on the facts does seem to come completely within the ambit of the citation I have cited.
It also seems clear to me that it is relevant to the question in this sense, if I may say so with respect, that it does propose a course to be taken with respect to the first proposition, and therefore is relevant to the first proposition, but a course different from that which the government desires to have the house take.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, in addition to the citation you have mentioned, namely 203 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, there is the other one which I have not yet been able to lay my finger on but which will be familiar to you and to all hon. members, namely the citation dealing with the principle that an amendment which raises a new matter cannot be moved except after notice thereof has been given.
There are the two branches of the proposition: first, that an amendment must be relevant to the question if it is to be in order; or, if it is not relevant to the question but raises an entirely new matter, then it can only be introduced after notice has been given. There are on the records of the house many speakers' decisions ruling amendments of this nature out of order on a combination of those two grounds.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate has admitted that this raises a different proposition, leading to an opposite conclusion which, of course, is exact proof of the point I make that this amendment raises new matter. They are asking not that we do one thing which the government has suggested in the resolution now before the house and of which proper notice has been given, but that we do an entirely different thing, raising a new course of action, and they have given no notice whatsoever of this amendment.
Therefore on those two grounds, first because it is not relevant to the motion under consideration and second because it raises a new matter and therefore can only be introduced after notice, I submit that the point of order is entirely apt and that the amendment is out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, would you hear me very briefly on the second point raised by the Minister of Justice? It does not seem to me that the amendment raises any

new matter; it merely proposes to deal in a different way with the matter which has been raised by the government, and there is no new matter. There is a new proposition, I grant you, but no new matter in the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. members for their help in this matter. In effect the amendment asks that the resolution be not now dealt with but that some intermediate step be taken, and specifies what that step should be. To my mind it is not an amendment which proposes the opposite conclusion, as referred to in subsection 13 of citation 202 of Beauchesne's "Parliamentary Rules and Forms", fourth edition, to which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate referred. It is either an expanded negative in the sense that it disposes of the resolution entirely or it is a declaration of principle, and on either of those grounds I do not think I can accept the amendment as being in accordance with the rules.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, this is an historic day not only for Canada but more particularly for the people of Saskatchewan. It demonstrates very clearly that when the people of a province are united, as the people of Saskatchewan have been for so many years in asking for the building of this dam on the South Saskatchewan river, no matter what the obstacles, no matter how many learned commissions may inquire into the proposition, their united faith and determination will win through against all obstacles.
To a very considerable degree the debate on this motion and its adoption are nonpolitical matters. Over the years the Prime Minister has been consistent in his advocacy of a dam on the South Saskatchewan river. He has been consistent, and he has been a very persuasive advocate of this proposition.
I said it was a matter which commended the support of the people of Saskatchewan without regard to politics. I think that was true even under the former Liberal administration. For many years we had in this house Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner as minister of agriculture. I am sure no one doubts that Mr. Gardiner was fully in support of this proposition. When Jimmie spoke on the floor of the house one was not always able to ascertain that he personally was in favour of it, because he was a very excellent debater and apologist for the cabinet on any given proposition. Nonetheless his stand has been consistent, and I am sure that he, with all other residents of Saskatchewan, will rejoice that this step is being taken.
The premier of Saskatchewan, who signed the agreement on behalf of that province,

has been a firm champion of the South Saskatchewan river project both as a member of parliament from 1935 to 1944 and subsequently as premier of the province and I think, together with the Prime Minister, his faith is amply demonstrated by the agreement that has been signed.
The hon. member for Villeneuve made a very interesting speech. While he comes from another province, he has shown that by applying himself to the subject he has been able to obtain an excellent grasp of its many details. I think it is rather important to note that the spokesman for the official opposition in this debate represents a constituency in the province of Quebec. This is further proof to me of something I have believed for a long time; that although the main benefits of a given project before parliament will accrue to a particular section of the country, members from all areas will forget their regional differences and support such a project as in the national interest even though its primary benefits will be felt by the people of another province.
I do not want to open old wounds, but I am further convinced in my attitude by the statement of the hon. member for Villeneuve that the former prime minister was not right when he said the project was not in the national interest, or that he had not been convinced that it was in the national interest. We see a member from the province of Quebec speaking for the official opposition who, while asking many questions and suggesting an alternative procedure, has left no doubt that the official opposition will support the project.
This year, 1958, is perhaps a good year to proceed with the dam, as it is a year of widespread drought in the province of Saskatchewan. The degree of drought was not nearly as bad as some of us feared some weeks ago; nevertheless Saskatchewan faces a short crop and in various areas there is a difficult feed problem. This summer the people of Saskatchewan and the South Saskatchewan river development association once again demonstrated their faith in the project at a meeting at Outlook which 700 persons attended for the purpose of lending their support to the proposition that a dam should be built on the South Saskatchewan river.
It has been said by the deputy minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan, and again this is something with which everyone will agree, that the project will stabilize feed reserves within a radius of 150 miles from the site of the dam. If this is true, and I believe it is, it will mean the stabilization of the fodder supply for farmers year in and year out, 57071-3-279
South Saskatchewan River Project no matter whether the crop is good or bad, over an area of 70,000 square miles or 45 million acres.
The dam will also provide certain power facilities and, as the Prime Minister has said, will result in the irrigation of a maximum of 500,000 acres. We in Saskatchewan expect that this will go a long way toward providing a substantial measure of industrialization in the years ahead.
While it may be impossible to prove from a cost accounting standpoint that all the money going into the development will be returned with interest, I believe time will show that it was a good, sound investment from the national point of view, and that together with the direct dividends the indirect dividends that will flow from the project will more than warrant the action parliament is taking today.
I think the project is being proceeded with at an auspicious time because of the slackness in the Canadian economy, although I do not want anyone to think we believe we should have waited until there was a degree of slackness in the economy before starting the dam. We are hoping that work will be started immediately, and that as construction is launched it will reduce unemployment in the nation very materially and provide for the taking up of part of the slack in our economy. It has been estimated that the project will take 18 million man hours and probably a work force of 1,800 men plus machinery to lay one million cubic yards of concrete and 50,000 tons of structural steel. These materials will go to build a dam 250 feet high and 8,000 feet long which will provide a main reservoir covering 8 million acres which will be 140 miles long, with a shore line of between 400 and 500 miles.
It has been estimated that the total cost of the project will be $180 million. I have said that this proposition is supported by all the people of Saskatchewan. I hope and expect that when the vote is taken on the resolution it will be passed unanimously. But I do not think that the public should assume that this is a hand-out or gift to the province of Saskatchewan, because it is a joint project toward which both Saskatchewan and the federal government will pay very large sums of money. Of the total estimated cost of $180 million it is estimated that the total federal government contribution will be $74 million. Therefore the people of Saskatchewan will be paying directly more than half the total cost of the project when completed.
It has been said that next year will mark the one hundredth anniversary of the time the project was first suggested. However, since 1935 it has been put forward as an idea

South Saskatchewan River Project that might be fulfilled within a short time and the Liberal government, through its minister of agriculture from Saskatchewan, did not hesitate on every occasion to set out the advantages that would flow from the project. We had always understood, in the early days of discussion, that the federal government was to bear responsibility for the project. As the years have gone on, more and more of the cost has been laid upon the province of Saskatchewan. In 1953 the present Prime Minister in speaking on this particular point had this to say, as recorded on page 1586 of Hansard for February 3, 1953:
Then on May 31, 1951, for the first time to my knowledge, a suggestion was made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that it would be necessary for the province of Saskatchewan to accept the responsibility of providing irrigation facilities. Until that time I had never heard, nor am I able to find any record anywhere, that there was any responsibility to fall upon the province of Saskatchewan.
Those were the words of the present Prime Minister speaking in this house at that time. It was clearly stated by the Liberal government that Saskatchewan would have to bear the cost of providing irrigation facilities. We had expected, in the light of order in council P.C. 2298 of June 19, 1947, that in addition to the dam the main irrigation canals would be maintained by the federal government. In this instance I think I am correct when I say that these main irrigation canals will be a responsibility which must be borne by the provincial government. In the order in council to which I have just referred it was made very clear that when the federal government built the dam, that is the main dam and the main canals, the federal government would operate those projects. In paragraph 4 of this order in council there are these words:
In the construction of an Irrigation project hereunder, Canada will undertake and assume responsibility for the construction of the main reservoirs and any connecting canals and will be responsible for the maintenance and operation of such works;-
This was laid down as an over-all condition for all main irrigation programs in Canada by the former Liberal administration. It is true that this did not apply to Saskatchewan. It was not applied to Saskatchewan because we were not given the opportunity of proceeding with the dam. Nevertheless that was the overriding condition, and it was to apply when such an agreement was signed. We find now, after a period of ten years and in the face of great opposition from Saskatchewan, that the main dam is to be turned over to the province for operation. Saskatchewan would have preferred that the operation of this dam be


assumed by the federal government in perpetuity. This is another responsibility that the Saskatchewan government has been asked to assume.
Then Saskatchewan has been asked to pay not only for the installation of power facilities at the dam site, but also a portion of the cost of construction of the dam itself. The main dam, it is estimated, will cost $96 million and Saskatchewan has to pay 25 per cent of this amount or $24 million, with a ceiling of $25 million because a ceiling has been written into the agreement. This is another cost that Saskatchewan must pay. When the negotiations for this agreement were taking place Saskatchewan asked for a $20 million loan to provide power facilities. This loan was not granted, although agreement was given to a loan for half the 25 per cent of the cost of the dam for power purposes.
Then, of course, there was the whole question of damage to property of third persons if the dam should go out, either as the result of faulty construction or because of flash floods or some other act of God. The government has gone some distance in agreeing that it would assume this responsibility under certain conditions, but a substantial part of this responsibility may be left with the province.
These are some of the steps that have been taken as the negotiations have been conducted, and which have led to greater and greater burdens being accepted by Saskatchewan. If Saskatchewan had turned them down there would be no dam.
I do not believe this is the final agreement. I do not believe this agreement will stand forever in this final form, or will even stand in this form during the life of the members of this house. I feel that Saskatchewan has a case for asking, in the years ahead, for the federal government to assume a larger share of these costs. I have no doubt that Saskatchewan, no matter what the composition of the legislature, will unanimously request the federal government from time to time to be more generous in its sharing of the costs than is set forth in this agreement, just as the legislature gave unanimous approval to this agreement.
This will be a very heavy burden upon the treasury of Saskatchewan. It is estimated that the share of the Saskatchewan people, apart from their share of the federal proportion as citizens of this country, will total $110 million. This is a severe burden on any province and it will be a large burden on a province like Saskatchewan, even though Saskatchewan revenues continue, as they have in recent years, to expand and improve. In addition to

the heavy burden that comes from the provision of this sum of money itself, the burden will further be increased-and no one can deny this-by the financial policies that have been proceeded with by this government during this session. The reconversion loan will make moneys for provincial projects more expensive, and will add to the cost to be born by the Saskatchewan treasury.
In my remarks I have said this is a project that appeals to the citizens in Saskatchewan of all political parties. I give it my full and wholehearted approval. The people of Saskatchewan will rejoice as they see this project proceeded with in the years ahead. There may be instances when we feel, so far as the power loan is concerned or other aspects, that we have a greater claim on the federal treasury, especially in the light of what is being done in other parts of Canada, than the government is prepared to accept at a given time. However, we are good Canadians and we shall support similar projects in other regions when they have a similar value for the residents of those regions. We do hope and we are confident that in the days ahead the terms for the province of Saskatchewan will be improved and that this very important joint project will prove to be one of the best undertakings the Saskatchewan government and the federal government have ever undertaken.


Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roselown-Biggar):: As
the member for Rosetown-Biggar, where the South Saskatchewan dam will be located, I should like to tell hon. members about some of the ways in which we will benefit from this great project. First I would like to say that this is not a new project; it has been spoken of for years. In fact the first time the South Saskatchewan river dam was mentioned, according to a little story, was during the period of drought before Saskatchewan became a province and when it was part of the Northwest Territories. During this period of drought all the buffalo and antelope had left for greener pastures in the north, and the Indians on the plains were starving. One day, away on the horizon, a band of Indians saw a herd of buffalo and the chief called together his braves and picked from them his best hunters. He put them on the fastest horses and sent them out to bring in some meat to his starving tribe. After riding for many miles they came to the Saskatchewan river and there, on the other side, they saw the herd of buffalo peacefully grazing on the banks. One of the braves looked across the river and said, "Damn that river." That was the first mention of the South Saskatchewan river dam.
To be more serious, it was in the 1850's that a party of men headed by a Mr. Palliser was
57071-3-279J
South Saskatchewan River Project sent into the Northwest Territories to see what the value of that country would be west of the rockbound shores of lake Superior. The party spent about six years there and eventually brought back a report to the effect that it was a short grass, treeless country, the land being very fertile, but owing to the long period of drought it would never be fit for agriculture. Mention was made of this great river running across the plains which could be dammed up and the water used for irrigation purposes. Nothing was done, however, until the great drought of the thirties, when the people realized that something had to be done to improve conditions on the prairies and they began to study the feasibility of a South Saskatchewan river dam. After years of study, negotiation and no action, I now have the privilege of supporting a government which proposes to build that dam, so it will become an immediate reality.
I wish now to say a few words on the dam itself. The dam will be of earth construction, 205 feet high, 16,700 feet long and the water behind the dam will be 180 feet deep. This will create a lake 135 miles long with a shore line of 475 miles. One can realize from those figures just what the benefits will be. First, there will be recreational facilities including camping, boating, fishing and summer resorts within a two-hour drive of over half the population of Saskatchewan. The Qu'Ap-pelle valley starts on the Saskatchewan river at a point near Elbow, and the waters from the Saskatchewan river dam will flow down that valley to a depth of 80 feet. An auxiliary dam will be built in the Qu'Appelle valley to allow a gradual flow of water down the river, which will keep five beautiful lakes at their original levels. There are many summer homes and camping grounds built around these lakes, and in the 1930's the people looked out from their summer homes on to dry, dusty lake bottoms, so this is but a by-product of the main benefits which will be received when the South Saskatchewan river dam is built.
The next point with which I would like to deal is the domestic water supply. The thriving cities of Moose Jaw and Regina have spent millions of dollars on their water supply, and in late years they have tapped Buffalo lake in the Qu'Appelle valley. Yet they have only a two months' water supply during the dry period. In the 1930's there was a penalty imposed for using municipal water for washing your car or watering your garden and many of the beauty spots dried up, just as did the farmers' crops. Small towns and villages in Saskatchewan are presently passing bylaws for water works, sewage and sanitation, but the real problem

South Saskatchewan River Project is the water supply from the South Saskatchewan river. These reservoirs I have mentioned can be tapped so these small towns and villages can get an adequate water supply.
I shall be brief with respect to power. The dam will produce 210,000 horsepower or an average annual output of 475 million kilowatt hours. At the present time Saskatchewan power is generated through steam turbines. The hydro power to be produced by the South Saskatchewan river dam will give us an abundance of cheap power to aid in the development of the natural resources of the province.
I come now to the main purpose, that of irrigation. The present proposal is to irrigate 500,000 acres, which I feel will take 500,000 acres out of our one crop economy, wheat, and put agriculture in Saskatchewan on a more stable economic basis. 1 particularly have in mind the cattle industry. At one time we had a cattle industry, but during the drought period of the thirties our herds were cut down, the climax coming in 1937 when the government and the municipalities could only supply enough feed for one cow per farm for milking purposes. If you kept more than one cow you had to provide the feed. Then in 1937 the government bought up all the surplus stock at 1J cents and 2 cents per pound. After that experience the farmers were very reluctant to build up herds, but more recently the younger farmers have built up cattle herds of better quality and Saskatchewan now has more cattle than ever before. There is, however, always the danger of another drought period as a result of which the farmers would have to sacrifice their cattle as they did in the thirties.
Summer pasture is always a problem when it takes five acres of our native pasture to feed one cow. On the other hand, on irrigated pasture seven cows can be supported by one acre of land. This is typical of the benefits to be derived from the irrigation of 500,000 acres of the dry area of Saskatchewan.
Statistics show that the development of the area under P.F.A.A. meant the paying out of assistance totalling $10,200,000 during the period 1939 to 1950. Would it not have been better to have paid out this money for the construction of the dam? Further statistics show that the population in this area dropped from 32,000 in 1926 to 18,000 in 1951 because the small farms were being taken over by the larger ones, for only the larger ones could carry on under the dry conditions. We all know that we have to have population in order to prosper, and that we cannot attract people under existing conditions.


The hon. member for Medicine Hat stated in the house that we expect a land flowing with milk and honey, and that all our problems will be over when the South Saskatchewan river dam is finished. This is not correct, but we do expect a green oasis in Saskatchewan's dry belt, and we will benefit by the experience of our Alberta friends who have had the advantage of irrigation for some time. This is a long term project, but Saskatchewan farmers are quick to seize any opportunity to get away from a one crop economy dependent on wheat.
To sum up the benefits to be provided, they are the irrigation of 500,000 acres, cheap electric power development, improved domestic water supplies, recreation and tourist attractions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to take exception not to the subject matter of this resolution but to the form in which this question is presented to parliament. It does seem to me that what we are witnessing today is either a completely meaningless gesture or a new and improved and streamlined form of closure. I do not much care which interpretation is put on it; in any case it does not seem to me an appropriate way in which to bring a matter of this kind before parliament. It is perfectly obvious, of course, that when this resolution is adopted-as I have no doubt it will be, considering the distribution of parties in this parliament-it will have no legal effect whatsoever.


John George Diefenbaker: Are you going to oppose it?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. gentleman seems to me to be speaking on a point of order as to whether or not this matter is properly before the house in its present form. If I am right, I must tell him he is out of order. The time to have taken such an objection was when the question was proposed at the beginning of the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not suggesting to Your Honour or to the house that there is anything improper according to the rules. All I am suggesting is that this is an inappropriate way for the government to treat the house, and I am sure Your Honour would not contest the right of a member of the opposition to argue that point. I maintain that in a matter of this importance dealing with a project which at the very lowest calculation is going to involve an expenditure of over $100 million, this is a most unusual procedure. I hesitate to say it is unique, but I suspect it is a unique way of dealing with a project of this character.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he does not realize there will be a vote each year in respect of the expenditure for that year, and that his statement is incorrect?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I realize that perfectly well, and it is precisely the point I am coming to. That is precisely why, if I may refer to it, my hon. friend from Villeneuve made the motion he did, the motion which Your Honour ruled out of order and with regard to which we, of course, accept your judgment. We feel this is a most improper way in which to deal with a proposal of this character, involving as it does piecemeal financing in bits and pieces without knowing in advance where this undertaking is going to lead. I recognize that I am coming close to transgressing the rules when I say this, but we have heard in another place criticism by hon. members opposite of what is alleged to have been bits and pieces financing of a project which, compared with this one, is very small indeed; and it seems to me that if parliament is to make a real judgment on this matter it should consider the whole proposal as a legislative project in a fashion which would enable all hon. members to examine every aspect of the proposition.
I said, and of course we all know, that when this resolution is passed it will commit the government to absolutely nothing. All it does is commit the two houses to express the view that they approve this undertaking. But a resolution of the two houses, as again we all know, has no legal effect whatsoever; it is merely a pious expression of approval.
What we fear is that the government is going to use this expression of approval of the two houses as a blank cheque, as the hon. member for Villeneuve very correctly put it, and that they are going to bring in an estimate in respect of the amount of work which they feel can reasonably be done each year without this house at any time being given an opportunity to consider, with all the details before it, what should be the proper judgment of parliament with regard to a matter of this magnitude.
I am sure there is no one in the house- at least, I know of no hon. member of the house-who has any question in his mind but that this project in itself is a good thing; that it will be a very desirable thing to develop this hydro-electric power; that it will be a very desirable thing to have this great lake in south Saskatchewan; that it will be a very desirable thing to have this water available for irrigation. No one doubts that. But this country is filled with desirable projects which all of us, or some of us at any rate, would like to see developed.
South Saskatchewan River Project
It is, of course, the responsibility of parliament in appropriating money to make choices, because under our present system- and I hope it will long continue to be our system-the supply of money is not unlimited. It is our responsibility in appropriating money to make choices between desirable things and it is not possible, I submit, to make an intelligent choice on the basis of a resolution of this character.
What we should have before us, it seems to me, is a resolution with a message from the crown and a bill setting out the whole scheme, a bill which could be considered in committee and through all the stages that are provided with regard to money bills of that character. We will not be in committee on this resolution. Once a vote is taken on it the matter is disposed of as far as this house is concerned. We have no way of scrutinizing the agreement and no way of asking questions of the government with regard to the details of the agreement; no way of knowing, beyond what is in the text itself, how it is proposed to proceed to implement this agreement.
And when I said that it seemed to me this resolution was either a meaningless affair, a pious expression of good intention, or it was a new, improved and streamlined form of closure, I meant exactly what I said. I admit that the government and the Prime Minister are very clever at this kind of thing. I yield to no one in my admiration for the Prime Minister in this field, because he presents us with a dilemma. He says, "Either you vote against this resolution, in which case we will go all over the country saying you are against the South Saskatchewan dam, or you vote for it, and from then on every time you say a word in criticism we will get up and say you approved it".


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question? I appreciate the personal reference, but the rules would not allow me to pursue it. As a member of the government which had before it the report of the royal commission and which studied this matter most carefully for a long while, what is the hon. gentleman's opinion as to whether or not this should be proceeded with?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister, like myself, has taken the privy councillor's oath. He took it much more recently than I did, and I imagine the words are still quite familiar to him. While I appreciate very much his intervention, I am discussing what the present government is doing, not engaging in historical reminiscence, and I have no intention of being diverted into that field by the Prime Minister.
I wonder if I might call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.

