1959-07-16

BROADCASTING

[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on broadcasting-Mr. Halpenny.
(Translation):


Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I want to protest against a report as published in the Montreal newspaper La Presse, of July 15, 1959 concerning the parliamentary committee on radio and television.
Headed "No orchids to C.B.C. witnesses" the item makes great ado about a meeting in camera which was called for the purpose of drafting the report that the parliamentary committee on radio and television was to submit to this house.
The article imputes to me certain actions, words and motives. I want to state here that what the report says about me is untrue.
I also protest against indiscretions that might have been made by one or more members of the committee. If this were so, such action would be a breach of parliamentary practice of the traditions of this house.
As to the action of the reporter involved, Mr. Speaker, I have no need to characterize it. It bespeaks a lack of professional ethics, contempt for the rights of parliament and for the privileges of hon. members of parliamentary committees. In my view, it is a blow to their freedom of opinion and of thought, and a serious abuse of the rights and privileges granted by parliament to members of the press gallery.
(Text):



BRIDGES


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-30 (from the Senate) to authorize the construction of a bridge across the Niagara river between the province of Ontario and the state of New York.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION ACROSS PIGEON RIVER

John George Diefenbaker: the first reading of Bill No. S-31 (from the Senate) to authorize the construction of a bridge across the Pigeon river between the province of Ontario and the state of Minnesota.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FISHERIES


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-32 (from the Senate), to repeal certain fisheries laws in force in the province of Newfoundland respecting the exportation of salt fish.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER ON REFERENCES TO SENATE PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Speaker:: Before orders of the day are called, may I refer to a matter which came up at this stage in yesterday's proceedings. I had taken exception to a reference to the proceedings before a committee of the other house with respect to finance under the impression that the committee was still sitting. The Leader of the Opposition raised the point that reports of such committees were a proper subject matter of discussion in this house, and as the matter was left in some uncertainty I should like to assure the house that that is the case and refer to Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, at page 357. I think I might read one paragraph dealing with references to the other place:
It is also a part of the unwritten law of parliament that no allusion should be made in one house to the debates in the other chamber, a rule always enforced by the Speaker with the utmost strictness. Members sometimes attempt to evade this rule by resorting to ambiguous terms of expression-by referring, for instance, to what happened "in another place": but all such evasions of a wholesome practice should be stopped by the Speaker, when it is evident to whom the allusions are made.

Inquiries of the Ministry The next sentence is the important one:
It is perfectly regular, however, to refer to the official printed records of the other branch of the legislature, even though the document may not have been formally asked for and communicated to the house.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the statement reported in last night's Ottawa papers and attributed to the mayor of Ottawa, the minister does not think it desirable before the conclusion of this session to formally announce the government's intentions with regard to a winter work program for next autumn and winter?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my position regarding the winter work program is still the same as I announced the other day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, has the minister seen the statement made by the mayor of Ottawa?


Michael Starr: No, I have not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister read it and reconsider his position?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would alter my position.



NORTHLAND NAVIGATION COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I pose a question to the Minister of Labour and ask what report he can give the house on the progress of negotiations with respect to the Northland Navigation Company?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, concerning the latest developments in the dispute involving Northland Navigation Company Limited, the Vancouver officer of my department has reported that the Canadian Labour Congress has sent a representative to the west coast to meet with the employer and representatives of the various trade unions concerned.
Meetings have been held and it is anticipated that further meetings will take place. My officer has not participated directly in these discussions, although he is closely in touch with the situation and will resume his mediation services if necessary and if these direct discussions are not concluded successfully.
(Mr. Speaker.]
I also understand that the parties have decided to withhold public statements while the talks proceed. In view of this fact I think it is not desirable to discuss the principal issue which now appears to stand in the way of settlement.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. L. Spencer (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of news reports that a Senate committee in Washington is considering amendments to a bill concerning diversion of water from lake Michigan at Chicago, would the Prime Minister indicate whether there has been any recent change in Canadian government policy?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gave me notice of his question, and I can say unequivocally that the answer is in the negative. There has been no change in Canadian government policy as it was announced by me in the house on April 23, and as it is contained in the note to the United States dated April 9 last.
With regard to the proposals and suggestions that have been made in the committee of congress, 1 do not think it would be useful or proper to comment on those suggestions as they are put forward in the legislature of another country; but I do want to make it abundantly clear that whatever changes have been suggested in no way diminish or lessen the Canadian stand in opposition to the diversion proposed.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Prime Minister whether in this connection he was encouraged by the observations of Senator Robert Kerr of Oklahoma that he was as interested in Canada as he would be in a sheik's harem?


John George Diefenbaker: I think the question
asked by the hon. gentleman is answered by the very fact that it was asked. I have pointed out that no suggestions that have been made have in any way diminished the Canadian stand.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Has any consideration been given by the department or

the government to referring this matter to the international joint commission, in the same manner as a portion of it was referred to the international joint commission to ascertain what would be the effect of the diversion on water power development as well as on navigation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with the experience the hon. gentleman has had in this matter I should think he would take it that there would be no necessity for such a course to be followed, for the general feeling among Canadians is that the effect of diverting even a thousand cubic feet per second could not but be detrimental.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just follow that up. The question I was putting to the Prime Minister was this. In view of the fact that the matter had already in part been referred to the international joint commission, would it not be advisable for the government to give consideration to referring the whole problem to the international joint commission for determination?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not concur in that view at the moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Prime Minister a supplementary question. The house will be grateful for the statement he has made today. Is he satisfied that the proposed proceedings to be taken to the supreme court of the United States with regard to this matter will not in any way affect Canadian rights?


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as the proceedings being taken before the supreme court of the United States are concerned, the only observation I would make thereon is why in view of the fact that some of these matters are sub judice, consideration is being given at all to the measure before congress?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Does the Canadian government take the same view of a short term diversion of water at Chicago as it does of a long term diversion?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have heard nothing from Canadians as a whole that would indicate that a short term diversion would not ultimately lead to a long term one. It is because of that situation that we have taken so definite an attitude in respect of the present request.
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



INQUIRY AS TO CO-OPERATION BETWEEN CANADIAN AND UNITED KINGDOM POLICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Justice. The question is based on a Canadian Press dispatch of July 14 concerning the shooting of a London policeman and the efforts of the London police to locate the person suspected of doing the shooting, who it was thought was a Canadian. The dispatch goes on to point out that a photograph and certain information had been sent by the Canadian police, the R.C.M.P., by air mail.
My question is this. Why, in the interests of efficient co-operation between the Canadian police and the United Kingdom police in a matter of such importance, was the relevant information not sent by telephone message or cable and the photograph by wire photo, rather than by the slower method of air mail?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Minister of Justice):: I will make the proper inquiry and let the hon. member know.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Since 1954 the people of my riding have been anxious that the airport at Murray Bay be completed. Can the minister tell the house if his department intends to construct this air strip this year?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. During the past two years this matter has been under very active consideration by my department, and I am very pleased to be able to report that we are prepared to call for tenders for this construction immediately following receipt of a clear title to the land, which has been requested from the local authorities.



PRICE SPREADS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me when the report of the royal commission on price spreads might

Inquiries of the Ministry be expected. I have had the chairman communicated with, and he advises that it will be mid-September.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the great concern and anxiety over the recent decision of the government to cancel the enforcement of culling regulations in the salt cod fish industry in Newfoundland, will the Minister of Fisheries make a statement regarding this matter?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice so I may be sure of its full implications. I received notice just now, but I think there is something left out of the question. I might say that the culling regulations are the responsibility of the provincial government. I will take the question as notice and give a fuller answer tomorrow.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the government giving consideration to action under the Inquiries Act to enable a subgroup of the mines, forests and waters committee to inspect northern installations before the winter season, as was recommended in that committee's report?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as yet no consideration has been given to the suggestion or proposal mentioned.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the hon. lady yet in a position to bring down the return respecting the Chippewa Indian reserve at Sarnia?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is ready now, I believe, and will be tabled today.



INQUIRY AS TO DISPOSITION AND TREATMENT OF ADDICTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Justice, or perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare might be interested. 1 regret not having been able to give notice. Has the minister's attention been drawn to an article in this morning's Globe and Mail which indicates that an investigation sponsored by metropolitan Toronto will be undertaken in an attempt to deal with methods and facilities for the treatment of drug addicts? Will the Department of Justice or the Department of National Health and Welfare be able to participate in this investigation, and will they attempt to co-ordinate the studies so we may have a universally applicable treatment system across Canada?


Hon. J. W. Monleith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have not seen the article referred to, but I will be glad to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Justice when he returns.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As this is a matter that comes mainly under the Minister of National Health and Welfare, is it a fact that the government has decided on such a policy?


Jay Waldo Monteith: There has been no policy as such decided but, as I say, I would rather not give a direct answer to the question without seeing the article.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillingate):: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance if he is yet in a position to make available to the house the tables, precisely comparable to the ones that appear in Hansard for July 13 at page 5901, for the other Atlantic provinces and for the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think those tables are made up and available. I did not give any undertaking to table them, but my estimates will be coming up and if hon. members wish to ask for them they will be brought forward then. I shall endeavour to have them ready to table in the house at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would remind the minister that there was an implied understanding that these would be made available when

consent was given to enable the minister to put this table on Hansard without being read. There are some of us who would like to have these tables available before the minister's estimates are considered.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have to take objection to the statement of the hon. gentleman. There was no such understanding before consent was given to have this table appear in Hansard. I pointed out at that time, when the hon. gentleman asked for the information to be tabled concerning the other provinces, that this information would have been irrelevant to the matter before the house. There was no suggestion of any implied undertaking in that respect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On this same point, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that this information was first requested immediately after April 20, when the Prime Minister made a television broadcast, and in one way or another the minister has evaded giving it ever since.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That statement is untrue, and the hon. member has enough knowledge to know that the statement is untrue. When this matter was raised first the hon. member was reminded that there are proper ways of obtaining information. A question was then put on the order paper by one of his colleagues and a return was brought down. The hon. gentleman has now decided he wants some refinement of the information that was brought down in reply to the question. This does not warrant his making the kind of untrue statement he has just made in the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege. The minister says the statement 1 have made is untrue, and that is unparliamentary. It also happens that my statement is true, as the minister knows quite well, because I have mentioned this several times. I took exception to this order for return in the form in which it was given, because there was not comparable information for the other provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a way in which documents can be produced, and it is not appropriate to debate whether or not a minister will produce a document without the matter being properly before the house. On the point of privilege, the objection which the hon. member takes has been noted.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
66968-9-387
Supply-Trade and Commerce



DEPARTMENT OP TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
380. Departmental administration, including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $2,636,084.
Mr. Badanai:: The report of the board of grain commissioners for Canada contains some valuable information and some intriguing figures, and I wish to make a few observations about the handling and marketing of grain. The board of grain commissioners came into being under the Canada Grain Act of 1912, and this board was established to provide general supervision over grain handling in Canada. Prior to 1912 a warehouse commission with jurisdiction over terminal grain elevators had been appointed in 1901. The act of 1912 also provided for the construction of public terminal elevators in order to provide storage facilities and inspection of grain for the protection of the farmers on the one hand and the guarantee of the various grades to the overseas purchasers on the other.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I wonder if hon. members would please be quieter and lower their voices while they are talking. It is very hard for the Chair to hear the hon. member for Fort William.


Hubert Badanai: In 1913 the first public terminal grain elevator was constructed by the government at the lakehead with a storage capacity of 3| million bushels. The storage facilities at the lakehead at the present time are in excess of 92 million bushels. The rapid expansion of the grain trade culminated in the establishment of a grain exchange building in Fort William, as well as the appointment of an assistant grain commissioner. Many revisions of the Canada Grain Act have been made from time to time, and the board has assumed wider responsibilities for enforcing the provisions of the act and for marketing; and when I say "marketing" I do not mean the actual selling.
The principal function of this board is to conduct investigations into any and all matters relating to the weighing and grading of grain, which includes the licensing and bonding of elevators and, of course, the important function of supervision over the recording of grain statistics. They also exercise some form of control over the distribution of grain cars at shipping points in the grain growing areas. It can be seen, therefore, that step by step the federal government has practically taken control of the grain trade, first by establishing legal weight measures, grades and market agencies, establishing a vast network of administrative offices, with the net result that the taxpayers of Canada
6104	HOUSE OF
Supply

Trade and Commerce are contributing a considerable sum of money to enable our western farmers to produce and prosper.
I would like to bring to the attention of the minister the report on revenue and expenditures, table J-4, page 65 of the annual report of the board of grain commissioners for the year 1958. In the first column, under "Inspection", the revenue is shown at $1,651,004. In the next column, under "Weighing", it shows a revenue of $825,459, making a total revenue of $2,476,453. In the next section, under "Expenditures", the amount shown under "Inspection" is $2,441,789, and under "Weighing" the amount is $1,143,373, making a grand total of $3,585,162, If we deduct the net revenue from the total expenditures under these two items alone, it will show a deficit or a loss of $1,108,709. While we all appreciate that services such as appeals, registrations, licensing, statistics, research and administration should be a government responsibility, I feel that services such as weighing and inspection should be made self-supporting by increasing the charges for these services to meet the costs of providing them.
Turning to pages 63 and 64 under table J-3,
I would point out to the minister that under the revenue for inspection at Winnipeg it shows an amount of $322,483 and for weighing at the same point the revenue is $29,188, making a total revenue of $351,671. Under the same columns for Fort William we find the revenue for inspection to be $598,562 and for weighing the figure is $47,113, a total revenue of $1,045,675. Under the heading of expenditures at these two points we find that the inspections at Winnipeg cost $703,715 and weighing $69,046, a total of $772,761. At Fort William the cost of inspection was $850,561 and for weighing $666,067, a total of $1,516,629.
Mr. Chairman, these figures reveal-and this is the point-that it costs the government $772,761 to produce revenues of $351,672 at Winnipeg. By contrast, the cost at Fort William is $1,516,629 to secure a revenue of $1,045,675. In other words the ratio of costs at these two points favours Fort William by a margin of practically one third.
I trust that the minister will have an explanation of this discrepancy and be able to tell us whether it is necessary to have two inspections for grain destined for the lakehead elevators, one at Winnipeg and one at Fort William. I fail to see how the grade of grain would change in transit in the 400 miles which separate these two points. All grain must be inspected and weighed upon entering and leaving the terminal elevator. I feel, therefore, that this dual inspection is


quite unnecessary, especially in view of the fact that in the very near future practically all exports via the Atlantic ocean will proceed directly from the lakehead.
I suggest that the board of grain commissioners and their staff should be permanently established at the lakehead, and that the only inspection and weighing for all grains consigned to lakehead elevators be carried out at this point. This would eliminate the costly practice of double inspection now being carried out. I would suggest that except for small staffs of government inspectors, and weighing at points where grain is taken into mills for processing, all government inspection and weighing should be performed at the terminal elevators, of which there are 45 in Ontario, 4 in Manitoba, 2 in Saskatchewan, 4 in Alberta, 9 in British Columbia and 12 in Quebec and the maritimes.
At this point I would remind hon. members that the lakehead is the largest grain port in the world. Is it not obvious that a great economy could be made by having the entire inspection and weighing operation performed at this point? Perhaps Vancouver should be established in the same manner for grain shipments via the Pacific, though I am confident that a lot of our exports now leaving from that port will be going via the St. Lawrence seaway and the Atlantic in the future.
Finally, I firmly believe that while there may have been good reasons in the past for the government to sustain the expense involved in these services in the interests of the economy of the nation, the time may be opportune to revise the whole set-up of the inspection and weighing of grain. The board of grain commissioners should be a self-sustaining body, and all services rendered by them such as the weighing and inspection of grain should be paid for by charges assessed to the country elevators, the terminal elevators and all others who demand this government service.
I also believe that an improvement could be made in the handling and marketing of grain, and I wish to offer a suggestion which, even upon a superficial study, would appear to have merit. At present all grain handlings by the government are done by the bushel measure. For example, wheat is 60 lbs to the bushel; oats 34 lbs to the bushel; barley 48 lbs to the bushel; flaxseed 56 lbs to the bushel and rye 56 lbs to the bushel. While these are the weights taken at all times for grain, it is obvious that under certain conditions they do not show a true picture. For example, these weights are for grain under normal conditions. If, however, the grain is damp, as sometimes happens, then because of the moisture it contains a bushel of grain weighs a great deal more. Under normal circumstances 60,000 lbs

of wheat would represent 1,000 bushels. However, if a large part of the weight was represented by moisture then the actual number of bushels would be considerably less.
No scale upon which grain is weighed can possibly show a measure in bushels. It must therefore show the weight in pounds, and the measure must be worked out after the weight is determined. It is therefore impossible to obtain with any degree of accuracy the amount of grain in Canada under present conditions of accounting. It simply means that a shipment of grain heavy with moisture could be shipped and payment would be made on the basis of bushels. However, when this grain dried the weight would be considerably less, and as it was worked out from the weight, the number of bushels would also be less.
All exports of grain are made on the ton and hundredweight basis. It can therefore be seen what a tremendous amount of work is involved both by the government and the grain men because the government insists on this antiquated practice, namely the conversion from a measure to a weight, or rather from a weight to measure and back to a weight again.
The only solution would be to abandon the measure entirely and handle the grain all the way from farm to vessel on the weight system. The only reason that could be advanced for the present method of market quotations in bushels is because it is the method used in the United States and therefore Canada must string along with it. If I am wrong in this assumption then I stand to be corrected.


Mr. Cooper:: Where did the hon. member get his information that a bushel of damp wheat weighs more than a bushel of dry wheat?


Hubert Badanai: If the hon. member would sit down for a moment he could make the calculation in the same way I made it, and he will arrive at the same conclusion. Market quotations can be quickly converted from price per bushel to price per hundredweight by means of a worked-out table such as the banks use for computing the rate of foreign currency.
By way of illustration, and for the benefit of the hon. member who just interrupted me, I wish to offer a table as follows:
Wheat at $1.50 per bushel equals $2.50 per hundredweight.
Oats at 75 cents per bushel equals $2.20 per hundredweight.
Barley at $1.00 per bushel equals $2.08 per hundredweight.
Flaxseed at $2.75 per bushel equals $4.91 per hundredweight.
Rye at $1.10 per bushel equals $1.96 per hundredweight.
66968-9-387i
Supply-Trade and Commerce
These figures are approximate, but an amount to a fraction can be arrived at. I submit that such a method would greatly simplify the entire grain handling business and would present a much more accurate picture of the grain position in Canada. The adoption of a standardized method of grain measurement could probably lead to a universal adoption of the metric system. The change would be very desirable, because calculations would be concise; and, if Canada could prevail upon Britain and the United States to do likewise the Canadian government would be performing an important service which could be incalculable in the promotion of trade with all the other nations of the world.


Mr. Peters:: One of the most important problems facing industry today is the sale of uranium to international markets. The minister has mentioned this on several occasions, and the other day the Leader of the Opposition asked a question on this important matter. His question was in regard to sales to the United States and the progress which is being made by Canada in negotiation with Washington for the sale of uranium after 1962.
In the answer the minister gave he pointed out that he was aware of the fact that there has been difficulty in negotiations with the United States and in sales to that country, but that there was some hope for a change after 1962. The Leader of the Opposition also asked if it was not true that uranium sales would quite likely increase in the years after 1970. I think that is probably the crux of the matter, and it is my impression that the problem has not been handled in a satisfactory manner to date.
We are all aware that the Canadian government has been vitally interested in the uranium development that took place at Elliot Lake and Blind Biver a few years ago. For years Canada was the major producer of uranium with mines in Yellowknife, Uranium City and other parts of northern Canada. With the development at Elliot Lake, Canada led the world in uranium production, but since that time other developments have taken place. Canada assisted in the development of the mines in many ways. As is pointed out in many publications, the cost of getting these mines into production ran as high as 30 per cent, which was much greater than was anticipated at the time the five year agreements with the mines were negotiated.
A much more important factor has now entered the picture. Uranium discoveries throughout the world have increased. The United States has increased production and is in a position now to supply nearly all the
6106	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce world's requirements tor uranium. This has been reflected in the stock market. Stocks have dropped 55 per cent from the peak in 1957, and have decreased by 4 per cent in the last few months.
I am interested in what is happening in our mining communities. When I first came here early in 1957 I pointed out to the minister that the development in these areas did not appear to be in the best interests of the people in these communities. These people came from other settled mining fields and pioneered this development. They have built towns and communities and are now left holding the bag. They will be in dire straits by 1962 if the contracts cannot be renewed. The people who have put their life savings into homes or establishing stores or supplying other community services will be in disastrous straits if there is a widespread repetition of the lay-offs we have witnessed at one mine.
I know the hon. member for Algoma East will discuss this problem, as it affects his constituents but many of the people living there are not permanent residents. Their wives and families live in my area. These people are entitled to some stability, as are other people involved in production where the sale of the commodity is in the hands of the government and where the government is the sale agency and sole purchaser of the commodity. This is true of those who produce wheat, gold or uranium.
In the past we have approached this problem from the wrong direction. By 1962 we may not be selling uranium to the United States. We must examine what has happened across the world. United States scientists in recent years have developed a new process for the production of enriched uranium different from the natural uranium produced by Canada. Canadian scientists are to be congratulated for their diligence in tackling the problem of developing heavy water reactors, which are claimed by many scientists to be the most efficient, effective and by far the cheapest atomic reactors. The United States is already using atomic energy in plants and is producing atomic-powered submarines using enriched uranium. Natural uranium is treated with another great source of power such as coal or electricity to produce enriched uranium.
Canada must face several facts. We must recognize the development that has taken place and decide what to do. Many economists feel that Canada has neglected to do several things. We have spent large sums of money developing mines at Elliot Lake and Blind River, which is all to the good, but we have depended on international trade and the model agreement to too great an extent. The model agreement was worked out by the


former government and taken over by the present one. According to Saturday Night it was designed by C.D. Howe, the former minister of defence production.
It is recognized by most people that Canada accepted the moral issues involved and believed that our country should sell sources of atomic energy only to nations that would use them for peaceful and industrial purposes. Inspection rights and other considerations were included in the agreements, and countries like Germany agreed to buy quantities of uranium. One high German official said, "We have had inspectors before and know how to deal with them." They thought they could look at the problem and decide what to do about it.
Saturday Night asked why the inspection clause was put in. I wish to read the article to which I have referred, because it explains what happened in the past and suggests what may happen in the future. The article, entitled "Canada should Abandon United States Uranium Market", was written by Robert Jamieson and appears in the February 28, 1959 issue. It reads:
The origin of the inspection clause is admitted by Robert Winters, who was C. D. Howe's alternate in the Liberal cabinet, to have been a "gentleman's agreement" among the three partners in the combined development agency-Britain, the United States and Canada. Other information, however, indicates that it was entirely a United States concept and that the United Kingdom merely went along with it. Winters-and no doubt other Canadian ministers-honestly saw it as a moral issue: that it is wrong to place material which could be so dangerous to humanity in the hands of anyone without precautions to ensure it was used for peaceful purposes only.
It is doubtful that the United States saw it this way. The evidence suggests that what they thought was possible, and what they sought in their own national interests, was a stranglehold control on all atomic energy development and supply sources in the western world. To the extent that this hypothesis is true, the Canadian ministers were taken in.
But in any case such control is impossible. There are sources of uranium and other fissile material in many parts of the world. They differ only in their cost of development. And, as France showed when she developed her own high cost resources, some nations will pay any price to avoid what they regard as national humiliation.
What has finally made nonsense of the Canadian stand is the sale by South Africa-its principal uranium competitor of the future-of a quantity of uranium without any restriction as to end use. This was a relatively small quantity sold to Japan, but it is reported from Johannesburg that the sale is expected to lead to a supply of some hundreds of tons a year.
This news has been greeted by refusal to believe it. "It's not confirmed" said one prominent individual connected with the former administration. The report was carried by Reuters news agency on October 29, quoting the Transvalia company of Pretoria which negotiated the sale, and has been denied by none of the parties since.
The uranium producers' brief submitted to the Canadian cabinet last month skirts this issue. Rio

Tinto, with both C. D. Howe and Robert Winters on its board, is the largest producer, and it is certainly in an awkward position to complain. The brief asks merely that more bilateral agreements be negotiated, or "other international machinery" be provided which would enable Canada to sell more uranium abroad.
This does not seem to me to be the whole story. In the United States they have been able to produce enriched uranium, and they have been able to sell it to the United Kingdom which is, with the exception of the United States, the largest market. They have been able to sell a small quantity of enriched uranium to the United Kingdom. I do not want to go into the methods of how to make enriched uranium, but this enriched uranium is in a concentrated form and is in a small package. You take a part of the energy which is already contained in the fissionable material and add to it another source of energy, and this can be contained in very small packages. This is necessary, Mr. Chairman, for such developments as atomic submarines, and it is also very valuable for other types of development, particularly in the undeveloped areas.
I point out, Mr. Chairman, that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has also done some work in this field, because it is believed that in future in our northern development enriched uranium may be a boon to the small communities which are dependent entirely on outside sources of energy for the power they so vitally need for their development.
We have so far made no attempt to go into the field of enriched uranium, but we have one of the only sources of very cheap power in the world that is untapped today. It is admitted that the initial development of Hamilton falls in Labrador will produce 1 million horsepower at 3 mills a kilowatt. It was pointed out that in France the development of their projects cost something over 4 mills a kilowatt; while in Labrador enriched uranium could be produced at 3 mills a kilowatt in the initial development, and as the development is completed this cost would decrease with the increased output of that plant.
We can go into this field. If we do not go into it, it will mean that the United States, by controlling this mechanized form of uranium, will be able to control world trade in uranium although we and South Africa have by and large the biggest sources of uranium ore. We have to take a look at this particular problem, because it is going to be the only way in which to sell uranium in the years to come.
Canada is working on another project which is called CANDU. This project has been
Supply-Trade and Commerce proceeded with very slowly. It is pointed out in the Financial Post of May 16 that our reactor wil be ready by 1964. The article goes on to say:
Our Reactor Ready By '64.
Uranium Sales Hang On It
Canada's first big atomic-power reactor, CANDU, could be in operation by 1964 if the cabinet gave quick approval for a start on construction.
It will produce 200,000 kilowatts of electrical energy.
This would be a couple of years ahead of earlier programming, but a recommendation is before the cabinet from trade minister Churchill, the minister responsible for atomic energy.
Total cost is not expected to be more than $60 million, but in the government's present tight financial position approval seems likely to be delayed for some time.
The reason for our going ahead with this is simply that through CANDU, which is a heavy water reactor, we can produce atomic energy efficiently, effectively and cheaply. It is admitted to be by far the cheapest way to produce this type of energy; but if we do not get it into production very shortly, and if we do not show to the rest of the world by our initial development that it is feasible and that we can do it and that we can show how much a kilowatt hour it is going to cost on the average to produce energy in this type of plant, even though other countries of the world know that this type of reactor is much more economical to operate they are going to go in for the small package unit which is being produced by the United States and which uses enriched uranium.
It is true, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, that it is expected that from 1970 on the needs for uranium for atomic energy will be increasing, and in the foreseeable future there will come a day when uranium again will be in great demand. But this is not going to help any of the people who are working in the mines at Elliot Lake at the present time. A number of the mines in that area are now producing 5,000 tons of uranium ore a day. Each of those mines could produce enough uranium to supply the needs of Canada in the foreseeable future. Therefore we can see immediately ahead an extensive lay-off in the uranium mining industry unless the minister gives some type of leadership in developing and pushing the completion of CANDU at the earliest possible date, so we can find out for ourselves and show the rest of the world that this type of heavy water reactor will be satisfactory for the production of power in other countries, and so other countries will be able to see a working model of a full-scale plant and decide for themselves whether they wish to buy a cheaper form of natural uranium or go into the field of enriched uranium.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
This is very important. It again shows to me some of the lack of leadership that has taken place over the years in this parliament and some of the lack of leadership that is again taking place under this government. We should have known. We should have had advisers in Canada who could have told us this situation was going to develop. If we had been told we would not have developed the mines at Blind River and in the Elliot Lake area. We would have only developed those we knew we were going to be able to use. It seems odd to me that we should be spending money like a drunken sailor on such developments. Do not forget, Mr. Chairman, that dozens of my friends and your friends were killed in these mines simply because we were rushing to meet a deadline so the mines could go into production and take full advantage of the tax concessions granted by the government, and the sales contracts that expire in 1962 and 1963. We should have known.
This is in exactly the same situation as the Arrow project. We build something that probably surpasses anything built before in this field. We produce uranium as has never been done before, but we never decided what we were going to do with it when we produced it. If we had had a more far-sighted program we would now be building the Arrow and selling it to a number of countries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: Hon. members may laugh if they wish, but it seems to me that both this government and the former government have been guilty of this type of incompetent planning. We produce something and we do not decide where we are going to sell it. It is quite obvious this is true in the case of the Arrow, and I am suggesting that exactly the same situation is being repeated here with regard to the sale of uranium.
I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce realizes that we are in a wonderful position because, no matter what happens, if we have the initiative, foresight and willingness to work we are not going to be the losers so far as the production of uranium is concerned. At Hamilton falls, Labrador, we have a source of energy that will produce enriched uranium cheaper than it can be produced at the present time by the use of Kentucky coal. This can be done, and we should immediately start an investigation to see whether we should go ahead with this type of program. The United Kingdom is buying enriched uranium and wants enriched uranium, and that country will help us to finance the development of electrical power at Hamilton falls necessary for the production of enriched uranium. We can be the

leader in the field of enriched uranium if we junk our model agreement and-junk our past trade policy and overcome our instability to decide what we are going to do for a period of any more than a year or two.
We can also remain in the natural uranium field. We can push the redevelopment of the $60 million CANDU reactor. We can go ahead with that and have it in production before 1964. In fact, if the minister will use a little ingenuity we might have it in operation by the time our sales contracts expire in 1962 and 1963. We have a wonderful opportunity, and if a little foresight is used the problem that has developed in the mining fields throughout the years will not become an important factor. We will be able to maintain our sales on a reasonable basis and remain in the uranium field.
We are fortunate in Canada that in our uranium resources we have an exceptionally large source of power. These resources are found not only in the Elliot Lake and Blind River areas but also, as I neglected to mention, not far from Ottawa in the Bancroft area, where there are a number of major producers. These producers and their workers are faced with exactly the same problem and it can be solved in exactly the same way as in the case of Blind River.
I suggest that the matter hinges completely on what the minister is going to do. If he is going to sit in a hotel room in Washington and negotiate with United States officials I can tell him right here and now that he cannot win. Their negotiators are going to have the interests of their own country at heart, which is as it should be, and their interests involve controlling the development of enriched uranium throughout the world. The fact is that the country that can bottleneck the production of uranium will control the development of the world in the next four or five decades.
Congressional committees have held hearings on this matter, and there has been terrific resentment against renewing the contracts with Canada. Arguments have been presented by their own industry, which is now very nearly large enough to supply the needs of the United States, and they have been very strongly opposed to the renewal of the Canadian contracts and the buying of uranium from Canada at a set price. The minister is going to engage in negotiation in that atmosphere, and I suggest that no matter how capable he is he is going to come out second best. But if we proceed to push the development of our own reactor so we can show the world that natural uranium can be used as an economic, efficient and effective source to produce atomic

energy for industrial purposes, we will then be able to sell this much cheaper product to other countries of the world that are going to need it.
If we fail to go ahead with this project I suggest that there is an obligation to negotiate with the United Kingdom for financial assistance to develop power in Labrador so we can also get into the production of enriched uranium. I am familiar with some of the problems involved in this matter. I am not a scientist, but I know that Canada has spent pretty nearly all its resources in this field on the old type heavy water reactor. However, I am quite sure that with the co-operation we can get from the United Kingdom and the co-operation we have and will continue to receive from our Canadian scientists, Canada has a bright and effective future in the sale of uranium and will continue to be the leader in this field. But this demands that these two steps be taken immediately; that we investigate and get into the field of enriched uranium, and that we get into production with our CANDU reactor within the next year or two.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the wish of the committee to proceed with the estimates and other business of the house as rapidly as possible, but that does not preclude me from answering immediately some of the fantastic statements that have been made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I can assure him that I am not going to sit in the house and listen to these charges of incompetence and failure to foresee the future and take action on the part of the government without replying immediately. If the hon. member wishes to make more statements today, tomorrow or next week on the same basis as his statements of today I will be quite prepared to answer them.
Part of his statement today was sound and logical and the rest of it was completely illogical and fantastic. He has said that we should have known there would not be a demand for uranium after 1962. How in the world were we to know facts like that when, at the time Blind River was discovered and developed, there were no other known suitable sources of uranium in other parts of the world? Since that time uranium discoveries have been made equal in volume and perhaps greater in value per pound than some of the discoveries in Canada. How in the world could this government or its predecessor have foreseen these discoveries?
That is the type of statement to which I object. When the hon. member talks sensibly and produces plans that are reasonable I am prepared to listen to him, but I am
Supply-Trade and Commerce not prepared to listen without objection to some statements he has made. It was just impossible to know a few years ago what was going to happen in the uranium field in the future when the only source of supply was the Belgian Congo and our mines in northern Canada. Pressure to discover and develop uranium then resulted in the amazing development at Blind River. That has been followed in recent years by the discovery that the tailings of the gold mines in South Africa contain uranium, and then the extensive discoveries of uranium in the United States.
Now, who could have foreseen that? Could my hon. friend? Certainly we make no claim to being able to see that far into the future. If there is, and I hope there will not be, a reduction in the export of uranium in the future, I hope my hon. friend will not blame this government or the preceding government for failure to foresee what was going to happen.
My hon. friend states we should be in the field of enriched uranium and should develop Hamilton falls so that enriched uranium could be produced. He understands from his reading that a vast amount of electric power is required to produce enriched uranium, hence the need for the development of Hamilton falls. He has no authority for his statement that the United Kingdom is prepared at this moment to co-operate with Canada in the development of Hamilton falls for that purpose. He has seized upon a sentence in some article he has read in some magazine or other. The cost of the development, which my hon. friend did not mention, runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
My hon. friend suggests that we should scrap our bilateral agreements with some countries because by so doing we would enlarge our sales of uranium abroad. These bilateral agreements are specifically designed so the importing country will agree that it will not use this uranium for anything but peaceful purposes. Does my hon. friend suggest we should carelessly sell this uranium to any country in the world which may develop an atomic bomb or a nuclear bomb? Is that how careless my hon. friend would be with the sales of uranium? He says, let us chuck these small agreements-


William Arnold Peters: South Africa already has.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is an international agreement with regard to this whole matter. South Africa made a sale to Japan of a small quantity of uranium. My understanding is that it will not be repeated. My hon. friend says they are prepared to sell hundreds of tons of uranium to Japan without

Supply-Trade and Commerce any safeguard whatever. I have been informed that this type of sale will not be repeated by South Africa. I do not know where my hon. friend gets his information, but I regret that he should suggest that we should scrap these bilateral arrangements whereby we are assured that uranium will be used only for peaceful purposes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister permit a question? Is South Africa a party to the United Nations agreement for the control of atomic energy for peaceful purposes?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not sure of that immediately, but I shall have that information later. The hon. member for Timiskaming went a little further. He suggested that if I would show leadership or something we would have CANDU completed next year or the following year.


