1959-02-18

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens) presented the first report of the standing committee on privileges and elections, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to read to the house a telegram which I received this morning and in which I think all members will be interested. It is from Mr. N. R. Crump, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and was sent from Montreal this morning to me as Minister of Transport. The telegram reads as follows:
Am glad to Inform you that after careful study It has been decided to operate daily service, Van-couver-Victoria and return commencing February 25 when present service discontinued until May 15 when summer triangle service will be resumed. Expect substantial loss from this operation but attempt will be made keep to minimum by providing austerity service. It will, however, maintain the connection desired.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I just on that point-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is at liberty to make a brief comment after a statement by a minister.


Harold Edward Winch: As a member representing British Columbia and particularly the city of Vancouver, I want to say how much we welcome the announcement just made by the Minister of Transport. We sincerely hope that the losses will not be too great, and we are most pleased that this most vital service between Vancouver and Victoria is going to be maintained.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the crown engage an independent evaluator in order to appraise any properties being expropriated by the crown in connection with the extension of Malton airport in the past three years?
66968-9-72J
2.	If so, when and by what official were the services engaged; what was the evaluator's name; when did he make his report; what were the properties, their values, and their owners?
3.	Have the evaluator's recommendations been received and acted upon? If so, in what manner?
4.	Has the evaluator been paid? If so, how much?
He said: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has only a partial answer available because the matter is involved in a question before the courts, so I would ask leave to withdraw the question. I hope this will not prejudice my placing it on the order paper again at another time.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Have any persons been appointed to act as agents to the unemployment insurance commission?
2.	If so. what services do they perform?
3.	What is their remuneration?
4.	Who recommends them for appointment?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: In answer to the first part of the question, the answer is yes. The answer to the second part is, completing applications for employment and applications for unemployment insurance benefits. The answer to the third question is, $1 for each claim filed with supporting documents. The answer to No. 4 is, recommendations are received from various sources. Appointments are made by the unemployment insurance commission.


OPERATION OF D.E.W. LINE
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	What corporation is operating the D.E.W. line?
2.	Is it United States or Canadian?
3.	Is the company being paid by Canada or by the United States?
4.	How many Royal Canadian Air Force officers are stationed at D.E.W. line stations?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: These questions ask for information regarding the D.E.W. line, and the answers to the various parts of the question are as follows:
1.	The Federal Electric Corporation.
2.	This is a United States company.
3.	This company is responsible for the maintenance of the D.E.W. line under a contract paid for by the United States government.

Starred Questions
4.	Eight at the present time. As additional R.C.A.F. officers are trained, the total number will rise to 20.


R.C.A.F., GOOSE BAY  CASUAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. Tucker: 1.	At what place and by whom are prevailing rates and casual employees engaged for service at Goose Bay Royal Canadian Air Force station?
2.	Is any preference given to Newfoundlanders in employment at this station, in the province of Newfoundland?


George Randolph Pearkes: Question No. 22 asks for information about employees of the Department of National Defence at Goose Bay. The answers are as follows:
1.	At the present time prevailing rate and casual employees engaged for service at the R.C.A.F. station Goose Bay are recruited from Happy Valley and North West River, Labrador, and Moncton, New Brunswick. Such employees are normally recruited through the national employment service.
2.	Yes. Wherever possible preference has been given to residents of the province of Newfoundland. The department's plan is to recruit all personnel for employment at Goose Bay within the area covered by the national employment office at St. John's, Newfoundland, which includes Happy Valley and North West River. Recruiting of personnel outside of this area will take place -only when no suitably qualified candidates are available through this office.


TAINTING &quot;LANDSCAPE WITH CHRIST APPEARING TO THE APOSTLES&quot;
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Did the director of the national gallery receive authorization from the government or any member of the government or anyone authorized to speak for a minister, either in writing or orally, to make an offer for the purchase of the painting "Landscape with Christ appearing to the Apostles" by Breughel?
2.	Was any offer made by the director of the national gallery to any agent acting for the owner Baron G. Von Polnitz to purchase this painting?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question will be somewhat lengthy and entails considerable explanation. Therefore I ask leave for it to be made an order for return.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I would not ask the hon. lady to read it, but could we not have it printed in Hansard?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In that event, Mr. Speaker, may we let it stand.
Question stands.


POWER DEVELOPMENT, SASK.-FEDERAL LOAN
Mr. Argue: 1. Has the Saskatchewan government made requests for a federal loan of $100 million for power purposes?
2.	If so, on what dates were such requests made?
3.	Has the federal government now made a decision as to whether it will meet the requests of the Saskatchewan government?
4.	If so, what is the decision?
5. Has the Saskatchewan government been advised of this decision?
6.	If so, on what dates were they so advised?


Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this question is in six parts. The answers are as follows.
1.	Yes. The province requested a minimum total loan of $100 million over five years at a rate not exceeding 4J per cent repayable at the end of 50 years.
2.	January 24, 1958.
3.	No decision has been taken yet, because criteria of a national power policy are still developing.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	In a letter dated February 25, 1958, the province was advised that the matter was being studied. Premier Douglas agreed on March 4, 1958, that this was properly a matter for an extended study.
6.	Inapplicable.


COUNTY JUDGE APPOINTMENT, ESSEX COUNTY, ONT.
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Have steps been taken by the government to appoint a third county court judge in the county of Essex in the province of Ontario?
2.	If so, has the province of Ontario agreed to such an appointment?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this question consists of two parts and I should like to answer both parts together.
The appointment of a third judge to the county court of the county of Essex in the province of Ontario cannot be made until provision for the assignment of that judge has been made by or under appropriate provincial legislation. Such provision has not been made as yet.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I wonder whether the minister could say if he knows whether or not it is the intention of the government of Ontario to make such a provision.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand that it is, but I do not know when.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. McWilliam: What are the 91 or more, projects approved, with amounts and locations, under the winter works program with the province of New Brunswick?


NOVA SCOTIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the crisis in the maritime coal industry which has occasioned mass lay-offs because of a steadily declining market for the product of this basic industry of Nova Scotia.


Mr. Speaker:: This suggested matter of urgency of debate is one we have heard from time to time in the course of this session. Questions have been asked and pressure has been applied during question time in order to have this matter considered. I should be glad to have advice from those who are familiar with the practice in these matters as to the urgency of debating this subject at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may say a word on this point I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that it was the impression of my hon. friend from Gloucester and many of us on this side of the house that there would be an opportunity to discuss this matter on the supplementary estimates, and it was for that reason that we refrained at an earlier date from bringing this subject forward in this way. However, as Your Honour may be aware, last evening when the hon. member for Gloucester sought to discuss some of the more pressing aspects of this matter on the item in the supplementary estimates respecting the dominion coal board the chairman ruled him out of order on an interpretation of the item which I, of course, will not discuss because I do not think it would be proper for me to discuss a decision of the Chair.
We accepted that decision, but it did rule out what we believed was an opportunity for a debate on a matter which is urgent not merely as a problem but, I suggest to Your Honour, very urgent as a matter for debate. Before my hon. friend made the proposal he just made for leave to present his motion today, we considered very carefully whether
Nova Scotia-Mass Coal Lay-offs there was any other way a debate could be brought on at an early date. As Your Honour is aware, of course, there has been a considerable lay-off in what is the main industry of the province of Nova Scotia, and there have been repeated attempts from this side of the house to put forward arguments to urge the government to announce its policy without further delay.
It is in order to have an early debate on this subject, and because there seemed to be no other opportunity available in the near future, that my hon. friend has brought this matter forward today.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if hon. members would address themselves to the following point. The question that concerns me is whether there will be an opportunity to discuss this important matter, such that we do not need to interrupt the proceedings to deal with it today, or whether there has already been ample opportunity this session. I will hear the Minister of Finance.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word first of all concerning an observation just made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). He has intimated that when an attempt was made on an earlier-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister may assume that I have read the proceedings and know what transpired yesterday.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was not referring only to that, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member intimated that when a question had been asked on an earlier occasion as to when this matter might be raised the committee had been told that it might be raised on the supplementary estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, no. I am afraid the minister misunderstood me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, I am content as long as we are clear on that point; because it was not said that it would be on the supplementary estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that you are aware of the discussion which occurred last night. We are dealing here with a question as to the urgency of debate. May I point out to you that this matter has already been discussed in the house. The hon. member who has today moved the adjournment of the house to discuss this question has himself already discussed it in the debates of this house in the present session. He discussed it in the course of the throne speech debate. You will find

Nova Scotia-Mass Coal Lay-offs his remarks on this subject at pages 99 and 100 of Hansard; and so it cannot be said that this is something that now presents urgency of debate.
It is quite clear already from the attempts made last evening to embark on a wide discussion of this subject when an item in the supplementary estimates was before the committee of supply, that some endeavour is being made to refer to discussions which are known to have taken place recently. This bouse is already aware of the fact that the premier of Nova Scotia has met with representatives of the federal government and others interested in the situation that has been referred to.
I think there is one point that must be considered in this connection, and I say this with respect. We must consider whether, when negotiations are to the knowledge of the house being carried on and when a matter is being considered at the intergovernmental level, urgency of debate can be shown in a case where it is quite clear that debate will not assist in the negotiations that are now pending.
The house has been informed by the Prime Minister, in reply to a question asked on this subject last week that he, the Prime Minister, met with the premier of Nova Scotia and representatives of the miners of that province who are concerned; and as consideration of this matter is proceeding and as discussions are under way I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that that is an important circumstance indicating that not only is there no advantage in debate at this time, but debate will not assist in the progress of negotiations.
I refer, Mr. Speaker, to page 90 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, in which the definition of urgency is set forth. I quote:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion takes place immediately.
It is not shown here, Mr. Speaker, that public interest demands that discussion take place immediately; indeed, Mr. Speaker, it may well be that the very opposite is the fact.
Now, as to early opportunity of debate, Mr. Speaker, it is within the knowledge of the house that there will be motions from time to time at the present session to resolve the house into committee of supply. On such an occasion any hon. member has the right to introduce anything that in his view is a grievance. We had such a supply motion just a week ago, and while I am not in a position to indicate the definite date on which the next motion to resolve the house into committee of supply will be called, in the ordinary

course these motions are called from time to time throughout the session, and a full opportunity will be afforded on any such occasion for any hon. member to introduce this question.


Mr. Chevrier:: That may be in two weeks.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise at this time to speak on the matter which you have to decide, namely the matter of urgency. In so doing I think I have the right perhaps to say just one word in view of the statement just made by the Minister of Finance as to the relevancy of debate and opportunity. I know you have already read Hansard of yesterday, sir, but I wish to draw to your attention certain remarks on page 1124, when an endeavour was made to speak on this matter on two occasions. At the bottom of the first column on page 1124 and at the bottom of the second column on the same page you will see that the Minister of Finance himself was the one who drew matters to the attention of the committee in refusing hon. members an opportunity to discuss it.


Mr. Speaker:: As I have already observed, I am aware of what took place yesterday.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the statement which the Minister of Finance was allowed to make, sir, I think I have the right to draw attention to the fact that he did not know what he was talking about.
On the question of urgency, sir, on the speech from the throne an endeavour was made to bring this matter to your attention and to the attention of the house by the Nova Scotia members interested, namely the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan), the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) and the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates). They have not yet had an opportunity to discuss this matter, although they endeavoured to do so at that time. They were denied that right, and since that time 4,000 miners in their province had been laid off work. In addition to the fact that 4,000 have since been laid off in the coal mining industry, we have, as we had yesterday, a supplementary estimate of the Minister of Finance for the sum of $630,000.
I say, sir, that the laying off of 4,000 miners in one province alone is definitely a matter of urgency not only to our national economy but in particular to the Conservative members from that province, who should have this opportunity to discuss a matter of such vital interest to their constituents and their province.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Minister of Finance has advanced a very

strange theory in opposition to the motion that the house adjourn to discuss this matter. The argument he put is that because this question is at present under discussion between this government and the provincial government-that of itself is a recognition of the urgency of the matter-we should not be permitted to discuss this matter in the house. I think that is an argument that certainly cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.
The criteria that have been laid down, Mr. Speaker, which should be satisfied before a matter of this kind can be considered as suitable for the adjournment of the house, have been clearly stated in Erskine May, fourteenth edition, page 344. First the matter must be definite. This certainly is definite. Then the matter must be urgent. We submit that this matter is urgent. Indeed, this matter was considered in the provincial house yesterday, and was considered so urgent as to persuade the premier of that province to invite a Nova Scotia coal miner to the floor of the legislature to address the house.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the minister advanced the argument that there has been an opportunity to discuss this matter on the throne speech debate. It should be pointed out that since that debate concluded there has been a deterioration in the coal mining situation in Nova Scotia, to the point where 4,000 miners have been laid off. Therefore as a result of that change in the situation, irrespective of the fact that it might have been discussed in an earlier debate, we submit that this question of urgency is a very real one. The third criterion is that the matter must be of public importance. Surely there can be no argument on that score. Finally, the matter must involve more than ordinary administration of the law.
I submit with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that these four criteria are met by this situation which has been brought to our attention by the hon. member for Gloucester and that therefore you would be justified in accepting this motion and giving us an opportunity to debate at this time, in a constructive helpful way, this very urgent and important situation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: should like to direct Your Honour's attention to a couple of points that should be considered in assessing whether or not this motion is in order, as well as in assessing the question of urgency. No one, of course, denies for a moment that the problem sought to be discussed here is one of great concern and having very great effect upon those who are suffering from it. However, it is my understanding,
Nova Scotia-Mass Coal Lay-offs and indeed the reference in Beauchesne establishes it, that the problem to be discussed on an occasion such as this must be one of a national nature.
I refer you to subparagraph 5 of citation 100, at page 90 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which points out that the adjournment of the house cannot be moved with reference to critical conditions generally prevailing in certain parts of the country. In making this argument I do not suggest for a moment the situation may not be critical; but it is a situation, so far as the coal mines are concerned, of local application and is therefore not one of those matters of sufficient importance under this rule to warrant the national House of Commons interrupting its debates on matters of national concern.
I refer also to the point which was made the last time a similar motion was sought to be advanced. This relates to whether the matter is under the administrative responsibility of the government. I refer to subparagraph 1 of citation 100, found at page 89 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. It says that the definite matter of urgent public importance for the discussion of which a member may ask leave to move the adjournment of the house must involve the administrative responsibility of the government. It is true that we have items in the estimates and provision is made, I believe under a statute, for subventions with regard to coal and the movement of coal, but I think it is a far cry from that to suggest that the operation of coal mines themselves is within the administrative responsibility of the government.
The purpose of the rule, it seems clear, is to enable the house to consider a matter of urgent significance about which the government can do something and on which it is the responsibility of the government under some accepted heading of responsibility, to take action. I submit that this particular subject does not fall within that category.
Then with respect to the matter of urgency, I may say that the urgency of the subject must be measured in terms of the urgency of other matters to be discussed. After all if the house is trying to assess the urgency of postponing the business that has been set down for that day, then the house is surely entitled to see how urgent is the matter sought to be raised as compared with the matters the house would otherwise be discussing. In that context, Mr. Speaker, I point out that what is down for discussion today is the supplementary estimates, including a number of items but in particular an item for $15 million in connection with the winter works program.