South Saskatchewan River Project AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for the luncheon recess I had repeated a statement I made at the outset of my observations, and perhaps for the sake of continuity I should repeat it again, namely that this motion can be looked upon in one of two ways, either as a pious expression having no legal effect or as a new, improved, streamlined form of closure. I do not want to indulge in the kind of exaggeration about these matters which I thought was indulged in on this side of the house in the parliament before last, and I intend to try to keep what I have to say completely within reasoned and measured terms. I think all of us who were here recollect what happened in the parliament before last in the session of 1956.
To illustrate what I mean by the objectionable character, from the point of view of proper consideration by the house, of this project and the motion before us, I intend to indicate what conceivably could have happened in that session of parliament if a similar motion had been made. It will be recalled that what we were considering in the session of 1956 was a bill based on a resolution, a bill to implement an agreement made with the Trans-Canada Pipe Line Company and another agreement made with the government of Ontario. The only difference in principle between that situation and this is that there were two agreements instead of one. There was an agreement with this company and also an agreement with the provincial government.
If I apprehended correctly what the Prime Minister suggested when he interrupted me at one point, it seems to me it is the intention of the government once this motion has been accepted to proceed merely by annual estimates. This would have been on all fours with what might have been done in that case. In other words the government of that day in 1956 might have introduced a motion such as this to say it was expedient for the two houses to approve the agreement with the Trans-Canada Pipe Line Company and the agreement with the government of Ontario, and that this house do approve the same. That would have permitted debate on a motion that it is not too easy to amend, so that each hon. member except the mover could speak only once and there could be no opportunity to probe the agreements, to consider the details and to have the questions and answers at all the stages that are necessary in money bills concerning large projects of this character. Then all that would have been required would be the appropriate items in the estimates-I assume there would be
[Mr. Pickersgill.1

more than one item because of there being two agreements instead of one-in order to carry out this project.
I leave to the imagination of hon. members what would have been said if that had been done. I could have brought Hansard for the 1956 session into the house today to illustrate the kind of things that would have been said about this method of procedure if it had been adopted by the previous government, what would have been said about this invasion of the rights of parliament, this attempt to bypass the traditional method of appropriating money and the traditional method of carrying on the business of parliament. But I have neither the eloquence, nor at this stage of the session do I think the house has the patience to listen to those arguments at length-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -so I do not intend to attempt to make them at length. All I want to do is say that it seems to me the procedure we are following denies to the opposition and indeed to private members who support the government who may want to probe into this matter a real opportunity to give it the kind of consideration it ought to have.


Mr. Palleil:: You have had ample occasion and opportunity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have the agreement, but it is not a contract with anybody to do the work. It is merely an agreement with the province of Saskatchewan.
Mr. Pallet!: That is more than we got on the pipe line.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is merely an agreement with the province of Saskatchewan and nothing more. I admit that my argument would collapse in part at once if the Prime Minister were to get up at any stage and give us an assurance that before this project proceeded beyond the survey stage-which it is easy to understand should be done by items in the estimates, and quite properly-before the point had been reached at which it could not really be stopped, we would have a measure brought in with a message from the crown, as was done in the case of the pipe line and the St. Lawrence seaway and, as far as I can recollect, as has always been done with great national projects of this kind. Then what we would be doing today would be merely giving a kind of approval in principle to this agreement, and that would certainly be a great deal less objectionable; though it would still be objectionable, I submit, because no matter what attitude we may take in the matter it is going to create a false impression on the part of the public. It cannot help but do that.

We on this side of the house, having had the agreement only since August 25, cannot pretend to have scrutinized it with the care it should have had.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it not August 1?


John Cameron Pallett: Surely it was long before
August 25. Was it not July 25?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, in any event, with
the hours we have been sitting in this house and the kind of session we have had, whatever the date and without the capacity-


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: That is right, without
the capacity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was using the word
"capacity" in the sense in which it is used in the other official language of this country, that is to say without the opportunity of questioning the minister who would be responsible-


Mr. Mcllraiih:: But the government does
not want to provide an opportunity for questioning. This is a new form of closure.
Mr. Pallet!:	Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for Ottawa West said it better than I can, is that through the government following this procedure of bypassing the ordinary methods used in parliament, we will not have an opportunity to give this measure the kind of consideration parliament ought to give to so important a national project.


Mr. Drysdale:: Why not let the hon. member for Ottawa West speak, then?


John Whitney Pickersgill: When we vote and however we vote on it, that vote is bound to be construed either as a vote against the project or as a vote in favour of the agreement.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Then don't vote.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is, of course, a
possibility that is open to us. That is a course that has been taken by certain hon. members in this house in times past, but it is one which I must say is rather repugnant to me.
Mr. Pallet!:	Oh, come, now; you walked
out of one the other night.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a course which I
do not think is desirable. What I do say is that this is not the right way to embark upon a great national project of this sort. It does seem to me that since we shall have to make a choice in the circumstances in which we have been placed by the government-and I repeat that I have a great deal of admiration for the skill of the Prime
South Saskatchewan River Project Minister in devising these dilemmas-I do not know whether those slick procedures are precisely the kind of respect for the rights of parliament that the public were led to expect.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question. Will he tell the house what the government of which he was a member did in respect of the St. Mary's dam, on which up to the present time has been expended some $40 million? What was the course followed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: With respect to the St.
Mary's dam, as I understand it, an item was put in the estimates-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and it was, of course, a project of a magnitude not in any way comparable with this one. Not only was it not comparable in any way with this one, but I suspect-and I am glad the Prime Minister has reminded me of it, because it does add great force to the argument I am making -that it is precisely because the government has very little confidence in its estimates of cost that it does not bring in a proper measure, with a proper estimate of the whole cost of this project. Everybody knows, of course, that the St. Mary's dam was started at a time when we were-I cannot remember the exact date; I cannot remember whether it was while we had price controls or just after they were lifted, but it was immediately after the war, at a time when the price level was very much lower than it is, unhappily, at the present time. Any estimates of cost at that time, of course, have been greatly exceeded in this project, and I suspect that exactly the same will be true in the case of the South Saskatchewan project.
That seems to me, sir, precisely the best argument for taking the proper course in this matter and giving the house a proper opportunity, under the rules for dealing with money bills, to envisage this whole project because, as I said at the beginning and I repeat, this project is going to cost a great deal of money. Because of its size it is not the kind of project that ought to be carried out merely by annual items in the estimates. Members of parliament should have the opportunity to exercise their judgment about the project as a whole, with all the facts in front of them, and have full opportunity to question the responsible ministers with regard to it. That is the basis of our objection to this method of procedure.
It seems to me, sir, that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we are asked to use a procedure which, so far as I can recollect, has been used in the past

South Saskatchewan River Project for approval of agreements with foreign countries where no expenditures were involved, though no doubt the Prime Minister will have precedents of a different character. Not having had the time or perhaps the assistance to do research that he has had, some of those precedents may conceivably have some superficial resemblance to what we are embarking upon today; but I should be immensely surprised, sir, if at any time the two houses of parliament have been asked to embark upon a great project of this kind, involving a very large expenditure of money, by the use of this particular device.
I do know that there have been instances in the past when there have been agreements with foreign countries where expenditures of moneys were involved and in those instances, as was the case with the treaty of Versailles itself, legislation was introduced. The treaty was not approved by this particular method. Indeed, my recollection is that this method has generally been used for agreements that did not involve expenditure at all, though I do recall one occasion when a motion of this kind was made to approve a trade agreement. I believe that was not proceeded with, and if my recollection serves me right it was not proceeded with precisely because it was represented that it would be a bypassing of the full rights of parliament to discuss the matter in every possible respect. I think that was in 1947 or 1948, about 10 years ago. Again I have not the precise reference at hand.
As I said, we are faced with a real dilemma here. The Leader of the Opposition indicated -and I think it was one of the first statements he made after he became the leader of our party-that he favoured in principle proceeding with this great national project. As the leader of our party he has indicated the support of our party in principle for the project. As I say we are faced with the choice of voting against this motion and thereby having it represented that we are against the project, or voting for it and being told subsequently, "Well, you approved of that agreement; you have no right to criticize it."
It seems to me that as between those two not very attractive choices we can choose only the second. The only course we can take is reluctantly, because of the method being used, to support this motion. But in saying that I speak for myself, and I am sure I speak for most of the other members of my party, though I have not consulted all of them, when I say that we do not feel that in voting for this resolution we are expressing any approval whatsoever of the details of the agreement. I do not feel that we should


be asked to approve the details of the agreement without going through the proper parliamentary processes; and we reserve the right, when this matter comes before parliament for the appropriation of money in whatever form it may take, to criticize anything in the agreement that in the light of the practical experience of executing it seems to be deserving of criticism.


John George Diefenbaker: You have pretty well boxed the compass, have you not?


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, as one representing a constituency, namely the constituency of Macleod, which has within its bounds the headwaters of the South Saskatchewan river watershed, the headwaters which will supply the South Saskatchewan dam, I think I might be permitted to say a word or two on behalf of those who are living in that area and also in the various other areas which are served by the South Saskatchewan watershed system.
I think we should all take a look at the riparian rights of the different industries and different sections of the country which are fed by that water system. I am greatly in favour of the South Saskatchewan development. But we must regard it as only one development, on the South Saskatchewan watershed. To the west of it lies the city of Lethbridge. I should like to bring to the attention of the house and of the government the serious problem which exists at the city of Lethbridge with respect to water supply for industrialization. I refer particularly to the month of February. The Oldman river which is a tributary of the South Saskatchewan and joins the river at Lethbridge is almost dry in February. Industrial development of that area is contingent upon the continuity of the flow of water and so the development of dams and other structures in the headwaters of the Oldman river is long overdue. This is related to the waters of the South Saskatchewan dam. In other words-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have not read the agreement, but I doubt if there is anything in it with relation to the damming of the Oldman river.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: When I talk about the waters of the South Saskatchewan watershed it is just like talking about the relationships of so many balls in a bowl. When you move one ball all the other balls shift to a new position. If you use water out of the river at Lethbridge you are affecting the continuity of flow of water which will run the turbines and provide irrigation at the South Saskatchewan dam. Therefore when I am

talking about the watershed and the South Saskatchewan dam I am, I hope, talking on the subject.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot accept that proposition from the hon. member for Macleod, and I hope he will confine himself to the motion under consideration.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to do so. Having covered that point, may I say that so far as the South Saskatchewan river dam is concerned, I have heard many arguments that the production which may flow from the farms will disturb the prices of agricultural products. We all know that in the establishment of an irrigation system there is a time lag of six to eight years before the system is brought into operation. There is also a period of some 25 years before the complete shift in production from dry to irrigated farming takes place. In other words the growth of population, the time lag in development and so on will make the situation such that the incidence of production with regard to the agricultural price structure will not be felt to any extent whatsoever. Therefore from an economic point of view I think that problem can be dismissed.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the government for undertaking this project, which is the first step in the development of the South Saskatchewan watershed system.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as a member representing a British Columbia constituency concerned for many years, about the development of its hydro resources, I rise to express my support for the principle of the resolution. However, like some members of the official opposition, we would have preferred the government to bring the matter before the house in the form of legislation which we could discuss in principle, followed by a discussion of the various clauses of the bill. We would have had the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister questions, which we all enjoy doing, and to deal with the various details of this very interesting and worth-while project.
Regardless of the part of Canada from which we come, I am sure we all recognize that the government's decision in this respect is of benefit to the whole of Canada and of particular benefit to the province of Saskatchewan. There is no question but that it will provide greater stability of income, more security and improved standards of living for the people residing in the area that will be served by the dam.
Personally I am very pleased to see such measures introduced, because they provide for the conservation and development of our
South Saskatchewan River Project natural resources. The government has assisted the maritimes with respect to hydro development. Millions have been spent in the development of hydro resources on the St. Lawrence seaway; and while the hydro development was undertaken by the province of Ontario it was the federal government expenditure that made it possible. Now we have this very fortunate development in Saskatchewan. I hope these developments are segments of a national policy that will mean that the government intends to bring a measure before the house in the very near future providing for the development of hydro resources on the Columbia.
I am trying to keep in order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the conversion of the premier of British Columbia to the principle of protecting Canadian rights on the Columbia, and as a result to the development of the water resources of the Columbia under public ownership in co-operation with the federal government, we all hope that agreement in principle with respect to downstream benefits will soon be arrived at between the governments of Canada and the United States and that we shall see the implementation of the policy of development of hydro resources continued by the commencement of the development of the resources of the Columbia.
If I were to go further, Mr. Speaker, 1 think I might be out of order. In any event, we are all very pleased to see that this development is being proceeded with, because of the value it will be to the province of Saskatchewan. Once again I say we hope it represents a policy that will be pursued and which will be continued in British Columbia.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, so much has been said over the last number of years with regard to the South Saskatchewan dam that there is very little new that is left to say. But as the elected representative of the constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre I feel I must express to the government the thanks and appreciation of my constituents for the decision to start construction of this great project. I am happy to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, whose constituency adjoins Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
It was an occasion for celebration when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture signed the agreement respecting the dam in the presence of the other 15 Progressive Conservative members from the province of Saskatchewan, including the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. To mark the occasion the Saskatchewan members had a picture taken as

South Saskatchewan River Project an historic record of having been part of a government that keeps its promises.
The agreement was signed on July 25. I mention that date to emphasize the speed with which one more promise of the government has been carried out. It was carried out as promptly as possible in spite of provincial politics attempted to be played during the negotiations about the sharing of costs. I am sure that all Canada will commend the government for its quick action to honour a pledge made to the electors. The dam has been too long delayed. In answer to a question I asked on July 2 the Prime Minister stated, as recorded on page 1829 of Hansard:
-climatic conditions in Saskatchewan this year indicate how necessary it was that this dam and irrigation project should have been proceeded with at least six or seven years ago.
This is a statement with which we in Saskatchewan will agree most heartily, especially the livestock farmers who are short of feed this year because of the dry weather during the summer. In his statement on July 2 the Prime Minister also outlined the financial terms of the agreement with the province of Saskatchewan. I do not agree with the charges of the Saskatchewan premier, or the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia this morning that the province has been discriminated against as far as the sharing of costs is concerned. I think the terms of the agreement are very generous. They were fully explained by the Prime Minister on page 1829 of Hansard, and were outlined by him again this morning.
I shall not attempt to review those terms here, but I repeat that I think they are most generous and most helpful in regard to the construction of the dam. This dam will assure the cities of Moose Jaw and Regina of an adequate supply of water in Buffalo Pound lake for their future domestic and industrial needs. Letters I have received, and I know the Prime Minister has also received similar letters, indicate that Moose Jaw greatly appreciates this help in solving its long-time water problem. I am sure Regina appreciates this help also.
Some constituents of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre will benefit directly from the irrigation canals, and all the province will benefit indirectly from the agricultural and industrial advancement resulting from the dam. For these reasons in particular, and because of the many other benefits that will result in a wider field, I speak for all in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and commend the government for making this long-time hope in Saskatchewan a reality.
Today we heard in this house what I consider to be indirect Liberal opposition to the construction of this dam. We were hoping,

we were almost certain, that the Prime Minister's motion would have received quick and unanimous approval. I still hope that this unanimous approval will be given here today, now that the Liberal delaying amendment has been ruled out of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I rise to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, because of the remarks that have just been made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. He said that what we are now witnessing in this house is indirect opposition to this project on the part of the official opposition. What he had expected to see, and what he had hoped to see, was quick and unanimous approval of this resolution. He had hoped to see quick and unanimous approval of this kind of resolution, unprecedented in our parliamentary history, this kind of resolution which would commit us to approval of an agreement for the expenditure of many millions of dollars.
The hon. member who just spoke said that what he had hoped to see was quick and unanimous agreement, without discussion presumably; because debate on this resolution was commenced today about 12 o'clock, so we have been talking about it for a couple of hours. However, even that is too long for the hon. member who just resumed his seat for us to be dealing with a resolution of this importance which entails the expenditure of many millions of dollars and deals with a project of national significance. If we cannot spend a few hours on a resolution of this kind without being accused of obstruction, then the Prime Minister's talk about parliamentary rights and other rights about which we are going to hear a lot during the rest of this week, does not mean very much.
Then the Prime Minister, in an interjection which may or may not be in Hansard-he will pardon me for mentioning it, but it was quite clear across here-said that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, when he sat down after speaking on behalf of our party, had very successfully boxed the compass.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not say "successfully".


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, that he had boxed the compass; I withdraw the word "successfully". The Prime Minister's intervention at that time seems to me to be quite eloquent evidence of what the Prime Minister may have had in mind in submitting this resolution in this unprecedented form. What the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did when he spoke for our party, made it quite clear that we were not going to fall into the trap which had been set by the introduction of this resolution in this form. As he pointed out very clearly, and perhaps it could be repeated, if we carry

our objections-and they are sincere objections-to the form of this resolution to the point where we vote against it, now that our amendment has been ruled out of order, then it will be stated by hon. members opposite

indeed it has already been indicated by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre-* that we are opposed to the project itself. If we vote for the resolution we vote for a resolution in a form which we think does deny the right of parliament to discuss it in the approved form which has been followed in the past in matters of this kind.
The St. Lawrence seaway development, the trans-Canada pipe-line development and other projects of national importance involving the expenditure of many millions of dollars were proceeded with by means of a resolution preparatory to the introduction of a bill. There was discussion of the resolution and the bill. It was possible to examine the agreement, if there was a financial agreement, as a basis for the legislation, also it was possible to examine the minister in detail to find out what was in the agreement and why. We have no opportunity to do that on this particular resolution, which is in the form usually followed in connection with agreements between Canada and foreign states. It is in the form of a resolution which asks us merely to approve an agreement; and if we do approve it, and in so far as we are concerned we are going to vote for this resolution-


An hon. Member:: Are you?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are going to vote for it for the reasons I have indicated, because if we vote against it we will be accused of being opposed to the project, and that is exactly the position in which the Prime Minister wished to place us by the introduction of the resolution in this form.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the hon. gentleman does not want to ascribe motives. I do not mind the conclusion, but when he says the Prime Minister wished to place him in that position, he knows that that is not right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will not ascribe any motive to the Prime Minister; I will withdraw that. I shall describe what will happen as a party. We have already described ourselves as in favour of this project. This was done first of all on February 28 by me, speaking for the party, in Saskatoon, and it has been stated since in the house. We approve of this project as one of national importance. Yet, Mr. Speaker, approving the project as we do, recognizing and appreciating its importance, and with some realization of the expenditure of money involved, we take strong exception to the procedure that is being followed in this
South Saskatchewan River Project resolution, whatever the motives may have been which inspired the government to proceed in this way. We are being asked in this resolution to approve of an agreement, not to approve of a bill which could be discussed in committee and at all its stages. We are not being given an opportunity to question the government in respect of this agreement.
When the Prime Minister rises to close this debate, that will be the last chance we will have to deal with this agreement, certainly in this parliament. If in the future we wish to discuss this matter and the way it is working out, if we take exception to this agreement, if we find some clauses are not as we hoped they would be and that the agreement should be changed, we can and no doubt will be told by the government, "You supported this agreement in the house on Labour day, 1958; what are you complaining about now?"
This is another reason why we object to this kind of procedure. Surely we have the right, now that we the opportunity, to object to this way of proceeding on constitutional grounds. We do not intend in the future to be told that because we have put forward these constitutional objections we are hesitant about the value of this project, or that we attempted to oppose it indirectly, as has already been suggested.
The hon. member for Assiniboia this morning mentioned the position of our party in regard to this matter, and said that he regretted the stand taken by the prime minister of previous years, namely Mr. St. Laurent. I would like to put on record Mr. St. Laurent's last statement on the South Saskatchewan river dam, which was made in answer to a question asked on April 12, 1957, I believe addressed to him by my right hon. friend who is now Prime Minister, and which reads as follows:
My position is that I have not yet been able to reach the conclusion that it is something which, constructed at this time, would return to the national economy more than it would require from the national economy in interest and amortization charges.
Mr. St. Laurent took this position after careful consideration, and he took it with honesty and with sincerity. Believing as he did in it and because that is the kind of man he was, he stated this position frankly to the House of Commons and did not take refuge in any weasel words that could perhaps have gained him some political support and by which he may have indicated that he was in favour of the project at some time in the future but that he would have to look into it and see whether it could be worked out later and all that kind of thing. He got up in the house and explained that having given it the consideration which he felt it

