1958-06-19

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris) presented the first report of the standing committee on veterans affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. J. M. Forgie (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, unanimous consent is not given. We suggest that this motion should be placed on the order paper.
Motion stands.



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hayden Stanton (Leeds) presented the first report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman the unanimous consent of the house to proceed with this motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Motion stands.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


Mr. C. A. Cathers (York North) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, presented to the house on Tuesday, June 17, 1958, be now concurred in.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this motion provides for the committee to meet while the house is sitting, and similar motions will apply to other committees. We of the opposition want to be as co-operative and as constructive as possible in this matter. We realize that there is a great deal of work to be done and that there may be occasions, as there have been in the past, when committees will have to meet while the house is sitting. But surely, Mr. Speaker, that need has not yet been demonstrated, and until the occasion arises when the need is obvious we do not think a motion of this kind providing for this procedure should be passed.
We are especially worried about this matter, Mr. Speaker, because of the number of
committees that are being set up and the matters that are being referred to those committees. We share the worry which has been expressed in the house in previous sessions, notably by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), about the inadvisability of taking matters from the house and committees of the house and referring them to standing committees to meet at the same time the house is in session. Therefore we hope the government will not proceed with this particular motion at this time.
As an indication of our anxiety in this matter, which seems to have been appreciated by the house leader the other day, I should like to quote from page 697 of Hansard of May 30, where the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) had this to say:
Some members also asked whether the committees, I presume not only these two but all committees functioning this year, would be sitting while the house is sitting. There again common sense will have to prevail. We have had occasion to complain in the past about being dragged out of the house to committees all over the parliament buildings when we should have been in the house.
That is our worry at the present time, Mr. Speaker, and until the need for this procedure has been demonstrated we do not think it should be followed. We do not think that need has been demonstrated yet.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, we in the C.C.F. group also have a similar view relative to the motion now before the house. We do not feel it is right that members of the house should be asked to reach a decision at this time on such a motion.
Before us at the moment is a motion moved by the hon. member for York North on behalf of the standing committee on banking and commerce. There are three recommendations brought forward by the chairman of that committee, two of which we desire to comment upon. Those are the recommendations that the committee on banking and commerce be permitted to sit while the house is sitting, and that the quorum of the committee be reduced from 15 members to 10.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of being a member of that committee. Thus far the committee has met only once, and that one meeting was for the purpose of organization, and organization only. Yet out of a strictly organizational meeting of that

Banking and Commerce Committee important committee on banking and commerce there comes a recommendation to reduce the quorum from 15 to 10, as well as the recommendation to meet while the House of Commons is sitting.
I know that you, sir, recognize the importance that parliament places on the standing committee on banking and commerce. It is of such importance that under standing orders the committee is allowed a membership of 50 and the quorum is set at 15. Surely, sir, 15 members out of 50 is a sufficiently low number to be in attendance in view of the fact that it has already been intimated that very important legislation is going to be referred to this committee.
As a matter of fact, two pieces of legislation have already been referred to it, and the Minister of Finance in his budget presentation on Tuesday night informed the house that some very important legislation, including in particular the bill on estate taxation, is going to be referred to the committee on banking and commerce. Surely a committee of that importance, with that important legislation coming before it, should not be permitted to function with a quorum as low as 10. It would seem that 15 would be the least membership that we could insist be in attendance while the committee is discussing matters referred to it by the House of Commons itself.
On this basis I want to oppose the motion now before us. In addition, I have a second reason, and that is the recommendation that the committee meet while the House of Commons is sitting. As I said before, I think it is rather peculiar that a committee which so far has only had an organizational meeting, before it has even dealt with any business referred to it and has a full understanding of the problems it is going to have to face, should ask for authority to sit while the house is in session.
The matter is one of major principle. Every one of us is here only because we were elected by the vote of the people. We are only here because we stood as candidates to be members of parliament, and when we stood as candidates I take it for granted that we accepted the responsibilities of being members of the House of Commons. Top priority amongst our duties goes to being a member of the House of Commons and being in our places in the house. Of a secondary but important nature is the work of the committees of the house, because they only deal with matters which are referred to them by the house.
I am certain, sir, that all members want to fully accept their responsibilities, both in the house and on committees. However, you


cannot possibly be in both places at the same time. It may come about eventually, by reason of the exigencies of the moment and the pressure of business, that the committee may have to sit while the house is in session. Until that time, and the necessity for it is proven, we submit there should not be a request to this house for that power.
In particular we would draw to your attention that such a request should not be made so long as two out of the five sitting days each week are not being used by the select standing committees of this house. I appreciate the fact that two out of the 18 committees are going to make an effort to sit on Mondays. But it has been the practice, and it still is, that committees of the house do not sit on Mondays and on Fridays, mostly as a favour to what are known publicly as the T. to T. members. Mr. Speaker, the house does not meet on Monday morning. Monday morning is just as good a morning for a meeting of a select standing committee as is Tuesday or Thursday. Until such time as select standing committees are taking advantage of the opportunity to meet on Monday and Friday, as they do on Tuesday and Thursday, we say they have no right to ask that the house give power for a select standing committee to meet at the same time as the House of Commons.


Mr. Fraser:: The house sits on Friday morning.


Harold Edward Winch: That definitely was the viewpoint taken for as long as I have been here by the hon. members who previously sat on this side of the house. I can very well remember time after time the present Prime Minister standing in his place on this side of the house and expounding, as only he can do so eloquently, to the effect that select standing committees should not meet at the same time as the House of Commons. We are asking that he use his eloquence now to stand by the same principle in government that he stood for when he was in opposition.
He was not alone, Mr. Speaker. I just want to add that I have here the statement made by the previous leader of the opposition, Hon. George Drew, as found at page 4343 of Hansard of June 2, 1955. It is as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly our wish to facilitate the business of the house in every way this can be done with due regard for the efficient dispatch of public business. I would point out, however, that a number of committees are still sitting, and that they will be sitting in the mornings next week. If this motion is adopted, it will be a practical impossibility for the members of this house to perform their duties both in the house and on committees in the manner in which public business demands.
The same principle was expressed by the Minister of Finance when he also was on this side of the house. As reported at page 5619 of

Hansard of July 4, 1955, we find this very pertinent statement. I only wish he were here to be able to say it himself in the same manner in which he delivered his budget speech the other night. He said this:
[DOT]-and it is simply impossible to do justice to the business of the house if committees are going to be sitting at the same time.
Need I say any more, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Harold Edward Winch: The members of the government know that all opposition members of the house will do everything possible to facilitate the business of the people and the business of government, but until the absolute necessity arises we ask that no motions be accepted in this house calling for a committee to meet at the same time as this house, and that no recommendation be accepted in this house to reduce still further the very small quorums of the present committees of this house.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, these heartrending
appeals are extremely touching. As hon. members know, some of us now on the government side-


Harold Edward Winch: Did exactly the same thing.


Howard Charles Green: -served in the opposition for many years. In the first place I should like to assure my neighbour the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) that we have not changed a bit. We are just as good parliamentarians and democrats now as we were when we were sitting over on his side of the house.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I think we would agree with that statement.


Howard Charles Green: There is one great art about being in opposition in respect of which the hon. member for Vancouver East is an expert, and that is the art of whining.


An hon. Member:: What was that?


Howard Charles Green: Whining-w-h-i-n-i-n-g. I know that very well, because I was pretty good at it myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: But these Liberals; they still have a lot to learn about this art of whining.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We will never learn that.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, you are learning fast. One of the first things you have to learn is that you must have something to whine about if you are going to do it. Here we have the Leader of the Opposition getting up today with a long face and protesting about this report brought in by the committee. What does the report ask? The first paragraph asks 57071-3-90
Banking and Commerce Committee that the committee be empowered to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto. Second, it asks that it be granted leave to sit while the house is sitting.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the point.


Howard Charles Green: And third, that the quorum of the committee be reduced from 15 to 10 members and that standing orders 65 (1) (d) be suspended in relation thereto. These are standard reports-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Oh, no, they are not.


Howard Charles Green: -brought in by committees. The hon. member had never looked at them when he was on the government side, so he would know nothing about it. There is nothing out of the ordinary in one word of that report; this is the practice which has always been followed.


Some hon. Members:: No, it is not.


Howard Charles Green: It has been followed since I came here in 1935, and now hon. members are trying to blow up a great big complaint about the fact that a routine report is being brought before this house for approval. We have assured hon. members on more than one occasion during this session that these committees would not be asked to sit while the house was sitting unless it was absolutely necessary. Not one of them has been asked yet to sit while this house has been in session, but there come occasions in the later days of every session when it is necessary for a committee to sit. It has never been the practice to come back to the house then and ask for leave to sit while the house is in session.


An hon. Member:: It has, over and over
again.


Howard Charles Green: We are simply following the ordinary practice; and these complaints made by the official opposition, backed up, of course, by the professional whiners of the house, which by the way have already been made on more than one occasion, are merely a smokescreen designed to try to convince the Canadian people that we are being unfair to parliament.


George James McIlraith: And so you are.


Mr. Denis:: As far as our publicity is concerned, we have no television set installed, as has the government.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, you are hardly ever here; I have not seen you here, but the people are in possession of the actual facts which are to exactly the opposite effect. There has
1418	HOUSE OF
Banking and Commerce Committee never been a Canadian government so careful of the rights of private members. Here we are giving these committees the opportunity to go into the business that is to come up; estimates being referred to them, committees being given the power to call for witnesses and send for documents, and in many cases the former government absolutely refused to have any of these powers given to committees. We have gone to the very limit, taken the maximum step, to help parliament in its own work and to treat the members of the opposition parties with every consideration. They know this deep down in their hearts, but they just like to make a little row in the house, hoping that they will get a little publicity.
The Liberals now are weeping and wailing because there are only 47 or 48 of them. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that from 1939 to 1945-at least at the election of 1939 and the election of 1940-we elected less than 40 members on each occasion. We came in with 39 members. In 1945 we elected 67 members; in 1949 we were back to 41 and in 1953 we elected about the same number as the Liberals have at the present time.
Now their trouble is this, that we have these four ex-ministers sitting in the front row, these four horsemen of the apocalypse. They have to be on every committee. The Leader of the Opposition has to be on the estimates committee, because I suppose he does not know anything about what has been going on in the house and he is taking this as a means of finding out. But it was on very rare occasions when we were in opposition that the Leader of the Opposition served on any committee at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He may not have attended, but he was on them.


Howard Charles Green: And some of these former ministers think nobody in the Liberal party but themselves can do anything around here. I hate to give them any advice, because from our point of view they are doing very well right now. I do not know how they could do better as far as we are concerned than the way they have been carrying on so far this session. But I will venture to give them one trade secret of how to function in opposition. If the Leader of the Opposition had a little more confidence in some of his private members, and gave them the responsibility on some of these committees instead of trying to run from one to the other himself and do all this work, he would not be getting up in the house complaining about not having time to attend committees.


Apart from this, those private members on the Liberal side of the house might come up with some constructive criticism which would be of some help to the country. They have not been spoiled by this power complex which was developed by the ministers in the last government for so long. These younger men, these new minds might, I suggest, bring about a great improvement in the functioning of the opposition if they were given more responsibility.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come back to my opening remarks. This is a routine report from a standing committee which should be treated in that way, and we are not going to be bluffed by all this phony talk about the rights of parliament being interfered with in any way when we ask that the report of this committee be concurred in by the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as one of those exministers who supposedly has no confidence in the rest of the members of his party, but who happens to be one of the members who attended the only meeting of the banking and commerce committee which has yet been held, I want to make one or two observations which I would not have made if the leader of the house had not made the political speech to which we have just listened. I do not intend to make any such speech; I do not intend to do anything whatever but deal with a few simple facts.
The leader of the house said the Leader of the Opposition was rushing about from committee to committee. If the leader of the house was paying attention to his job he would know that the Leader of the Opposition was on only one committee, and it would be pretty difficult to rush from one committee to the same committee.
The leader of the house talked about this being a routine motion. If this were a routine motion it would not be necessary at all because in 1955, when the rules were changed, it would have been put into the standing orders. The plain fact is that it is not a routine motion at all, and that, until very recent years, it was a rare thing indeed for committees to sit while the house was sitting.
I notice that since hon. gentlemen opposite began to occupy the treasury benches they seem to have developed one very serious failing, namely a failing of memory, as the hon. member for Vancouver East pointed out this afternoon. I was very glad that he demonstrated that with reference to some of the things they used to say when they were over here.
In the committee-and I believe, sir, it is quite proper on a motion for concurrence to

refer to what was said in the committee-the hon. member for Vancouver East and I both objected to this motion, not on the ground that it might not have to be made some time; and we both gave the assurance that if a demonstrated need could be shown we would not oppose the committee meeting while the house was meeting. But we added we did not see the slightest necessity, when there was nothing at all before that committee except two relatively unimportant private bills, and at that time no prospect of anything else, why the government supporters should be rushing in and trying to get this power at this stage. I went so far as to suggest that the conservative position-and I use that word with a small "c", of course

that one should not cross bridges until he comes to them should be adopted in this case.
I do not think there is anyone on this side of the house who would be so unreasonable as to oppose a motion for the committee to sit while the house was sitting at a time when some urgent business was before that committee. But, in this instance, there is nothing before it at the present time except two small private bills, and there is nothing in prospect except a bill mentioned by the Minister of Finance the other evening, which he has not even introduced. Therefore obviously it cannot come before the committee for some considerable time, so there is no question of any smokescreen or anything of that sort. We simply believe that the committee should wait until the time arises when it is necessary to sit while the house is in session. If that time does arise, then we should deal with the question at that time and not now.
Furthermore, sir, as the hon. member for Vancouver East did, I raise the point about sitting on Mondays and on Fridays. There is no reason on earth, of course, why the committee should not sit on Monday except that it seems to suit the convenience of a certain number of hon. members to be somewhere else than in Ottawa on Monday mornings. Indeed, the hon. gentleman who moved this motion himself confessed that it would be inconvenient for him to be here on Monday.
In these circumstances, sir, it seems to me that no case whatever has been made out for bringing this motion forward at this time, and I would ask the mover of the motion to let it stand for the time being.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, having been a member of the banking and commerce committee since 1940, I wish to say that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat is entirely wrong; because at every first meeting of the banking and commerce committee back to 1940 we have
57071-3-90i
19. 1958
Banking and Commerce Committee always had a motion that the committee sit while the house is sitting. If the Liberals now think that is wrong they certainly were wrong for the 22 years they were in office.
It has been suggested that we sit on Friday mornings. On account of the change in the rules a few years ago the house sits on Friday mornings, and it would not be possible or practicable to call a meeting on a Friday morning, because even if it were called at half past nine it would give only a matter of an hour and a half to sit, and when a committee calls witnesses it is unfair to those witnesses to call them in for an hour and a half.


Harold Edward Winch: How about Monday morning?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Monday morning would be all right for some committees. I have no objection to Monday mornings, but there are occasions when a member has a great deal of correspondence to look after on Monday morning.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He can do that while the house is sitting.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, it is true that some of it can be done while the house is sitting. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate suggested that the work be done in our offices, but if the house were sitting an hon. member would not be in the house where he is asking us to be.
I know that all members of the House of Commons in general, including the Liberal members, feel that we should sit in the mornings and I am agreeable to that, but there are emergencies. That specifically refers to the sessional committee on government-owned railways and shipping at which officials of the C.N.R. are called. It would not be fair to those officials to have the committee sit for just half a day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not a standing committee.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That committee sits morning, afternoon and night, and has for years. There are other committees to which we call people from out of town, from miles away. It would not be fair to them to sit say on Tuesday morning and then not sit again until Thursday morning, because each party has its caucus on Wednesday morning and the committee could not sit.
I believe it is only right, Mr. Speaker, that this motion should go through as is. It might not be put into effect, but it should be there for an emergency.
Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Minister without
Portfolio): Since my name has been referred to by the opposition I think I should add just a word. To the best of my recollection, comments I have made have been not upon

Banking and Commerce Committee this particular point but on the question of referring estimates to committees. I think that is the subject on which I spoke. In any event, what I wish to say is that it seems to me that what the leader of the house has said this afternoon about this being a well recognized practice, followed for many years, is sufficient justification for its being followed again. Moreover, there has been no answer that I have observed from the opposite side questioning that statement of the leader of the house. Further, I have no reason to believe, nor has anyone in this house, that this power, if it is given, will be used unfairly or improperly.


Cecil A. (Tiny) Cathers: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the hon. member for York North speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two comments to make before the debate does close. May I say at the outset that I, as a comparative newcomer here, enjoyed the humour of the house leader, the Minister of Public Works. Certainly we need that sort of levity regularly to ease the tension. The minister, besides being humorous, did give us an insight into why he has been continually successful at the polls during the number of elections in which he has run as a candidate. Obviously the reason is his ability to spread a smokescreen over something and so confuse the issue that people generally just do not know what they are voting for.
But what the house leader has done is to admit in effect that when he and the other members of the cabinet were sitting on this side of the house they were completely insincere in raising the objections they did to committees sitting at the same time as the house sat. If the minister does not admit that, then he is admitting that he is insincere at the moment in following the lead of the Liberal party which did substantially the same thing when they were in office. Sometimes raising a smokescreen is pretty effective, but no matter how the minister tries to smile or wriggle his way out of the situation he is trapped. He cannot have it both ways at the same time.
It is not a matter of whining, as he likes to put it; not a matter of raising objections just for the sake of trying to create the impression that the government is doing away with the rights of parliament, but purely and simply a matter of whether this or any other committee should sit while the house is sitting.
Finally, may I congratulate the hon. member for Peterborough for at least speaking to the subject.