Nova Scotia-Mass Coal Lay-offs


An hon. Member:: That is passed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend fails to appreciate the point. We have concluded the discussion of that item in the supplementary estimates but it has not been passed at all until the house concludes the discussion of these estimates and passes the appropriation bill based thereon. Until that is done, the government will not be in a position to discharge the responsibility which hon. members opposite seek to persuade the country they are so anxious to have us discharge. Embarking upon this discussion will not, in fact, assist this matter or any other matter relating to the problem of unemployment, but will in fact hinder it because it will hold up the passage of the appropriation bill. It is in that context that I say we must measure the urgency of the matter sought to be raised in comparison with the urgency of the matter that is set down for discussion.


Harold Edward Winch: That is silly; the work is already under way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Finally, I point out that the difficulties in the maritime coal fields were in existence at the time of the throne speech debate, and were discussed by the hon. member for Gloucester at pages 99 and 100 of Hansard during that debate. It is true there have been further developments, but the situation was in the making then and it was critical, as he pointed out.
My hon. friends had an opportunity of raising this matter on the last supply motion. They say now that it is critical, but they did not choose to discuss the problem at that time. There was a perfect opportunity, but no; they chose to bring forward another matter relating to dominion-provincial relations. Even when that was disposed of they had an opportunity of raising this matter, but none of them, as I recall it, regarded it as of sufficient importance to even warrant raising on the last supply motion, which was just last week. I feel that is a fairly clear indication of the real urgency they attach to this subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I may reply directly to the point made by the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: There is no one in the house, Mr. Speaker, more concerned with this problem of the cutback in the Nova Scotia coal industry than I am. I come from a constituency in which five of the seven larger producers are closed down. It disturbs me to sit here listening to members in the opposition state-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: All right; I will get back to the urgency of this debate. As the member most vitally affected I do not consider the debate necessary at all.


An hon. Member:: You will regret that.


Malcolm MacInnis: Whether or not I will regret it will remain to be seen. The fact remains that I have a conviction and I stand up for it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know the hon. member does not intend to enter upon a debate, but he is tending in that direction. He is expressing his opinions on the matter. I am glad to have his opinions, but what I am concerned about is the question that has been discussed of whether we should interrupt our proceedings today to discuss this particular matter.


Harold Edward Winch: Don't you think you should discuss unemployment in your riding?


Malcolm MacInnis: To get back to the urgency of debate, just recently I spent a week in my constituency, where this matter had been discussed at union, municipal and provincial levels. Following that further discussions were held in Ottawa, at which time the attitude adopted by the government last year was considered to be very favourable and was well accepted by the miners in my constituency-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: -who are now depending on the committee which has been set up to study this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps the remarks of the hon. member are not really relevant to the question I have to decide, much as what he is saying may be relevant to the issue that the house is asked to debate. I think I will hear the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate and then make my decision.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to say that what the hon. member for Cape Breton South is now discussing is not helping me in making my decision, and is more in the nature of debate. If he wants to discuss the problem of whether there has been sufficient opportunity this session to discuss this matter, and whether we should interrupt our proceedings now to discuss it, that is all right.


Malcolm MacInnis: The fact remains that the miners of Nova Scotia have placed this matter before the federal government, and that the federal government now has a committee set up which is studying it. I do

not see that any good purpose would be served by the matter being discussed further at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word on the first point raised by the Minister of Justice, namely that this is a critical matter of a local nature only. The citation referred to by the Minister of Justice, if my memory serves me correctly, refers to a precedent in the year 1818 in the United Kingdom, a rather long time ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, no. If my hon. friend will look at it-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to direct Your
Honour's attention to a precedent in the year 1957, when Your Honour was considering a similar motion moved by the hon. member for Essex East with relation to the closing down of two motor car factories and the possible closing down of a third motor car factory, all of them situated in the province of Ontario. This will, of course, be in Your Honour's memory; it occurred on December 2, 1957. I would imagine that, important as the motor car industry is to Ontario, the coal mining industry is equally important to Nova Scotia and that if one is national, as I maintain it is, the other is also national. For that reason, if the precedent set by Your Honour was a good one, as I believe it was, then the hon. member for Gloucester is on sound ground in following that precedent.
On the second point, that this matter does not come within the administrative jurisdiction of parliament, may I say that the hon. member for Gloucester is not suggesting the nationalization of the mines or anything having to do with property and civil rights. He is suggesting something that has historically been under the control of parliament, a matter that a special agency has been set up to deal with, namely the dominion coal board; a matter which has been dealt with by royal commissions appointed by federal governments and a matter, incidentally, for which members of the present government claimed to have a solution before they came into office. So it does seem to me that this argument falls to the ground.
On the question of previous opportunities, I think I indicated to Your Honour that it was our belief that we would have an opportunity when the supplementary estimates came up, and that we had deferred this matter until that time but then found that we did not have that opportunity. Of course it is within Your Honour's memory that the lay-offs took place subsequent to the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. We also have not been told when the government next proposes to move a motion to go into supply.
Nova Scotia-Mass Coal Lay-offs
So there is no early prospect of a debate, except one, sir. I venture to suggest to the government that if they do not want to have the proceedings today interrupted there is one way in which that can be avoided. I am making this suggestion directly to the Prime Minister, if I may. I suggest that the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys be withdrawn from the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, brought back to the house and called on Friday next. If the government is prepared to do that, then I am sure the hon. member for Gloucester would be quite happy not to proceed with this motion. Otherwise, sir, there does not seem to be any early opportunity to discuss this national matter.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to put forward an argument with regard to the technical question, but I do want to answer the last suggestion of the hon. gentleman. Only two days ago, as you will recall, sir, I was condemned because I had said that if any unfairness took place I would see that it was rectified. My hon. friend now asks me to change an order of the house whereby this particular matter was sent to a committee, and to alter that order. That argument does not come very well from him.


Mr. Speaker:: In dealing with this matter may I say at the outset that I do not accept the proposition that because it affects only the Nova Scotia coal industry it is therefore not a fit subject for a motion of this kind. Hon. members can set their minds at rest on that point. Before giving my view, may I recall that what we are asked to debate today is the crisis in the maritime coal industry which has occasioned mass lay-offs because of a steadily declining market for the basic industry of Nova Scotia. The subject really is the crisis in the maritime coal industry because of a steadily declining market.
There is no doubt that this is a very important matter, and I do not think anyone in the house has attempted to say anything different. It is an important matter, and it is particularly important to the people who are immediately affected. It perhaps is a part of the general important problem of unemployment. The difficulty I have had with this request is that it perhaps is a localized or specific aspect of the unemployment problem. If the subject were just unemployment generally I would refuse the motion without hesitation.
The question in my mind has been whether the situation here is of such a nature that it is different from the continuing problem. It has been suggested that because of certain

Motions for Papers
recent lay-ofis there is something urgent, immediate and imminent about this matter which makes it different today from what it has been thus far during the session. I am not prepared to accept that view. I think what has happened recently, which has perhaps impelled the hon. member to attempt to bring this matter before the house, is the recent lay-offs; but as he phrased his motion it refers to the continually declining market and as such that is a matter which has been capable of discusion right from the first of the session. In fact it was discussed, as has been pointed out, in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, has been raised certainly half a dozen times to my knowledge on the orders of the day, and was discussed, I believe, in a limited way yesterday.
Therefore, though I do have some reservations about the soundness of my view, I am not prepared at the moment to decide that we should interrupt our proceedings to discuss this matter at this precise time.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, reports, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between the federal government and any agency of the United Nations since June 1, 1956, regarding the cessation of nuclear tests.
Hon. Sidney E. Smiih (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, all the papers which would fall within the terms of this motion are already public documents published by the United Nations in the documents of the general assembly, the first committee and the disarmament commission. In particular, the views of the Canadian government have been made known to the organs of the United Nations by means of statements in committees or other organs, and have been published in the records of their proceedings in the general context of disarmament discussions. Since these documents are already in the public domain and readily available from the usual sources, and since they are very voluminous, I wonder if the hon. member would find it satisfactory if instead of tabling the documents themselves, I were to table an index to them, facilitating ready reference to the passages of particular interest to him. Subject to this modification, I would have no objection to the adoption of this motion.


CESSATION OF NUCLEAR TESTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 44-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, reports, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and any other government since June 1, 1956, regarding the cessation of nuclear tests.
Sidney Earle Smith: I have discussed this matter with the hon. member and he has indicated his willingness to have this motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


PRICING POLICY ON WHEAT, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of the letter from the maritime transportation commission to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, dated February 7, 1959, regarding the pricing policy on wheat; and any other communications from persons or organizations in the Atlantic provinces to the minister or any other member of the government on this subject together with the replies to these communications.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This is satisfactory, subject to the customary reservations with regard to the consent of the provincial governments concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister could have read the motion. It does not ask for anything from any provincial government.


Mr. Speaker:: The reservation expressed only applies to provincial governments. If there are none, it will not be effective.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence arising out of the answer he gave to an oral question a few moments ago. Could he tell the house what proportion of the D.E.W. line stations are now manned by R.C.A.F. officers? He gave a figure of eight officers now manning these stations.


George Randolph Pearkes: There are four main D.E.W. line operational stations. All four are under the control of an R.C.A.F. officer now, as from February 1. At each of those stations there are several officers subordinate to the one in charge. Surbordinate officers of the R.C.A.F. are now being trained in their duties, and as soon as training is completed they will take over from the officers of the United States air force who as their reliefs

are trained will return to the United States. There are less than 20 U.S.A.F. officers on the D.E.W. line today.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. V/. Herridge (Kootenay West): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport, who I hope will bear in mind the rule laid down by the Minister of Justice. Can the minister inform the house if he has had any discussions recently with Mr. Crump with respect to improving the passenger service facilities on the Kettle Valley Railway?
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have drawn that matter to the attention of the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but I have not yet had any word from them.



PAN-AMERICAN GAMES    INQUIRIES AS TO REQUESTS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received any representations from the Winnipeg pan-American games committee or the city of Winnipeg with regard to financial assistance from the federal government for these games?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have not received any representations personally, and on checking with the officials of my department there is nothing in the department of that nature.


Mr. Gordon Chown (Winnipeg South):: supplementary question. Could I ask the same question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as to whether or not any representations have been made to him for financial assistance for the members of the Olympic and pan-American games committees?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received any such communication.


Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: supplementary question with respect to the pan-American games. I was wondering if the Minister of National Health and Welfare would inform the house whether the officials
Inquiries of the Ministry in Vancouver have asked for any federal assistance with respect to holding the panAmerican games?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know when the games are to be held, but I doubt if this question is one of such urgency that it should not be placed on the order paper.



SAINT JOHN, N.B.  STATUS OF AGREEMENT RESPECTING THERMAL PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the reply received from the minister yesterday to the effect that the amount of power produced by the first two units in the Beechwood plant has been so large that the province of New Brunswick saved money by not going ahead with the original plan for the thermal plant at Saint John, should we now take it for granted that if the same conditions prevail in 1959 the construction of the East Saint John thermal plant will be further postponed?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is rather drawing on possibilities in the future. The question seems to be hypothetical.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question. Could the hon. minister advise us why there is so much delay in signing an agreement with the province of New Brunswick?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am not
aware, Mr. Speaker, of any serious difficulty in the signing of the agreement with the province of New Brunswick. The general agreement is signed, and as each new section of the plan is brought into being, individual agreements will be signed with regard to it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question. Does the minister remember the statement made in this house last July to the effect that-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member does expect to start a debate.



WEST INDIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcliraiih (Ottawa West):: 1 would
like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister advise the house whether or not the government is carrying on negotiations for a new trade agreement with the West Indies?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not at the present moment, Mr. Speaker.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the hon. member for Kootenay West asked me a question relating to the levels of strontium 90 in different parts of Canada. As I stated at that time, I have read the article referred to in his question, and I now feel that the best course is for me to reserve further comment for the present. As the member undoubtedly knows, the hon. member for Assiniboia has placed on the order paper several questions concerning radiation, and my departmental officials and I are now preparing appropriate replies. When these have been given they should be of interest and assistance to the hon. member for Kootenay West.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell the house if a decision has been reached with regard to filling the vacancy presently existing in the Manitoba court of Queen's bench?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, a decision has been made and an announcement should be forthcoming in the immediate future.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the minister whether any decision has yet been reached with regard to the vacancy in the Supreme court of Newfoundland?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a repetition of the question the hon. gentleman addressed the other day to the Prime Minister in whose province the appointment of chief justice lies, and I am afraid I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister said on that occasion.
[Mr. McHraith.l



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the Minister of Finance make a statement to the house either today or in the near future concerning the most recent short term bond issue offered to the public, namely as to the amount, maturity dates, interest provisions and so on.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member would do well to put that question on the order paper.


George James McIlraith: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, that is not a question which could go on the order paper, because the hon. member was requesting the Minister of Finance to make a statement about a government financing issue which is before the public. I do not know how one could ask, on the order paper, for a statement to be made to the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I make it quite clear that I do not propose to commit the impropriety of accepting an invitation to make a statement about a public offering, when the books are to be opened on that offering at five o'clock this afternoon.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Port Arthur asked me a question with regard to direct transportation to Canada for European immigrants. At that time I told him that a meeting had been held with representatives of the transportation companies some time ago. On returning to my office I looked this up and found that the date was December 8.
At that time we were of the opinion that agreement had been reached. However, I am now informed that after these representatives had returned to the United States and discussed the matter with their colleagues, further questions arose and a further conference with the officials of my department was requested.
That conference took place last week, as the hon. member indicated, and the points

which were brought up were fully discussed. The position of the department was explained, and once more the representatives of the United States transportation companies returned to consult their colleagues in the United States. As far as I know there is no major point of disagreement. The matter is now being considered by the representatives of these companies in the United States.