William Arnold Peters: No; 1964.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wish I could speak with the authority he does, with such little knowledge of these scientific processes. It is the advice of the scientists who have been engaged for years in the development of atomic power and its application that I accept; they are the ones who set the period during which a reactor may be built and brought into production. They have not informed me that the program can be accelerated in any way. What am I to do, march out with a flag and say "Let us get on with this program"? Then Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says if we can get this built within that time, we are assured of the sale of uranium abroad immediately afterwards.
Our program is based on sound scientific principles. The scientific work has been done already at Chalk River. The model plant, NPD, has been developed. It is on the basis of our scientists' observations there that they have recommended that CANDU be proceeded with. Last fall I made a suggestion to the atomic energy authorities that we should advance the program with regard to CANDU, if they could assure me that their scientific observations warranted proceeding with it before NPD was finally completed. They came back with the assurance and the program has been advanced, as the announcement was made just the other day. We are going ahead with this program using natural uranium and heavy water.
As I have said in the house before, the scientists of the world are looking with great interest to that development. They are showing greater interest in it than they did two years ago. They are in close touch with the work our scientists are doing in this country, and they are looking hopefully, as our people

are, to the use of natural uranium and heavy water as the most economic method by which to produce electric power from uranium sources.
This is the situation with regard to our program and the situation with regard to CANDU. Now, after a few years have elapsed, if the demonstration, as we hope, indicates that this is an economic way of producing power from uranium, then the market for Canadian built reactors and the market for Canadian natural uranium may be assured. This is the target at which we are aiming, and we hope in time that it will support our uranium producing industry here at home.
I am quite in agreement with the hon. member in his sympathetic remarks concerning the people who are in the mining camps at Elliot Lake and elsewhere. They entered into those mines in good faith with the prospect of many years of livelihood ahead of them. They have purchased their homes or started to purchase their homes, and they are now in an insecure position. I have every sympathy for people who are thus placed. I met with a delegation from Elliot Lake just the other day and talked this over with them. I fully appreciate their situation. Anything we can do to help them I am sure will be done. I am sure the provincial government of Ontario and the mine management will be extremely careful to see that no serious harm comes to the people who are really doing the work in these mines.
The activity of the dominion government that may be helpful where uranium production is concerned is in connection with the arrangements with United States authorities concerning the purchase of our uranium, which arrangements may lapse on March 31, 1961. The hon. member for Timiskaming claims that we will not make any headway at all in dealing with United States authorities. Again he has no basis for that statement. We have established close relations with our opposite numbers in the United States. There is room for negotiation and there is a proper, friendly field for negotiations there in the United States,
I am not at this moment going to agree with the hon. member that we cannot accomplish anything. He seems to have all this decided, and he is so sure that we have made no plans, that nothing will be done, and that we are thoroughly incompetent. These are the steps which can be taken by the dominion government, and they are in process right now. A complete study is being made of the uranium situation in Canada with a forecast for the future for that industry, and we are taking into account that negotiations will have to be

carried out and continued with the authorities in the United States. We cannot give an answer today, nor tomorrow, but this ranks with very high priority in the matters which are of concern to the dominion government.
I can assure my hon. friend, and I would like to assure the people in the uranium industry, that we are fully aware of the seriousness of the situation and we intend to take such steps as are open to us to ameliorate the conditions, if possible to guarantee the future of a stable uranium industry in Canada, and protect the livelihood of the people who are in those mining towns at the present time. That, Mr. Chairman, is all I want to say at this moment with regard to the problems raised by my hon. friend.
The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether or not South Africa is a member of the international agency, and that is true; South Africa is a member. The sale of uranium by South Africa to Japan, the one which was mentioned, was under a form of bilateral agreement, and safeguard conditions were written into the contract.


William Arnold Peters: Before the minister sits down, he mentioned the fact that I could not estimate a few years ago that this was going to be the situation, but is the minister aware of the fact that Central Mortgage and Housing knew of this? Is he aware that Central Mortgage and Housing made a special contract with miners buying homes, and that they only guaranteed to underwrite mortgages for the years which were covered by the agreement, in other words up to 1962-63? Is he also aware that they will have to carry the mortgage themselves after that, which is an indication that it was known there would be trouble after 1962 in renewing these contracts, not in terms of a market but in terms of prices which they would get for uranium?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would say that is sound business prudence when you are dependent upon whether or not options will be taken up some time in the future.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Timiskaming as well as the minister on the importance of the uranium industry and on the importance to Canada, indeed to the world, of atomic energy questions generally, and I will have something to say about that a little later in my remarks.
I agree with the hon. member that the development of this industry, so important to our country, requires energy, initiative and planning both on the part of government and on the part of private enterprise. I think the minister is correct when he says that it would have been difficult, if not impossible, a few
Supply-Trade and Commerce years ago to estimate with any degree of accuracy the civilian, non-military consumption of atomic energy and of uranium after 1962, just as it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to forecast the dicovery of sources of uranium. There has been a great deal done in recent years in the United States in that regard which was certainly not expected, shall I say, five or six years ago. However, Mr. Chairman, as I say, I will come back to that a little later.
I would like to discuss now some of the more general questions of trade, especially export trade, that have arisen in the minister's earlier statement and in his statement last night, some of which I dealt with when the estimates were up the first time. I also express my appreciation to the minister for replying to some of the questions I raised at that time. The minister last night and earlier emphasized the strength of our export position, and of course I do not quarrel with him for doing that. In so far as our exports have held up during these difficult years I think we can take a great deal of satisfaction, because not only prosperity but the very economic stability of this country depends on exports not only holding up but increasing. As I said to the minister on this matter earlier, there are some difficulties and danger points, and it is our duty and our right to point them out.
I was glad he mentioned last night the importance of economic developments in Europe, the common market and the free trade area. He mentioned their importance not only to Europe, where they would have very great economic and political significance, but the important problem to Canada and indeed the whole of the Atlantic community. The inability, as the minister knows, of the common market to develop into a European free trade area has resulted in those European countries in O.E.E.C. who are not members of the European market forming themselves into, shall I call it, a group of seven, who certainly are not concerned with artistic endeavour. The outer seven, as I think they are called, include the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries.
This parallel development may result in a European free trade area, but if things do not go well it might have other and less desirable consequences, such as the division of Europe into two trading blocs. I was reading a very interesting dispatch on this matter from London, a Canadian Press dispatch of June 27, which I would like to quote from the Toronto Globe and Mail because it explains this development in terms which are of very great interest to this country. It deals with the relationship of
6112	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce this development to commonwealth trade, and the article has this to say:
To counter this-
That is, to counter the common market. -negotiations to form a little free trade area were launched last month by countries outside the common market. British officials express the hope that the agreement among the seven will be signed by the end of the year and will be ratified early next year.
The little free trade area hopes to start operations July 1, 1960, with a 20 per cent tariff cut. This would correspond roughly to the tariff cuts expected to be made by the six members of the common market.
It is interesting to speculate what this kind of tariff cut may mean to Canadian and commonwealth trade. The minister told us last night that we can take assurance that all these countries are in GATT, and they have their responsibilities under GATT to carry out, which it is assumed they will maintain. A member of the British government, Paymaster General Maudling, who has had a great deal to do with this development on behalf of the British government, is quoted as saying that the principal aim of the outer seven is to prevent the further disintegration of economic unity in western Europe. Of course that is an aim which we naturally support in Canada. Then he went on to say:
The little free trade area should help pave the way for the establishment of a multilateral association on a non-discriminatory basis that will embrace all members of the O.E.E.C.
If that happens, that will be a desirable development provided it happens in such a way that barriers are not raised in this European area against other countries. The article concludes by saying:
British officials view the formation of the little free trade area as a move to facilitate development of a larger free trade area and to maintain the coherence of the O.E.E.C.
They concede, however, that some commonwealth countries "may be concerned" about whether formation of a second trading group is the right way to achieve greater European economic unity.
So while this new development, this second European group, may lead to a larger European development, it may not. If it does not it will be a move in the wrong direction. If it leads to that European free trade area it will be a move in the right direction, as I think Canada would see it, provided it is done without raising unnecessary trade barriers against the outside world.
Not long ago we had the pleasure of welcoming to Ottawa one of the men who has perhaps done more for European economic political integration than any man alive, Mr. Jean Monnet. I remember talking to him-and I have great respect for his experience and judgment in such matters-about 

the possible consequences of this development. He said nothing could be more important, in his opinion than the establishment of the right kind of economic co-operation beween those European countries and the United States and Canada.
I know I do not need to preach on this subject to the minister, because I know these are his own views as well as those of all hon. members who are interested in Canadian economic development. But nothing could be more important than beginning this work of association across the Atlantic at once, before this development hardens and proceeds so far that the arrangements are frozen.
I might mention in this connection, that meetings were held last month to consider arrangements for developing a Latin-Ameri-can bloc, and if this process continues in other parts of the world then instead of having nationalist protection groups we shall, or we may, have bloc protectionist groups. That would be a more harmful thing for Canada than for any other single country in the world; harmful both economically and politically, because our bloc then, would be the North American bloc, and while we can take a good deal of pride in our North American association we do not want to be completely identified with it, either economically or politically.
One of the areas where such a bloc might develop would have, as its key nation, Japan. Mention was made by the hon. member for Ottawa West and others of the importance to Canada of increased trade with Japan, and the minister has acknowledged that importance. In 1956-57 Japan took more than one third of the quantity of wheat supplied to the United Kingdom, and in the next year 1957-58 Japan took 38 million bushels as against 104 million bushels which went to the United Kingdom. This has been an important trade development. Even though the figures for exports to Japan last year were down, wheat exports had increased. Perhaps there is no area in the world where the possibility of increasing our grain shipments is greater than Japan, because Japan and other eastern countries are switching from rice to wheat and barley and that presents very great opportunities for Canadian exports if we can exploit them.
This emphasizes, if emphasis is necessary, the great folly of taking action against Japanese exports to this country, action of a kind which would give the Japanese government perhaps no alternative, in view of public opinion in that country, but to take retaliatory action against our exports to Japan, which are already two or three times greater than our imports from that country.
I know that certain circumstances have to

be met, especially in the textile industry.
I know there are special difficulties there, but I should like to underline once again that it we attempt to overcome these difficulties in a way which would provoke legitimate retaliation against us, we would suffer in this country far more than the textile industry could possibly be helped.
This mention of Japan as a possible market for larger quantities of our grain leads me to the consideration of the more general question of agricultural exports, especially the disposal of farm surpluses. In our country these are becoming burdensome, though not as burdensome as they are in the United States, a country whose economy is, however, better able to support such a burden. A little less than a year ago the United States government reduced its barter program by which it had sought to dispose of its agricultural surpluses, and we were encouraged by that move which was made because the Americans found that that kind of operation cut into cash sales. They were worried about that, and also they were getting complaints from their friends, and from Canada in particular, about the effect of these barter sales on their exports.
As I say, we were encouraged by that decision to reduce this barter program, but the minister will recall that last November the program was restored on account, I think, of congressional pressure, which is very difficult to resist and difficult for a foreign government to counteract. At that time Canada was assured that even though the barter program was to be restored there would be no interference with normal commercial markets.
I am not sure whether this was a formal assurance. In any event that assurance does not seem to have been realized, in the light of what has happened since that time. Last year, I am informed, United States barter deals amounted to about $65 million. This year the figures show that from January to March alone United States barter deals amount to $60 million, and the monthly figures are now running higher. During this year barter deals in agricultural products may amount to a figure as high as $300 million.
It may well be that any representations we make at Washington on that score would be prejudiced by our export policy with regard to agricultural products, necessitated by our own price support program in Canada. The minister will undoubtedly have seen the remarks of agricultural secretary Benson on July 13, when he was talking about Canadian-United States trade in agricultural products.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
He is reported by the Canadian Press as having said, "I believe that generally it would be in both our interests to remove restrictions and provide freedom in our trade."
I do not know whether this was a free trade offer from a member of the United States cabinet or not. I suspect that it was pretty loose, probably looser than the proposal made by the United Kingdom a year and a half ago. However, he made it clear that he was deeply concerned over what he described as a rather restricted attitude of the Canadian government on some farm products, particularly turkeys. He is reported in the Montreal Star of July 13 as having said that United States turkey growers were "quite upset" over what amounted to a virtual Canadian embargo on turkey imports. The United States are now trying to get Canada to relax the curbs, and he was hopeful something would be done soon, he added.
Probably Mr. Benson, who has been so upset about this, will now be more understanding with regard to Canadian protests over United States policy in these matters, which has been carried to a far greater length than anything which has been done by Canada in this direction. He was particularly alarmed not only about turkeys but about Canadian hog production and the export of hogs under what he described as subsidized prices. It is a little ironic, it seems to me, to have the United States Secretary of Agriculture expressing such alarm over this type of trade when we have been attempting to make an impact on their consciences in Washington for many years in respect of exactly the same type of thing carried to greater extremes on the part of their own authorities.
The minister has mentioned in the house that one way of dealing with our agricultural surpluses is by international arrangements for their disposal. I agree that if it can be done in that way, that is of course the right way to do it. We have been considering this matter with perhaps inadequate success for a great many years. In recent months we have perhaps been able to take some encouragement-we are not sure how it will work out in practice-over President Eisenhower's food for peace proposal and the wheat utilization committee which I think originated in the proposal of the President. The Minister of Trade and Commerce referring to this matter is quoted as saying that this committee is:
-designed to avoid swamping the world's normal commercial markets with wheat give-aways.
But the Financial Post of May 16, to which my hon. friend referred in another connection,
6114	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce had this to say about the wheat utilization committee through its Washington correspondent:
There is a shaky future ahead for the new international "food for peace" committee to coordinate wheat surplus disposals to hungry nations.
Stripped of its flowery phraseology, the communique establishing the committee stands as a rather indecent skeleton with a few bones missing. Whether the missing bones and any flesh will be added depends entirely on United States attitudes.
That may well be the case. If the United States wishes to establish a committee for the purpose the minister and I have mentioned it may become an important agency in the resolving of the agricultural surplus problems. Otherwise it will not mean much and will be just another committee.
I do not want to be entirely pessimistic in this matter, but perhaps our previous experience gives us some cause for hesitation about the results of a committee of this kind set up by Washington. Indeed, the United States may conceivably use this committee as a screen behind which it can get rid of even more surplus agricultural products and stifle criticism through the committee by emphasizing that it is part of an international humanitarian policy. That is perhaps why it would have been more effective to have done this through the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. I am not criticizing the government on this matter, because perhaps it could not have been done in this way; but if it could have been done through that organization it might have been more effective in that sense.
When the minister speaks again I should like him to give us a little more information about the work of this new committee. When it was announced in May there appeared to be some confusion and contradiction about its function, and the minister was reported in the Financial Post article of May 16 to which I have already referred, and which quotation I have already read, as having said:
-the committee is designed to avoid swamping the world's normal commercial markets with wheat give-aways.
But Senator Humphrey, who was a strong proponent of the idea and perhaps one of its initiators, at that time saw in this committee a method of moving, by give-away and barter sales for local currency, some of the United States wheat surplus which this year according to Secretary Benson may reach the figure of 1,400 million bushels. He thought that through a committee of this kind the United States might be able to dispose of 2,500 million bushels in barter or for local currency over the course of five years. After that meeting in May the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture, who 

were in Washington, claimed that the new committee would ensure that the United States would not make any surplus disposal deals without consulting others on the committee. Presumably that is the main purpose of the committee, consultation before entertaining deals of that kind.
At that time, as the minister may remember, Secretary Benson did not accept the obligation of automatic consultation. If I remember his words correctly he restricted it to consultation only after a specific objection was made by a member to a proposed deal. I agree that later in June he was a little more forthright about the way the committee would work. I hope the minister will be able to reassure the committee in regard to the operations of this wheat utilization committee, and will tell us that it is not going to be used as a smokescreen behind which the United States will dump more and more wheat on world markets, especially by barter sale.
There was another development in recent months which was offered to us in the house as providing some encouragement in the disposition of our wheat surplus and that was the organization of a NATO food bank. This proposal was first made some time ago by the Prime Minister, but at that time-and I think it has been made pretty clear since-it was not taken very seriously at the NATO council. Indeed at that time I believe the United States rejected the idea, and certainly I have no information that there was a serious discussion on a political level of the desirability and possibility of a NATO food bank being established. I remember that the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Benson, was quoted in the Vancouver Sun of May 8, 1959, as having said:
I never thought much of the idea. When you pin it right down most of the interest is in the United States providing the wheat and paying the storage.
That has certainly not been borne out by events. What is this new proposal? It is, I think, that $10 million should be used for wheat and flour for a NATO food bank, if and when that bank is set up, and that there should be $2,500,000 appropriated to reimburse the agricultural commodities stabilization account for dried skim milk donated to international relief agencies, organizations and governments. That was announced at that time
The reaction of some members to this proposal was pessimistic, and that pessimism is perhaps justified in view of the fact that we have made a contribution to a NATO food bank but we have no assurance-perhaps assurances could not have been expected at that time-but we have no reason to believe that the $10 million we have in our estimates for the NATO food bank can be used for that

purpose by the setting up of such a food bank through NATO in Paris to which all of the members of NATO would subscribe.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock?


Charles Edward Rea: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair. May I remind hon. members that the committee will reconvene at two o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, at one o'clock I was discussing disposal of our agricultural surpluses, particularly in relation to United States policy in this matter, and had just begun to mention another mechanism which the government hopes will be of help in this direction, through the establishment of a NATO food bank. Of course at the present time this bank is nothing more than a proposal on the part of the government. Unless that proposal is accepted by the NATO members, and more particularly by the United States of America, it is not likely to be very effective for the purpose the government has in mind.
Up to the present, at least as far as I know, the United States has shown no disposition to be enthusiastic about this scheme. If the minister thinks I am being unduly pessimistic about the prospects in regard to the NATO food bank, perhaps I could quote a couple of sentences from an editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail of June 5, which is not, I must say, too optimistic about this proposal. The editorial is entitled:
What Food Bank. Where?
It begins in this way:
There is probably no law against it, but it is certainly questionable procedure to ask parliament to vote money for non-existent institutions. Yet this is what Prime Minister Diefenbaker has done in explaining a $10 million item in the supplementary estimates for the storage of flour for a North Atlantic Treaty Organization food bank.
Perhaps I made a mistake earlier when I said $10 million for wheat and flour. The editorial ends in this way:
The proposal is hard to take seriously. Is it really anything more than an effort to dispose of an embarrassing surplus? If Canada's flour cannot be sold profitably in normal markets, it would be far better to make it into bread and give it away to the world's hungry. That, at least, would give some meaning to our money.
In the same paper, the day before, Mr. Duffy, the Ottawa correspondent of that paper, had this to say:
Until there is international agreement and the food bank is established, this is merely agricultural price support smelling as sweetly by
Supply-Trade and Commerce
another name, with the cost put on the account of external affairs, instead of the Department of Agriculture.
In so far as the milk powder operation is concerned, he described it as a straight bookkeeping transaction, with the debit again being dumped into the external affairs account or, in effect, as he said:
The agriculture department has sold external affairs a lot of milk.
In view of what the Minister of Agriculture has said earlier in this session, it may not be too easy for the Department of External Affairs to dispose of that milk, in spite of an optimistic statement by the Prime Minister in the house. The Minister of Agriculture said some weeks ago that though the Canadian government offered 30 million pounds of this powder as gifts to international relief agencies in January of 1958, to date only 18 million pounds has been taken. Perhaps we should not expect too much of this NATO food bank idea as an immediate means of disposing of our agricultural surpluses, valuable as the idea is and much as we hope it may be implemented as a truly effective NATO plan.
There is another point I would like to mention, which is an important one, or should be an increasingly important one in export trade. In this connection it is not a question of competing with the United States in world markets; it is a question of one of our products trying to get into the United States market, its natural and its important market. I am referring, of course, to oil. The government, and indeed the house and country generally, have taken satisfaction over the lifting of the mandatory restrictions which were imposed by the United States government on our exports of oil to that country some time ago. It is true that, whether as a result of that lifting or for other reasons, there was a 15.6 per cent increase in our exports of oil to the United States in the last month over the preceding one; but, as the financial editor of the Montreal Gazette said on June 30-and he has written a great deal and I think with intelligence and common sense on this matter-this increase in our exports of oil to the United States did not result in any production benefit in Canada, because it was more than offset by a drop in the demand for western oil in Ontario owing to an increase in imports in that part of Canada from the United States and from Venezuela. I quote a paragraph from his article on that point. He said:
The matching of sales to the United States by American sales to Canada strengthens the suspicion that there is not, and hasn't been for some time, a "natural market" for oil and petroleum products.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Perhaps it is difficult indeed to talk realistically about a natural market for a product of this kind which is under such complicated and important international corporation control. We all hope that our exports of oil to the United States will increase. Notwithstanding the difficulties of using the term "natural market", it would seem that this part of the United States, the northwest and the west, is or should be in a rational economic world the natural market for our oil. Yet there are important incentives to United States companies to import from other sources than from their Canadian subsidiaries, and those incentives are going to make it difficult, I think, notwithstanding the removal of restrictions, to increase our exports to that country.
One difficulty is that Canadian exports of oil to the United States market are prorated over all the Canadian companies. The United States subsidiary in Canada must therefore share its export business with competing companies, but that is not the case with the United States subsidiary in other parts of the world. Second, the margin of profit to a United States company is much greater in oil from other areas than from Canada, especially, I suppose, the mid-eastern oil fields. Then there is and will be heavy political pressure on United States companies in these foreign fields, especially the Middle Eastern fields, to take the maximum amount of oil from these fields for the United States, because the more oil the United States companies take the greater the royalties will be to the local governments or rulers, and any reduction of United States imports from these fields to the advantage, if you like, of Canada would mean, and indeed has meant in the not too distant past, threats of nationalization by these local potentates.
We must remember also in connection with this oil problem that paragraph C(2) of the presidential proclamation exempting Canadian oil from quota restrictions made it perfectly clear that the quotas would be re-established if Canadian oil began to compete with United States oil through large volumes of imports. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Calgary Herald was being quite realistic when it said in an editorial on May 4, 1959:
It is quite possible that the lilting of the United States import quotas will do Canadian independence and Canadian control of its resources a great deal of harm. . . . Keeping the trade lines flowing west to east and vice versa is Canada's age old problem. It may soon be clear that the United States import decision, which will probably bring only slight economic relief, will exact a greater price from Canadian independence.
fMr. Pearson.]

No doubt what the newspaper meant is that if because of the removal of these restrictions we assume that our oil is now going to move easily across the border into the United States and production can go up for that purpose, and we lose the interest in the eastern Canadian market that has been created in the past because of restrictions, perhaps in the long run we will suffer by this removal.
The minister is quite as aware as any member of the house that notwithstanding this action taken, by the United States government, the long range problem remains of ensuring a market for our Canadian oil to take care of increased production and that if that market, through one method or another and in spite of United States governmental action which may seem to benefit us, becomes impossible in the northwestern states or is limited to that area, one day the question of marketing that oil in eastern Canada will have to be faced seriously.
I know, as the minister knows, the difficulty that will involve, the governmental intervention and governmental interference that might involve, and I know that the lines of this trade at this time at least should be moving north and south across the border. But if that cannot be done, and if it becomes clear that even without restrictions that is not going to be done, then any government in Canada faced with that problem will have to give serious consideration to the action required to market the oil in eastern Canada.
There is one other commodity I want to mention. I have already indicated to the minister that I would be talking about it. It is the problem mentioned this morning by the hon. member for Timiskaming with respect to uranium and the development of atomic energy. I know the Canadian government has made certain bilateral agreements to facilitate and increase the marketing of this essential commodity, which has now become such an important factor in our export trade that this year the figure may reach $300 million or more. This puts it right up in the top half dozen commodities.
I believe, and the minister will correct me if I am wrong, that agreements have now been reached, apart from our agreements with the United States and the United Kingdom, with Pakistan, West Germany, Japan and I think with Switzerland. If there are any additional agreements perhaps he will inform the committee. I wonder whether under these agreements, apart from the United Kingdom and the United States, any contracts have been signed for the supply of uranium itself.
I am also anxious to know-the minister mentioned this matter this morning, and gave

us some assurance in this regard-whether the stipulations we are observing because we signed a United Nations convention to this effect-and it would have been impossible for us not to have done so-in respect of guarantees for the non-military use of uranium are being observed by other exporters. I think the minister has set at rest some of the doubts we may have had from press reports on that score, but it would not be a very happy position for Canada if, having scrupulously observed the provisions of an international agreement in this regard which do bind our hands in some respects, we found that competing countries were not taking the same scrupulous attitude toward these agreements.
The other day the minister announced in the house the signing of an agreement with Japan; but that agreement, important as it may become, is not of the same type as the agreement which the United States signed with Japan a year or two ago and in which were included provisions for the actual supply of uranium. In the agreement of June, 1958 the United States makes available over a term of ten years a net amount of 2,700 kilograms of uranium 235 sold or leased to Japan for use in research and experimental work with power reactors. But I understand that our agreement with Japan is merely an enabling agreement, that there is no assurance that any uranium will be sold under that agreement, and that there are negotiations proceeding at the present time with Japan for the implementing of this agreement by an actual contract for the sale of uranium. If the minister can inform us about that matter it would be interesting information for the committee to receive.
There is no doubt, as the hon. member for Timiskaming pointed out, that we are going to be subjected to the stiffest kind of competition from the United States and perhaps also from the United Kingdom in the supply of uranium, and I am not sure that the kind of competition we are facing from the United States is equal competition any more than it has been in the case of some agricultural products.
The United States certainly have the jump on us in this matter. They made their agreement with Japan a year and a half ago; I understand they have now made 17 other bilateral agreements, and that a part of most of their agreements, which I do not think is included in our agreements, deals with the sale by the United States government on easy terms of reactors which are, as was pointed out this morning, designed to use only enriched uranium, the kind we do not produce but which is produced in the United States.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
For instance, in the agreement the United States have made with the European atomic agency, EURATOM, they have included provision for a long term loan of $135 million and a ten year guarantee with respect to the supply of enriched uranium. Therefore this is going to mean very stiff competition indeed for our uranium producers even if we are able to make agreements with all these countries.
The United Kingdom is also entering this field in a big way. The United Kingdom as I have said, has made a ten year agreement with EURATOM. I do not know whether as part of that agreement or as part of the negotiations United Kingdom reactors are to be supplied to these European countries, but I have read that the United Kingdom Dragon reactor is the choice of 12 of them. If these European countries do use that kind of reactor we may find we have again been left behind in what is becoming a highly competitive field.
I hope that will not happen as much as the minister does, but while I do not go as far as the hon. member for Timiskaming in condemning the lack of arrangements and the lack of planning in this regard, I say it would be unfortunate indeed if the Canadian type reactor, which we are led to believe is as modern, as advanced and as efficient as any in the world, is going to be pushed aside for United Kingdom and United States reactors which use enriched uranium because of financial and other advantages in the agreements made by the United Kingdom and the United States. *
It is therefore of the greatest possible importance, as was emphasized this morning, to get our CANDU reactor built soon in Canada, to show what it can do and to try to make the maximum progress possible in providing Canadian reactors and Canadian uranium in the world market. I know the minister has announced that the first Canadian power reactor should be in operation in 1964 or 1965. I know that plans have been made to that end. I should like to ask the minister whether any other provinces have shown any interest in this project and have requested reactors for power purposes, and whether the government is in touch with the provinces for the purpose of encouraging that kind of development. It certainly is necessary, as I pointed out in the beginning of my remarks, that both industry and government at the provincial and federal levels show initiative, drive and planning so we will not be left behind, not only in the international market but perhaps at home.
The importance of this matter in terms of the future was stressed by the chairman of the Ontario hydroelectric commission, Mr. HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce Duncan, in an interview on June 12, when he said that once the first big nuclear plant is built, relatively rapid progress would take place, and by 1980 about one-third of the total Ontario power production may come from nuclear energy. However, about a day later in the same newspaper there was an article by the same writer, Mr. Anderson, pointing out the fact that Canadian industry is not showing boldness, initiative and drive but is leaving too much to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. If this is related to what Mr. Duncan has said, if we are, as he has suggested to get one third of Ontario power resources from nuclear energy by 1980, then industry, according to this article, will have to show more drive and initiative than has been the case in the past.
I do not need to dwell on the importance of this matter. The minister knows its importance. It is important not only to export trade to build these reactors and develop power from atomic energy, but it is important also from the point of view of domestic development in this connection. We have a particular situation at Elliot Lake, which is the world's largest uranium producing area, I suppose, at the present time. That whole community, as the minister mentioned this morning, is uneasy about the future and has a feeling of insecurity because the contract with the United States, which takes practically all the uranium from the area, will expire in 1962.
The minister pointed out that five or six years ago it was impossible to foresee future production. But we know now that there has been a great increase in United States production of uranium. While the markets of the world around 1970 or 1972 may require all the uranium that can be produced in the world, if some steps are not taken between 1962 when this contract expires and those years when the peaceful uses of atomic energy will have developed to bridge that gap, then this community may disappear.
Elliot Lake has been constructed to last. It is a thriving, progressive community whose people have pride in it. But it might suffer to the point where it would become like the ghost towns of the thirties. This is a problem that weighs on everybody's mind in that particular community. The sooner, therefore, the government can make some announcement of the intention of the United States to renew the option which expires in 1962, the better it will be not only for that area but for our whole uranium trade.
I suggest to the minister that if the United States government is to be prevailed upon


to renew these options it will require diplomatic pressure at the highest possible level. It may even require, and perhaps it should, intervention by the Prime Minister with the President. This is a matter of major importance. I remember that a few months ago the director of the division of raw materials of the United States atomic energy commission speaking in Wyoming made a very gloomy prediction from our point of view concerning the future markets for uranium in the United States. He said at that time that it was expected the United States government's uranium procurement program would be based primarily on the utilization of its own resources.
But he also said at that time that in the latter part of 1948 they had an urgent military requirement for uranium. As one who was in the government at that time I know how urgent that requirement was. I know the pressure that was brought to bear on the Canadian government to make every possible effort to get this field going, and that was done. We were told that in doing so it was not only important from the point of view of commercial development in Canada, but it was a great service to the defence of the free world that this vital strategic material should be in abundant supply in time for the United States to build up its atomic weapons as a deterrent against war.
As I have said before in this house and perhaps I can repeat now that after having done that, after having built this community in Elliot Lake-not a community of shacks which could be torn down, with the people stealing away to find other jobs when the uranium mines were out of commission, but a community which has been carefully planned and built, that having done this and the United States now having found uranium in their own country, are they going to come to Canada and say, we now have uranium of our own; thanks very much, and good bye? This would be an intolerable situation.
I can only express the strong hope, which I am sure the minister and every member of this house shares, that the United States government will not take that position but will renew the options and thereby ensure that there will be full activity in this area from 1962 until the time comes, as it certainly will come, when this district and other uranium districts will not have to depend on atomic weapons because of the development of atomic energy for non-military purposes.
I suggest also to the minister that a very good place to locate that reactor would be in the Elliot Lake, Blind River, Thessalon

area, not only because it is suited for that purpose with a good rock foundation and an abundance of water as well as a great supply of uranium, but because in this period from 1962 to 1970, a period which may be difficult for these people, this would give them a feeling of security. The construction of this plant would help out and would help remove this fear which is hanging over them now. I am sure the minister knows all about it, because he had a visit from the chamber of commerce the other day, and I am sure they made an impression on him.
It seems to me that I have detained the committee for a long time, but I do not apologize because the matters I have brought before the committee are important. I have tried to deal with them in a constructive way, and I hope the government might give consideration to these suggestions.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the passing of the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), but at the request of farmers and grain merchants in the district of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, I want to say a few words on their behalf. It is about the grain elevator, at Sorel, where dealers in my riding are now barred from fetching their grain by truck. The elevator operators refuse to load the trucks of dealers of my district and also refuse to store their grain for domestic consumption.
Five ridings to the north of Sorel, and six to the south, have been taking their grain from the North American Elevator at Sorel for the past 40 years. As you probably know, the Sorel elevator is closest to our farms and, consequently, dealers could get their grain at much more favourable transport rates and subsidies than if they had to fetch it from other ports.
Mr. Chairman, that information has been given me by a number of dealers in my district, and more particularly by Mr. Brissette, owner of the firm J. W. Brissette Registered at St. Felix de Valois, in the riding of Joliette, who wrote to me about this.
The Sorel elevator is managed by Mr. Robert Campbell, who is also president of two important shipping firms. Last spring, he flatly refused to stock grain for the domestic market giving as a reason that he makes much more money with less trouble by stocking, loading and unloading only grain for export, which he receives from the wheat board and other Winnipeg exporters.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am asking that this gentleman, who is licensed by the wheat
Supply-Trade and Commerce board, conform to the terms of that licence.
If my information is accurate, the owner of the Sorel elevator has no right to refuse district dealers to go and fetch their grain by truck and, in addition, has to let them store their grain for local consumption.
At present, dealers in my district have to go and fetch their grain in other ports, in Montreal for instance. Transport costs are consequently much higher, and the farmers have to foot the bill.
Would the hon. minister please draw the wheat board's attention to that situation, so that this citizen of Sorel might be requested to conform to the terms of his licence, if he wants to keep it.
Therefore, this gentleman should first be asked to store enough grain for domestic consumption, and second, to allow dealers in my riding to go and fetch their grain by truck.
Those, Mr. Chairman, were the few remarks I wanted to make in the interest of the farmers and dealers in my district.
(Text):