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, when dealing with this subject I do think it is somewhat strange to hear from the mouth of the hon. member for Vancouver East the words we heard this afternoon. The members of his group complain that they cannot be present in the house and at committees at the same time, but I call to mind last Friday as an example of their assiduous attention to the business of the house. I would draw to the attention of hon. members of that group and others on the left of the Speaker that last Friday was an example. When private bills came up there was only one member of the C.C.F. group in his seat, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). Yet most of the private bills have originated with that group. We have an idea where these members were. I may be wrong but my information, and I think it is correct, is that they were out looking at an aircraft.
As far as the Liberals are concerned, on Friday and Monday afternoons there are horrible gaps in their ranks, and we know where they are.


Mr. Bourgei:: What about your side?


Frank Howard: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: People who live in glass
houses should not throw rocks.


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member permit a question before he takes his seat?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Certainly.


Frank Howard: I wonder whether the hon. member is aware that what we were attempting to do was to give the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) an opportunity to proceed with his bill respecting company directors.


Harold Edward Winch: That is the reason we did not proceed with ours.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put on record the attendance at the standing committee on mines, forests and waters.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Warner Murphy: It so happens-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure that the hon. member would be in order in referring to the attendance at a committee whose report is not before the house.


An hon. Member:: They do not want to hear it.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is the following one: Mr. Cathers, seconded by Mr. McBain, moves that the first report of the standing

committee on banking and commerce, presented on June 17, 1958, be now concurred in.
Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On division.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.



ESTIMATES-CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South) moved: that the second report of the standing committee on estimates, presented to the house on June 17, 1958, be now concurred in.
1422	HOUSE OF
NORAD-Canada-XJ.S. Agreement


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have the same objection to this motion being proceeded with at this time as we had to the previous one. I will not delay the house by repeating that objection.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add one further word. We had a similar vote in the committee on miscellaneous private bills. At that time I was pleased to see that members on the government side sided in with the same arguments that were used here today, with the result that this particular motion was turned down in committee. I thought it rather strange that the same hon. members who not only voted against a similar motion but spoke very strongly in that regard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member, by the rules, is not permitted to reflect upon the vote of any other hon. member.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say that we do not want to delay the business of the house in any way but that we should merely like to register our protest on this particular vote. We certainly will not force a division of the house in that respect.


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


Lester Bowles Pearson: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Labour. In view of the unemployment situation in Halifax will the minister arrange to have deferred the lay-off of government employees at Citadel hill, which was to be effective on Saturday next, June 21, following very short notice?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour):: If the hon. member will give me particulars of this matter I will have it investigated.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Diefen-baker:
[Stage Direction]
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve an exchange of notes constituting an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America concerning the organization and operation of the North American air defence command (NORAD) signed at Washington May 12, 1958, and that this house do approve the same.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is always very difficult to resume debate after a break such as has taken place in the discussion of the matter now before this house. For the purposes of the record I would like to refer to the fact that on June 11 last I was dealing with this matter for only a few moments before the house adjourned, and what I intend to do today is simply to review one or two of the reasons for the course of action adopted by this government. Thereafter I will answer certain general questions which have been asked, and finally I will deal with the stand taken by the Leader of the Opposition and the rather tortuous course followed by the opposition from the time this matter first received the attention of this government to date.
It will be recalled that during the course of the debate reference was made to the perils faced by the free world and to the position of Canada vis-a-vis that of the United States and that of the U.S.S.R. In addition to the mover, the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have spoken on this very important matter, the Minister of National Defence, of course, having addressed his remarks mainly to defence. The two ministers dealt with the special necessity for the implementation of this arrangement between Canada and the United States, and may I say that they reviewed the facts in a manner which clearly indicated their appreciation of the dangers facing our country and of the necessity for this action to be taken.
I particularly wish to emphasize, in view of statements made by various hon. members opposite, that NORAD is strictly defensive in nature and in operation. I realized, as I listened to the speeches of hon. gentlemen in all parts of the house, that there exists deep concern with respect to the tensions and the dangers which are even more apparent than at the time of the adjournment one week ago. This is because during the intervening period free men everywhere have been shocked to learn of what happened to the former Hungarian prime minister and those associated with him, which events indicate that the so-called soft attitude of the U.S.S.R., which seemed to have been apparent during the last two years, has now been supplanted by a form of Stalinism brought up to date.

I am not going to enter into an argument as to whether or not NORAD is part and parcel of NATO, but I would point out that Mr. Spaak, when speaking before the parliamentary association, did say with reference to this matter that the military plans of NORAD are known to the standing group in the military committee through the Canadian-United States regional planning group, and are studied there. This relationship supplies a base for co-ordination between the plans set up by the supreme commanders directly under the standing group and the plans of NORAD. He went on to say that it is in this context, therefore, that NORAD's role in the general framework of the over-all defence of the North Atlantic treaty area can be defined.
I would furthermore repeat that in so far as NORAD is concerned, it represents the extension of the principles of NATO to the North American continent, in that it makes provision for the joining together of free nations within the concept of NATO and for the purposes of NATO. Without discussing the connection between NORAD and NATO I wish to say that I believe, whether it is a part of NATO or not, it does strengthen NATO, which is all that matters.
It is defensive and not offensive. It will give muscles to NATO in North America. Indeed, in view of the recent reports to which I have just alluded, added strength has been given to the wise words of Sir Winston Churchill, who on December 31 last referred to the Atlantic alliance and suggested its members should give assistance and sympathy to any member state having problems in overseas territories. He said, as reported in the New York Times of January 1, 1958:
It is on the unity and strength of the countries of the alliance, and particularly Great Britain and the United States, that the future depends.
The North Atlantic treaty should not limit to Europe the scope of mutual assistance and sympathy among its members. We cannot have the closest exchanges here, and be indifferent to the interests of our friends in their overseas problems.
I repeat that all the arguments as to the actual legalistic position or otherwise of NATO in its relationship to NORAD in no way answer the problem with which we are faced, namely that with the American interest in North America-and by "American" I refer to the United States-with its large numbers of troops and other armoured personnel, whether or not they are in fact within the contemplation of the operations of NATO, they comply with the principle dedication of NATO to the preservation of peace.
I am going to refer to some of the questions that were raised at the very beginning before I say something on what to me is a very
NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement difficult problem, namely the strange and mystifying attitude of Her Majesty's loyal opposition in connection with this matter. The Leader of the Opposition asked on the basis of some report from Washington, which he did not identify, whether or not Air Marshal Slemon could exercise authority over United States forces under NORAD. He wanted to know how much of the time NORAD would be under the command of the Canadian air marshal. This question was answered by the defence news branch of the office of the assistant secretary of defence and public affairs of the United States, Allan A. Howell, when in respect to the question whether Air Marshal Slemon could commit United States forces without consulting the United States government but be unable to commit Canadian forces without consulting the government of Canada, he used these words on January 10:
Air Marshal Slemon, in accordance with the agreement with the Canadians, is deputy commander in chief of NORAD, and in the absence of the commander in chief, exercises all prerogatives of command in the event of war or any other time.
There is no doubt about it. This was the defence news branch in Washington setting forth the position of the United States with regard to this matter. The only veto of any sort is that applied by the United States everywhere in the world, that nuclear weapons shall not be used excepting as authorized by the President of the United States, and that proviso applies everywhere in the free world in consequence of the position of the United States and of legislation in effect in that country.
The question was asked, does the agreement involve Canada in any action outside North America? The obvious answer to that is no.
Another question was, what will be the basis of financing the operations of the integrated headquarters of the command. The answer to that question is that the cost of the pay and allowances of the Canadians at NORAD is met by Canada, and no other costs have been considered to date.
Then the hon. member for Essex East asked -barring security-what was the relative strength of American and Canadian forces in the United States serving under General Partridge. An answer to that question had already been given on June 3 in reply to a question by the hon. member for Ottawa West, when it was stated that the strength of the Canadian forces serving at NORAD was eight officers, seven other ranks and two civilians, and in the reply it was also pointed out that the release of strength figures other than Canadian is not the responsibility of the Canadian government.
1424	HOUSE OF
NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement
Among other questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition was this. Did the original decision made last summer to establish NORAD take into account the entirely new strategic situation created by the intercontinental ballistic missile. Well, I would hope that the hon. gentleman had the answer to that question. As yet I have not referred to all the items in connection with the memorandum on steps in the development of integration of operational control. I referred to early discussions in connection with this matter on May 14, 1956, when the Canadian chiefs of staff and the United States joint chiefs of staff agreed to refer to the joint study group the integration of operational control. On February 18, 1957 there was a memorandum prepared to the cabinet defence committee on integration of operational control of Canadian and continental United States air defence forces in peacetime.
It is interesting to note that two days after that event of June 10, 1957, the following appears in the record, and it strikes me as passing strange, although it is not the first time the Leader of the Opposition did not know what was going on at the time he was secretary of state for external affairs in connection with military matters. He revealed that much in June, 1956, in connection with the shipment of arms to Egypt, but I will not refer to that unless forced to do so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Go ahead.


John George Diefenbaker: But on June 12, 1957, two days after the election, an aide-memoire was forwarded to the then minister of national defence, Mr. Campney, by the chairman, chiefs of staff committee, outlining the position on integration of operational control with regard to the air defence of North America. I am not going back to the events when the matter was brought to the attention of the cabinet defence committee by memorandum on March 11, 1957, but even after the election this matter was raised; and it is passing strange that it did not receive any attention by the then government between those dates, when the aide-memoire provided the information necessary for the cabinet to act.
And then, on June 18, this memorandum reveals the degree to which complete consideration had been given to this matter by the chiefs of staff and also, I presume, by the minister of defence. The chairman, chiefs of staff, instructed Major General Sparling, Canadian joint staff, Washington, to see Admiral Radford, chairman of the United States joint chiefs of staff, and inform him that the Canadian chiefs of staff had placed the question of the integration of operational


control before the government on Friday, June 14; that the outgoing government regretted to state that they did not consider they were any longer in a position to finalize any international agreement, and that there would therefore be some delay in the finalization of the matter.
In others words, consideration had been given to this question as a result of two years' discussion between the chiefs of staff and also with the minister of national defence of the previous government, with whose activities one would think the former secretary of state for external affairs would have been fully conversant. Only in the last few days evidence was given before one of the committees of parliament-the estimates committee-by one of the officials of the Department of National Defence to the effect that there was the closest possible relationship in the matter of exchange of information between those two departments.
The question was asked, did the original decision made last summer take into consideration the strategic situation created by the intercontinental ballistic missile. Those documents show that every consideration was given to all those factors, and I summarize by saying that all factors relating to the strategic situation, including the improvement in the manner of delivery of nuclear weapons, was fully considered prior to the establishment of NORAD.
Another question asked by the Leader of the Opposition was what functions were being given to NORAD to prevent any mistake in intelligence or in detection of aircraft, a matter which could be vital. It was vital in 1956; it was vital in 1957, before June 10. Well, such precautions as are necessary are set forth in the rules of engagement and included in the document entitled "Authority to Intercept and Engage Hostile Aircraft" which I tabled on June 10.
Another question was, can the commander of NORAD at his discretion move reinforcements across the border to meet operational requirements and, if so, under what conditions. Again I was surprised at the questioning attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. These things had been discussed; these things had been fully covered over a period of almost one and a half years.
And yet the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), with surprise in his eyes, says: "I wonder what was done in connection with this" when, as a matter of fact, he either knows what the minister of national defence in his government was doing or if he does not know it does not show that degree of co-operation which should exist between the Department of

National Defence and the Department of Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is just one bit of further evidence of the reason why, in January, 1956, the hon. gentleman did not know that Harvard aircraft were being shipped to Egypt. But we carried the thing on day by day and week by week and found out finally that there was an order in council which was passed on January 10, 1955. He said that it was considered by cabinet; that it was a serious matter and one wherein every consideration should be given to the realization of the danger spot in the Middle East. It was considered by cabinet and the decision was the decision of cabinet. Then, they ended up by saying, well, in the first place there is not an order in council; in the second place it was never considered; and in the third place we did not know anything about it until after the shipment took place. This is just one more example of that failure on the part of the Department of External Affairs to have a knowledge of what the Department of National Defence was considering in connection with a major international matter. I refer to the question of whether the commander of NORAD at his discretion can move reinforcements across the border.
I would refer the hon. gentleman to the exchange of notes tabled in the House of Commons on May 19, 1958, which we are now debating, in which it is set forth in full as follows:
Temporary reinforcement from one area to another, including the crossing of the international boundary, to meet operational requirements will be within the authority of commanders having operational control.
The next question he asked was:
Is Canada going to negotiate directly with Washington a bilateral pact for bases of nuclear projectiles.
That question has not been raised or considered.
In a very beautiful speech the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton) placed his views before the house. He asked two questions in particular in addition to those that have already been answered:
Will the United States commander of NORAD have authority to order the R.C.A.F. to shoot down planes which the commander considers hostile, without first clearing his order with the Canadian government?
... has General Partridge been given authority to shoot first and ask permission later from Washington and Ottawa? If so, where is this shown in the agreement?
I have already stated in answer to these two questions by way of anticipation that action against hostile aircraft is covered by the rules of engagement which I tabled earlier in this house.
NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement
I have had the questions gone through most carefully to ascertain what questions have not been answered. These have not been answered and for that reason I have taken the time of the house to answer them.
I am now going to refer to what I said in the beginning as to the dangerous and uncertain courses adopted in this matter by the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of his party. First, as a member of the government he knew what was going on. Since the minister of national defence who was negotiating throughout was a member of that same government, the Leader of the Opposition knew what was going on. If he did not know, there is only one conclusion one can come to. However, the attitude that he has taken on this matter since last September or October is to me out of keeping with what might have been expected. As far as the asking of questions, as far as the most careful analysis of every matter that could possibly be revealed, and within the limits of security may be asked, are concerned, in that he discharges the function of a responsible opposition. But, sir, when he produced straw men to knock down, bogeymen to scare and arouse suspicion in the hearts of Canadians, I say that he went farther than that.
On reflection, to use those immortal words of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) I am sure he will regret it. I think it was Winston Churchill who once said, "I do not resent criticism even when for the sake of emphasis it parts for the time with reality", and I think that pretty well sums up the need of criticism and also the limitation. But I say it is an altogether different thing when criticism departs from the facts for obvious political purposes.
I intend to deal with the course taken by the Liberal party on this matter. First, in the fall of 1957 the arrangements in general were attacked. The hon. gentleman said that he had no knowledge of the arrangements when, as a matter of fact, if he had not, there was no connection between departments, or whatever information was available he for some reason or other was unable to secure it.
Then, the next step was to arouse fears in the hearts of Canadians by playing the tune in every part of this country that we had deserted Canadian rights by sacrifices of Canadian sovereignty and had brought about a state of United States control over Canadian forces. I have a number of speeches that were delivered by the hon. gentleman pointing out the dangers of this. Well, he knew that the position of affairs was no different from having a NATO commander with the power over Canadian troops as today the United States commander has power over Canadian and United States troops.

NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement Then he produced-and I have often wondered the reason for his doing it-that outrageous doctrine that Canada should notify the United States that unless their trade arrangements were brought in line with Canada's wishes we could not fully co-operate in defence. Not only he, but the former associate minister of national defence, Mr. Paul Hellyer, at the Liberal convention at the city of Ottawa said this:
I think that when they do come to us and ask for them-
And he was talking about defence concessions.
-we should be very tough with them and say to them: Look at our adverse balance of trade. You help by buying as much from us as we buy from you and we will go along 100 per cent in our mutual defence.
That is a strange doctrine, in a world where freedom is challenged, when we are in the position, as an hon. member said, of a Belgium, that we should advance to the United States a doctrine such as that. Is it the voice of responsibility to say that if we in Canada cannot have from the United States what we want in trade-and incidentally that tremendous trade in balance exercises the minds of my hon. friends opposite today to a degree that it did not when it was being piled up during their days of office-they should say to us that we in Canada should place ourselves in the position of committing international suicide and not be a partner unless the United States couples its actions respecting defence with those in respect of trade? I say I was amazed to hear the Leader of the Opposition raising a similar argument in this house.
What was the next step? First, we did not know anything about it. Second, we should act only under certain circumstances. Then, they said, "Well, you have got the agreement but it has not been sufficiently discussed, although they themselves had their experts and military officials discussing it, as I say, for a period of a year and a half. Then they raised the suspicion that war might start by the mistake of some officer although they themselves had produced the rules of contact in order to prevent that from occurring.
Now, as far as discussion is concerned, there must have been full discussion, not for the twenty or thirty minutes referred to by my hon. friends but a discussion over a period of two years. Why did they not go ahead? The Leader of the Opposition said that the reason they did not go ahead was that the election campaign was beginning and ministers had to go back and forth across the country. That is the first I knew that the election campaign began on March 11. The first knowledge that the House of Commons

had was about April 20 that year and there was never any question during that period of time of ministers going back and forth across the country during an election campaign.
But I think my hon. friend rather revealed these facts, these fears and the reasons why action was not taken between March and June when he said, as found at page 1003 of Hansard of June 10:
For some reason or other-perhaps to obscure the bilateral character of the agreement; perhaps because they-
That is the government.
-were a little bit sensitive about the reaction in the country to the placing of part of the R.C.A.F. under a United States commander . . . they went out of their way to emphasize that this headquarters was an integral part of NATO-
I can only conclude that these words apply with even redoubled force as the latent reason, the direct reason, why this matter, the general purport of which had to all intents and purposes been determined by the former government, was subject to postponement of finalization until after the election was over.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish to rise on a point of order. I have already explained to the house, and the Prime Minister will surely accept my word, that far from its being finally considered by the cabinet it had never been considered by any cabinet meeting at any time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, naturally I must accept my hon. friend's denial in so far as he himself is concerned, which indicates once more that while he did not know other ministers of the then government did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my statement refers specifically to the cabinet. This matter was never discussed at a cabinet meeting at any time. The Prime Minister must accept that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have read the record and I will allow the record to stand. The minutes of the defence committee-


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister now stating that he has read the record of cabinet meetings of the previous government?


John George Diefenbaker: Pardon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the Prime Minister now stating that he has read the record of cabinet meetings of the previous government?


John George Diefenbaker: I have stated what I was reading from, namely the memorandum of steps on the part of the defence committee.

Let me say to my hon. friend that the first step I took on becoming Prime Minister was to direct, without any other consideration, that at no time should we ever examine any records of the cabinet proceedings of the last government to the end that those proceedings, having been discussed in secret, ought not to be available to a succeeding government regardless of any doubts that might arise.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the normal practice.


John George Diefenbaker: I am simply quoting from the defence committee minutes and no one can challenge their correctness. Having first said that they did not know anything about it, having first said that no consideration was given, and there is no doubt whatever that consideration was given for about two years or a year and a half in any event, the next step was to say, "Well, you flouted parliament." My hon. friends opposite, Mr. Speaker, have suddenly developed an interest in parliamentary procedure which was not theirs during a period of 22 years. They have learned that much. They say that we should not have entered into the agreement without prior parliamentary consideration and approval. Did they do that? Does any responsible government do that? I point out first that I can give example after example in this connection since 1945 when agreements were first entered into between the executive and the foreign country in question and thereafter submitted to parliament. I refer to the protocol to NATO on the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany. That was in 1955. I refer to the interim agreement regarding international civil aviation on December 7, 1944, which was not tabled in the house until September 7, 1945. Then there is the convention on international civil aviation signed by Canada on December 7, 1944, and tabled on September 7, 1945. There is also the international air services transit agreement signed by Canada on February 10, 1945 and tabled on September 7, 1945, with a motion being made for approval later on in the second session of 1945.
I mentioned the agreement on civil aviation. The motion in that case was simply that it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the interim agreement on international civil aviation and that this house do approve the same. First the signature and then after signature presentation to parliament. Indeed, in 1926, as my hon. friend said, a type of wording of resolutions of approval was adopted, and by a simple reading the words of approval indicate that it was the intention of Mr. Mackenzie King, the then prime minister, first to enter into 57071-3-91J
19, 1958
NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement agreements and then, having done so, to submit them to parliament. Here are the forms of resolution that answer the specious argument advanced by my hon. friend opposite:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve-
Such and such an agreement.
-signed at . . . and that this house do approve the same.
Alternatively there is this form:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve ratification of the . . . agreement and that this house do approve the same.
That was the next step. Bogeymen and smoke screens. First, we did not consider the matter. Then there was condemnation by my hon. friend of the terrible danger to the people of Canada. Then there was the fear aroused in the hearts of Canadians that we had sold out Canada. Finally, there was the argument of the hon. member for Essex East who, in stentorian tones, said at page 1028 of Hansard that the question of the potential use of Canadian forces outside of Canada made it necessary to have the agreement submitted to parliament. Apparently he forgot what had taken place during the days when he was in the government, for on September 7 and 8, 1950, when the Canadian Forces Act was being amended, a question was asked regarding this matter of the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green). That question is found at page 495 of Hansard of September 8, 1950, and was:
May I ask the Prime Minister whether there will be a resolution authorizing the sending of troops to Korea?
This was the answer:
No, sir; that would be something which has never been done. The government announces to parliament what its policy is, and asks parliament for the ways and means to carry it out. It is for that reason that we have our appropriation bill. If parliament does not authorize the ways and means to carry out the policy, it cannot be carried out. If parliament, on the other hand, on any motion of non-confidence, expresses its disapproval of the conduct of the government, of course the government resigns and some other group forms a government to carry out the will of the Canadian people as expressed by their representatives in parliament.
The next question was asked by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) who said:
An order in council will be tabled?
Mr. St. Laurent replied: "An order in council will be tabled." There is the record, a record of change and alteration, but always raising behind it a dust screen in order to conceal the actual facts from the Canadian people. But it finally remained for the hon. member for Essex East to speak.

NORAD-Canada-XJ.S. Agreement
He really came along at the end. He did not say there was a treaty or an agreement. He said there was no such thing. He said it was not an agreement, it was simply an agreement to agree. I marvel sometimes at the power of his language. Mr. Speaker, I enjoy hearing him in debate when he raises these great issues. His leader said that there was an agreement, but not the member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). He said it was simply an agreement to agree.
Even that was not original. I do not know where my hon. friend got that.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: From the same place you get a lot of your speeches.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall deal with that in just a minute. I marvel at his language. I marvel at his memory. He delivered that speech the other night, to all intents and purposes, without notes.


Mr. Deschatelets:: It was a good one too; much better than yours.


John George Diefenbaker: I find it was, but I find it was not original. I find that my hon. friend got a Free Press editorial, and without referring to the Free Press used the same words as the Free Press used. No, that is not fair to my hon. friend. With the house in such good humour today, I do not want to be unfair to my hon. friend. It was not the same. He left out one "but". He said this is where I got my speeches, but, Mr. Speaker, the Winnipeg Free Press-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) who used to use the Free Press.


John George Diefenbaker: This suggestion was made to me, and I think in fairness to my hon. friend every opportunity should be given to hon. members to really appreciate the memory of my hon. friend, the genial member for Essex East. I have heard of photographic memories, but I do think it fair my hon. friend should go back to March 20, 1958, to the Winnipeg Free Press editorial, which has as its heading "Agreement to agree".


An hon. Member:: He has it.


John George Diefenbaker: This is one time when we are in agreement. But I want to be fair to my hon. friend. At page 1027 of Hansard for June 10, 1958, the first paragraph, he uses these words, and mind you, they are not from the Free Press, they are right out of the mind of the hon. member for Essex East:
This agreement is not an elaborate one; in fact, it is not an agreement at all. The material before us does not represent an agreement, it represents-


And so on. The Winnipeg Free Press used identical words, and then a little later on that page-


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would refer your honour to Beauchesne and ask, is it not contrary to the rules of this house to read from an editorial and to attribute to that editorial in the newspaper the very words used?


Mr. Harkness:: You did it.


Murdo William Martin: I did not mention the newspaper. I would suggest to you, sir, my point of order is well taken. I did the other night exactly what the hon. gentleman did when, without referring to it, he quoted words on one occasion from a secret and confidential government document.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, that is old straw.
We are dealing with something up to date. Who ever heard of such an argument, Mr. Speaker? He quotes Beauchesne to the effect that you should not refer to editorials in the House of Commons. My hon. friend did not ascribe this to the Free Press, he used these as his own words. All the way through the editorial, from paragraph two to the top of paragraph three-I will not quote this but I will allow my hon. friend to check me up -the only change was that where "written agreement" was referred to in the editorial, my hon. friend left that out because he is a lawyer and the editor of the Free Press is not. He put in the word "but" in order to clarify and improve the language and left out "yet". I have no doubt he wishes he had left it all out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not at all.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am merely congratulating my hon. friend upon his ability to memorize. Oh, there was one other change, "U. S.", in the editorial became "United States" in the speech. All the way through, Mr. Speaker, it was the words of Paul and the thinking of Tom, and that is the reason for Beauchesne's rule that editorials should not be used in the House of Commons, much less as though they were the thinking and the words of the individual who uses them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have three
other good examples of yours I shall use very soon.


John George Diefenbaker: I have no doubt my
hon. friend has other examples, because I have never reviewed these statements before. No doubt there are some that are the same as this.
I am simply pointing out that the course was one of change and vacillation, always designed to sow the seeds of distrust and

suspicion in the hearts of the Canadian people. Then, they end up, and this is what I cannot understand; after they criticized, ridiculed, castigated and condemned, I wonder how they are going to vote? My hon. friend, after ridiculing everything that had been entered into for the defence of Canada, then said that the agreement referred to in the resolution is not objected to by us. Then, why all the criticism? They conceived it in their days in office.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: They conceived it and
their protests cannot deny it. The record speaks for itself. Even when the matter came before the cabinet, apparently, on June 14, and these are the words:
-the Canadian chiefs of staff had placed the question of integration of operational control before the government on Friday, 14 June;-


Murdo William Martin: I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is saying that this matter was decided by the government of Canada. He also said it was a matter that was decided by the defence cabinet committee. As a member of both of those bodies I say, in confirmation of what the former secretary of state for external affairs has said, that is not in accordance with the facts. Under the rules of this house, the hon. gentleman has no alternative but to accept that without any comment.


John George Diefenbaker: I naturally have to accept the denial of my hon. friend. Then having accepted it, may I read these words:
-the government on Friday, 14 June; that the outgoing government regretted-


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker,-


John George Diefenbaker: Wait until I finish this sentence.


Murdo William Martin: Will my right hon. friend tell us-
NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement something new and that we had brought about conditions detrimental to Canada's sovereignty, while they spoke they must have had some realization of what the chiefs of staff committee was recording. It is singular, but the last cabinet meeting that I recall was on June 14.
I am surprised that since last fall this matter should have been treated in the manner in which it has been treated. Throughout the election campaign it was mentioned frequently. The Canadian people were shown a terrible bogey man. My hon. friends tried to frighten the people with this kind of thing, and the same attitude has been shown in this house. Now, after all the smoke screens that have been raised, I ask my hon. friends opposite to support the motion. They have spoken derisively of this agreement; they have ridiculed it. They have stated that it is not an agreement. It is an agreement. Then the hon. member for Essex East, quoting the Winnipeg Free Press without giving to the editor the honour of the quotation, said it is not an agreement, it is an agreement to agree. Mr. Speaker, it is an agreement to provide for the salvation of the people of North America against a situation that far transcends any other reason or consideration and for the welfare of Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite having said all 'these things, having determined to make this a political issue by arousing in the hearts of the Canadian people that fear that permeates the hearts of people everywhere in the world, I ask them now to rise and, by their vote, to strengthen the alliance which they have ridiculed for six long months.


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


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor. I gave place to the hon. member once. I read these words:
-that the outgoing government regretted to state that they did not consider they were any longer in a position to finalize international agreements; and that there would be some delay in finalization of this matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask my hon. friend what he is reading from?


John George Diefenbaker: I am reading from a copy of the memorandum of the chiefs of staff committee setting out in detail what took place. My hon. friends, having endeavoured to place before the house and the country a transparent plan-should I call it that?- to lead the people to believe that this was
Messrs:
Aiken
Aitken, Miss
Allard
Allmark
Anderson
Asselin
Badanai
Balcer
Baldwin
Baskin
Batten
Beech
Bell (Carleton)
Bell (Saint John-Albert)
Belzile
Bigg
Bissonnette
Boivin
Boulanger
Bourbonnais
Bourdages
Bourget
Bourque
Brassard (Chicoutimi) Brassard (Lapointe) Brooks Broome
Browne (St. John's West) Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway)
Bruchesi
Campbell
(Lambton-Kent) Campbell (Stormont) Cardiff Cardin Caron Carter Chambers Charlton Chown Clancy

NORAD-Canada-V.S. Agreement
Coates
Comtois
Creaghan
Crouse
Danforth
Denis
Deschambault
Deschatelets
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale
Dorion
Doucett
Drouin
Drysdale
Dubois
Dumas
Dupuis
English
Eudes
Fairclough, Mrs.
Fane
Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke)
Flynn
Forbes
Frechette
Fulton
Garland
Godin
Gour
Grafftey
Granger
Green
Grenier
Gundlock
Habel
Hales
Halpenny
Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace)
Hamilton (Qu'Appelle)
Hamilton (York West)
Hanbidge
Hardie
Harkness
Henderson
Hicks
Hodgson
Horner (Acadia)
Horner (Jasper-Edson)
Houck
Howe
Jones
Jorgenson
Jung
Kennedy
Kindt
Knowles
Korchinskl
Eafreniere
Lahaye
Lambert
LaRue
Latour
Leduc
Lennard
Lessard
Letourneau
Lockyer
Macdonnell
MacEwan
Maclnnis
MacLean (Queens)
MacLellan
Macnaughton
Macquarrie
MacRae
McBain

McDonald
(Hamilton South) McFarlane McGee McGrath McGregor Mcllraith McIntosh McMillan McPhillips McQuillan McWilliam Maloney Martel
Martin (Essex East)
Martineau
Martini
Matthews
Meunier
Michaud
Milligan
Mitchell
Monteith (Perth)
Montgomery
More
Morissette Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Murphy Nasserden Nesbitt Nielsen Nixon Noble Nugent O'Hurley O'Leary Ormiston Pallett Parizeau Paul Pearkes Pearson Phillips Pickersgill Pigeon Pratt Pugh Rapp Rea Ricard
Richard (Kamouraska)
Roberge
Robichaud
Rogers
Rompre
Rouleau
Rynard
Simpson
Small
Smith (Calgary South) Smith (Hastings-Frontenac)
Smith (Simcoe North)
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Southam
Speakman
Stanton
Stearns
Stefanson
Stewart
Stinson
Tasse
Thomas
Thrasher
Tremblay
Tucker
Valade
Villeneuve	Winkler
Vivian	Woolliams
Walker	Wratten
Weichel	Yacula-200.
White	NAYS
	Messrs:
Argue	Martin (Timmins)
Fisher	Peters
Herridge	Regier
Howard	Winch-8.



HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-30, to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act-Mr. Monteith (Perth)-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Commencement of Payments
Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I have before me a copy of the agreement with Newfoundland, and clause 12 of schedule B outlines the arrangements in respect of the cost of services provided for insured persons at hospitals situated outside the province, and in that clause it is stated that such payments will be made as specified under regulation 12. I wonder if the minister would tell us what regulation 12 is?


Mr. Monteith (Perth):: I am sorry, but we do not appear to have a copy of the Newfoundland regulations here but if the hon. member would agree to state his question I think we might be able to provide an answer.


Chesley William Carter: Perhaps I can get the information by putting the question in another form. The minister stated yesterday that if a person from one province was treated in another province; to be specific, if a person from Newfoundland received treatment in Ontario, then the government of Ontario would charge the government of Newfoundland for that service. Is there any agreement on the rates of charges for those services? Would the Ontario government charge the rate prevailing in Newfoundland, or would they charge their own rate, or is there a mutual agreement about those rates?


Jay Waldo Monteith: There would be mutual consent or agreement as to the charges. The Newfoundland rates would undoubtedly prevail. In other words, they would pay on the basis of the Newfoundland rates.


Chesley William Carter: The Ontario government would pay Newfoundland at the rate which prevailed in Newfoundland? Is that it? Is that what I understood the minister to say?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the hospital in Ontario would collect directly, not the government of Ontario. The hospital in Ontario would collect either from the government of Newfoundland or from the individual patient who then, on his return to Newfoundland, would collect from the government of Newfoundland.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, that seems an extraordinary way of doing it, for a person to pay the cost in one province and then be under the necessity of collecting it himself. What would happen if a service were provided in Ontario to a person from Newfoundland which is not ordinarily provided to a person living in Ontario? Who sets the rate? Are they regular hospital rates?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think I mentioned this last night, Mr. Chairman. He would get the same service to which he was entitled in Newfoundland.


Chesley William Carter: But who charges for that and at what rate, the rate prevailing in Ontario?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, so I understand, Mr. Chairman; it is at the Newfoundland rates, what they would pay for the service in their own provinces.