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



DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS

[Stage Direction]
710. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council-Further amount required, $630,000.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before this vote is carried I should like a further explanation from the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys arising out of the statement he made last evening in reply to a question by the hon. member for Timiskaming asking on what grades of coal these payments are made- whether they were made on all grades or on certain classes of coal. The minister replied, *"Bituminous coal for power." A little later I asked him if the subsidy covered both domestic and industrial coal. I repeated the question, and the minister replied "Yes". I should like to know which it is.


Mr. Comlois:: It may be there has been a misunderstanding. I understood from the question put by the hon. member for Timiskaming that he wanted to know if in the coal transshipped to Ontario markets, there was domestic and industrial coal. That was my answer. In fact there is a very small quantity of domestic coal from Nova Scotia sold to the Ontario market.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall item 710 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Comtois:: Perhaps I might also reply-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: Do not hold up your own estimates. They have gone through.


Paul Comtois: All right. I was about to supply some information which had been requested by an hon. member. I do not want to hold them up. I do not want to put any B.T.U.'s into the committee this afternoon, because we had enough last night. If the hon. member for Timiskaming does not wish me to expand my answer to his question of yesterday I have no objection to resuming my seat, but if he wants more information


Mr. Peiers:: I would certainly like to have it.
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Paul Comtois: Well, the money paid out in subvention assistance on the movement of coal is paid to the transportation agents. In the absence of regular shipping lines, the Dominion Coal Company charters vessels and is, in fact, the transportation agent for all the coal moving by water from Sydney to St. Lawrence ports.
The assistance on the movement of Nova Scotia coal in 1958 was paid to the Dominion Coal Company and their subsidiary, Old Sydney Collieries; the Canadian National Railway; the Canadian Pacific Railway; the Sydney and Louisburg Railway and the Cumberland Railway and Coal Company. Details cannot be made available before the end of the fiscal year.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: In regard to this matter I am not going to ask a question for the simple purpose of making political hay, as has been done here during the last day or so.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Oh, oh.


Robert Muir: My dear friend from Gloucester does not seem to like that.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You need more coal than hay in your constituency right now.


Charles Edward Rea: To what vote is the hon. member speaking?


Robert Muir: I have been trying to get your eye since the time the minister took his seat. I attempted to rise several times.


Charles Edward Rea: Vote No. 710 has
been passed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the hon. member can refer to it with consent.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the hon. member the consent of the committee to refer back to vote No. 710?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Muir: I should like to thank the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who, unlike his confreres, came to my aid.
Contrary to what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver East I took advantage of the opportunity provided by the throne speech debate to discuss the whole problem of coal subventions. I now have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. How soon may we likely expect an announcement as a result of representations made by the delegation that

Supply-Northern Affairs recently met with the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A very good question.


Harold Edward Winch: That question was ruled out of order.


Charles Edward Rea: The question is out of order. Shall vote 710 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
National Parks Branch-
711. National parks and historic sites services- construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $2,850,000.
Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, hon.
members will recognize that this item has reference to certain work to be conducted in our national parks. I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources for a little amplification of a statement he made in the house on February 4, 1959, with respect to employment techniques that were said to be unique so far as Riding Mountain national park is concerned. This question arises from certain publicity given this matter which appeared in Winnipeg newspapers.
I have here an article from the Winnipeg Free Press dated January 12, 1959, which bears a rather substantial and prominent headline reading, "I Hand Out the Jobs Says Minnedosa Tory." An article which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune on January 14, bears this headline, "Three M.P.s Pick Needy for Park Project Jobs." There is also another article which appeared in the Free Press.
I should like to ask the minister for further details as to whether he can substantiate his assertion made on February 4 that he and his colleagues were simply continuing a practice that had been followed by the former hon. member for Marquette. As we all know, the gentleman to whom I have reference is the former minister of justice, Mr. Garson. On reading what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources had to say the former hon. member for Marquette was interviewed by both the Winnipeg Tribune and the Winnipeg Free Press. I believe the committee would be interested in hearing the views of this former member. The following is an extract from an article which appeared in the Tribune of February 6:
Former federal cabinet minister Stuart Garson broke the silence of political retirement Thursday to blast Conservative accusations that local Liberal M.P.s conducted an employment agency in Riding Mountain national park.
[Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria).
This accusation is "so silly, so childish and so cheap," said Mr. Garson in a prepared statement.
Resources Minister Alvin Hamilton said in the commons that the government had followed the practice of the Liberal administration in hiring temporary workers through local advisers. Hiring is now done by the national employment service.
In addition to that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources was pretty vague in his statement. He referred to certain action taken by him in consultation with some of his colleagues and he used the phrase "last fall". I have indicated that certain publicity was given to this matter in the middle of January. I should like the minister to inform the committee what advisers were used by the former member for Marquette in this respect. I should also like him to inform us as to whether there was any release on the part of his colleagues, the hon. members for Marquette, Brandon-Souris and Dauphin-as he said, "last fall"-or whether they actually post-dated the publicity with respect to this matter which I indicated appeared about the middle of January.
I believe the minister was extremely broad and definite in the sweeping accusations he made. Because it involves a former hon. member of this house I feel it is quite worthy of the attention of the public accounts committee. I wonder if the minister would indicate if he would approve of having the park superintendent and if necessary the former hon. member for Marquette or any of his advisers called before the committee to give evidence in connection with the statement made in this house on February 4 of this year.
In addition to that I should very much like to know what the minister meant when he indicated that now there is a certain regularization of procedures in collaboration with the employment service. Does this mean that these agents of the present hon. member for Marquette are still functioning in effect and that the employment agency is simply advised of what he has done? Is that what is meant by "collaboration with the employment service?" I wonder if the minister would give us more detail with respect to this matter before we permit the item to pass.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, I intended to
pursue this matter too, because it was my question which led to the statement about which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River spoke. I share some of his views in this matter but I wish to approach it from a different point of view.
The minister will recall that when the question of national parks was under discussion last year he became somewhat rattled under certain pressures from the opposition with regard to the principle involved in

hiring people for jobs of this nature in national parks. I want to ask him if he honestly believes, no matter how highly he may rate the fairness of the hon. members to whom reference has been made-and certainly the hon. member for Brandon in my opinion is as fair as any hon. member in this committee -that it is possible for them to be completely objective in this respect without regard to party affiliation. The fact remains the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is a politician and a Conservative one at that. If he is able to act fairly irrespective of party affiliation I feel he is perhaps more able than any person in this committee. I know from the experience in my riding with regard to provincial matters where this sort of thing goes on you very often see that the people who are slipped into these jobs are required to take out membership in the Conservative party. I am not suggesting that this is the case at all but one is bound to have such suspicions until the whole thing is regularized as the minister suggested was being done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I notice that some hon. members jeer at this but it is an unusual arrangement and I feel we need a more adequate explanation than this. When we have a national employment service I fail to see why it should not be used in this regard. I do not feel that a member of parliament is more competent to select people for jobs than the employment service. That is the function of the employment service and is not a duty of a member of parliament. I was dissatisfied with the statement at the time the minister made it and I would certainly welcome additional information about the procedure. I agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that the imputation made with regard to the reputation of a former member might well be considered in the public accounts committee.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was rather surprised at the question asked by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and originally asked during this session by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate regarding the employment on winter works that we now have under discussion. I can understand the confusion of the hon. member for Port Arthur who has to rely on that very fine newspaper, the Free Press, for his information, but, in the case of the two members directly opposite me I thought I had squelched this matter once and for all last session, on a similar vote in the main estimates by saying very bluntly and sincerely that this
Supply-Northern Affairs party had lifted the whole question of employment in the parks to a new high level which I thought the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate wanted. I pointed out that all they could point to among the thousands of employees who were working on this program, or working permanently on the winter works program, were three cases and two more at the last part of the last session and I thought the most effective answer I could give was to repeat at that time what I said at the last session, that even if there were five-and I do not know of five-dismissed since this government took over, all I can say is when you compare that figure with the literally hundreds, indeed the thousands who were dismissed in 1935-and some of us here have personal knowledge of that-and the complete wholesale eliminations, well, this government has lifted employment in the parks to a new high level.
I do not want the committee to take my word for it. I have said in the house that I have asked religious groups and all those who know the needs of the most needy families in the communities-because this is work that has been pushed hard by our department to try to give help where it is most needed

to inform us on the matter. What I would like to do is to settle this once and for all, and I think that is what will happen when I give the source of these letters. These are neutral people, people who are really interested in employing people who need help. This is a letter dated December 27, 1958, and I shall make it available to the house. It is addressed to the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria and reads as follows:
Wreck Cove, Nova Scotia, December 27, 1958.
Mr. Robert Muir, M.P.,
Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia.
Dear Sir:
The work at the shore at Wreck Cove, which has been under way since November 10 is just about completed.
If there had been any discrimination in connection with the employing of men on this project, you would have been advised of same before now, so since there was none I think it only fair to advise you accordingly.
This work under the foremanship of Alex Smith has been carried on in a very fine manner. All the available men in a given area were employed on this project without any consideration as to political affiliations.
We want you to know, as well as Mr. Smith, that we deeply appreciate the fairness shown in employing men at Wreck Cove.
Wishing you the compliments of the season, I am Yours truly,
NORMAN MacASKILL, President,
Victoria County Liberal Association

Supply-Northern Affairs
This is another letter addressed to the same member of parliament and is from the parish priest of St. Joseph's parish. The letter reads:
St. Joseph's Parish, Dingwall, Nova Scotia, January 2, 1959.
Mr. Robert Muir, M.P.,
Cape Breton North and Victoria,
Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia.
Dear Bob:
Just a note to thank you for your successful efforts on behalf of Walter Asaff. He is now at work thanks to you.
I do hope that 1959 will bring you happiness and success.
Sincerely yours,
Frank Morley.
Let us go back to the Riding Mountain national park because the story of the Riding Mountain national park is a perfect example of one type of press that we have to deal with in western Canada. It is not new to us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Winnipeg Tribune.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is not new
to us to have a group of people as in the city of Brandon deliberately set out to build up a news story, as they did, and to get it published in the newspapers and over the radio in Winnipeg, with the sole purpose of trying to smear a government which has made an effort to increase the standards of employment in the parks. With that information I think the house can take for granted the opinion which we hold of this group of men who deliberately set out to do such a thing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a question? Can he tell the committee who composes the group of men he talks about?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is not in his seat. He knows the story and when the appropriate time comes possibly I will -ask him to tell the house just exactly who were in that party, who they are and what positions they hold in the Liberal party.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister has made a very serious charge against a group of men in Brandon. I am asking whether he will substantiate that charge and name the people he is talking about.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will deal with the former minister of justice, the former member for Marquette, right now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Put up.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Let me finish my statement. This question was asked me today by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy

River and referred to the statement by the ex-minister of justice, Hon. Mr. Garson, who said that he did not know there was anything going on. I am, of course, paraphrasing what the hon. member read.


William Moore Benidickson: I did not say that at all. I asked the minister who were the advisers he mentioned in his statement dated February 4?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: You are going to find out.


William Moore Benidickson: Good.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When I heard of this whole story in the press I knew that negotiations had been going on to set up the best way to carry out employment in those parks and particularly in Riding Mountain national park. This press publicity came to my attention and I immediately inquired as to what was the practice in Riding Mountain national park in the time since we had taken office and prior to that, and the information came from my department that the system in use in Riding Mountain national park in the first year after we came into power was the same as had been used by the previous administration, and this system was well known to everybody in that whole area. I was told that the people in that area of the Riding Mountain national park who wanted employment reported to people who they were told to see, and those people gave a list to the superintendent and this superintendent, as the opportunities became available, employed those people.
My point is this. When I found out that this practice was being followed in my department and this group of men from the ridings around were called in I stated very flatly that the policy of the government on this type of thing was that the national employment service should do the same thing for Riding Mountain national park as it did for the other parks and they agreed that if any person approached them or any of their supporters or organizers or anything of the sort, that these men were to be sent to the national employment service and that was the end of it. I read that statement in the house and I have my statement here.
As for the former minister of justice saying that he did not have anything to do with it, that only indicates to me of how necessary it was to defeat the previous administration. When ministers of the crown did not even know what was going on in their own ridings and left this to an echelon of people more powerful than the member himself to decide who got jobs, then it was about time we cleaned house.

The hon. member for Port Arthur raised the question of Jasper park and I am going to be quite candid. I thought I was speaking on winter works today, but this has no reference to winter works and I do not know whether the chairman will rule me out of order or not. Since he raised it, I should like to suggest I was not rattled. I knew precisely every step that happened last year. If you would go to Jasper park, as I did this last summer and inquire personally into this thing to verify the representations that had been made to me, you would find out what I found. My only regret was that they even went through this courtesy of doing what they did. They should have been dismissed and the reasons stated publicly.
The hon. member for Port Arthur spoke kindly of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. I can join in what he has said because no member of parliament on either side of this house could be more fair than the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has been. All the members around that district have tried to do the best they could in connection with this work. I can give the house the assurance that these letters that you have heard me read here today are verified by the representations of the people who are working on these jobs and who have never even seen a member of parliament. They have obtained their jobs because they were unemployed, and they are very grateful for them. The only complaint I have heard is from a man who hires people in that district. He says it is very hard for him to get people because they all want to work for us in the parks. That is the only complaint I have heard. I was quite honest when I told the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that I had not heard any complaint. I can honestly say that not a single one has come to me. I have tried my best to make this employment program do what it was designed to do.
I should like to come right back to the vote and say one word of explanation on this whole program. It will have become clear to discerning members of the house that the government's winter works program is divided into three parts. The first part concerns works done by the federal government itself through the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Transport and other departments, including my own. Therefore, this item No. 711 is an example of the type of thing that the federal government is doing all by itself. Now, the total of all these things comes to approximately $750 million. Our particular item here looks very small in relation to the whole total, but I shall add some things to it in a moment.
The second part of the program is a cooperative program between the federal
Supply-Northern Affairs government and the provincial government, carried out by my department. This cooperative program is composed of the camp grounds and picnic site program; the forest access roads program and, to a limited degree, the trans-Canada picnic grounds program. These two items that are being used are based on 50 per cent labour, in which all the provinces with one exception are co-operating.
The third part of the program is the municipal works program which is handled by the Minister of Labour, under which we deal through the provinces and the municipalities and where the people who have a local knowledge can recommend the types of work needed in those areas. It is not necessary for the federal government to have a tremendous staff to handle the works programs in these areas. My problem is having to deal with a permanent staff and when we put on a selective winter works program, trying to aim at the people who need it the most, I have to do it with the people who are normally employed. It depends on this selective idea, and I think it can be worked out with the local people.
This vote No. 711 deals with the work in the national parks and historic sites and totals $2.8 million. At this time, I should like to point out that in the main estimates this vote amounted to $14,399,925. Out of the main estimates we were able to provide $300,000 for a winter works program. In addition, last session we put through a supplementary estimate for $500,000 for this item. Therefore when we total up the amount from the main estimate, the supplementary estimate and this further supplementary estimate, we find that for this one project for winter work we have a total vote of approximately $3.6 million.
I should like to give the house the figures on employment, the actual number of people working on this program. If I may, I should like to give the figures for both votes 711 and 712, the program that affects my department, and then it will save me repeating it. I should have mentioned, in connection with the cooperative program, the roads to resources program which is in full swing. This is another type of co-operative work with the provinces.
In so far as the number employed is concerned, these are the figures for the first week in January, which are the latest I have available. The number of men employed on the roads to resources program is 688; the number on camp grounds and picnic program-total 1,122; on the forest access roads program, 1,366; on the construction program in the territories, 1,492; and the number employed in the parks under this vote we are now discussing is 1,700. This makes a grand total of

Supply-Northern Affairs 6,368 in the first week of January. I recognize that this, by comparison with the tremendous number employed in work for other departments may seem small, but I do suggest that it has been a substantial effort to try to meet seasonal unemployment where we could. I could give a further breakdown of these figures, but unless I am asked I will not hold up the committee by giving such a breakdown.
Hon. members may wish to ask me for a breakdown by provinces of the actual figures. I think I will allow the committee to decide whether or not they want that information. There is one thing more, Mr. Chairman; may I go on and make an explanation covering the next vote?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we should deal with these items one at a time.