South Saskatchewan River Project should be given, he could not convince himself that at that time it would return to the national economy more than it would require from the national economy.
It is no secret that during those years when this matter was under consideration by the previous government the former minister of agriculture did support the project and did his very best to convince his colleagues that they should also support it. There will be no person in Canada who will more rejoice in the initiation and completion of the project than Mr. Gardiner himself. It is also no secret, because I have mentioned it on more than one occasion, that this party under its present leadership did take a different position in this matter from that taken by the party under its previous leadership. I myself and my colleagues came to the conclusion last February that this is something which should be proceeded with in the national interest. While perhaps on the strict ground of economic returns in the years 1958, 1959 or even 1960 it will not be justified in the light of the money that will have to be spent, there are, nevertheless, considerations other than economic returns. There are intangible and psychological benefits and, adding up all these things, we felt that this was a project which should be supported and so we do support it.
Having said that, I return to our difficulties over the procedure adopted in this matter because we are not being given an opportunity during this session to examine the government in detail in respect of the agreement on which this project is based. It is true that the agreement was tabled many weeks ago-I forget the exact date-by the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Harkness:: August 1.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the house does not remember, however, that when the agreement was tabled in this house, without prior notification-and I am not complaining about that-it was done on the last day of the minister's estimates, so we did not have an opportunity even in connection with the Department of Agriculture estimates to examine the minister in respect of this particular agreement at this particular session. If it had been tabled a week before we would have had that opportunity; if the estimates had been held over for a week we would have had that opportunity. But in fact we have not had that opportunity, and are now being asked to support this kind of resolution in order to give a blank cheque to the government in respect of the carrying out of an agreement upon which we have not had a chance to examine the government


in detail. Surely that gives us the right to complain about the procedure adopted in this very important matter-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -a procedure which not only violates precedents but also violates parliamentary traditions and parliamentary rights. Therefore, while we support this resolution because we have no alternative but to support it, since we are in favour of this project, we nevertheless reserve our right to bring up this constitutional question again. We also reserve our position in regard to criticisms which we may advance in the future with respect to the detailed working out of this agreement. We have not been given that chance now, but we will certainly take advantage of any opportunity in the future.
I know what the Prime Minister is going to say when he gets up. He is going to say, "You will have ample opportunity to discuss this matter on the estimates next year or the year after that. There will be ample opportunity for the opposition to discuss this agreement; there will be ample opportunity to discuss all these things on the estimates." If that is the case, then what was the purpose of bringing forward this resolution in this form at the present time? What purpose does it serve; what constitutional purpose or what discussion purpose does it serve, when we cannot examine the government in respect of the agreement on which the resolution is based? It is quite true that we may have an opportunity in the future of discussing the agreement on the estimates. If that is the case then perhaps the Prime Minister will explain why, in these closing days of the session, he has brought forward a resolution in this form which does, as I have said and as I now repeat, violate parliamentary traditions; which asks us to support an agreement involving the expenditure of many millions of dollars, and which is in a form as I believe, having regard to all the circumstances, unprecedented in our parliamentary history.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I know you will be relieved when I say I am going to deal with the South Saskatchewan river dam rather than with the constitutional issue which at this time has been dragged in. I shall leave discussion of that issue to others who may speak later.
I would like to place on record at this time some of the efforts made for many years and by many people on behalf of this great project. It was mentioned earlier in the debate today that some Indians on the bank of the South Saskatchewan river had first mentioned

the idea, and that was a good story with which to start a speech; but I would like to place on record an official document submitted to the legislative council of Canada in 1859 by Henry Youle Hind, M. A., professor of chemistry and geology at Trinity College, University of Toronto, who was sent out in the year 1858 to explore the Assiniboine and Saskatchewan river systems on behalf of the government of Canada of the time. I promised myself many years ago that the work of this man of exactly 100 years ago should one day be remembered and now it is acted upon by this government.
I am going to read sections from paragraphs 16, 17 and 18. Firstly, in speaking of the South Saskatchewan river paragraph 16 reads as follows:
A dam, 85 feet high, and 600 to 800 yards long (a few miles lower down the length of the dam would be much less) across the deep narrow valley in which the south branch flows, below where the Qu'Appelle valley joins it, would send its waters down the Qu'Appelle valley, thence down the Assiniboine past Fort Garry, and thus establish a splendid and probably uninterrupted navigation, for steamers of large size, for a distance exceeding 600 miles.
He was thinking 100 years ago of this dam as a means of communication across the whole prairies for 600 miles. Then in paragraph 18 he speaks of the possibility of flooding the towns along the Assiniboine, such as Portage la Prairie, Brandon and Winnipeg, and he speaks of the Assiniboine and the peculiarities of the valley as follows:
Here the river glides in an excavated trench about 16 feet below the prairie, but in times of very high floods it sends water across the prairie, down the broad, shallow valley of Rat Rivulet, into lake Manitoba. Rat Rivulet rises in the Bad Woods, west of Prairie Portage, within two or three miles of the Assiniboine; and the ridge which divides it from the river is an imperceptible rise in the prairie which the eye can scarcely detect.
A shallow cut through the gentle rise separating the Assiniboine from Rat Rivulet would permit all flood waters to flow into lake Manitoba, and protect the settlements on Red river from any danger of being flooded.
And now, 100 years later, a report is being handed to this government concerning lake Manitoba and lake Winnipeg recommending the same cut to save these cities from being flooded. At this time I think it is well to give credit to those who so long ago saw the possibilities of diverting and damming the waters of the Saskatchewan river system.
In more recent times one thinks of such men as John R. MacNicol, a member for one of the Toronto ridings-I believe it was Danforth-who made known to newspaper editors in eastern Canada the possibilities of water control and diversion on the South Saskatchewan. In one year, out of his own pocket, he spent $37,000 on the services of
South Saskatchewan River Project engineers and surveyors who examined this proposition, and it turned out that the figures he supplied agreed almost exactly with the conclusions reached after the expenditure of many millions of dollars under P.F.R.A. in examining the same proposition.
Then, turning to those here today, credit has been given very briefly to the work of the Prime Minister in speaking across Canada and particularly in the west on behalf of the dam. In addition, his speeches here in this house, his questions and his motions, probably did more than anything else to convince the people of western Canada that here was a man who was pledged to this project and who never quibbled or used weasel words about its economic future. For that reason many of us from the west joined forces behind the Prime Minister and recognized in him the person best able to lead those forces across Canada, a man who was thinking in terms of national development rather than in terms of stagnation and allowing things to drift. I think at this time that as one of the younger men in the west who rallied behind the Prime Minister and struggled for the achievement of this project I should like to pay a tribute to him on behalf of all those people who looked to him as their champion.
The house may not even be aware of it today, but when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made, I believe, his maiden speech, he was speaking with a record of service toward this project hardly equalled by anyone. He is at present vice president of the Saskatchewan river development association and over the long, difficult years he went about his part of Saskatchewan calling meetings of farmers, municipal boards, boards of trade and so on advocating the building of this dam. When I think of all the hours of driving and the hours of hard work which have been done by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, I wish he was here at this time to hear what I am saying.
Along with others-the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe), the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones), the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More), the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nas-serden) for example-many of us have helped in this work and there were others, too, of all political affiliations who did their best to let Canada know that this scheme was in the national interest.
I do not intend to deal at any great length with the benefits the dam will bring, because they have been discussed so many times over so many years by so many people. However, I should like to emphasize just one benefit which I do not think has been fully realized.

South Saskatchewan River Project This dam is not just for the irrigation of farm lands; it is not just for the development of power. It will have many uses.
This new dam will give us in western Canada a chance to bring in industry. With the discovery of natural gas in the last five years we have now, for the first time, an opportunity to bring in the petrochemical industry which requires large amounts of water for cooling purposes. This is a benefit which is just as important as any other benefit which this scheme provides. Speaking solely on this question of industry, the matter of the surplus of power over the needs of pumping is something which has not been appreciated by many who have been great supporters of the project. I think they have failed to recognize the full significance of this development to the three prairie provinces, and I am taking the liberty of reading a quotation from the royal commission report at page 188 where reference is made to this aspect which has been almost forgotten. The report says:
There are five potential power sites which would benefit from this regulation. Two 75-foot head sites exist between Saskatoon and the junction of the North and South Saskatchewan rivers, and two 120-foot and one 50-foot head plants on the Saskatchewan river below the Forks. They are:
foot head
Batoche	 75
Coxby	 75
Fort a la Corne	 120
Nipawin	 120
Squaw	 50
That should really be Squaw Creek.
The Fort a la Corne site has been studied in detail by the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. With an installed capacity of 125,000 h.p. this plant would be capable of producing 598,400,000 kilowatt hours of energy annually. This regulation provided by the reservoir will increase the annual output by nearly 100,000,000 kilowatt hours.
Studies have not been made of the other sites mentioned. However, the potential of these sites would be increased to a degree proportionate to that indicated for the Fort a la Corne site.
In other words, one of the great benefits of the dam at Coteau creek is that it will not only produce 325 million kilowatts annually for the distribution system of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation in this locality, but that it will increase the potential of five downstream power dams. This is a point which has been forgotten, and I hope the province of Saskatchewan will visualize that it will be one of the great assets produced by this joint operation between the provincial and the federal governments.
I should like to make a passing reference to the benefits to the tourist trade. With this lake a new body of water some 135 miles will come into being. It will give us 475 miles of new shoreline. Sixty-nine per cent of the
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle).l
population of Saskatchewan will live within 150 miles of this large body of water, and it will be available to them for recreational use. I should like to remind the house that in the United States where they keep extensive records of visits to national parks, national forests and recreation areas, it has been found that every year more people visit reclamation projects similar to this than visit their national forests or their national parks. This will give to Saskatchewan, one of the dry areas of the world, its first opportunity to have a large lake area right in the heart of the settled portion of the province.
The next subject I should like to mention is one which has been discussed already at some length in this debate, the frank admission on the part of the hon. member for Villeneuve this morning that this dam is now in the national interest. This is a phenomena which those of us from Saskatchewan and the three prairie provinces generally will recognize as a revolution of outstanding importance.
The previous prime minister was praised on many occasions because he was intellectually honest. He was opposed to the dam and he said so. Immediately upon the election of a new leader of the Liberal party there was a change of opinion. In February we heard that the party was in favour. What was not in the national interest a few months before suddenly became in the national interest. I wondered as I listened today how the front benches of the official opposition were going to handle the situation. I wondered, after all the years of stonewalling and delay, what they were going to do and how they could explain their conversion to acceptance of this important scheme. When I heard the amendment moved by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) and seconded by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) I thought, that is their approach; they will let the backbenchers carry the blame for the conversion and the front benchers will keep quiet. But the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) spoiled my analysis of the situation. He felt he had to enter the debate and when he came up with the ingenious proposition of a constitutional principle I saw how he could stand up and claim that he was still fighting a good rearguard action for those opposed to the dam.
I do not know who opposed the former minister of agriculture in the cabinet but since it has been mentioned here by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) that the former minister of agriculture was in favour of the dam I can only assume there must have been some one in the cabinet of the previous administration opposed to it. I could not help but contrast the attitude of the

previous government with the attitude of the present administration. Here we have a government thinking and working only toward having this old political football brought to a happy conclusion. In spite of some provocation and obstruction this government has moved forward and signed an agreement. The agreement was tabled August 1 in this house. And then suddenly, as a smokescreen, we have had this type of diversion on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. As I look at this thing it leads me to believe this is either an effort to fight a delaying action on the bill-


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is no bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is the bill?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would permit a question. I would ask him where is the bill on this subject about which he now speaks?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what we are asking for.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, we are not interested in small-time diversions. We are interested only in the diversion of this water for useful purposes.
I am just going to put it bluntly to those in the front benches of the official opposition. When you speak about a man who is not used to using weasel words, think of the other connotation we can put on that expression.
Since these national benefits are now accepted by the official opposition it is interesting to point out to hon. gentlemen opposite that we are the only ones who have accepted this proposition on the basis of the report of the royal commission. I take it they have now repudiated the royal commission's report and its findings.
There has been some suggestion that the cost would be the same figure they show here. I assume they have repudiated the recommendations of this commission and therefore I can now go on and speak about the other argument that has been put forward in this house and in western Canada dealing with the question of the cost of this project to my province of Saskatchewan. I believe I can do it best by asking hon. members to make a simple comparison.
The federal government over the next eight years will have to put up $75 million cash plus some additional amount of say $11 million or $12 million by way of a loan, making a total of $87 million. On an annual basis this averages out to approximately $11 million per year. The provincial government during this same eight-year period will be putting up $12 million cash for the dam. It will be paying half of the $25 million which is its share in the form of a loan from us which it will
South Saskatchewan River Project have to pay back. The power will cost between $24 million and $35 million. I may tell the house there is no exact figure yet. The province's share of the penstocks will come to about $6 million but its share of the irrigation under a term the provincial government itself has asked for will be only approximately $8 million over the next eight years. And if you add up all these amounts including the full amount of the loan it comes to approximately $73 million or so. Over an eight-year period it will be an average of approximately $9 million. That is what the provincial government of Saskatchewan will be asked to put up each year. It will pay $9 million as opposed to the $11 million paid by the federal government.
Let us put the provincial payment of $9 million into perspective. I presume some of the money will be spent by the Saskatchewan power commission. I refer to the $24 million to $35 million. This year in Saskatchewan the commission is planning to borrow and spend $60 million for expansion of electrical and gas services for the province of Saskatchewan for one year alone. An additional $9 million a year for all irrigation and power expenses combined is a small figure compared with what is spent each year for the usual development and expansion of electrical and gas utilities in that province. This point should be kept in mind.
There has been some discussion about this government being discriminatory against Saskatchewan because last year the federal government made money available to provinces in the maritimes for power development under two bills, one relating to the Beechwood project and the other relating to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act. I should like to draw a comparison here. The sum of $30 million was advanced with respect to the Beechwood project over an eight-year period and has to be paid back. The government will also advance periodically as the need arises money for thermal power plants and transmission lines. The money will be loaned on a 30-year and 40-year basis and will have to be paid back.
We are also trying to help the coal industry. We believe the money thus spent will be of great assistance in maintaining this industry at a level of production that will keep the industry going until long range plans are brought into effect. I should like to point out that all the money advanced to the maritime provinces either for the Beechwood project or thermal power has to be paid back and in addition we have asked the maritime provinces to concentrate the advantages of all this financial assistance into the provision of cheaper industrial power.

South Saskatchewan River Project Those are the key things to remember about the maritimes side of the deal.
It is true that in Saskatchewan we are only advancing one-half of the provincial share of the dam on a 20-year basis. That was a concession not given to them in any previous agreement by any government and we have extended this concession. Where in the maritimes deal is there approximately $75 million being given without it being paid back? I believe that is the answer to that point of view.
In concluding I wish to mention that the hon. member for Villeneuve referred to page 90 of the report of the royal commission where it is recommended there should be a single administrative authority over the waters of the entire Canadian west and I believe the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) was working around to the same suggestion. I should like to point out that this report was given to the government in 1952. I can find nothing in the records to indicate that that particular recommendation or suggestion in the report was ever acted upon. This government came into power just a little over a year ago, and already we have made great steps forward in getting plans ready for the conservation conference to deal with this matter of water resources and their use all across the country. We are moving forward with this type of program.
Over the years many of us have recognized the great necessity of considering our country, not on the basis of narrow provincial boundaries but on the basis of all the provinces working together to help each other. We have had at least two examples to my knowledge in the last little while of provinces working together and getting more power cheaper because they did work together. It is true that this recommendation in the royal commission report is a long range solution to the whole problem of dealing with the resources of western Canada. Eventually, it will have to be looked at as a regional problem and it will take some time to get it into operation; but I think the effective answer is that we are in action on this very fundamental thing.
I have spoken on this resolution with some feeling because I think back now to the many long hours of work and the many long drives that some of us have had trying to make the farmers and the business people of western Canada realize that the only way we can get out of our difficulties in western Canada, where we are so dependent on the ups and downs of prices and of crops, is to do something to conserve this water moving through to the sea without being used. As I look back over the years and think of all those who were with us I realize that to us this

is truly a great agreement, and I hope that it will be remembered for many years.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) make it necessary for me to speak on this resolution. His main point and main complaint seem to be that the political strategy one member had contemplated for this measure did not work and he supported his remarks with a complaint about the constitutional question being dragged in. "Dragged in" were his own words. If he has any doubt about why they were dragged in I think we ought to clarify it. I think it is apparent from his remarks that he did not understand the situation at all.
The resolution before us reads:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan respecting the South Saskatchewan river project, signed on the 25th day of July, 1958, and that this house do approve the same.
This resolution, if approved, concludes the matter. What is usual in this type of subject matter and this type of question is a resolution reading like this:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to approve the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan respecting the South Saskatchewan river project, signed on the 25th day of July, 1958.
The latter, and the correct procedure, would give all hon. members an opportunity to question the ministry in committee of the whole house on two occasions, namely at the resolution stage and again at the committee stage of the bill. I wish to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources what is it that he does not want to be questioned about when he takes the extraordinary procedure of introducing this resolution. What is it about this project that he does not want discussed? What information is he not willing to give or is not able to give? Why this extraordinary procedure? I point out to him that in the latter part of his remarks he gave information as to the financial implications flowing from the agreement, but he did that after the house had been debating this measure for some time. He did not put himself in the position where we could ask him where he got an estimate for one figure he gave, or where he got the estimate for the other, or to ask him to produce the data on which he based those figures, and that sort of thing.
When he used the term "historical perspective" in relation to the fine document he quoted from, which was produced some 100 years ago, I ask him why lie does not apply

that terminology to the constitution and to the practices in this House of Commons? Why does he not use the same historical perspective and have some respect for the traditions of this House of Commons?
He went on to talk about the Prime Minister never quibbling or using weasel words in relation to this great project. Well, that is fine. No one accused the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) of using any weasel words at all in relation to this project, at least none that I heard, and I certainly have no intention of accusing him of any such thing. I have no such feeling; but what put that thought in the mind of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources? What did he mean when he talked about the other connotation of that expression? When he came back to the expression "quibbling, or using weasel words", I thought of one of the meanings that he ought to have given it. Did he apply it to the remarks or to the action? Some of us have some regard for the action taken in these things. What was the motive he was seeking to answer in making the kind of argument he did?
He used other language in describing the right of any opposition member to speak about this great new project now to be undertaken. He used the term "smokescreen" because Liberal members in speaking on the subject are seeking to raise a question that is an important one affecting the rights of this parliament. Then a little later on he referred to it as small-time diversion . They are not small; they are very important and very basic. I want to remind him-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am sure the hon. member would not mind a correction. The term "small-time diversion" was in regard to the use of the word "bill".


George James McIlraith: Well, that is my whole point, Mr. Speaker. He regards the right to have this measure brought properly before parliament and the house resolved into committee of the whole at the resolution stage and again at the bill stage so that we can ask questions as a small-time diversion. In other words, the government now no longer is to answer any questions of members of parliament.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Nonsense.


George James McIlraith: It is not nonsense. You were one who had a part in the decision and you must accept your share of the responsibility for the method of bringing this measure before parliament.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do.
South Saskatchewan River Project


George James McIlraith: Then, you will answer for it and it will not be to me. You will answer for it in the ordinary way in due course to the Canadian voters.
I also wish to point out that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources referred to this thing as a political football. After that he went on to talk about some development measures in this country. I was very glad to hear him talk about the development measures in this country. I would point out to the minister that at the present time less national development is going on in Canada than at any time since the conclusion of the second great war. I would also point out that this great measure-and I am glad to see it going forward and moving ahead-is now coming forward at a time when we are just completing the great pipe line for bringing gas from western Canada to central Canada, one of the greatest engineering projects in this field in the world. That was brought forward just after that great national project, the St. Lawrence seaway, probably one of the outstanding development projects in the world. To use the minister's own words, he should at least use a bit of historical perspective in considering these matters.
I know that hon. members are anxious to get forward with the business of the house and I have no quarrel with them for being somewhat impatient at this stage of the session. It is a feeling I sometimes share myself and I cannot quarrel with anyone for it. But I think it should be pointed out to hon. members supporting the government on this measure that the practice being followed today is closure with a vengeance, the like of which has never been seen in the Canadian parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Grafftey:: Nonsense.


George James McIlraith: I want to point out that this method of proceeding with respect to this measure, which I know has interested so many hon. members so much, particularly those from the west, and which they are so impatient to get ahead with, is really legislation by concealment, concealment of the facts that we are entiled to elicit from the minister in committee of the whole.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution to approve an agreement whereby federal financial assistance will be granted to the government of Saskatchewan to develop a project which will provide both hydro power and water for irrigation in that province. Our leader has already indicated our support for the principle of the resolution and there is no

South Saskatchewan River Project need for me to elaborate on that point. Coming from a province which has a considerable hydroelectric power potential, it would be natural for me to support a principle of this kind.
Before I go further, I should like to correct a statement made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) a few minutes ago. With reference to the former prime minister of Canada, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, he said that he was a man of great intellectual integrity and that he was opposed to this project and had said so. I have been here since 1949 and have heard the project discussed on numerous occasions. I do not think anyone can find anywhere in the record any words spoken by the former prime minister indicating that he was opposed to the project. On numerous occasions he said that he was in favour of it, that is was a desirable thing to do, but he pointed out that we were engaged in the other developments mentioned by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) such as the St. Lawrence seaway, Trans-Canada Air Lines and the pipe line and that this project would have to compete with other projects of that kind. What the former prime minister did say was that he was convinced at that time that the returns to the national economy from the South Saskatchewan project would not be commensurate with the drain upon the national economy through interest, amortization and other fixed charges.
My main purpose in intervening in the debate is to re-echo the hope expressed by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) that this resolution will mark another step forward towards the development of a national policy respecting the development of water resources. In my own riding at Bay D'Espoir there is a potential of half a million horsepower and the development of that waterpower would transform the whole economy of my riding which at the present time must depend upon the fisheries, the only other resource available. Not only would it transform the economy of my riding but no other single project could contribute as much to the improvement of the economy of our province. Therefore I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) to consider the development of a national policy whereby the same assistance as will be granted Saskatchewan under the resolution may be made available to all provinces along the lines indicated by the principle of the resolution.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the hon. Minister of Agriculture speaks now he will close the debate. Perhaps I should say that that is my interpretation of rule 37. The house will recall that the Prime Minister opened the debate by moving the motion on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture. On that account I consider that is the effect of the rule.