Chesley William Carter: If a person were hospitalized in Ontario, then he would not have to pay Ontario rates if the Ontario rates were higher; he would pay the lower Newfoundland rate to that Ontario hospital?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No. I understand, Mr. Chairman, there would be circumstances where he might have to pay extra. It would depend upon the point of view of the province of Newfoundland. In other words, if he were hospitalized in Ontario he might have to pay some charge over and above what similar hospitalization would cost him in Newfoundland. He would pay to the hospital in Ontario and he would then claim against the government of Newfoundland. Whether or not he would collect that extra I cannot say at the moment.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, I understood the minister to say last night that the provinces would pay directly from one province to the other and the individual himself would not have to pay his bill.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If that is so, I was
wrong at that time because the hospital would undoubtedly collect from the individual. I think that is the way it would work out practically and the individual would then collect from his government when he returned.


Mr. Milchell:: May I ask the minister a question and probably he realizes why I am
Hospital Insurance Act asking it. It seems to me that the explanatory notes are slightly ambiguous in connection with in-patients and out-patients. According to the explanation, no medication is available to a patient on a take-home basis, but (b) of the explanatory notes reads:
To permit necessary accommodation, meals and drugs being provided in the hospital as part of out-patient services-
The explanation I would like to get is whether a patient needs to be confined to the hospital to receive this medication, or whether an out-patient can come back and forth to the hospital, to the dispensary or to wherever it might be where his medication is obtained. I realize that if it is in the form of hypodermic injections it would be handled in the hospital but if the medication is in the form of a daily dose of a certain type of drug could the patient come back to the hospital every day, or would that be considered in conflict with no medication on a take-home basis?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand that this particular type of service would be medical treatment and as such would not come under the hospitalization plan at all. If I understand what the hon. member wishes me to deal with, it is, can the patient come back to the hospital on an out-patient diagnostic basis for one, two or three days in a row? Is that the thought? Well, he can, as I understand it, in Newfoundland but in Ontario it is only on an emergency basis.


Mr. Mitchell:: That is what I wanted to clear up.


Mr. Bourque:: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell the committee the reason why he has not been able to obtain the signatures of the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia? I have already asked this question two or three times, and so far I have not been able to get a satisfactory answer.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I will try to run
over it all again, Mr. Chairman. I think I have given the answer half a dozen times to the best of my ability. First of all, let me go back a little farther. Immediately I assumed office last August 22 I did start to study the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. The work had been going on in the meantime before I ever took office. My officials had visited in the provinces; there had been provincial officials in Ottawa, and this thing started to roll. Certainly, as I intimated when we took office, we were going to continue to give it impetus, which we did.
As time went on we had a technical conference. We had a technical conference last December 13 and 14, or some date in

Hospital Insurance Act there, at which time all officials of provinces were invited to attend. At that time all provinces did attend except one, namely the province of Alberta. The province of Quebec, I believe, had an observer there. From then on there were several visits to and from the provinces, all toward the development of an agreement and regulations. There was another technical conference held in April of this year at which Alberta officials were present and again Quebec had a couple of officials there as observers. All of the provinces were faced with the problem of making sure that their legislation was in conformity with the act.
There is a great deal of work attached to the preparation of one of these agreements and the necessary regulations, and I do happen to know something of that because I know how assiduously my officials and the officials of all the provinces concerned have been working toward the development of these agreements. But certain legislation had to be changed in some of the provinces to conform with our act. The whole program, has been developing. It was obvious last January when I made the announcement of this amendment that July 1 could be the date for some. As a consequence I announced at that time that we would move the starting date forward to July 1. We are working to that end now. Agreements have been drawn up and completed and are before the government for consideration with the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and, as I mentioned yesterday, officials of the province of Alberta are in Ottawa today and tomorrow. I do not think I can say any more.


Azellus Denis: With respect to Quebec, can the minister say whether the province of Quebec has said no, yes or maybe? I know that when there was a Liberal government the premier of Quebec said no, but there was an election and the Tory party came into power. We have seen reports in the newspapers that maybe he will enter into an agreement. I saw in the newspapers recently that he was supposed to be preparing some kind of agreement to submit to the federal government. As the legislation before us will come into effect on July 1, does the minister not think that the premier of Quebec is rather late in trying to take advantage of this wonderful legislation?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think it is for me to say what I think. All I can announce is that there has been no indication from the province of Quebec as to what their intentions may be.


Azellus Denis: There was no letter, no telephone call, no correspondence between the premier of Quebec and the federal government?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No indication.


Azellus Denis: Nobody took the chance of writing to him or sending a telegram as was done with regard to the dominion-provincial conference on fiscal matters?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No. I mentioned earlier that officials from Quebec were at both technical conferences as observers. They are quite well aware of what is available to the province.


Maurice Bourget: If my information is correct I do not think that Quebec has drafted legislation so far that would comply with the bill we have before us now. Is the minister aware of that?


Jay Waldo Monteith: We are not aware of whether or not they have been working on any agreement or draft legislation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to come back to the question put by the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean, which is the kind of question we have been asking now for some time. I think the minister has advanced his position somewhat this afternoon but I do not think he has fully satisfied the committee as to the reasons why, with respect to certain provinces, no agreements have yet been signed. He has mentioned the fact that his officials have been very diligent and have worked very hard. Of course I would readily confirm this statement because of my own experience with the officials of the department, all of whom are very outstanding people who give great service to the country. This is the point of the question of the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean. Can the minister tell us why there is no agreement signed today with the province of Saskatchewan, for instance?


Jay Waldo Monteith: There has not been time for these things to be developed and completed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to analyse that. The minister says there has not been time. The province of Saskatchewan has had a hospital insurance scheme in being for longer than any other province in our country. They have the necessary legislation to authorize them to enter into an arrangement with the federal government and they have had that authority for several years. That being the case, having a scheme in being, having the necessary authority to sign an agreement, can the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell us now why the province of Saskatchewan has not signed

an agreement? Have they not found our terms satisfactory? Have they been negotiating with regard to some of the terms? Surely it should be possible to tell us why a province like Saskatchewan, with all of these necessary conditions fulfilled, has not signed an agreement.
The same is true of British Columbia. British Columbia has had a scheme in being for a long time. It has the necessary authority to sign. In the case of British Columbia it may be that some necessary amendment was required with regard to out-patients, I believe it was, but my recollection is that British Columbia passed that amendment last fall. If that is the case, why has no agreement been signed between January 1 and the present time? I have made the statement, and I am not saying this in an acrimonious way, that from the progress that has been made I am satisfied it should have been possible to have agreements with those provinces that have hospital insurance at least by the end of last September.
What the committee is trying to ascertain from the minister in a friendly way, not with a view to making it difficult for him because we all realize how heavy his responsibility is, is the reasons why. Is it that some of the percentages of grant have altered because of the rise in costs? I have been looking over Hansard for yesterday and I find that some 59 questions were put that have not yet been referred to by the minister.


Jay Waldo Monteith: So many of them were repetitious.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says "repetitious". They are repetitious because we are seeking to impress upon the minister the questions that we have in mind. Look at the number of questions the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo put to the minister. True, he repeated questions but that was because the minister first of all did not seem to appreciate their nature and, second, when he gave an answer it did not seem to be satisfactory. As a matter of fact, I am going to deal later with one particular question because I do not think the minister's reply can be correct. If it is correct, then there certainly has to be some change made at once because the people of Newfoundland will be given the impression that they are getting from the federal government something they are not getting. I do not think that can be the situation.
However, the simple question before the committee now is why no agreement has been signed with Saskatchewan. The minister should tell us. Is it because Saskatchewan does not want to take the responsibility for Indians? Is that the reason? If not, what is the reason?
Hospital Insurance Act


Jay Waldo Monteith: I mentioned a moment ago that the agreement is complete and now before the government for consideration. Consequently, there is no reason. The agreement has been decided upon between the province and the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
question. Why was this not done months ago? I said that Saskatchewan has a scheme in being.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is not starting until July 1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know, but if my hon. friend had got an agreement with Saskatchewan eight months ago, if he had got an agreement with the province of British Columbia eight months ago he could have come to the house and asked for the authority that he is asking for today.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We are getting back to the old question. It would not have been done until the first of January 1959 if you had been in power.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend wants to get this measure through he must do two things. He must first of all listen to the questions and then patiently try to deal with us curious members who have the obligation of asking him why more progress has not been made in this matter. I do not say by him but by the government of which he is such a distinguished member.


Jay Waldo Monteith: What is the immediate question?


Mr. Small:: If I may answer the hon. member for Essex East, the reason it is not signed is the same reason that he could not get it signed. The province would not sign it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. and genial friend obviously does not know what he is talking about when he makes that observation. Would the minister answer the question?


Jay Waldo Monteith: What is it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister said there is an agreement now before the federal government for signature. My question and that of the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean is why that agreement was not before the government many months ago.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I tried to explain a few moments ago the amount of work involved in developing these agreements. All of this takes time on the part of provincial government officials and federal government officials. It happens that at this exact time the agreement has been developed to the

Hospital Insurance Act point where it is ready for signing. I cannot answer in any other way.


Romuald Bourque: I have no doubt the officials of his department are trying to do a good job, and are doing a good job. I should like to know, has the minister been in communication with the premiers of the provinces himself?


Jay Waldo Monteith: In several instances, Mr. Chairman.


Romuald Bourque: But not in Quebec. Yesterday, the minister told us Ontario had signed an agreement which included diagnostic services for in-patients and for out-patients it was confined to accident cases. He also told us previously that the agreement signed with Newfoundland included diagnostic services for both out-patients and in-patients. My question is, can any province sign an agreement and include only the services it wants, that is for partial services or for full services?


Jay Waldo Monteith: So far as out-patient services go, they have diagnostic services. They have that part.


Romuald Bourque: If this is so, has the minister given any consideration to the amount of bookkeeping this is going to require, or the staff he will need, if each province is going to have a different system?


Jay Waldo Monteith: There will not be any difference at all. The hospital charges are paid by the province to the hospital, and then we, in turn, make a monthly payment to the province covering our share of the hospitalization charge in that particular province. At the end of the year when we have all our costs assimilated, we will work out the exact position and make an adjustment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister said monthly, and I think it is quarterly.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I cannot swear to that; monthly or quarterly.


Mr. Hardie:: Can the minister tell the
committee-


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I correct that impression? I understand it is actually an advance payment monthly.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: My question is this. Has the minister submitted to either the territorial council of the Yukon or the Northwest Territories an agreement for signature?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand that the subject has been before the commissioner and the council and the staff of the department, and is being studied.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Can the minister tell me
whether the agreement submitted to the commissioner is the same type of agreement as that submitted to the provinces?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, there has not been an agreement submitted. It is rather a matter of working out some scheme which will be suitable for the territories.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Is it the intention of the government to submit to these people plans along the same lines, say with the same percentage, 50 per cent, to the territorial governments?


Jay Waldo Monteith: This will all have to be worked out. After these discussions which are taking place, are complete and a report is received, undoubtedly there will be some sort of agreement with the territories drawn up. At the moment, I cannot say what the percentage would be.
Possibly I might point out to the hon. member that at the moment, as the hon. member for Essex East has pointed out, the percentage which is being borne by the federal payment does vary as between the provinces. In Newfoundland, actually it is going to be 68.3 per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Those are the
figures for which I asked.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is 68.3 per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is four per cent less than the original estimate.


Jay Waldo Monteith: These figures are for January 1 to March 31, 1959. A monthly payment will be made for operating costs based on 68.6 per cent-I said 68.3 per cent-for Newfoundland; Nova Scotia, 57 per cent; New Brunswick, 57.9 per cent;-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is two per
cent less.


Jay Waldo Monteith: -Ontario, 48.8 per cent; Manitoba, 47.4 per cent;-


Murdo William Martin: That is a reduction of four per cent.


Jay Waldo Monteith: -Saskatchewan, 42.2 per cent; Alberta, 48.8 per cent; British Columbia, 50.2 per cent.


Murdo William Martin: What would the Quebec percentage be under the new estimate of costs?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have not got a figure for Quebec.


Murdo William Martin: It was 53 per cent before.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have not any figure for Quebec. These figures are apt to vary, as we have mentioned before. The basis on which we participate in the shareable costs is

25 per cent of the per capita costs in the province, plus 25 per cent of the per capita cost across the country. Naturally, this is going to adjust the figures in the provinces from time to time, and the figures I gave represent estimates from the figures available.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: My point is, if this formula of 25 per cent of the provincial costs, plus 25 per cent of the national costs, is applied in particular to the Northwest Territories we will find a great difference. For instance, in the Northwest Territories today one-third of the population would be considered the responsibility of the provincial government, and the other two-thirds of the population is made up of Indians and Eskimos who come under the jurisdiction of the federal government.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I quite appreciate that. As a consequence there would have to be some special arrangement worked out.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Can the minister tell me
whether this report which is to be presented will be presented to the territorial council at its July session so that the territories can come into this scheme on January 1, 1959?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It will be a report to me, but I am not sure whether it will be ready for the July session of the council. Then the government will have to decide what steps are to be taken.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister tell us what the situation is now with regard to the share of the federal government and the provincial government with respect to moneys paid by a patient who comes under a hospital insurance scheme with regard to semi-private or private rooms? I think the old formula was 60-40. Has there been any progress made in the negotiations on that point?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is at present 50-50.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the objection that is taken now by the law officers of the crown to the hospital insurance scheme in Alberta, which makes it difficult to give it ready acceptance?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It would be rather out of place for me to comment on that at the moment because negotiations are now taking place.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think it is a question of negotiations.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is not a question of negotiations, it is a matter of coming to an agreement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then there is no difficulty, so far as the federal government
Hospital Insurance Act is concerned in accepting as such, the hospital insurance scheme in Alberta?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I made this statement earlier also, and this is probably one of the 60-odd questions to which the hon. member referred. I did say that the question at issue was as to whether or not the Alberta legislation fitted in with our act, and that has been before the law officers of the justice department for consideration. While these discussions are going on, I do not think I care to make any further comment on the matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will realize that this is the parliament of the nation, and parliament has the supreme right to be told exactly what the policy of the government is towards this scheme in Alberta.


Robert Hardy Small: As the Liberals told us when they were in power.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There is no doubt about the policy. It is simply to reach an agreement.


Murdo William Martin: I did not catch the interjection of my hon. and genial friend.


Robert Hardy Small: I say it was the same sort of thing that happened when you were in power. When we asked you a question we could not get an answer to it. As a matter of fact, they were questions of the same class. You said it was government policy and you would not answer.


Murdo William Martin: That is right. Now that we have disposed of this interjection, perhaps I might elicit certain information from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I can understand how the minister could say "Well, the scheme in Alberta is not the kind of scheme to which parliament has authorized the payment of public money".


Jay Waldo Monteith: I did not say it was
not; I said we were studying it.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Essex East is having a bad day.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend says that he is studying it. We are going to be here for a long time until we know precisely what it means. We are now giving the minister power to pay out money. I cannot understand why there should be any difficulty about the Alberta scheme if other modified schemes are being accepted. For instance, as to the scheme in Manitoba, is it a full hospital insurance plan? Does it cover every individual in the province? Is it confined to certain cases under certain contingencies? If that is the case, how does

Hospital Insurance Act it differ in principle from the kind of objection that my hon. friend would raise as against the province of Alberta?


Jay Waldo Monteith: There is nothing irregular about the agreement with the province of Manitoba. There are absolutely no special concessions or anything of that nature whatsoever. It is fully within the terms of the act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend keeps saying that it is within the terms of the act. I am glad to know that. Then why is the Alberta scheme not acceptable? The Alberta scheme is a scheme that provides for insurance for limited numbers of people. It is based on financial contributions made by the provincial government and the municipalities. But those are the only particulars I know of in which it differs from any of the others. That is why I want the minister to give us some explanation.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I cannot go any further than I have gone, Mr. Chairman. I have tried to explain that there is a difference in the Alberta act and legislation. We have studied the matter and we have been studying it for some weeks. There has been discussion back and forth between officials of the province of Alberta and ourselves. We have been trying to determine whether or not we can accept it. We hope and we rather expect to find that the Alberta legislation is satisfactory. Certainly our main policy is to sign an agreement at the earliest opportunity.


Romuald Bourque: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I cannot really understand this amendment. We read in clause 1:
1. (1) Subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (f) of section 2 of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(iv) drugs, biologicals and related preparations as provided in an agreement when administered in the hospital,"
(2) Paragraph (i) of section 2 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(i) "out-patient services" means all or any of the services set out in paragraph (f) to out-patients as specified in an agreement; and"
Then in the explanatory notes on the opposite page we find this:
(2) Section 2 (i). This amendment removes the existing exceptions concerning accommodation, meals and drugs. The present paragraph (i) reads as follows:
" (1) "out-patient services" means all or any of the services set out in paragraph (f), except subparagraphs (i) and (iv) thereof, to out-patients as specified in an agreement; and"
If this amendment means what it says, I cannot see how the government can make an agreement with any province for outpatients.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I will try to explain this matter. It does take a little homework.
1	think I spent an hour or two on it myself before I had it entirely straight, not being a lawyer. Section 2 (f) of the act states as follows:
(f) "in-patient services" means all of the following services to in-patients, namely-
(iv) drugs, biologicals and related preparations as provided in an agreement,
Then subsection (i) of the act reads as follows:
(i) "out-patient services" means all or any of the services set out in paragraph (f), except subparagraphs (i) and (iv) thereof,-
Subparagraph (i) of paragraph (f) reads as follows:
(1)	accommodation and meals at the standard or public ward level,
In other words, out-patient services mean all or any of the services set out in paragraph (iv) except; so as a consequence, by a strict interpretation, it has been argued- and I agree with the hon. member for Essex East; I am not too sure that this maybe is not all right but it is for purpose of clarification-that out-patient services are defined to cover all these in-patient services except those set out in paragraph (f) (i) and (iv), which would mean that out-patients could not get accommodation and meals or drugs, biologicals and so on as set out in (i) and (iv). Does that explain it?