William Moore Benidickson: I have seldom seen a minister so anxious to avoid a very simple and direct question. I asked him if he would indicate who these advisers were to whom he referred in his statement on February 4. I asked him, in addition, whether or not instead of smearing people in Brandon, he would name them. I can only judge that he must be referring to the winter employment committee in Brandon. The winter employment committee of Brandon, so far as I know, is a non-partisan organization. Apparently they felt it was an undesirable thing to have people engaged on the basis of political patronage through the campaign manager of the hon. member for Marquette rather than on the basis of need. Evidently they issued a statement to the effect that the only way they could see to be certain that the money being spent at the park to relieve unemployment was being used effectively was to use the unemployment insurance offices.
I asked the minister another very direct question. I have the utmost respect for the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, who is not in the house to speak for himself, but the minister brought him in on February 4 by referring to him. Now, I ask him very simply, and very definitely, did the hon. member for Brandon-Souris make these representations to the minister acquiescing in a new scheme before or after this publicity in January or the complaint of the Brandon winter employment committee in December?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I can only refer you to my statement made here on February 4 in which I said, as recorded on page 673 of Hansard for that date:
However, this fall, in view of the vigorous winter work campaign, my office contacted the members for Marquette, Brandon-Souris and Dauphin, suggesting that every effort should be made to ensure

that the most needy cases should be given first consideration in the national park area, irrespective of party affiliations.
The hon. member talked about news stories. In glancing through some of them now I see that they are all dated in January, January 12, January 14, and so on. When I say that I met these people in the fall I do not mean January of 1959. I met them in the fall but I would have to go back and examine my records to see when the meeting took place. I do not have the information here.


William Moore Benidickson: The article from which I have already quoted went on to say that at the December meeting of the Brandon winter employment committee the hon. member for Brandon-Souris was present and said that he was aware of this situation and of this type of hiring at Riding Mountain national park and promised the committee that he would call a meeting on his return to Ottawa to look into the matter. The minister should recall this particular circumstance. When he gives the committee the impression that this was done, to use his words, last fall, one would think in terms of September or October and that is a great deal different from some action taken by his colleagues in Manitoba after public complaint had been made.
The other question is still unanswered. Is this group in Brandon, which the minister seemingly was smearing, the winter employment committee to which reference has been made?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have seen the names but I cannot recall them. The information is in the possession of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. He tells me that he is prepared to stand up in the house and, if it is required, bring the whole matter to the attention of the house. I am going to ask him to do that in view of the statements made and questions asked by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister made a very harsh accusation against a body of citizens in Brandon. Surely he should tell us to what body he is referring. In justice to the citizens winter employment committee of Brandon he should tell us whether that is or is not the body about which he was talking.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am almost positive that it is not the body known as the winter employment committee.


Mr. Denis:: In the details of the item on page 8 there is an amount of $157,000 for historic sites and an amount of $1,113,500 for national parks trunk highways. Can the minister say what portion of these amounts is being or will be spent in the province of Quebec? He has also talked about a co-operative program

between the federal government and the provinces. Will the minister tell the committee what co-operative program exists now between the province of Quebec and the federal government? Will he also tell the committee how many people in Quebec have been employed by virtue of the co-operative program he has mentioned?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer on this point is very clear. There are no cooperative road agreements with the province of Quebec.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I should like to return to my point and tell the minister that I read more than the Free Press. I will agree with him that perhaps it has a very sleazy bias but I try to counter that by reading the reactionary pages of the Winnipeg Tribune. I want to come back to the statement of the minister that he sent a letter to these three members of parliament asking them to suggest needy cases and saying to them, "Now, don't pay any attention to party affiliation". I understood him to mean that what he is suggesting is a much better way of doing it than was the case under the old regime.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Hear, hear.


Douglas Mason Fisher: One of the maritime members says "hear, hear." Those of us who have a certain detachment and who have never had political patronage at our disposal have noticed that there has been an undercurrent of feeling among some government members that there should be more patronage handed out. Those of us who are detached to a certain extent have rather admired the stand, especially of the Minister of Public Works who, we understand, has taken a pretty firm line against this kind of hand-out. I understand he has done so much to the discomfort of some of the government members but we admire him for it.
But here we have the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and I do not doubt his idealism any more than that of the Minister of Public Works, asking members of parliament to suggest people for jobs. Did he do this because the national employment service could not do the job? Does he not think it would be much better in every case where government jobs are involved that the national employment service or the civil service commission should handle the matter and not members of parliament? That is what I want to get at. I want to secure acceptance of that position and perhaps recognition that, as far as the parks are concerned, his department is working towards that end.
One suggestion which I know has been forwarded to his department is that a federal
Supply-Northern Affairs park be established in the Mount McKay region in the vicinity of Fort William. I am sure that problems would descend upon any member of parliament from that area if this policy were extended in this way. I can see people knocking on the doors and it becoming something that could impinge upon and get in the way of duties of the members of parliament. I think there is a principle involved and I should like a clearer statement of the factors set out in the letter that went to these members and also the role of the national employment service. I should like to say that I do not think it is a question of our swallowing holus-bolus any line that may come out of Brandon or appear in the pages of the Winnipeg Free Press.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the hon. member has asked a fair question and I am sorry that I have not been able to make my position clear. In areas where there are national employment offices close by what I like the department to do when they need men for these jobs is to go to the national employment offices and the superintendent will hire the men. There has been no trouble in the great majority of the parks, but there are certain parks a long way removed from the national employment offices and we do have a policy of employing men who live close to the parks. This applies particularly in the case of Terra Nova park in Newfoundland and the park in Cape Breton. In those districts we have asked people of varying qualifications, ministers of churches, parish priests and so on, to bring to our attention needy people in order to put them to work. We have considered other things such as rotation to make the work go farther and so on. Generally speaking, there has been a pretty fair effort made to move in that direction.
I was quite surprised when I read this material in the Tribune and Free Press because I do know that we had a discussion in the fall-I cannot give the date without checking my notes-at which the question was raised of whether farmers in the vicinity of Riding Mountain park should be included in the national employment service list. I know that I approved the idea of hiring these farmers if they could be recommended. That is about all I can say. To my knowledge there have been no complaints from the western parks. There were some complaints last year, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate knows, with regard to eastern parks, but I think that on the whole the administration has been such as to be relatively free of complaints. I think this has been a big help to members of parliament of all parties in that they have been able to get away from hiring on a strictly party basis. It has taken

Supply-Northern Affairs the pressure off them and it makes my relationship with my parks people that much better. I do not know what else I can add.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, since the minister has frequently made reference to me and since he made reference to the answer he gave me on February 4, I want to make one or two observations which I do not think will be very controversial. I did think that the minister was a little less than fair in the statement he made on February 4 in answer to my first question when he said, as found on page 682 of Hansard:
I would like to thank the hon. member for making representations to me to see that certain people he knows got employment there.
I cannot help but feel that the minister was perhaps not being his usual objective self when he made that statement. The minister knows that he had precisely one letter from me about an individual. His name was Charles Pelley, and I have never seen him in my life to my knowledge, as I said in the letter. He was a veteran from the navy who had heard that there were going to be boats used in connection with the park, and was rather interested in finding out if he could get employment. I sent a letter to the minister about that. As I say, to this day, if I have seen Mr. Pelley I did not know I had seen him.
I have on several occasions written to the minister about the undertaking given by the St. Laurent government, and repeated by the minister in this house, that preference in employment would be given in the Terra Nova national park to those persons who, before the park was established, made their living either by cutting timber in the park or working in sawmills which used the timber which was cut in the park. It did come to my attention that there was a considerable number of these people in Happy Adventure, in Canning's Cove, and in Charlottetown, in particular, who had made their living that way and had great difficulty in getting employment in the park.
I know that the minister has not unlimited opportunities for employment in the park, and I do not think the minister can say I have been in the slightest degree unreasonable about it; but I would submit that that undertaking given by both governments should be vigorously carried out. I wrote to the minister and gave him the name of the principal timber operator in each of these three places. I said that if there was any difficulty about finding out which people did in fact make their living in that way in the park, these would be the people who would most likely have the local knowledge.


I agree with what the minister said just now about the unsuitability of using the employment service as far as Terra Nova national park is concerned, because the nearest employment office is either at St. John's or Grand Falls, in both cases a very considerable distance away from the park. If the employment service were used, particularly this winter when, as all hon. members know, there is so much unemployment in Newfoundland, and when so many people who are unemployed no longer have stamps, I think it would be found that the people who need the work most would not be registered in the employment office at all, and would therefore be overlooked. If one went to another agency it would be better to go to the public assistance or welfare officers, because they are the ones who know the cases of greatest need. I suggest that there is an express obligation, in the case of the Terra Nova national park, to carry out this policy of giving a livelihood first to the people whose livelihood was taken away by the establishment of the park. I believe that the minister and his officials have been trying to do that: I do not think it has always been done. Since the minister, in his reply to the hon. member for Port Arthur, did say that in cases like the Terra Nova national park advice was sought from other quarters-I must say I do not expect the minister to seek my advice, and I do not ask him to; I am realistic about these things-I would be very interested to know whose advice the minister does seek.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the hon. member knows that I answered that question last session. The gentleman I referred to in that answer had explicit instructions to consider the towns close by. Twenty-five persons from the town of Charlottetown, which the hon. member mentioned, have been employed, and we extended the season for cutting timber. But as the hon. member knows, we have had a terrific time trying to keep people in Newfoundland employed this winter. The letter he sent me was sent on, the same as any other letter is; and I understand that one of the men he has never seen, I presume in Cape Breton, is now working, so his representations have the same effect as any others.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The man I referred to whom I had never seen was from Newfoundland. I do not think I have ever written to the minister about Cape Breton. I did raise a question in the house about a letter I had received from somebody whom I had never seen before; but I did not write to the minister about any place except Terra Nova.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think that clears up the matter. When the hon. member raised last year in the house these names he said he had not seen them and did not know the person who had written. But I did inquire into it, and I see one of those persons has a job now. I am simply pointing out that representations made by the hon. member are getting back down along the line. So far there have been no complaints, and I hope it will continue that way.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, since my constituency has been mentioned, Cape Breton North and Victoria, with regard to the hiring practices in Cape Breton island park, I would like to add a few words of my own. When this started off after the June election, I personally felt that there should be a change in the practice which had gone on in the past. That was that there were several local Liberal henchmen, shall I say, in each area who controlled hiring, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition, whom I know to be a very fair man, would not agree if he knew some of the things which did go on in that area. The Leader of the Opposition smiles but I am really sincere in this, and I am being as honest as I can about it.
I have on different occasions contacted different members of the clergy of the two great religious bodies in regard to people who needed employment. Some may think that is a rather strange thing to do. I do not think it is. I thought is was fair, and the clergy are usually non-partisan. In a rural area they usually know who is hungry and who needs work. That is one of the reasons I made the approach. I have also approached others in the area with regard to hiring, no matter who they were, and I have tried to do the best I could. I have evidence of that and can prove it. This meets with displeasure, I may say, even among some of my own friends. I am not trying to put a halo over my head, but something had to be done in that area. It has meant a lot of extra work for me trying to help out in this situation. I have approached the minister on seven or eight occasions with regard to a rotation of employment.
This has always been an area which has been depressed. Even in the so-called great and glorious years of the Liberal regime this area was always depressed. There was a little fishing and the park, and that is all. I have not been too successful with the minister on the question of rotation, and I would like to get after him again about it, because I think it does some good in a small way. He has agreed to a certain amount, but I think the people in the area should get a
Supply-Northern Affairs little fairer share of what work is available in an area where employment possibilities are very, very limited. That is all I have to say at the moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could say a word or two about what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria. If I could persuade the minister to do what the hon. member has done, namely to get the advice of the clergy in the area around the Terra Nova national park, instead of the particular adviser whom he mentioned last year who is not very clerical, I think there would be a great deal more satisfaction in the community with the minister and with everyone concerned.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if we could have a little more explanation from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate about what he means by "realistic". We have very recently had an example in Newfoundland of realism, and I want to know what the hon. member means when he says he is realistic about these things. Does he mean that if he is a member of a government returned to power we will have a return to the kind of patronage we have heard of today?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure this is completely out of order, but I would love to reply to the hon. member for Port Arthur. With regard to the Terra Nova national park, so far as I know nobody was ever asked before he received employment there anything about his political affiliations while the Liberals were in office.


Thomas Miller Bell: I would point out that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate admitted a few moments ago that he suggested names of people he did not even know for employment in the park.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


The Chairman:: Order. We are discussing national parks and historic sites, not the question of patronage. All further comments on patronage will be ruled out of order.


Mr. Carter:: The minister referred sometime ago to a table which gives a breakdown as between the provinces of the total amount expended and the number of people employed. I wonder if the committee would consent to the inclusion of this document in today's Hansard. This would avoid the minister having to take the time of the committee by having to read it into the record.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am sorry, but I was interrupted. What was the request?