Mr. L. D. Cresiohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address myself for a moment to a procedural problem which I do not seem to be able to reconcile with the present situation. We are asked to approve by resolution the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan. It is a fait accompli. The agreement has been completed and signed. I think we are just going through the motions pure and simple without being able to have any effect on it. If this were a resolution that it was expedient to introduce a measure to approve a proposed agreement I could see that parliament would then have something to debate. We would then be in the position of the government planning to sign an agreement with the government of Saskatchewan and asking parliament to approve a resolution that it was expedient to present a bill and so on. But from my standpoint we are simply faced now with something that is already accomplished. I find it difficult to reconcile this resolution with other resolutions that have come before the house in the terms referred to by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), namely that it is expedient to present a measure to do so and so and so and so. Somehow or other we are avoiding something. I cannot put my finger on it but to me this just does not seem to add up.
If the government had come before parliament, said that they planned to enter into an agreement with the province of Saskatchewan to do this and asked for permission to introduce a bill to that effect, I could understand that procedure because it would be regular. Some hon. members who have spoken before me have said that this is a novel procedure. If it is novel we should tread very cautiously. For example, last week we adopted a measure to build a bridge. We did it by a bill. If we are to follow this procedure it could have been done just as easily by introducing a resolution to this effect, be it resolved that a bridge be built between this place and that place. We would then have done it by resolution without requiring a bill. It is that sort of legislation that puzzles me. I think the Prime Minister interjected, when one hon. member was speaking, that this is not novel procedure

and does not set a new precedent. I would be grateful if he would point out to the house when legislation of this kind, and of this importance, was proceeded with in this way.
I am somewhat of a novice in the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member is verging really on a point of order. This resolution is before the house quite regularly and he need not feel concerned on that account. It is quite in order, so the matter of it not being properly before parliament does not arise.


Leon David Crestohl: I bow to your decision; you are quite right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have entertained a good deal of comment as being relevant concerning how this might have been done otherwise, but the line which the hon. member has been following, it seems to me, verges on being a criticism of the procedure of the house. Actually, what we are doing is quite in order.


Leon David Crestohl: I accept Your Honour's decision. Nevertheless I would appreciate if the Prime Minister would point out to the house a precedent for this.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I need to repeat the caution which I gave before that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate. I would have taken the same view if the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had spoken now, because he would then be speaking twice in the same debate and the only means by which that could be justified would be that he was again speaking for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness).


Douglas Scott Harkness: In so far as this resolution is concerned, the opposition have attempted to raise a constitutional issue where no constitutional issue whatever exists. This is a good example of the paucity of issues upon which they can attack the government when they try to build up a completely imaginary case. Actually, the situation in regard to matters of this kind, I think, can be stated fairly briefly. There are really three ways in which a matter of this kind can be handled. We could have had an item in the estimates, and you get legislative authority as a result of the passage of the item in the estimates. I shall come back to that method later, but that is what the previous government did on a few occasions.


George James McIlraith: That is not true.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I shall come back to this later and demonstrate that it is true.
South Saskatchewan River Project
The second way in which it could have been handled is the way in which it is being done in this case, by a resolution introduced in the house to approve the agreement, and that is done in conjunction with an estimate to provide the money.
The third way in which the thing could be handled would be by the passage of a bill through the house. This is the way in which the members of the opposition say the matter should be handled, and that to do it any other way is unconstitutional and so forth.


Leon David Crestohl: I rise on a point of order. You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the constitutional question does not arise and that the resolution is properly before the house. I see no reason for the minister having to defend that position.


Mr. Speaker:: Just to make it clear, I did not take any exception to the constitutional argument concerning the preferable way of doing these things, the only point I made with the hon. member was that this present motion is one regular way of doing it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The purpose of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, is to afford to parliament an opportunity of debating and passing judgment upon the action taken by the government in entering into this agreement with the province of Saskatchewan. As I have indicated, this could be done in different ways. There could have been a bill passed and a statute enacted expressly approving the agreement and appropriating at the same time all the contributions to be made by the government of Canada in respect of the project. Under those circumstances, parliament would have but one opportunity of dealing with the matter, and that is all. They would have been "all washed up" in connection with it. The money would have been appropriated for years and years to come by that bill. This, of course, was the method which was followed by the former government in a few cases, and the trans-Canada highway is one example.
In this case, parliament will be asked to provide the necessary funds in the ordinary way by an annual appropriation. This method was followed on the grounds that appropriations made on an annual basis as funds are required will be more realistic than a lump sum appropriation in advance of the whole project. Furthermore, of course, parliament is given the opportunity of reviewing the work annually as it progresses, whereas if we had acted in the way hon. gentlemen opposite have asked, that is by the passage of a bill, that opportunity would not be there. We would deal with the whole thing at this time, and years from now as the work was being carried on there would be

South Saskatchewan River Project no appropriation in the estimates and parliament would not have an opportunity of examining the project.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the hon. minister would permit a question for clarification, two questions really. In so far as the first and third methods he outlined are concerned, namely with a resolution and a bill, I take it he would admit two things. First, that the bill may or may not provide for all the expenditures in connection with the measure, that is that the bill could provide for some of the expenditures to start the project and there might be further moneys appropriated by estimates. Would he admit that? Second, would he agree that either the first method he suggested or the third method would give members of parliament an opportunity to question the minister and that the second method, the one presently being followed, is the only method that precludes hon. members from questioning the minister at this stage.


Douglas Scott Harkness: These questions, Mr. Speaker, demonstrate the fact that for the 15 years or 20 years he has been here the hon. member has not done his homework and does not know how these things are done, as I have pointed out to him on a few past occasions. If a bill were to provide for the entire cost of this project, and this is what the previous government has done on a number of occasions, then parliament would have no opportunity to question the minister about it afterwards. The procedure that we have followed, contrary to what hon. members opposite have said to the effect that it is a method of bypassing parliament or, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill) said, bypassing the usual procedures of parliament and attempting to use slick procedures, attempting to use a type of closure-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the minister permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: When I have completed this portion. These statements are all complete nonsense. As a matter of fact, the procedure which hon. gentlemen opposite have requested would afford far less opportunity for a review by parliament than the procedure which we have followed. Under this procedure every year when these estimates come before the house the house will have a full opportunity of asking all the questions they want to ask of the minister or of the government in connection with the project as it proceeds. The procedure that they have requested would mean that such an examination would not take place. Once the bill had been passed, the thing would be finished, 
and there would be no more questioning of the government in connection with it. This method, which hon. gentlemen opposite have said bypasses the usual procedure of parliament, provides for full parliamentary control, much more so than the procedure followed by the previous government in so far as some construction projects were concerned.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My question is this. Will the minister inform us what opportunity we will have to discuss this agreement before we are asked to approve of it?


Douglas Scott Harkness: They have had all day today to discuss it; they have had a full opportunity to discuss it and could have asked any questions that they wanted to ask.


George James McIlraith: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact, the only hon. member who did that was the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas). I have a list of those questions which I took from the blue sheets, as unfortunately I was not able to be here this morning, and I propose to answer them. The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) did not really want any more information about this project, what they wanted to do was to raise an imaginary issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: We want a great deal of information.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said it was an unprecedented type of resolution, the sort of thing which had never been done before. That is quite incorrect and, he very well knows, in practically all cases where Canada makes an agreement with other countries no change is necessary in the law.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is Saskatchewan another country?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is exactly the same thing here, and all that is done is that a resolution is put through the house, exactly the same as in this case, for parliament to approve of the agreement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When we have to spend $100 million? It has never been done.


Leon David Crestohl: Since when was Saskatchewan another country?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Leader of the Opposition went on to say that his party was not going to fail into the trap set by this legislation. There is no trap in this legislation; there was never any thought of a trap ih

this legislation. Those ideas dwell only in the dark recesses of his own mind, which seems to produce these suspicions without the slightest difficulty.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Guilty conscience.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And then he went on to say, "If we vote against it on constitutional grounds we will be said to be against the project." Mr. Speaker, I can well understand the sensitiveness of the Leader of the Opposition and of the other members of the former Liberal government in regard to this matter, for they were in power for 22 years, during which period they could have put this into effect, but they refused to enter into an agreement with Saskatchewan during those 22 years.


George James McIlraith: Would the minister permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The answer is no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No questions; I thought you said we could ask questions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I refuse to have the hon. member for Ottawa West take up my time with pointless and witless questions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The rights of parliament!


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I was saying, I can understand the sensitiveness of hon. members opposite with respect to the South Saskatchewan dam. They refused for 22 years when they were in power to enter into an agreement or to go ahead and build this dam. Now they come in here and they talk about weasel words. What weasel words were used by them during that period, and what weasel words are being used by them now, when they come here and talk about how the former minister of agriculture was in favour of this project. And he was, but they nowhere point out that he completely failed to persuade other members of the Liberal government to go ahead with the project.
Today they are trying to ride on the coat tails of the former minister of agriculture in regard to their approval of this project and are trying to have the general public forget that for 22 years they said, "No, the project is not economic and we will not build it."


Leon David Crestohl: There was a war on during that time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There was no war from 1945 on, and surely those 13 years were quite long enough to initiate the project.


An hon. Member:: There was an adjustment period after the war.
South Saskatchewan River Project


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Leader of the Opposition went into quite a to-do about the disregard of parliament, and I think I have already dealt with this matter-there is no disregard for parliament whatsoever. I would like to point out that in so far as all projects of this nature are concerned the previous government to which he belonged never submitted them to parliament at all except in the form of an estimate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not true.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have in my hand a list of all the major projects of an irrigation nature, the building of dams and so on, which were built by the previous government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Under authorized legislation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The St. Mary's dam and irrigation system and the Bow river irrigation project.


George James McIlraith: Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act-why do you mislead the house?


Douglas Scott Harkness: These two projects were really-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: These two projects, and they are all really the integrated irrigation system in the southern part of Alberta, came to $46 million, and how did the former government deal with that matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Under legislation.


George James McIlraith: Under legislation in this parliament in the usual way.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The only way in which they dealt with those matters was by means of items in the estimates year after year. There was never any bill submitted to the house nor was there any agreement such as we have put forward in connection with this matter. They signed agreements with the government of Alberta, but they did not submit those agreements to parliament for approval. All they did was to put an item in the estimates, and as I said to begin with, legally and constitutionally that is quite correct. That is one of the ways in which such things can be dealt with, and I outlined three ways in which they can be dealt with. That is one of them, but it does not give as much opportunity to parliament to deal with the matter as the procedure which we have followed. As a matter of fact we are using that procedure plus a procedure of submitting the agreement, as we have today, for parliament to express its approval or disapproval.


George James McIlraith: Without giving parliament a chance to discuss it.

South Saskatchewan River Project


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, this constitutional problem that they have attempted to raise is complete nonsense, it amounts to nothing whatever. I have a whole list of these irrigation projects, dams and so on, which the former government authorized, and in not one case did they pass a bill and in not one case did they submit an agreement to parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was all done under bills.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, in not one case did they ever submit an agreement to parliament nor did they submit a bill to parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They were all authorized by bills.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think that blows sky high the allegation of the Leader of the Opposition that there was disregard for parliament, and it shows how hollow an argument it is and how hard up for ideas he is when he raises it.
The hon. member for Ottawa West made no contribution to this debate, but he did make one statement which I think I should immediately refute. He was speaking of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) and he said, "What is it that you do not want to discuss in regard to this project, what are you trying to hide?"
What he was attempting to do in that statement was to insinuate something to lead the people of this country to believe that we have something to hide here, that there is something we do not want to bring out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Probably another secret report.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A completely unworthy and reprehensible piece of conduct on the part of the member for Ottawa West. We have absolutely nothing to hide.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps then the minister would allow a few questions of the government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact, the opposition will have the next several years, in fact the next six or eight years if some of them are still here, which is very doubtful, in which to question us about this matter, and about this project as it proceeds-


Lester Bowles Pearson: After the agreement is final.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -or anything else along that line.


George James McIlraith: Maybe the new Minister of Agriculture will be prepared to answer our questions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Hon. members opposite will have all the opportunity they wish to discuss the matter in any manner they desire. But these members are trying to insinuate that 
we have something to hide, and I do not think that is very good business on their part. I am rather surprised to find the hon. member for Ottawa West stooping to that sort of thing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then why did you not follow the normal procedure?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) said that we were placing before the house something that was already in effect accomplished, so what was the use of bringing this forward now? Well, the use is this-it provides an opportunity for parliament to discuss this agreement which has been made and, of course, if parliament does not approve of it, then it provides an opportunity for them to throw out the government. It is the same in connection with every bill introduced in this house by the government- if the majority of members do not approve of the bill they can defeat the government, and we did the same thing as far as this resolution is concerned.


Leon David Crestohl: Would the minister permit a question? Would the minister not say that expecting the approval of the resolution means taking parliament for granted?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. It is not taking parliament for granted. We know that the resolution is an extremely good one and that it will commend itself to the house. In fact, the hon. gentlemen opposite have said they are going to vote for it. They approve of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly what we said you would say.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentlemen in the corner are going to vote for it, everybody is going to vote for it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is why you put it in this way.


George James McIlraith: That is why you used the closure method of putting this measure through.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is where the trap is.


George James McIlraith: We now have had the trap explained by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness).


Douglas Scott Harkness: As was indicated by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the hon. gentlemen opposite, having refused to build this dam for 22 years, are now trying to cover that up and to get into people's minds that they were not really opposed to it, although they nevertheless failed to build it.
There were a few comments made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) about which I should like to say something:

"The main dam is to be turned over to the province for operation. Saskatchewan would have preferred that the operation of this dam be assumed by the federal government in perpetuity. This is another responsibility that the Saskatchewan government has been asked to assume." Then the hon. member goes on to complain about the amount the Saskatchewan government may have to pay, and so on. What he is doing, apparently, is par-rotting some of the remarks which have been attributed in press statements to Premier Douglas, to the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture, and so on. Here is a clipping from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix in which Premier Douglas is reported as having said:
In the course of negotiations Ottawa has insisted that Saskatchewan should assume responsibility for operating and maintaining the dam when it is completed. We are, therefore, seeking some assurance that Saskatchewan and its citizens will be safeguarded against financial loss in the unlikely event of a failure in the dam following its construction. [DOT]
What the hon. member for Assiniboia has said today amounts to just the same thing. This statement is absolutely incorrect. The original agreement which we offered to the province of Saskatchewan provided that we would operate and maintain the dam in perpetuity in the same way as we operate and maintain the St. Mary's river dam in Alberta, and the agreement went forward on that basis. There was never any question about that. But the premier of Saskatchewan thought they should take over the operation of the dam. It was their request; they asked to take over the operation. We did not ask them to do it. They asked us and we agreed to it. At the same time, though they wanted to take over the operation they wanted us to be responsible for the maintenance. I pointed out the difficult situation which would result if one government was responsible for maintaining the dam and another for operating it. Difficulties between the two bodies would constantly be arising and it just would not make a reasonable undertaking. Premier Douglas agreed with this point of view, and he agreed to take over both the operation and the maintenance of the dam. Other aspects of the agreement were modified in consequence.
Then, after the whole thing was done and sent to be signed-after we had made a lot of concessions in the light of what had been agreed to-Saskatchewan made a demand that we should assume both the operation and the maintenance of the dam. It just was not a reasonable proposition. And if there is any question of the operation and maintenance being in the hands of Saskatchewan it is because the premier of Saskatchewan
South Saskatchewan River Project asked for it himself, not because we tried to force it upon the province. So much for that point.
A little further on, the hon. member said-


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what document the Minister of Agriculture is quoting from. I can tell him I do not mind if he continues quoting, but I know that we on this side, when we have the same document in our hands as I believe he has, have been asked not to quote from the document because it is not an official record. I think it is not within the rules of the house that the minister should quote-


Douglas Scott Harkness: These are the blue sheets which I borrowed from the press gallery.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is exactly my point of order. I am not objecting, myself, as long as the same rule applies in the future to all hon. members. However, my understanding is that it is against the rule to quote from the document the minister is quoting from.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It certainly is.


Mr. Speaker:: The point is a novel one for me. In my experience I have never asked anyone to refrain from quoting from these documents and rather than commit myself to a ruling now I should like to see what the practice has been in the past. I understand the hon. member has no objections to the quotations.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, but I do think that if this practice is one that is to be followed it is one which makes the Hansard, record of little value, if this is to be taken as the official reproduction. But I have no objection now, in view of the statement which has been made, to the minister quoting from the unofficial document.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If there is any question about this I will not use it at all. I will forget it. I thought the hon. gentleman would be happy to have me quoting him but apparently he objects.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, that is not the point. I am perfectly happy for the minister to keep on quoting, but I raise the point of order because if quotations are going to be read in this way we would like to have the same privilege at future sittings of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I understand the matter is resolved without a decision at this time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member went on to say that we had been very hard on Saskatchewan, that we have laid greater and

South Saskatchewan River Project greater burdens on them and that we were asking them to bear an undue share of the cost.
As a matter of fact I think our treatment of Saskatchewan in connection with this agreement was extremely generous. The original agreement which was submitted to the province of Saskatchewan was an agreement which had been drawn up by the Right Hon. Mr. Gardiner, the former minister of agriculture. It had been submitted to the province of Saskatchewan and they had agreed to accept it. Mr. Gardiner brought it back here, but the Liberal government refused to sign it. However, the government of Saskatchewan had agreed to accept that agreement which was drawn up, apparently, between the former minister of agriculture and themselves.
We offered them that agreement over a year ago. Had they accepted it, as they had accepted it formerly, construction could have started a year ago instead of starting right now. Their action delayed construction, because they would not agree to this agreement which they had said previously they would accept. They wanted concessions. We made a large number of concessions. We gave them a much better deal than they had been offered by the Right Hon. James Gardiner, though, I might add, he had no authority to offer it. We offered them a much better deal, finally. Thus, why there should be complaints of this kind on the part of the hon. member for Assiniboia, or on the part of anybody in the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan, I find it difficult to understand. They have had extremely generous terms as far as this government is concerned. In fact, I have seen some editorials in some eastern newspapers to the effect that the terms have been too generous rather than the reverse.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Have you read the Winnipeg Tribune?


Hazen Robert Argue: Could I ask the minister a question at this point?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. My time is getting short, but should I have any time left later I would be glad to deal with any questions that might arise.
The hon. member for Villeneuve in dealing with the matter posed a considerable number of questions. He complained that this had been done by resolution. I have already dealt with that point. And then he wanted to know whether or not we were satisfied with the estimate of the cost, and so forth. I can only say that I personally, as the minister responsible, am quite satisfied with the estimated cost. The hon. member knows as well as I do that an estimate made now with regard to a project which is not going to

be completed for six or eight years may not prove to be correct because if prices go down the cost will be less, and if prices rise the cost will be more. I would point out there is an item included which provides for a gradual rise in prices.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister draw that to the attention of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker)?


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member who has just spoken had been devoting more attention to these things when he was in the government he might still have been there, and the same applies to his colleagues. Now to return to the estimated cost, I am satisfied that this estimate is a good estimate. As a matter of fact, three of the greatest experts on earth-filled dams in the world have been consulted in connection with this matter. They have been consultants to this project for several years past. I think the estimate is a good estimate. I am not predicting that it is going to cost exactly that amount because no one knows what will happen in the next eight years with regard to prices going up or down.
The next point the hon. member wanted covered was when does the government intend to begin this work and the answer is that it has already begun. Tenders for the first piece of work in connection with the construction of an access road 12 miles in length from a main highway near Loreburn to the damsite were put out immediately after the agreement was signed. I believe tenders closed on August 18 and I expect to be able to announce the awarding of the contract almost immediately.
Tenders have also been put out or are in process of being put out for construction of the campsite. A tender will also be put out for another access road. This does not involve the building of a road but calls for putting a gravel surface on a municipal road which already exists, to give access to the north to highway No. 15 which runs east and west, north of the dam.
Another contract to be let very shortly is for the preparation of the aggregate which will be needed to go into the dam. Another contract will be for the building of a work bridge required for construction purposes. All these will be called for this fall and work will be started on them. Another is the excavation-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: -where the abutment of the dam will go in on the eastern side of the structure. That will involve the movement

of over four million cubic yards of earth. All these contracts will be let this fall.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just a minute until I finish answering these questions. I cannot answer three at once. When I have answered the questions asked by the hon. member for Villeneuve I will be glad to answer yours.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The next question was in connection with the function of the construction board. That is set out in detail on page 15 of the agreement. I do not think I had better take the time to go over what the functions of the construction board will be. That board will consist of four members appointed by the federal government and three members appointed by the provincial government. Generally speaking the function of the board will be to exercise a sort of general supervision over this work as it proceeds during the time the dam is under construction, and particularly it is to serve as a body through which any difficulties which may arise between the federal government on one hand and the provincial government on the other hand can be ironed out and decided upon.
The next question related to the time in which the work is to be completed. The estimates in connection with this question vary between six and ten years. These estimates have been made by various people. Most people who are qualified to judge think the dam will be completed in a period ranging between six and eight years. No precise estimate of the time can be given because that will depend to a considerable extent on the amount of flooding which comes down the river each year as the work is in progress. If there is a particularly high level of water it will hold back construction for a considerable length of time each year. As I say, because the speed of construction is going to depend on the weather and also, of course, on the difficulties that may be encountered, no more precise estimate of the time of construction can be given than six to eight years.
The hon. member for Villeneuve also raised a question about whether there would be one large contract for this dam. I believe he expressed the idea that a considerable number of people were of the opinion that that is what should be done. Is that not correct?