Romuald Bourque: Yes, to a certain extent. But it is going to be an extremely complicated affair to interpret.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No. I think it is rather simplifying it. The amendment states now:
1. (1) Subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (f) of section 2 of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(iv) drugs, biologicals and related preparations as provided in an agreement when administered in the hospital,"
This first part simply means that when drugs, biologicals and related preparations are as provided in an agreement which is under paragraph (f) of section 2, then they must be forthcoming in the hospital and must be treated in the hospital. Paragraph
2	states:
(2)	Paragraph (i) of section 2 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Instead of:
(i) "out-patient services" means all or any of the services set out in paragraph (f), except subparagraphs (i) and (iv) thereof,-
It reads at the moment that all these inpatient services except accommodation and meals at the standard or public ward level

and except drugs, biological and related preparations as provided in an agreement- except those-would be included in outpatient services. That is being repealed and there is being substituted the following:
(i) "out-patient services" means all or any of the services set out in paragraph (f) to outpatients as specified in an agreement: and"
So it will simply include (i) and (iv) as amended. In other words, all of these inpatient services will now be available on an out-patient services basis.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Since the minister stated that discussions were going on between officials of his department and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources or the commissioner of the Northwest Territories, I wonder whether he and his officials would consider this suggestion? Because of the special provisions that will be required to give to the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory the same benefits as those which will be derived by the people in the provinces, may I ask that special consideration be given to the problem of transportation. In the Northwest Territories, for instance, we have hospitals at Fort Smith, Fort Resolution, Yellowknife, Fort Simpson and Aklavik. A person breaking a leg or faced with some sickness that cannot be dealt with in a nursing station or by the R.C.M.P. is required to travel to the nearest hospital. This problem is a very serious one, especially when we are considering hospitalization for the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I would hope, therefore, that the minister and his officials will consider including transportation costs in the special provisions which he has mentioned would have to be made for the people of these areas.


Jay Waldo Monteith: These things will be considered, and when I receive the report I will be very happy to look into the matter.


Harold Edward Winch: Now that the minister is in this mood for considering all these things, I wonder whether he would tell us whether consideration will be given to an arrangement between the federal and provincial governments for the care of those who need hospitalization but who are not eligible owing to the lack of one year's residence in particular provinces. I have in mind those people who would normally be the responsibility of the federal government, namely the thousands of women and children who are the families of those men in the armed forces who have taken their discharge on returning to Canada. Such people have lost their right to hospitalization and in fact the men themselves, upon taking their discharge, are not eligible unless they have resided for the preceding twelve months in
Hospital Insurance Act the province concerned. Numerous cases have been drawn to my attention where they have incurred very heavy hospital bills during such a twelve-month period, and where no one can be held responsible for their welfare. I do think some provision should be made in that case.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am very happy to inform the hon. member that no province has a greater waiting period than three months under this new scheme.


Harold Edward Winch: That is under the new plan but it is still twelve months in British Columbia, or it was.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It was at one time, but I understand an arrangement was made with the Department of National Defence. I may be mistaken.


Harold Edward Winch: No, I am referring to those who have taken their discharge from the armed services. The arrangement to which the minister refers applies to those who are still in the armed services.


Jay Waldo Monteith: In any event there is no longer waiting period than three months in any province.


Romuald Bourque: The answer the minister gave me a moment ago would have been satisfactory and I thought it was at the time he gave it, but I have now read the explanatory notes. The purposes of this bill are set out as follows:
(a) to specify that the drugs, biologicals and related preparations which may be provided as part of in-patient services may not be given to patients on a take-home basis;
It therefore becomes very complicated for the out-patient, and I understand it is a matter of discretion which might give rise to difficulties when trying to make arrangements.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member will notice in section 1 (1) of the bill, item (iv) of paragraph (f) is being changed to indicate that these preparations as provided in the agreement are to be administered in the hospital. The explanation in the explanatory notes under (a) includes the words, "may not be given to patients on a take-home basis", and the addition under (iv) includes the words, "when administered in the hospital". The limitation is therefore included to provide for administration in the hospital only.


Romuald Bourque: I think it is important that this should be interpreted for the house, because out-patients are not provided for in this amendment. The amendment refers only to patients in the hospital.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If the hon. member would refer to subsection 2 of section 1 of the
1438	HOUSE OF
Hospital Insurance Act bill, I think this matter might be clarified for him. Subparagraph (iv) of the first section provides:
(iv) drugs, biologicals and related preparations as provided in an agreement when administered in the hospital,
In-patient services are set out in the act itself but subparagraph (iv) to which I have just referred changes the wording to say these preparations must be administered in the hospital, so that covers in-patient services.
Section 2(i) of the act defines out-patient services as meaning all or any of the services set out in paragraph (f) and, as I pointed out, paragraph (f) defines in-patient services. In other words, all in-patient services are included except sections (i) and (iv), and the amendment deletes (i) and (iv). In future therefore out-patient services will include all of those in-patient services under (f) excepting that drugs and biologicals must be administered in the hospital.
Incidentally, out-patient services are as set out in the agreement, and that is why some may differ.


Mr. Batten:: It may be quite feasible that under the present formula of 25-25 there will be fluctuations in the percentage of cost paid to any province. This is evidenced by the fact that the percentage paid to Newfoundland, which would have been 72, but is now 68.6. Having decided what the percentage is to be for any one province, for how long will that percentage obtain?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Just for one year. The figures are adjusted when the actual costs are presented.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Shall this bill be read a third time now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh no. I think we have been very generous with the minister. No doubt he will wish to look at some of the questions he has not answered, and I think we ought to defer third reading.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
341. Improvements generally-not more than $25,000 to be expended on any one project without the approval of treasury board, $700,000.
Maurice Bourget: I think the minister was about to give us a breakdown of this amount of $700,000.


Howard Charles Green: When this estimate was under consideration the other day I read off some examples of the expenditures covered by the item. Today I have a much longer list. I would be very glad to let the hon. member see it at any time. As a matter of fact, even this list is not a full list because some of the items go down as low as $100.


Maurice Bourget: I do not ask the minister to read all the projects but if he would be good enough to give us the breakdown by provinces.


Howard Charles Green: I have not got it now, but I will get that information. The hon. member will notice that in the details of the estimate it is divided between expenditures in Ottawa and expenditures elsewhere; $150,000 for Ottawa and $550,000 for other centres.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
342. Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $1,300,000, $44,000,000.
Mr. Fisher:: I should like to bring up at this time a point I did not have the opportunity of raising on a previous item in the estimates. I refer to the operation of the central heating plant and its relationship to the question of public buildings. I understand that two years ago an extension was made to this heating plant and that two more boilers were put in, and yet anyone who visits the plant at the present time will discover there are quite a number of boilers not in use. The question that comes to mind immediately is why more boilers are needed; how many boilers were operated last year of the boilers in service; how many boilers have they altogether; and how many will they have altogether.


Howard Charles Green: The position is that there are three boilers known as the Leonard which are modern boilers, thoroughly efficient and two of a smaller type known as Kidwell boilers and four old Babcock boilers which are used as standby boilers. I am wrong. The Kidwell boilers are the standby boilers. The four Babcock boilers are obsolete. They are very small and make a lot of black smoke. We are going to buy one new Leonard boiler.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the hon. member
for Bonavista-Twillingate has been driven through it too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have been driving there, too, yes.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently this is the first complaint we have had about this smoke. We should be very glad to look into it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the minister knows, I walk along there every morning and I have more opportunity to see this smoke than the people who are whisked by in motor cars.


Howard Charles Green: I would not like the hon. member to get more smoked up than he is.


Douglas Mason Fisher: How many of the boilers
operated last winter. Did any of the standby boilers that are not efficient operate last winter?


Howard Charles Green: The four Babcock boilers were only operated in times of emergency.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Are we to assume that because these boilers are inefficient they must be taking up space? Are the new boilers to have new housing, or are the Babcock boilers being removed to put these in?


Howard Charles Green: No, the building is large enough now to accommodate all the boilers we have at the present time and two in addition.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The two in addition are the ones that were inefficient.


Howard Charles Green: No, there is room for two new ones.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Are we going to carry on with the inefficient boilers or are they going to be scrapped?


Howard Charles Green: As soon as we have acquired a new Leonard boiler the four old Babcock boilers will be taken out.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What is the situation with regard to the staff looking after these boilers? Are a certain number of people working on each boiler permanently, or are people added to the staff as more boilers are brought into use?


Howard Charles Green: No. The Babcock boilers are only put into use when some of the other boilers are out of use.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to make a final suggestion to the minister. I have heard complaints and very serious criticism in connection with the whole operation of this plant and these are the sort of things which, as referred to earlier, put the whole civil service and especially the Department of Public Works in a bad light. These criticisms are circulating, and though I am not suggesting
Supply-Public Works
that they are in every way well founded they have been made to me by people in Ottawa who seem to know a certain amount about the situation, and they suggest that this is a very bad example of government inefficiency. Will the minister check into the situation personally to see whether there is anything to this?


Howard Charles Green: We shall be very glad to have a look at it. Sometimes we do get those complaints from people who may have been told by someone else, or they may have a spite against somebody working in the plant. I doubt whether the information given to the hon. member is accurate. We shall be glad to look into it.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, before you call it six o'clock I ask the permission of the committee to ask the minister for information which should have been asked for on item 328. Will the minister be kind enough to give me the number of new engineers and new architects who have been employed by the department since July 1 of last year and where they are located, either in Ottawa or in district offices.


Howard Charles Green: I will be very glad to get that during the dinner recess.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
343. Furniture and furnishings for government departments, $1,818,650.
The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Maurice Bourget: No. I thought the minister was going to answer the question I asked at six o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: I have not yet got the figures for engineers and architects who have been employed but I do have a breakdown of vote 341 having to do with improvements generally. The figures are: Ottawa, $150,000; outside Ottawa: Newfoundland, $36,450; Nova Scotia, $15,000; New Brunswick, $7,400; Prince Edward Island $2,375; Quebec, $300,045; Ontario, $107,580; Manitoba, $10,400; Saskatchewan, $35,510; Alberta, $10,500; British Columbia, $24,740, a total of $550,000 outside Ottawa and an over-all total of $700,000.


Maurice Bourget: Under item 343 I should like to ask the minister if any new centres for the supply of furnishings or materials needed for the different public buildings have been established. I recall that in the past there
1440	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Public Works
were centres established at Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg. Have any new centres been established?
Mr. Greens No, there has been no increase in the number of purchasing agencies.


Maurice Bourget: Was I correct in saying that there are supply centres or warehouses at Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg? Are there other centres I have forgotten, such as possibly Vancouver?


Howard Charles Green: In addition to the ones the hon. member has mentioned there is a small purchasing office in Vancouver.


Maurice Bourget: Centres have not been established in Quebec city, Windsor or Hamilton, for example?


Howard Charles Green: Purchases in the Quebec area are handled from the Montreal office. The Toronto office handles western Ontario.


Maurice Bourget: There are some cities where the department buys locally from local suppliers such things as soap and so on needed in public buildings.


Howard Charles Green: There would be some small items but practically everything is bought under the tender system and in the form of bulk purchases.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does that mean that when the customs building is completed in St. John's, for example, the furnishings for it will be bought in Montreal?


Howard Charles Green: The tender call will come from Montreal but, mind you, it will be advertised in Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would hope so.


Howard Charles Green: So would I.


Maurice Bourget: Is it the intention of the department to establish a centre of distribution in Newfoundland, for instance? I think it would be a good idea in order to help the local suppliers.


Howard Charles Green: In due course we hope to be able to make this extension. Eventually there will probably be about six centres in Canada.


Maurice Bourget: Taking Newfoundland, for instance, if a warehouse were established in Newfoundland would tenders for supplies then be called for only within the province or outside the province?


Howard Charles Green: No, they would probably be called over a larger area.


Maurice Bourget: From the manufacturers.


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Harbours and Rivers Engineering Services- Acquisition, construction and improvements of
harbour and river works.
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be
assistants, was so limited that the department
expended on individual listed projects-
345. Newfoundland, $3,640,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have a few observations to make on this item. The other day when I spoke on item No. 1 of the minister's estimates I had just started to say something about the great value of small public works that require very little planning and very little advance organization. It so happens that all around the coast of Newfoundland and particularly in my riding there are many such works that are still very badly needed.
It is true that in the nine years since confederation the most urgent works have been done. But there was, as the minister knows, a long period before that when, first because of economic difficulties and then because of the war, marine works such as wharves, break-waters, slipways and other services, which under confederation the federal government has the responsibility for supplying, were seriously neglected, and I think I will offend nobody by saying that. The result is that, despite the magnificent and untiring efforts of the minister's department over the last nine years, there is still a great deal of this work to be done, as the minister is well aware. As I said the other day, part of the reason that more has not been done in the last few years is that the availability of supervisory personnel, engineers and engineers' assistants, was so limited that the department simply could not redouble its efforts.
But, at a time like this when, according to the latest figures we have been given, 24 per cent of the working force of Newfoundland is unemployed, surely something extra could be done. Those are figures which the bureau of statistics gives us, so no hon. members should suggest I am exaggerating. We are hoping that when the figures come out for May they will not be quite so bad. The improvement, as I know from having been there only last week, is not anything like as encouraging as we would like it to be. Anything the minister can do to speed things up this year, or toward planning for next year, would be very welcome indeed.
I have told the minister twice, and I do not think it will do me any harm to say a third time, that I welcome his suggestion he is going to build a real shelf. I have a few items that I should like him to put on the shelf. I believe the simplest way would be to start systematically at one end of my

riding and go through it very quickly. It will be an interesting tour, and it would make me happy if the minister would come along and make the tour with me.


An hon. Member:: On your boat?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know whether or not that would be the minister's idea of a holiday, but I am quite sure if he did it he would be completely convinced.


Howard Charles Green: Would there be a real sailor on board to look after the ship?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, and I can assure the minister there would not only be a good sailor on board but a good cook as well. The minister looks as though the ministrations of a good cook would not do him any harm.


Howard Charles Green: I have gained 20 pounds since I got over here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can assure the minister that his experience is not the experience we had when we were over there. We worked so hard we lost weight.


Howard Charles Green: You lost more than weight.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Happily at any rate, in my case I did not lose a very important part of my anatomy, my seat.
Being here as a representative of the constituency of Bonavista-Twillingate I feel that my constituents would expect me to indicate some of the more urgent of these marine works that the minister could undertake. We would all be grateful if he were able to undertake them, if not this year, then next year, and in some cases it might take a little longer than that.
I am going to start at Twillingate, which is one of the largest and also one of the most historic fishing settlements in Canada, there are 35 families. At Bluff Head cove, Twillingate in addition to the main harbour. As the minister is undoubtedly aware, a considerable dredging operation has been under way, perhaps I should say was under way for a while but was suspended because of what was felt to be a more urgent need at Port-aux-Basques. I have no complaint about that. However, I do hope, at the earliest possible date, the minister will find it possible to have the main dredging operation at Twillingate resumed.
In addition to that there is the need for a breakwater at Jenkins' cove to protect the fishermen's boats. I may say there are about 75 fishing families involved there. A similar breakwater is needed at Ragged point, where there are 35 families. At Bluff Head cove, there are about 35 fishermen, most of them heads of families. In addition to that, the
Supply-Public Works minister's department did an excellent job last year with a bulldozer dredging one of the coves in Twillingate. This was a relatively small job, but the appreciation of those fishermen would touch the minister's heart deeply if he had a chance of meeting them.
There are several other coves, Jenkins' cove, Durrell Bottom Maidment and Hillier's Bottom, and Shoal Tickle, where only a little dredging with a bulldozer would improve the situation immensely. Then, moving from Twillingate island to New World island, it is true that the main settlements at New World island have excellent wharves, but there are a number of smaller places where wharves are needed. Bridgeport, Tizzard's Harbour, Hillgrade and Carter's Cove, are places that just come to my mind quickly on thinking it over.
In addition to that, there is a small dredging operation which I would hope the minister might find it possible to get done at Whales Gulch. I am very glad to see that it is proposed to go on this year and finish the Pikes Arm canal, because it is going to be of immense advantage to the fishermen in that area. I may say that, when I was there on other business in March, I saw the new wharf at Birchy bay, and the lobster fishermen especially are tremendously pleased with that wharf. However, like Oliver Twist, they would like a little more. They would like another block on the wharf so that they would be able to reach deeper water. Then, Boyd's cove is an important place. It is a jumping-off place for the islands and it very badly needs a wharf. If this would touch the minister's heart any more, I would say that Boyd's cove was one of the few places where I did not get a majority, so perhaps the minister would undertake to build a wharf there right away.