James Roy Tucker: Mr. Chairman, our fisheries are one of the most important industries in the Dominion of Canada, and are contributing more and more to the wealth of our great country. The fisheries are undoubtedly one of our mainstays and one of the chief factors in the wealth of our great dominion which stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We may spend huge sums of money on mineral products and open newly discovered mines; we may spend millions on agriculture and give every assistance possible to our farmers, yet we will not have an industry any greater or more helpful to the economy of Canada than our fish industry.
It was Lord Bacon who said that the fisheries of Newfoundland alone were richer than the mines of Mexico and Peru. Every year thousands of dollars worth of codfish, herring, lobster, salmon, squid, caplin, turbot, halibut, sole, mackerel, shrimp, scallops and many other species of fish are caught. To minimize the importance of any part of the industry, or to neglect a facet or problem pertaining to any province could, in my opinion, have a drastic effect. I now refer particularly to Newfoundland and the cancellation of the NAFEL licence as of June 15, so they would no longer have the sole right to export Newfoundland salt codfish to foreign markets.
6120	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce There was no mention, or tor that matter any intimation, of concern by the government of Canada as to how this would affect the general economy of the Newfoundland fishery. There were therefore many questions left hanging unanswered with respect to this announcement, because of which there are many who are now asking these questions and are showing great concern.
Will the Newfoundland exporters be protected? Can the price level be maintained? To whom should we look for these answers? While there may have been some dissatisfaction or misunderstanding with the Newfoundland Associate Fish Exporters Limited, mainly because the organization was composed of exporters only, and though it may have been looked upon as a combine, it constituted a protection to the industry, a protection which at the present time we do not have.
A combine of any type which solely involves private enterprise is not always favoured, either at home or in the markets, and we look to the government of Canada for something to take its place. We want a control that will give protection and at the same time concern itself not only with exports but with the welfare of the industry as a whole, and of course we need a set-up that will establish better relations in our foreign markets. For ten years since confederation the life of NAFEL had been repeatedly extended while something else was being sought to take its place. The solution to this problem was always considered the prime responsibility of the government. Why all of a sudden was it dropped, leaving the industry with no protection at all?
There seems to be a tendency to overlook some of Newfoundland's problems or to treat them with a "who cares" or a "so what" attitude. The announcement of the cancellation of NAFEL came at a time when other actions concerning Newfoundland, bearing much the same stigma, were taking the limelight. NAFEL's licence has been cancelled by the government, but as far as this house or Newfoundland is concerned it has not been replaced by anything better.
In conclusion I would stress the importance of increased and concentrated effort on our behalf in research and investment in the fishery industry here in Canada. It can be concluded that a greater part of the future world economy must and will stem from the products of the sea, and there is no reason why Canada should not be prominent in such a picture. It is therefore hoped, Mr. Chairman, that those responsible will not overlook the role that Canada can and must play.
(Translation):


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take no more than five minutes 

of the committee's time to put forward to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) a request concerning his department's general policy, which in fact has hardly changed since the Conservative party took office. Without discussing his department's general policy at any great length, I merely wish to mention a point about which many discussions took place and promises were made in the last two election campaigns. I refer to the wheat question.
I read in a paper, not so long ago, perhaps two or three weeks, that the Canadian government will have to pay $40 million in storage fees alone for Canada's surplus wheat. That is quite a contrast with all the promises we had heard in this regard.
Another point I wanted to discuss is the lack of small industries in my constituency and area. As my colleagues know, I come from Lake St. John, where tremendous water resources are being used by companies which, I must say, have been of great benefit to the area. Unfortunately, the Aluminum Company has lost a large part of its foreign markets, particularly in the United Kingdom and France and, as a result, there have been lay-offs in Arvida that are causing great hardship to the citizens of my constituency and to those of the neighbouring constituency of Chicoutimi.
The same thing happened to the Price Brothers company, which operates two mills, one at Jonquiere and the other at Kenogami, in my riding. Many workers at the Price Brothers mills are now putting in only 28, 30 or 32 hours a week. I am sure it is no fault of the company because, there again, foreign markets play their part and heaven knows that Price Brothers have a very long and creditable record in the development of natural resources in the Saguenay-Lake St. John district.
Here is what I should like to ask the minister: about six or eight weeks ago, the mayors of municipalities in the four constituencies of our area came here to meet the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). The Minister of Labour, after having considered the brief submitted by the committee of our district, did not hesitate to tell us, in all frankness, that what we needed most was small industry. We have aluminum and pulpwood, but if foreign markets fall off, and men are laid off, hardship results.

I am not trying to play politics with this, Mr. Chairman, but I say that my constituency, at the present time, is one of the hardest hit by unemployment. That is why I ask the minister whether it would not be possible next fall, to send out into our area some experts from the federal Department of Trade and Commerce, perhaps from the division of industrial development, to consider the possibility of developing some use for by-products of our aluminum or pulp-wood.
I know that the aluminum company itself has done research in that direction but, on the other hand, I also know that the chief concern of the aluminum company is to market its own products.
It seems to me that our people, municipal authorities in Chicoutimi, Jonquiere, Arvida and Kenogami, should set up a bureau, some sort of industrial development office which, with the help of federal government experts, could perhaps find ways to help us set up small industries that would absorb some of the men who were laid off because of declining world markets.
I therefore ask the minister to be kind enough to say a few words on this matter when he replies to the other members who expressed their views on the first item.
(Text):


Mr. Carter:: I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Timiskaming this morning. As my leader has pointed out, the leading demand for uranium in the future will be through its purchase for use in reactors for the production of electric power. The industries of Europe are power hungry, and as they expand they will have to rely on other sources of power. Just as coal is giving place to oil, I think in the future we can look forward to a time when oil itself will be displaced by electrical energy produced from nuclear reactors.
Both the United Kingdom and the United States have pioneered the development of reactors for this purpose, the United States using one kind of uranium and the United Kingdom using another. The United States has already taken steps by an aggressive trade policy to safeguard her position in the world market and, possibly, to secure control of it. The competition, therefore, is between the United States and the United Kingdom, and it will be a competition between the pocket-
Supply-Trade and Commerce book of the United States treasury and the skill and experience of United Kingdom scientists and engineers, who will have to offset their dollar disadvantage by increased efficiency in their plants and by reduced costs of production and operation.
It seems to me that here is an opportunity for Canada to assist the United Kingdom and to help herself at the same time. I have been told that one of the problems with regard to producing uranium is the disposal of the heat generated in the process and, as the hon. member for Timiskaming has pointed out, at Hamilton falls in Labrador we not only have an abundance of energy but we also have cold water, a refrigerant which would take care of the heat problem. I do not pretend to know enough about the economics of the industry to be able to say whether it is cheaper to bring the Hamilton falls power to the ore or carry the ore to the power, or whether the advantage of having this cold water is enough to offset the shipping costs, but it seems to me we should try to overcome these difficulties and arrange an agreement in co-operation with the United Kingdom by means of which we could help Britain to meet the competition from the United States. By doing so we should be not only improving the position of the United Kingdom but advancing and safeguarding our own interests as well.
My real reason for rising at this time is to ask the minister whether any effort has been made by Canadian companies with or without federal assistance, to establish flour mills in Nigeria. Nigeria is a large country with a population of 50 million people, three times that of Canada, and next year she is going to have an independent government and will become one of the leading nations of Africa. I am told that the Nigerians consume a considerable quantity of flour which is milled in the United States. It seems to me that we should try to have Canadian mills established in Nigeria so we can ship over the wheat and they can take advantage of their low labour costs to supply themselves with food at a fairly cheap price. I am sure if we do not take this step the United States will. In my opinion this is the kind of action we should be taking in these new countries to ensure future markets to take care of our surpluses.
I would hope that something like this could be done not only with respect to surplus wheat but with respect to surplus fish. In Newfoundland at this time of year we produce a large surplus of small trap fish a great deal of which cannot be economically processed either by salting or by freezing. I should like to see the Department of Trade

Supply-Trade and Commerce and Commerce get together with the Department of Fisheries to see if some way cannot be worked out to can this fish so it could be made available to countries like Nigeria and other African countries at a price which they could afford and which would not require them to go to the expense of setting up expensive refrigeration facilities. I am sure if we can do something like that we will not only be securing markets for future surpluses, but we will be putting our surpluses to a good ideological use.


Mr. Garland:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to say a word or two in support of the representations that have been made to the Ontario hydroelectric power commission and to the minister in connection with the possible location of the nuclear power plant in the Sturgeon Falls area. I recognize that on this point I have a friendly difference of opinion with my leader.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I urge the minister to pay no attention to the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That lets me out.


John Richard Garland: However, I am sure the minister will be able to give my request appropriate consideration. This is the first opportunity I have had to mention this to the minister.
I received communications only yesterday to substantiate the representations that have been made over the past year by the municipality.
I quite recognize the role the Ontario hydroelectric power commission plays in the choice of these sites and I would point out that on August 7, 1958 the town of Sturgeon Falls wrote the commission requesting that consideration be given to that town as a possible site for Ontario's first full scale nuclear power plant. On August 10 there was an acknowledgement from Mr. Duncan, chairman of the board, advising the municipality that Sturgeon Falls was the first municipality in the province of Ontario to make application for this plant.
Those who are living in the district of Nipissing and particularly the people in Sturgeon Falls feel that the area is well suited as a location and is capable of taking care of this development. There are large areas of land available and all the water that is necessary. There are transportation facilities and good communications in the area. Sturgeon Falls is strategically located in northern Ontario. I would appeal to the minister at this time to give the request from the municipality of Sturgeon Falls the fullest possible consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to interpose myself between my


leader and the hon. member for Nipissing, but if the minister does have any difficulty in that regard I am sure he will recognize the value of the invitation that I now extend to him to see that this plant is situated in Essex county.
I rise at this time simply to point out something which I believe is of great importance particularly to southwestern Ontario, and as well to the agricultural community in Canada generally. I realize there is an overlapping between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce, but as this is a matter of international trade it will be of primary concern to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I believe there is some apprehension felt in Canada-and I am sure the minister is aware of this-concerning action on the part of some agricultural organizations in the United States, among them, the American farm bureau federation, and the suggestion that their representations to the government of the United States be accepted for countervailing duties against certain agricultural products from Canada. This is a matter of very great importance. When one looks at the statistics of Canadian exports of hogs and cattle, he will appreciate the significance of this trade to Canada.
For instance, I note that in 1958 Canadian exports to the United States were estimated at 62 million pounds of pork, along with 54 million pounds of beef and veal and 636,862 head of dutiable cattle. This represents a 126 per cent increase over 1957 for pork, a 13 per cent increase over 1957 for beef and veal and a 74 per cent increase over 1957 for dutiable cattle. If there were any serious interference with these exports to the United States it would be a matter of great concern for the Canadian hog producer and cattle dealer.
As the minister knows much better than I do, Canadian hog marketings have increased sharply in the last six months, and were 33 per cent greater during the first quarter of 1959 than in the same period in 1958. Whatever has been the cause of this increase, I am sure we will all recognize that the government price support program has had some effect in this situation.
We have had reverse situations in Canada with regard to United States exports of certain agricultural products during the past year. We have not taken serious retaliatory action, and it would be a matter of the greatest regret if the United States acted on the strong lobby that is now under way in that country for the imposition of countervailing duties. I merely rise to indicate what I am sure is in the minister's mind, and to

emphasize on behalf of farmers in southwestern Ontario in particular their very deep concern about the possibility of action being taken in the United States with respect to this matter.
There is just one other matter I would like to mention on these estimates, a matter I brought to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture the other day but which primarily concerns the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That is an interview given by the secretary of agriculture for the United States on Saturday last to Mr. Harold Morrison of the Canadian Press in Washington, when the former suggested the desirability of free trade, particularly, he said, in farm products, between the United States and Canada. He then amended his statement and said that it would also apply, of course, to trade in general.
I do not want to engage in a theoretical discussion of the desirability of free trade, but desirable as that is as an objective, I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce would agree that one would want to examine why the secretary of agriculture put forward this proposal at this time.
The other day when we were discussing the international wheat agreement, which will start to run from August 1, the minister pointed out that under the new treaty the agricultural surplus disposal policy of the United States, or of any other country, would come under annual scrutiny of the wheat council provided for under article 21 of that treaty. The minister had indicated that as a result of such scrutiny, while there would be no legal prohibition in respect of noncommercial transactions that offended certain countries in the matter of surplus farm products disposal policy, nevertheless there would be a curative effect. It might well be that this statement by the Secretary of Agriculture the other day was intended to provide another way out for the disposal of United States farm products in a manner which would be very damaging to this country.
I come, of course, from the great corn belt in Canada. The counties of Kent and Essex grow 65 per cent of the corn grown in our country. In the United States there is a surplus of 1,500 million bushels of corn, valued at $2,470 million. I associate these figures with the statement of the Secretary of Agriculture. I would hope that if we are going to consider free trade-and I hope we will-it will be done on such terms and in such a manner as not to prejudice the interests of Canadian agriculture and industry generally. The prospect this year in the United States is for a record corn crop of
Supply-Trade and Commerce 4,209 million bushels. While much of this may go for need this year, nevertheless it will present the United States with a serious problem. That will be so not only for the government of the United States. If this corn is shipped to Canada there would be the most serious consequences for the corn growers in southwest Ontario.
The same is true with regard to wheat. As of July 1 the wheat surplus in the United States I believe was 1,300 million bushels. That represents $3,500 million of the United States taxpayers' money, and I can very well understand why Mr. Benson should be anxious to find ways and means of getting rid of this surplus. If the minister feels that he has some corrective mechanism through the wheat council under the international wheat agreement, I hope he is aware, as I am sure he is, of the great dangers now implicit in this statement of the Secretary of Agriculture who undoubtedly has in mind seeking to find in Canada a market for some of this surplus corn in particular.
I would not be doing my duty even at this late date in the session if I did not raise this matter on the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, together with the great concern which farmers generally have for the campaign now under way in the United States for the imposition of countervailing duties that could have such a very serious effect on Canadian hog marketings.


Mr. Winch:: Madam Chairman, I also would like to say a few words on trade, but I am after some information. I would like the minister to give us an explanation, if he will, as to the policy and activities of his department in relation to the extension of Canadian trade, in particular as it relates to the United Kingdom. I ask for that information, Madam Chairman, because I find it most difficult to reconcile the statements of the minister with his actions. They seem completely contradictory in some circumstances.
I would refer the committee to the statement that was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this house on Thursday, May 28 of this year. He was making a policy statement which followed the removal of restrictions on certain United Kingdom dollar imports. The minister really waxed enthusiastic about the meaning of this to Canada and the opportunities that would be opened up for further exports of our Canadian goods. I should like to quote just two sentences of the statement made by the minister at that time. They will be found on page 4103 of Hansard, in the second column.

Supply-Trade and Commerce The minister had this to say, and he was speaking of the removal of certain restrictions in the United Kingdom:
This will open up new opportunities for the expansion of Canada's export trade, and will contribute to the desirable strengthening of trade relations between Canada and the United Kingdom.
Further on he said:
...but we hope it will not be too long before we shall see the end of the restrictions against dollar goods which the United Kingdom and other sterling area countries have felt obliged to maintain throughout the post-war period.
I think the minister made it clear as to what he felt could be the probable results of the policy actions that were taken in the United Kingdom at that time. But, as I think we all know, you cannot expect to sell goods unless you put on a selling campaign. I have always thought the minister understood that; therefore I was very surprised when, only a few days later, I read a report from one of the best-known columnists of Canada, namely Jack Scott, who is now stationed in the United Kingdom. Under date of June 6 the Sunday Sun and a great many of the papers in Canada carried a long column dealing with how this government, how Canada, has approached the opportunity of extending its sales in the United Kingdom. I would like to read the entire column. I will not take up the time of the committee doing that, but I do want to quote a couple of paragraphs. This happens to be a dispatch from London, and it says:
A pathetic little mound of packaged cheese from Ontario; a single case of canned sockeye salmon from British Columbia; and that was it.
That was the grand total of Canada's contribution to the first exhibition of commonwealth food and drinks which ended here this week and now goes on tour of the British isles, a travelling indictment of Canadian lack of initiative in seeking world markets.
If I were a Canadian in the business of selling any kind of food or drink-or, for that matter, any other exportable product with a potential market in the United Kingdom-I'd be hollering to Ottawa to demand the reason why.
More than a quarter of a million Londoners, it is estimated, have ogled and sampled the goodies from the far-flung corners of what was once the empire.
Now the display is off for Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow and other points as yet undecided-"a howling success" in the words of its sponsors, the commonwealth union of trade, and all too clearly a howling flop for Canada.
Canada, in fact, was the invited guest who not only failed to show, but sent no apology.
Having regard to the statement made on the floor of the house on Thursday, May 28, and the opportunity that was opened up, even if all the restrictions were not immediately removed I think there is something wrong when we have a report from London by one of our best-known Canadian columnists who

tells us that this exhibition, the first of its kind, was completely ignored except for a pathetically small amount of packaged cheese from Ontario and a single case of sockeye salmon from British Columbia. Even if there was no market immediately available, surely having the products of Canada and the trade names of Canada on display there would have been a good start for when the remaining restrictions were removed.
I am given to understand that around this very time there was a substantial removal of restrictions. I should like to ask what is going on in the minister's department, because I am told that although the matter was put to headquarters in London the answer was that it was up to the federal government, and the federal department took no action whatsoever. All I am asking is one thing. Will the minister please explain his statement and the contradiction of no action? Will he not agree that if we want to sell we have to do a selling job, and that we cannot do it by sitting on our fannies and waiting for orders to come in automatically?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will answer the question right now. Again here is the hon. member trying to cry down Canada and make it appear that Canada is not active and alert.


Harold Edward Winch: We are trying to build it, not cry it down.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are trying to build but my hon. friend is trying to cry it down. He takes an article, and I do not care how important the correspondent is, aimed at casting a slur on Canadian businessmen and Canadian enterprise because we did not enter a food display in London. I have the article. I know the facts concerning this matter, and the article is overemphasized criticism which in my opinion was uncalled for. I am surprised at the hon. member putting the article on the record in the House of Commons, trying to make out that Canada is not alert and that the Department of Trade and Commerce has no policy with regard to trade matters.
My hon. friend reads my statement in Hansard, as found on page 4103, and he says, "There is the statement of the minister; here is the lack of action on the part of the department." He does so on the basis of one article by one correspondent with regard to a retail trade exhibition in the city of London. My hon. friend condemns the government, the department and Canada for not being alert in matters of trade when we are the fourth greatest trading nation in the world. I am surprised that my hon. friend who normally is objective in his comments, would not have seen through this article.

1 will say this to him. No information concerning this matter was forwarded to Ottawa in time for us to do anything about it. Until the import liberalizations were announced early in June by the United Kingdom government-my hon. friend recognized this fact -food products of Canadian origin could only enter the British Isles subject to quota. If you are subject to a quota there is not much incentive to advertise your products. There was a limit on the products that might go from Canada to the United Kingdom. My hon. friend, coming from British Columbia, knows what happened to the salmon catch last fall. The minute the quota was removed the catch was snapped up right away. There was certainly no need to advertise British Columbia salmon in the United Kingdom. I have been over there. I know what the people think of British Columbia salmon. It is a luxury to them, and the minute they see any British Columbia salmon it is purchased.
But now, thanks to the action of the United Kingdom authorities, the opportunity is wide open to Canadian businessmen to enter again the United Kingdom market with the food products of Canada and display their wares. It is not the sole responsibility of the government to display these wares, and I am sure that our active and alert Canadian businessmen, who have kept Canada's position as a world trader well to the fore, will be in the United Kingdom market with alacrity now that the opportunity has been opened to them.
I regret that this article should have received such prominence. I regret there should be this condemnation of Canada by a Canadian, and that it should then be elevated to the prominence which things are given by being mentioned in the House of Commons. Let me say this about the exhibition in question, an exhibition of commonwealth food and drinks. It has a good idea behind it, but it is only one of dozens of similar small shows staged annually in the United Kingdom. It is impractical for us to enter them all. We think it is much more productive for us to take part in the periodic shows sponsored by a particular trade for the benefit of the businessmen concerned rather than in exhibitions primarily attended by the public. In other words this was a retail exhibition, and now that the United Kingdom market has been reopened there is an opportunity for our Canadian food exporters and our trade representatives in Great Britain, who are very active people and who work hard to exploit new opportunities.
May I point out to my hon. friend that the department will be participating in the major United Kingdom food exhibition, the British food fair, at Olympia, London, when it takes place next year. When we come to the next
Supply-Trade and Commerce item in the estimates I can give my hon. friend and others who are interested a list of the trade fairs in which Canada is going to take part this year. It is a very important list, and shows the activity of the department and of Canadian businessmen. But for my hon. friend to take this article concerning this exhibition and the fact that there were not a large number of Canadian food products displayed there as an indication and evidence that Canada's trade policy is ineffective is, in my opinion, stretching the argument very, very far indeed.


Harold Edward Winch: On the same subject may I say that I do not think the minister adds to his status one bit, when he is touched a little on a sore spot, by trying to bluster his way out of it, by attacking the motives of a member of this house and by casting aspersions on the person who happened to write the article. I think I know the reason. It is simply that the person who wrote the article, Jack Scott, knew exactly what he was saying, and the proof that he was not simply engaging in wild guessing or trying to hurt Canada is the fact that identical information is on the files of the minister and is contained in an answer given by the minister in reply to a question on June 30 of this year. The questions and answers read as follows:
1.	Was the Canadian government invited to participate in a recent exhibition of commonwealth food and drinks in the United Kingdom, sponsored by the commonwealth union of trade?
2.	If so, what was the reply of the government?
Answer: No invitation was received in Ottawa.
Officials in Canada house, London, were approached about participation but declined because it is not policy to take part in shows that do not offer hope of trade promotion benefit.
In this instance, with import quotas for most Canadian foods already filled, inquiries evoked by a departmental display could not have been satisfied-and might have done more harm than good where relations with potential new buyers were concerned.
Question 3. What Canadian products were shown at this exhibition?
Answer: Some Ontario cheese and B.C. canned salmon was shown privately.
The answer the minister has given does not hold water at all. Canada cannot possibly expand her export trade on a basis of doing it perhaps some day, some month or some year. Surely this is good publicity, and it is good public relations to let your products, your brand names, be known, because we know the import restrictions and monetary situation are not going to remain as they are forever. Advantage should have been taken of this opportunity strictly for exhibition purposes, in my opinion, because that is good business.
This was not just a small exhibition according to all the reports I have received,

Supply-Trade and Commerce and I have more than just this one by Jack Scott. This exhibition is going all over the United Kingdom and has already been seen by millions of the buying public. These are the people who will eventually have to be reached by the importers of these goods from Canada, because they have to sell to the buying public. Surely it is good sense to try to have something from Canada in an exhibition of that nature.
I just do not follow the argument of the minister. As a matter of fact, whenever he does not like what a member of the opposition says he accuses that member of trying to run down Canada. We have just the same love for Canada that the minister has, and just as much interest, if not more, in the development of the country and seeing trade expanded, because we represent the working people of this country. We know they have to have jobs in order to eat, and in order to provide jobs you have to be able to sell your products.
I can tell you that we are never going to do anything that is going to hurt the working people of this country. Whenever we think there is something that can be done or should be done, we feel it is our responsibility to point it out right on the floor of the House of Commons or in a committee, and ask whether something more cannot be done that has been done in the past. I will not take second place to the minister or anybody else in my desire to build Canada, because I know that is the way to preserve jobs for the workingmen.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I just want to say one or two words here. I am not going to allow the earlier remarks of my hon. friend to pass. I implied no motives to him; I cast no aspersions on that article or the author. He is quite entitled to write any article that he sees fit to write. There is no contest here as to who is the greater patriot.


Harold Edward Winch: You are the one who started it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is just nonsense to talk that way. Let me tell my hon. friend that very often he takes some very small item and blows it up into a major issue; that is the point I was making.


Lionel Chevrier: There are two matters I should like to discuss very briefly, if I may, and which on their face may not appear to be germane to the minister's estimates, but on consideration and reflection I am sure it will be quite clear to the committee that they do fall within the ambit of the estimates now before us. I refer to two publications that are produced by the minister's department. One is from the dominion bureau of statistics, published under the authority of Hon. Gordon


Churchill, Minister of Trade and Commerce, entitled "Railway Operating Statistics", and is for March, 1959. The other is published by the same bureau, under the authority and jurisdiction of the minister, and is entitled "Employment and Payrolls, March, 1959".
My purpose in bringing up this matter at this time is that on a number of occasions we on this side of the house have been attempting to get information concerning layoffs on the Canadian National Railways. We have been unable to obtain this information either here or in the committee. However, there is very revealing information contained in these publications, and I should like to put just a short paragraph or two on Hansard and then ask the minister one or two pertinent questions.
The point I should like to make is this; that on page 6 of the March issue of "Railway Operating Statistics", which I now hold in my hand, it will be found that railway employment as of February, 1958 on Canadian National Railways stood at 87,554 employees, whereas in February, 1959 it was down to 82,427, making a decrease for that railway of 5,127. On the same page it will be found that railway employment on the Canadian Pacific Railway as of February, 1958 stood at 62,938 as compared to 59,084 employees in February, 1959, a decrease in that case of 3,854 employees.
Still quoting from the same publication, the total for 22 railways in Canada for February, 1958 appears to be 160,938 employees as compared with 151,086 in February, 1959, a decrease of 9,852. It will be seen from this that in the case of the Canadian Pacific the decrease is slightly over 6 per cent of the number employed in February, 1958, whereas in the case of the Canadian National the decrease represents a little less than 6 per cent. It seems to me it is significant that this information appears in a publication under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is significant, too, that this information appears to be so clear and definite.
I should like to proceed to a consideration of the other publication entitled "Employment and Payrolls". The figures here concern steam railways and I-


Mr. Lambert:: While this information may be important from the point of view of the Department of Transport, with respect I wonder what the purpose is, other than getting it on the record at this time, in reading these figures? It is true this publication is issued by the dominion bureau of statistics, and the minister is responsible for that bureau, but again with all due respect I wonder what the relevancy is?


Lionel Chevrier: The relevancy is this. I have already put certain figures concerning railway employment on the record, and I should like to put certain other figures concerning employment and payrolls on the record as well. Then I should like to ask the minister, as I indicated earlier, two pertinent questions on this material, because these are publications under his jurisdiction and the information contained therein has not been obtainable by us on this side of the house from the other department concerned.
Now, then, going to the publication "Employment and Payrolls" it appears that as of March, 1957 there were employed by the railways 170,014 men and women, as compared with March, 1958 when there were 158,041 employees and March, 1959 when there were 151,844 workers. For maintenance of equipment there were 24,604; 21,358; 19,927 for March 1957, 1958 and 1959 respectively. In so far as maintenance of ways and structures are concerned the figures are 32,830; 34,520; 32,934, for March, 1957, 1958 and 1959 respectively. In so far as transportation is concerned the figures are 102,744; 92,271; 89,317, for March 1957,	1958 and 1959
respectively.
Now, having put that information on the record, 1 would ask the minister these two questions; first, whether this compilation which is prepared by his department in these two series of statistics is done on a sampling basis; next, if not, whether it is done by an actual count. I think it makes a great deal of difference whether they are done in one way rather than the other, as I am sure the minister will realize this at once.
The other matter which occurs to me is this. Can the minister indicate to the house how it is that this information, which appears on the face of it to be quite simple, was not given by the Department of Transport in the first instance, or the other departments concerned? After all, there is no subject which is of more interest to all members of the House of Commons than these figures concerning employment on the various railways in Canada. There are few members in the House of Commons from one part of the country or another, who have not a divisional point of either one or other of the railways in their constituencies.
Now, sir, having dealt with that matter I would now like to deal with another matter which also concerns the Department of Trade and Commerce. That matter has to do with the commerce, the trade, and the business of the textile industry in Canada. As the minister knows the textile industry, in so far as its business and commerce is affected, has been very seriously hit and its operations very greatly curtailed within the last few 66968-9-388
Supply-Trade and Commerce years. I had the opportunity of putting certain figures on the record before. I shall not abuse the time of the house, but in order to deal with the matter rapidly would the minister allow me just to give some indication of what has happened to the trade in that field, particularly as it affects Canadian Cottons Limited. I am perhaps more conversant with that company than with any of the other companies, because for 19 years I represented a constituency in the house here where the cotton industry was very vital both to it and to eastern Ontario. In an article appearing in the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder of May 29, 1959 there appears this statement by the president of Canadian Cottons Limited, Mr. L. C. Bonnycastle. He stated:
Substantial reductions in operations, including the closing of some mills, are planned by Canadian Cottons Limited.
Total volume of sales was almost exactly the same last year as during the previous year.
That is 1958 as compared with 1957.
However, business has become increasingly competitive, prices have been low and the flow of imports from the U.S. and low wage countries have increased in volume.
Operations in Hamilton will be discontinued.
A little later on Mr. Bonnycastle states, dealing still with Hamilton:
The yarn mill will be closed and all activity in Hamilton will be discontinued by the end of the year.
The small yarn mill at Saint John, N.B., has been closed, and the Rosamond woollen mill at Almonte, Ontario, has been sold. There will be reductions in certain lines of products now made in Cornwall.
A little further on in the article it is stated:
"This means a substantial reduction in the work force in Cornwall within the next three months," a spokesman for Canadian Cottons Limited said this morning. He was commenting on the company's annual report, released today, which said the company was closing some of its mills and curtailing certain lines made in Cornwall.
But it was clear that a substantial number, perhaps close to half, of the 1,400 hourly rated and salaried employees of the Cornwall mills would be laid off by the end of the summer.
Canadian Cottons Limited has been operating in difficult circumstances for several years, due principally to competition in piece goods from U.S. mills, and more recently, made-up goods from Hong Kong and Japan.
Then follows an editorial, which I shall not read, which appeared in the same paper of June 11 of 1959, the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder. This paragraph only I would like to quote:
Exactly a year ago the Canadian cotton textile industry was undergoing an exhaustive review at the hands of the tariff board. After three months of hearings the board did not challenge the industry's contention that it was modern, efficient

Supply-Trade and Commerce and well-managed. Instead, the board suggested a complete reorganization of existing schedules covering imports.
Then it goes on to say that nothing was done to follow up recommendations of the tariff board.
During the last week I have obtained additional information as to the position in the Cornwall area, and I find that the mill is closing down completely as of tomorrow, July 17. Nine hundred and fifty men and women who make a variety of piece goods, flannelettes, saxonies, eiderdown ticking and the like, will be laid off tomorrow. I understand these lay-offs started some time ago, and they will be entirely completed with the mill closing down tomorrow.
To sum up, as recently as 1956 there were over 2000 employees actively employed in Canadian Cottons Limited in Cornwall, and after tomorrow, I am informed by a very authoritative source, there will be between 450 and 500 men employed. There are people in those mills who have spent their whole lives in the manufacture of textile goods, who are able to do very little else, some of whom have been there for years. In fact I was informed this week that in February 1959, 191 employees actively at work in the cotton mills of Cornwall had 25 years' service, and some of them averaged 33 i years' service.
I know these are not problems which have arisen overnight. I know full well, because I was close to the problem, that difficulties have been encountered over a number of years. But what I want to bring to the attention of the minister is this, that those who sit on that side of the house were quite clear, not only in 1957 but in 1958, that this would be put a stop to, and no one made more vigorous statements in that respect than the Prime Minister himself. I just want to put on record the statement he made in Cornwall on February 24, 1958, when he was quoted as follows:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker last night-


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is my hon. friend reading from, please?