Armand Dumas: That is correct.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We are following exactly the reverse procedure. We think it is very much wiser on a project of this nature to let smaller contracts for two reasons. First of 57071-3-280
South Saskatchewan River Project all it gives many more contractors an opportunity to tender and therefore you get more competition, more bids and lower prices. There will be the various contracts I have mentioned that will be let this fall. There will be six separate contracts and I suppose six different people will get them. In addition to that if you let one large contract for the whole project most of the work would be subcontracted anyway by the large contractor and it is impossible for a contractor to give a firm price on something which is not going to be completed for eight years. The only sort of price they will give is one which has an escalator clause in it. We considered it very much wiser to have small contracts. As I say, it gives a greater opportunity for smaller Canadian contractors if it is let through a series of contracts as the work progresses at a time when contractors are in a position to know definitely the prices for which they are prepared to do the work. Also if you let it in one large contract there is only a limited number of people in this country who would be able to undertake it and if there were only one large contract it would be more likely that the contract would be secured by someone in another country. For all those reasons we considered it much wiser to let it in a series of smaller contracts.
I believe I have covered most of the points that were raised. I have not gone into the many values of this project.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe the minister said he would answer a question of mine, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will. As I was saying, I have not discussed in detail the many values of this project because they were ably covered by the Prime Minister in his statement earlier today and in statements he has made at various other times over the years. The values of this project were also capably covered in the remarks of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, those of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cooper) and those of other hon. members who have spoken.


Harold Edward Winch: I would like to call you as a witness before the committee on public accounts.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I therefore did not think it necessary for me to go into the many values of this project.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to make a comment to the minister. In view of what you just said, I would like to call you as a witness before the committee on public accounts.

South Saskatchewan River Project


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I believe one or two hon. members had some questions and I will be glad to answer them at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, my question is a very simple one.


Mr. Baskin:: It would have to be simple coming from you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) if before the government decided on this policy of calling a number of small contracts he consulted his colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green)? My reason for asking that question is that we have been told repeatedly in another place that this is a most unbusinesslike way of proceeding.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have outlined the reasons why we considered it wiser to let a number of smaller contracts. As I said, if we were to let it to one large contractor he would let the work to a number of small subcontractors and take off his percentage of the profit. In a project of this kind you have all kinds of different types of contracts. I have already mentioned six contracts to be let this fall, each of which is different. One is for a road to be built; one for a road to be resurfaced; one is for the preparation of aggregate which means cleaning and washing of gravel and so forth; one is for the construction of a bridge; and one is for an excavation job. They are altogether different types of contracts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have one more question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister by any chance read the evidence of Mr. Cormier because he gave exactly the same reasons in the public accounts committee.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the minister but in view of his statement about the advantages of letting a number of small contracts I wanted to invite him to appear as a witness before the public accounts committee because hon. members of the Conservative party have been damning the previous government because it let individual contracts and not one general contract, and over eight years, too.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the reason they are raising complaints about it is that it was spread over eight years and should have been done in two years. In this case we know it is going to take six or eight years and are governing ourselves accordingly.


Mr. Benidickson:: It will probably take 16 years, then.


Mr. Deschatelets:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister. Is this project in his opinion a project of national importance-


An hon. Member:: Where have you been?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -and, if so, why is the
federal government forcing the province of Saskatchewan to pay $25 million?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, in my opinion it is very definitely a matter of national importance, and one which the hon, gentleman's previous leader and party apparently could not understand was one of national importance. I am glad to see that they are now coming around to see that it is. Certainly, we have always taken that point of view and we are proceeding on that basis.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Why should we force the province of Saskatchewan to pay $25 million? That is the second part of my question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the reason for that is very simple. The project is of national importance. There is no question about that. But the greatest benefit is going to go to Saskatchewan and the people of Saskatchewan and therefore it seems reasonable that they should pay some proportion of the cost.
Many things are done under the Department of Agriculture in the way of constructing dams, drainage works, and so on, which are the concern of a province or, in some cases, the municipality and they are asked to bear a proportion of the share of the cost. That has been done on numerous occasions under the previous government ever since this type of work has been carried on by the dominion government.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister's time has now expired and it is my duty to put the question. Further questions cannot be put except by unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the end of it.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed to the motion will please say nay. I declare the motion carried with no voice to the contrary.
And more than five hon. members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; I had already declared the motion carried but members may have been standing before.


Harold Edward Winch: It is carried unanimously and everybody knows it.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: You boys do it every time.


Hazen Robert Argue: When we do it we do it at the right time.


John George Diefenbaker: Your Honour did act
pretty fast. There is a desire for a vote and I see no reason why it should be denied.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that this motion was passed and the business completed. Is it competent to the house to open again a question that has been settled at that session?


Mr. Speaker:: I declared the motion carried. I left the door open by saying I may not have seen the members who had risen before. If there were members standing at that time I certainly do not want to deprive any members of their right to have a recorded vote and therefore I shall ask the members to be called in.



RAILWAY ACT


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-52, to amend the Railway Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On Clause 1-Limit of amount to be applied.


Mr. Chevrier:: Has the minister a statement to make?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman. I made a statement at the resolution stage and a short statement on second reading of the bill. The bill has received thorough consideration in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I think that just about all that needs to be said about it has been said.


Lionel Chevrier: The main object of the bill is to place $5 million at the disposal of the grade crossing fund and also to increase the amount that can be paid out of the grade crossing fund from 60 per cent to 80 per cent. However, if one looks at the bill the accent seems to be placed on the reflective markings that are to be put on the sides of railway cars and all through the first section of the bill that seems to be the most important part, which deals with an amendment to section 265 of the act. I should like to ask the minister why the bill has been framed in this fashion?


George Harris Hees: I believe that probably the hon. member for Laurier felt when he was minister it is sometimes difficult to understand exactly

Railway Act
why those who draw up these bills do so in the way that they do. However, when he reads the bill I think he will agree that the provisions are all outlined in it. I think it is all very clear once you have read through the three clauses.


Lionel Chevrier: I wish I could agree with that.


George Harris Hees: I hope he will agree with me.


Mr. Peters:: I should like to say that we hoped for a great deal more than appears to be in the bill. Certainly we are very appreciative of the fact that the minister seems to have attached a great deal of importance to this matter of reflective markings on box cars. We believe there are a number of other things that should have been done along this line and which should have been put in this bill. 1 think that at the resolution stage we mentioned such things as increasing the effectiveness of the horns which are now used on diesel trains by changing them so that they would be similar to the sound of a steam whistle.
During the last few days I noticed while driving in rural areas that many of the railway crossing signs are still those that were originally erected many years ago. They are right at the railway crossing and have no reflective markings of any type on them, many of them have not even been painted for some time. I think, in the near future, consideration must be given to the speed with which people approach railway crossings today as compared with the speed at which they approached those crossings when the original signs were erected. A great deal more emphasis must be put upon the markings on railway crossings, and this includes block signals and crossings at which houses are built right up to the edge of the crossing so that a person approaching is given little opportunity to see if a train is coming. There is a great deal more that should be done in this field.
Then, of course, there is much work that could be done in the field of eliminating railway crossings altogether. I think this is a very important matter. I think we can safely say that before this Labour day week end is over, which some people in the country are enjoying, tragedy will strike at level crossings and the occupants of automobiles will be seriously hurt. I do not think we can treat this matter of the improvement of railway crossings too lightly. We hope the marking of cars will be extended to include engines. A great deal more money must be put into this fund so that we can bring all the crossings up to date. I am sure that the minister, because of the consideration he has given to this subject, will also take these other things

into consideration and we hope that they will be included in a bill to be introduced soon.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before this clause carries I should like to say that I am pleased to see provision is made for putting reflectors on box cars. I want to ask the minister a question because I know that with his encyclopaedic mind on transport matters he will be able to answer it. Why, in view of the experience and value of reflectors in many other ways for the protection of human life and safety, has it taken the government so long to come to the conclusion it is worthwhile to assist in the placing of reflectors on box cars? Could the minister inform the house how much it costs to put reflectors on box cars?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the estimated cost is in the vicinity of $15 per car and that at the present time there are 198,100 box cars in operation in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it that the balance of the 40 per cent is payable by the railway?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman, in future the government will pay 80 per cent of the cost.


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is 60 per cent for reflectors on box cars, out of the grade crossing fund, I take it?


George Harris Hees: If you read on, Mr. Chairman, into paragraph 4-as I say, I agree with the hon. member for Laurier that sometimes these things have to be done in a rather complicated way-in line 20 you find this:
The total amount that may be applied toward the cost of placing reflective markings on the sides of railway cars shall not exceed 80 per cent of such cost,-
Then, it goes on to deal with another matter.


Lionel Chevrier: How do you reconcile that with the first part of paragraph 2 which says that the total amount that may be applied toward the cost of placing reflective markings on the sides of railway cars shall not exceed 60 per cent of such cost?


George Harris Hees: Clause 2 applies to a statute which is a permanent statute. Clause 4 will apply for the next three years and I assume for a lot longer than that. I quite agree with the hon. member that this has perhaps been stated in a complicated way and all I can say is that I believe as hon. members read through the bill it all will become clear by the time they reach the end.


Lionel Chevrier: Clear as mud. May I come back to my first question-who pays the 20 per cent?


George Harris Hees: The railway pays the 20 per cent, Mr. Chairman.

Finance-Special Warrants Mr. Peters: Is there going to be any com- Mr. Hees: I am sure it will be something pulsion upon the railways to complete this of the nature which is most easily seen by work?	cars at night.


George Harris Hees: The board of transport commissioners hopes to reach an agreement in this regard.


William Arnold Peters: Could the minister inform us how long he anticipates it will take to complete such an agreement or to complete the work?


George Harris Hees: The meeting is scheduled for October, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it not a fact that the moment this bill goes into effect and application is made to the board, then it applies, and whether the railway agrees or not the 80 per cent for the three years must come out of the railway grade crossing fund and that the railway pays the other 20 per cent?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the meeting which will be held in October is to work out the mechanics of how it will be done, but that the principle is in effect once this bill is passed by parliament.


Hazen Robert Argue: Perhaps this is in the bill, although I have not had a chance to examine it in detail. Could the minister explain the intent here? Surely there is some period of time over which the agreement will operate. What is the objective of the government in connection with the date when all box cars will have these markings placed upon them- is it three years, five years, ten years or one year?


George Harris Hees: This arrangement will last three years, starting January 31 of this year, and I think certainly that when we approach January 31, 1961 this matter will again receive very serious consideration, and I have no doubt it will then be either continued or improved.


Lionel Chevrier: Could I put it this way, that perhaps the minister expects that during the three-year period while this will be in force the railways might be prevailed upon to mark all their box cars with these reflective markings?


George Harris Hees: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister inform the house what colour these reflectors are going to be?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, red, of course.


George Harris Hees: The exact colour has not yet been worked out, but that will be done-


Mr. Bourgel:: I presume it will be red on one side and blue on the other.


William Arnold Peters: Will the same type of thing apply to the signs referred to in subsection 270 of the act, which refers to sign boards? I suppose that means the cross arms which they now use on the railway. Is any consideration being given to moving those particular sign boards back from the railway crossings? They are now about 8 or 10 feet from railway crossings, and at the modern rate of speed of automobiles you are probably well past the railway crossing before you register what the sign said.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that any sign outside of the railway right of way is under the jurisdiction of the municipality and not of the railway.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-57, for approving certain expenditures authorized for the public service, and the application of certain amounts in the accounts, of the financial year ended the 31st March, 1958.


William Moore Benidickson: Has the minister any additional comments to make?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I doubt if there is anything I might usefully add to what I endeavoured to say on the resolution stage preceding the introduction of the present measure. The resolution was before the committee of the whole on August 19 and August 20, when I had an opportunity to make certain comments by way of explanation of the report on supply and the effect of the present bill. The debate is reported at page 3808 of Hansard for August 19 and at page 3822 and following pages of August 20. By this report on supply we have, I believe, fulfilled the undertaking given to this house on the opening of the present session and have fully accounted for the three governor general's warrants included in the approving provisions of the bill now before the house.
I pointed out at page 3809 of Hansard for August 19 that the house is being asked to approve of supply which was released, whether in the form of appropriations made

Finance-Special Warrants by parliament or by governor general's warrants. The house is not being asked to approve actual expenditure as such. The actual expenditure will be duly reported and, after audit by the Auditor General and included in the public accounts for the fiscal year 1957-58.
I have drawn attention to eleven items which are contained in the fourth column of the report on supply and which aggregated $110,042,595, and fully explained the purpose of those items, which are of a transfer or legislative character.


William Moore Benidickson: I fully realize that in what we hope will be the last week of the sittings of this particular session of parliament, when a member rises there is always a little consternation in some sections of the house and there is perhaps among some members the feeling that a debate of this kind is being unduly prolonged. It is true that in the bill we are considering here we are dealing with the bringing forth for debate, after a denial of the right, of certain governor general's warrants which were passed in the fiscal year 1957-58. Speaking as I do on one side of what might be called a no man's land ditch consisting of a big group of surplus Conservative members on my left, I realize their feelings but I must point out to them that they too often give unqualified, uncritical and, I think, all too generous support to the proposals of the administration. So it is the duty of the opposition, however small, to draw certain matters to the attention of the house. I wish to indicate to some of these new members just why debate is sometimes prolonged, and why I feel obliged to say something on this matter at the present time. Many hon. members are in the house today who were not in the house during the previous parliament-


John Cameron Pallett: And many hon. members are not here today who were in the previous parliament.


William Moore Benidickson: The Minister of Finance had certain comments to make on this bill about some economies he had introduced as a result of a few months of office. I just want to say to the new members that sometimes debate would not be so prolonged if some of the ministers introducing bills would stick to the facts and not engage in overmuch boasting or what I call peacocking about. Very quickly after assuming office the Minister of Finance gave a press interview on June 26, 1957, indicating there would be vast reductions in expenditure and economies as a result of the elimination of extravagances which he expected to find. And probably, in deference to that very widely publicized statement which was made in June,
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).l
the minister felt obliged in December, when he was making a financial statement, to make certain assertions to the house which I suggest do not hold water. Then the other day when he introduced a resolution preceding this bill he did the same thing and I suggest to hon. members that that is why there is an obligation on those of us who do not accept such assertions in an unqualified way to make some remarks at this time.
On December 6, 1957, the Minister of Finance in his financial statement which was sometimes called the baby budget but which was in fact a discussion of the first item of the estimates of the finance department of that year, felt obliged to stick out his chest and assert that the new administration was providing economies to the extent of some $170 million. We know that $100 million of that had reference to two provisions which had been cautiously put into the budget for the year by his predecessor with respect to sums which will eventually have to be paid. If these are eliminated from the accounts of last year there is nobody who studies the accounts of this country who does not know that both those items of $50 million each will eventually be a charge on the taxpayers -it was simply a matter of whether the expenditure would be deferred until another year or whether it would be taken in the accounts of the fiscal year which the hon. minister's predecessor proposed. One was an allowance against the reserve for assets and the other was a $50 million appropriation for a deficiency which actuaries tell us is in the superannuation account and must be made up sometime.
The minister indicated, of course, that beyond this there were some other things which he took great pride in claiming as economies and as savings due to the elimination of waste as a result of the change of adminis-tation. Again, not being too anxious to get legislation of this kind through in the present session when we had our first reference to governor general's warrants and appropriations for supply, in the new parliament on May 13 the Minister of Finance said he had succeeded in reducing the amount of the estimates which had been drawn up-he was referring to last year, the year we are discussing now-and tabled by the previous government that by efforts-I emphasize efforts-in the various departments of government the sum of $73.6 million had been eliminated.
It is bold, unjustified and boastful assertions of that kind which demand a reply. I have checked, and I find it is not unusual to have in almost every year what are known as lapses. The public accounts of 1956-57 which were tabled this session indicate that

the lapsing-the items that have been put earlier into the book of estimates but which at the end of the year were not fully spent- amounted to $86 million or 3 per cent. In the previous year 1955-56 lapsing amounted to $136 million or 4 per cent. I may say that none of these items have any reference to such items as appear in the document we will be studying more closely in a few minutes entitled "Loans investment and working capital advances". In the year before that, 1954-55 lapsing amounted to $359 million or 11 per cent, and in 1953-54 lapsing amounted to $309 million or 9J per cent. So I do not want new members to take seriously some of these assertions in introducing a measure of this kind such as I think the Minister of Finance is a little too prone to make. He is introducing a financial statement and I think we would make better progress if it was divorced from provocative political assertions which I think after examination do not bear much examination.
Similarly, when we discuss warrants and general business administration under appropriation bills we find it necessary to return to another assertion which, I say, was completely, political and unjustified, namely, the assertion by the Prime Minister in the course of the election campaign when he took a lot of figures together which totalled, I think, $1,185 millions. He referred to these as being public works items which would help to deal with the employment situation. Two hundred and eighty million dollars of this amount, he said, would be spent in the last quarter of the last fiscal year ending on March 31, 1957 and the impression was given to the public that this was something unique, something wonderful and different by reason of the right hon. gentleman's administration. We are dealing this afternoon with the appropriations which were recommended under the governor general's warrant including the last quarter of the last fiscal year, because parliament was not then sitting and instead of there being any increase in the category of public works and work-creating measures there were actually, in several categories, reductions under governor general's warrants as compared with the proposals which were introduced by the previous administration.
I might say in passing that this business of lapsing is a fairly normal one and when one looks at the time table of the preparation of government business and estimates one can readily understand how that would come about. The estimates are for the fiscal year commencing in April and they are normally examined by the treasury board and finally approved before Christmas in order that the blue book of estimates for the new year
Finance-Special Warrants commencing April 1 which we all receive shortly after parliament opens can be printed. One therefore recognizes that when the Minister of Finance in December 1957 made reference to certain economies against the background of the book of estimates prepared by his predecessor he was referring to estimates which had been prepared a year earlier. Consequently one can understand that there would be certain changes of plans and that within three months of the conclusion of the fiscal year every department of government could probably foresee, either some delay in getting plans or materials ready or the postponement and in some cases the abandonment of projects which it had seemed desirable to put in hand 12 months earlier. That is actually what we are dealing with now, but when I challenged the minister with it on August 20 when we were dealing with the resolution which proceeded the introduction of this bill, I obtained no reply.
One can look at the column in the bill which refers to things that the minister has always asserted were economies and savings. I asked him very definitely how much of this actually represented the cancellation of programs and the elimination of plans and how much was really in fact a simple deferment of the things we would be called upon to revote and doubtless in the current fiscal year. Perhaps the minister will recall some of the illustrations I gave him. Since that debate on August 20 we have had several references in this house to some of the larger items of this $73 million so called savings item.
We had a statement the other day from the ministry pointing out that they take pride in the fact that there was a step-up in sales of wheat and flour as a result of our contributions under the Colombo plan. 1 pointed out that the saving of ten million on the appropriation of last year would doubtless be picked up in the current year. We examined the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) with respect to maritime freight rates on Saturday and where there was a claim for an economy there we found it was a statutory item. I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) whether or not the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) had gone to him and asked him to scrimp a little bit with respect to disability pensions and veterans allowances. I could tell from the smile on the face of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and knowing him as I do that no economy was attempted in that sphere as claimed.
But nonetheless items of this kind are all part and parcel of this $73 million that has been presented to the people as savings and economies as a result of a change of administration. I say that interestingly enough they