Howard Charles Green: What did the hon. member say they needed there?


John Whitney Pickersgill: A wharf; this would be a relatively expensive wharf, but it is very badly needed. Then, a smaller wharf is needed at Port Albert. Port Albert is at the end of the line of the road being built, and when the road is built a good part of the traffic to Change islands and to Fogo island will come up the road from Lewisporte to Port Albert and by boat across to these islands. In addition to providing for the needs of the fishermen, such a wharf would provide for the needs of the traffic both of persons and of freight.
Then, going into Gander bay, there is a perennial problem of getting a coastal wharf at Gander Bay. The minister's officials will tell him what a vexing problem this is, and

Supply-Public Works if the minister can solve it we will all be very grateful. There are, in addition, two or three places in Gander bay, the Gander Bay settlement itself, Main Point and Davidsville, where landing wharves would be of immense help to the people. Then, there is a wharf at Frederickton, which is well known to the minister's officials. This is the Frederickton in Newfoundland, of course. At Frederickton, the view in the community is that a small block at the end of the wharf is what is needed. I do not presume to offer a professional opinion on that, but there is an improvement needed at Frederickton. Then, at Carmanville there is one of the greatest antiquities in Newfoundland and one of the longest wharves. I do hope the minister's department will get around to replacing it before it collapses entirely. Carmanville is a big and growing settlement and this is a great need of the people.
Then, going back to Change islands, there is a long standing need for a wharf. This is an important fishing settlement as well as an important place of transit. In the greater part of Fogo island wharves have been built recently. At Seldom Come By, the minister's department has done a wonderful job, and at Fogo itself there is a relatively new wharf. At Joe Batt's Arm there is a new wharf, but they would like an improvement to the wharf.
At Tilting a small wharf would be very helpful. But the place I should like to appeal for most of all is a place sometimes called Deep Bay and sometimes called Hare Bay- that is near Fogo-where the people have no place to land at all. It is a very hard place. It is a place where one could not build a very large structure. But there are a good many fishermen there and they encounter great difficulty. At times it is impossible for them to launch their boats and get them into the water.
Then going back to the straight shore, I understand the minister is planning to go ahead this year with the breakwater at Aspen Cove and I hope with some dredging as well at Ladle Cove. There is a need for a slipway for the fishermen at Ragged harbour. There is a petition that I believe the minister received-I know the Minister of Fisheries did -for a breakwater at Flin Point at Musgrave harbour. One of the leading merchants of Musgrave harbour is a very well known and celebrated person in Newfoundland named Mr. James Way who on one occasion contested an election in Newfoundland for the minister's party against the premier of Newfoundland. Mr. Way has said he would build a fish plant if the minister would build this breakwater. I commend this project to the minister's sympathetic consideration.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l

Then there is a certain amount of dredging needed at Deadman's Bay. I am pleased to say that the minister is going to build a wharf this year at Lumsden North. At Lums-den South what is needed is a breakwater. Lumsden is one of the greatest fishing settlements in the world and it has some of the finest fishermen in the world but it is a terribly open place. If this breakwater could be constructed, it would be a tremendous boom to these fine God-fearing people. Then we come to Cape Freels.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: May I ask
the hon. member a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: What did the Liberal party do when they were in power?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member for Hamilton South would like me to give a list of the things the Liberal party did while in power I am afraid the minister's estimates would not get through tonight. It would take too long.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was just indicating the supplementary things that still needed to be done notwithstanding what had been done. At Cape Freels North there is a splendid wharf. As a matter of fact, I carved my initials in it on one occasion just so the people would not forget. However, they need a small slipway, it would not cost very much. Here again is a great fishing settlement.
Then at Newtown the minister is doing some dredging this year which is badly needed, for which the people are extremely grateful indeed. At Pound Cove a wharf would be of great help to the settlement. I am afraid there is nothing I can ask the minister to do in Wesleyville that he has not already done. In the main the same thing applies to Valleyfield-Badger's Quay. The minister is building a big shed on the wharf at Valleyfield. That is badly needed. It will be of great assistance and I am very grateful to him for it.
Then we come to Greenspond. As the minister knows, Greenspond is an island. In Greenspond there are people who would like a causeway built to the mainland. I am not going to make any such extravagant request of the minister this evening. However, there are a certain number of rocks in the channel into Greenspond that for some reason or another we cannot seem to get removed. I think there is the best will in the world but somehow or other the rocks keep on being there. If they could be removed this year, it would be deeply appreciated. Then

in addition, the people of Greenspond West feel the need of a wharf in that part of the island. I think that request will be familiar to the minister's engineers as well. Then at Fair Islands last year a splendid wharf was built. A slipway is needed. I would not put this in the deep urgency class but it is something that would be very much desired. A wharf is urgently needed at Silver Fox Island.
Then moving along the coast we come to Hare bay. The minister and I have had a certain amount of correspondence about Hare bay and I have the feeling that he is gradually being softened up about Hare bay. It is a big settlement, an important settlement and a growing settlement. Although it is not generally regarded as a fishing settlement, the decline in the woods operations in the last year or two has made many people anxious to go back fishing if facilities are available. Therefore, on those two counts this would be a good project for the minister to undertake.
Then I come to St. Brendans. St. Brendans again is an island. I regret to say that for some reason or another the people of St. Brendans do not seem able to give me a majority.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Notwithstanding that fact, they are very fine people. One recognizes the fact that there have to be some Conservatives in the world.


An hon. Member:: You don't have to
worry about them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: These people have a wharf that is not adequate to this important settlement. There is one of the other coves in which they would also like a wharf. If the minister could do something to improve the wharf facilities at St. Brendans, that also would be greatly appreciated.
Then we come to Gambo. I might say that Gambo is the birthplace of the premier of Newfoundland. It is celebrated in a good many other ways as well. It is the railhead of the whole of the north side of Bonavista bay. There is tremendous traffic in and out of Gambo. There is a good deal of local feeling that the wharf that is now there is not really adequate.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you build it
when you were in power?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because we were building other wharves that were even more urgently needed, and in very great number.
Then I come to Glovertown. In Glover-town there is a spendid wharf where the Millie Ford is tied up from time to time.
Supply-Public Works Glovertown is a big settlement. It stretches all the way around Alexander bay. It is a large place, larger than most settlements in Newfoundland. The people on the north side of Glovertown also feel the need of a wharf.
Then there is a certain need for repairs to the wharf at Traytown. I do not think that anything is needed at St. Chads. There is a fine new wharf there. But at Burnside they do need a breakwater. This is a relatively small structure and it would also be very helpful to the fishermen in that rather exposed place.
Then, of course, there is Salvage. Salvage is a great historic fishing settlement, one of the most picturesque places in Canada. It is a place which people would travel thousands of miles to see if it were a little better advertised. It is also a splendid fishing centre, but it is also in need of a wharf. I think the minister has some of the particulars. There is one wharf there but, because of the configuration of the place, there is need of another wharf.
Then I understand some repairs are badly needed to the wharf at Sandy Cove. Also a small wharf would be of tremendous help to the fishermen in Upper Happy Adventure. A small slipway would also be of great help in Powell's cove in Happy Adventure. It is all the more important in Happy Adventure because, as the minister well knows, many of the people in Happy Adventure in the past have made their living at working in the national park. Until the park gets thoroughly organized, facilities for the fisheries would be especially helpful.
Then there are two places, one at the edge of the national park and the other across Clode Sound, called Charlottetown and Bunyan's cove. I am going to tell the minister a secret. I got a lift across the sound the other day on one of the minister's boats. I do not know whether the minister knew he had a fleet down there. However, they were kind enough to run me across the sound. I hope he will not discipline them for doing so. I may say it was not done in working hours. I can assure him of that. In both these places it is apparent that they need small wharves. A wharf would be greatly appreciated also at Port Blandford and would be all the more necessary, I should think, on account of the increased traffic that there will be because of the establishment of the national park, I would not pretend that Port Blandford is ever likely to be a fishing centre, but it is a big place and it is going to be a big tourist centre, and I would have thought that this would be a suitable project.

Supply-Public Works


Some hon. Members:: How big?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, it is big enough that I would hope the minister, in his spare time, would build a post office there, too. A couple of years ago we built a wharf; I beg the minister's pardon, his department built the wharf at Canning's Cove, and this wharf has been a tremendous boon, not only to the people of Canning's Cove but also to the people of Musgravetown and the people of Bloomfield. Musgravetown and Bloomfield are farm settlements. In fact, they are two of the largest farming settlements in my district which, perhaps, is not the leading agricultural constituency in Canada. These people, however, produce a large quantity of potatoes and other vegetables which they sell all along the northeast coast. At the present time they have to truck these vegetables over some very high hills and steep grades for quite a considerable distance to the wharf at Canning's Cove. In the old days there was a public wharf at Musgravetown. Of course one wharf would serve that place and also Bloomfield; I would not ask the minister for two.


An hon. Member:: How about a subway?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This wharf would more than justify itself. A small wharf was built on the other side of the bay at Portland last year and it is surprising to note how much use has been made of it. It has stimulated the fisheries in an area which has not been a fishing area. When the minister can get around to it, a wharf would be very helpful at Winterbrook, which is a large centre for the fishing and collection of lobsters. A wharf is very badly needed, indeed, at Southern Bay and also at Charleston. Though these places are fairly close together one wharf would not do for both of them, because there has been a good deal of development in recent years in this whole area with the pothead whale fishery and the squid and herring fisheries. These marine works there would really enormously assist the people to exploit these riches of the sea.
Wharves are needed at Princeton and at Summerville. A wharf was built at Plate Cove West only last year, and there is a wharf at Openhall but the people feel it would be much more useful to them if they could have another block on it. The people of Tickle Cove would like a wharf. I admit that this is a difficult proposition because Tickle Cove presents many problems. It is right on the Atlantic and it will tax the ingenuity of the minister's engineers to produce the kind of structure which will stay there.
I am pleased the minister is undertaking to replace the wharf at Duntara which was

regrettably destroyed by a storm about a year ago, and by so doing he has given heart to the fishermen. I believe Knight's Cove is another place where if a wharf were built there could be considerable development of the fishery, and Upper Amherst Cove is a great fishing settlement. It would be of great assistance to the people there if a wharf could be built to assist in the prosecution of the fishery, making it not only easier but more profitable, and it would, enable them to carry on their activities for a longer period each year. At Newman's Cove I know there are again great engineering difficulties but assistance is also required. In this latter place there is exposure to the Atlantic, but extensions to the present wharf are needed. At the other side of the cove a slipway is badly needed, which I am very hopeful the minister will be able to look after this year. At Birchy cove there is a smaller settlement but everyone who lives there is a fisherman and it would be very helpful if there could be a small slipway and a block built on which to tie the boats.
I am very grateful for what the minister is going to do this year in Bonavista and the people of Bonavista are also very grateful. The completion of the dredging of the pond and the work on the public wharf will be of great help and I hope it can be commenced at an early date. There is, however, one other project at Bonavista which has been under discussion for quite a long time. It is not a big job, but it is something which is clearly a federal responsibility and I hope it might be possible for the minister to consider taking steps in this regard this year, because it certainly is not one of those big works which would have to appear separately in the estimates. I refer to the fixing up of O'Dea's Pond. If my time had not just about expired and if the minister's patience was not wearing a little thin, I could go on to mention a lot of smaller works. I think perhaps I have suggested enough to keep the minister's department busy for the rest of this year and to indicate to him a few of the more important projects which people in Bonavista-Twillingate are very hopeful it will be possible to carry out next year.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, in fairness to the other members of the house, I think I should point out that the practice of my department is to construct projects in inverse ratio to the time taken up by members representing the various constituencies.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on this subject, firstly to thank the Minister of Public Works for what his department has done and is planning to

do in my district. I have in mind particularly the wharves at Tarrington Haven for Happy Valley and Conche.
I would also like to make mention of the high calibre of the officials of his department. I would, in fact, like to pay tribute to all civil service officials in their sincere and patriotic endeavours. The nation, indeed, owes a debt of gratitude to these faithful persons who devote their lives to the public service.
I would now like to mention a number of urgently needed public works for my own riding; firstly, a wharf and shed are needed at Botwood and at Lewisporte. These ports are busy shipping points and such accommodation is vital to their economic health. An extension is also needed to the wharf at Nain, and a fishermen's wharf is required at North West River slipway and a winch at Pinware. Wharves, at Hopedale, Pacquet, Fleur de Lys and Seal Cove need to be lengthened. The canal at Pilley's Island needs to be deepened and consideration should be given to dredging Jim's Cove. At this latter point a wharf is needed or, in the alternative, at Card's Harbour.
Wharves are needed at Embree, Hampden, Baie-Verte, Budden's Tickle in Sop's Arm and extensions are needed at Burlington and Wild Bight. A shed is needed on the wharf at Raleigh. Shove Tickle in Little Bay islands needs dredging and the breakwater should be raised.
In many cases the wharves are more than mere facilities for the handling of freight. They are vital so far as fisheries are concerned and the loss of a landing wharf can mean the ruination of the fisheries for a whole community. Conversely, the provision of such a wharf can mean a real increase in the quantity of fish caught.
Viewed from any angle wharves are of the utmost importance to a riding such as my own, where the sea provides both the means of livelihood and the means of transportation.


Chesley William Carter: Hon. members may not realize it, but in a modest way I am a shipowner, too, although not quite one of the same magnitude as my colleague from Bonavista-Twillingate. Nevertheless I can invite the minister to make a tour of my riding, and I can assure him that the cooking will compare with any he could get on any other ship in Canada, because the cook is my own wife. So I invite the minister to come down and travel with me any time he wishes, and I am sure he will find a lot of appreciative people in my riding of Burin-Burgeo, particularly the fishermen, who will give evidence of their gratitude for the work that has already been done.
Supply-Public Works
There are 260 settlements in my riding. I think the minister has made a sufficiently long tour for one night, so I will not take him over the whole length and breadth of my riding at this time, but I can assure him when I was elected in 1949 and travelled my riding for the first time I compiled a whole shelf full of works to be undertaken, so there is no shortage of requests for public works as far as the minister's department is concerned. In fact I am sure that the district office could provide a whole long list of works which could be put on his shelf, and I think that some have already been on the shelf for a considerable time now.
I wish to make a plea for several settlements in my riding where the people have been obliged to return to the fisheries but cannot carry on the fishery successfully because the harbours have deteriorated to such an extent that they cannot keep their boats in shelter at all. Perhaps hon. members do not realize just how hard a fisherman has to work. In my own birthplace-a little fishing settlement which is typical of others all around the coast-the fishermen get up well before daylight, sometimes around two or three in the morning, get their gear ready and set sail for the fishing grounds. It may take about an hour or two to reach them before daylight. They return at about six o'clock, get a bite to eat, and then have to cut ^ the fish, an operation which takes them until eight o'clock at night. Then, probably, they have to get into their boats and travel ten or 12 miles to get bait for the next day. They return at ten o'clock, or later, and are able to sleep for three hours, or four at the most, before beginning the next day's work. That is one of the reasons why our people grow old before their time and, of course, it is impossible to keep this up indefinitely.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but we are at present discussing the items of the public works estimates. I would ask the hon. member to adhere to the question under debate.


Chesley William Carter: I was only illustrating the need for these minor works which have been referred to by my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate. They may seem trivial to some hon. members, but they are of the utmost importance to fishermen for the reasons I have outlined.
I have in mind, particularly, a place called Seal Cove where there are about 500 people all of whom now are dependent upon the fisheries because those who were formerly engaged in the woods operations can no longer find employment there. This is one place where they cannot do anything this year unless something is done to deepen the water in the harbour.

Supply-Public Works
Around the Lamaline area there are a number of fishing settlements with about 1,000 fishermen. There are scarcely any harbours around that coast and a real need exists for dredging, building breakwaters and erecting other installations to make it possible for these people to carry on the fishery without unnecessary hardship. I should like to draw to the attention of the minister the need for sheds at Grand Bank and Fortune. During the election campaign the Minister of Transport announced that these two sheds would be built, but I see that no appropriation has been made for this purpose in this year's estimates. I assure the minister that these sheds are very urgently needed and I hope that the completion of these structures will not be too long delayed.
Before I sit down I should like to say one or two words about St. John's Harbour. I referred to this on the first estimate, but only in a general way. The minister is in possession of a plan which has been prepared by an engineering company and I suppose all plans are based on facts, forecasts and assumptions. The facts would result from surveys which would reveal the actual tonnage of shipping using the harbour, the actual volume of freight handled and the movement of freight between various points; the forecast would be an interpretation of those facts in so far as they might indicate the growth of shipping in the future, increases of freight handled and changes in the movement of traffic; and the assumptions would be with respect to future shipping trends. The assumptions also would relate to what shipping firms would be carrying on business in the harbour and also as to what effect certain harbour installations might have on the ebb and flow of the tide and the undertow in the harbour itself.
In all these factors there is room for a certain margin of error; there is room for error in interpretation of the facts and there is certainly room for a large margin for error in the area of forecasts and assumptions. This was our sad experience at Port aux Basques, though I do not think the Department of Public Works should shoulder all the blame for what happened there. The primary error there was the construction of a ship far too large for the harbour, and the second error was the selection of a site for the terminal which was located in the only place where it should never have been put. If that was done on the advice of engineers, I think we have the right and the duty to question plans that engineers may bring forward because they certainly are not infallible.