Lionel Chevrier: I am reading from a statement appearing in the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder dated February 24, 1958.
Prime Minister Diefenbaker last night promised that a Progressive Conservative government will bring in legislation to halt the "dumping" of textiles and other products in Canada.
Mr. Diefenbaker, speaking to an audience of more than 2,300 in the armouries of this textile centre, said Canada could not afford this and similar industries to be destroyed by dumping.
"We acted to protect the farmers of this nation against the dumping into Canada of agricultural products through the establishment of import controls", the Prime Minister asserted.

"Canada cannot exist without the textile industry. Following the representations to the tariff commission and on the basis of the recommendations of the tariff board, such action will have to be taken as is necessary to ensure that no industry will be subject to dumping," he added, bringing a burst of applause from the audience.
I wonder how that audience feels today when, a little more than a year after that statement was made, a whole mill has been closed putting 950 men and women out of work. Here was a definite promise to take action in this very vital field of trade and commerce, which actually was not taken. Then a little later on the following appeared in the Toronto Daily Star of February 25:
Mr. Diefenbaker followed the announcement about farm price supports with a promise his government will take whatever steps are necessary to protect the textile and other essential Canadian industries from competition from cut-rate foreign goods-an important issue in this textile manufacturing centre.
And a little further on:
Calling the textile industry "one of the great industries of our country", he said that in a foreword to one of the industry's publications last year, he has said the industry "had been subject too long to the innuendo of inefficiency" whenever it asked for better treatment.
And still further on in this article in the Montreal Daily Star appeared the following paragraph:
The tariff board was studying tariffs on the importation of textiles, and there was no reason why the government, after receiving its report, should not take action to assure no vital industry would be subject to dumping of foreign goods- the importation of goods for sale at prices below that in the country in which they were produced.
That is clear-cut evidence in 1958 which I have placed on the record, and there is evidence in 1957 as well, that no matter what had been done in previous years this government now in power would take the necessary action to prevent the curtailment of the textile industry. I say here without fear of contradiction that the position of the textile industry is worse today than it has ever been in its history, and the statement of Mr. Bonnycastle with respect to a whole mill closing down in Hamilton and another in Cornwall is evidence of that fact together with what I have put on the record.
I submit to the minister and to members of the government that now is the time to take action in this field. I do not want to be a demagogue and recall the promise made that no one should suffer because of unemployment. That promise was made by the Prime Minister, but I will not belabour it. I will merely say that there were specific promises made by the Prime Minister in the constituency of Stormont and in the city of

Cornwall in so far as the textile industry is concerned. Those promises have not been carried out.
It is true that legislation was brought in by the government concerning the dumping of certain of these products on the Canadian market. We made our position quite clear at that time. What has been the effect of that legislation? The effect of that legislation in so far as the Canadian cotton industry is concerned has been absolutely nil, because instead of the position being better it is far worse than it was before. I could go on. I have citations here which indicate the present state of employment in the textile industry, particularly in Canadian cotton production, but I do not wish to labour the matter unduly.


Mr. Anderson:: May I be permitted to ask a question? I come from a sizeable textile district, and I wonder if the hon. gentleman is aware, as he goes back over the years, that the unemployment situation in my textile riding on December 31, 1957 can be judged by the fact that there was 3,386 applications for benefits, whereas two weeks ago applications numbered 699.


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Chairman, I was not aware of that, and I am very happy to learn that the position is such in the riding the hon. member represents. But I am aware of the position in the city of Cornwall, where I was last week, and I am aware of the statement which was made by the president of Canadian Cottons so far as the city of Hamilton is concerned, where 1,000 men and women will be without employment, and I think that is serious in the light of the promises that were made.
I would be only too happy if I could rise and make a statement similar to that just made by the hon. member. Unfortunately that is not the case, and here is the city of Cornwall, a community which has lived and thrived for many years because of the cotton mills. There were three cotton mills in that area. They are now reduced to one mill, employing between 350 and 500 men, and I think the time is now ripe for the government to live up to the promises and assurances they gave to that textile community in 1958 and in 1957.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to say this in answer to the hon. member for Laurier. In the first instance, with regard to his question concerning publications by the dominion bureau of statistics and whether or not the figures were on a sampling basis or by actual count, may I say that the figures to which he referred in the publications he mentioned are actual counts and are not on a sampling 66968-9-388J
Supply-Trade and Commerce basis. There may be minor differences in coverage for all railways owing to the inclusion in the railway statistics of United States branch lines in Canada.
On the second subject with which the hon. member dealt, the textile industry in Canada, we are not by any means unaware of the difficulties facing that industry. I have received many representations from and held conversations with many people actively connected with that industry with regard to its problems. I do not wish to avoid any responsibility as a member of the government with regard to the problems which face the textile industry, but I think here, on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the hon. member for Laurier has raised a problem which goes somewhat beyond the departmental estimates. Some of the matters he dealt with are more properly under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue, and I would have thought that the hon. member for Laurier, if he were going to quote statements which he alleges were made by the Prime Minister, would do that in the presence of the Prime Minister instead of easing in these suggestions about promises which have been made and not fulfilled.
Let us keep the record straight. This constant needling about the failure of the government to keep promises is going to boomerang on hon. gentlemen opposite, because the record is there and the record is very clear. The promises that were made are being kept. They cannot all be completed within such a short space of time, but every single one is being met and will be honoured. Let the hon. gentleman not carry on these suggestions or insinuations that promises are made and there is no intention of keeping them.
Various steps have been taken. Even with regard to the textile industry, references have been made to the tariff board by the Minister of Finance. As the hon. member recognized, certain changes in the law were made which tend to ameliorate some of the conditions about which he spoke. The problem is being tackled and is being actively considered. As my friend the hon. member for Waterloo has just pointed out, the effect of the present policy is being shown to be advantageous in some areas of the country. It may be that there is a peculiar and difficult circumstance in the city of Cornwall. We sympathize with people who are placed in an awkward position or thrown out of work, but let not the impression be created that this is general across Canada.
The policy of the government is firm and sound. Those measures that could reasonably

Supply-Trade and Commerce have been taken in the time that has been at our disposal since March 31, 1958 have been taken, and we will pursue constructive policies leading toward full employment and the betterment of the condition of people not only in the textile industry but in all other industries.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister to give the committee an indication as to what has been done to meet the position as I outlined it in respect to the Canadian cotton industry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Here again we have a question which should more properly have been raised with the Minister of Finance, who has referred some of these problems to the tariff board. This is not the primary responsibility of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words to brighten up the history outlined by the hon. member for Laurier. I also come from a textile city, and I am very glad to report that in this line of work business is much better than it was two years ago. The Goodyear Cotton company at St. Hya-cinthe, in recent weeks has hired or rehired about 125 hands, and since last year I would say at least 200 persons have been hired or rehired there. At the Yamaska Shirt company they are busier than they have been for a long time. At Penmans Limited the same situation exists and they are enjoying increased activity. At Consolidated Textiles Limited they are so busy they cannot give two weeks' vacation to their employees, and have to limit them to one week only.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some comments concerning what I thought were the rather unfair remarks made by the hon. member for Laurier. In the light of information that has come forward from other centres I am wondering if perhaps his statement, the validity of which I am not denying-


Lionel Chevrier: It is undeniable. It is a fact.


Norman Platt Lambert: Quite right. I am wondering, however, if the hon. member's statement perhaps concealed the true nature of the market. My hon. friend is quite aware of the changes that have taken place as a result of the introduction of new synthetic fabrics. For instance, in the men's shirting field there are entirely new products available, and perhaps garments made from them are not manufactured in the city of Cornwall. Every time someone buys a terrylene shirt it means that a certain amount of standard Canadian cotton material has not been used. My hon.
EMr. Churchill.]
friend has only to go into a men's haberdashery shop or a department store to see how many shirts of that type of material are available. I refer to garments manufactured of finer quality, non-wrinkle, no-iron fabrics. These are appearing on the market in vast quantities. I have referred to only a narrow segment of the industry.
I have no knowledge of the type of materials that are produced in Cornwall, but if they are manufactured of the more staple type of cottons or the standard type of shirtings I believe it is conceivable that the diminished markets may be the result of a change in the public taste as well. I think the hon. member should put all the facts on the record, and then determine whether all the decline in the market for these materials is necessarily the result of government policy.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to reply briefly to what the hon. member has said. It may be that the suggestion advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton West is correct, and I am not denying the fact that the introduction of new materials has been detrimental to the demand for standard products. But the point is this. Has the hon. member forgotten 1957? If he has, I have not. In that year we were told in no uncertain terms that we were responsible for that situation. That was said by Conservative candidates who spoke in ridings where there are textile mills. Not only was it said by candidates but by cabinet ministers who came into the ridings, as well as by the Prime Minister himself, as I have indicated.
The point I am making now is this. Having said those things and having put the Liberal party in the impossible position of being expected to take the blame for a condition for which we were in no way to blame- the hon. member must admit that we made no promises in those years and the statement made by the Prime Minister was clear cut- I say it is now up to those who sit on the other side of this chamber to make the situation good in so far as the textile industry, at least in eastern Ontario, is concerned.


Norman Platt Lambert: But you did not have the same situation at all.


Mr. Noble:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak for a moment about the subject mentioned a while ago. Now that a bid has been made by several hon. members in respect to the locating of the atomic energy plant for the development of hydro in their areas, I feel I should go on record as mentioning the action I have taken in respect to this matter.
Early last June I engaged in correspondence with Mr. Smith, assistant general manager in charge of engineering for the Ontario

hydroelectric power commission with respect to the possibility of locating the plant in my riding. I am happy to report that although the selection of a site has not been definitely made, testing is now under way in Bruce, and it is expected that other sites in our immediate area will be tested. I, of course, am still hopeful that it may be located in Grey North. I feel that we have one of the best locations in the province of Ontario. Already reports have appeared in the press concerning the possibility of it being located there.
I urge the minister to give consideration to the possibility of locating the plant in this area. I feel that my riding of Grey North has much to offer for this kind of project. We have solid rock and an ample supply of good cold water. Indeed, in Georgian bay I believe we have the coldest water available in the province. We have a sparsely settled area that is in close proximity to highly industrialized parts of Ontario and the area is served by good highways. I understand that these are some of the requirements for a site. I hope the minister will give my appeal the fullest possible consideration.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I have risen to speak on these estimates, and I shall detain the committee but briefly while I outline the plight of tomato growers and the tomato canning industry in British Columbia. I might say this industry commenced over 50 years ago because it is an ideal country for growing tomatoes, with warm summer months and ample water for irrigation. I remember when the first tomato plants were planted something over 50 years ago. The industry developed because its natural market-


George James McIlraith: They must be pretty old plants by now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I may say, Mr. Chairman, that we do not think in those terms. We have a revival every year. I may say that the industry developed consistently over a long period of years, owing to the fact that it is a natural place for the growing of tomatoes and western Canada was the natural market. Until toward the end of the late 1940's they were processing some 26,000 or 30,000 tons of fresh tomatoes a year received from 500 to 600 primary producers, and some 1,500 to 2,000 persons were directly or indirectly employed in the growing of the tomatoes or in the canning industry. I think the peak value of the crop at one time was around $5 million; that is the total crop, those used for selling in the domestic market, largely in western Canada, and the remainder used in the canning industry.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
However, Mr. Chairman, the industry suffered from some severe disabilities, as I think the minister knows. I am bringing this to his attention because I have been asked to do it. First of all, the industry suffered from serious disabilities with respect to transportation. It may be interesting to know that the rate on canned goods from San Francisco and Los Angeles to Vancouver, about 1,000 miles, is almost identical with the rate from Kelowna to Vancouver or from Nelson to Vancouver. The rate from San Francisco and Los Angeles to Winnipeg, approximately 2,300 miles, is $1.80 compared with a rate from Kelowna or Kootenay points to Winnipeg, approximately 1,200 miles, of $2. These preferential rates on imported products were and still are prejudicial to the interests of the tomato industry in Canada, particularly in British Columbia. I mention it as one of the disabilities. I am not for a moment suggesting that this is a matter that can be solved quickly or overnight. It is one of those problems in which a number of factors are having an adverse effect on the industry.
Then there is the question of the higher production costs that we suffer because of the 25 per cent to 50 per cent higher costs for machinery and equipment; the 20 per cent to 30 per cent higher cost for cans; and the 50 per cent to 100 per cent higher costs for cartons, and a much shorter operating period for the industry in the interior of British Columbia. I may mention at this time that in the last two years five canning plants have been closed in the southern interior of British Columbia.
Then there is the question of tariffs. I do urge as a matter of consideration what appears to be certain inequalities which have developed as a result of the rigid operation of GATT which gives certain advantages to other countries because of their higher tariff rates and things of that sort. In that connection I am just going to quote briefly from this memo which was handed to me:
The American tariff of 21 per cent against canned tomatoes is approximately equivalent to the Canadian tariff of two cents per pound. The American tariff of 21 per cent on tomato paste is at least double the Canadian tariff on the same product and, when high concentrations of paste are taken into consideration, the American tariff rate of 21 per cent is over seven times as high as the Canadian rate. When the Canadian tariff rate on tomato paste was reduced in 1956 from two cents a pound to U cents a pound, tomato paste was being concentrated to a much lower percentage of solids, and the 11 cents per pound was equivalent to an ad valorem tariff of about 10 per cent. At the same time, United States had a 231 per cent tariff. Now, tomato paste is being produced to a consistency of 45 per cent-46 per cent solids, and the current California quotation is $21 per case of 45 pounds f.o.b. shipping points. The Canadian duty on a case of this products would be

Supply-Trade and Commerce 66 cents, or 3.1 per cent, against the present American tariff on the same product of 21 per cent ad valorem. If the United States tariff rate were applied to the American price, the duty would be $4.61.
In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, there is very unfair competition for our tomato producers and tomato canners in British Columbia developing from Italy and increasing over the years. The memo goes on to say:
We are aware of some imports of Italian tomatoes into western Canada, the total Canadian imports are heavy and increasing. With the low labour rates and other low production costs which processors in that country enjoy, along with low water-rates to the eastern seaboard and subsidized rail transportation costs from Canadian maritime ports, coupled with our extremely low tariff protection and unfavourable exchange situation, it is not surprising that many Canadian tomato processors are going out of business.
When they go out of business the producers of tomatoes will go out of business. Then, there is a very substantial loss of the export market. I am sure the minister is aware that prior to world war II the Canadian processors of tomatoes in British Columbia built up a considerable and substantial export market for tomatoes and tomato products. They have almost completely lost this market, together with substantially reduced tariff protection in Canada.
I am not going to deal at further length with this, Mr. Chairman. The minister must know the several disabilities that are being suffered by the growers and the industry in general. As a matter of fact, to show the committee the circumstances under which the industry operates at the present time, with all the increased freight costs and increased competition from the United States and other costs that I have mentioned, a 28-ounce can of choice tomatoes is selling today at 23 cents, which is less than the price was in 1948. It is impossible for the industry to carry on in these circumstances. I mention these facts and bring them briefly to the attention of the committee and the minister on behalf of the growers and canners of these products. I should like to know what the government intends to do in an endeavour to meet this situation and make it possible for these people to continue growing tomatoes and the canners to continue in business.
(Translation):


Mr. Boulanger:: 
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I have kept the promise I had made. I have asked for higher tariffs.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, imports of Japanese textiles have never been higher than since the Conservative party came to power. I have already quoted figures, and I shall quote them again, for the information of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. Last year, we imported 18 million yards of cotton from Japan, while we had imported only 15 million yards in 1957. This represents an increase of 3 million yards, whereas we had been promised lower imports from Japan. We have also imported more from the United States, 7 million yards more; our imports from
Supply-Trade and Commerce India increased by 3 million yards, and 5,000 Canadian textile workers have lost their jobs since last year. I have no figures relating to 1956, but I shall be pleased to submit them to the house on another occasion.
I would suggest that when the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot makes his remarks to the house, he give us figures in support of his claims. Moreover, if the hon. member wishes certain information about the promises and statements he made on behalf of the textile unions of St. Hyacinthe, I shall quote for him an article which appeared recently concerning some statements he made


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Samuel Boulanger: The hon. member has
stated-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, the subject raised by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska is completely out of order.


Mr. Denis:: In order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Out of order. His subject has nothing whatever to do with the matter under review. Not that I am afraid or ashamed of what I said, but in the article referred to by the hon. member, my statement was distorted, for political purposes, by the friends of the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska, the opposition's self-appointed spokesman in matters of agriculture.


Azellus Denis: Listen to the new parliamentary secretary to all the ministers!
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: I do not think
that what another member has said has anything to do with the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I hope the hon. member will stick to this item.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I had not started to quote that article. I fail to see why the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) should raise a point of order. I shall now quote a few lines of that article.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, in spite of your decision, the hon. member is preparing to go on reading the article.
(Text):


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, at least before the hon. member is declared out of order we have to listen to what he has to say. He has
$134	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce not said it yet but the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot seems to be ashamed of what he said before.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: No, I said I was not ashamed.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska indicated he was going to read an article written by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot.


Alexis Pierre Caron: About.


Charles Edward Rea: About the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. I cannot see what that has to do with the administration of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It is on textiles.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, here is what the article said-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, again I rise on a point of order. The hon. member-
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: I ask the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska not to read the article but to proceed with the other part of his speech.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He cannot do that. Ask him to take his seat.


Alexis Pierre Caron: If it is on textiles it concerns the present debate, and it is a declaration about textiles.


Charles Edward Rea: If it is on textiles, but it rather appeared to me as if it were going to be an election speech.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: I accept your decision, Mr. Chairman. However, I reserve the right to take up this matter in due course.
Coming back to the matter of textiles, I say the situation is worse than it has ever been. I would ask the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) to do something for our textile industry and workers.
There is unemployment in the eastern townships and there will be even more unemployment next winter, because little attention is being paid to the textile industry. In 1958, we enacted legislation to protect the Canadian textile industry against dumping; we even appointed inspectors, but so far there have been no satisfactory results.
I therefore ask the hon. minister to kindly consider the case of textile workers.
(Text):


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the minister was good enough when these estimates were brought before the committee last night to deal with many of the questions raised when 

the discussion took place on these estimates in the committee on June 25. He attempted to deal with the points I had raised in my remarks, but there are one or two aspects of these subjects on which I desire some clarification. Perhaps we now have come to the stage in the discussion where I can put specific questions to him and get specific answers.
I ought, first, to thank him for his remarks regarding trade with Japan. I had raised this subject, as had my leader, when the estimates were first before the committee on June 25. I was somewhat shocked last night when he was dealing with this subject to find, in looking at my own remarks on the earlier date, I was reported in Hansard at page 5812 as having said that barley exports to Japan for 1958 amounted to $62 million in value. This, of course, is the value of wheat exports to that country in that year, as I assume everyone who is really interested in this subject would know. I did not notice the mistake I had made until I was listening to the minister's remarks last night.
The question I want to ask him now is supplementary to the remarks on the subject of trade with Japan. There was a drop of some $35 million in our exports to Japan from 1957 to 1958, and in view of the importance of that market would the minister care to say or is he in a position to give us any indication as to what he expects our exports to that market will be this year? Will we have a chance to recover that loss?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for
Ottawa West drew attention to the drop in exports to Japan last year and I think he will find the figures in the annual report on pages 26 and 27. I am reading from the report now:
The major decline in exports to Japan was in primary iron and steel products, particularly pig iron. This was the result both of expansion in domestic Japanese capacity and lower industrial output there. Sales of flaxseed which were unusually high in 1957 fell back to average annual levels. There was also a decline in Japanese demand for Canadian wood products, asbestos and aluminum. On the other hand the Japanese market for drugs and chemicals continued to expand.
In so far as the expectation for 1959 is concerned, the dominion bureau of statistics publishes "Canada, domestic exports" and the issue for May, 1959 on page 4 indicates the value in the period January to May of our exports in 1958 was $40,251,000. This value has gone up in 1959 in the same period to $44,924,000. Consequently I would say, in reply to the hon. gentleman, that we will regain our position with regard to exports to Japan.


George James McIlraith: I just want to express the hope, and I think the minister concurs with me in this, that the market can be built up in that area. In his remarks last night I think the minister indicated the importance he attached to that market. I perhaps do not need to elaborate on the subject here but I think the market for barley could be extended throughout that whole area.
There was another question I wanted to clarify arising out of an answer the minister had given to some of the earlier remarks I made about the West Indies. In the course of the minister's statement he made the remark that we have not increased our sale of fish and flour to the extent we would like. I presume he was referring to the sale of cured fish. I wanted to ask him, first, is that restriction in Jamaica on price still in force or has it been removed? Is there any prospect for increasing the export of that type of fish, not only to the West Indies but to the larger market that is to be found in the other Caribbean countries, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and so on? Would he care to develop that subject a little?


Gordon Minto Churchill: With regard to the price of fish and the situation in Jamaica, we are carrying on consultations with the authorities there. We hope to have a satisfactory answer in the near future. Prospects for the enlargement for the sale of our fish in the Caribbean and elsewhere are not unreasonable at the present time. We have, through our commercial counsellors stationed in those countries and through normal trade connections of our people engaged in the export of fish in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and so on, been able to maintain the trade. You will recall that a year ago we had some success with a very substantial order from Brazil. We are of the opinion that we can maintain our trade in fish with the West Indies and Caribbean region generally. The Department of Fisheries is taking active steps to make sure that the standard is maintained and that the method of processing the fish is improved. When the estimates of the Department of Fisheries are before the committee perhaps questions along that line will be raised.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I can pursue the subject on the fisheries estimates. I wanted to raise another matter that concerns me and which I had mentioned earlier. It is from the policy aspect of the disposal of surplus farm products that I intend to attack the question. I obtained information by way of questions on the order paper and orders for returns tabled in the house on 66968-9-389
Supply-Trade and Commerce February 18 covering purchases by the government of agricultural products which were sold abroad by the Canadian government other than through the agency of the wheat board. One answer dealt at considerable length with skim milk powder and the export of that product to a great number of countries. I think there were some twelve or fifteen countries listed to which we had sold milk powder and the sale prices ran from about 20 per cent to about 75 per cent of the cost.
I asked another question about the export of eggs which were bought under the prices support program and sold to Venezuela. The price at which they were sold was again below the price at which the Canadian taxpayers bought them and there was a loss on that transaction. If I remember correctly, the price was something of the order of 65 per cent of the cost, although I could be out in that percentage.
Then I asked a question on the orders of the day on the subject of the export of surplus pork, and my question concerned the sale of surplus pork to Czechoslovakia. I received an answer from the Minister of Agriculture to which I shall make reference in a moment. Then I put a further question on the order paper and the answer was provided today and will appear in today's Hansard. The question concerned the sale of surplus pork, and it becomes apparent from the answer that we have so far been able to sell some of this surplus pork which the government purchased to three countries, namely Mexico, Italy and Czechoslovakia, and there appears to be a wide range of price from 16 cents to 30 cents per pound. However, it appears from the answer that it was again sold at a considerable loss below what we paid for it.
The point I am seeking to make on this matter has to do with the trade policy of the government. It will be seen from those three answers that we have sold surplus farm products at very substantial reductions below their cost to some 18 or 20 countries. In some cases we are selling them as little as 25 per cent of what the Canadian taxpayers pay for them. That, I suppose in any other country, certainly in Canada, would be termed as dumping.
The point I wish to make here is this. Does the minister consider that that is an appropriate permanent policy for the disposal of agricultural products from this country? What is its effect going to be on our trade generally? What damage does it do to the trade practices which we built up over the years? I think generally speaking our trade practices are regarded rather

Supply-Trade and Commerce highly. Does it take away from us any argument we might have against other countries for dumping products on the world markets and thereby hurting our sales?
Then I want this one further aspect of the matter clarified. In answer to the question I asked on June 21, as appears on page 4993 of Hansard, concerning the sale of surplus pork to Czechoslovakia, the Minister of Agriculture said, and I only want to quote part of his answer:
This is to some extent in the nature of what you might call a trial shipment and we hope that as a result-we are quite sure the pork will be found satisfactory-we shall be able to sell in constantly increasing quantities pork and other agricultural products in the European market.
What I would like to have specifically clarified is this. Am I to interpret that answer of the Minister of Agriculture as meaning that the Canadian government has now embarked upon a policy of seeking to increase exports of pork and other agricultural products to the European market by the direct subsidy method, as was done in the disposal of this surplus pork which had been acquired under our price support legislation? I think this point should be clarified because of its significance in the trade world.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member's final question as to whether the Canadian government has now embarked on a policy of increasing our trade by direct subsidy, the answer is no. This is not launching out into a new policy aimed at the expansion of trade through this particular method. It is, I would say, an ad hoc arrangement in a time of surplus, which is something that is not new. It has been tried in other years, the selling abroad of some surplus products from this country.
In answer to his general statement, I did to a certain extent deal with this last night, and I would say that the hon. member has laid his finger on the problem involved here. He asked, is there a danger of damaging the trade relations which have been built up in the past? Is there a danger that we may be accused of dumping surplus products abroad, and things of that nature? That is the nub of the matter indeed, but I would say as a general answer that we are very much aware of the effects on international trade of practices which deviate a bit from the normal and we are being very careful to do nothing which will interfere with the good relations that we have established with trading partners. We have been able to consult readily and effectively with countries which might be concerned with activities on the part of Canada with regard to surplus disposal.
As an example of that, I might say that in the gifts of wheat and flour that we have
[Mr Mcllraith.]
made to India and Ceylon we have been very, very careful to consult in advance Australia before taking any action whatsoever. The reason we have consulted with Australia is that those countries are the normal market countries for the sale of Australian wheat and flour, and the policy of the department is that no surplus disposal of wheat or flour shall take place in markets such as that without consulting with the countries primarily concerned, in this case Australia. Similar situations prevail elsewhere, and the activities to which my hon. friend has referred with regard to skim milk, the sale of eggs and the sale of pork are conducted very carefully so that our general trade is not damaged.
I might put on the record one or two further statements to make it quite clear. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, outlined to the House of Commons on April 23 the problems arising out of the accumulated surplus of dry skim milk and the steps that had been taken to reduce this surplus. Excess stocks have now been reduced to manageable proportions by sales of older stocks of skim milk powder for feed purposes and the stabilization board has withdrawn offers for export as feed although some quantities are still being made available for human consumption to international relief agencies and to governments for relief purposes. By offering this surplus product for export as feed the stabilization board was able to move large quantities of the older powder into export markets quickly in order to avoid deterioration of the product, and at the same time we were able to satisfy other exporting countries that these sales at concessional prices were not seriously interfering with their normal markets which are primarily for powder for human consumption.
With regard to pork, pork products are not among the items on which restrictions have been eased up to the present time- that is, with regard to the United Kingdom- although a number of countries have shown interest in obtaining supplies from Canada, in particular Czechoslovakia. A recent sale has been made at or very near to the world price, and it will represent the first time in many years that Canadian pork other than canned pork has appeared in the European market. Then the hope was expressed that this trial shipment might lead to further orders, which is the normal hope under circumstances such as these. If this food is found acceptable in Czechoslovakia, perhaps the market there may be developed.


George James McIlraith: I thank the minister for his statement, because I attach considerable importance to the clarification of this matter in view of the fact that since the first of the

year we have exported these surplus farm products to more than 20 countries. That, coupled with the statement of the Minister of Agriculture in answer to questions on the orders of the day, was capable of an interpretation which would be damaging to our trade, certainly if it was the policy of the government.
I have just two more questions with which I want to deal. One has to do with the statement made by the minister regarding the increase in our exports to the United States. I think the minister should have followed his own D.B.S. statistics more completely in the statement he made with regard to exports to the United States, and given the committee the whole story as to our exports. He told us that exports in the period between January and May of 1959 amounted to $1,186 million as compared with last year's total of $1,135 million. If the minister had gone on and given all the exports, the committee would have seen that exports to the United Kingdom were down a bit, that to the other commonwealth countries they were down some 25 per cent and that to all other countries, excluding the United States, the United Kingdom and commonwealth countries, they were down a bit, and that the total exports for those five months are down from last year. All I want to do in indicating that is to try to give a complete picture, because it shows the problems which do exist in this whole matter of export trade and the importance of this subject. We must keep pressing for markets as best we can all over the world and be very careful not to do anything which will interfere with those markets by any action or policy we may take.
I want to ask the minister for an explanation on another subject altogether. The estimates for this year fall, really, under six items apart from the board of grain commissioners, whereas last year the number of items was 15-I may be wrong about that number. In any event, there is a very sharp reduction in the number of items and there is a corresponding abbreviation in the details given in the latter part of the blue book. I want to ask the minister what was the reason for this change, because it seems to me that change is not an improvement but tends, rather, to make it more difficult to find the type of information which members of the House of Commons would wish to have when dealing with the estimates. In this one year it does, of course, make the comparison much more difficult and it does seem to me that the detail given in the present form is considerably less; practically all the departmental matters are shown under one item, that of departmental administration, and detail which 66968-9-389J
Supply-Trade and Commerce we had expected to find is no longer there. Could the minister tell us why the change has been made?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a fair question. There has been a change. This change was brought about at the suggestion of officers of the Department of Finance who are concerned with drawing up and publishing the estimates. A number of separate accounts have been eliminated and the bookkeeping has been simplified, but there is no intention to withhold any information whatever, and I find that the detail in the book of estimates does not differ very much from what was given in past years. The annual report covers the territory completely, and the combination of the two, studied by anyone who is interested in the subject matter, does, I think, give a full and complete picture of the department.


George James McIlraith: I hope the minister will practise some determination and stubbornness when he is dealing with the other department on this matter, because while the Department of Finance may wish to have them in a certain form for its own purposes I think, after all, it is the House of Commons which must be satisfied.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not want to put the blame on the Department of Finance. Our own officials were in agreement about this change; indeed, they might have been the ones who proposed it. I will take the full blame for the change, anyway.


George James McIlraith: In any event, I merely want to point out that changes should not be made merely for the sake of administrative convenience. It is the House of Commons which must exercise control over expenditure, which requires this information and it must always be borne in mind that this is the criterion which should be followed in setting these estimates out.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am in full agreement. After all, this is information for the House of Commons, but I must, in fairness to the officials, say that I discussed this matter with them some time ago and I agreed to this modification.


John Richard Garland: Following along the same
lines, I have been wondering whether the minister would say where the details are to be found with regard to assistance to small business. A specific amount was shown last year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not specifically set out. It is embodied in the general item 380.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


John Richard Garland: I notice that in the annual report of last year the following appeared at page 72:
By the end of October an assistant director and three research officers had been appointed to determine a program based upon these terms of reference and to make recommendations concerning the staff requirements for such a program.
It goes on to say that the branch's initial functions have been concerned with a review of studies relating to the problems of small business in Canada and in other countries.
I should like to know what is being done, and what action the government intends taking this year. I hope the minister will not be too sensitive if I refer to election promises. There were definite election promises made, and one of these promises was reported in a Canadian Press dispatch which appeared in the Montreal Star of March 18, 1958. The Prime Minister, speaking in the minister's own province of Manitoba, said the government would set up a special branch to help small business to obtain a fair share of government contracts and-these are the important words for my purpose this afternoon-financial aid to expand.
All of those who have anything to do with business are aware of the increasing costs with which small businessmen are being faced at the present time. Some of this is due to government action and government policy. The increase in taxes, the increase in contributions to the unemployment insurance fund, the higher interest rates which make borrowing more difficult and of course more expensive, all contribute to the problems of the small business man. I say this only to lead into the question I wish to put to the minister. Does the government intend to make long term capital loans available to small business this year or in the foreseeable future? Could I have an answer to this question?