Supply-Northern Affairs


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Would the hon. member
mind repeating his remarks?


Chesley William Carter: Earlier today the minister referred to a table which he said gave a breakdown by provinces of the amount expended and the total number of people employed on the various projects. He said he did not wish to read it into the record because it would take so much time. The question I asked was whether it would be possible to have this table included in today's Hansard as part of the proceedings?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I could do that if I were allowed a little time to have copies made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The table
follows:
Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Winter Works Program
A-Federal program
(1)-National Parks Branch:
	Estimated	Number Em
Province	Expenditure	January,British Columbia	.. 308,500	189Alberta 	.. 1,257,500	811Saskatchewan ....	.. 255,000	127Manitoba 	.. 387,000	170Quebec 	.. 40,000	25New Brunswick ..	.. 128,000	60Nova Scotia 	
Prince Edward	.. 326,500	64Island 	.. 92,500	213Newfoundland ...	.. 55,000	56$2,850,000	1,715(2)-Northern Administration Branch: Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory	
$ 750,000

Note:
(1)	The program of all federal departments in the Northwest Territories and Yukon provided employment for 1,492 in January.
(2)	The national parks are carrying out additional work to the above from funds previously voted by parliament, providing employment for an additional 300 men. The program in the Northwest Territories and Yukon is being paid for from funds already provided by parliament. The $2,850,000 estimated expenditure for national parks works set out above, covers the cost of the program from November 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959.
While I am on my feet, I might say this: the hon. member for St. Denis asked me a moment ago if any money had gone into Quebec. There is no co-operative road program with the province of Quebec but direct contributions are made to the upkeep of historic sites, and of the total of $157,000 which was spent across Canada on historic sites $40,000 went into Quebec.


Mr. Leduc:: Could the minister inform us of the reason why the province of Quebec has not taken advantage of this grant from the federal government?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder if the hon. member would take that question to the people in Quebec. I cannot speak for them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Forestry operations division-[DOT]
712. To provide for contributions to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into or to be entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, by Canada with the provinces, of amounts equal to one-half of the amounts confirmed by the provinces as having been spent by them in establishing forest access roads and trails for the attainment of adequate Are protection as well as other aspects of forest management-further amount required, $1,682,000.
Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I have sat very quietly here for the greater part of yesterday and today but I cannot allow this item to go by without saying a word or two with regard to it because I am a member of a group which is interested not in patronage of human beings but in the proper kind of patronage applied to the forest growth of Canada.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is the hon. member speaking on item 712?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thought my remarks would indicate that I was. I am one who has lived in the forest all my life and I am particularly interested in these matters. We in this group have no hesitation about supporting this item; our only criticism is that it should be very much larger. We shall have more to say when the main estimates come up for discussion later, but, as I indicated, I cannot refrain from saying a few words at this time.
There is a general feeling in the province of British Columbia, not only among those engaged in the forest industry but among the people generally who realize the extent of the forest wealth we have, and the great need to protect it, that the federal government has not accepted to the full its responsibility with respect to providing funds for building access trails and providing fire fighting equipment. This opinion is indicated in an editorial article recently published in the Vancouver Province which, as hon. members know, is a paper which generally supports this government. This editorial states that the present contribution by the federal government under such items as we are now discussing is a disgracefully low contribution toward the protection of British Columbia forests. I am sure the minister agrees

with this statement in principle and I am sure he will welcome any support he can get here in the house as an indication of the very strong feeling which exists on this question not only in British Columbia but in other parts of Canada.
Last year we had an unusually serious forest fire situation. I understand that about $10 million in stumpage value was lost in British Columbia alone, and this is only the minor aspect of the total loss. There is also the loss in uncommercial growth, the loss of flood protection which forests provide and the loss of the beneficial effect which forests have on climate, to say nothing of the destruction of wild life and the loss of natural beauty. In addition, if my information is correct, there was expended a sum approaching $10 million in all by the government of British Columbia and by the industry concerned in fighting fires during the fire season of 1958. This is in addition to the other losses I have already mentioned, and this is the amount which has been spent in a single season.
I do urge the government to realize that it obtains a tremendous revenue from the forest industry of British Columbia. The government has, in fact, an important stake in the forest industry of the province from which I come, because of the taxes which are paid by the corporations and by the employees concerned. Even from a commonsense point of view, in order to protect this investment the government would be well advised to greatly increase the grants made toward forest protection in the provinces. Before concluding I should like to ask the minister if he has received representations in recent months from organizations or persons interested in seeking an increase in these grants.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: With regard to the observations made by the hon. member for Kootenay West, may I say that I do not think there is any Canadian who recognizes the importance of the woods industry to Canada who would not like to see the expenditure on access roads through our forests greater than it is. I think that in a backhanded way the hon. member has paid a fine compliment to this program. We offered it last year on a 50 per cent basis to any province wishing to take part without any limit being placed on the expenditure by the federal government. We will accept any program put forward by a province as long as the money is spent on forest access roads.


William Moore Benidickson: Does the work have to be carried out in the winter time?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is an eight-month program, November 1 to June 30.
Supply-Northern Affairs
As to representations-I am speaking from memory-there have been general representations from at least two groups which mentioned fire protection. In addition, the premier of British Columbia was in Ottawa recently and this was one of the matters discussed. I think it should be made very clear to the committee that of the tremendous mileage built under this program the province of British Columbia has taken a very large share. I think the figures indicate that between November 1, 1958 and June 30, 1959 the province of British Columbia plans to spend on access roads a total of $1,220,000 of which the federal contribution will be $610,000.
The only province with a road program during the last eight months larger than that for British Columbia was Ontario. Some $3 million was spent on the forest access program in that province. The program has been a remarkable success with eight provinces co-operating. They have inaugurated magnificent programs. I would say the program for British Columbia costing $1.2 million represents a substantial increase over last year. It appears as if the province is taking full advantage of the offer we have made.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, in connection with this item on forest access roads I want to ask the minister again about a particular road project in which he knows I have been interested for some time and about which I have not been able to secure adequate information. I refer to another joint effort between the province of Ontario and the federal government. When speaking under the preceding item, No. 711 the minister indicated that there were several types of joint road programs and in consequence of this many of us become confused about where we stand on these matters. I raise this question because I have not been able to obtain satisfaction. I know the minister has not been deliberately evasive and I appreciate that he has been under some embarrassment in having to deal with the provinces in these matters. I have not obtained too much satisfaction in the questions I asked previously.
I was particularly disturbed with respect to an announcement he made in answer to a question I asked on February 4, 1959, as reported on page 675 of Hansard. I did not specify under which program the federal government might have made a contribution but I did ask whether or not the federal government had made a contribution with respect to the construction of a road between Kenora and Minaki. The minister's

Supply-Northern Affairs answer with respect to this part of the question was that no contribution had been made. I telephoned the minister's staff and told them I was disturbed by this because on June 25 last year I asked a similar question with respect to road construction between Kenora and Minaki and was told that the federal government's share of the cost of the forest access road up to that date was $24,421.75.
I just repeat that in my last question I did not specify under what program we might have participated. I thought the answers were in conflict and I wondered if this was drawn to the minister's attention and if he could tell me anything about the present status of the joint road construction program relating to the area between Kenora and Minaki.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am required by the agreement I have with the provinces to not mention anything publicly about the roads to resources program unless it has been approved between the two governments. In the case of the road which runs from Minaki down to highway 17-


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, the trans-Canada highway.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, as long as we are clear on that and there is no question about it. This comes under two programs one of which is the forest access roads program. When the question was asked the hon. member did not specify and I answered in terms of the roads to resources program. I believe my answer was oral.


William Moore Benidickson: No, it was not. I deliberately did not specify the road to resources aspect because I knew there were two or three other types of program. I was unable to find out under which program the contribution had been made last year. I might add that the construction went on as long as the election was in progress and stopped the day after the election but in any event this was the amount of money spent.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The confusion arises because of the fact that the road is also under the road to resources program.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a few words to what was said a few moments ago by the hon. member for Kootenay West. We do not have to emphasize that perhaps the major industry of British Columbia is the timber industry. This is of importance not only to those who live in British Columbia but is of vital importance to the federal government as well.
IMr. Benidickson.]

The prosperity of the province depends upon the success of the industry and this affects the contributions of the province in terms of corporation and income taxes.
As the hon. member for Kootenay West pointed out, British Columbia was hard hit last year owing to an unusually dry season involving a substantial loss in mature timber, the closing of campsites because of forest fires and the expenditure of approximately $10 million in the fighting of fires. I wish to plead as emphatically as I can that the federal government give consideration to fire protection under its forest access roads and road to resources programs. I appreciate that I cannot speak on the issue of fire protection at the moment because that is outside the scope of these supplementary estimates but I just mention it in passing.
One question comes to mind arising from what was said a moment ago by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. With respect to the contracts between the federal government and the provinces concerning forest access roads, does that also apply with respect to access roads of a forest nature which are not for commercial purposes? I am thinking of provincial parks as opposed to national parks. In British Columbia we have the Tweedsmuir and Garibaldi provincial parks located in sections of the province that are heavily timbered. Does the federal contribution of 50 per cent with respect to forest access roads apply to access roads through provincial parks that are timbered? If so, has any advantage been taken of that in the province of British Columbia, or elsewhere?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I must inform the hon. member for Vancouver East that I know of no regulations on our part that limit the location of these forest access roads. I do not recall offhand any roads which traverse provincial parks. Those in British Columbia have been from one working circle to another working circle. They are using a working circle system in protecting and managing the timber. I am not aware of any provision to prevent the offer of assistance applying in the case of a forest access road affecting a provincial park.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary
question, Mr. Chairman? The minister states that he cannot recall an application of this kind having been made but in view of the fact that there are thousands of acres of timber in provincial parks would the minister interpret the policy of the federal government as being capable of application to forest access roads leading into areas where there is non-commercial timber in provincial parks which must

be protected from forest hazards as is the case with commercial timber? Would that be his understanding? Would he expect the federal government to pay half the cost of construction of forest access roads through provincial parks where there is timber?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I can only repeat what I said a moment ago. Not having the contract in front of me I can only state that I can think of no reason at the moment why there would be any resistance to building roads of this kind through parks.
I know what the federal policy on parks is but I do not know what the provincial policy is. So far as I know, there is no limitation on going into forest areas. I wish to make it clear that those forest access roads are all-inclusive. They are for forest management, fire protection and all other purposes having to do with the management of forests which is very inadequate in Canada. That is why the program was put forward. It is a capital expenditure on the part of the federal and provincial governments on a 50-50 basis during the 8-months period, and it is for fire protection, as the hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned.


Harold Edward Winch: The forest access roads are not restricted to commercial opportunities. It is not restricted to forest management licences. It is not restricted to commercial enterprise.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Just a moment; the hon. member mentioned commercial enterprises. I thought he was referring to provincial parks.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister is not restricting it to commercial enterprises. If there is an application or a request for access roads to timber in provincial parks the minister would not exclude it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am speaking, of course, purely from memory of a contract which was drawn many months ago, but I know of no regulations that prevent anything in provincial parks. If my memory is correct, I do think there is a limitation in regard to the ownership of land. It must be provincially owned. I may be wrong in that but I have no way of checking it at the moment unless I send a note to my office and ask for the information.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I noted the other day when the minister tabled a specimen copy of an agreement between the federal government and the province of British Columbia with respect to the roads to resources program that clause 6 of that agreement specified that there would be no work by means of day labour unless the minister consented thereto. The agreement also contained a clause saying that public tenders 66968-9-73
Supply-Northern Affairs must be obtained after the federal minister had approved. I was wondering whether in any of these other joint cost-sharing arrangements there was something similar. I suspect I know why those particular clauses were put into agreements of this kind, but I wondered whether the federal government, in connection with the forest access roads program, has insisted on something similar. I think it is intended to eliminate on the part of the provincial government the hiring of men on a day labour basis, or something of that kind, that had not been approved by the federal minister.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will have to take that question as notice, Mr. Chairman, and answer it on the main estimates or in a standing committee. I would like to say a word on the clauses which the hon. member has just quoted. There is also a clause in the agreement stating that any province may request useful day labour. If my memory serves me again, Mr. Chairman, I think five provinces have individually made that request. There is a clause that does permit us to do that on special occasions.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have two questions. Are any standards laid down respecting those forest access roads as to width, type and so on, and with respect to trails? What provision is made in the agreement for inspection by officials of the minister's department with respect to certifying, satisfactory to the minister, that certain work has been undertaken and is up to standard of roads or trails?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A great deal of debate has taken place on standards. A road which may be standard in Ontario and which may be of a certain width may not be satisfactory to British Columbia where there are tall tree areas. In an area where there are tall trees a width of 200 feet may be required. If the provincial requirements are such that they want to build a road to higher standards than we are prepared to pay, then we pay only half of the cost of the standard that we set, and anything beyond that must be paid completely by the province.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What about inspection?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The roads are inspected by the federal government or, in the case of roads to resources, by the Department of Public Works.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Of the federal government?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


Mr. Godin:: I would like to make a few brief remarks and address a few questions to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I think the vote we are