Finance-Special Warrants compare with the lapsing and normal procedure that concludes the final accounting of every fiscal year of which I have given an illustration for four or five years.
The biggest item of the $73-odd million, of course, refers to the Department of National Defence. Here there is a claim of a saving of some $32 million. Again I have looked to the relationship between the maximum amount voted by parliament in previous years and the amount that might be expended by that department when the final accounts for the year are completed. In 1956-57 which is the last year which the Auditor General has reported upon to this house I found there was a lapsing in National Defence Department of $15,990,000. The previous year 195556 there was an underspending, shall I call it, of some $25 million and in the year before 1954-55 the underspending was no less than $242 million.
On December 5 in the last session I tried, I thought fairly valiantly, as did Mr. Henderson the former hon. member for Kingston, to get some breakdown in detail with respect to the savings that were represented in this item of $32 million. We were not very successful in our attempt. In a broad way we received some information from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) which appears on page 1903 of Hansard. I will not repeat that in too much detail but it refers to such an economy as the transfer of the ship Labrador from his department to the Department of Transport. It also refers to the cancellation of further production with respect to the CF-100 aircraft. I have no doubt that probably any administration examining an item that had been decided upon one year earlier with respect to something as volatile as decisions in the aircraft business would probably have reached that decision.
There was also some boasting about savings in travelling expenses of the troops. We have had a very extensive study of the defence department expenditures in the estimates committee and we found that there is to be a savings this year with respect to transportation but when we probed as to the reason we found that this is not one of the years when there will be a rotation of the troops in Europe which is an extremely expensive proposition and that it has now been decided to do this every three years and any very large saving is accounted for by this. It is such an attractive suggestion to say to the public that one has reduced travelling expenses!
This is just an illustration of the undesirability in presenting what is essentially a business statement of introducing it with preliminaries that are definitely of a political

character and must receive challenge in an assembly such as this. It is in the public interest that that be done.
As the minister has said, we have discussed the general question of governor general's warrants previously. We have done so on May 13 and 14. We discussed the Financial Administration Act on July 29 and I made reference to the history of bringing to this parliament an examination of these warrants at that time as I did on August 19 as reported at page 3766 of Hansard and on August 20 as reported at page 3822 of Hansard. I wish to point out, however, without repeating myself that there certainly is a Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde complex on the part of the Minister of Finance. When we regard his appreciation of the rights of parliament with respect to supply when he was sitting in opposition and the attempt that was made on February 1 by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) to say that the law would be satisfied irrespective of historic practice if the Minister of Finance simply announced his governor general's warrants to the house without debate.
The minister, of course, said we had had debate. We had it because we were debating on a point of order and not because the government decided to give us that historic privilege. I also wish to remind the minister that in the debate on May 14 we had a little argument as to just how much of the estimates of the 1957-58 fiscal year had received attention in the committee of supply in the last parliament and I think he said that more than one half had been approved. It is true that we had interim supply bills with respect to the ten-twelfths and in some instances with respect to the eleven-twelfths but I find that only five departments received discussion that could in any way be considered fairly full and six departments received partial consideration before dissolution of the parliament of last year. We also noted that the departments which were of particular public interest because of the economic crisis did not come before parliament at all. I refer to the Department of Labour, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport.
I must say we are grateful that there was a change of mind and heart with respect to the decision about giving us no opportunity in the committee of supply to consider governor general's warrants in some detail, a tradition that has existed since time immemorial. I congratulate the Minister of Finance for the form in which the information has been prepared. It was available at the time of the resolution and also appears as an appendix to the bill. I have no doubt that in committee we will be able to proceed item

by item if there is a desire, and this is a very convenient form of discussion.
Before concluding I wish to say that I have noticed all throughout this session another extremely undesirable practice setting in and some reference was made to it the other day by the Leader of the Opposition and myself; that is that we are asked in committee of supply to give consideration to the activities of the departments without having available the latest official report on the activities of the department. I believe it was an oversight, but it happens that the second biggest spending department of the government actually broke the law. There is a statute which says that within a certain period of time they must provide the House of Commons with a report on the activities of the department. I refer to the Department of National Health and Welfare which is making expenditures, statutory and items in the estimates, that exceed $1,200 million. We found to our great surprise and inconvenience, and to our great loss in the value of our work in committee, that when we were asked to examine the estimates of the Department of National Defence very closely in committee-and we spent a lot of time on them-we were greatly handicapped to find that for the first time for years we had neither a white paper which previous ministers had always prepared for the use of parliament in advance of the discussion of the ministers' estimates nor alternatively, and usually both, the annual report.
I admit immediately that to our great surprise when we examined the statute with respect to the Department of National Defence we found that there was no statutory obligation to submit an annual report to parliament. I think that that should be drawn to the attention of the administration. It is the biggest spending department; it is spending $1,700 million. I do feel that annually this house and the public at large should not be deprived of a statement, either a white paper or an annual report, or both. I can certainly say that when one who is not naturally abreast of the developments of this sphere is asked to give hours and hours of attention in close study in committees, which are meeting several times a week for two hours at a stretch, one is exceedingly handicapped when he finds that the last available information to him is something that happened in 1956. Surely that is a sphere upon which we must be up to date if we are to bring effective thought and criticism to bear upon it.
I want to point out that there may be other instances, but I think that this is a tendency that must be deplored. I do not think my hon. friend can suggest very many precedents for this in the past unless the 57071-3-281
Finance-Special Warrants calendar was responsible for it. It was not something that was too coincidental or, shall I say, deliberate? Maybe this sessions events are not deliberate. But perhaps there was no department this session that we were more concerned about examining with the best possible background than the Department of Labour.
I found that within a few days after the minister was released with respect to his estimates we were able to get in our mail boxes the last annual report of that department. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) indicated to the house the other day in an inquiry of the minister, which may be found at page 4162 of Hansard that the very important report of the advisory council with respect to unemployment insurance was available to the cabinet on July 31. In the meantime, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) had his estimates before the committee of supply. A couple of days after he was released and his estimates passed we got this report in our mail boxes. I say there is something radically wrong in what seems to be the trend in this respect, and I must advance the strongest possible protest. Our opposition may not be too large but because of the fact the government, as never before in the history of this country, has so many supporters one would think it would be all the more anxious to make sure that the best possible information at the earliest possible date is made available to the opposition. I can recall the many eloquent speeches of my hon. friend in the past, advancing the importance of the role of the opposition in our parliamentary life and government.
There are some items in the schedule that I should like to ask the minister about. Perhaps in particular we shall hear from him at the committee stage something about the old age pension situation because that transfer or an appropriation of $103 million is the largest item in the total of $114 million that comes under the category of increases and not decreases.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, we in this group approve the principle of this bill which is to seek parliamentary approval for certain expenditures that were incurred without previous approval owing to the dissolution of parliament. I cannot help but bring to the attention of the house the fact that this group fought very hard last session in support of the very procedure that the government is adopting in the introduction of this bill, which at the time seemed unpopular to certain members on the government side who expressed that feeling during that debate which took the better part of an afternoon and an evening. However, we are very glad that the government has listened
4438	HOUSE OF
Finance-Special Warrants to our arguments, and apparently has gone over those arguments in between the sessions and by the introduction of this bill has come to the conclusion that we were right. There is no question about it, Mr. Speaker, in our opinion the government was on very shaky constitutional ground last session with respect to the failure to produce certain estimates on immigration, I think it was, when they were under discussion in the house, seeking expenditures which had been occasioned as a result of governor general's warrants.
We may have some questions to ask at the committee stage but at this time I wish to conclude by congratulating the government on its recognition of the validity of our argument last session and on its repentance in between sessions and also on its position, as a result of our appeal, in finally restoring to parliament its rights in respect of the introduction of this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say just a word or two but I am not going to make a speech. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said that his group approved the principle of this bill. I do not think that we can approve the principle of the bill. As the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) has said, we think the government has done the right thing in bringing those warrants before parliament. We think that is the proper thing to do. Of course, that is what a distinguished member of the C.C.F. party and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) both asked in the last parliament should be done. But it seems to me that if we voted for this bill we would be not only approving having warrants brought here for our consideration but we would also be giving our approval to the government in spending a great sum of money in February and March by governor general's warrants and we most emphatically do not approve of that.
Our position is that the government had no excuse whatever for that dissolution, not the slightest excuse, except the desire for power.


An hon. Member:: That is over with.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, yes. Those hon. gentlemen who do not seem to understand very much what parliament is about say that that is over with, that is done. That is certainly right-


Thomas Miller Bell: One-man party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly the point I was trying to make. This avid desire for 

power, seizing the moment regardless of parliamentary institutions, is what has made it necessary for the government to bring this bill now. The government, having got an overwhelming vote of confidence from the previous house, should have stayed here and carried on with the nation's business and had the money voted by parliament for that purpose. We feel that if we voted for this bill we would be supporting the course taken by the government which we think was not justified except, of course, by the success at the polls. While we do not contest that, we do contest as a matter of principle the way it was arrived at.
I am just going to say one word about the possible parallel. It is true that on January 25, 1940-the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) will correct me if I am wrong- parliament met in the morning and was dissolved in the evening. It is true that the government of that day did have to use governor general's warrants for the new fiscal year up until May 16, 17 or 18, 1940, when parliament did provide further money.
But I would point out that there are three very important respects in which the two situations differ. In the first place, that was already the fifth year of that parliament. There had to be an election some time during that year. We were in the midst of a war and it was very important, if at all possible, to have the election at a time when there would be the least possible disturbance of the nation and the least possible disturbance of the time of ministers; in other words, at a time before the real fighting began. By the dissolution at that date that was accomplished.
The second difference, of course, is that the government of that day had been challenged, it is true not in the house but outside it, by the premier and the leader of the opposition of the largest province and there was an urgent need to discover whether that government or some other government should be entrusted with the supreme duty of carrying on the war.
The third, and in a technical sense the most important respect in which the two situations differ, is that supply had already been voted months before right up until March 31 so that there was no question of using warrants while the election was on. There was no question of using warrants before the election which, if my memory serves me correctly, was on March 26 and, of course, supply had been provided until March 31. Whatever the outcome of that election it would have been a government with a fresh mandate from the people which

would have used warrants for the short interim period between the election and the opening of parliament.
My attention has been drawn by the member for Kenora-Rainy River in this connection to something said by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) when he was sitting on this side of the house. In a debate on interim supply on April 28, 1949, he said, as found at page 2898 of Hansard:
-the government had moved closer to the election and they had carefully investigated all aspects of their supply problem, because when the Prime Minister arrived in Ottawa last Saturday on his return from his western tour he was met by the press and this question of supply came up. If you please, sir, the Prime Minister informed the press that financial supply could be authorized by governor general's warrants instead of by votes in the House of Commons. That is the statement of the Prime Minister. Why are we here? Sir, we are apparently just going through some motions here, because the government has already decided that whether it gets a vote of interim supply or not, it is going to spend whatever money it wishes to spend between now and the date on which the new parliament will assemble. Did you ever see, sir, any more bare-faced renunciation of responsibility-
This is the Minister of Finance speaking about Mr. St. Laurent.
-to parliament, any clearer evidence of the fact that this government has treated parliament, is treating it today as it has treated it hitherto, with studied contempt? This was a carefully calculated statement by the Prime Minister and we may be sure that he made it after due consideration.
What happened in 1949? In 1949 we- not "we"; I was not here-the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and other hon. members, including the Minister of Finance-


Donald Methuen Fleming: You were right the first time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -sat here until supply was voted by parliament. Mr. St. Laurent did not get in an aeroplane, say he was going to Winnipeg, land in Quebec and come back with dissolution in his pocket. He conducted himself in the proper constitutional fashion, as the Minister of Finance said he should have done. He did not show the contempt for parliament which, according to the Minister of Finance, was shown to the previous parliament on the first of February.
For these reasons and many others I could add we cannot support second reading of the bill.


The Chairman:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

Finance-Special Warrants AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall clause 1 carry?


William Moore Benidickson: I am wondering about
the convenience of the committee. On May 14, of course, the minister made a very wide but proper assurance that we would be able to have a fairly complete debate if desired on these items, such as we might have had in committee of supply if they had been brought forward in the usual way. I do not anticipate there will be an extensive debate, but I am just wondering about the best method of proceeding. Perhaps without calling the individual items unless some hon. member should require more detail, it would be possible, for example, to call the department and then the sub-heading of the department?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That will be quite agreeable, Mr. Chairman. I understand the hon. gentleman is suggesting that when we reach the schedule you would simply call agriculture, for instance, then administration service, science service, experimental farms service, and so on.


William Moore Benidickson: That is right; unless
somebody wants something more detailed.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is that procedure agreeable to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Purposes, terms and conditions.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, clause 4
raises one question in my mind. Is there any significance in subclause 2 about the date being set at April 1?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Clause 4 is in
part new. It is proposed that the new form here should become the standard form in appropriation bills. This is based on a recommendation of the legal advisers in the Department of Justice. The hon. gentleman will recall that we had a counterpart of clause 4, subclause 1 in the interim supply bills this year. Clause 4, subclause 2 purports to be simply a statement of the legal position as it has been understood hitherto to be in connection with the final appropriation bill. It is simply a confirmatory statement, and it is proposed now that this should be the standard form used in appropriation bills.


William Moore Benidickson: I am glad of that explanation. The hon. gentleman will not think l am rude if I say he must be a little suspect
[The Chairman.]

on a bill of this kind because on February 1 last he had advice similarly from the Department of Justice and they told him the warrants should not necessarily come before us at all for an examination such as we are now having. I take it that the departments have 15 days after the end of the fiscal year in which to tidy up their accounts, during which period they would still be included in the fiscal year ending March 31. This is perhaps a result of that practice and it probably makes the position a little clearer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


William Moore Benidickson: I realize we are one day into the fiscal year and that arouses curiosity.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not the
reason for it at all. The hon. gentleman is referring to a provision in the Financial Administration Act. This provision in this bill is simply intended to clarify and confirm what has always been understood to be the effect of the appropriation acts, I am informed.


William Moore Benidickson: Why is it April 1 instead of March 31?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Because that is the first day of the fiscal year in respect of which this supply applies.


William Moore Benidickson: Of course. A year back.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
On the schedule.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Agriculture, experimental farms service.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a reduction here of $312,000. Was this merely that the building program was not completely carried out, or was something eliminated? This is under the heading construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Construction was delayed pending the establishment of a new animal centre and satellite farm.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It did not represent a
saving, just a delay?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was delayed for the reason I have indicated.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the item headed
"Special" carry?


William Moore Benidickson: I should like to make a comment on this respecting one of the items which comes in the column headed "Not Yet Authorized". It refers to the agricultural commodities stabilization account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural commodities stabilization board as at March 31,

1958. Hon. members will recognize on looking at the column to the extreme left that the previous administration, when they drew up the budget item for 1957-58 put in-I do not know whether it was a nominal or a realistic figure, but it looks close to the total actually required-put a figure in their estimates of $8 million in respect of what would have to be raised by taxation and so on.
I notice here that we have a request for an additional grant which amounts to $988,544. This, I think, has extra significance in that as I read the estimates for 1958-59 there is nothing similar to the provision of $5 million which was made last year. It is true that the Minister of Finance when he calculated his possible large deficit for the current fiscal year warned us that it did not include anything for the agricultural commodities stabilization account. But we have already had a debate on the agricultural estimates and I think very little information was given with respect to payments of this kind except with respect to fruit. I wonder if the minister would indicate what products have resulted in this deficit? The minister and I probably do not see eye to eye on just whether we are appropriating or what we are doing under this bill, but hon. members will recognize the asterisk in the extreme right column. It is a very exceptional item because the other items are, for the most part claimed savings. This is an addition and I wonder if the minister would explain the necessity for the extra amount?


Donald Methuen Fleming: As I explained on August 19 and 20 on the resolution stage there are three items of a transfer nature, this being one of them, where we took the actual amount as the figure to be inserted for this purpose in the supply bill. Ordinarily it is an estimated figure, but by reason of the fact that with the passing of the date March 31, 1958 we have the precise amount of the deficit and are providing for it we have used the exact figure. The hon. gentleman will see on page 7 of the report on supply an explanation of the asterisk. The figure of $988,544 is the difference between the estimated deficit provided for in the estimates and the actual deficit reported.
The other two items in this same category are Nos. 803 and 820. I mentioned these three items in particular at the resolution stage. They cover respectively deficits in the agricultural commodity stabilization account, the lobster trap indemnity account and the old age security fund.


William Moore Benidickson: I was wondering, though, if the minister would give us the detail of
Finance-Special Warrants the losses that occasioned this vote under the agricultural commodities stabilization account?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no one particular loss to which this can be ascribed. It is just the total and the actual figures will appear in the public accounts when they are audited.


William Moore Benidickson: That, of course, is perfectly true. I think the Auditor General is not obligated to submit his public accounts and statements until about December 30 of this year. But on the other hand we want to keep up to date on the commodities that are involving some cost to the treasury. In the debate this year on this year's estimates with respect to the agricultural commodities stabilization account I believe the Minister of Agriculture indicated that only one product that was subject to stabilization was actually at a price that was less than the market price and consequently I believe there would be interest in the country respecting losses incurred prior to March 31 of this year. Is there a major product?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If my hon. friend wishes details on that I will obtain them for him and send them to him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is another item of interest here. I notice that $400,000 of the appropriation for the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act was not spent. Could the minister tell us about that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That amount was not required by reason of construction delays beyond the department's control.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall atomic energy control board carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This large sum of $2,700,000 does not appear to have been spent at Deep River. Is that a permanent saving?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In April 1957, Mr. Chairman, construction of the nuclear power demonstrator reactor was suspended for major redesign work which continued throughout the fiscal year. Construction began again in the summer of 1958.


William Moore Benidickson: So this apparent saving for the last fiscal year might very well be in our expenditures for the current fiscal year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friends will have an opportunity to deal with that in the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce in relation to atomic energy. I believe they have not yet been reviewed in the committee of supply for this coming year.

Finance-Special Warrants


William Moore Benidickson: This is a very large item involving $2,700,000. It simply emphasizes the point I made not only today but earlier that when savings of $73 million are claimed they involve in large part a simple deferment of expenditures.


Mr. Forgie:: Mr. Chairman, item No. 54 under the heading "Atomic Energy of Canada Limited", research program, reads as follows:
Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment and to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to undertake construction of works at Deep Hiver for Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited.
I understand that Deep River is now an incorporated village under the municipal act. I am just wondering why there is an expenditure of $7,400,000 included when the status of Deep River has been changed in the last 12 months. Perhaps the minister could give me an explanation of that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There will be an opportunity on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, under the items respecting the atomic energy control board, to discuss that. I understand those items have not yet been reached in the committee of supply.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall Canadian Broadcasting Corporation carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could explain this. Was it just a difference between the estimates? What actually was the deficit?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, an upturn in revenue from the special excise tax in the latter months of the year made it possible to reduce the grant toward the deficit.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall immigration branch under the heading "Citizenship and Immigration" carry?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, hon. members will recognize that here we have another unusual item. It is an increase and, of course, I know it refers to one of the governor general's warrants of the summer of 1957 shortly after the election of the new government. Would the minister please explain this item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this item is one that was provided by governor general's warrant. The explanation is to be found on page 9 of the report of supply, in explanation of the asterisk. It reads:
In addition to the amounts shown in tabled estimates, $2,428,000 was authorized by special governor general's warrant of August 19, 1957 (P.C. 1957-1134).

This is the amount that was required to provide largely for the Hungarian refugees who were coming into Canada and for the support of whom insufficient had been provided in the estimates.


William Moore Benidickson: This, I think, is the key to the whole reason for departure from making it open to the committee of supply to debate governor general's warrants in subsequent sessions of parliament. We all know that we had an election in June of 1957 and the administration that replaced the old one on June 10 of that year made a great deal of political capital about what had been done for Hungarian refugees. I am quite confident that the reason there was a desire to not have subsequently a debate about governor general's warrants was the fact that while they had criticized not only these allowances but their immigration itself even though the recent minister of citizenship and immigration, the present Minister of Justice, told my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that he had not gone far enough with Hungarian immigration. I believe this is the item that explains the whole reason why the new government departed from the traditional system of giving an opportunity in subsequent books of estimates and in subsequent meetings of the committee of supply to debate any item that was involved in the governor general's warrants.
One will see here extra funds were required by the new administration for this purpose. They apparently decided it was desirable and in the public interest and should be continued and they went to the governor general and got the warrant to make that possible. But in so far as bringing it up in the subsequent session of parliament for debate was concerned, they tried to avoid it and I well realize it was because of what they had to say in the 1957 election campaign.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the amount in question was provided by special warrant and the purpose of it is described as follows. Perhaps I should read the warrant:
Pursuant to order in council P.C. 1957-1134 of 19th August, 1957, the Minister of Finance and Receiver General is hereby authorized to pay, out of any unappropriated moneys forming part of the consolidated revenue fund, the sum of $2,428,000 (in addition to the sums already granted under vote 71 by the Appropriation Act, No. 3, 1957, and the Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1957) to provide, subject to the approval of treasury board, for expenditures in respect of transoceanic and inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers, including care en route and while awaiting employment.
That warrant was duly gazetted. It appeared in the Canada Gazette of August

Finance-Special Warrants 31, 1957, and a copy of it was tabled in this to February 1 that this amount was going house at the beginning of the next session, to be cut. I could be wrong about that. I in October, 1957.	just wonder whether that is so.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall Indian affairs branch carry? Shall national gallery of Canada carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I notice that the amount in the estimates was $130,000; the amount authorized was $108,334. I also notice that in the estimates we passed the other day this amount was cut down to $100,000. Is it the policy of the present administration to reduce the annual grants to the national gallery?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would not be proper for me to make any comment on the 1958-59 estimate. So far as the 1957-58 item now before the committee is concerned, I simply point out that when the warrant was issued in early February we did not go one cent beyond existing commitments. That is the reason for the reduction of $21,666.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What does the minister mean by "existing commitments"?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Existing commitments as at the date of the issuance of the warrant. My hon. friend will recall that the special warrant in question was issued on February 7.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I presume the minister means that this amount represented the difference between 10 months and 12 months, or does it go up to February 7?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It means that in drawing the warrant on February 7, so far as purchases for the gallery are concerned, there was none provided for, for the remainder of the fiscal year to March 31. In other words, the appropriations at that point stopped with the commitments as they stood at that date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not quite understand. I may be exceedingly stupid about this, but I do not understand what the minister means by "commitments" because he surely realizes that whatever is appropriated is paid into the purchase account. There is no question of any commitment of any kind. The government decides to recommend how much parliament should have to pay into the purchase account and the gallery may not have spent that that year at all. It had been the practice for a number of years to appropriate $130,000 for this purpose and I would have thought, this being in the estimates and fractions of it having been voted on two or three occasions, it was an implication on the part of the government that they intended to appropriate the full amount for the fiscal year. I do not think we were given any indication up


Donald Methuen Fleming: In submitting to His Excellency in early February the warrant for his approval the cabinet considered that in this respect it should not go beyond the commitments that then existed. If parliament had been sitting and had chosen to come forward and appropriate the full $130,000 that would have been one thing; but in drawing the warrant for submission to His Excellency for his approval cabinet felt that it should not go beyond the commitment existing at that date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not understand what the minister means by "commitment", commitment to whom?


Donald Methuen Fleming: These are actual commitments for purchases of paintings at the date the warrant was drawn.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister sure of that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can he produce any
evidence of that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the information I received.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say I would like more than just that statement to satisfy me. However, if I cannot get it, I cannot get it.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall civil service commission carry? Shall defence production department, A, carry?


William Moore Benidickson: Perhaps my remarks
would be related to all the items of so-called savings under defence production. I note they total not quite a million dollars? These, of course, are all part and parcel of the claim that $73 million of savings had been created. These are items of capital assistance for construction and for defence construction, I think largely housing, for service people in the forces. Are these real cancellations of the program or are they deferments?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is my hon. friend referring specifically to item 89?