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, I want to
deal with this same subject. I raised this subject on June 21 and last evening as reported at page 6096 of Hansard the minister was good enough to say that this point had been raised and he thought it might be more properly answered when we came to examine the item in the general estimates.
Like my friend the hon. member for Nipis-sing I could find no item other than the administrative item that would justify the minister for making the statement about this new branch about which there is real concern. I am all the more concerned about it because if a statement is to be made I think it should be made to this committee at this time while these estimates are available for debate. Following our first discussion of the minister's estimates on June 21, an article in the Financial Post commented on the fact that the


program of assistance to small business had not been examined by the cabinet. That was a couple of weeks ago when the newspaper felt justified in making a comment with respect to lack of progress following the setting up of the small business branch.
I hope we are not going to find that just as soon as these estimates are disposed of, as has happened too often recently, we will receive from the department a statement as to what their plans are and the House of Commons having prorogued we will be deprived of an opportunity of making any comment to the minister concerning what he has in mind and what has developed since the branch was set up.
I am sure the minister is aware that the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada, Incorporated, has been making representations along this line. I wish to quote from a letter sent to me by the general manager of this association which reads in part as follows:
This association has made the suggestion that a retail business capital loans act be set up tor the purpose of enabling retailers to borrow money for rehabilitation and expansion. We have suggested that the mechanics of such an act be similar to those of the Homes Improvement Loans Act,
i.e. that the individual loans be made through the chartered banks, with a government guarantee.
This could be done by authorizing the bank to advance 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the cost of the proposed improvement or extension of buildings, equipment, parking facilities, etc. The loans would be repayable over a period of years.
As we pointed out previously such a plan would not introduce any new principle into Canadian finance. Similar assistance has already been extended to fishermen, farmers, manufacturers, homeowners and home repairs, food processors, etc.
That is one medium through which something might be done. One recognizes immediately that perhaps the vehicle of the international development bank might be used by expanding the terms of the act.
One of the industries that has been making representations along these lines is the tourist industry. We know that Canada's position with respect to income from tourists abroad has been deteriorating in relation to the spending of Canadian tourists abroad. We have a substantial deficit at this time. The tourist association at its annual conference indicated that one of the reasons for this situation is that the tourist operator is simply not able to find money in this era of tight money that would enable him to improve his business in a way to attract a large number of foreign visitors, particularly from the United States.
The minister well knows that in addition to the promises we heard at election time to which reference was made by the hon. member for Nipissing, following the government taking office the Minister of Justice

addressed the annual meeting of the Retail Merchants' Association in Vancouver and they got the impression, as did the newspapers, that this government intended to do something along these lines. That, Mr. Chairman, was more than a year ago.
In addition to that we know we have just gone through a winter of extreme unemployment. If some expeditious action were taken along the lines my hon. friends opposite were urging, I think it would have been of tremendous advantage last winter in the matter of the creation of employment if loans similar to home improvement loans had been made available to small business for the improvement of business premises and the improvement of other establishments such as I referred to in respect of the tourist industry.
This is not a matter of not having sufficient notice of this. Last June and July a conference sponsored by the Department of Labour was held on the question of winter employment. Of the five or six recommendations made by that conference only one was adopted by the federal government. The only recommendation made by that representative gathering of employees, employers and government officials adopted by the government was the recommendation of contributing to certain types of work carried on in the wintertime by municipalities.
Another recommendation not adopted was that encouragement should be given to small businessmen to improve their plants by accelerated depreciation, and some assistance in the matter of finance for construction in the winter months. Nothing was done in this respect.
On August 30, 1958 the Financial Post took notice of this matter and published an editorial entitled "What Help for Small Business" which reads in part as follows:
The Ottawa government has done some vague talking about special help for small business.
Then it went on to say:
The United States small business administration (established in 1953) has been made a permanent federal agency, authorized to grant individual loans up to $350,000 at interest rates which have been cut from 6 per cent to 51 per cent.
In the minds of most of us, that is not considered assistance to small business. I referred to this general question the other day without going into detail. I continue:
In addition, $250 million has been provided for loans by the SBA to investment corporations formed to provide long-term equity capital for small business.
I suggest to the minister that this has been worthy of attention long before now. Many people who had some expectations of
Supply-Trade and Commerce the fulfilment of promises in this area were rather disappointed to find that the small business section was set up in the Department of Trade and Commerce. It was expected that if anything more than some free and gratuitous advice was to be offered to business across the country, and if something tangible in the nature of financial assistance was likely to be provided, this section would probably have been assigned to the Minister of Finance. In any event, we have this new branch which has been in existence since last autumn. If the minister has some views in this respect he should convey them now to the committee so that we will not find next week after the house prorogues that, as the Financial Post hints, the country then and only then will get some of the minister's views.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for
Kenora-Rainy River expresses himself in a singularly un-operative way in suggesting that I have nothing to say with regard to small business, and that if I am going to say anything I will say it next week after the house has prorogued and then at the same time expects me to get up and answer his questions. Before doing so, I would like to say this. Last night I noted that questions with regard to small business had been raised and my intention last evening was to go ahead with a statement concerning small business because I thought it was a proper question to come up in the committee. The committee will recall that because we could not continue after ten o'clock without unanimous consent and one hon. member refused that consent we therefore had to discontinue.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Incidentally, that member is not in the house now.


William Arnold Peters: I object to this statement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was the member for Skeena who refused unanimous consent. Had we gone on a little longer I intended to say something about small business.


William Arnold Peters: I object to the reference made by the minister to something that happened here in a previous sitting.


Charles Edward Rea: Can the hon. member point to any unparliamentary remark about the hon. member?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was simply explaining to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River why I did not give a report on the small business branch of the department. I had intended fully to do that last night. In an attempt to terminate my remarks within five minutes I inadvertently-and I hope the hon. member will appreciate this fact-said that I

Supply-Trade and Commerce would deal with it when we came to the item in the estimates overlooking the fact that I would have to deal with it under item 380.
I thank the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River for drawing my attention to this oversight but I hope he was not suggesting that I was attempting to evade making a comment on this particular matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister would want to mention not only the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River but also the hon. member for Nipissing, who also spoke on this matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was just coming to the hon. member for Nipissing. I noted his remarks this afternoon. I was intending to ask him whether he would give me the reference from which he was quoting concerning the statement alleged to have been made by the Prime Minister. I did not get the reference; I was not sure.


John Richard Garland: I will be delighted to do that. I said I was not going to use the reference until I saw the Prime Minister in the house. It was a Canadian Press dispatch of March 18 and carried from coast to coast.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Reported in what paper?


John Richard Garland: The Montreal Star.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is the information I wanted. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Nipissing on making this reference in the presence of the Prime Minister; whereas some of his colleagues over there this afternoon took advantage of the Prime Minister's temporary absence from the chamber to make remarks with regard to alleged promises. However, in this particular instance the hon. member for Nipissing I think recognized that the promise to set up a branch to deal with small business was kept, as were other promises that were made during the course of election campaigns.


William Moore Benidickson: .You promised to make loans.


Lionel Chevrier: On a question of privilege, I am the member who made statements concerning a matter dealing with the Department of Trade and Commerce in which I outlined some of the statements made by the Prime Minister at the city of Cornwall. I was accused by the Minister of Trade and Commerce earlier and again now that I did not make those statements in the presence of the Prime Minister. I am not accustomed to making statements in the house dealing with any member when that member is not here. Unfortunately, I am sure the Prime Minister was out on other important business and was not able to be in the house; but

surely I should not be charged with any irregularity because I made statements concerning the Prime Minister in his absence which are quoted in newspaper reports. It is a perfectly proper thing to do even if the member is not in his seat.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I was not suggesting any irregularity. In passing I was simply commenting upon the fact-


Lionel Chevrier: You mentioned it twice.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -that the Prime Minister would like to have this information. He is interested in all that goes on in the House of Commons, and the remarks of my hon. friends, particularly the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier.
Let me get back to the question of small business. The branch was set up after the house prorogued last summer and extensive studies were carried out along the lines that I have indicated in the terms of reference that were given to the House of Commons on September 3, 1958. Those terms of reference were:
1.	To act as a clearing house in referring inquiries of small business to the appropriate departments of the Canadian government or provincial and municipal governments and to various other organizations and institutions;
2.	To compile and distribute bulletins and reports on topics of general interest to small business including information on government procurement;
3.	To assist small business on request to obtain statistical, technical and other information on management, production and marketing problems;
4.	To undertake studies concerning small business, particularly for guidance of the government in developing new policies in this field and as background material for dealing more effectively with the problems of small business;
5.	In the course of its work, to consult and cooperate with educational institutions, representative business association and other private organizations.
That was quite a program of work for the branch. At the present time the branch has seven employees, including an assistant director and three research officers. The size of the staff has been kept small purposely during the initial stage of the branch's development until it is able to assemble information and make a report. The most important duties of the officers of the branch have been to advise on a program based upon the branch's terms of reference and the staff requirements for such a program. An important part of the work of the branch has been a review of studies relating to the problems of small business in Canada and other countries and with the collection of quantitative and qualitative material on the position of small business in the Canadian economy.
I will not read all of the information I have here but I will summarize it in this

way, that is co-operation with the dominion bureau of statistics, and through liaison with provincial governments a great deal of information has been assembled. Liaison was also established with the United States small business administration. Officials of the department visited Washington in March of this year and a very great deal of work has been done in this connection and, I think, a satisfactory piece of work in the space of less than 12 months since the branch was established.
My hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River dealt with the need for financial assistance to small business and drew attention to the assistance given by a similar organization in the United States which, of course, is much larger in size than anything we have in mind at the present time. Then he pressed us for rather more rapid action and again talked about what the United States has done. But the United States program of lending instituted in 1953 was preceded by a number of years of investigation of the subject and by the previous extensive experience of lending to small business by other agencies of the United States government. It was not something that was done just overnight. The United States drew upon the experience of many years before going further with its assistance program to small business.
Surely it is only reasonable to give us some time to assess the problem, assemble the facts and establish liaison with various organizations and governments throughout the country before we go further with regard to what is an important sector of our economy. We would not have set up a small business branch under the Department of Trade and Commerce unless we were interested and concerned with the problems affecting small business.
I give at this time a progress report. The branch has been set up. It is being efficiently managed. I think it has done everything possible in the course of the nine months which have elapsed since it was established, and in due course the branch will reach conclusions and draw to the attention of the government various things that might be done for small business. We decided that small business needed a certain amount of assistance and this is the way in which we are going about it. To date I think it has been very satisfactory.
The problems of small business will be analysed and a comprehensive statement will be assembled with regard to small business throughout Canada. At that stage, through the Department of Trade and Commerce, representations will be made to the government as to future policy concerning small business. Small business constitutes the
Supply-Trade mid Commerce greater part of the business of Canada. Of that we are quite conscious and within our means and within reason we want to do what we can to assist.


John Richard Garland: I wonder whether the minister would answer my question. It covers only one small respect of aid to small business. It was in that spirit that I quoted the reference of the Prime Minister to "financial aid to expand" which literally means capital assistance. Does the government intend to make long term capital loans available to small business this year or in the foreseeable future?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Before a complete answer
can be given to my hon. friend, as I stated last year when this was under consideration, we have to have the facts. It is the assembling of the facts and information that is the duty and responsibility of the small business branch and the senior officials to whom the branch reports, who subsequently report to me. I pointed out that in the United States financial aid to small business was only undertaken after years of investigation and experience in other bodies, and the same thing is going to be true in Canada. We have not said either yes or no with regard to this particular problem and are not going to give an answer one way or another until we have the facts before us. That is why I have given the house an outline of the investigation to be undertaken by the small business branch and covering the five points to which I have referred. I have indicated that within the nine months that have elapsed since the branch was set up and the officials assigned to their task they have made effective liaison and assembled a mass of information from the business world. In due course this will be drawn together and future policy will be announced.


John Richard Garland: I do not wish to pursue the matter unduly nor do I want to be offensive in any way but when the minister says that the government does not want to act until it has the facts is he suggesting that these promises and statements were made without the facts? What is one to conclude from what the minister has said?


Gordon Minto Churchill: My hon. friend is one of the most genial members of the House of Commons. I realize that he has never said anything in the house that could be considered offensive and I do not take his remarks as such. However, I do not quite understand the hon. member's question.


John Richard Garland: I will be glad to restate it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will he restate it and expand it?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


John Richard Garland: Perhaps I can restate it without expanding it. The minister has maintained throughout his comments on assistance to small business that the government does not want to move until it has all the facts and finds out precisely what the problem is. By saying that is the minister suggesting that the promises to assist small business to which I have referred and which were made from coast to coast-I do not want to delay the committee by quoting them-were made without knowing the problems that small businessmen have?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the contrary, the problems that have been facing small business over the years were known to us at the time of the election campaign to which my hon. friend refers. They were known to other people in the country too but no action was taken by those who had the responsibility of government at that time. It was because no action had been taken that we suggested that when returned to power we would take immediate steps to investigate-


William Moore Benidickson: To make loans.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -to get the facts and after the facts had been assembled would then take action.


William Moore Benidickson: No, no.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think that is a sensible and sound course. I am sure that my hon. friend, who is a very sensible man, will agree that you must have all the facts at your disposal before you can develop a plan. There was considerable knowledge throughout the country of the problems affecting small business and it was the lack of action on the part of the previous government that caused us to bring about this improvement. We have set up this small business branch within the department, are studying the problem in an intensive manner and will have a very good solution to offer in due course.


John Richard Garland: I have one final question and the answer can be yes or no. Does the government intend to make long term loans available to small business this year or in the foreseeable future?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought I had answered that in the course of my remarks by saying that when all the facts are at the disposal of the small business branch and they have reported to me the matter will then be considered by the government. That is the situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister does not seem to have thrown very much light on the situation. The facts are that on March 18, 1958 the Prime Minister is reported as having


stated that a special branch would be set up so that small business could obtain financial aid to expand.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask what you are reading from?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am reading from Hansard for July 17, 1958, page 2341 where there is reference to a Canadian Press dispatch in the Montreal Star of March 18, 1958, quoting the promise made by the Prime Minister that this branch would be set up so that small business could get financial aid.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask, is the sentence in the Star in quotation marks?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the Prime Minister says he did not say it, perhaps he will deny it now. It has been repeated many times since March in this house and it has not been denied before. The minister now says the branch has been set up so it can accumulate enough facts to enable the government to decide whether or not the Prime Minister's promise will be carried out.


Frank Howard: I think the Leader of the Opposition will find that this promise will be fulfilled in 1962. Unfortunately, I was called out for a few moments and I understand that in my absence the minister made a comment about some of the events of last evening. I say with regret that I was not here so I could hear them and I am not in a position to make any reply unless the minister, of course, wants to repeat the references he made since he chose a time when I was out of the house to make them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is rather inferring that I was passing some remarks. I simply stated facts, that is all, and I think they are recorded in Hansard.


Frank Howard: The minister says he stated facts. I shall look in Hansard to find out what they were and then we will be in a position to determine whether they were facts or only half facts.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order.


Frank Howard: About a year and a half ago an announcement was made by the minister with respect to the trade commission in Hong Kong going to the mainland of China for the purpose, as I recall it, of studying the needs of the Chinese people in so far as imports and exports were concerned. I am sure the minister realizes the special interest that exists in British Columbia in the lumber industry and other industries concerning the possibility of extending our export sales in China. I wonder whether the minister would be able to give any detailed information to

the committee concerning what the trade commissioner in Hong Kong discovered about the possibilities of exporting to the mainland of China and any other relevant data covering the question of trade with China.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for
Skeena has drawn attention to a visit made to China by our trade commissioner in Hong Kong. Subsequently, he was back in Canada and gave a full report of his findings on that occasion which appeared in our publication, "Foreign Trade". This report contained a complete account of his investigation of the trade possibilities in China. I recall that he urged that visits should be made by Canadian businessmen to China if they wanted to enlarge their trade. He pointed out that China operates under a state trading arrangement. There are, I think, sixteen state trading corporations in China, and it is through those state trading corporations that foreign businessmen have to make their arrangements.
The prospects for enlarging Canada's trade with China are not too good. In 1958 we sold 8 cargoes of wheat to China which was a welcome addition to the sales of our wheat during the course of that year. Our total exports in 1958 were just under $8 million, and most of that was wheat. The figures for 1959, therefore, will drop back to what they were before those wheat cargoes were sold. Nevertheless, through the activities of our trade commissioners and through visits of Canadian businessmen and visits of representatives of China to Canada, increasing trade may result. We have had other reports from our trade commissioners indicating interest in China with regard to enlarging its trade with Canada. Several prominent businessmen have recently, within the last year or so, been to China and have written extensive reports in our newspapers concerning their experiences. That is the situation concerning Canada's trade with China.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just have one question to ask the minister. Could he tell the committee what the government can do to assist the tomato growers of British Columbia and the tomato canning industry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Kootenay West gave us a dissertation with regard to the tomato crops in British Columbia and indicated some of the troubles facing the growers there. I think we are aware, and we have taken note of their problem. The hon. member drew attention to the freight charges from the United States to Vancouver and from points in Canada, and also drew attention to the tariff regulations. I would point out to the hon. member that although I listened to him with a great deal of interest
Supply-Trade and Commerce and although I appreciate the difficulties facing the tomato growers of British Columbia, this is a matter which is not the prime responsibility of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I shall be glad to discuss this with my colleague the Minister of Finance and representatives from British Columbia to see what assistance might be given, but trade and commerce has not prime responsibility in this area.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have been sitting here for a couple of hours shouting carried, and I have finally been carried away to the extent of wanting to ask the minister a couple of questions. I wondered, first, whether he had received a report tabled in this house by the committee on mines, forests and waters and whether he had any comments to make on one of the recommendations which was as follows:
Your committee feels that Canada cannot afford to ignore a potential so great for lumber and pulp sales as is offered in the Orient and, therefore, it recommends that these markets be approached on an open-minded basis.
I imagine they feel an open-minded basis would be that no concern would ever be given to the ideology of the particular regime there. I wonder if the minister has any comment to make on that particular recommendation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have no inhibitions with regard to trading anywhere in the world. We do not set up any barriers. I have already drawn attention to the activities of our trade commissioners in, I think it is, 59 countries of the world. This proposal with regard to the Orient is very good. Our trade commissioners in that area will advise our exporters at home of the opportunities that may be open to them. I cannot add anything to what our trade commissioner from Hong Kong said, that if Canadian businessmen will visit the countries in the Orient he is of the opinion they will be enabled to enlarge their trade.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister does not feel that the fact that we do not recognize Red China has anything to do with the possibilities of trade?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That question has been
raised on many occasions here and my answer has always been that we are prepared to trade with any country in the world that recognizes fair trading practices. We have not been experiencing any particular difficulty with China over the years. It is not as if our trade with China has stopped and been restarted. It has been going on over the years with no questions asked.


Frank Howard: May I raise one point on the answer the minister was kind enough to give

Supply-Trade and Commerce me. I understood him to say that our possibilities of trading with China were not too good. Did I get it correctly?


Gordon Minto Churchill: 
John Richard Garland: Mr. Chairman, since there seems to be some doubt in the minister's mind about what was said in connection with this financial assistance, I did raise one matter this afternoon. I would like to remind him of a story in the Globe and Mail of February 10, 1958, which indicates that the Prime Minister planned to aid small businesses. Minor tax concessions had been made, but he indicated there would be greater assistance.
Then in a Canadian Press report in the Regina Leader-Post, he is reported to have said the government would also establish a small business advisory committee to provide a liaison between small business and the government, and provide financial aid to enable their expansion. Then according to the Toronto Star of February 26, the Prime Minister said this:
Small business was the principal victim of the tight money policy. In order to assist this part of the economy, "the back-bone of every community", a business advisory committee will be set up to provide it with a "share of national government business and provide"-
I am coming to the only point I was referring to.
"-the financial assistance which will allow for expansion and development."
I can go on but I do not wish to delay the house; I just wanted to make sure that what I said can be substantiated in fact.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thank the hon. member for drawing attention to those articles, and he does not need to express any regret with regard to delay. I am not in any hurry with regard to these matters and the department is a large department. I have no objection to discussing thoroughly all the business with which it is concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I remind the minister that a year ago tomorrow this matter was discussed in the house and the subject was referred to in Hansard, volume 3, for 1958. Some of his own words will be found on page 2357 and earlier, and while I appreciate the position which the minister is in-he did not make these promises; the Minister of Justice had some part in these assurances-nevertheless the minister is charged with this particular matter. A year from the time that this matter was discussed on his own estimates we are given practically the same answers today. The only conclusion we can draw from all of this is that no progress whatsoever has been made in the implementation of the assurance given to the Canadian people.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I regret my hon. friend is unable to draw a better conclusion than that from the facts which I placed before him this afternoon. A year ago today there was no small business branch, no employees in that branch, no investigation had been undertaken such as has since been undertaken, no liaison had been effected with people in the United States and people in the provincial governments. These are substantial measures of progress as I am sure my hon. friend will recognize.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not. There has been no progress.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
385. Dominion bureau of statistics, including the fee for membership in the inter-American statistical institute and a contribution of $500 to the international statistical institute, $8,565,609.
Frank Howard: I wonder if I might ask for some information from the minister with respect to the people who I understand are referred to as enumerators in the compilation of the dominion bureau of statistics figures on those persons unemployed and seeking employment. Could the minister indicate the manner in which these enumerators are selected, how often they make a survey, and what is the degree of concentration they apply in making it? That is to say, how many houses per street, and things of that nature?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if the hon. member would just restate one part of that question. Is the question with regard to taking a census, when he is asking about enumerators?


Frank Howard: No. I understand the people who conduct the dominion bureau of statistics surveys of people out of work and seeking employment are called enumerators, and they are the ones I referred to.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What we term the labour force survey?


Frank Howard: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a sample survey conducted in, I think, 139 areas across Canada. Sample data is collected from 35,000 households, and this is done to provide current and up to date estimates of the employment characteristics of the Canadian population. The survey is carried out on a monthly basis. The people who take the survey are selected by officials of the dominion bureau of statistics.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall item 385
carry?


Frank Howard: No. I thought the minister was looking for additional information which he was going to give.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Has the hon. member another question?


Frank Howard: I thought the minister was seeking additional answers through his officials in front of him and that is why I hesitated to rise. I would like to know the payment basis for the enumerators. I pose that as the first question. Are they paid so much a day, or what?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The dominion statistician is on his way down and he will be able to supply that information; I have not got it in front of me.


Frank Howard: In the meantime I could make a comment or two about the survey itself. This has to do with a dual set of figures, one compiled by the minister's departmental staff, and the other compiled through the Department of Labour. I also have a third set of figures which are not the responsibility of the government, so I do not imagine I could raise them under this particular item.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member has indicated that he is going to discuss two different sets of figures. We are dealing now just with the dominion bureau of statistics.


Frank Howard: No, I did not indicate I was going to discuss two separate sets of statistics. I said there are two sets of statistics required -one by the minister's department and one by the Department of Labour-and there is often confusion as far as these two sets of figures are concerned. I appreciate we shall be dealing with statistics compiled by the dominion bureau of statistics and I shall not enter into those compiled by the Department of Labour, but it appears that what is necessary is the establishment of statistics which are more reliable than the ones we have at the moment.
Supply-Trade and Commerce I was able to get some information with respect to the constituencies in Canada where there were no enumerators as of April of this year. Earlier I had attempted both at home and through the department here to discover the names of the people who conducted this enumeration of the labour force in the constituency of Skeena. I had difficulty in finding out who those people were, and I discovered later on that the reason why I was not able to find out who they were was because there was no survey conducted in the constituency of Skeena, neither was a survey carried out in Cariboo, and neither was one carried out in Nanaimo. I also discovered that in every province, except Prince Edward Island, there are a number of constituencies which do not have enumerators engaged in compiling this set of statistics which the minister has. In fact, as of April, 1959, no less than 54 ridings in Canada had no such persons compiling statistics. I know the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will be pleased to know that he was denied this sort of service, as well as other constituencies in Canada.
These 54 constituencies covered a very very large area and a wide diversity of labour forces subject to unemployment from time to time, and it seems to me we are getting nowhere near the correct set of figures in so far as the number of people unemployed and seeking work is concerned. I wonder whether we could have some indication from the minister as to why the areas I have mentioned are not or were not at that date adequately covered by enumerators and whether he has any intention of making this survey applicable universally, or when we may get a better picture of what the unemployment situation is.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The answer is this: the hon. member used the phrase "denial of service" with regard to certain areas. This is not a service to certain areas. This is a sample survey concerning questions of employment. The service is not permanently in the 139 areas I mentioned earlier. These areas are changed and in time the areas which the hon. member mentioned may be made the object of this labour force survey. This has nothing to do with a service to a community such as the hon. member mentioned. There is no discrimination between one area and another. It is a sample survey worked out by competent statisticians. If every constituency had this survey taken every month we would be conducting a continual census and that is not the intention in any way. His mathematical friends will assure the hon. member

Supply-Trade and Commerce that by this method of sampling the population one is able to arrive at a reasonable accurate figure as to the state of employment and unemployment.


Frank Howard: I understand, then, from the minister that with reference to the areas he mentioned-he mentioned 139 areas-those areas are not on a constituency basis.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It has nothing at all to do with a constituency basis.


Frank Howard: How is it possible to list, the constituencies in which there are no surveys being taken at a particular time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Because surveys are not being taken in those constituencies.


Frank Howard: There is a connection then. I gather it may be a political one. I do not know.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I object to that reference. There is nothing political about it at all. If the hon. member is-


Frank Howard: Unless the minister is rising on a point of order-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am rising on a question of privilege and I will state right now what my point of privilege is. The hon. member is attempting to suggest that this is being done on a political basis, and I say that his statement is absolutely incorrect.


Frank Howard: I understood also from what the minister said that there is a rotating process and that all areas in Canada are covered, or will be covered by this labour force survey.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right. They will be in time.


Frank Howard: Could the minister tell me whether there has ever been such a survey or group of enumerators in Skeena?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We shall look up the record and convey that information to the hon. member. We have not got it in front of us now.


Frank Howard: Following up that question, I have here as of April 25, 1959 a list of the constituencies in Canada where as of that date there were no enumerators, and rather than read the name of each constituency I ask that it be recorded in Hansard at this point so that I may inquire of the minister whether there has ever been a labour force survey in each one of those constituencies, and during what period of time that survey was made.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I suggest that that is the type of question which would resolve itself 

into an order for return and which, if placed on the order paper, would be dealt with accordingly. I think it would be unwise during a discussion on the estimates to interpose in Hansard a list of the length which the hon. member has suggested. The information not being readily available, this would involve a considerable amount of investigation by members of the dominion bureau. I think that is the way it should be dealt with.


Frank Howard: That will be fine. If it will involve an excessive amount of work I am not so concerned about it, but I wonder if I could have this table included at this place in Hansard as indicating which constituencies did not have labour surveys as of April 25.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the hon. member the permission of the committee to have this table printed in Hansard?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman, I object to it on several grounds. I think it is unwise to place tables of this nature directly in Hansard and I think, too, it would be confusing if the hon. member is attempting to imply that these labour force surveys are carried out in particular constituencies. They bear no relationship to those divisions and overlap one constituency and another. This would only confuse the issue.


Frank Howard: I wish to place this information on the record in tabulated form, as follows:
No labour force enumerators living or working in the following electoral districts as of April 25. 1959:
Province:	Electoral district:
British Columbia	Cariboo Nanaimo Skeena
Alberta	Bow River Medicine Hat Peace River
Saskatchewan	Kindersley Meadow Lake Moose Mountain Prince Albert Rosthern
Manitoba	Brandon-Souris Churchill Marquette
Ontario	Algoma East Bruce Cochrane Dufferin-Simcoe Glengarry-Prescott Grey-Bruce Huron Lanark Leeds Prince Edward-Lennox: Renfrew South Simcoe North Timiskaming York North

Electoral district: Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes Bellechasse Bonaventure Chambly-Rouville Iles-de-la-Madeleine Kamouraska Megan tic
Montmagny-L'Islet Portneuf
Richelieu-Vercheres Richmond-Wolfe Rimouski Saguenay Stanstead Terrebonne Vaudreuil-Soulanges
Antigonish-Guysborough Digby-Annapolis-Kings Pictou
Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare
New Brunswick	Charlotte
Gloucester N orthumberland-Miramichi Royal
York-Sunbury
Newfoundland	Bonavista-Twillingate


Douglas Mason Fisher: Has the minister received any complaints in connection with the questions to be asked of ladies in the forthcoming census which are designed to determine fertility status? I know I have.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Before I reply to the hon. member for Port Arthur I should like to say that I deprecate the apparent attempt of the hon. member for Skeena to relate an objective labour force survey to political constituencies. I believe he has left the impression on the record that this objective survey carried on by the dominion bureau of statistics is affected some way by political considerations. I want to state clearly and emphatically that there is nothing of that kind whatever in the organization of the labour force survey. It is done according to statistical compilations and, as I said, the survey areas shift about the country from time to time. In the course of the years every area of Canada will be covered.
With respect to the question raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur I have had no complaints or comments whatever with regard to that point.


William Arnold Peters: Is it possible to ascertain who these people are that are working for the dominion bureau of statistics compiling these figures? The minister did not reply to the question about how much they were paid and on what basis.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The information as to who these people are would be readily available from the dominion bureau of statistics. I am
Supply-Trade and Commerce sorry I overlooked the question about payment. These are part time employees who work one week per month. The rate of pay depending on experience is on an hourly basis varying from $1.45 to $1.60 per hour.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, I, of course, accept the minister's word about alleged political influence in the appointment of these enumerators but I would like to know what is the general policy of the dominion bureau of statistics with regard to the hiring and dismissing of them. I ask this question because I have in my riding one man who devoted himself to this work for a number of years and, by pure co-incidence I am sure, he was replaced by my opponent in the last federal election. I am very glad for my opponent but on the other hand I feel sorry for the man who lost this source of revenue for himself and his family.


Gordon Minto Churchill: These positions are part time positions and are not permanent appointments by any means.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Party-time?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of grain commissioners (Canada Grain Act) -
387. Inspection and weighing of grain, and related services, $4,427,169.
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, could the minister indicate why it is necessary on grain assigned to Fort William to have an inspection at Winnipeg and another at Fort William? Why could that not be eliminated?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member raised this point this morning and I did not have an opportunity to reply to him at that time. The grain inspection at Winnipeg was discontinued this year. The inspection at Winnipeg is now only on special request.


William Moore Benidickson: I know there is another administrative item under which I might raise this question and although it may not be relevant I intend to be brief. Could the minister bring us up to date on export figures with respect to grain? It has been my experience that while some of us receive the Wheat Review from the dominion bureau of statistics the information it contains is three or four weeks behind the information available to the minister.
Would the minister also give us some specific figures on the export of grain out of the lakehead this year compared with last year? Could he also give us figures with respect to exports from Vancouver? I understand that exports out of the lakehead are especially low this year. I think it has something to do with competition for ships
Province: Quebec
Nova Scotia

Supply-Trade and Commerce vis-a-vis the iron ore trade. Would the minister indicate whether or not the iron ore trade is more remunerative and tell us what the situation is?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would my hon. friend
change his question and not say "exports" from the lakehead but "shipment"?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, of course. It could go to a Canadian port.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will make that information available at seven o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can answer immediately the questions raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. He asked about the shipment of grain from the lakehead, indicating that the quantity shipped this year had been below that of last year. This is a matter of very considerable importance.
From the opening of navigation to July 13, the latest figure that I have available, the movement of grain by water from the lake-head amounted to 105,570,000 bushels. This compares with 161,318,000 bushels shipped from the lakehead during the same period a year ago.
The grain movement during the first 60 days of the 1959 shipping season on the great lakes was disappointing. The reasons for this small grain movement were discussed before the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and the representatives of the wheat board who were present summed up the situation as follows, and I quote their statement as it appears in the report of that committee:
There are reasons for the delayed movement of grain from the lakehead. The seaway was a new experience for all concerned and in the early part of the navigation season there were unavoidable delays in the movement of vessels. Beyond this, however, a new pattern of inland shipping was being worked out both for grain and other commodities. For example, lake vessels were making the long trip to St. Lawrence ports rather than the short trip to Georgian bay ports. In many cases, grain and ore were moved in combination. No one could anticipate to what extent ocean vessels would utilize the seaway to move grain directly from the lakehead. All these problems are sorting themselves out and there is every indication that the 1959 shipping season will see an adequate movement of grain from the lakehead.
In the meantime, the board has had, and will continue to have, sufficient wheat in eastern positions to meet all export commitments.
Another factor was the early and continuing heavy demand for ore shipments. During 

the first week of July, however, lakehead grain shipments exceeded those of the same week a year ago and I hope we shall have the same results for the remaining weeks of the crop year.
It is obvious that the delay in the grain movement out of the lakehead will affect the final quota position in Manitoba and in parts of Saskatchewan. There are still over 20 million bushels of space available in eastern Canada and 1 hope that the vessel movements out of the lakehead will be sufficiently large to fill the greater part of this space, at least by the end of the crop year.
The wheat board said at that meeting of the committee that I mentioned, and they have reaffirmed subsequent to that committee meeting, that they think the crop year will end with delivery quotas of seven and eight bushels per specified acre. That, of course, as hon. members realize, depends upon steady grain loading until the end of the crop year and that steady grain loading is still going on. With two weeks still to go I think we may reach that quota position.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River also wanted to be brought up to date with regard to the export position concerning the principal grains. I hold in my hand the Wheat Review for June, 1959, which has just come off the press and which gives the figures for August 1 of last year to June 18 of this year. The export of wheat as of that date for the 1958-59 crop year to June 18 was 221,703,933 bushels; for oats, 5,423,824 bushels; for barley, 47,855,011 bushels; and for rye, 1,099,477 bushels; flaxseed, 12,572,616 bushels.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have one question in regard to the wheat situation at the lakehead. There were a number of difficulties that the minister may be aware of in the early part of the season with respect to the facilities at the elevators for handling foreign ships. I believe this does not come properly as a direct responsibility under this particular vote and this particular agency but I wondered whether the board has made any study of the matter, and feels that there needs to be a re-assessment by the elevators of their loading facilities, so that these foreign ships of larger draft and greater size and with different types of hatches could be accommodated better at the lakehead elevators than at present?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That has been a matter of study during the course of the present shipping season and alterations have been made at some of the loading points already to accommodate foreign ships. I think that with the experience of this year all the necessary changes for loading of foreign ships will be

made before the next shipping season commences. It has been a bit of a problem but the people concerned are fully aware of it and in some instances have already made the necessary alterations.