Supply-Northern Affairs discussing at the present time must be foremost in his program. Last year, when debating this item on the estimates, I had occasion to try to obtain certain information from the minister as to what was to appear in his program. Most of the answers were vague and negative and were to the effect that at that time there were no co-operative schemes with Ontario for example, with respect to roads for forest purposes or for other purposes such as reaching resources such as new timber, mines all of which are very prominent in the area which I represent, namely the Nickel Belt riding.
I have stated that the answers I received last year were vague. The program as laid down last year was more or less a type of revision. I feel that on this occasion I may be able to find out just what is going on in the province of Ontario, and especially in northern Ontario and in my area. The minister said that he operates under a cooperative scheme with the provinces. He said a moment ago that in most of these projects he is not entitled to publicize what the arrangement was or what work was going on. I feel that a project so worthy as this should be understood and that everyone, especially those persons whom it may benefit, should have the information. I fail to see the reasoning behind the minister's statement. I realize that if we are to have agreements with the provincial governments we should have something to say about them. I fail to understand the reference that when there is an agreement with the provinces it should be kept quiet and there should be no publicity about it.
As I travel around my area some people tell me about the access roads of the department of northern affairs. Others tell me about the wonderful work the government in Toronto is doing and no one knows just who the Canadians are who have to do with this problem of developing our resources and reaching them.
It has often been said that the one at the oars is never the one to rock the boat. I feel that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has placed himself at the oars and is trying to do something which is good and the provincial governments are rocking the boat. If that is so we should ascertain that at this time. We should have certain control over the program and the assistance which we are giving and we should at least know about the resources in my area. I understand that some technical work has been going on.
I should like to know at this time whether there is an agreement with Ontario, what it is and what it means, and if it applies to

northern Ontario. We know that in this area of Ontario there is a place where you do not have to fool the people all the time but only during a forthcoming provincial election. Unfortunately, I received this information only this morning and it pertains to this very matter. The minister may have received the same information. There are problems north of Gogama where certain roads are discussed. I do not know myself exactly what scheme he has in mind, but possibly it follows the theory that the minister has, I feel wrongly, undertaken to follow, namely a co-operative scheme without letting the people know about it.
There is an Indian reserve in my area upon which there is a great deal of timber, possibly some mining wealth and tourist attractions as well. This morning I received a report from Mr. R. Labbe of Gogama and I should like the minister to take note of the conditions to which he referred. The letter says:
The reserve is situated 14 miles northeast of Gogama and there is a good road leading to it but it is not kept open in the winter when it would be mostly needed. Why? No logical explanation can be given. Is it through lack of equipment? Certainly not. The department of highways keeps the road coming into Gogama open all winter. Furthermore, the department of lands and forests keeps five miles of the reserve road open for access to the Gogama-Timmins road now under construction. Two weeks ago, it took the hydro snowmobile six hours to reach the reserve in order to take out an old Indian who had frozen his hands. Two days ago a nurse had to be flown in to get a sick baby to the hospital.
If I might make a comment here, it would seem to me that in these agreements with the provinces there should be an obligation on the province to keep the roads open once they are built with the moneys we are voting. We are voting an amount of $1,682,000, and this is only a supplementary amount to that already voted to the minister for this purpose. Certainly the people need these roads if the resources are to be developed. People will live near these roads, and they should be kept open to assist the people in obtaining the services they need in trying to develop these resources.
I should like to inform the minister of two other incidents which occurred just north of Gogama in my riding. I have a report from the same person, Mr. R. Labbe of Gogama, which reads as follows:
A week ago, I noticed that no smoke was coming out of a shack occupied by a pensioner aged 77. After knocking the door open, we found him lying on the floor face down. He had been dead for six or seven hours. He had tried to light his stove but without success. Water was frozen in the kettle indicating that there had been no fire in the shack for at least 24 hours. Only a few frozen potatoes, a piece of salt pork and a few pieces of bread were found. The shack was so dirty and

m such a mess that the constable who investigated could hardly believe his eyes. Last week, another old age pensioner (80 years) living alone in the bush was found on a lake crawling on all fours not knowing how to get back to his camp. His hands, legs and feet were frozen and doctors are at a loss to explain how he survived. This is legal cruelty to humans.
Of course, the last remark is only the opinion of the person writing the letter. In any event, it appears that this hamlet on the reserve only 14 miles from a proper town in my area is without a road for some seven or eight miles during the wintertime, by means of which they could communicate with civilization. I would, therefore, like to obtain from the minister more information as to what is occurring in so far as Ontario is concerned. How much are they rocking the boat while we are trying to pull at the oars? In what fashion can we ascertain that the people who are serviced by these roads will be able to use them during the winter months, especially in northern Ontario where winter extends over five or six months in the year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have to say very bluntly to my hon. friend that he misunderstands the purpose of this program. This vote is for forest access roads and the program is deliberately designed to make forests accessible for management purposes or in case of fire fighting in the summertime. By no stretch of the imagination does it deal with people at all. The scheme does not relate to roads from A to B or community to community. This roads program proposed by the federal government is to help protect our forests and aid in their management; that is the first thing I should like to say.
I think, myself, that the hon. member has enunciated a very controversial proposition. He says that the federal government should interfere with the provincial government in the conduct of affairs which are expressly in the hands of the provincial government. We would not consider it right to tell any province what they have to do in so far as matters under provincial jurisdiction are concerned. Roads are the responsibility of the provincial government. This program is an effort on the part of the resources department of the government to co-operate with the provinces. They do not have to accept if they do not want any program to better protect or manage their forests. There is no connection between these roads and roads to communities.
The second point is that this vote is concerned with forest access roads, and of course the roads to resources program is a different program entirely. It is another co-operative program with the provinces, but it is not 66968-9-73i
Supply-Northern Affairs under this vote. It is a new program in which Ontario has made a magnificent contribution by bringing this idea to the fore in Canada. Ontario is the pioneer in this field, and from a plan relating to mining access roads only it was later amended to cover access roads to all resources. All that the federal government has done has been to pick up this idea from Ontario and make it applicable all across Canada on a voluntary basis. The reason that we cannot divulge what is going on in the negotiations is that conditions change from time to time. If a road proposed by a province does not meet our criterion that the road should open new resources, we ask for a change and this may go back and forth. If these discussions were brought into public view then everybody would join in, and all logic and reason in the program would disappear. The province has the responsibility to serve the people with roads. These are roads to open up resources or to protect forests.


Mr. Slogan:: I should like to commend the
Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources for including this supplementary estimate of $1,682,000. I might say I am one of those who hold a great deal of admiration for the minister because I feel he is one of the hardest working and most sincere of our ministers. I only feel sorry for him when the big war tanks from the front lines of the opposition get rolling in this house.
I agree with the minister that the provinces should have the complete say in how this money should be spent. I do not think we should try to control the manner in which it is spent by the provinces. I might say that in my own province of Manitoba there was considerable agitation for a program of access roads. I am glad to see that it has come into being. It is a well-known fact that fire and pestilence destroy far more timber than is taken by the pulp and paper or lumbering industries. I am sure this program of access roads will do something to lower the fire hazards in the forests, and will also make it much more profitable for the pulp cutters, enabling them to bring out the wood from the more inaccessible areas. This will, in turn, lower their costs and it will save labour.
In my own constituency, we have a pulp and paper industry. At this time the prices of pulpwood are a little bit depressed. I feel that the opportunity for employment offered by the building of these roads may offset this to some degree. I am sure that the pulp and paper industry in my constituency welcomes this, as do the pulp cutters and also the province of Manitoba. I should merely like to ask the minister at this time whether he can tell me what part of this appropriation is

Supply-Northern Affairs going to go to the province of Manitoba and how many people will be employed under the program in Manitoba?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: 
Chesley William Carter: May I ask the minister if
fie would be good enough to make these figures available for all provinces by having them printed in Hansard as was done in connection with the former item?
B-Federal-provincial program
(1)	Forest access road program:
Province
British Columbia
Alberta	
Saskatchewan ...
Manitoba	
Ontario	
New Brunswick
Nova Scotia ____
Newfoundland ..
(Total federal contribution under last winter's
(2)	Campgrounds-picnic areas program:
Province
British Columbia
Alberta	
Saskatchewan .
Manitoba	
Ontario	
New Brunswick Nova Scotia ... Newfoundland .
(Total federal contribution under last winter's pro Note:
(1)	The above employment figures are expected to rise as the provincial programs become fully underway.
(2)	The funds required for the campgrounds picnic areas program until March 31 have already been voted by parliament.
(3)	In addition to the winter works programs set out above, the trans-Canada campgrounds program was commencing in January and 21 men were employed. Also, under the roads to resources program, 688 men were employed.
(4)	The federal and federal-provincial programs carried out by or through the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources provided, in total, employment for 5,846 men in January.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will provide
these tables for Hansard after the vote is passed because I have only one set.


Joseph Slogan: I should like to ask a supplementary question. The minister stated that $992,400 is being provided this year compared with $232,000 last year. Was that $232,000 the whole program or just our share of it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Just the share
of the federal government.


Charles Edward Rea: Do I understand
that the minister has permission to include in Hansard the table to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The table
follows:
Estimated total	Estimated federal	Number employedexpenditures	contribution	January, 1959$	$	1,220,000	610,000	170250,000	125,000	163400,000	200,000	153992,400	283,200	2693,000,000	1,500,000	54520,000	10,000	5086,344	43,172	15125,000	62,500	16,093,744	2,833,872	1,366programme was	$1,689,736)	Estimated total	Estimated federal	Number employedexpenditures	contribution	January, 1959$	$	500,000	250,000	45500,000	250,000	38300,000	150,000	97183,000	91,000	1561,645,000	822,000	69750,000	25,000	6161,643	78,122	62130,000	65,000	"3,469,643	1,731,122	1,101
gram was $1,312,257)


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, in November of last year I noticed a story about a partial breakdown in this program involving a road from Pickle Crow to Winisk. According to the story, three provincial cabinet ministers covered this area to see whether it was practical and after surveying the moose, muskeg and dwarf spruce they decided that it was not. The story went on to say that they refused to go along with this particular road. Can the minister tell me whether this projected road from Pickle Crow to Winisk was part of the forest access road picture or part

of the roads to resources program? If it was not part of the forest access roads program I should like to know what the idea was in setting it out in this particular line.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member has put me in a peculiar position in that if I answer one way or the other I reveal the information with respect to whether this road is under the resources program. All I will say is that the province of Ontario has taken particular care to examine every proposal very carefully. There has been, of course, examination of certain proposed roads into the north, and I think the one mentioned by the hon. member was one of those examined. I am not certain about the northern terminus. The provincial government of Ontario has submitted these proposals to us and we have examined them. I do know that there is going to be a very fine program in Ontario, but the province is making a very careful examination of every proposal before they submit it to us.


Douglas Mason Fisher: As the hon. member for Nickel Belt remarked, there is a provincial election in the offing this year and I am sure there will be a very fine program of roads. As a matter of fact, the minister is aware that one of the difficulties under which we operate as federal members is that we cannot find out exactly what program is in mind. He knows that just by looking at the order paper and the fact that he has not given answers to our notices of motion for production of papers in this regard.
I understand his position but what I encounter all the time in my constituency, and it is from people who happen to belong to the minister's party, is that they complain that the provincial government has come up with an excellent program but as to anything south of the north line of the C.N.R. they have not had the co-operation of the federal government. It is said that the minister's department has not looked with favour upon roads south of the north line of the C.N.R., in other words, say from Redditt east to Hornepayne and south. Hardly anything has been approved, and according to the stories I hear the province has put forward a number of suggestions.
This general dissatisfaction cannot seem to be got at. The provincial politicians are, of course, crusading for this program and when it does not come through they throw the blame on the federal government. I have given the minister an example or two of that where people in places such as Hornepayne and Nakina say, "We hear from our Conservative wheel horses that the federal government is holding everything up."
Supply-Northern Affairs
I have had an explanation of what has been one of the hold-ups but I should like to know this. Why is it that so few of these forest access roads are in areas where very large timber limits are held by such concerns as Kimberly-Clark, Marathon, Abitibi and organizations of that type? Are we to take it from the fact that there have not been any forest access roads of any size in these areas that there has been a decision of the federal government not to encourage that type of access road since it is something that should be properly done by the pulp and paper companies or by the provincial government? I think that is a fair estimate of the situation. If you look at the forest roads, very few of them have been constructed into timber limits that are being operated at the present time. I should like to know whether that is a factor that the federal government considers in deciding whether it will go along with what the provincial government suggests.
The other point I am interested in is the type of contract so far as forest access roads are concerned. I know that situations will differ in different areas, but which type of contract does the federal government tend to approve? I know that this is a question for debate. For example, one of the roads is running from Nakina north and there has been quite a bit of discussion whether the work should be done by private contractors or by the provincial department of lands and forests or department of highways. What is the minister's preference, and if there are shades of preference, why?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The discussion is ranging back and forth between forest access roads and roads to resources, and it is a little hard to keep one's thinking straight. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver East asked a question concerning commercial roads in provincial parks and I said that to my memory there was nothing against entering into provincial parks. Speaking again from memory, I said there was something in the agreements about crown lands but I have since been informed by my department that there is nothing in there with respect to commercial lands. However, I am right in the fact that there are no roads built today on commercial properties. There is nothing in the policy that prohibits the building of forest access roads in provincial parks or on commercial properties. That in effect is an answer to the hon. member for Port Arthur with regard to the criticism he has put forward. I cannot speak from memory about every road in every province but my memory does serve me in the general feeling as to roads even on crown lands. Therefore I was

Supply-Northern Affairs right on that point, but I am now saying that I have been informed that there is no restriction as far as we are concerned with respect to where a road is built as long as it meets the criterion that it is a forest access road.


Douglas Mason Fisher: How do we get at the roots of the question as to what proposals of the provinces have been turned down and why the minister's department is turning them down?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Believe me, Mr. Chairman, the allusion made by the hon. member for Port Arthur that we would turn them down for political reason is wrong.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I did not say that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is no discrimination as far as we are concerned with respect to areas south of the C.N.R. or north of the C.N.R. With respect to forest access roads we just ask ourselves the simple question: do they make forest areas available 'for management, fire protection and so on. It is up to the province to make the proposal. It is up to us to examine the proposal, and if it is acceptable there is no limit on the amount. With regard to the question of roads to resources, the question of a road north and south of the C.N.R. is mostly in connection with roads to resources.
I want to correct another thing which I think is unfair. If there has been any delay on these roads to resources, the fault does not lie with Ontario. The fault lies in the fact that I was trying to follow a policy of making a similar agreement with every province, and When one province asked me for something I had to go back and question all the other provinces. This is not a political statement, because I agree with what the province in particular did. One province, not Ontario, asked for an amendment which was, in effect, a change in the conception of the whole policy. We could not see how we could meet it without going back to the other provinces and making those adjustments. I would ask the hon. member, who has a very sincere and knowledgeable interest in this matter, if he would let me take this matter up with the standing committee on mines, forests and waters to be dealt with there, because it concerns the philosophies and principles of the whole policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might be permitted to ask a supplementary question. Could the minister tell us which provinces have not concluded agreements with regard to forest access roads, and perhaps for completeness, agreements under the roads to resources program as well?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: All provinces have agreed in principle with the federal government on roads to resources, except Quebec. All provinces, with the exception of Quebec and Prince Edward Island, have an agreement on forest access roads. Prince Edward Island obviously has not, because there are no forests. All provinces, with the exception of Quebec, have agreements with us on the camp ground picnic sites program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Have any agreements been signed with any of the provinces?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. On the roads to resources program, agreements have been signed with one province, namely British Columbia. On the roads to resources program also, several provinces have signed, but in view of the questions raised by another province I had to go back to them and ask them to reconsider this point. This is being done now and is the cause of the delay.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are these programs going on notwithstanding the fact that the agreements have been completed?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is no delay in the work.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that true of Newfoundland?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: To which program are you referring?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Either or both.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think there have been reports that due to the deep snow they have had to slow down all work on the forest access roads, but I cannot actually confirm that now.