William Moore Benidickson: Items 89, 91 and 92.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps we had better take them one at a time. Item 89 provides for capital assistance. There was a deceleration of the production of the CF-105, a cancellation of certain equipment for that plane and a lower than anticipated cost for the FN rifle project. That figure is $499,265.
Then, on item 90, which is the provision for payment of grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on crown-owned defence plants,

Finance-Special Warrants the difference of $26,000 is accounted for by the fact that under the terms of lease with Canadian Pratt and Whitney Limited that company will pay the taxes on the plant at Longueuil. Under item 91, under crown companies, there was a slow-down in the over-all defence construction, accounting for the reduction of $211,021.
Item 93, under Canadian Arsenals Limited, the difference was owing to the same cause.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the minister very kindly drew to my attention when we were on the resolution stage the five items before us that are dollar items.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, there are five.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not think I have a quarrel with respect to the others but I am curious about the fact that there is no language to explain the reason for $1 for administration and operation of Canadian Arsenals Limited. Is that simply for the purpose of debate?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Under Canadian Arsenals Limited, the item is provided to permit the operation of the plant. It is a matter of purchases and sales, and this is the item under which discussion can be had.


William Moore Benidickson: There are some crown companies that have not even got an item of $1 in our estimates. Is that so?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, there are some crown companies, it is true, to which there is no direct reference in the items of the estimates. My hon. friend can recall some, for instance, that report to departments such as defences production or trade and commerce and which are normally discussed for that reason under the first item of those departments.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall external affairs
carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is a reduction in item 97 of $356,000, for construction, maintenance and rental of buildings abroad. Is this merely a deferment of the construction program or is it an abandonment of some part of the program which had been planned?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The proposal for construction of a chancellery in Canberra and the residence in Brussels was not proceeded with last year. The department's limited technical resources were fully occupied with other projects.


William Moore Benidickson: None the less, is it going ahead this year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think I will have to leave my hon. friend to raise that point on the 1958-1959 estimates.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the 1958-59 estimate has shown that they were proceeding with them this year.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall general carry? Shall North Atlantic treaty organization carry? Shall international civil aviation organization carry? Shall international joint commission carry? Shall terminable services carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is an item here, 797, which shows a reduction of $10 million for the purchase of wheat and flour to be given to India, Pakistan and Ceylon to relieve food shortages. Would the minister be good enough to explain to the committee what this reduction means because it is our understanding that these amounts have been increased this year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: They have been increased this year. So far as this item is concerned, arrangements for shipment could not be completed before the end of the fiscal year.


William Moore Benidickson: So that particular saving of $10 million also out of the $73 million did not require all the hard work that the minister said he was going to put into savings and economies compared with the previous estimates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This item is not one related to economy. This is an item that was provided for last year and for the reason I have given, because arrangements for shipment could not be completed before the end of the fiscal year, the money was not required. But my hon. friend is well aware of the program in the 1958-59 estimates.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it that the result of this would be that in the wheat statistics of the previous year this amount of $10 million will not show. There will be a reduction to that extent and that $10 million will be shown in the current statistics of wheat and flour shipments under the new vote.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. Obviously nothing is going to be shown as applied to
1957-58 that was not provided in that year. The figure for 1958-59 will make the provision intended for the present fiscal year.


George James McIlraith: It is not quite as simple as that. This is the item in the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce where he tried to show the sharply increased wheat exports this year in terms of bushels of wheat exported. That is something I think we are all very glad to see but in his effort to do so it was not clearly demonstrated that

there was a comparison made with the previous year whereas there were merely deferred shipments that had been provided for in the previous year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend realizes that this is only part of the item. There was provision made for $15 million of which wheat to the extent of $5 million was shipped.


George James McIlraith: I quite realize that, Mr. Chairman, but I want to point out that this is the very difficulty we were trying to have clarified on the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was not present when they were being discussed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one question I am sure the minister can answer. When did this $15 million first appear in the estimates? I suppose the minister should tell me that I ought to look that up myself but I have not done it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It appeared in the supplementary estimates which were tabled last autumn. I will have to obtain the exact date for my hon. friend, but I think it was in the further supplementary estimates, No. 2.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, it was anticipated in the autumn that $15 million would be required and in fact only $5 million was required before the end of the fiscal year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hope was that arrangements could be made for shipment of the full amount covered by the sum proposed to be appropriated. Part of it was shipped, but not all.


William Moore Benidickson: But this is one of the
items of the $73.6 million referred to on page 18 of Hansard of this session when the minister was dealing with accounts for the previous year, when he said savings had been effected.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would not be able to answer that question without looking it up. I know it is part of the items I referred to on August 19 at the resolution stage.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is an item here, 795, for the provision of technical assistance to the West Indies and to Ghana and a saving of $135,000 is shown. I take it that is merely a deferment of that expenditure to the current year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That program was initiated in February, 1958, which left less than two months before the close of the fiscal year. Within that short period of time it was possible to post only a small number of technical experts prior to March 31. The hon.
Finance-Special Warrants gentleman is aware of the plans for technical assistance to the West Indies in the fiscal year 1958-59.


George James McIlraith: Would that explanation not mean that the provision of the item of $150,000 in the previous estimates when they were presented would be quite misleading because it was obvious that the money would not be spent in that fiscal year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not misleading at all. Parliament was asked to provide the money, and every attempt was made to employ and post technical experts. However, in the time available it was not possible to post more than a small number of technical experts prior to March 31. It was not for lack of effort, I can assure the committee.


George James McIlraith: What item is this in last year's estimates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is item 795.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall terminable services carry? Shall finance, general administration carry? Shall administration of various acts and costs of special functions carry? Shall public debt charges carry? Shall payments to municipalities carry? Shall contingencies and miscellaneous carry?


William Moore Benidickson: I am not as familiar as I should be with the Financial Administration Act. This, of course, is an item to delete from the accounts certain debts due to and claims of Her Majesty, each of which is in excess of $1,000, amounting in the aggregate to $627,411.15. Will these appear specifically in the public accounts?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend is referring to item 689?


William Moore Benidickson: No, 690.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend is aware of the provision that has been made in the recent amendments to the Financial Administration Act in connection with the deletion from the public accounts of debts due to Her Majesty. Item 690 simply contains a form of authorization, which is the form employed hitherto prior to the amendment to the Financial Administration Act, under which treasury board derives authority to delete from the accounts debts due and claims of Her Majesty, each of which is in excess of $1,000, amounting in the aggregate to $627,000 odd.


William Moore Benidickson: Do they appear in the public accounts?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, they do.


William Moore Benidickson: Because I notice that 689 appears to be in the form of legislation.

Finance-Special Warrants I do not know whether or not this is something we have done before but in 689 it does say specifically that these items shall be reported in the public accounts whereas under 690 the same clear provision is not present.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are referring to two different things.


William Moore Benidickson: Oh, yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Originally when 689 was introduced it was intended to authorize the making of regulations by treasury board providing for the deletion from the accounts of certain debts due Her Majesty. It was our feeling that sort of item should not be a method of legislation. That was the reason for introducing specific and continuing statutory authority.


William Moore Benidickson: It is superseded by the recent amendment to the Financial Administration Act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Recently, yes.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall contingencies and miscellaneous carry? Shall special carry? Shall general items of payroll costs including superannuation payments carry? Shall university grants carry? Shall miscellaneous grants carry? Shall fisheries, general services, carry? Shall field services carry? Shall international commissions carry? Shall special carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On special, Mr. Chairman, item 159 is to provide for the operation and maintenance of the Newfoundland bait service. I notice there was a reduction of $100,000. Could the minister tell us what occasioned that reduction?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it was not found possible to proceed as quickly as had been expected with the construction of bait facilities at Bonavista, Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought that was it, and
I wanted to say that I still think they are not being proceeded with nearly as rapidly as they should be. As the minister is well aware, there is a very serious shortage of bait in Newfoundland. I do hope he will urge the Minister of Fisheries to do his utmost to see that this delay is not continued any longer than it absolutely has to be.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Special carried. Shall
Fisheries Research Board carry? Shall governor general's and lieutenant governor's carry? Shall insurance carry? The next is Department of Justice. Shall A-Department carry? Shall penitentiaries carry?


William Moore Benidickson: This item 184 is one of
the larger items and there has been a saving claimed of $1 million. Is this a deferment also?
[Mr. Benidickson.l


Donald Methuen Fleming: This reduction was made in committee of supply itself on January 10, 1958 at the request of the Minister of Justice.


William Moore Benidickson: Was it simply because he recognized that construction would not proceed within the fiscal year and would probably go into the accounts of the succeeding year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall labour carry? Shall special services carry? Shall vocational training co-ordination carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On this item there seems to be a very large saving of $4.5 million. Could the minister explain that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This item 197, and the sum of $2 million had been reserved in case Quebec signed an agreement. The balance of the reduction was possible because provinces were not claiming the full amounts available in the first year of the new vocational and technical training agreement No. 2.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall government employees' compensation carry? Shall unemployment insurance carry? Shall legislation, the Senate, carry? Shall the House of Commons carry? Shall the library of parliament carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder what this saving is? Could the minister tell us?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was difficulty in recruiting cataloguing staff and that resulted in a salary saving, and there was a lesser amount spent for the purchase of books, microfilming and book repair than was originally estimated.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall pensions and other benefits carry? Mines and Technical Surveys, shall administration services carry? Shall surveys and mapping branch carry? Shall geological survey of Canada carry? Shall mines branch carry? Shall geographical branch carry? Shall dominion observatories carry? Shall general carry? Shall dominion coal board carry? National Defence, shall defence services carry? Shall general services carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On national defence services, there was a very large saving of $32 million. I wonder if the minister would make a statement, and particularly inform us how much of this is due to deferment of construction?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The figure of $32 million is a net figure. The reduction is the result of decreases, at least in the national defence estimates, on portions other than that applicable to defence research board, which is

offset in part by an increase in the provision made for the defence research board. I can give the committee a breakdown, if that is desired.
The decreases are as follows: Departmental administration, $380,000; inspection services, $1,604,267; navy, $6,270,206; army, $20,752,000; air, $6,614,142; defence expenditures by other departments, transport $750,000; mutual aid, $10,716,385, for a total of $47,087,000. There was an offsetting increase in the provision for the defence research board of $15,000,087, resulting in a net reduction of $32 million.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Could the minister give the committee any indication of the proportion of this saving of $32 million that appears in the current estimates. In other words, how much of this is deferment of expenditure?


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as the relationship of the 1958-59 estimates is concerned, that was fully discussed before the estimates committee. It is there as a matter of record. This subject was gone into on a return made to a question put in that committee by the hon. member for Levis.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall pensions and other benefits carry? Shall national film board carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the sentiments about the film board that used to be expressed by the Minister of Finance when he was on this side of the house, was he not able to find any economies in this service?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is my hon. friend referring to any particular item?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, to the over-all picture.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: National health and welfare, departmental administration, shall that carry? Shall health services carry? Shall general health branch carry? Shall grants to health organizations carry? Shall special carry? Shall welfare branch carry?


William Moore Benidickson: Was not something provided in connection with this particular item by the previous minister of finance in the way of a definite transfer item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: For the old age
security fund?


William Moore Benidickson: On the old age pensions item you have in the estimates, on the extreme left, $103 million. I take it that when the governor general's warrant was drawn up it was decided to include nothing in respect of this fund. I have every reason to understand why that might be the case. I take it that the original estimate is to be exceeded by almost a million dollars, nine hundred and some odd thousand. What is the present position of the fund? I have a Canadian Press
Finance-Special Warrants dispatch from Harold Morrison which has been widely quoted throughout the country, and I am sure before preparing his article he saw the officials of the department. The article was prepared after the commencement of the new fiscal year. He said it was expected that the total disbursement from the fund this year would be about $555 million, which would be a rise of $118 million over last year, and it was felt that the special taxes that are allocated to the fund would amount to $330 million which would leave a deficit of $225 million. The minister and I had some discussion on that phase at the time of the budget debate and he had some calculations. Then, I think he thought the deficit would be $190 million; I am not sure of that, but I think it was $190 million. It is two months or more since we have had a discussion on this matter. Would the minister make any comment as to whether or not he has a new forecast as to the probable deficit in the fund if new regulations are not provided?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I would not care to attempt any new forecast with respect to the present fiscal year, 1958-59, so far as the deficit of the fund for the year 1957-58 is concerned, I think my hon. friend is under a misapprehension in saying that some provision was made in that behalf by my predecessor. The statutes provide for crediting to that fund the proceeds from the 2-2-2 formula. That is a matter of statute law, it is not a matter of provision in the estimates, but it has been customary-*


William Moore Benidickson: To guess at it in advance of the year end.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -at the end of
each fiscal year to ask parliament to vote a sum of money to pay the deficit in the fund because the 2-2-2 formula has not been adequate to meet the charges on the fund.
In 1957 increases were made in the scale of payments in the spring of the year and further increases effective as of November last, with the result that the charges on the old age security fund have been very substantially increased and the credits to the fund continue under the 2-2-2 formula. Consequently on this basis there will be an increasing deficit in the fund.
So far as the deficit for the year 1957-58 is concerned, we are there dealing with a transfer item. The amounts were incurred as a charge on the treasury in accordance with the Old Age Security Act and here parliament is simply being asked to approve a transfer from the consolidated revenue fund to eliminate the deficit for the year 1957-58 on the old age security fund itself in the consolidated revenue fund. That is the function of this item and, as I mentioned earlier, it is

Finance-Special Warrants one of three items where we are taking the exact amount of the deficit at March 31, 1958 rather than the estimate which had been used up to that time.
It was thought that with respect to these three deficits it would be much more satisfactory for parliament to approve a transfer to meet the deficits in their actual rather than their estimated amounts.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall civil defence carry? Shall the national research council carry? Shall national revenue, customs and excise divisions, carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We cannot hear, Mr. Chairman.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before I was able to get to my feet you called the civil defence on which I wished to speak, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask the minister if he could explain this decrease in civil defence when we have learned from the Prime Minister that civil defence is becoming increasingly important in our planning for the future.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Under item 287 the report on supply shows that the sum of $1,168,347 out of the original estimate was not employed. This, in turn, was made up of two items, the first being $600,000, and the explanation of that portion is that under that the grants to the provinces funds had been provided for Quebec in case that province signed an agreement, and at the time of the warrant Quebec had not signed, so that the warrant was correspondingly reduced. The second item is one of $568,347 under materials and supplies. There were delays on some of the deliveries on items for the medical stockpiling program. This program was begun in 1952-53, and this was a matter of delay in respect of certain medical items.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall taxation division
carry?


William Moore Benidickson: I think you skipped the national research council, Mr. Chairman.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Chairman called that earlier but we went back.


William Moore Benidickson: Just two minutes ago I saw the Minister of National Revenue in the chamber, but he does not appear to be here at the moment. That minister knows I am interested in the attempt of the United States government to collect taxes against a Canadian company, namely, Premium Iron Ores.
I have reference to an assertion referring to something said a few months ago during the fiscal year 1957-58. I know the hon. member for Port Arthur has raised this subject on several occasions but I thought a very pertinent point was that on page 77 of Hansard for May 14, 1958 he asserted that on March [Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1
27, 1958 the deputy minister of national revenue was reported as having made an indication to the United States tax collecting authorities that he had some agreement with the United States position. I know a parliamentary return has been provided to us during this session, but my recollection is that the correspondence provided to this house was between Mr. McEntyre, the deputy minister of national revenue and his opposite numbers in the United States, and completely antedated the date referred to by my hon. friend the member for Port Arthur, namely March 27, 1958, at which time it was asserted representations were made before a United States congressional committee. I also know that the references in the correspondence which are subject to a parliamentary return relate to something in the Toronto Telegram written by the well-known journalist, Miss Robinson, and her articles also antedate the date which I gave, that is March 27, 1958.
I know that in the previous administration the minister of finance, the minister of national revenue, the secretary of state for external affairs and I believe the prime minister took some interest in this matter, so I would imagine even in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Finance might know something about it. It is the date in which I am interested.
Mr. McEntyre, I know, completely denied, and in that denial was supported by his opposite numbers in the United States, that there had been an agreement or understanding between them such as was referred to in the column of Miss Robinson of about March 18 last, but my recollection is that the member for Port Arthur referred to a later date, which as I say was March 27, 1958, within the fiscal year of the items before us. I am wondering, therefore, what the Minister of Finance might tell us with respect to this problem, which I think he knows has been exercising many people in the national resources industries. Steep Rock Iron Mine is in my constituency; we have had several severe lay-offs there and expect more if this kind of double taxation discouragement should develop because it was expected that it would be avoided under our tax treaty with the United States.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This subject was very fully discussed and dealt with when the estimates of the Minister of National Revenue for 1958-59 were before the committee of supply on August 27.


William Moore Benidickson: I know that the hon. member for Port Arthur again contributed very valuably to that debate, but the reference I now make is to an assertion which was made by a United States internal revenue

officer, apparently within the last fiscal year, and I wondered if that particular point had been cleared up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know whether my hon. friend was present in the house on August 27.


William Moore Benidickson: I was not and that is why I raise this matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This matter was very fully dealt with at that time and it would not be competent for me to re-open it again on the estimates of another minister.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Northern Affairs and National Resources, water resources branch.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. Expenditure under that heading is determined by the rate of progress made by the provincial program.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Post Office Department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the minister a question about the Post Office Department. I was under what appears to be a misapprehension, namely that the estimates of the Post Office Department were carried in the parliament before last and included in the appropriation act. If I am right, I wonder why the department is included in this bill at all.


William Moore Benidickson: I thought it was the only department that was cleared completely.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, the estimates of the Post Office Department were carried and there was an appropriation bill for the purpose. If the hon. gentleman will look back at the summary on page 2 of the report on supply he will find that in the recapitulation of all the estimates for 1957-58 we have taken the aggregate of all items except statutory items and then deducted from this total the amounts voted by parliament in a series of appropriation bills. Of those six bills the third is the one which appropriated for the Post Office Department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, this is put in to make the thing complete.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. This schedule contains the complete appropriation for the year, but the enacting clauses make it clear that parliament is being asked to appropriate only the net amount.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: Privy council. Special item.
Finance-Special Warrants


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot let this pass without saying a brief word about item 723 relating to remuneration for members of the privy council. I think I should like to express once again my feeling that this was a most inappropriate and, I suggest, unconstitutional thing for the governor in council to have done.
It does seem to me that however far they might go in appropriating money for other persons it is carrying the power conferred upon the governor in council under the Financial Administration Act pretty far when it is extended to the point of handing out additional sums of money to members of the cabinet who are themselves responsible to parliament for recommending all appropriations. It does seem to me that this is a function which should have been left exclusively to parliament. I had thought the other day when we had a discussion on the Prime Minister's estimates that the right hon. gentleman was going to get an opinion from the law officers of the crown about this whole subject, and I still hope he is going to do that. I think this is a practice which ought never to occur again, and having said that I do not intend to say anything more about it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman has not added anything to what he said on a previous occasion on this subject, but so far as approval by parliament is concerned I should like to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that this item was before the previous parliament during the 1957-58 session and that parliament appropriated a portion of this amount in several of the interim supply bills. Thus there cannot be any suggestion that parliament was not aware or that parliament did not approve.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now if the minister had shown a little more forbearance I should have said nothing more on this subject, but I cannot let that pass. The other day when I spoke on this matter I read two extracts from the minister's statement made on his first interim supply bill last October. He made no mention whatsoever of this item; it was never mentioned as far as I can discover in any of the statements the minister made. It is true it was in the estimates, but the minister said what we were doing there was not in any sense final. It does seem to me that because we in the opposition con-venienced the government by giving them interim supply, that the government should come forward now and say that because we gave them interim supply and because we overlooked something which was not drawn to our attention this indicated there was parliamentary approval, because there was

Finance-Special Warrants not parliamentary approval in any except the most technical sense. And we were considerably abused, if I remember correctly the minister's speech at that time-his manners have somewhat improved since then, I might add-for holding up interim supply as long as we did. I admit it was perfectly legal to make those payments up to January 31 on the basis of the interim supply which was voted, but I think it was a very improper thing and an unconstitutional thing for the government to have done it in the hole and corner in which they did, without the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister coming here and telling us what was being done. I think it was a wholly inexcusable thing to appropriate further moneys under the Financial Administration Act by governor general's warrant for this purpose.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Federal district commission.


George James McIlraith: I should like to coYnment on the last item, the item which has to do with the provision of $2 million a year toward the national capital fund. As was explained by the Prime Minister on his estimates, this is merely a deferment of a payment. It was shown in last year's accounting as a saving whereas in fact it is not a saving at all, and it appears this year in the estimates for
1958-59 in addition to the regular item of $300,000.