The shipping trend in the future must of necessity be in the direction of larger ships because smaller ships cannot operate economically in the light of present day operating costs. As I understand it, the present plan has certain defects in that it provides for the dockage of the larger ships in the narrowest part of the harbour. If the pattern in the future is to get away from small ships and have larger and larger ships in that harbour, then we cannot accommodate all the ships in that place where the one large dock is to be located.
The other defect in the plan is that it reduces the area of the harbour available for anchorage, and this is a serious defect as far as St. John's is concerned, because St. John's is the one harbour where the banking fleet will rush for shelter whenever a hurricane occurs and in the past several years we have had several experiences of that kind when the harbour filled overnight with ships, all sorts of shipping including the banking fleet and coastal ships which had rushed there for shelter. Any plan which would diminish the water surface of the harbour available for that would, in my opinion, be a serious disadvantage.
In addition, the other defect as far as the present plan is concerned is that it reduces considerably the amount of linear footage available for the docking of ships. I do not think that criticism is intended in any way to condemn the present plan, but it indicates that other possibilities should be very carefully looked into before any firm decision is arrived at. The present plan seems to me to have developed either because the company had in mind a fixed expenditure and tried to keep the plan within the limits of that expenditure, or else its survey did not envisage any great future expansion of commerce for the harbour. I do not think any of us can foretell what is going to happen in the next 50 or 100 years, and it would be most unfortunate if we did anything at this time which does not have to be done, and which might turn out in the future not to be for the best.
I do not know what defects the alternate plan has, but I understand it to be much more comprehensive and a much more expensive plan. Furthermore it corrects some of the defects that I have already mentioned. I would certainly urge the minister to give it very careful consideration and if it means expending $20 million or $50 million, not to let the amount of expenditure stand in the way of doing the very best possible job.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the time of the committee for a few minutes to point out to the minister some of the discrepancies in the remarks of my

colleague from Newfoundland, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. He concluded his remarks by saying that the narrow portion of the harbour-I presume he meant the west end of the harbour-would be narrowed down considerably by the construction of a large pier.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I did not say anything of the sort; I am sorry.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps my hon. friend would clarify it.


Chesley William Carter: I said the present plan makes provision for the docking of ships in the narrowest part of the harbour, in the western part of the harbour.


James Aloysius McGrath: The point that I would like to clarify for the benefit of the minister and the departmental officials particularly is the fact that deep sea shipping, that is shipping of fairly heavy tonnage, have always in previous years-and there is no reason why they will not do it in future years-used the eastern end of the harbour. I am sure the hon. member will also agree with me when I maintain that there is no reason to believe that, with the construction of this large jetty in the western end of the harbour and the breastwork which will form the basis of the northern side of the harbour of St. John's, there will be anything to stop heavy ships, if any heavy shipping comes to St. John's in the near future, from using the eastern end of the harbour and which now uses the premises of Furness-Withy and Harvey and Company.
By the same token, it has been pointed out by engineers of the Foundation Company of Canada, and various other experts, that the jetty is being built in the western end of the harbour to facilitate the handling of ships up to 10,000 tons. I am sure the hon. member is fully conversant with the facts, and I am sure he is fully aware that since the end of world war II there has been little or no shipping in the harbour of St. John's over 10,000 tons. I am sure the same critics of this plan that the hon. member has quoted and he are aware of the fact the suggestion has been made that this development will make St. John's a sixth rate harbour. I would like to point out that right now we are not even a tenth rate harbour. What I maintain is that when the present plan is implemented it will not be the answer to all of our problems but it will be an improvement and it will, I hope, be the beginning of many more improvements to the harbour of St. John's.
I certainly would like to see this plan started as soon as possible.
Supply-Public Works


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for St. John's East has just said I pointed out at the beginning, namely that this survey was based on some facts, forecasts and assumptions. One of the assumptions is that the shipping firms now operating in the eastern part of the harbour will always be operating there. I think that is not a valid assumption. More than that, the very fact which he mentioned, namely in the western end of the harbour there is to be accommodation for 10,000-ton ships, is going to tend to put those shipping firms in the eastern part of the harbour out of business altogether. If it is possible to expand this plan to utilize the eastern part of the harbour, as we are doing now for the western part, then St. John's will not have to be a sixth rate harbour; it will be a first rate harbour.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Chairman, it would be very unkind of me if I were to say that the people of my riding are not grateful for the work that the Department of Public Works has in hand this year, but I must say that we are not satisfied and we hope that the doors are not closed. We hope that many improvements which could be done at very little cost will be taken in hand. Also, there are many projects which I sincerely hope will receive sympathetic consideration in the not too distant future. At this time I want to publicly thank the Minister of Public Works for the prompt replies that I receive to requests made to him on behalf of the settlements in Trinity-Conception.
In my riding the Department of Public Works proposes to spend $110,000 this year on new construction work in the settlements of Elliston, Little Catalina and Old Shop. But there are many more communities needing facilities to assist fishermen in the carrying on of their work at the fisheries.
I should also like to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the urgent need of an extension to the wharf at South Dildo, near the premises of the Arctic Fisheries Products Limited, and where the provincial government owns a co-operative plant and O'Brien Fisheries carry on a fisheries business. Here is a very important industry which creates considerable employment for the residents in that area. As a matter of fact, when there is a good fishery there are as many pounds of sea products put through these plants as in many large fishing plants in other parts of the island.
I have presented to the Minister of Public Works several petitions from settlements ir. my riding. However, in addition I have a few more. For instance at Hibbs Cove, Port de Grave, a breakwater is badly needed. The fishermen there have to travel as much as 50 miles per day to get to the fishing grounds

Supply-Public Works Hibbs Cove is one of the biggest fishing settlements in Newfoundland.
There are also many places where wharves should be constructed such as Green's Harbour, Hillview, Lady Cove, Little Heart's Ease, Long Beach, Queen's Cove, Sunnyside, Thornba, Western Bay, Melrose and Trinity East. Trinity East is a growing settlement because many families are moving there from remote areas.
Slipways are required at Blackhead, Lead Cove, Gull Island and Clarenville. Extensions to public wharves are required at Caplin Cove in Trinity bay Cavendish, Chance Cove, Freshwater in Conception bay, Gooseberry Cove, Hant's Harbour, Deer Harbour, Lead Cove, Lower Island Cove, Low Point, Monroe, New Harbour, Old Pelican and Winterton. Dredging is also necessary in many places in my riding, particularly at Cupids where John Guy founded a colony in 1610.
I am sure that the minister of public works will consider these requests. I know that he is unable to fulfil all the requirements of my riding but I feel confident that these requests will receive consideration by his department and what cannot be done this year or next year will probably be done in the near future.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Chairman, I realize that by this time there is not much room left on the minister's shelf. He said a few moments ago that the amount of work done would be in inverse proportion to the length of the speech and I will take him at his word. I hope when I am finished that the possibility of getting done what we want done will be a probability of at least one project. When the minister is making up his estimates for the coming year I would be very pleased if he would have a look at the need for harbour installations at Port au Port, Ship Cove, Parson's Pond, Corner Brook and St. George's. I have made my remarks short, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
348.	New Brunswick, $4,060,500.
George Roy McWilliam: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take the minister on a tour of all the coves and inlets in Northumberland-Miramichi, but I notice that in the estimates there are only two items, one for $32,000 and the other for $40,000. However, there are a number of places along the coastline of Northumberland-Miramichi which are in need of facilities and in some cases improvements to existing facilities. The fisheries of Northumberland-Miramichi are very diversified, including all the delicacies that come from the sea, and the people of that part of the

riding derive their livelihood from fishing. The minister may not be as familiar as the department is with the requests that have been made in the past for improved facilities and in some cases new facilities where no facilities exist. I urge the minister to take a look at the requests that have been made from time to time in the past. I too would invite the minister to come down to the famous Miramichi river which is often referred to as the Rhine of America. He would probably enjoy his visit very much, much more than he enjoyed the trip he made last March.
I should like to refer to a matter which, while it has nothing to do with any particular item, would, I think, come under rivers and harbours. I would ask the minister to advise me, not necessarily in the house, with regard to the inquiry I made to him concerning the department's policy as to responsibility for the construction of a bridge over the Miramichi river at Chatham. I do not think there is anything more I want to say. I have spoken in general terms. I realize that everything cannot be done in one year but I find that the estimates covering Northumberland-Miramichi are probably less this year than they have been for many years. It may be that will be offset next year by a very good vote and the provision of money for those facilities needed by the fishermen of that area.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, I too do not want to take too much time of the committee at this time but I have a few questions which I should like the minister to answer. Instead of making a statement I will simply ask a few questions which I hope the minister will be able to answer. Could the minister advise the committee what the program of the department is in connection with the wharf extension at Maisonnette? I brought this up in my remarks on the first item of these estimates. I mentioned at that time that the minister had a golden opportunity to provide employment in a fishing community. By extension of the wharf at Maisonnette I am sure the fishermen of the area and others would be provided with employment.
I should also like to ask the minister what the present plan is with regard to improvement of Bathurst harbour. I notice an item of $100,000 covering dredging of Bathurst harbour this year but I understand that this item is to cover work done in previous years by departmental dredge No. 4 which I understand has been scrapped by the department this year. Would the minister answer these questions?


Howard Charles Green: First of all, with regard to Maisonnette; the situation there is that the

department estimates that the cost of providing a 208-foot extension to the existing 290-foot structure, including a small quantity of very costly rock dredging, would be approximately $164,000. Preliminary reports indicate that the commercial activity there would not justify an expenditure of this amount. However, we are having another look at it in order to get a more detailed report.
With regard to Bathurst, the situation there is that shortly after the new government took over we decided that it would be of great advantage to northern New Brunswick if a smelter were to be built at Bathurst. As the hon. member knows there have been very important finds of zinc, I presume in his county or perhaps it is in the adjoining county. However, there was a very promising mine in the province, in a place where it was not expected there would be such large base metal reserves. The mine was in operation, and we decided that we would spend up to $3.5 million for dredging at Bathurst to make it possible to use the wharf to the full extent, providing that the mining company would undertake to erect a smelter, and wharf.
We had very high hopes that they would agree, and I think for some time they were about to commence this project. However, as hon. members know, the price of zinc has fallen a great deal in recent months, and for the time being there is no prospect of the company building a smelter at Bathurst. In fact I think they have closed down their mining operations in recent weeks. This offer by the government still stands. We believe that a base metal smelter at Bathurst would be of immense value to the whole of the maritimes, and would be one of the most important developments that could be undertaken anywhere in Canada. There is power now being produced at Beechwood, and the fact there is cheaper power available is very material in this whole picture.
We have not lost interest in Bathurst harbour. The vote of $100,000 does not replace the other development. As I have already pointed out, we still have in mind going on with the full scale harbour development provided a smelter is erected in Bathurst. I would point out that this $100,000 is to be expended for dredging in Bathurst. There are other expenditures in the hon. member's riding. For example, harbour improvements at Blue Cove will cost $110,000 and breakwater repairs at St. Mary's, $50,000. There may be others, but we are very much interested in Bathurst.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am pleased to hear the minister say that the offer for improvement 57071-3-92
Supply-Public Works of Bathurst harbour still stands pending action by the mining company. I would hope that in the meantime consideration would be given to the immediate improvement of this harbour, especially wharfage facilities. Bathurst is a shipping port and at the present time there is no public wharf which could be used to advantage by shipping interests.
There are two more questions which I should like the minister to answer. Has any consideration been given to the removal of the old breakwater at the entrance to Tracadie harbour? I mentioned this in my remarks when these estimates were introduced. This old breakwater is definitely blocking the entrance and it is a menace to navigation which could result in the loss of life.


Howard Charles Green: In so far as the possible menace to navigation in Tracadie harbour is concerned, our officials are now estimating the cost of removing the existing north breakwater ruins, and following a review of the report consideration will be given to whatever action is indicated.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Again I wish to thank the minister for this action being taken by his department in relation to Tracadie harbour. My last question is this. On June 13 the minister said that the Chignecto canal was being studied by his department. Is the minister now in a position to report to this committee on what action has been taken by his department in connection with the Chignecto canal?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Chairman, the study is still under way.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: How far has the study been carried? Have any engineers of the department been instructed to make preliminary plans?


Howard Charles Green: This study is being carried on within the department, and I am afraid I cannot go any further than that.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the minister also
report now as to the progress which has been made in the survey in connection with the New Brunswick-Prince Edward Island causeway?


Howard Charles Green: I would be delighted to talk about that. There is a substantial vote for this item, but I have mislaid my notes. I will be glad to deal with it, when we come to that vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
349.	Quebec, $4,036,100.
Romuald Bourque: Mr. Chairman, I see that in vote 349, the province of Quebec will receive $4,036,100. The province of Newfoundland

Supply-Public Works will receive $3,640,000; Nova Scotia, $4,057,500; New Brunswick, $4,060,500.1 am certainly glad to see that these provinces are going to get a substantial amount. I see also that Ontario will receive $11,642,900. No doubt the province requires that amount, and I am glad to see they are going to get it. But you will notice that in four provinces you have 74 per cent of a total amount of $31,919,500.
Toronto harbour itself is going to get $4,438,500, which is more than the whole province of Quebec is going to have, namely $4,036,100. I see there is no appropriation for Montreal harbour, for Quebec harbour or for the Three Rivers harbour. As we have a very large number of unemployed at the present time in Montreal, I find it to be rather funny that Montreal and the whole province of Quebec are going to get such a small sum. I was wondering what the minister had to say on that point.


Howard Charles Green: It is not possible to allot money on the basis of the proportionate size of the provinces. These problems, of course, are completely different in every province. Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia, with their long coast lines, have many maritime harbour problems. Then they may vary from year to year. One year there will be a big project under way in one particular part of the country and smaller ones in another part. It is therefore not fair to review the estimates on the basis of setting out one province against another.
In so far as Montreal is concerned, much to my surprise the hon. member has completely overlooked the fact that Montreal is under the national harbours board and is not under the Department of Public Works at all. The moneys spent on the St. Lawrence river there are spent by the Department of Transport and not by the Department of Public Works at all. If we had all the figures of all the government expenditures on Montreal and Toronto, I think there might be protests coming from Toronto rather than Montreal. However, I do not want to get the members from those two cities fighting it out on the floor of the house. Nevertheless I point out that both Montreal and Quebec are under the national harbours board which does not come under the Department of Public Works at all. This is true also of Three Rivers and Chicoutimi.


Romuald Bourque: Am I to understand from the minister that Toronto harbour comes under the Department of Public Works?


Howard Charles Green: Toronto harbour is under the Toronto harbour commission. It is like quite a few other harbours across Canada. There is a bill coming up at this session to establish a harbour commission at the lakehead which

will cover the harbours of Fort William and Port Arthur. In all fairness to Toronto I must say that although this city has been on fresh water and has been an inland port and will be one, of course, until the seaway is completed, the people there have spent millions and millions of their own dollars to develop the harbour of Toronto. I do not suppose there is another city in Canada which has paid so much good hard cash to build up its own harbour. They do not want to be under the national harbours board. Apparently their wish is to run their own harbour. But the harbour of Montreal, like the harbour in my home'city of Vancouver, has had millions of dollars spent on it by the national harbours board. I do not think that any criticism can be made of Toronto by way of comparison of federal money that has been spent on the Toronto harbour and on other harbours.


Romuald Bourque: The minister says that the port of Toronto comes under the Toronto harbour commission. But if you have $4 million coming from the Department of Public Works there, what would be the equivalent that Montreal would get? If Montreal does not get anything from anybody-and they must, of course-it would be unfair.


Howard Charles Green: When the hon. member says that Montreal does not get anything from anybody-*


Romuald Bourque: Pardon me, but I did not say that.


Howard Charles Green: -may I point out that Montreal is getting millions and millions of dollars. This St. Lawrence seaway development is meaning an expenditure of many millions of dollars in Montreal. As I say, these estimates do not come under the Department of Public Works; they come under the Department of Transport.


Romuald Bourque: That is the point I wanted to make. What would be the equivalent? If you give the port of Toronto $4 million, then Montreal would get the equivalent from the harbour commission. You are not giving Toronto something that you do not give to Montreal.


Howard Charles Green: We are not in a position to know that because we have no jurisdiction over the harbour of Montreal.


Romuald Bourque: No comparison can be made?


Howard Charles Green: No.