Harold Edward Winch: Out of curiosity could I ask the hon. minister this question. If my memory serves me correctly, when a federal grant is made in aid of education, for the majority of the universities or institutions in Quebec, that money is held in trust. Could I ask the hon. minister whether or not, in view of the fact that Quebec and Prince Edward Island are not committed to this scheme, any money out of this plan is being held in trust in the event they participate, or if they do not come in do they lose the opportunity which has been taken advantage of by all the other provinces?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, this is a winter works program for this current year, designed to relieve unemployment, and there is no purpose in holding something in trust for something which might not exist in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Public buildings construction and services- Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings 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 amount required-
713.	Ottawa, $200,000.
Mr. Bourgel:: Just one or two questions. I understand that work is now underway regarding this item. Can the minister tell us who the contractor is?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Several contracts have already been entered into. There is one contract with Lanctot Construction Company for repairs to exterior openings. There is a contract with Turnbull Elevator Company for renovation of elevators; a contract with A. Bruce Benson for interior repairs and partitioning of the first three floors.


Maurice Bourget: Were public tenders called for this work?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would assume so. I have not any precise information on that subject. One of these amounts, the smallest, was $21,910. I think they are all amounts where tenders must be called.


Maurice Bourget: The hon. minister is not sure?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend knows the limitation which exists on contracts under the Department of Public Works, but these are contracts of larger amounts. There is just one qualification in that respect: the others are all amounts where tenders must be called. The contract with A. Bruce Benson is for $398,868; the one with Lanctot Construction Company, $59,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
714.	Expenses pertaining to the visit to Canada in 1958 of Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret, $110,000.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask one question. There has been some discussion in relation to the visit of Her Royal Highness about the facilities provided, and the bearing of expenses in connection with the coverage of this event by publicity and other agencies. There have been some regrettable remarks to the effect that this government is not supporting the press coverage to the extent of including travelling expenses and facilities, but is leaving it up to the newspapers and television operators concerned. I agree with the position that
Supply-Secretary of State the government has taken. I think these very well-to-do organizations should be paying for their own travelling expenses as regards coverage of this particular item, but I would like to know whether the minister has any brief statement or comment to make as to why this decision was reached, because I think there will be further public discussion about it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is nothing of a specific nature which I have to add on this particular subject. The item before the committee covers all of the expenses of the trip of Her Royal Highness. The largest item here is travel and transportation, and the government thought its obligation ended with the provision of travel and transportation for Her Royal Highness and her party and those necessarily accompanying her on her trip.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to comment on the actual supplementary estimate for $110,000 for the visit of Her Royal Highness, but I want to take the opportunity at this time to ask the Minister of Finance if he would answer a question which I know intrigues a great many people. This question has never been answered, and I think that now is the time to answer it. Would the Minister of Finance, in matters of this nature, kindly give some indication to this house as to what is the basis for this decision? Is there any general basis, any general policy, or any general plan, in connection with visits to Canada by members of the royal family as to a division of the cost of such visit from the United Kingdom to Canada, and throughout Canada, as between the household of the royal family or the individuals concerned, the government at Westminster, the federal government of Canada, and the provinces which they visit? I think the minister knows that this is something which is asked members of parliament, is asked editorially, is commented upon, and the entire matter is confused. I think there is no reason whatsoever why the people of this country and the press should not know just what is the broad basis upon which these matters of finance in connection with visits of the royal family are decided. Would the Minister of Finance just clear the air a little by giving some indication how these matters are worked out, both provincially and federally, with regard to the royal family, and whether it involves the government of the United Kingdom at Westminster.


Donald Methuen Fleming: While a member of the royal family is in this country as a guest of Canada on a tour, Canada, of course, bears all the expenses of the trip and the

Supply-Secretary of State provinces are not expected to bear any portion of that expenditure. Some of the provinces, I have no doubt, incur expenditure in connection with things they do in honour of the visit, but the federal treasury expects to bear the expenses of a visit of a member of the royal family while the royal visitor is in Canada. As to the royal household, the hon. member will not expect me to answer questions about the privy purse of the royal household.


Harold Edward Winch: That means that the responsibility of Canada starts on the arrival of any member of the royal family in Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If it is a visit. There have been occasions, the hon. member knows, when a member of the royal family has happened to land in Canada en route to some other country. That happened about two years ago. We are speaking now of an occasion when a member of the royal family is making a visit to Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: I am speaking now of visits to Canada, not of a stay in Gander while en route to somewhere else. I understand that a visit by a member of the royal family to Canada is accepted by Canada as an expense. Perhaps the minister will tell us how the arrangements for a visit by a member of the royal family are made? Is it at the request of the Canadian government or does the request come from the royal family itself? Is Canada consulted about all these visits, and does Canada extend an invitation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member will realize that this is a matter upon which it is not possible to make a general statement with respect to all situations. There are channels of communication with regard to these matters and they are used, of course, in arranging these visits and in deciding the details of the tour and the extent and timing of the visit.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just wanted to ask the minister if he could tell us how large a staff General Graham has at the royal tour headquarters and whether the personnel who go out to lay the groundwork are all military people.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This has nothing whatever to do with the visit of Her Majesty the Queen next June. There is an item in the main estimates that we shall be reaching in due course this session.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: That resolution completes the supplementary estimates.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Rea in the chair.
["Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?\nProgress reported."]
Donald Methuen Fleming: That towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, the sum of $27,954,667, be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill C-24, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1959.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask if the bill is printed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Copies are available and I will be glad to send a copy over to the hon. gentleman. They have been printed for some time, indeed days and days.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
On the schedule.
['Copies are available and I will be glad to send a copy over to the hon. gentleman. They have been printed for some time, indeed days and days.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the minister if the schedule is in the same form as the estimates we have just considered.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
['Yes, Mr. Chairman.']
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the minister if the terms of the bill are exactly the same as those of other appropriation bills.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if I might have the leave of the house, I am now in a position to answer a question which I did not think it was appropriate to answer at the time it was directed to me earlier in the day on the orders of the day having to do with the current offering of Canadian bonds.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister the leave of the house to answer this question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am happy to inform the house that the books were opened at five o'clock and because the loan was substantially oversubscribed we were able to close the books a few minutes after five o'clock.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY ACT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE LIMIT ON AMOUNT TO BE BORROWED
George Harris Hees: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act to provide that the authority, with the approval of the governor in council, may from time to time borrow money from Her Majesty or otherwise to an aggregate that shall not at any time exceed $335,000,000.00 in lieu of $300,000,000.00 which it is already authorized to borrow by section 13 of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is to give assent to the introduction of a measure to amend section 13 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act, 1951, for the purpose of increasing the statutory limit of the borrowing power of the authority from $300 million to $335 million. The proposed amendment does not in itself provide the authority with more funds. It has to do solely with the limiting of borrowing power. Capital expenditures of the seaway are financed by loans which the Minister of Finance is authorized to make under the powers contained in section 25 of the act but such loans may not be made in any fiscal year except to the extent that parliament has authorized them. Consequently capital expenditures on the seaway have been provided for from annual loan appropriations included in the estimates.
The need for increasing the borrowing limit became apparent last year when there was placed before parliament the approved capital budget for 1958, in compliance with section 80 of the Financial Administration Act. The statement then presented, in addition to showing the requirements for 1958, indicated that the aggregate capital expenditure was then estimated at $322,062,800.
St. Lawrence Seav>ay Authority Act It is expected that disbursements under parliamentary appropriations authorized to date will by March 31st next have amounted to about $270 million, leaving an unexhausted borrowing power of $30 million for future requirements.
The 1959 capital budget, which has not yet been tabled, will show an estimated expenditure in the year of $52,500,000, reduced for the time being to $30 million, so as not to exceed the present statutory borrowing limit. Vote No. 482 of the main estimates of 1959-60 contains a loan appropriation for the latter amount. A revised estimate has been made of total expenditure, which is now placed at $329,025,700. It is not possible, even at this date, to make a close estimate of final costs, because of such contingencies as contractors' claims, and the unsettled matter of any contribution which the governor in council may assess against the authority in connection with the Canadian National Railways' Victoria bridge diversion. It is therefore considered that in increasing the borrowing power from $300 million to $335 million the latter figure being about $6 million in excess of the official budget figure, reasonable provision would be made for undetermined requirements.
The following statement indicates the progressive increase in the estimated total expenditure, as exhibited from year to year in the approved capital budget:
Estimated Over-all
Year	Total Expenditure
1955		 $205,535,000
1956	  $213,156,750
1957	  $284,675,000
1958	  $322,062,800
1959	  $329,025,700
As I have indicated, the cost to Canada of the seaway was estimated in the 1955 capital budget at $205,500,000, as compared with the present total estimated expenditure of $329 million. The first-mentioned estimate was made before most of the large contracts were let, and also before some major decisions as to the scope of the work were made, including, for instance, the division of responsibility for dredging in the international rapids section.
The difference between the 1955 and the 1959 estimated total cost is $123,500,000. I am advised by the seaway authority that important subsequent changes in the scope of the work and other items not provided for resulted in increasing the estimates in round figures by $104,500,000, as follows:

St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act
Section
Project
Date decision taken
Lachine	Turning basins-two in the Laprairie basin pool
Section	and one in Montreal harbour	Spring 1955
Enlarging channel-Caughnawaga to Cote Ste.
Catherine to by-pass 40,000 c.f.s.	Summer 1955
Additional cost to provide a high level Mercier bridge rather than a lift span to provide facilities necessary to take care of future expansion of Mercier bridge by the province of Quebec	early 1956
Additional vertical lift bridge at upper end of St.
Lambert lock to provide uninterrupted highway traffic and to provide for future use by the railways for uninterrupted railway crossing to south shore	1955
Cost

Two railway single track lift bridges (C.P.R. crossing) rather than one double track	1956	1,000,000
Cote Ste. Catherine wharf
1,500,000
Greatly enlarged scope of municipal works	Various dates	5,000,000Provision for future twinning of two locks, St. Lambert and Cte Ste. Catherine	1956	2,000,000Soulanges Section	Four-lane highway tunnel at Beauharnois in place of lift bridge (by request of province of Quebec)	early 1956	2,500,000Snubbing wharf-temporary berthage (mooring)	1958	500,000International Rapids Section	Dredging and channel improvements north and south of Cornwall Island. Expenditure not previously provided for and resulting from decision made in 1956 as to division of cost between the two seaway entities. Areas to be dredged were divided so that estimated cost would be borne equally	1956	18,000,000Cornwall-south channel bridge substructure and related expenditures	1955	2,700,000North channel bridge	1956	6,500,000Contribution to power entities for channel enlargement. (Authority required to pay $15,000,000, pursuant to exchange of notes on June 30, 1952 between Canada and the United States, and to receive $6,000,000, under arrangements made in 1956.) Net expenditure, $9,000,000.	1956	9,000,000Provision for future twinning, Iroquois lock.	1956	1,000,000Thousand Islands Section	Channel dredging and	disposal	1956	1,000,000Welland Section	Increase involved in deepening to specifications determined in the autumn of 1955	Autumn 1955	23,600,000Generally:	Increased expenditure	for land expropriations	4,700,000Total-	$104,500,000
If the amount of the above-mentioned major additional cost of $104,500,000 is added to the first budget figure of $205,500,000, the resultant total is $310 million, as compared with the 1959 budget total of $329 million, an increase of $19 million. Factors contributing to such an increase are the provision for claims and the general increase in construction costs between 1954 when the [Mr. Hees.l
first estimate was compiled and the dates of the awarding of contracts. I am informed that the index of construction cost increased 11 per cent between the end of 1954 and the end of 1956.
As questions have been placed on the order paper and references have been made in the press respecting claims filed by contractors in connection with St. Lawrence

seaway work, it is perhaps desirable that I should make a statement on this subject, based upon information furnished by the seaway authority.
In the first place, it might be said that it is not unusual or abnormal that claims are put forward in the case of large contracts, whether they be with public authorities or business corporations. To date the seaway authority has received claims in respect of 28 contracts, the individual amounts ranging from a few thousand to several million dollars. Except for minor items which on investigation may be paid for as units of work to which the contract is applicable, the claims relate to extra payments not authorized under the contracts and represent the contractors' own appraisal of costs, and sometimes profits, to which they claim to be entitled as a result of special situations and difficulties which were encountered in the course of the work. The totals are not necessarily a criterion of liability.
As background information it may be observed that the St. Lawrence seaway authority is not permitted under its bylaws to grant a construction contract exceeding $50,000 in value without the approval of treasury board being first obtained and no contract involving over $15,000 may be awarded without calling for sealed tenders on approved tender forms. The form of contract is that generally in use by government departments. No claim involving expenditure not provided for under the contract may be paid, in whole or in part, without the approval of treasury board.
Contractors for lock construction and channel excavation, whose claims represent about 86 per cent of the total received, have based them on general as well as specific representations. On general grounds they contend that favourable consideration should be given because a creditable job was done, essentially in time, but that in order to do so unanticipated and increased costs were involved and severe losses incurred. The authority points out that to complete in time was a primary obligation under the contracts and that each individual claim has to be considered on its merits and recommendations made in accordance with the principles laid down by treasury board. The authority is of the view that, in some cases, additional costs would have been avoided had the work been effectively and efficiently executed throughout the period. The records show that as regards several large contracts the work became admittedly so seriously behind schedule that the contractors involved were 66968-9-744
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act obliged to change the management of their contracts. Complications naturally result from such occurrences.
While the claims cover numerous items of work, and as such are to be treated as individual in character, many of them fall into one or more of the following general categories: Claims due to a rising wage level; claims based upon alleged undisclosed ground and water conditions; claims based upon alleged interferences with scheduling of work for various causes, including changes in plans and delays in providing plans by engineers of the authority; claims due to quantities being greater than estimated in tender documents; claims due to quantities being less than estimated in tender documents; claims due to additional cost of placing concrete in winter; claims relating to quantities in dispute; claims based upon the contention that procedures for the disposal of excavating materials differed in actuality from that assumed at the time of tendering.
Pressure of urgent work, particularly in the final stages of construction, prevented the authority's engineers from giving priority to claims, although a good deal of time was given to discussions with contractors concerning them. About a year ago, two experienced engineers, Mr. W. B. Crombie, and Mr. D. Forgan, were employed for the special purpose of investigating and reporting on claims. Mr. Crombie was formerly a project manager and latterly consultant, at the head office of hydro-electric power commission of Ontario. Mr. Forgan previously held the position of director of construction, also with Ontario hydro. Considerable progress has been made and their findings are being reviewed by the chief engineer and his senior assistants who, as construction work nears completion, are in a position to devote more time to this activity. As soon as possible the authority will make a comprehensive report on each contractor's submission dealing not only with claims considered to be entitled to favourable consideration, but also with those considered inadmissible. The Minister of Transport will then refer the report to treasury board.
In general, claims will receive consideration and fair appraisal if extra or abnormal costs have been caused by action or omission on the part of the authority, or have arisen from physical conditions that could not have been foreseen. Or, on the other hand, extra costs attributable to errors or delays by the contractor or due to physical conditions which should have been foreseen or to increases in wages, there being no escalator clause, cannot be considered as the authority's responsibility.
Up to January 27, 28 claims have been received, totalling $36,329,000. Six of these

St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act claims have been dealt with and the remainder are being examined at the present time. It is expected that all major claims will have been dealt with within the next three months. The six claims that have been dealt with so far total $8,636,000. Of this amount, claims totalling $768,000 have been accepted and $7,868,000 have been rejected.