Douglas Mason Fisher: One point that has bothered me is that when this problem first arose at the lakehead there was an immediate demand that the government do something about it and a lot of the responsibility was laid upon the government. I felt at the time that perhaps this was being too kind to the government and that this really should not be a government responsibility at all. It seemed to me that the government's role would be one of advice and perhaps suggestion and leadership. Could the minister outline just what the government's responsibility would be and, so far as these changes are concerned, are we to expect that the government is going to pay anything toward the changes or contribute anything in the form of a subsidy or anything like that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That question has not
arisen. The government's responsibility would be considerable at a government owned elevator but, as my hon. friend is aware, these elevators are mostly owned by other parties and any alterations would be the responsibility of the elevator company.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General administration-
582. Departmental administration, including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates-further amount required, $700.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister this morning what the government had decided to do with respect to sales of uranium. I understand that while I was out a number of other hon. members were very interested in getting the reactor established in their ridings. It was said that it should be in Algoma East, Essex East, Nipis-sing and several of the Newfoundland ridings. I am not speaking on behalf of these people who want the reactor as I think there are factors that will decide where it is going to be established, but I am interested in ascertaining from the minister what he or the cabinet have decided to do with respect to the matter of building CANDU.
The minister may disagree or agree but it has been suggested by newspapers that if we are going to continue the sale of natural uranium we are going to have to give some leadership in the construction of the reactor that will work with this type of fuel. There are several interesting things in the annual
Supply-Trade and Commerce report of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and I should like to read one or two paragraphs.
The preliminary design study, which was completed in 1957, estimated that CANDU could be built for approximately $60 million. The development costs were not included in this total, as it was not thought reasonable to load the cost of the first large station with all the costs incurred in development.
Stopping there, I think this raises an interesting point. I used the example this morning of the Arrow program having some similarity to the handling of our nuclear program, and it will be noted that there is a difference here. Maybe we have learned something and are not now including the development costs in the cost of the first CANDU unit. We are not told in the report what the development costs for CANDU were. The report continues:
The study also concluded that If the station were incorporated in a public utility system, and operated with an annual load factor of 80 per cent, the cost of power produced would be under six mills per kilowatt hour. In other words, the target in Canada for a station of this size might well be reached.
As a result of the considerable effort which has gone into the design and the associated development of CANDU, and the success to date of the NPD-2 program, there is now great confidence that the preliminary estimates on CANDU are realistic. Work will continue on the present design and development phase until this is completed. The construction of CANDU will then be considered. The station would take about four and a half years to build.
I suggested this morning that if we got at the program of building CANDU and established the first natural uranium nuclear plant of commercial value we would be able to produce power by 1964 from this type of plant. The minister disagreed with my statement. I said that if he got cracking on it we might do it in less time and that it might be done by 1963. I do not think an answer has been given whether or not we have gone ahead. The Financial Post has speculated that if we go ahead with this type of program we will be in the international uranium market but if we do not go ahead with it then the United Kingdom and other countries are going to make use of enriched uranium and our natural uranium will not be useable in the type of reactor designed to use that kind of fuel. I think the cabinet or whoever makes the decision for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited should indicate if we are going ahead with the program, if we have not already done so, and I think the people of Canada should know the decision.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo stated today that it would be of great advantage for Canada to co-operate with England in an

Supply-Trade and Commerce atomic development program. While I did not think of this idea myself, I believe it merits a great deal of consideration because it seems to me that we in Canada are faced with the expenditure of large sums of money for development when we are having a great deal of difficulty financing the development of our natural resources without going into industrial development as well. England, a country that is faced with a lack of power and energy in all forms, is in vital need of this type of plant. I can see the advantages, both political and economic, in Canada and the United Kingdom joining together to produce a form of reactor that will be satisfactory to both countries. I think the minister should tell the Canadian people now if he has any new thoughts on the matter and if and when he is going to do something about it. I should like to suggest to the minister that if I were he I would try to reshuffle some of these departments he has under his jurisdiction.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. While I have allowed the hon. member to go on, I should like to point out that we have not come to the energy board yet. This is a supplementary item under the heading "general administration" dealing with departmental administration. I have checked the item in the details and I find that it refers only to an amount of $700 for a fee paid to the international coffee study group. Therefore that would not open up the department.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I say that I will give the answer when we come to the item dealing with atomic energy because the questions raised by the hon. member are good questions.


William Moore Benidickson: Under this new supplementary administration item I should like to ask the minister about the likely timing of the supplementary report on private and public investment that is usually issued by his department. Will that be available fairly soon?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That report was issued today. I am glad the hon. member had drawn attention to it. He will be very pleased with it, as I am, because it indicates that the revised figures in 1959 will be more than $200 million above the estimate which was presented early this spring and will exceed the total capital expenditure of the year 1958. The revised figure for 1959 is $8,555 million whereas for 1958 the capital expenditure was $8,417 million.
That represents a significant increase and plans for social capital spending have been little changed from those outlined at the beginning of the year and still involve outlays about 4 per cent above those of last year.


On the whole, the results of the mid-year survey of investment intentions reflect increasing business confidence. More new projects are being initiated than was the case in 1958. Where business establishments have revised their investment plans these revisions have been preponderantly in an upward direction. Respondents in the mid-year survey were asked to outline the reasons for any changes in investment plans. The most frequent reason given for expanding a capital program was that the longer run sales outlook had improved.
In summary, the accomplishment of present investment plans will mean that construction activity will reach record heights in 1959 and that spending for machinery and equipment will reverse the downward trend evident last year. While the year-over-year increase planned in capital spending is fairly modest the realization of the program outlined will involve a substantial increase over the rate of activity in the first quarter. It may be expected that capital expenditures will exert a strong expansive influence on the economy in the latter part of the year.


William Moore Benidickson: May I just say that I rather expected this information would be available about now. I had inquired and found that just about this time, and some times earlier, the mid-term estimate was available. I believe this is an illustration of howT this government is prepared to avoid giving to parliament the proper information before we are discussing estimates. If this question had not been asked I doubt that we would have got this information today. We would have obtained it after the estimates of the minister had been passed. He would have had this data released and the people in his department would have put out a good mimeographed publication assigned to three hundred or four hundred people and sent to the press.
The minister knows that he went a little far in March when he tabled the original public investment report and he was challenged on that report on both March 10 and 11. He blazoned to the press the thought that there had been an increase in the new year of $100 million in the aggregate of public investment. He ignored the fact that as a result of population growth and G.N.P. growth, everything else would be up beyond that percentage figure. On March 10 I asked a question of the minister. The record is there, and I am not going to belabour the committee with it. On March 11 the hon. member for Ottawa West asked a subsequent question, a factual question, and you will find that the minister in his reply evaded the essence of the question asked.

The point is that $200 million, with reference to that report which involves $8.4 billion, is just about a one-fortieth increase and everybody knows that with population growth the G.N.P. should rise, the Minister of Finance says, 7 per cent this year. This particular increase, which is a very important integral factor in the G.N.P., is up only one-fortieth. 1 think we should have had this interim report tabled in this house at the opening of the sitting this morning. It was available, and we were going to question the minister about it because I knew he would have a typewritten report even if he had not a printed copy. We would have obtained this information on the floor of the house only if questions were asked.
The point is it was available for publication, but only as a result of questioning do we get this information. These growth rates are so much under what is happening in the United States at the present time that they naturally cause a great deal of alarm to a great many Canadians. I hope the minister will indicate the segments in the economy in which this growth has taken place. I recall when he tabled his report on private and public investment in Canada for 1959 it actually showed the prospect of a decrease of $100 million. It was indicated that in the social field there was going to be an increase having regard to provincial and municipal investments, but in so far as federal responsibility was concerned there would be an expected decrease, particularly in the area of housing. I think the minister might give us a little more information about this because, as I pointed out in my question on March 10, there was a decline of $100 million notwithstanding a rise in population and a general expectation of the average growth from year to year. We can only regard this as a defeat, so I hope the minister will indicate from what segment of the economy he expects the $100 million which he forecast as a reduction will be overtaken. We now have a $200 million increase beyond his original forecast, and where does it occur?


Charles Edward Rea: I must bring to the committee's attention the fact that this item 582 refers only to a vote of $700 to the international coffee study group. Of course, I am in the hands of the committee and whatever the committee wants to do it can do by unanimous consent, but in my position I must draw the fact to the attention of the committee that these matters are not relevant to this item.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think probably, strictly speaking, you are quite correct, but the fact remains that the minister, now that his main
Supply-Trade and Commerce estimates have been passed, has answered a question about this very important mid-summer report of investment intentions, one of the most important documents we could obtain, particularly in relation to the Department of Trade and Commerce. Now when these main estimates are completed we learn about this document. Perhaps there may be another item under which we could discuss it, but in view of the circumstances in which this document could become public I would think we should be permitted to ask some questions about it. Perhaps the first question would be to ask the minister why we did not have an opportunity to have this information before us when discussing the main estimates?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think we might as well discuss this problem right now. I do not mind in the least.


Charles Edward Rea: To keep the record straight, will the committee give unanimous consent to the minister discussing this particular matter which has been brought up?


William Moore Benidickson: On that point, I would not think it needs unanimous consent. I think you should not try to invoke a precedent. My experience is that when we have had supplementary estimates we have always had a great deal of freedom in discussion of departmental policies which may have developed from the time we discussed a similar item on previous occasion in the same session. I think in fairness, Mr. Chairman, you should just see whether you get any protests or further debate.


Charles Edward Rea: I must point out that I stopped the hon. member for Timis-kaming who was going on to another matter, and in fairness to him, of course, I had to draw the matter again to the attention of the committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think you were quite right, and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is just hair-splitting as he was doing earlier when talking about this report, and trying to create the impression that there was some concealment. It is that I object to, because on June 25, as reported at page 5170 of Hansard, when the estimates of this department were introduced, I said this:
The customary mid-year review of spending plans is now under way. Although the final figures will not be available for another two weeks or so the results to date indicate upward revisions in anticipated outlays sufficient to raise total projected spending for the year up to and probably a little above the actual outlays in 1958.
My hon. friends had that information placed at their disposal on June 25, and now

Supply-Trade and Commerce they get up and say that I attempted to conceal some information from them. It was all there, and furthermore it is a good report which was released by the dominion bureau of statistics today. My hon. friends just do not like to receive good news. This disappoints them. They asked the question in the hope they could show that things were getting worse, but things are getting better, and they were a bit non-plussed. I would have come to this thing eventually.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When? The next session?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We had to be asked the question. I draw to the attention of my hon. friends that things are improving in Canada, and for that improvement business and government can take some of the responsibility and the credit. My hon. friends do not like good news, and that is why they raise this objection now.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, one point arising out of the minister's remarks which I think he owes it to the house to clarify is why he did not table the document today if it was available as he indicated it was, and available to him throughout the day. Why was it not made available to members of parliament dealing with the estimates of his department?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister said that on June 25 he told the house that this report was not yet completed, but the information when it was completed would likely indicate a very favourable situation, and that in a couple of weeks or so it would be completed. On the basis of that statement two weeks ago that the report might show something we are expected to accept now from the minister a final report at the end of his estimates, a report which has an important bearing on those estimates, and expected not to complain but to assume that two weeks ago he was speaking correctly when he said that the report might show that. The minister also said a moment ago that he would have come to this report eventually. When would he have come to the report? We are on the supplementary estimates now. On what item of the estimates would we discuss this? It is an important report which has not been shown to the House of Commons. I do not know whether it was given to the press or not.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, it was by sheer accident that the Department of Trade and Commerce estimates were not completed in June. I was prepared to go ahead with them but there was a change of program. By now they would have been completed, before this report was even printed and

published. Then my hon. friends would have cried blue ruin again. The economy is expanding and they do not like to hear about that.


George James McIlraith: Let me clear up one point. The minister obviously has had this printed report today. Why did he withhold it from the house? I ask him the question, why was it not tabled and distributed in the proper way?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I am not withholding anything.


George James McIlraith: Why do you not table the document, then?


Gordon Minto Churchill: For all I know it has been tabled.


George James McIlraith: It is your duty to know.


William Moore Benidickson: It is tabled under the minister's name.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If my hon. friends want copies I think we can have copies made available to them.


George James McIlraith: Not as a concession at the end of the estimates, but as a matter of right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Certainly as a matter of right. You are entitled to the document.


Lionel Chevrier: Then produce it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My hon. friends will be here for some time and we will have documents for everybody in the chamber, I hope.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Even for the press.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister say when he first saw the printed report such as would be tabled in this house?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it was at one o'clock, and I did not have a chance to read it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could the minister kindly tell me if the report has been already released to the press?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would have to ask about that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is easy to find out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Am I not correct in saying that the report was printed over a week ago?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Of that I am not aware.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Could the minister find that out, because his officials will undoubtedly know? If it is the case, it has been in printed form for the minister, and if it has been released to the press it is an extraordinary thing that while we have been on these

estimates for two days we in the committee have not had the advantage of this report and information.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I must correct one statement of the Leader of the Opposition. This has not been in the possession of the minister for two weeks.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not say two weeks.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Or several days. It is only seconds ago that I stated I first saw it in printed form at one o'clock today.


William Moore Benidickson: Does the economic division of the minister's department produce for the minister prior to an order for printing a copy of such report and, if so, when did they produce a manuscript of this report?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not receive a manuscript of this report from the economics branch.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was printed then without the minister ever having read it?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
ATOMIC ENERGY Atomic energy control board-
37. Administration expenses of the Atomic Energy Control Board, $62,800.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, we have been going quite fast in the last few minutes, but I think this item deals with the atomic energy control board.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, shall I make a statement first? I did not realize we had reached vote No. 37 with such dispatch, but I have a statement to make about the atomic energy control board, which is item No. 37 and is distinct, of course, from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited itself. It is a very short statement on this control board.
With the uranium producing industry in full operation, and with most of the information relating to peaceful uses of atomic energy declassified, the board's duties in connection with prospecting and mining and with security matters have been lightened considerably. Its responsibilities in health and safety matters, however, have increased, partly because of the increasing use of radioactive isotopes in industry and medicine, but mostly because of nuclear reactor projects outside of Chalk River.
Three of these have been dealt with; the nuclear power demonstration plants, a 20,000 kilowatt nuclear electric power plant at Des Joachims on the Ottawa river, a one megawatt swimming pool research reactor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, and a sub-critical reactor-or more properly, assembly-at the University of Toronto. The
Supply-Trade and Commerce board has set up the reactor safety advisory committee to advise it on the health and safety aspects of reactors, and on the advice of this committee, given after intensive study of each project, has issued a construction permit for the first, and construction and operating permits for the other two.
In connection with CANDU, the 200,000 kilowatt power reactor referred to in my statement to the house on June 18 last, the selection of the site will be made by Ontario hydro subject to approval by the various other bodies concerned and by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and the committee will review the health and safety aspects of any proposed site before a construction permit is issued.
Another matter that is growing in importance is the export of uranium under the arrangements announced last year for export of sample quantities, under bilateral agreements with friendly nations, or through the international atomic energy agency. Under the act and regulations the board has to give final approval for these exports and must in this connection keep closely in touch with the other agencies concerned, particularly external affairs, trade and commerce and Eldorado.
That the board with its very small staff has been able to deal effectively with the matters in its charge is, of course, very largely due to the co-operation it has received from other government authorities, federal and provincial, and from the public.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already spoken about this particular matter, to which I think great importance should be attached, and there is not very much I would add to what I said this morning, but I should like to pay my tribute to the scientists and the engineers who are responsible for this nuclear reactor CANDU and to express the hope which has been expressed by the hon. member for Timiskaming that the nuclear power plant will be put into operation as quickly as possible, indeed if that is not done we shall be left behind, since the United States and the United Kingdom are making great progress in this field and in the export of their reactors and their knowledge to other countries. I think we must admit that they have some advantages over us, particularly the United States, because of the terms they can offer.
I was reading only the other day that nuclear power development in the United Kingdom had been carried so far that another station was about to be built, I think, in Dungeness. I also understand that our particular reactor is as efficient, as economical and as advanced, if not more so, than any

Supply-Trade and Commerce other in the United States or the United Kingdom. We have, if I may put it this way, a good product and it is very important to get that product into the markets of the world, and in doing so to assist those who are concerned with uranium in general.
The minister has mentioned that the site for the nuclear power plant has not yet been decided. He has received a good deal of advice this evening as to where it should be erected, but I take it from what he has said that the federal government is only one of the agencies which will determine the site of this establishment; Ontario hydro and Atomic Energy Limited will also have something to say about it. I would only repeat, as the hon. member for Nipissing is not here tonight, that there are very definite advantages attached to a site near Elliot Lake not only technically and from the point of view of the availability of material but because this is a community which is living now in conditions of insecurity arising from the possibility that contracts with the United States will end in 1962. During this intervening period of uncertainty it would really mean a great deal to that community, which is the centre of the uranium district in this country, to have the plant in that area. But that is, of course, something which the minister and the other levels of government together with the Ontario hydroelectric commission will have to decide.
We are now on the verge of great developments in this field, not only in the military but in the non-military uses of nuclear energy. We in Canada have certain advantages, not only as to the material used but because of the skill and knowledge of our scientists and engineers who have developed a plant which is second to none in the world. I am sure that the government as well as all Canadians will wish everything possible to be done to ensure that our country remains in the forefront of this development which is fraught with such great possibilities not only for ourselves but for the rest of the world.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to follow up what the Leader of the Opposition has said by asking the minister what the position is with regard to the development of power from atomic energy. He made a short statement on this subject a moment ago, but I should like to know exactly how far we have advanced in development of power in this field. What is the cost of the reactor? How much will be contributed by the federal government, how much by Ontario and how much by the hydroelectric power commission. Further, I should like to know-and this may be a question that cannot be answered


at this time-how the cost of the development of one horsepower from atomic energy compares with that of developing an equal amount of energy from water power.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I made a short statement on the atomic energy control board which is the item we are now considering. Item 39 deals with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. I do not think it is material whether we restrict our discussions to the control board. I think that last year we ranged the field and then passed the four items one after the other, so I will now proceed to make a statement concerning item 39, namely, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Then perhaps I will answer some of the questions which have already been asked, and subsequently I will endeavour to answer some other questions.
I think there was a misunderstanding earlier as to the program. The hon. member for Skeena was reading from the annual report of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited which came out in May, and the program for proceeding immediately with CANDU was announced in the House of Commons on June 19, and I think this led to a measure of misunderstanding as to what was being done. But with regard to the program of atomic energy development generally in Canada I would like to say a few things.
The present Canadian power reactors being built and designed are a direct evolution of the work at Chalk River, starting with the original zero energy reactor in 1945. This was a heavy water moderated experimental facility and it is still used for basic reactor research. It was followed in 1947 by the very successful NRX reactor which is heavy water moderated and cooled with ordinary water. This reactor has proven to be one of the best research and engineering test reactors in the world. The NRU reactor followed in 1957, with five times the power of NRX, accomplished primarily by arranging for cooling with heavy water. It has been working very well for the last six months, following a period of start-up problems. It is the first reactor in the world to change fuel under power, now a routine operation.
The prototype power reactor NPD-2 which is under construction and due for operation in 1961 is heavy water moderated and cooled, as will be the first full-scale plant, the 200 megawatt CANDU recently approved for construction. All of these reactors are fuelled with natural uranium.
Concentrating on one basic system has allowed our scientists and engineers to become thoroughly familiar with all the detailed advantages and disadvantages of the system.

They are recognized throughout the world as being the best qualified group in this particular field. It is to our advantage that we have stayed with one line and it is not because we have refused to look at other reactor systems. There is nothing mysterious, to the scientist, about the other systems such as the graphite moderated reactors so well developed by the United Kingdom, or the light water enriched reactors developed mainly in the United States. Although our knowledge of these systems is not as intimate as it is with the heavy water systems, through our associations with scientists and engineers in the United Kingdom and in the United States we have a good understanding of what is involved and can make reasonably valid comparisons between the Canadian approach and that of other scientific groups. The technical staff at Chalk River are continually reviewing new and promising reactor concepts and to date have seen no reason why we should change our present approach.
Having established a position as one of the five leading nations in atomic energy development and having become particularly well qualified in the heavy water field has had its effect on the interest of other nations in the Canadian program and in the Canadian establishments as a training base. The advanced countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States are interested in joint programs of basic research or fuel development or even reactor designs, whereas the lesser developed countries are more in need of general training for their scientific staff.
The program of co-operation with the United Kingdom and the United States is extremely close and fruitful. Both countries have about fifteen personnel stationed at Chalk River. We have a long history of excellent co-operation with the United Kingdom, particularly in the research field where there has been a continual exchange of staff between Harwell and Chalk River for a number of years. More recently much closer collaboration has been agreed upon in the applied programs of reactor development in both countries. Technical staff from the United Kingdom atomic energy authority industrial group are working closely with their opposite numbers at Chalk River. A joint project associated with the design and development of steam cooling a heavy water moderated reactor has been inaugurated. The United Kingdom reactor designers recognize the merits of heavy water as a moderator and are active in design studies using this material. Chalk River have two experienced professional staff assisting on this work at the United Kingdom industrial group design office. The UKAEA are quite cognizant of
Supply-Trade and Commerce Canada's advanced position in heavy water reactor development and are relying to a considerable extent on some of our experience, particularly that related to fuel development and the general problems associated with handling heavy water.
The co-operation with the United States has been very close and very broad from the start of the program in Canada. The whole of the uranium oxide fuel development work which is an essential part of the power reactor program has been closely allied with projects of the USAEC. The Chalk River reactors NRX and NRU are ideal test beds for fuel development and the NRX reactor, particularly, has been used to a maximum degree. The United States atomic energy commission has co-operated to the extent of supplying major pieces of equipment and a steady flow of special fuel specimens. The results of all the work are shared, regardless of where the project originates, which has undoubtedly assisted in reaching the present advanced stage of the oxide fuel development.
The USAEC has recently shown special interest in the power reactor development program in Canada. They are placing engineers on the design teams on both the organic cooled heavy water moderated study, as well as the CANDU project. This is in addition to the staff normally located at Chalk River and is indicative of their interest in the heavy water system for nuclear power. Although the USAEC has pioneered the work on organic coolants and will have much to offer the Canadian project, they have not, to date, proposed a reactor project coupling organic coolant with heavy water moderation. The Canadian project will be a very important link in the over-all development of the organic reactor systems. The USAEC will be developing two other systems utilizing organics and the heavy water moderated system fills an obvious and very promising gap. A full exchange of information on each of these projects has been arranged.
Co-operation with India needs special mention. As is well known, Canada is providing India with a large research reactor known as the CIR-Canada-India reactor

under the Colombo plan. This reactor, similar to the NRX reactor at Chalk River, is scheduled to go into operation next spring or early summer. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is providing extensive technical assistance in connection with this project, including the training of the Indian operating and maintenance staffs and in the preparation of the necessary handbooks and manuals. Thirteen engineers are now at Chalk River receiving training of this kind.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Owing to the shortage of working accommodation at Chalk River, AECL has had to limit the number of staff from other countries attached to Chalk River, but during the past year it has been possible to accept one or two scientists and engineers from about twelve of these other countries to stay at Chalk River for extended periods. To meet the need for training larger numbers of qualified staff from Canada and abroad, a reactor school is being established at Chalk River. The first course will be given early in 1960. An announcement about the reactor school will be made shortly by AECL and a prospectus will be issued to all organizations likely to be interested.
While atomic power will no doubt become the most important peaceful application of atomic energy, the uses of radioisotopes in medicine, agriculture, industry and research are also very important and far-reaching advances are steadily being made. The commercial products division of AECL processes and sells the radioisotopes produced in the Chalk River reactors and designs and develops equipments using these radioisotopes.
The principal source of revenue of the division continues to be the sale of Cobalt-60 and Cobalt-60 beam therapy machines. There are now six models available and 147 have been sold to 27 countries. A new Caesium-137 unit is also now being made on a production line basis. This machine is of special benefit in the therapy treatment of growths close to the skin. Another new item of equipment being marketed by the commercial products division is the Gammacell 220. This is a completely shielded semi-mobile unit containing a very high activity Cobalt-60 source for use as a development tool or an industrial radiation source.
Revenues of the division were down slightly during 1958 owing to a decline of foreign orders, but in recent months new orders have shown a definite improvement. As a result, it appears that the volume and value of sales will continue at the rate of about $2,500,000 per annum.
As I announced in the House of Commons on June 17, the success to date of the work on the small power reactor coupled with the results of further experiments by the scientists at Chalk River and the design work of the engineers in the nuclear power plant division located in Toronto, has been such that a decision has been taken to proceed with the final design and construction of a full-scale nuclear power plant. This rounds out Canada's nuclear power program which may be summarized as follows:
The 20,000 kilowatt NPD-2 project is expected to be in operation in 1961 and


will give Canada an early demonstration unit and will be particularly useful in the development of fuel cycles and the general development of reactors of this type.
The 200,000 kilowatt CANDU is scheduled for completion in 1964 and will be our first full scale power reactor. This design will rely heavily on the design of NPD-2 and, exclusive of design and development costs, it could prove to be an economically competitive unit if it is operated in the Ontario hydro system as a base load station and is competing with imported coal.
The OCDRE, organic cooled deuterium reactor experiment, design study fills several roles in the program. It may be considered as a "back-up" to the NPD and CANDU type of design where an organic material replaces the heavy water as the coolant. One of the specifications covering the design is that the steam produced from the reactor is of a quality which could be used at a northern site with Frobisher Bay as the preference. It is quite possible that this system would produce the most economical plant of all for small stations fueled with natural uranium. It is quite reasonable to expect this design to produce the best natural uranium fueled plants in sizes up to about 150,000 kilowatts, electric.
A project to study the enriched systems for application in very small sizes at remote Canadian sites is under way. This project consists of a study contract relating Canadian load and site conditions to the reactor designs and prototype plants which have been thoroughly investigated in the United States. The Canadian contractor is obtaining full cooperation from the relevant United States sources. This study should give us the answer as to which system would be most economic for application to remote sites. The project is jointly sponsored by AECL and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Although these power reactor projects are a major portion of Canada's program we should not lose sight of the importance oi the work at Chalk River associated with the general research and development program. This is really the hard core of all atomic energy development in Canada and without this large fund of knowledge and experience the power reactor designers would soon find themselves faced with problems beyond their experience and competence. This establishment is costing the government of Canada from $25 million to $30 million a year. Part of this could be assigned to the specific task of developing nuclear power but there is also a large part which is needed to keep Canada

in the forefront of nuclear development. I think that all will agree that the money is being well spent and certainly those who have had an opportunity of visiting Chalk River will approve of this expenditure.
The staff is generally quite young: they are vigorous and competent and measure up well with any similar group anywhere in the world. Canada gained the enviable position of a leading nuclear nation during and immediately following the war. It is the scientific and technical personnel and the support they are getting which is keeping us in this position.
The estimates for 1959-60 follow right along with the program outlined in my policy statement of February 1, 1958, and my statement of September 3, 1958 on last year's estimates. The total of $31,379,500 consists of $7 million for the NPD-2 project and the design and development work on CANDU and approximately $24.4 million for Chalk River. The effect on the estimates of the approval of the CANDU project will not be seen to any extent this year other than through commitments.


Mr. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a couple of points. With the blessings of the coming of industry, and particularly the mining industry, we have always had dangers in certain mines such as occupational hazards or illnesses pertaining to that particular mining industry. For example, there is the illness caused by gas and the danger of explosions, and so forth, in the coal mining industry. We have always had the scourge of silicosis in the hard rock mining industry. A great number of people from my riding have left there to work in the uranium mines in various places such as Bancroft, Blind River and elsewhere. Many of them have left their families there and they come home from time to time; they move back and forth. There is always a lot of talk. I do not know how much of it is true, and how much of it is embellished, about the dangers involved in radiation, and so forth, in the uranium mining industry. Can the minister inform the committee as to what has been the experience to date, just what hazards peculiar to this mining industry have developed and what steps the government has taken to combat those hazards?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am informed that there is no special hazard attached to the mining of uranium that differs from other mining activities. There is the question of control of dust, and the mining authorities institute the proper control systems and the provincial governments exercise supervision over those precautionary measures.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Murdo William Martin: Does that apply as well to the processing? In other words, from experience there has been no instances of radiation poisoning or anything of that nature in the mining process or in the processing of the ore afterwards?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no radiation hazard in the processing operations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister tell me whether he has any information at hand with respect to this matter? He mentioned that 167 cobalt bombs were sold to 37 countries. Can he tell me how many of those cobalt bombs were purchased out of funds provided by health and welfare for use in Canada?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is important information which should be made available and will be made available to the hon. member but not immediately. We will send word to him tomorrow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The former secretary of state for external affairs, who should know about the number of countries, informs me that I was not correct when I said 168 countries. I should have said 37.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just have one question and it is related to the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Japan for co-operation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Clause 3 of that agreement reads as follows:
It being the intention of the contracting parties to avail themselves, as soon as practicable, of the safeguard facilities created by the international atomic energy agency, the contracting parties may, in respect of this agreement, request the said agency to apply, in such respects and to such extent as the contracting parties may from time to time agree, safeguards in accordance with article XII of the statute of the said agency. Consultations looking to such agreement shall take place upon the request of either contracting party.
My question is: In view of the great dangers from the disposal of atomic wastes in the oceans of the world and in other places, can the minister inform the committee what check the government of Canada makes with respect to clause 3 of this agreement? Does our atomic energy board advise the government as to the safeguards that are required and check to see that the agreement is being kept in that respect?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Matters affecting health or that may affect health in Canada come under the supervision of the atomic energy control board.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am referring to the disposal of wastes as a result of the use of this uranium in Japan. This article provides for certain safeguards and I am wondering
6158	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce how Canada would check and who advised the government with respect to the application of this clause.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The safeguards that are introduced into these agreements are to make certain that the material will not be used for military purposes. When a country using this uranium for peaceful purposes has a problem, just as we have in Canada or in the United States or in the United Kingdom, with regard to the disposal of waste products that is their own special problem because the people affected are their own people.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the minister to deal with two questions I asked earlier. Has any other province than Ontario shown any interest in co-operating with the federal government in the construction of a nuclear power plant? Second, are there any negotiations under the Japanese-Canadian treaty for the actual sale of uranium to Japan? I understand that the treaty is really just an enabling treaty.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All provinces are aware of the development going on at Chalk River. They are all kept informed and they have representatives in attendance from time to time to consult with the authorities of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and with our scientists at Chalk River so that they know what is ahead in the way of the development of these power reactors. But at the present time, for the erection and use of CANDU, Ontario is the only province which is in a position to take advantage of that development and in a position to pay for it at the time. The amount of electric power that will be produced by CANDU could only be utilized by a grid system as large as the present one in Ontario.
With regard to the bilateral agreement with Japan, it does not require Japan to purchase any given quantity of uranium but it does provide a method by which the sale of uranium to Japan may be made. In the case of countries who have no bilateral agreements sales can be made through private agencies provided they are limited. Where ^ there is a bilateral agreement there is no limitation provided the safeguards are utilized.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Are any negotiations going on under the bilateral treaty at present for the actual sale of uranium to Japan.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My information is that there are some negotiations going on for the sale of Canadian uranium to Japan.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Thank you.