Gordon Campbell Chown: National library.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Here, again, I asked the hon. lady who presides over this department, during the discussion of her estimates the other evening, if she could explain to me why the item of $40,000 which had been put into Mr. Harris' estimates for the purpose of acquiring books had been reduced to $33,334. It was the last question addressed to the minister on her estimates. I said I did not wish to hold up the committee because the minister had no answer available. This is not intended as criticism of the hon. lady, because she was not the minister at the time and I did not see any special reason why she should have known. But here again it seems to be a rather extraordinary reduction to have been made, and I notice that the item is again $40,000 this year.
I wonder if the minister could explain how this item came to be reduced, because the policy which has been followed is, I think, a well understood one. I am glad the minister and the department have gone back to an appropriation of $40,000 a year for this account.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This item relates to the payment to the national library purchase account for the purpose of acquiring books. The account is on a non-lapsing basis and the rate of purchase is irregular, depending on the state of the market and the availability and manuscript collections. At the time of the dissolution of parliament there had been an appropriation of $33,334. In view of the fact that there was a balance available in the account the governor general was not advised to include the amount of $6,666 in the warrant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister quite sure that that reduction was made only at that time and that it was not made many months before?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no. My friend has only to look at page 44 of the report on supply to see that the sum of $33,334 was authorized by appropriation acts passed by parliament. In view of the fact there was no parliament I would have thought it met with his approval that there should be nothing appropriated by a warrant for that purpose in the balance of the fiscal year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that is a conclusion with which I would find it difficult to agree. The few cases where the government did see fit not to use warrants were those cases where habitually over a long period of years parliament had appropriated a special sum to go into these funds. The Prime Minister told us when the federal district commission estimates were before us that this practice was followed with respect to the national capital fund but he also indicated that in that case the difference was being made up -and indeed more than made up-in a supplementary appropriation in the current fiscal year.
I drew attention a few moments ago to the item in respect of the national gallery which was reduced in the manner the minister has just described and now we have this one for the national library similarly reduced but in neither of these cases is there any suggestion that the amount should be appropriated this year in any supplementary estimates of which I have heard. It seems to me that these grants which for use and wont have been made for a number of years were precisely of a kind that no one would have taken any reasonable exception to but it is these exceptional and extraordinary items that we find it hard to understand, not items of a conventional character such as this. The extraordinary scruples of the minister in this particular regard do not appeal very much to me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not expect they would, Mr. Chairman, but I will remind my hon. friend of the provisions of the Financial Administration Act that require that with respect to every sum proposed to be appropriated by governor general's warrant it is necessary to submit a recommendation that the proposed expenditure is urgently required for the public good. In this particular case the amount was not urgently required under the circumstances.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the national library carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite satisfied with that because it does tempt me to raise once again the question we were discussing a few moments ago.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall national library carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall public printing and stationery carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There seem to be some
reductions here and since this is a subject of great public interest at this time perhaps the minister would tell us what they are about.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
there are two items of which the amount proposed in aggregate to be appropriated does not amount to as much as the estimate. The first is item 347. The sum of $60,000. The fact is that when the year advanced and the time came in early February to recommend what would be required for the balance of the fiscal period it was found that we could meet what was required in this typewriter repair program without including the sum of $60,000.
In the combined items 352 and 727, involving an amount of $131,000, the purchase of presses, was postponed.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Public works.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, this general item 353 and following items show a reduction of about $2| million a substantial portion of which I would judge-and the minister will probably be able to give us some more detailed figures in this regard-is due to a reduction of the construction. Indeed, that is obvious in some items. I would point out that this reduction in public works of this amount occurred at a time when public works was being put forward by the government as the main remedy for unemployment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but that statement, of course, does not tell the whole story. In a large program such
as was provided for in the 1957-58 estimates
Finance-Special Warrants the Department of Public Works will have some projects that naturally are not proceeded with or not proceeded with to the extent originally contemplated and there will be others which are. Now the extent to which the amounts originally estimated were not fully appropriated in the end is attributable in cases to the sort of situation that I have indicated. It certainly was not due to any slowing down of the program of construction. The situation was fully discussed in parliament in 1957. The rule that was followed was that where any construction project involved the creation of work there was to be no slowdown of the construction program in that regard at all because our concern was for the provision of employment as well as for the provision of needed public facilities.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the minister that his answer does not really deal with the point raised. It will be recalled that on February 18, 1958 the Prime Minister announced expected expenditures by government departments and agencies on public works projects totalling $280 million during the first quarter of 1958 and that was put forward across the country as a vastly increased works program that was to assist in meeting the problem of unemployment. While it was not admitted by him that a serious unemployment problem existed apparently he recognized that a need for a program of this kind did exist. As against the statement we all recall was made by the Prime Minister on that occasion we have the facts coming out through these figures showing there was not an increase at all in the first quarter of 1958 but that there was in fact the usual decrease that comes because of the impossibility of estimating precisely what the amount of works will be and the short-falls that are inevitable in any system where you estimate to a definite period and do not carry on the construction for reasons that are easily understandable up to the full amount.
The Prime Minister's statement that was followed up and repeated across this country was in fact of a nature that created an impression in the public mind which was quite contrary to the facts as revealed today by the figures we are now examining and put forward by the minister in his report on supply for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, that statement cannot be allowed to pass without reply. The fact is we are dealing here with the estimates of the Department of Public Works. The construction program to which the Prime Minister made reference

Finance-Special Warrants on the occasion to which my hon. friend has alluded related to the total construction program of the government embracing all departments.


George James McIlraith: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Some of the very large expenditures in those figures the Prime Minister gave came from departments other than public works.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I think this is an interesting point because it did obtain widespread publicity in February after a certain use was made of certain figures given by the Prime Minister that involved public works expenditures. The Minister of Finance a few moments ago when he was referring to the lapsing that resulted from this vote of about $3 million indicated that the vote itself was a large one. The vote was prepared by the previous administration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


William Moore Benidickson: For 1957-58? There is no addition here; in fact, there is a reduction in the total expenditure made in 1957-58, as compared with what was asked for by the administration that came in in June, and the amount that was asked for in the estimates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend is overlooking the fact that items were added in the supplementary estimates that the new government introduced.


William Moore Benidickson: Oh, there were some supplementary estimates but I think all hon. members well know that supplementary estimates are not to be regarded in any way in the same manner as original estimates for the year round planning of administration. I have before me the estimates for 1958-59 and I agree they are not particularly relevant in discussing 1957-58, except that in each year it is customary in preparing the book of estimates to provide a summary of standard objects of expenditure and special categories. Under buildings and works, including land, column 13 of the new table, an over-all figure is given for the construction and for acquisition of buildings and works, including land, of all departments including public works. I can repeat my point when we come to some of the departments that are to follow. Actually, here is a lapsing of $3 million in public works. On December 6, the minister said that nothing would be allowed to lapse if it could possibly proceed, because of unemployment conditions. Here in public works there is a lapsing of $3 million. I accept his explanation that this is $3 million out of a very large appropriation, but the appropriation was basically provided by the previous

administration. In the main estimates, under column 13, for 1957-58, which we are now discussing, the total for all departments was $374,442,000. The main estimates of the new administration prepared for 1958-59, with unemployment continuing and the administration being very impressed by it as a result of the election activity we all had throughout the country in recent months, provides an increase of only $6 million.
The next comparable item would be purchases of equipment by the government. I refer to construction or acquisition of equipment in column 16 of this summary of standard objects of expenditures and special categories. In the main estimates under this category the previous administration for 1957-58 provided for an expenditure of almost $549 million. The proposals for the current year in the main estimates are almost $548 million, just about the same thing, and conditions at the time of preparing this estimate were entirely different. If as we proceed we keep this debate in mind we will find in the transport department a substantially larger lapse in expenditures on airports and construction of that kind which would have been very worthwhile last winter because of the unemployment situation. We will find under loans and advances even more considerable sums but as long as the administration continues to assert that in the matter of providing public works in tough times it is doing something different from which the previous administration planned to do in December, 1956, when they were fighting inflation I think the time of the committee is well spent in pointing that out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just wish to add one word. This does, I think, pretty well burst the bubble of the more than $280 million crash program of public works for unemployment until March 31 of this year. A very important part of that program was obviously construction work and in the Department of Public Works we find there is a reduction in this appropriation of some $2J million. If you look forward to another item in the report on supply you find construction, airways, air fields and buildings and that sort of thing, and there is a reduction of $4 million. There are others but they do all throw the spotlight of truth on those exaggerated statements of last February and March about this $280 million crash program of public works for unemployment.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall general administration carry?


Mr. Hardie:: Can the minister give me an explanation of the cuts under item 649? There is a cut of 34 per cent, from $539,000 to $393,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Less progress was made on the project, Cambridge bay, Northwest Territories wharf than was anticipated to the extent of some $70,000, and it was found for the time being no dredging would be required at Tuktoyoktuk to the extent of $130,000.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Is that the total of the cut?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes; the total of the two items is $200,000. The first one I mentioned was $70,000 and the second one $130,000.


Mr. Caron:: Will the minister explain the cut in the Quebec harbours item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a group of items there, five in all, where progress was delayed or suspended for various reasons.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The reasons are not given for that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can give them.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Give us the reason.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Very well; if my hon. friend wishes the details I shall be glad to give them to him. The first was the "Little Cascapedia river; dredging-federal government's share of cost". The Bathurst Power and Paper Company declined to share in the project because no booming ground waterlot could be obtained. That accounts for $132,000. The second was "Pointe au Pere; towards wharf improvements". Further planning prior to construction was decided upon during the year, with the possibility of combining improvements in a winter port. That accounted for $70,000.
The third was "Riviere du Loup-toward wharf improvements". Detailed borings indicated benefits would not justify the expenditure. That was $50,000. On the fourth, "Rimouski dredging" the contractor's plant was engaged elsewhere longer than was expected and the work was not proceeded with to the extent of $128,000. On the fifth item, "Sept Isles, towards wharf" delays in securing part of the site prevented the construction costs from requiring the amount provided to the extent of $245,000.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall public works construction and services carry?


Mr. Fisher:: I have one question. Can the minister tell me how much was spent over and above what had originally been estimated for the dredging of the Fort William harbour?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What item is my hon. friend inquiring about?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Harbours and rivers, engineering services.
Finance-Special Warrants


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend will appreciate that the figures we are dealing with here are figures of estimates and not figures of actual expenditure. The figures of actual expenditure will not be available until these accounts have been closed with the passage of the present bill and the auditor has completed his audit. They will be in the public accounts for the year 1957-58.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just wanted to know what the estimate was. I know they extended the contract because the estimated amount had been used up and I wanted to know the extent of the extension, if I may put it that way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will endeavour to obtain that information and communicate it to my hon. friend.
The Acling Chairman (Mr. Chown): Shall harbours and rivers engineering services carry? Shall development engineering services carry? Shall public works, general, carry? Shall Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation carry? Shall Royal Canadian Mounted Police carry?


William Moore Benidickson: With respect to items 405 and 703 there is a reduction of $275,000, not a large amount. These items refer to the government's contribution to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension account. Surely this was not one of the things with respect to which the minister set out to economize. I imagine there is a set formula for our obligation to contribute to this fund. This is one of the items, together with many other illustrations tonight, that is part and parcel of the $73.6 million which the government claims represents the avoidance of extravagance and economy on their part. How does this come about? Were there fewer personnel on the staff in the year and consequently not the same need for contributions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. My hon. friend will see that the item arose in connection with the issuance of the governor general's warrant, and it was not found at that stage that it was necessary to appropriate within the terms of the Financial Administration Act in relation to governor general's warrants.
The Acling Chairman (Mr. Chown): Shall Secretary of State carry? Shall trade and commerce, general administration, carry? Shall exhibitions carry? Shall standards branch carry? Shall dominion bureau of statistics carry? Shall board of grain commissioners carry? Shall special carry? Shall transport, department, carry? Shall canal services carry? Shall marine services carry?


William Moore Benidickson: With respect to item 450, contract dredging including acquisition of

Finance-Special Warrants land for ship channel Improvement, St. Law- proposed to be appropriated in the estimate rence river ship channel service, there is a had the conditions to which I have referred saving of $400,000. Has this program, which not been encountered. Surely there is no I understood was to run over a period of ground for complaint that more of this amount years, come to a halt or is this another defer- was not expended when the reason for its ment, something that will be incurred in a not having been expended to a greater extent subsequent year?	is the reason I have given.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Work was not proceeded with in 1957-58 to the extent of $400,000.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall railway and steamship services carry?


William Moore Benidickson: I wish to refer to item 465 having to do with the Maritime Freight Rates Act. When we were dealing with the estimates of the Minister of Transport the other night he indicated to us that this $1,200,000 is not a permanent saving but simply an awareness a month or two before the end of the fiscal year that traffic throughout the year had gone down and consequently the obligatory subsidy under statute was not likely to be required from the administration to the same extent. This is another one of those items that contribute to the so-called, pretended saving of $73.6 million.


George James McIlraith: With respect to item 468 I want to point out to the committee that this is another of these construction items which were supposed to be so sharply increased. The facts as revealed here are that the amount provided in the estimates was not expended by some $725,000. It is another example where, instead of the amount estimated being sharply increased, there was a shortfall.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, for a very good reason. Construction work proceeded more slowly than was anticipated due to the conditions of muskeg and rock that were encountered.


George James McIlraith: This once again illustrates that the statements made by ministers about sharply increasing construction were not correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have an example of spending money on muskeg in Hull. Do you want more?


George James McIlraith: They were not in accordance with the facts. They were not able to sustain the estimated construction and works program.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend can make these statements but his assertions do not mean that what he is saying is true. On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, I think the statements he has attempted to controvert have been confirmed. In this particular case there would have been a larger use of the funds


George James McIlraith: The reasons the minister has given for its not having been expended are quite true and anyone knowing anything about the construction business would understand them precisely.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are beginning to learn after the printing bureau.


George James McIlraith: What these figures do point out is that the statements made by the Prime Minister and his colleagues to the country in February and March of this year were not in accordance with the facts. These figures now reveal what the construction program that took place in the first three months of this year really was and the statements made forecast a very much increased construction program during those three months.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Under items 465 and 668 there was a saving of $1,200,000 with respect to the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Is this saving the result of reduced trade in the maritime provinces?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That item was dealt with, Mr. Chairman. The payments are statutory.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that heading was carried.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall railway and steamship services carry? Shall general carry? Shall pensions and other benefits carry? Shall air services carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I notice there is an item here, 483, with a reduction of $313,000. Could the minister tell us about that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are a bit ahead of us.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: We have not reached that particular item yet. Shall telecommunications division carry? Shall meteorological division carry?
Mr Pickersgill: The item I was speaking about comes under this heading.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect to item 483, a reduction of $313,000, due to the remoteness of the location the installations which were provided for by this item could not be proceeded with until spring.


William Moore Benidickson: I am an item behind I want to raise a question on this $1 item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Item 480.


William Moore Benidickson: Has anything taken place since the end of the fiscal year with respect to this?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is an item that contemplates the operation of the system referred to in it. It is one of these $1 items-


William Moore Benidickson: With whom have we an agreement?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -by which parliament is made aware of the operation and authorizes the carrying on of the operation involving the receipt of revenues and the making of disbursements.


William Moore Benidickson: This authorizes a lease, does it not, to a private enterprise of a telephone system that was created out of public funds; is that right? If so, who is the present operator and how long has this lease been current?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understand that there was nothing new entered into in this respect for the fiscal year 1957-58, Mr. Chairman, but if my hon. friend wishes me to be precise about it I shall look that up and supply him with more detailed information.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am interested in this item 482, 863 and 483. The minister has said in relation to what had been put in the estimates by the previous government for the construction of meteorological buildings in northern Canada, that it has not been possible to spend all this money because of the remoteness of the area. Was this money being spent for the construction of new Canadian meteorological stations in the Arctic, manned by Canadians, which would make it possible for us to take over some of the stations now manned by the United States? Does that explain the saving?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If my hon. friend will permit me, I shall have to obtain information to deal with the matter and communicate it to him. My information on that point is that the work on the installations, by reason of the remoteness of the location, had to await the arrival of spring before it could be proceeded with.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I wonder if the minister could tell us what locations those were?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I cannot.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall civil aviation division carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a $4 million saving here?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall this item carry?
Finance-Special Warrants


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the minister could
explain this saving of $4 million in the construction and acquisition of buildings.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this item 487, together with two other items 768 and 865 comes under the heading, airways and airports. Included in the final supplementaries is a transfer from the land account to a capital vote. Legislation, however, was required, and so it was deleted when the warrant was required.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This does not represent any saving, at all?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It depends on what you mean by saving, I suppose.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall air transport board carry? Shall board of transport commissioners carry? Shall Canadian maritime commission carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister expects to make any saving on this item now that the merchant marine has been liquidated?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall national harbours
board carry? Shall veterans affairs carry?


William Moore Benidickson: Under veterans affairs
there are two large items of reductions which come to about a million and a half dollars, one involves hospital construction. Is that a deferment also? I am referring to item 502. Then on item 507 there is a saving of $750,000 with respect to war veterans allowances. Was that merely foresight on the part of the department, three months before the end of the year, that commitments under the statute had not been as much as they were represented to be?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On item 502,
$700,000, I may say that certain construction projects had not proceeded as rapidly as had been expected, in some cases due to lateness of tenders and in other cases to delays caused by strikes.
In the case of item 507 and the related item 669, war veterans allowances, I may say that the requirements are determined by earnings. The statistical forecasts of the effects of two amendments to the legislation made during the year were not borne out.


William Moore Benidickson: I made some reference to this earlier. I am sure my hon. friend would give us the assurance that he did not, when he was looking for economies, go to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and ask him to be tougher on these applicants for veterans allowances in order to save this $750,000?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My friend is not flattering in asking a question like that.
4456	HOUSE OF
Finance-Special Warrants The Chairman: Shall war veterans allowances and other benefits carry? Shall miscellaneous payments carry? Shall Canadian pension commission carry? Shall soldier settlement and Veterans Land Act carry? Shall terminable services carry? Loans, investments and advances; shall atomic energy of Canada limited carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the minister would explain this saving of $7 million which surely must be a deferment rather than a saving.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Both with respect to items 524 and 525, the N.R.U. reactor did not begin to operate as early as was expected, and consequently the requirement for working capital to purchase uranium for fuel was considerably reduced.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall defence production carry? Shall external affairs carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I must call the attention of the committee to a saving under the Colombo plan authorization of $10 million. This is extremely interesting because this $10 million is a very sizeable proportion of the total amount which is supposed to have been saved under these estimates. Yet, while we have this so-called $10 million saving here, we have the government taking credit, and quite rightly, for an increase of $10 million in the Colombo plan this year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was under this item that a loan was made to India of $25 million. The balance was not taken up prior to March 31, 1958.


George James McIlraith: This means once again that the wheat that was not shipped in the last year will be shipped this year, is that it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I did not say
that. The provisions for shipment under the agreement with India required the shipments to be completed-I am speaking now from memory-by the end of June and certainly before the close of the 1957-58 crop year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is quite right, but the fact was that in the previous estimates there was provision made for $35 million for Colombo plan-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, with respect, that was an item that was introduced in the house by further supplementary estimate introduced by the new government, and not the old government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Whoever introduced it, Mr. Chairman, it is a $10 million saving, and boasted as such by my hon. friend, and it is also a $10 million extra amount in this year's


Colombo plan amount and boasted as such by the government as an increase. You are getting it both ways.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall penitentiaries carry? Shall national defence carry? Shall northern affairs and national resources carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister tell us for what purpose this item 873 was used?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The item describes its purpose. There is no difference here between the supply provided and the estimate. It is an item provided for advances in accordance with agreements entered into or to be entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I recognize that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have been all over that subject, have we not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking the minister for what were these advances made, for Beechwood or for the thermal plants?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This was for the
transmission lines, not the Beechwood project.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall privy council, federal district commission, carry? Shall public works, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, carry? Shall transport, St. Lawrence seaway authority carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a reduction of $9 million in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway authority. I think all members of the committee know that this is a special project mentioned by the Prime Minister to provide, through public works, extra employment. I now notice that the amount has been reduced by $9 million, and perhaps the minister would explain that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it is quite obvious to fairminded people. It does not require very much explanation. Something like 90 per cent of the amount which was in the estimate was employed so that this is not a very serious retardation of the work under contemplation when the estimate was written. The progress of the work was to a very minor degree slower than was anticipated.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall canal services carry? Shall air services carry? Shall the national harbours board carry? Shall veterans affairs, soldier settlement and Veterans Land Act carry?
Shall the schedule carry?


William Moore Benidickson: May I just make a comment while we are concluding discussion of the schedule. I think we have gone over this

Finance-Special Warrants
quite exhaustively and have all convinced ourselves, as I said when I was speaking when Mr. Speaker was in the chair, that it is doubtful that a businesslike bill of this kind should be introduced accompanied by features such as purple words and big explosives which turn out to be pretty blank cartridges respecting savings. I say this because when one examines the minister's claim of savings of $73.6 million, such as has been made, we find how phony was this claim and that in the last quarter of the year 1957-58-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, is this relevant to the last item? My friend is speaking of shots and cartridges, but this sounds like a pretty blanket charge.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Or blank charge?


William Moore Benidickson: We have been discussing the schedule and Canadian Arsenals and I thought it might be appropriate-


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend has had a couple of opportunities to speak generally, and this is not the time for a general discussion.


William Moore Benidickson: Just in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister will be convinced that the passage of a bill of this kind if it were not introduced, as I say, with purple words such as those with which he introduced this bill and with references to savings which were, we now find, pretences and are really mostly deferments and not real savings at all-


Donald Methuen Fleming: There were no purple words and no pretences. The information given to the house was all factual, and I do not think my hon. friend can remember, as I can certainly not remember, when this house was given more information-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -with respect to any supply motion than that which we have had today and that which is contained in the report on supply.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before this bill is carried, may I just point out that for two hours, and only for two hours, we have been discussing governor general's warrants totalling about $540 million. That is all the consideration
we have been permitted to give this bill because of the circumstances under which we have discussed it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is not permitted under the rules to speak on third reading, sir.


An hon. Member:: What kind of a new rule is this?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to insist on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Closure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh no, it is the rule.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I simply wish to make one comment on one expression used by the hon. gentleman.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Out of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He said that two hours was all the time which the house had been "permitted" to devote to the consideration of the estimates.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There has been no limitation whatever imposed upon the house or upon any member of it in relation to consideration of this measure, which was before the committee on two occasions in the resolution stage and it has been before the committee today-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the minister has no right to make a speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There has been no attempt to restrict the freedom of this house to discuss this measure.


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


Lester Bowles Pearson: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask the house leader what is proposed for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall take item No. 2 on today's order paper, consideration of amendments made by the Senate to the taxation of estates act; then we will take item No. 4, which is second reading of a bill to amend the Customs Act, and then item No. 6, second reading of a bill to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on August 4.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 2, 1958