Lionel Chevrier: Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I presume that the business for tomorrow is as was announced last night by the minister who was leading the house?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes. We will carry on with this resolution and the other items, as announced last night. They may be found at page 1128 of Hansard.


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

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

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	How many men were employed on the Ontario-St. Lawrence canals at the opening of the 1958 season of navigation?
2.	How many of these were civil servants and how many were not, and how many were (a)
Questions
permanent; (b) temporary; (c) casual; (d) prevailing rate?
3.	How many men are now employed in each of the above categories?
4.	How many men have been dismissed?
5.	What attempt has been made to find employment for them elsewhere in (a) the Department of Transport; (b) the St. Lawrence seaway authority; (c) other departments of government?
6.	Was a committee established for this purpose? If so, who were the members of this committee, how often did they meet, and what have they done to find employment for these men?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	225 plus 100 casuals-total 325
2.	Civil servants-146	others-179
(a)	permanent civil servants - 139
(6) temporary civil servants -	7
(c)	casuals	- 100
(d)	prevailing rates (73) and ships' personnel (6) - 79
3.	(a) permanent civil servants now employed - 78
(b)	temporary civil servants now employed - nil
(c)	casuals now employed - 51
(d)	prevailing rates (67) and ships' personnel (5) now employed - 72 Total other than casuals - 150
4.	None has been dismissed for cause. Disposal as follows:
Staff at opening of 1958	season	 325
casuals	 100
Now employed	 150
*

	150
Laid off	 30
About to be	 10

	40	40
Retired or retiring, resigned, transferred, died	 35

	75	

Number of selections by seaway indicated so far	 105
5.	(a) Operating employees were canvassed early last season and invited to apply for transfer to entry grade positions on other canals in Ontario. Seven employees found physically fit for employment on the Welland canals have already been transferred to that location, (b) Competitions for employment on the new seaway structures have been opened to canal services employees and the authority is now in process of naming the staff selected for employment at Cornwall and Iroquois. The number of selections indicated so far is 105. (c) The civil service commission has established lay-off lists of operating employees. The names of other classified personnel are being furnished to the commission for reassignment if they are not selected by the St. Lawrence seaway authority or transferred to positions within the department. The department will continue its efforts
to have placed in continuing employment as many as possible of the 85 referred to in answer to question 4.
6.	No formal committee was established for the purpose of finding employment for canal services employees who would be displaced as a result of completion of the St. Lawrence seaway. However, beginning in 1955 the department has had under constant review the problems associated with the anticipated staff dislocations. There have been frequent group meetings between the department and officers of the authority, the department and members of the civil service commission. The commission has been kept informed of the situation as it has developed and has approved departmental recommendations made from time to time to assist employees in their own endeavours to obtain other employment. For

Questions
example, approving the department's recommendation for leave without pay to try out in employment outside the service.


MALONE, N.Y.-MONTREAL, QUE.-DISCONTINUANCE OF RAILWAY SERVICE
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Was an application made by the New York Central Railway Company to discontinue passenger service on its trains operating between Malone. New York and Montreal, Quebec?
2.	Was an order made for discontinuance of the railway service? If so, on what date?
3.	Was a petition filed on behalf of certain residents in the communities affected by this discontinuance, protesting the discontinuance of such train service? If so, with whom was it filed?
4.	Were representations made to the New York Central Railway or the board of transport commissioners asking for a reconsideration of the decision? If so, what was the result of these representations?
5.	Has an appeal been launched by the persons affected to the governor in council pursuant to *section 53 of the Railway Act?
_Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1,	Yes,
2.	Yes. September 17th, 1958.
3.	Yes. The signatories of this petition placed it in the hands of the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry who subsequently brought it to the attention of the Minister of Transport. It was later returned to the hon. member with explanatory comment.
4.	Numerous representations were received by the Minister of Transport prior to issuance of the judgment of the board of tranpsort commissioners on November 4, 1958. All of these were brought to the attention of the board.
5.	No.


HAY RIVER-YELLOWKNIFE ROAD, N.W.T.
Mr. Hardie: 1.	How many miles of road were constructed on the Hay River to Yellowknife road in the Northwest Territories, in the years 1956-57; 1957-58, and from April 1, 1958 to December 31, 1958?
2.	What were the survey costs in each of these years?
3.	What were the construction costs in each of these years, including clearing?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1957-58	1958 (1 Apr.-31 Dec.)
1.	Miles of road built	 36 miles
(cleared, graded, gravel or traffic gravel)
56.7	miles plus 51.6 miles plus 46.3
38.7	miles cleared miles cleared only, only.
2. Survey costs
3. Construction costs	
(including supervision)
$121,800 for 111 miles completed survey.
$183,700 for 148 miles completed survey.
$38,300 for 24 miles completed survey.

$2,339,000 plus $217,500 for clearing.
$1,941,500 plus $260,200 for clearing plus $288,500 Kakisa river bridge.


CANADIAN FLAG DESIGNS
Mr. Howard: How many designs for a Canadian flag are on file with the government?
Answer by:	Hon. Henri Courtemanche
(Secretary of State):
1347.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-ENGINEERING INSPECTION
Mr. Winch: 1.	Did the St. Lawrence seaway authority during any course of construction under its jurisdiction appoint its own engineering inspection branch?
2.	If so, who was named as chief inspector, who were the members of the staff, and on what date was this inspection branch established?
3.	Did the St. Lawrence seaway authority also employ for inspection services the Warnoch Hersey Company, and if so, (a) on what date; (b) for what purposes; (c) to whom were the reports given; (d) are they still employed?
4.	Was the inspection engineering staff relieved of their duties by discharge or resignation before completion of contracts on the seaway?
5.	If so, (a) for what reason; (b) on what date; (c) who now does engineering and construction inspection on behalf of the seaway authority?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	The inspection section was established December 1, 1955.
Personnel

Questions
Period of Employment

 Resigned (R)
From	To	Laid Off (L)
Chief inspector-
J.	Buchanan Stirling	 19.12.55	28.11.58	L
Members of staff-
R. Hunter	
3.7.56	28.11.58	LR. Jalbert	
5. 9.56	28.11.58	LR. M. Houldsworth	
1.10.56	Still employedG. Tremblay	
22.11.56	15.4.57	RG. C. Hoag	
28.	1.57	28.11.58	LG. Leff	
9.	4.57	18. 7.58	RJ.H. Clegg (c)	
25.4.57	28.11.58	LR.R. Grant (c)	
2.	5.57	31. 3.58	RJ. H. Drouin	
8.	5.57	28.11.58	LN. Csery	
14.	5.57	12. 9.57	RG. H. Handsley	
22.	5.57	28.11.58	LR. J. Vaucher	
22. 5.57	Still employedJ. A. Chartrand	
1.	7.57	30. 5.58	RJ. M. Burgess (c)	
15.	7.57	28.11.58	LJ. E. Dansereau	
10.	9.57	15. 1.59	RA. A. Lorrain	
9.	9.57	31.12.58	RF. VanZwyndregt	
12. 9.57	28.11.58	LZ. F. Mirwald	
6.11.57	28.11.58	LA. Bourgault	
10. 3.58	Still employedL. Laflamme	
26.	3.58	31. 1.59	L
(c) Monthly casual employee (others were regular employees).
3. Yes.
(a)	(b)	(d)Contract	Project	Type of Inspection	StillDate	(Abbreviated Description)	Shop (S) Field (F) Employed
23. 4.56 23. 4.56 23. 4.56
27. 7.56 17.12.56 16. 1.57
16. 1.57
6.	3.57
15.	2.57 26. 2.57 12. 3.57 22. 3.57
2. 4.57 1. 4.57
16.	4.57
7.	6.57 16. 7.57 11. 9.57
8.11.57 20. 8.57
(c)
Reinforcing steel and rock anchors for St. Lambert lock			s		No
Reinforcing steel and rock anchors for Cote Ste-				
Catherine lock			s		No
Reinforcing steel and rock anchors for Iroquois				
lock	s	NoTesting cement	s	NoRolling lift bridges	s	NoReinforcing steel for substructure of Cornwall	south channel bridge	s	NoStoplogs, pick-up booms, etc	s	YesSector gates	S	&	F	NoLock gate operating machines	s	NoWire rope fenders	s	&	F	NoVertical lift bridges at Caughnawaga	s	&	F	YesOperating machines for valves	s	&	F	NoMitre gates	s	&	F	YesSt. Louis and Valleyfield vertical lift bridges... .	s	&	F	YesRolling lift bridges	F	NoVertical lift bridges for St. Lambert lock	s	&	F	YesWestern red cedar poles	s	&	F	NoSwing bridge at upper Beauharnois lock	s	&	F	YesBulkheads for locks	s	&	F	NoSteel tunnel ribs, etc	s	No
Inspection reports were referred to the chief inspector, in quintuplicate, with distribution generally as follows:
Official records file (1)
Inspection section file (1)
"	" working copies (2)
Structural engineer, electrical/mechanical engineer or engineer of construction, if applicable (1)

Questions
4.	Staff was reduced by normal procedures as indicated in answer to question No. 2.
5.	(o) Because of diminished volume of work, services were no longer required.
(b)	As indicated in answer to question No. 2.
(c)	R. W. Willis, structural engineer now supervises the work of inspection companies and of the remaining inspection staff.


TOBACCO, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND EDUCATION  PER CAPITA DISBURSEMENTS
Mr. McWilliam: What were the disbursements, on a per capita basis, in the last year for which statistics are available, for all provinces in Canada on each of the following:	(a) tobacco; (b) alcoholic beverages;
(c) education?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
Per capita expenditures:
(a)	$32,851
(b)	$46.84!-....1957
(c)	$56.66j


INDIAN ACT
Mr. Howard: 1.	Have any provinces requested that section 95 (2) of the Indian Act be declared to be in force? If so, which provinces, upon what dates and what action resulted therefrom?
2.	Have any provinces requested that section 95(3) of the Indian Act be declared to be in force? If so, which provinces, upon what dates and what action resulted therefrom?
3.	Have any councils of Indian bands requested that section 96A(2) of the Indian Act be declared to be in force? If so, which bands, upon what dates and what action resulted therefrom?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1. Four provinces, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories have requested and obtained an application of the provisions of section 95(2) of the Indian Act:
British Columbia	-	date of proclamation,	Dec. 15, 1951Nova Scotia	-	ii <(	a	Jan. 2, 1952Ontario	-	ii ii	a	July 1, 1954Yukon Territory	-	ii <(	a	Nov. 1, 1955Manitoba	-	ii ii	a	July 16, 1956N.W.T.	-	a a	a	June 27, 1958
In 1951, the lieutenant-governor in council of the province of Prince Edward Island formally requested to have section 95 of the Act brought into force in that province. However, no action was taken on this request as it would have had no meaning, as the liquor laws of the province of Prince Edward Island at that time made no provision for the consumption of intoxicants in a public place.
2. On March 25,	1957, the lieutenantgovernor in council of Ontario petitioned the
governor in council to proclaim subsection 3 of section 95 of the Indian Act as being in force in that province. On November 6, 1958, the governor in council issued a proclamation declaring section 95(3) of the Indian Act to be in force in Ontario.
3.	The councils of the following Indian bands have requested that section 96A(2) of the Indian Act be declared in force in their reserves:
Band
Missisaguas of Mud Lake Six Nations of the Grand River Chippewas of Nawash Sheshegwaning Manitoulin island Whitefish river West Bay Sheguiandah Amalgamated Walpole island
Agency
Rice and Mud Lakes
Six Nations Bruce
Manitoulin island Manitoulin island Manitoulin island Manitoulin island Manitoulin island
Walpole island
Date
November 24, 1958
December 11, 1958 January 12, 1959 January 13, 1959 January 15, 1959 January 16, 1959 January 19, 1959 January 20, 1959
February 2, 1959

Pursuant to subsection 3 of section 96A of the Indian Act, referendums are in the course of being held for the Missisaguas of Mud Lake, the Chippewas of Nawash and the Six Nations of the Grand River bands. In addition, referendums will be held for the five bands on Manitoulin island and the amalgamated Walpole island band as soon as arrangements can be made.


CANADIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO COLOMBO PLAN
Mr. Boulanger: What contributions have been made by the Canadian government to the Colombo plan for each of the years 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958?
Answer by: Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):
Contributions made by Canada to the Colombo plan for the following fiscal years:
1953-1954 	
$25.4	million1954-1955 	
25.4	"1955-1956 	
26.4	w1956-1957 	
34.4	tt1957-1958 	
34.4	n1958-1959 	
35.0	"
[The following items were passed in committee of supply.]


DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS
[Stage Direction]
710.	Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council-further amount required, $630,000.
Supply-Items Passed

[Stage Direction]
National Parks Branch-
National parks and historic sites services-
711.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $2,850,000.
Forestry Branch-
Forestry Operations Division-
712.	To provide for contributions to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into or to be entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, by Canada with the provinces, of amounts equal to one-half of the amounts confirmed by the provinces as having been spent by them in establishing forest access roads and trails for the attainment of adequate fire protection as well as other aspects of forest management- further amount required, $1,682,000.

[Stage Direction]
Public Buildings Construction and Service-
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings 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 amount required-
713.	Ottawa, $200,000.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
714.	Expenses pertaining to the visit to Canada in 1958 of Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret, $110,000.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 19, 1959


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens) presented the first report of the standing committee on privileges and elections, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.