William Arnold Peters: Would the minister inform us if any consideration has been given to the matter of co-operation with the United Kingdom? I think the minister questioned my statement that there had been some discussion of this question but the Financial Post points out that the United Kingdom is in a serious position in this field because of the lack of power and that it could prove advantageous both to Canada and the United Kingdom if they were to develop jointly an enriched uranium program that probably could be implemented through the building of a dam and power project at Hamilton falls in Labrador. Would the minister and the department take a look at that type of development as opposed to the one the minister has outlined in which we are now engaged? It would seem that we are pretty well putting all our eggs in one basket and concentrating on the development of natural uranium when at not too much cost we might be able to co-operate with the United Kingdom in the development of enriched uranium using this power source to which I have referred.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think I asked the hon. member if he had any authority for saying that the United Kingdom was prepared to co-operate with Canada in the development of Hamilton falls for the eventual production of enriched uranium. I have heard of this proposal and have read the article to which the hon. member has referred. We are quite prepared to consider any reasonable proposal that is within the financial reach of our country. I understand that the production of enriched uranium is a very expensive process indeed. If the requirements are such that further enriched uranium should be produced and that this could be done in Canada with the co-operation of the United Kingdom we would certainly be interested in considering the proposition, but at the present time I am not sure that it is feasible or that we have the money available, even jointly with the United Kingdom, to embark upon it. Nor am I certain that there is at present a need for the supplies of enriched uranium which would result from that development.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 252. Salaries and other expenses, $26,192,170.
Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a request to the minister in respect of the development of a more suitable substance for treatment of our highways for winter driving. Under existing conditions and with the materials now used car and truck owners are suffering tremendous damage to their

vehicles from rusting. Furthermore, the salt induces rapid deterioration of cement surfaced walks and roadways. With our researchers doing such remarkable work in other fields, would it not be within the realm of possibility that a non-rusting material for use on our roads could be developed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will have to draw to the attention of the national research council the suggestion put forward by my hon. friend. I do not think I can answer offhand but it will be directed to them for consideration. I thought that at this time the committee would perhaps like to have a short statement on the national research council.
The Research Council Act gives the national research council very broad powers in the scientific field, setting it up as an agency to assist and promote scientific research throughout the country. The council discharges its responsibilities in three main ways. First, by providing assistance for the graduate schools of Canadian universities from which come the supply of scientists; second, by giving scholarships to graduate students; and, third, in its laboratories where research of national interest not being done elsewhere is carried out.
The national research council's university support has been continuous for forty-two years and has been increasing rapidly through the last few years. Without minimizing the contributions from other sources, it has been the national research council that has provided the main financial support for university scientific research in Canada. The current expansion of the universities together with the need for increased emphasis on science in the western world has made the financial problem of university research very difficult. The challenge to the council is to increase its university support to meet the accelerated requirements for post-graduate scholarships and research grants. The present status of science in the universities is largely due to financial support from the national research council. Recognizing the present need, the government last year increased national research council support to universities by 70 per cent, that is $2.5 million. It is now proposed to provide a further increase of $2 million, that is 33 per cent, for 1959-60, of which $500,000 applies to medical research. This brings the total national research council support for university research in 1959-60 to approximately $8 million.
The laboratories of the national research council carry out fundamental and applied research in science and engineering that is of national importance and also assist and encourage research in Canadian secondary industries. The more research industry does the 66968-9-390
Supply-Trade and Commerce more interested it is in seeking advice and assistance from the national research council. This leads to the non-obvious conclusion that the more research industry does, the greater the need for the national research council laboratories to expand.
Expenditures by industry on scientific research in Canada have increased from less than $5 million before world war II to $130 million in 1957 and $140 million in 1958. This is an encouraging increase but the total amount is still very low and in some industries no research is being carried out in Canada. In some cases the problem is one of awakening an industry to the need for research; in others, a Canadian firm is a branch only and the parent company does all research and development outside Canada. Industrial research in Canada is directed almost entirely towards development which leaves the council laboratories almost alone in the field of basic industrial research.
The laboratories have undergone a steady growth since 1939 when the staff was about 300 until today, in spite of having split off defence research and atomic energy, the staff numbers about 2,400. During this expansion every effort has been made to maintain a steady and effective expansion of the laboratories as manpower considerations permitted. This steady increase is being continued and the present estimates provide for an increase of staff to 2,511 by March 31, 1960. There is nothing spectacular in the estimates for the laboratories.
The highlight of these estimates are as follows: the total increase of $4,141,376 brings the total requirement of the council to $30,133,580. Vote No. 252, the operating vote, is increased by $3,531,441. The main items in this increase are: first, scholarships and grants for university research, $2,300,750; salaries, $961,787.
Research agreements with several universities for increased research in oceanography amount to $200,000. The present oceanographic effort, centred around the resources and interest of the fisheries research board, the Royal Canadian Navy and the hydrographic survey, is not considered to be adequate to meet the requirement for fundamental research nor for the increasing demands of wider national and international interests. The council feels that it should give special support to work in this field. To take care of immediate problems it is proposed to make funds available to establish or assist oceanographic research departments in two or three universities which have demonstrated interest and ability in this field.
These three items I have mentioned account for $3.1 million out of the total increase of

Supply-Trade and Commerce $3.5 million. A large part of the remaining $370,000 is required for supplies and equipment for the laboratories.
I might mention, with regard to vote 253, construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, that the increase in the vote for capital expenditures is $609,935. This increase is caused by the anticipated acceleration of three construction projects started in 1958-59 without benefit of the compensating completion of any large project. These three projects are a new communications branch building on Riverside drive, a high speed wind tunnel laboratory at Uplands, and a new laboratory for the division of applied physics at the Montreal road site.


George James McIlraith: Can the minister tell us when it is expected these three major buildings he has mentioned will be completed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It appears to be 1961 for two of the buildings, the communications branch and the high speed wind tunnel laboratory and later for the applied physics building.


Augustin Brassard: I have one question to ask of the minister. On the first item I asked him if he would consider the possibility of sending to the Saguenay-Lake St. John region one or two experts from the national research council to meet with officials from the Aluminum company and Price Brothers to study the possibility of establishing some minor industries in my riding in connection with the by-products of aluminum and pulp and paper.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, the representatives
from the technical information branch of the national research council will accede to your request.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
549. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $600,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Before we complete these estimates, may I ask the minister if he would not reply to those questions I asked about the cost of developing power from atomic energy. I had to leave the house for a moment, otherwise I would have asked the minister earlier.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sorry; things moved rather quickly. Would the hon. member like an answer now or subsequently?


Lionel Chevrier: I think if the minister gets the information later I would be satisfied.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: This completes the estimates of Trade and Commerce. Item 280.



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
280. Contributions to the provinces to assist In the development of roads leading to resources in accordance with agreements entered into by Canada and the provinces, $9,000,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: This is not in accordance with the procedure announced last evening. I wonder if we could get some explanation as to why this change was made. We had assumed that mines and technical surveys, then fisheries and post office would come up.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a change in the announced program. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is expected in Victoria tomorrow morning in order to meet Her Majesty, the Queen. For that reason we are asking the indulgence of the house to proceed with his estimates tonight. I must accept some responsibility for the error. I did not realize his departure had to be made tomorrow. If the house is agreeable we will proceed with the balance of the estimates of that department.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does that imply that if the minister's estimates are not completed by ten o'clock we shall go on until they are finished? Otherwise, of course, there would be no particular purpose served in going on until ten o'clock and having the minister come back tomorrow, because in that event he would miss his appointment anyway.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let us see what progress has been made by ten o'clock, and then if the house is in an agreeable mood we might continue for some time after that hour. I think everything will work out for the best.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would like to know if we could have what word the minister got from Old Man Ontario?


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Chairman, I contacted the provincial treasurer of the province of Ontario on Monday morning and he had no reason at all to oppose publication of the announcement of these roads. I think I should just read the list of roads off and then I will say a word about the program itself.
The program is as follows: The first road is from Savant Lake south to Ignace, approximately 90 miles. The second road is from Foleyet to Chapleau south, approximately 60 miles. The third road is from Minaki south, approximately 15 miles. With this road there is the condition that they may go further north, subject to my approval in writing. The fourth road is from Nakina northerly, approximately 50 miles. The fifth is from Goldpines to Uchi Lake, approximately 50 miles. The

sixth is from Port Arthur north, approximately 70 miles. The seventh is from Campbell Red Lake mine to H. G. Young mine, approximately 2 miles. I will read the general description of the eighth road to make it clear:
Resources development roads in the northwesterly part of the province: To facilitate the exploration and development of timber, mineral and commercial Ashing resources. The location of these roads will be determined by the provincial minister, subject to the approval in writing of the minister. The decision of the provincial minister will be based on information that will be supplied from a photoraphic and magnetometer survey along with geological reconnaissance to be carried out in the area north of the Canadian National Railways from Nakina westerly to the Manitoba boundary.
The last road, No. 9, is as follows:
Resources development roads in the northerly part of the province: To facilitate the exploration and development of timber, mineral and commercial Ashing resources. The location will be determined by the provincial minister subject to the approval in writing of the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the total mileage?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I cannot give
the hon. member the total including the last two roads, because the routes and mileages have not yet been ascertained; but the total mileage for the first seven roads is 335. That does not include the mileage of the ones in the northwesterly part of the province or the ones in the northerly part of the province which are contemplated.
I would like to say a word on the roads to resources program. This is not a new concept. It was first debated in this house in 1911. It was a proposal of the government of the day led by the Right Hon. Mr. Borden, and it was supported by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The original proposal of 1911 was turned down by the Senate, and the next we heard of this proposal was in the province of Ontario in the thirties. It was a very fine idea, first of all, to open up access to mines, and then it was gradually evolved into a program to include all types of roads.
I should like to make this point about the road program in general and its development, as I see it, across Canada. I should like to make very clear to the house that of our over-all expenditure on national de-velpoment, northern development takes only about 10 per cent. I should like to suggest that already dividends have appeared. This summer over 50 oil and gas exploration parties in the north are using over 400 scientists and men in the first stages of the development program. To point out to the house the significance of this to the people of Canada, three years ago oil and gas revenues totalled about $300,000. This last year ending March 31 it was close to $9 million, which was a sizeable increase. Last year it was $900,000, 66968-9-390i
Supply-Northern Affairs and that is a tenfold increase in one year. If our experience in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon is the same as in Alberta, we can expect eventual revenues of between $100 million and $250 million a year from this source.
I noticed in the discussion here on Saturday that it was mentioned that road costs have been revised upwards. This is true. I could give the committee an example of one road which was mentioned in the debate, the Flat Creek-Eagle Plain road. On the advice of men who helped to build the Alaska highway and who had built roads in the territories, both public and private, I told the committee on mines, forests and waters last year that I expected this first section of the road to cost between $5 million and $8 million. The estimates now are that it will be over $10 million. But when I told the committee that the estimated amount of money which would be spent by the oil and gas companies along the route, mostly on this road but to a lesser degree on roads to the south, will total in the next few years some $200 million, the proportion of money being put into this program by the government as compared with private enterprise is small indeed. I think there is a good example of how you can trigger off expenditures of private enterprise in opening up our resources.
Finally, the purpose of the roads to resources is to open up new country. It is not a winter works proposal. Forest access roads may be. It was designed as one of the first proposals we put forward on winter works, but the roads to resources program is a program of opening up virgin resource areas. The way it works is simple. The province makes the proposals to the federal government and we examine these proposals to see if the criteria we have set up are met. That is to say, whether they open up resources of timber, fish, minerals, tourist wealth and so on. In the case of the province of Nova Scotia and the province of Prince Edward Island where they have not virgin resource areas to open up, we allow them to use roads and open up areas for the tourist industry. This last provision also applies to a small degree to the province of New Brunswick.
I believe, and I believe almost all Canadians will support me in this, that this is a good type of program and it is worthy of support, and if ever a program was evolved with less politics in it or suggestion of politics I would like to know, because I do not think any government, Liberal, Social Credit, C.C.F. or Conservative have intimated in any way to the federal government that these roads should be used for political purposes. These roads are built in areas where there are very

Supply-Northern Affairs few people. The roads that serve the settled areas of our provinces are purely a provincial responsibility, and this is an innovation only in the sense that the federal government has come into the provincial arena of road building in those areas where you want to open up new resources.
Many people over the years have spoken in favour of these access roads or, as we now call them, roads to resources. It is a policy which, I think, is for the good of the country and quite frankly I do not think the program was helped too much by the suggestions that were made here on Saturday. As far as I am concerned I hope hon. members will support me in what I am trying to do to persuade the provinces to help their own future by opening up areas which will benefit from these access roads and, in the west, giving me access, as minister in charge of this department, to the north. That is the theory and the substance of the roads to resources program, and that is how it works.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has seen fit to criticize the attitude taken by the opposition in this house the other night. We on this side have been very patient with the minister and, of course, we should be because of his inexperience in parliamentary affairs, but I think the time has now come to ask him why it is necessary for the federal government to get permission from the government of Ontario by telephone before the minister can give information to this house as to how a federal appropriation is being spent or, indeed, as is likely, has been spent. Perhaps that is the first question the minister would like to answer.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think that is a reasonable question, and one that the committee should be informed about. In the first instance, when you are working out a roads program with the province there is a good deal of discussion and negotiation which goes on about various roads. I think hon. members here are experienced enough to know that if word gets out in an area of any province, regardless of the politics of that province, that there is a possibility of a road starting from a town and heading north, naturally the people of that town are strongly in support of it. It is also obvious that the people in other districts would like to put forward arguments that their town should be the starting point.
This choice of starting place is purely a provincial responsibility. We are not very much concerned about the starting place of the road. We are concerned that it should open up resources. But if this became a matter of public discussion, the province, no

matter what its political complexion, would be subjected to such pressures that it would become very difficult for the two governments to work out a program bearing in mind only the resource development of this country. I would like to pay a compliment to the governments across this country for maintaining silence while these roads were being negotiated. Even though there were differences between the two governments on points of detail as to what resources were going to be opened up and whether or not it was worth while, these discussions were carried on in a most harmonious fashion. Looking back over the last year and a half of negotiations I can say that my department, the officials particularly, have a right to be proud that all these negotiations were carried on without any acrimony between the governments concerned.
To keep this thing at this level, the government in each case exchanged letters agreeing that there should be no discussion on which roads were being decided upon until an agreement had been completed. In fact, the letter said, until an agreement was signed. In the last five or six months we have been discussing what might be called legal points. Some of the roads have been decided upon in most cases for months, but the legal points of the agreements are still under consideration. That is the reason why there has been this long delay in making announcements.
I think hon. members will appreciate that if I had my way, from my point of view, I would have liked nothing better than to be able to announce progress of this program as the roads were decided upon between ourselves and provincial governments, and not wait until all the legal work was completed. But that was the agreement we made, and that was the agreement I kept to. And as far as the legality of the vote was concerned, I think that the vote last year contained the words "roads that will be built and may be built", and we got authority from that; and this year the words "may be" are left out because I am positive that all the agreements will have been signed within a month or so.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, this has been a pious explanation, but if I can be impious I should like to say that the minister's explanation is satisfactory except that it does not cover this point: the minister has known for some time that one party to the agreement, in the particular case with which I am concerned the province of Ontario, has been releasing details all along the line. We watched Premier Frost for 18 minutes on television one pre-election night while he was extolling his government for carrying

out this access road program in Ontario, and all the roads to which the minister has referred were mentioned. We heard all about this magnificent road he was building between Savant Lake and Ignace, and how this was going to open up the centre of the northwestern Ontario area. We were told about this marvellous road from Nakina to the Anoconda property which would provide access to the iron ore deposits, and we even got the details about this road from Port Arthur, part of the cost of which would be borne by the Abitibi company and part by the provincial government.
The point which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister-and I do not think it was answered directly, though I think it deserves an explanation-is that if someone is breaking an agreement hon. members of this house should have some protection. I think that is a modest request, and if the minister suggests to us that the province of Ontario and the representatives of northwestern Ontario have not made political hay out of this particular program, then he is naive. Maybe he is naive-I hear that he is-but the hon. gentleman is very naive if he is unaware that political capital has been made out of these projects.
After all, this is what the Frost government fought the election on. The minister may make the excuse that there are not very many people up there, but Premier Frost has made a good deal of play with the vision passed on to him by the Prime Minister. People like the idea that we are booming, and they like the idea that we are developing the north country. This is a good program, on the whole, and some of these roads are good, though there are a couple about which I am doubtful. But for the minister to refuse to give the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and other hon. members here information month after month while all the time the provincial people were making political capital out of it was just unfair to members of parliament. After all, we have some interest in this thing. Perhaps if we had a Conservative member in northwestern Ontario we would have been given this information by the government, but it just happens that northwestern Ontario is a bloc which has no Conservative representation in this house. I am very suspicious that despite the minister's assurances he has been not so much naive as willing to play along the party line in order to support his provincial confrere.
I have said enough about this, but I should like to know the purpose of the road from Goldpines to Uchi Lake and the reason why the province wants to put in that particular
Supply-Northern Affairs road. I want to know why the province wants to put in that road. What are the arrangements with Abitibi on sharing the cost of the road from Port Arthur? I should also very much like to know if any of the roads listed under 9 and 10 are going to go into the area west of Wren lake which is suffering from a budworm epidemic at the present time.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Arthur has referred to the fact which I think should be noticeable by now that no minister to my knowledge has so postponed the giving of information to which any hon. member of the committee is entitled as has the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The hon. member referred to questions I raised last session about roads to resources in Ontario. Hon. members will recall that there was a delay in answering starred questions and they were carried over for months. No other minister followed such a course. I do not want to be a bad boy in this respect and I know the minister has some obligations to perform and I want him to be able to perform his duties. On the other hand because of his conduct in the last two years with respect to members from northern Ontario he has not deserved any consideration when he is in the jam he is in tonight.
The record speaks for itself. Ignoring last session altogether, if one looks at page 5648 of Hansard, for this session, the appendix that was prepared by the Secretary of State showing unfulfilled requisitions which are normal requisitions-things which I think anyone on the government side would admit were within the competence of any member of parliament to ask-he will observe that there are more items unanswered for which the minister is responsible than there are items with respect to any other department.
I think there is something wrong on the part of the minister in his attempt to ignore requests from an area that has a natural interest in these matters. On three different occasions during the 1958 session I asked the minister questions about a road with which he is perfectly familiar, the prospective road from Kenora to Minaki. On every possible opportunity the minister avoided a direct reply. I want to inform my colleagues in this committee on both sides of the chamber who know something about these things and are, I think, sympathetic, that in 1957 a road was started from Kenora to Minaki for election purposes and the day after the Conservative candidate was defeated work was stopped on that road. The very same thing happened in 1958. I believe the minister owes us an explanation. If we were participating ia
6164	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs politics in days gone by that would perhaps be a typical and natural way of doing things at the time but I want to tell the minister he is 25 or 50 years out of date and this issue is registering in the county.
The same road between Kenora and Mi-naki was announced by the prospective provincial candidate for election in May as something that was going ahead. He of course was Conservative. The funny part of it is that work started just as it did in 1957. They started to spend money. I want to ask the minister if the federal government contributed to the construction of this road in both the campaign in 1957 and in the pre-election campaign in 1958. The federal government did contribute in 1957 as proved by the minister's return to me and yet the minister comes before this committee and says that among his best friends, the province of Ontario and the federal government, they have in two plus years in office been unable to form an understanding or agreement with respect to this desirable road program if it was carried on, on a civil service basis. They have not done so.
I want the minister to tell me what road programs have gone on with respect to the Kenora-Minaki road in two consecutive years contributed to by the federal government as evidenced by a return the minister gave to me. I think this committee was responsible for contributing $54,000 in 1957 and it started all over again in 1958. As soon as the election was over there was no work for anybody because the present incumbent was elected. I believe that should be explained by the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before the minister goes into detail about this, may I say there is a question of principle involved here which is far more than a refusal on the part of the minister to answer questions asked by the hon. members for Port Arthur and Kenora-Rainy River. The House of Commons votes the money for this program. This program has been going on for two years without these agreements being concluded in a formal legal sense with any province except British Columbia. The money has been voted and a good deal of it has been spent.
The minister had the effrontery the other day to suggest that it was McCarthyism for us, who have to vote the money, to ask for information about it. And then in a last minute effort to get his estimates through he said he would telephone the premier of a province to see if the premier would give his consent to his telling the sovereign parliament of Canada what it has a perfect right to know without the consent of any provincial premier.


Now, that is the real point. I say it is not good enough just to give these projects for Ontario.
The hon. member for Timiskaming the other afternoon was very reasonable about this matter. He said if there were some of these roads or routes that had not been agreed upon between any provincial government and the federal government he would not press the minister about those. That is a reasonable attitude because some would not have been agreed upon and might have to be changed. But the hon. member felt we were entitled-and I contend that the House of Commons is entitled-to be told about all those roads concerning which there is no difference of opinion any longer between the provinces and the federal government. Any private arrangement that the minister made with a provincial government to keep this information secret from parliament should not be binding in any way. The minister should either get himself out of such an agreement or parliament should not vote the money. That is the situation.
We should not be voting this money blindly with provincial premiers and provincial ministers of highways going around the country exploiting the grants for political purposes, or even not exploiting for political purposes. Whenever we vote money, except possibly in a few cases to the Department of National Defence, we are entitled to be told what the money is going to be used for before we vote it. It seems to me there is a question of principle here and the minister should do what he has done in the case of Ontario. Of course, there can be no difficulty in British Columbia because the agreement is signed. He should get up and give us the name and description of all these routes in the other provinces about which there is no longer any dispute between the provincial government and the government of Canada.


William Moore Benidickson: It is Tammany hall.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Chairman, I feel there is a very important principle involved in this point that has just been raised. It seems to me that the matter of highways comes within the jurisdiction of the provinces, not of this parliament, and where money is voted by this parliament to build highways in any province, then it should be a matter under the jurisdiction of the government of that province to decide just how those highways will be built, when they will be built and where. It also seems to me as a corollary to that, if any announcement is to be made in regard to a highway being built in any province, that announcement should be made by the minister of highways in that province or

certainly, if in this house, only with the consent of that province. As far as I am concerned, in Nova Scotia we feel that highways is a matter that comes under the jurisdiction of our local government, and personally I would think it would be a breach of our provincial autonomy if the minister rose in this house and gave information about the building of a highway in the province of Nova Scotia without the agreement of the government of Nova Scotia. I think it would be an invasion of provincial autonomy if an announcement of that kind were made in this house without the agreement of the minister of highways of any province.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In reply to what the last hon. gentleman just said, he will undoubtedly realize that the Minister of Public Works has been breaching provincial autonomy now for two years because he has-indeed he has the duty to do it-constantly given us information in this house on appropriate occasions about the trans-Canada highway. It is a joint project between federal and provincial governments. It is under provincial jurisdiction and the routes are chosen by the provinces. The minister said just a few minutes ago that as the federal government makes a contribution to it, naturally the Minister of Public Works tells us how that money is being spent. That is exactly the position that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources should be in in respect of those highways. Are we in this house not to know how the federal share of this expenditure is to be made? Are we to vote those appropriations without getting the necessary details? Is that a breach of provincial autonomy to ask the minister how federal money is being spent? That is all we are doing.
The minister has said that one of the difficulties about giving information on this matter is that there is always controversy over where a road will go. If you tell where a particular road is going to go, then you get in trouble with neighbouring communities. They would like the road to go through their communities. Of course, that is quite true. We have not been asking the minister about that. We have been asking the minister about roads that have been agreed upon. I do not see how the minister can have any embarrassment in giving that kind of information in respect of roads that have been agreed upon, even if there was any difficulty in any other respect. I am going to quote what the minister said the other night. I am quoting from page 5883 of Hansard:
I can say this, that in Ontario there are seven roads upon which agreements have been made.
Supply-Northern Affairs
These were the roads concerning which information was being asked, and he was pressed on this. Then, a few minutes later he said:
I feel that as long as I keep my part of the bargain I have done my duty.
Apparently there was some bargain he had made with the provincial government not to give this information and presumably it was a bargain that was supposed to work both ways but did not. The minister said: As long as I keep my part of the bargain, if the province wants to give out all the information, I have done my duty. Then, a little later at page 5884 he had this to say:
Just because there is an information leak at the provincial level-
By the premier of the province over television during the election campaign.
Just because there is an information leak at the provincial level he stands up here and asks me to break my written word in letters to the governments of these provinces that no information would be put out from the federal level.
Is that the obligation the minister undertook, meaning that no information will be put out at the federal level? It was a mutual obligation. Does the minister not think he was relieved from any such obligation, real or imaginary, when the premier of a province gave out the information during an election campaign? Nevertheless, the minister said as long as I keep my part of the bargain, and Premier Frost tells everybody all about it over the television, I am not going to say anything. Then, further, after a good deal of questioning and pressure, the minister said at page 5887 of Hansard.
If the hon. member will take my word for it, I will call the premier and ask permission to forget this mutual understanding-
He was replying to the hon. member for Port Arthur. The premier had forgotten about it weeks ago. I continue:
I will call the premier and ask permission to forget this mutual understanding of the two governments, though, no doubt, that will cause some embarrassment in other provinces.
Apparently he phoned the provincial treasurer, I think he said tonight. I continue:
I will certainly phone the premier, and I am quite certain that if it is correct that the information is around the province he would agree that there is no reason to keep it quiet. The election is over.
And it certainly is correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The election.


Lester Bowles Pearson: "The election is over". Then, a few moments later the minister had this to say:
I am speaking on a point of order. I gave an answer to the hon. member and in giving that

Supply-Northern Affairs
answer I stated quite candidly that I could not see there was any reason whatever of a political nature-there was no election in the offing-for not giving this information and immediately this stampede starts.
The minister is naive indeed if he is surprised at the stampede starting. We would like the minister to explain, if he has not yet explained, why it is necessary to phone the premier of Ontario to get information as to how federal money is to be spent, or has been spent, under an agreement, money which we are being asked to appropriate tonight.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, this matter is of such importance from the point of view of the rights of this parliament that I am sure the matter cannot be allowed to rest with the statements that have been made thus far by hon. members. I believe there is a duty on each member of this house, no matter where he sits, to address himself to the right of parliament in respect of a proposal made by the government for moneys for a particular purpose, to insist on the right to know all the circumstances connected with that request.
I have before me the observations of the leader of the opposition in 1938, the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, who stated what I think is not only a matter of privilege for members of this house, but what at the same time involves a duty in the case of any member who feels a particular situation needs elucidation, particularly a matter that has to do with a proposal by a minister for the expenditure of public money. Mr. Bennett, at page 3834 of Hansard tor 1938, volume 4, said the following:
One of the duties of that branch of the House of Commons known as the opposition is to investigate the expenditure of public moneys. Unfortunately the present opposition is small in numbers, so there falls upon me a much larger obligation than I like to contemplate, but one which as long as I occupy this position and am paid a salary for it under the provisions of the Public Service Act I shall continue to discharge to the best of my ability.
That statement surely justifies the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition and others in the remarks they have made this evening, and some of the remarks that were made by some other hon. members in this committee on Saturday last. Mr. Bennett goes on and at the same page he said:
When public finance is involved it is the duty of every member of the opposition to endeavour to show whether the country got the greatest value possible for its money.
How can that possibly be done unless we are given all of the information, information which the minister, mistaking his function, I believe, felt on Saturday and apparently

feels tonight he cannot properly and completely give to the house? This is surely a matter going to the very roots of this institution which we call a free parliament. If there can be any doubt about the words of Mr. Bennett I would refer the house to the commentary in that authorative book by Professor Dawson entitled, "The Government of Canada". At page 439 Professor Dawson says:
Inasmuch as virtually all government activities entail expenditures, and as most of these expenditures must be authorized by the approval of estimates, it follows that sooner or later the house must pass on most of these activities of the government in committee of supply. Each item-
I ask the minister to pay attention to these words; I ask the minister who is leading the house to pay attention to these words, because these are the kind of words we were reminded about when hon. gentlemen sat on this side and said that the former administration continuously disregarded the rights of parliament.


Mr. Walker:: May I ask what page that is?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Page 439. I will read it again because I do not believe that the two ministers associated with this particular matter at this time were free to appreciate the full implications of what I had begun to read.


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone says "dispense". That is typical of the attitude of the government as now constituted. They do not want to be reminded of our obligations to parliament. Dispense with reminding us. Dispense with calling in an authority that will establish the necessity of the government observing the well-known traditions of parliament, traditions which the Prime Minister hopes at some time or other to embody in a memorable document that will enshrine the rights of free citizens in this country. Dispense! This government is one of those governments in the history of Canada that requires to be reminded continually of the obligation of the government to the people and to parliament itself. Professor Dawson wrote on page 439:
Inasmuch as virtually all government activities entail expenditures, and as most of these expenditures must be authorized by the approval of estimates, it follows that sooner or later the house must pass on most of these activities of the government in committee of supply.
Then he goes on:
Each item in the estimates is debatable-
Each item. How can each item be debatable if the minister refuses to give us information on which to base an argument for debate?

Each item of the estimates is debatable, and any member may move to have it reduced or struck out.
Then he quotes Mr. Bennett:
"When public finance is involved it is the duty of every member of the opposition to endeavour to show whether the country got the greatest value possible for its money."
How can we possibly do that? How can that duty possibly be discharged unless we are given the right of scrutinizing to the fullest extent in accordance with the wishes of any particular member? The minister says, in exercising his best judgment, this is something he could not do. We shall analyse the reasons for that in a few moments. Then the author goes on to say:
Members may demand information in great detail, and can hold up the estimates until the desired material is produced. Thus . . . Mr. M. J. Cold-well, the C.C.F. leader, has stated the position of the private member in strong but not exaggerated terms.
These are the words of Mr. Coldwell.
"There is one place and one place only in this parliament where private members are supreme, namely, in supply when discussing the estimates. This is His Majesty's purse, and the age old right of members of parliament is to decide to what extent His Majesty's purse shall be filled. That is what we are doing now, and I certainly wish to protest against any precedent being established that would curtail the right of this parliament to discuss any matters in connection with the administration of the minister's department."
Surely if hon. gentlemen have forgotten this principle this recital from Mr. Bennett, a distinguished Conservative prime minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad hon. members applauded. I hope they will applaud and pay tribute to his memory by observing the precepts of parliamentary practice which he laid down. If these words are truly representative of the concepts applicable to this deliberative assembly, surely the minister was in error on Saturday last when he refused to give information which he said he was honour bound not to disclose to this house because of an agreement that he had made with the premier of Ontario.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or with any other premier.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Or with any other premier. Surely if such an agreement was made the minister must recognize by this time how invalid and improper such an agreement was. The minister could have said to Premier Frost, "I will do my best not to add to your own particular difficulties but I can go no farther than that. I must tell you, Mr. Premier, that if any member of the House of Commons asks me for information as to what is to be done with moneys that I am 66968-9-391
Supply-Northern Affairs asking parliament to vote I will have no alternative, indeed, I have the duty to tell parliament why I am asking for moneys in this particular instance."
Surely that is the correct situation. I felt rather concerned tonight when I realized the position in which the minister found himself, and I am sure that the house, generous as it always is, fully appreciates the situation confronting the minister in respect of other obligations. But we have a duty to perform. The minister came to the house tonight and gave no evidence whatsoever of appreciation of the elementary principle involved in refusing parliament this information.
First of all, he criticized parliament for its conduct on Saturday. He began his statement by saying that he had spoken over the telephone to the provincial treasurer of Ontario and as a result of having had that telephone conversation, not with the head of the government of Ontario but with the provincial treasurer who, by the way, comes from northern Ontario where some of these roads are, he tells us as a minister of this government that he has received from an Ontario minister his consent to give the parliament of Canada some of the particulars behind a matter involving a vote which the House of Commons is asked to consider.
If ever there has been a failure to appreciate the function of this kind of deliberative assembly, surely we have had it tonight. I am not commenting on the merits of the proposal. Undoubtedly this program has much to commend it. But there can be no justification for not giving the information in the absence of a decision of parliament itself either not to ask for the information or to accept that there are special reasons why it should not be given. First of all, the minister did not even explain that there were difficulties in the way of his acceding readily to what undoubtedly he would have had to admit he must do. This was not done. He simply said, I cannot do this; I am in honour bound not to do it. I have an agreement with the heads of provincial governments and I respect my agreement with provincial governments, he might as well have gone on to say, more than I respect the rights and privileges of this free parliament.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone says "nonsense", and that is typical of the penetrating, pregnant answer we receive from government benches when they find themselves in an embarrassing position as they obviously do at this very moment.
The reason why we must insist on this is because, as in 1938 when Mr. Bennett spoke
6168	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs as leader of the opposition, leading a small group, he had to realize that there might be other similar situations confronting parliament. He wanted to see that the principles which he fully recognized as sacrosanct would be observed. This is exactly the position we must take tonight, so that no other minister of this government on some other occasion will come in here and say, I cannot give this information because I have made an arrangement with some provincial premier.
I am not discussing this matter from the point of view of its connection with circumstances which led to members of a provincial parliament, in the course of an election, being given information which is being denied to the members of this house. I am not placing my case on that ground. I am placing my case on the elementary principle that a minister must fully answer any question put to him from any section of the house; that is elementary.


Mr. Nesbiti:: Will the hon. member permit a question? In view of what the hon. gentleman is saying, is it the policy of his party that the details of every sort of financial grant to all the provinces be carefully examined and controlled by this house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have stated that it is the duty of any minister, I do not care to what party he belongs, in a parliament such as this to disclose information which is asked by any hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend is not satisfied, he can get up after I have finished my statement-
Some hon Members: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and he can give us this new concept of a bill of rights if he wishes.
I want to say this; so long as I am in this house no member of the government is going to say to me that I am not entitled, as a representative of a part of the people of this country and with a wider responsibility like other members to all the people in this country, to elicit from the government the kind of details which will enable me to decide whether a request made for further moneys should be approved. That is an elementary principle. Let there be no doubt about this: the right hon. gentleman who now leads this government had no hesitation in affirming this principle when, as in so many places, on April 26 he said:
Parliament has been treated with shocking contempt, sorely wounded and robbed of its rights.
I say not only has the minister treated parliament with shocking contempt, sorely


wounded it and robbed it of its rights, but the hon. gentlemen who sit behind him, by their support of him in this particular
instance are guilty of the same breach of the rights of parliament.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to say to the committee that after listening to the hon. member for Essex East intoning unctuously, with all the pomposity at his command about the rights of parliament, I am very pleased indeed to find that after twenty-two years in the government and two years in the opposition he has finally learned to appreciate the fundamental principles which he read to us just a moment ago. I think that all people who are interested in results in this country will recognize that these roads to resources agreements to be concluded are presently under negotiation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not what you said the other night.