Mr. Cardin:: May I first of all tell the minister that I am happy indeed that the government has decided this year to carry out the several projects that were conceived and planned by the previous government. As hon. members know and as does the

minister, my riding lies along the St. Lawrence river, and owing to the heavy navigation a considerable amount of damage has been done to the shore. Over the years a series of retaining walls has been built in order to protect the shore from erosion. I am happy to see that this year the program with respect to retaining walls is being continued. I am particularly happy also to see in the estimates an item for the St. Anne retaining wall. That particular project is an urgent one. It is a residential area of greater Sorel and the shore is quite close to the channel. Over a period of years the lapping of the waves has deteriorated the shore to such an extent that some of the buildings in that particular area have been in danger of being affected by the erosion.
I recall that there were to have been negotiations between the Department of Public Works and the municipality of St. Anne with regard to the reconstruction of that particular wharf. I do not know at what stage the negotiations may be at this date. However, if it were useful for the department, I should be happy to try to arrange for negotiations between the municipality and the department so as to try to get this work done as quickly as possible and certainly , if it were possible, before winter sets in.
There is another item that I should like to mention at this time. It has to do with the improvements of harbours in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway. The seaway, of course, has been expected to bring into Canada an economic potential that we did not have previously. We have a right to expect that the ports all along the seaway will benefit from this great project. Sorel, of course, is one of the ports which does not come under the national harbours board and apparently has not received a great deal of attention in the sphere of harbour improvements. I understand that a secret survey has been made of the different ports that will have to be improved in connection with the seaway. I certainly hope that Sorel is included in that particular survey.
The other day the hon. member for Laurier mentioned the usefulness of having some of the ports increase their grain elevator capacity. I understand, of course, it is not up to the Department of Public Works to increase the capacity of grain elevators already in existence, but in Sorel the North American elevators have plans to double their grain capacity. In order to do so they would have to make some changes on the wharf upon which these elevators are built. As a matter of fact, the North American elevator wharf takes the form of an L, and in order to be
57071-3-92J
Supply-Public Works able to accommodate the larger vessels which we expect will sail on the seaway, one part of that wharf will have to be cut off. This will mean that a new wharf will have to be added in the port of Sorel.
Some years ago preliminary work was done in order to bring about this improvement, and I understand that soundings have been taken in an endeavour to figure out where would be the best location for the new wharf. I would indeed be happy to know what progress has been made with respect to the re-arrangement of the wharf.
I would like to mention very briefly one last point, which subject has been a sore spot for some years. I refer to Ste. Anne's in the St. Lawrence, where there is a series of islands used for a number of generations for the growing of hay. During winter months this ^ hay has always been transported from the islands to the mainland but, as the minister knows, some years ago there was a decision to bring in the icebreaker between the islands to keep the channel open during the winter months. The farmers, therefore, can no longer transport their hay over the ice. This cannot be helped and we would not want to stop progress but it does cause some difficulty because, in order to transport the hay over the water the farmers have to take barges and, owing to the irregular shoreline, it is very difficult for them to put the wagons on scows. I would hope that the minister and his department will seriously consider building some slips at a strategic point so that the farmers can transport their produce in a relatively easy fashion.
This question has been raised previously and has been bounced around between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport. I appeal to the minister to try to find some solution. It is all very well to have these legal conflicts between different departments but it is most unfair for the farmers to be left holding the bag with a very serious resulting loss of crops.
I would conclude by saying that I am very grateful that the department is continuing with the program of public works in this particular area, particularly with respect to the St. Lawrence seaway. If it does what it is expected to do it will bring about a position where navigation will be doubled, as will the erosion along the shore line It would therefore be wise, in my opinion, to do as much of the work on the retaining walls as is possible in the shortest possible time.


Howard Charles Green: We will be very glad to look into the projects mentioned by the hon. member. He has mentioned a wharf at Sorel, and

Supply-Public Works on that I would inform him that a few days ago I interviewed a representative of the North American elevator company. This is a very big project and if the dominion government were to do as the hon. member suggests it would cost us from $1.5 million to $2 million to change the wharf. While the wharf does belong to the government it is rented to that company, and is used by that company. Whether we would be justified in spending this amount of money under these conditions I am not yet sure.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Has any economic survey been made before arriving at that particular conclusion? Of course, it is a large amount of money to be spent but, on the other hand, I also feel that one cannot expect to improve harbours without spending money. I had understood that besides the seaway itself, serious consideration was being given to improvement of harbours, and I feel this would certainly be a practical way of improving Sorel harbour, which would bring a good deal of business to that particular area. In this connection I would point out that Sorel is at the junction of the Richelieu and St. Lawrence rivers. There are great possibilities in this area which I hope the minister will seriously consider.


Howard Charles Green: No conclusion has yet been reached, but there is only one company concerned. This is not a question of a general wharf for everybody's use; it is a wharf used by one company. It may be possible to work out some plan under which the company would pay a portion of the cost of any alteration. However, we have the matter under consideration.


Maurice Bourget: Along the same line, the minister has said that his offer of $3.5 million for Bathurst still stands, and I wonder why a similar offer should not be made for the port of Sorel, even if the private company has to pay a share. I do remember the policy of the department has been to ask private concerns to pay at least a share of the cost of a wharf such as this but, surely, if the minister is ready to pay the whole cost of a wharf in Bathurst, New Brunswick, there should be no reason why at least half that offer should not be made to help the port of Sorel.


Howard Charles Green: The work at Bathurst is dredging, and in this case the mining company would be constructing a smelter and would spend something over $20 million.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Could the minister tell the committee whether the preliminary work on the new wharf, such as soundings, etc., is continuing?


Howard Charles Green: Apparently there are many engineering problems in connection with alterations to the pier and the studies have not yet been completed.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: But they are continuing?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, that is right.


Maurice Bourget: I have just one more question, and it is about retaining walls. I suppose that regarding this item the same rules apply to the protection works and the retaining walls.


Howard Charles Green: Protection walls as they are ordinarily described come under the vote for remedial works.


Maurice Bourget: If the minister will look in Quebec he will find many retaining walls. I do remember that in the past we had the same kind of item, and I am not questioning it, but I would ask the minister to explain his policy with regard to retaining walls. I know that in the past they were attached to the item of protection works, but there were some big items which were separated.


Howard Charles Green: The larger items are provided by a special vote but the great bulk come under remedial works vote.


Maurice Bourget: My question was, do the same rules for protection work apply for retaining walls built on navigable water. There are many items-


Howard Charles Green: The limitation is described in item 355; to provide for remedial works where damages are caused by, or endanger, navigation or federal government structures. That would apply to the items which are listed under the provincial votes as well as to the items which come under 365.


Maurice Bourget: Do they come under the same rules as protection walls?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Maurice Bourget: Would the minister explain if the retaining wall in St. Joseph-St. Hyacinthe is built on navigable water?


Howard Charles Green: That work is necessary because of changes brought about by a federal structure which was placed on the opposite side of the river at this point. It comes in the category of federal government structures.


Maurice Bourget: I remember that item very well because I took a personal interest in that case, and it was studied two or three times by engineers and it was found out that it did not come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. We had three reports on that work in previous years. I remember the minister telling me once that we were building some protection works to protect

some Liberal farmers. Now I can tell him he is building one to protect Tory farmers.


Howard Charles Green: I think the situation is that you were building a protection wall on one side of the river, and we are building a wall on the other. I went into this whole question very carefully; we met a delegation from down there and we looked into the matter very carefully, and what I have said is actually a fact. Because of the work on the other side of the river erosion had been caused on the side where we intended to put a wall, and we decided it was our obligation to do it for that reason.


Maurice Bourget: I want to tell the minister that I am not against it; I am glad this has been given to St. Hyacinthe, but I remember well that two or three studies were made, with the results which I have stated. As an engineer I do not think the technique of engineering has changed in so short a time, and I am quite confident in saying that it has been done this year to protect Tory farmers.


Howard Charles Green: This is just one more case where we have been improving on the policy of the former government.


Maurice Bourget: Not improving. You have been making accusations about patronage, but here is one example of waste and extravagance.


Mr. Ricard:: I should like to submit to the committee that the necessity for this protection wall has been sustained by independent engineers who have stated that the federal structure is responsible for the erosion at St. Joseph.


Maurice Bourget: In reply may I say that the independent engineers are not in charge of the Department of Public Works, and it is not the independent engineers who apply the rules and policy of the department but the chief engineer, the deputy minister and the officials of the department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the minister.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Well, Mr. Chairman, the
recommendation of the independent engineer has been accepted by the minister and by the department and it is all to their credit.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
350.	Ontario, $11,642,900.
Douglas Mason Fisher: One month from today, on July 19, there is a community in my constituency that is going to be having a tremendous influx of people for the very well known lake Superior Rossport fish derby, and every year the remarks are generally the same, that the dock facilities in that particular place are very bad, and inadequate for Rossport even as a fishing village, but in view of the tremendous increase of tourist traffic we have
Supply-Public Works coming in there we are quite dissatisfied. Now I do not think the people of the Port Arthur constituency are wharf lovers, dock lovers or breakwater lovers such as they are in Bonavista-Twillingate, but there are a few improvements which are certainly needed, and if the Minister of Public Works would care to provide them and visit the fish derby at Rossport we could give him the honour of presenting the prizes; he might even win a trip to Jamaica, Hawaii or some other interesting place. This is one item I hope the minister's department will look into-at least repair the dock and, possibly, extend the quay.
Another place in the constituency, outside Port Arthur, where some work needs to be done is the Nipigon river where it flows into the bay. The erosion caused by the tremendous amount of pulp that goes down is presenting a serious problem. Almost every spring the C.P.R. has to post slow orders on its bridge there because of the risk, and I feel, strongly supported by the members of the community of Nipigon, that an investigation should be made at this particular spot to see if some form of retaining wall cannot be put up where the river goes down into the bay. It would have to be a very extensive retaining wall because the river flows very swiftly; the Nipigon river is the largest flowing into lake Superior. This is something that needs to be done because I think eventually it is going to cause a great deal of trouble to the bridges there and of course it increases the silt flowing into Nipigon harbour and increases the dredging problem there.
I wanted earlier in the minister's statement to ask him to give us the distinction between harbour improvements and dredging and I hope he will find time to make it clear, because people at the lakehead cannot quite follow that distinction and it is impossible to follow it from the estimates.
There is one point in connection with dredging that I should like to make. If the minister does come up to the Port Arthur constituency for the fish derby I will try to get him introduced to two gentlemen who claim to be the official representatives of the government in that area. These are the two defeated Conservative candidates. One of those defeated candidates made the announcement before the last election that he had obtained an extension of a dredging contract in the turning basin of the Fort William harbour. I happen to know that the former member-you all remember the Reverend Dan Mclvor-had been very active in pressing for this and I remember that this particular incident got Mr. Mclvor's Irish dander up, and I did not blame him.

Supply-Public Works
Again I would like to return from this specific example to the problem that I presented to the minister before. I know he takes a certain partisan glee in tossing things back and forth, especially to the official opposition. It seems to me there is a definite point of political morality involved in this whole question of announcements of government projects throughout the country. No one could object to the government making an announcement, or to the party which composes the government taking credit for doing things, but when you have defeated candidates posing as the people who actually obtained these things I think you are introducing the whole idea of patronage which the minister is trying to stamp out. I was stunned to read in the paper tonight that the hon. member for Carleton has come out with the statement-and this is on this very point-that he cannot handle all the problems that come to him because the rest of the members in the city of Ottawa are from the Liberal party. Again there is the insinuation that in order to get things done you have to go to a government member; that is the only way you can get something done.
It raises the whole question of patronage, and if the minister is really going to stamp out patronage why can he not stamp out this practice of having defeated candidates make announcements and let us have the announcements made in Ottawa, or made by the divisional engineers in the area, rather than carrying on this old idea? I think in terms of political morality it is necessary that you move that one step farther. After all, it is a very small and pretty cheap advantage.
In connection with harbour improvements at the lakehead, I have already made representations to the department that certain kinds of rock work will have to be done within the next two years in the lakehead harbour. I know that that will by and large be a problem of the lakehead harbour commission that is to be set up. I hope you are not chatting about political morality with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He set us back a decade in some ways by that long oration of his tonight.
The rock work that will have to be done in the lakehead harbour is such that it has been proved feasible in the past to do it in the winter time. As hon. members know, we have an unemployment problem every winter in Port Arthur and Fort William and the truck work and the rock-breaking work and the placing of the rocks could be done quite adequately in the winter. I would like to remind the minister that this is something I hope he is planning for right now in so far as next winter is concerned because the

work will have to be done sooner or later and we are going to have an unemployment problem.
There is one point on the lakehead terminals which I would like the minister to clear up and it is in a sense a harbour improvement. Why is there nothing in the estimates for that project? When the minister made his opening remarks on his estimates he made the announcement that Port Arthur and Fort William were going to get $3 million or $4 million spent on them, and also that there was going to be a group of engineers working on the project? Where is the money for those engineers and for that engineering study? It is not that I am distrustful of the minister, but I would like to know where the money is coming from for the initial work on this project? It is very important.
I should like to touch on another point which I brought up earlier and on which I was unable to get an answer from the minister. I can speak on it in connection with this wharf or dock at Kenora. It has to do with the question of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act and prevailing rates on public works projects and the liaison between the Department of Labour and the Department of Public Works. When a contractor puts in a tender is it perfectly clear in his mind that if he does not pay the prevailing rate he can be forced into it by the government, and that cost will be added to the contract, or will it be added to the contract and be recoverable, or is it a loss that he will have to absorb himself? These are the general questions I wanted to put to the minister. I would like to ask him some further questions. I see the hon. member for Fort William is in his seat; he can ask his own questions.


Howard Charles Green: The Department of Labour polices those contracts. In so far as the questions of losses that the hon. member has mentioned are concerned, if it is necessary for the contractor to pay a higher rate, then that is his loss; the Department of Public Works does not have to make up the difference.
With regard to the harbour developments at the lakehead, we have already engaged an engineering firm to draw up plans and the reason there is no vote is that the expense of the engineers is covered in one of the other votes. There is no vote for the actual construction yet because the plans have not been completed. The hon. member need have no fear, we are going ahead with the development at the lakehead and a very large and important development it will be.

In regard to defeated candidates making announcements, here I think the hon. member is being a little hypersensitive. Nobody knows anything about those jobs until the tenders are called and then they are common knowledge, printed and published in the papers. The tender call is published and some people are active and interested in the work of parliament, interested in getting themselves elected, and they naturally try to follow these things very closely.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps if the hon. member had kept closer to the proceedings he would have got the information himself. Certainly there is nothing secret about it. The work of the department is an open book. The hon. member obviously was not hurt very much by anything that the defeated candidate did to him in Port Arthur.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think the minister is shying away from what I still think is a point of political morality.


Howard Charles Green: We do not make a practice of notifying defeated candidates, but if anybody wants to write in and make inquiries we do our best to advise them of what is going on.
The hon. member for Levis asked me for the number of additions to the staff of architects and engineers since July 1 of last year. There are 36 more engineers, 11 of them being in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. There is an increase of seven in Banff-Edmonton and 10 in Ottawa. Then there are other minor changes.


Maurice Bourget: Are they full-time engineers?


Howard Charles Green: Most of these were three to five years. As to the architects, there is only one more now than there was on July 1 of 1957.
I misinformed the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo about what would happen where tenders were called for furniture in a government building in St. John's, Newfoundland. I said that the tender call would go out from Montreal but it goes out from Ottawa.
Supply-Public Works


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that was my
question.


Mr. Nixon:: Mr. Chairman,-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, just before you call it ten o'clock, I think we on this side of the house-I speak at least for the official opposition-would be prepared to go on a little longer if the minister would like to.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harold Edward Winch: Ten o'clock.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the leader could tell us what is proposed, not merely for tomorrow, because I think that is common knowledge, but for the beginning of the week.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, an arrangement has been reached among the three parties that the private members' day set for next Monday will be postponed. That will make it possible for us to take the budget debate all next week. I am hopeful that we can get agreement to a one day supply motion on the following Monday. Then we would go on and finish the budget debate a week from next Wednesday. July 1 comes on Tuesday and while it is the intention to sit on that day there may be an adjournment for a period of time. I believe a ceremony is taking place on the grounds and we do not want to have the final vote on July 1. That is just tentative. It may be that we will not be able to reach agreement with the parties concerning a week from Monday, but all next week is to be the budget debate. As the first business tomorrow we would like to get third reading of the bill to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
341.	Improvements generally-not more than $25,000 to be expended on any one project without the approval of Treasury Board, $700,000.
342.	Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $1,300,000, $44,000,000.
343.	Furniture and furnishings for government departments, $1,818,650.
344.	Expenses of work in the interests of fire prevention, $174,263.
Harbours and Rivers Engineering Services- Acquisition, construction and improvement of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that Treasury Board may increase or decrease the amount within the
vote to be expended on individual listed projects-
345.	Newfoundland, $3,640,000.
346.	Nova Scotia, $4,057,500.
347.	Prince Edward Island, $1,309,500.
348.	New Brunswick, $4,060,500.
349.	Quebec, $4,036,100.
603.	Furniture and furnishings for government departments-further amount required, $333,450. Harbours and rivers engineering services- Acquisition, construction and improvements of
harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that Treasury Board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects -further amounts required-
604.	Newfoundland, $697,000.
605.	Nova Scotia, $800,000.
606.	Quebec, $1,078,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 20, 1958