Azellus Denis: Quebec is excluded.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The province of British Columbia has signed an agreement. Eight other provinces have agreements under negotiation. I made it very clear to the committee that in the interest of developing resources instead of developing votes-which is the only thing the opposition knows about -we agreed, not in any personal deal between myself and the other governments but as a matter of ethics between sovereign administrations in this country. The Leader of the Opposition, with no experience in domestic matters-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -stands up in this house-


Lester Bowles Pearson: How many elections did you lose?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: These interruptions from hon. gentlemen opposite show how unaccustomed they are, after years of living in idleness on the back benches of this house, to being on the other side of the house.
I was just saying a word about the Leader of the Opposition. He was good enough to say I was inexperienced in my task. I would say that is, to a large extent, true. I am doing my level best to learn my job and do it well. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will also grow in stature as a leader of the opposition knowledgeable in domestic affairs. If he goes back and remembers his own statements made over the years, some of the things he has held up as examples of how negotiations should be carried on between governments; if he would recall the number of times when as secretary of state for external affairs he condemned secret

diplomacy but stressed the importance of secrecy when negotiations were being conducted, he would not say, I think, that the public should have all the information and that parliament should have all the information, while negotiations were under way. However, these are phrases he will remember: negotiations should not be prejudiced by the spotlight of publicity. Now, he asks me as the minister of a department to break these very tenets that he has espoused. He asks me while negotiations are going on with eight of the nine provinces to divulge every little detail.
I tried to be helpful to the committee in the case of Ontario. Last week the provincial authorities in Ontario finally met, so far as we were concerned in the department, all the proposals that we had put forward in connection with this agreement from a legal standpoint. It was for this reason I was ready on Saturday, in the interest of cooperation with members of the C.C.F. party who were raising these questions, to give them the information they asked, knowing that the negotiations at least at the department level for the province of Ontario were now concluded. They are still not through the cabinet yet.
In the case of Manitoba only today did we receive an answer to the last letter I wrote debating one of the terms in the agreement. The letter has come in although I have not actually seen it myself. I still am a little concerned over my own actions in agreeing to give this information on Ontario. I felt honestly bound to give that information to the committee, because I believe as strongly as I can that this committee has a right to all the information it can get on the spending of money by this parliament.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Just the information we can get?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This information that I would like to provide would be as detailed as it comes in to me. The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond suggested the opposition was asking the government to go a bit far into the affairs of a province than is ordinarily expected. It may be all right for a government that believes in centralization and taking over control of a province and eventually the municipalities; but I do not think there are serious minded members of this house who would say about the trans-Canada agreement, for instance, that before the money is voted each year every detail of every contract in every province must be laid before this house. I would suggest that hon. members would have the right to ask for all this information as soon as it was available, but if they held 66968-9-391i
Supply-Northern Affairs up their votes until the province had completed all its arrangements for the whole year it would be impossible in practice to get the trans-Canada highway built.
This program is clear. I gave to the committee in the estimates last year a clear outline of this program. For each province there is a maximum of $15 million. Last year I told the house there was a term of five years. This year I told the house that starting last fall we had changed the firm commitment of a five-year limit and made a term in each agreement suitable to the province concerned. The agreements vary from five to eleven years.
I have made this information clear, but I would like to put forward this proposition, that the province has the right to choose the location of the roads and has the right to let the contracts. We are expected to protect the spending of public money, and we have the right to examine and see if those roads meet the criteria parliament accepted last year when first voting this item, namely whether they open up resources. We also have the right to examine and see if the money is well spent. Personally, if I were a provincial cabinet minister I would resent any federal government, which was making, in effect, a conditional grant, coming in and saying, "We want all the information before you spend a dollar and before we vote the money." As I say, we have the right as the federal government to make certain that before the federal government pays any money we have looked into it to see that the money will be well spent.
I told the house on Saturday that with one exception no money has been spent under this vote because no agreement has been signed. The exception is British Columbia. I do not know how much more I would have to say, Mr. Chairman, to make it clear to hon. members that this program is a good program. I have had tremendous co-operation from all the provinces in working it out.


Azellus Denis: What about Quebec?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think as the years roll by it will rank as one of the most imaginative and constructive proposals ever put forward by a federal government.


Azellus Denis: What about Quebec?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have the temerity to believe that as these roads are built and new resource areas open up the new wealth discovered will more than make up for any money we put into these roads. I think also as the years go on and we try to assess this roads program in relation to other great projects in Canada's history, this roads to resources concept, first put forward

Supply-Northern Affairs in this house in 1911 and brought into effect in 1958, will rank with the significance of the Canadian Pacific railway.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will not detain the committee very long at this point. The minister, speaking from the depths of his experience as an elder statesman, has been good enough to wish me well and to hope that I will grow in stature. Perhaps eventually I may be successful in reaching his heights, but I quite admit I have not got the minister's broad and deep experience in these matters, that is true. He has been working on roads now for a couple of years and ought to know something about them, but apparently he has not learned in two years the difference between the trans-Canada highway which is built, as far as federal government participation is concerned, through a statutory grant, and these highways which are in appropriations each year as part of the minister's department. But no doubt the minister will pick up these details as he goes along and eventually he may learn something about diplomacy.
I was not sure when the minister first spoke whether he was condemning secret diplomacy or open diplomacy. He reminded me of the number of times I had condemned secret diplomacy at the United Nations. That is what I am condemning now, secret diplomacy between the government of Ontario and the minister, so secret that while the premier of Ontario can tell everything over television, no member of this House of Commons can find out from the minister how this federal money is to be spent, or at least, he admits in one case has been spent.
Then the minister said, "No agreements have been made, so how can you expect me to talk about these things before an agreement had been made?" The minister said on page 5883 of Hansard for July 11:
I can say this, that in Ontario there are seven roads upon which agreements have been made.
The minister is getting into his usual difficulty of saying one thing on one occasion and something else on another occasion, and when we point that out he accuses us of inexperience or quibbling with words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or McCarthyism.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Or McCarthyism. The minister said the other night that there were seven agreements about roads, but we will not know about them because he said at the same time, "As long as I keep my share of the bargain, I feel my conscience is clear;" no matter what the premier of Ontario may do during an election period, he does not


want to do anything after an election period. Every time the minister speaks on these matters he gets himself in more deeply, and I would advise him to say as little as possible if he wants to get his estimates through in time to get to Saskatchewan.
Then the minister said, repeating what has been said by an hon. member, "We would be prejudicing provincial rights if we got this information in the house." There is going to be spent $9 million of federal money. I think he said, "We would be going a bit far and prejudicing provincial rights." That is a strange doctrine of provincial rights and federal authority that a member of this parliament is not to be told by the minister how the money that this parliament is being asked to vote is to be spent, or in one case has been spent, and no amount of unctuous sophistry on the part of the minister will explain away the fact that last Saturday he refused to give this committee the information to which it was entitled. The reason he gave us was that we should not really worry about it because the election was over. The election in Ontario was over; why should we want to know about it any more? Then the minister gets up tonight and says twice that there is no politics in this matter; "I am doing my duty as well as I can."


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask the
hon. Leader of the Opposition, if we had announced these roads before the election would he have complained then?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry, would you repeat that?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was just
suggesting that if the government of Ontario had announced these roads before the election-


An hon. Member:: They did.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -the hon.
member would have some reason to complain.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister must know, because he was politically interested in this election, that every night during the provincial election, before the election, information was being given by the candidates from northern Ontario about these roads. It was being used for election purposes. Candidates could do that over the air, but a member of parliament could not get that information in this house even after the election.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The thing that bothers me about the minister's replies and which, I should like to suggest, amounts to evasion, is this: he knows that I came to him many months ago in this house and told him and

his executive assistant that these representatives were announcing these roads in our region, that details were being given, and that in one case even the contractor who was going to get the job was being named. I felt it was unfair because we could not get that information and the minister agreed to give me the information in confidence.
But my point is this: why should someone on the other side of the agreement be able to go around blatting it all over the place while members of parliament should have to keep silent?. I might say that the provincial government has taken all of the credit for this project. Why, the minister is not even known as a visionary up in northern Ontario. It is all Old Man Ontario and his good friends George and Clare. I should like to think that the minister and the government might get a bit of credit for this, but no. All the credit is going to Old Man Ontario. I should like to think that this deal with Ontario is being worked out in equal partnership, but it seems to me that, as in some of the divorce cases, one partner is pure and above reproach and the other is going around committing adultery all over the place.
We have an example here which I hope the minister will not follow in the future. If any evidence comes forward that someone is not keeping the agreement, I think we deserve to have the information here and I think the minister should give us that assurance before we go any further into this topic and into the detail. I think he should give us an assurance that in future we should have this information as soon as one scrap of it is revealed by the other party. I, certainly, could have provided the minister with concrete proof if he had wanted it, but I would have assumed he would take my word for it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want this discussion to be confined to the province of Ontario. I make a request to the minister that he should give to this committee, and give to the committee now, the names of all the roads in the eight provinces with regard to which agreement in principle had been reached. Otherwise we shall be asked to vote this money blind wtihout even knowing how it is to be used. It will be a blank cheque to the minister, and he will be able to change this around in any way he likes. I should also like to ask the minister if he would tell us how much of the $9 million voted last year was spent in each province and for what projects in each province.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: When I heard the hon.
member for Essex East making the argument he did I was able to understand the fear which some people have regarding invasions
Supply-Northern Affairs of provincial autonomy. What the hon. member said was that when money is granted to a province, this federal parliament has the right to examine in detail how that money is spent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So far as the
federal account is concerned.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: These funds are granted in respect to roads to be built by the provinces, and only the provincial government has the right to decide how the money is to be spent. As far as this house is concerned, I do not think that under our constitutional system we are entitled to discuss anything other than whether or not the grant has actually been made to the province. If we were to adopt the principle advanced by the hon. member for Essex East it would mean that every grant made to a provincial government in respect of education, hospitals or for any other purpose could be debated as to the detailed expenditure in this chamber. We have the right to question expenditures, but the expenditure here before us concerns only the writing of a cheque to a provincial government. The details of how that money is spent are a matter for that government. I say, further, that the only right we have in regard to that money is as provided under the agreement with the province to whom the money is passed over.
In this case, where an agreement is made for the building of highways according to certain specifications, this house has the right to see to it that the agreement is kept, but we have no right to say where a road will go or anything of that nature, and certainly in a case such as the present one I do not think constitutionally we have the right to ask the minister of northern affairs to give out information except that which he is entitled to give under the agreement, and under the terms of the agreement in this case he has quite properly checked with the provincial government concerned before he has released information.
If we were to say anything else in this committee, the detailed expenditure of every cent we gave to a province from now on would be a matter which could be debated in this chamber even though the money had been spent by the province for matters within provincial jurisdiction only and our part had only been to make a grant.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister
whether he agrees with this doctrine of federal-provincial financial relationship which has just been expounded by the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: He is asking you.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the Leader
of the Opposition had been listening a moment ago he would have heard me lay down what I thought. In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with regard to the money spent in each province of the $9 million voted last year, the information is as follows: British Columbia, $1,000,732.39; Saskatchewan, $750,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is all that was spent. And were there agreements with these two provinces?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There was an agreement with British Columbia since November 4, 1958. No agreement was signed with the province of Saskatchewan.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, the minister is telling us that money was spent in Saskatchewan without there being any agreement whatsoever.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That point was raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West on Saturday and I was about to remind the hon. member for Ottawa West that this matter was fully explained in the standing committee on mines, forests and waters as reported on page 951 of the proceedings in evidence No. 32 for June 5, 1959.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister read the explanation?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. If the committee does not object I will read from this statement because there was a series of questions and answers in the evidence. I might just add that the payment for Saskatchewan was made in February of 1959 and was charged to appropriations for 1958-59 and not to the estimates which are now before the house, those for 1959-60. In last year's estimates, a vote similar to item 280 appeared as item 289, but there was one significant difference in this wording from the wording of the vote this year. It referred to contributions "in accordance with agreements that have been or may be entered into by Canada and the provinces."
The explanation is as follows:
Saskatchewan was one of the first provinces to get work under way on the roads to resources program. Before the end of the fiscal year 1958-59 the government of Saskatchewan represented to us that they had made very substantial expenditures and had recovered no money from the federal government, with the result that the province was suffering financial hardship. Saskatchewan had been ready to sign the formal agreement, but the decision to make the construction schedule more flexible had caused some delay. In the circumstances, the government of Saskatchewan asked that a payment might be made covering somewhat less than half the money the province had already spent on the program.

Even though the wording of the vote referred to agreements that have been or may be entered into between Canada and the provinces, I consulted with my own legal officers and asked them to take the matter up with the solicitor to the treasury to make sure beyond doubt of the propriety of such a payment. After careful consideration it was the concensus of the various legal officers that no payment should be charged to the vote unless an agreement had been entered into but that the agreement need not necessarily be of a formal nature. There was no question but that we had reached agreement with the province of Saskatchewan, which was embodied in the exchange of letters between the two governments. I therefore made a submission to the treasury board in which I stated that agreement had been reached through correspondence with the province of Saskatchewan on the roads to be constructed under the roads to resources program, the standards and specifications to which they are to be built, and the terms and conditions governing Canada's contribution to the province in respect to the cost of constructing such roads. In these circumstances I recommended that I be given authority to make a payment in the amount of $750,000 to the province of Saskatchewan. This recommendation was approved by treasury board on February 5, 1959 under authority of treasury board minute 544145 and a cheque for $750,000 was sent to the province the same day.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that this explanation will make it clear to the hon. member that there was no impropriety in making that payment to the province of Saskatchewan. As I said before, we have a formal agreement signed with British Columbia and there is no necessity to explain that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister two factual questions. First, will he tell us what was the road in Saskatchewan to which this matter referred? Second, will he tell us whether or not the agreement with British Columbia requires federal auditing of the expenditures before the money is paid?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the agreement with British Columbia is that the provincial auditors will present these figures and we will accept them on the assumption that the provincial auditor is an accredited business firm.
With respect to the other question, there are three roads in the Saskatchewan roads program. These are the Otosquen road, the Hanson lake road and the Uranium City road. As I understand it they have completed the Otosquen and are working on the Hanson lake road and part of the Uranium City road.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, in his
answer about British Columbia I believe the minister has answered completely the fallacious argument of the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond. In other words the minister says he does not pay out any money under this agreement until he is

satisfied that the money has been spent for the purpose for which parliament voted it. So the extraordinary doctrine we listened to a few moments ago from the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond is not, according to the minister's own evidence, followed by the government which the hon. member was trying to support by his argument.
In the same context, of course, the minister is, I am sure, well aware that no money is paid under the trans-Canada highway arrangements until there has been a proper audit and a very distinguished former member of this house from Nova Scotia withheld the payment in one province for a very considerable time until there was some further investigation into some aspects of the roads program in that province. So there can be no question whatever that parliament has a perfect right to know and the Auditor General in the end has to certify that this money has been properly spent for the purpose for which parliament is voting it.
The purpose the minister is asking us to vote this for is to spend money for roads leading to resources in accordance with agreements entered into between Canada and the provinces. The minister said that a certain sum had already been spent in one province-$250,000 or something like that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The sum of
$750,000 in Saskatchewan.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the only case?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There has been no money spent of the $9 million we are being asked to vote?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Not one cent of the present $9 million has been spent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister in a position to give us the names of the roads in the other eight provinces?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am afraid I cannot, Mr. Chairman. Whenever I have been able to I have done so. I cannot give that information because these agreement have not gone through cabinet yet and in several of the provinces a great deal depends on the negotiations we are carrying on with them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to make it clear again that I am only asking about those roads concerning which there is no dispute with the provinces. This was the information asked for the other day by the hon. member for Timiskaming. I can understand the minister's hesitation in giving information concerning roads about which negotiations are in process, but surely if there is complete
Supply-Northern Affairs agreement there cannot be any reason for secrecy, not the faintest reason.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am informed by my officials who are looking for this information that outside of Saskatchewan and British Columbia there are points of discussion still going on with them all. I understand that ten days ago Ontario came along with its answer to my last letter. I will have to bring this to cabinet and if it is acceptable it will be approved. If these points are under discussion I cannot possibly mention the roads in question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, why did the
minister himself say last Saturday as reported at page 5883 of Hansard:
1 can say this, that in Ontario there are seven roads upon which agreements have been made.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Because, Mr. Chairman, we were that far advanced in Ontario that I felt free to give that information to the committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am very inexperienced in these matters, Mr. Chairman, but an agreement has been made or it has not been made. No matter how far you may be on the road to an agreement there comes a time when you make it and then the agreement is finished in so far as negotiation is concerned. At least, that is the way we conduct affairs internationally. I suppose the minister follows the same pirnciples of negotiation. On Saturday he said that there were seven roads upon which agreements had been made. Have they been made or have they not been made? If they are not yet completed, why did he say they had been made when he spoke on Saturday?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think this is a question of a misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman. In the case of Ontario the negotiations on the actual physical location of the roads and standards are completed but a formal agreement has not yet been signed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister told us the other day-perhaps some one could look it up-that $3 million had been spent on this program in the province of Prince Edward Island. I was astonished at that figure and I must say I am still astonished at it. Can the minister explain it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the province of Prince Edward Island the estimated total expenditures up to the end of March 31, 1959, totalled $2,500,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But the minister said no money was spent of last year's vote except
6174	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs in Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Now he tells us that $2,500,000 was spent in Prince Edward Island.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I made the mistake of assuming that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was smart enough to realize that it was provincial money that was spent. The federal government has not spent any money.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think with the hon.
gentleman's experience this would sound like another vision. We in this committee are not interested in what the provincial government is spending. What the minister said the other day-I could look it up in a moment-was that $3 million had been spent as a part of this program. I expressed the view that $1,500,000 was the maximum for each province. He said that it was, but that the $3 million was the total expenditure of which we were to share half. Now he says these are provincial expenditures. Where does the federal government come into the item at all?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I should read what the minister said last Saturday on this point.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that it is ten o'clock the established time for adjournment. The chairman should ask if it is the desire of the committee to sit beyond the hour. Before he does that perhaps I can express our attitude in that regard and say that this evening there are extremely special circumstances which would warrant proceeding beyond ten o'clock which we think could have been overcome, of course, if the house leader had been able to keep the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources closer to his itinerary. Nevertheless, there are special circumstances which will cause the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to be away tomorrow. Because of that we will be certainly most co-operative in extending the sitting beyond ten o'clock this evening. It is hoped that this will be no indication of any future action.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent to continue?


Mr. Henderson:: No. Hon. gentlemen have made no move tonight to get the estimates through. If they want to sit here, I do not.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I was going to say that in view of the circumstances which were announced by the acting house leader earlier, and in view of what has been said by the hon. member for Skeena, we on this side of the house would be prepared to


carry on for some time longer in the hope that the desire of the house leader would be accomplished. I cannot assure the committee that that will be so, but I can assure the committee of this. If the minister will show more co-operation in connection with the questions that were asked perhaps we could get on much faster.


Charles Edward Rea: Will the committee give unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Before we do that I wonder whether I could have any indication from the government or the house leader as to the time? I would suggest at this stage that we sit until eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would it be possible to carry on until we get at least this department through so that the minister will be able to carry on tomorrow where he wishes to be? It will not take all night.


Frank Howard: Perhaps if we leave it wide open like that we will have more cooperation.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In a spirit of co-operation I would like to clear up this difficulty about expenditures in Prince Edward Island. A moment ago the minister said there were no such expenditures, but at page 5885 of Hansard the minister is reported as follows:
In Prince Edward Island, 343 miles of road-on that little island-and they spent $2,500,000 last year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did I understand the minister to say that they spent $2,500,000 in Prince Edward Island? I thought the limit for each province was $1,500,000.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The limit each year in a province is $3 million, of which we pay one-half, $1,500,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And $2,500,000 was spent in Prince Edward Island last year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is the figure I have here.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the quotation read by the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely correct. The amount spent by the province of Prince Edward Island was $2,500,000, and it was spent entirely out of provincial funds. If the agreement is signed we will have to pay one-half of that. In no year may there be more than $3 million spent in a province, and therefore our maximum in any one year in any one province is $1,500,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister mean by that that he is now negotiating with Prince Edward Island about roads that have already

been built and that there is no agreement about those roads, and yet we cannot be told about them?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are still negotiating.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely, Mr. Chairman, that is more preposterous than anything we have yet been told about this whole preposterous business. Here are those roads that have already been built, that every human being in Prince Edward Island, the whole 100,000, must know about and yet we cannot be told here in this house. It really is beyond anything that we have heard yet.


Frank Howard: In one of his earlier remarks the minister made reference to the fact that he hoped hon. members would help him to persuade the various provincial governments that they should participate in this so-called roads to resources program. I wonder what he means by asking for assistance in helping to persuade provinces to participate; for certainly, in so far as British Columbia is concerned, the agreement has been signed, the road has been established and that is the end of it in so far as federal participation is concerned. That was the indication given by the minister on Saturday last when we were discussing the question of bridges 150 miles from a road, that in so far as British Columbia was concerned it was out of the question because the agreement had been signed. What does he mean by asking members to help him to persuade provincial governments to participate when he has in fact closed the door to any further participation, especially with those provinces that have already signed agreements and almost closed the door with provinces that are on the verge of having signed agreements?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I had a certain amount of difficulty in hearing the hon. member for Skeena but I think I got most of it. The agreement with British Columbia, as the hon. member knows, was signed early in the fall of 1957. Since that time-


Frank Howard: Signed when?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: November 4, 1958. I used the wrong year. In that agreement there were no bridges; therefore, I suggested to the hon. member who is questioning me that he should not get too enthusiastic that he was going to get a bridge under the British Columbia agreement because the agreement had already been signed and they had used up their full amount of $15 million, which is the limit of which we can share 50 per cent of under this agreement.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Frank Howard: The minister is right in so far as bridges are concerned. The minister said he hoped hon. members here would give their endorsation to the program and assist him in persuading the provincial governments to participate. Which provincial governments need persuading to participate in this program?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There are nine governments in agreement with this program and one that is not.


Frank Howard: Is the minister suggesting that hon. members in this house assist him in persuading one government to participate?


An hon. Member:: On to Quebec!


Frank Howard: I do not know what he means by that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am only suggesting that I am very proud of this agreement. I hope all provinces will eventually be in it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am still not getting anywhere, Mr. Chairman, in my endeavours to protect the dignity and the right of a federal member of parliament to know in relationship to a provincial member of parliament. I told the minister on Saturday that we have an incomparable sunshine blowhard up at the lakehead who every week has some sort of road or road contract to announce. It is a bridge or it is a culvert, or it is some granular base, or road of some kind. And most of the roads that he has been announcing in the last five or six months have been tied in with this particular program.
He has even given to the newspapers the details of a most unusual contract. I want to know about it right now, and it is this arrangement between the provincial government, Abitibi and the federal government for this road to resources out of Port Arthur. I would like to know something about this particular road and why this gentleman is able to make these announcements and we cannot even confirm whether they are right or not. I still feel that the minister has not answered that point.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On the score of holding me responsible for what is done by provincial M.L.A.'s, I cannot do anything about that. My job is here and that is what I try to do. As for the question about information on the road, I am always glad to oblige if I can do it. There is a clause in the Ontario agreements, for example, which reads as follows:
If the minister approves in writing Ontario may enter into an agreement with a mining, lumber or other resource development company, providing for the construction by the company of a part of the
6178	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs project which will be primarily for the benefit of the company and that the province will pay to the company two-thirds of the cost of construction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say what document he is reading from?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is one of
the drafts of one of the agreements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the road being built on a draft?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The road is almost completed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I go back and say that over the years there have been precedents established in old agreements whereby the federal government has participated with a province and a private company in regard to these mining access roads. At various times the department, which had other names than northern affairs, used to enter into this type of deal, and I think that the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has the same type of program. This J-j-J rule was also made available to the provinces under the roads to resources program and several of the provinces have taken advantage of it. This road from Port Arthur north has that provision. I am informed with respect to that road that the Abitibi company has agreed to pay up to one-third of the cost of the road up to a standard that was agreed upon between the provincial government and Abitibi and the other two-thirds will be paid by the province and ourselves. If the road is built to a higher standard then the additional amount required to build it to that higher standard is paid 50 per cent by the federal government and 50 per cent by the provincial government. I think that is all the information on that road.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I might point out to the minister that when Mr. Ambridge was here several weeks ago he told us about that road. Here is another example where the minister would not give us information. When a road is in a member's constituency I think he is entitled to the information. Here is a case where a private corporation had the information and was revealing it and where the provincial member was also revealing it. The minister says that we cannot hold them responsible. What kind of an agreement is this if you cannot hold the other person responsible for divulging information? It is not an agreement at all. It is a farce. I should like to suggest to the minister that if he is going to have these peculiar three-sided agreements in which the other two sides seem to have all the leeway and he is squeezed right out then it is about time that he had


a talk with these people and tried to remind them that an agreement is an agreement instead of reminding us. ,
I should like to know about the road from Nakina to the Anaconda deposits, whether it is under the same kind of agreement and, if not, why not.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not have very much to add to what I have already said with regard to the point made by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I telephoned the government of Ontario when I heard last fall that there had been this leak and received the assurance of the Ontario government that there had not been any leak from sources close to them, and there was nothing else for me to do but to take that as their attitude on the matter. When they assured me that nothing of that sort was being done and they were honouring their agreement I had no other choice but to accept their statement. Another province apparently made an announcement, the province of Prince Edward Island, and I received many complaints in that regard. I took the same stand as I took in the house, that I could not break what was a signed statement on my part in a letter that there should not be any announcement made until there was common agreement to make an announcement.


Douglas Mason Fisher: All I can say is that the Conservative members in northwestern Ontario made the minister a liar in jig-quick time and repeatedly. In these highway programs where the federal government is paying up to 50 per cent of the cost and where there are programs with agreements with private companies, I think the members from the areas concerned deserve the information. I am not going to labour the point further but I think they deserve the information. I should like to know whether you have another three-sided agreement with respect to the road from Nakina north to the Anaconda deposits and, if not, why not.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As far as we
know in the department there is no definite information as to a third interest. I believe that it is sometimes the policy of the provincial government, if they think a company might be interested in an area, to build a road through that area to encourage their interest, but there is no third party in this agreement.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This is a case where I think there should be. I see no reason why Abitibi should be taken for a road that is going to open up resources and Anaconda should not be paying a contribution of some kind although in the case of Anaconda the resource

is in the exploration stage. The Abitibi road and the other roads that are involved bring up the whole question of the relationship of funds of the federal government going to the provinces for forest access roads because in effect, whether you call it a forest access road or a road to a resource it is a forest access road.
The road south from Savant Lake to Ignace also goes across some crown lands held by the provincial government that are under licence to companies. I want to know what is the relationship here. We can get into most uneven and unfair development if certain companies are going to have to put up part of the cost of a road running through or tapping their limits and other companies are going to get these roads without having to make a contribution. What was the idea in mind in this regard in so far as the federal government is concerned?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think I can put it this way, that where there is an operation already in effect and a road going in that will be of direct benefit to them there is a J-J-J split but where you are going into a virgin area in the hope of attracting companies to develop that area there is usually a 50-50 split. The discrimination to which the hon. member refers is happening all the time. I have these complaints come to me about the roads we are building in the Northwest Territories. Companies have gone in there in the past and pioneered their own winter roads. They say, "Why did you not come along and build us a road?" The fact is that they were ahead of our development program and they paid the cost. We obviously feel sorry for them, and the companies that come later get all the benefit of the work done by the pioneering companies or by the government in a particular case. But that is the way it works out. You cannot have such a thing as a perfect set-up whereby everything would go in all at once.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to know about the road from Goldpines to Uchi Lake. As I remember that country, it must run through the tentative limit that is going to the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company. I understand that under the terms of the contract between Anglo-Newfoundland and the provincial government they have undertaken to spend so much money on road and water developments. Will this road become part of their limit to be set up there? What is the purpose of it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: According to the information we have, and this has been checked with the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, it is for the opening up of mining areas.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Douglas Mason Fisher: I hope there is something in that. I worked at Uchi Lake in 1939 before the mine closed down and I have had the impression since then, along with people who have lost money in the mines up there, that the prospects are not too good. In this particular case I am sure we thought the road would be of benefit to that particular pulp and paper company. This confirms the points the minister mentioned about discrimination. This road from Goldpines to Uchi Lake runs through what pulp and paper company's limit, and is the company involved in the deal in any way?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We have not any information here concerning what pulp and paper company has crown lands in that area.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to know, in connection with this particular program, what the situation is so far as the road south from Hornepayne to hook up with the Ontario Paper Company's limits is concerned and which I believe is under the roads to resources program.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is not on
the roads to resources program. It may come under the forests access roads program.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It does not make sense that it would come under the forests access roads program in connection with the Ontario Paper Company because they already have limit roads up into that particular region. I cannot see why that road would be of any particular benefit to them, but it would be of benefit to the town of Hornepayne. I understood it was coming under this particular roads to resources program.
I should like an explanation of the road from Nakina northwest. What route has finally been decided upon? Is it the route that runs along the railroad track and then north, or is it going to be the original route that was bothering the people of Nakina?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It follows the railway track and then goes north.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not sure if the minister included this information in the beginning of his statement, but I should like to know whether the program includes a road from Foleyet to Chapleau?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, this was the second road on the program, Foleyet to Chapleau south approximately 60 miles. This work consists of new construction for the entire length commencing at the end of secondary highway No. 624 at Foleyet and
6178	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs proceeding in a southwesterly direction to connect with highway 129 in the vicinity of Chapleau.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the road to continue through Chapleau and will it hook up with the trans-Canada highway?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Not under this agreement.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The more I think of this question of these agreements with pulp and paper companies the more worried I become about the difficulties into which this government can get in that regard. I can think of so many paper companies throughout that area such as the Ontario Paper Company, Kimberly-Clark, St. Lawrence Corporation, Abitibi Power & Paper Co., Great Lakes Paper Co., Ontario-Minnesota Paper Co. and Dryden Paper Co. going from west to east, who all need forest road development. They would all have huge limits, and I suppose the average size is some fifteen hundred to two thousand square miles. Almost any of these companies could put forward a roads program that would be comparable to the Abitibi program. I can see the danger there.
I should like the minister to go into this in some detail with his provincial confreres because I can think of Marathon, especially, which still has not a road north from its mills into its limits. It has been working on a plan for a number of years and each year they plan to move a little bit further. However, I am sure that now with Abitibi getting this kind of program, which is in effect a high grade road, this kind of prospect must be very intriguing to a company like Marathon. I think it could, as I say, get the government into a great many problems in road construction. I would hope the minister would try to work out a fair policy in this regard and make sure that the provincial government has a fair policy so that no company is discriminated against in opening up its limits under this program.
There is another question I wanted to ask dealing with the two roads the minister mentioned north of the Canadian National. He said he could not give us the details but they were to open up various resources. One of the points that has bothered quite a number of foresters about that timber lying north of the Canadian National, especially the northwest corner near the Manitoba boundary, is the fact there is a budworm infestation that promises to increase considerably because of the state of maturity of the trees. Is this one of the regions in which this particular program is going? The minister knows the country well, and would the road take off 

from the O and M northern limit and go towards the Indian reservation along the Manitoba boundary?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We have no
knowledge where the road will start or where it will go. Actually the primary purpose of this road is to get at some promising mineral prospects that lie in a belt right up to the Manitoba boundary. I read into the record the fact that the location of these roads will be determined on the basis of photographic and magnetometer surveys and geological reconnaissance of this area.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Who is making that survey? Is it being done by private firms for some of the big entrepreneurs or is it a federal responsibility?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The ground
survey is being done by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys entirely. The air survey is being let out by contract under the direction of the mines and technical surveys department of the federal government.


Murdo William Martin: I have been waiting to make a few remarks about the announcement the minister made tonight, a very welcome announcement for the region I represent, of the construction of this road from Foleyet to Chapleau. It is something about which my people have been anxious for the last ten years. It is welcome news that the agreement has been reached with the Ontario government in regard to this road. As I have mentioned before, this possibly means more to this area, especially when the road is completed, than even the gold mining assistance act during the last ten years. The completion of this road could mean a bigger boom to the Porcupine camp than the last increase they had in the price of gold. I was wondering if the minister could give any indication how soon they expect this road will be completed. Will it be this year or a matter of two years.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I cannot give the hon. member the precise information. There is no priority on this list of roads whatever. The agreement simply states that these roads shall be finished in eight years. I would imagine most of these roads I have mentioned will be finished long before that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister has just referred to an agreement and the hon. member has asked a question in which he has referred to an agreement, yet we were told earlier by the minister that there are no agreements except one with British Columbia. The question immediately arises, when is an agreement an agreement and when is it not an agreement? The minister has told us that

in the case of Saskatchewan funds were paid up last year on the basis of an exchange of letters, and that this rather unusual procedure was cleared up through a treasury board minute. The question immediately arises, was the letter from Saskatchewan binding on that province? It is just a few weeks since there was a case to which reference was made and which a learned judge of the exchequer court said an agreement, even if it had been made by a minister of the crown, unless there was a treasury board minute in addition, would not be binding on the crown. What assurance do we have from the minister that the letter from Saskatchewan is indeed binding on the province.
Is this just a case of the minister passing out funds without any formal agreement? He tells us that in view of the circumstances there was no impropriety. We have not claimed that there was, but what we would suggest is that this is sloppy business. No reasonable businessman would pass out funds without a signed agreement, yet the minister tells us he does not have that. All he has is an exchange of letters. Would the minister tell us what assurance he has that the correspondence is binding on the province of Saskatchewan, as it has been on the crown in the right of Canada?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not know whether the hon. member was in his place when I read the document, but I stated the legal opinions on this, and in the case of Saskatchewan the road had been completed. The auditors' accounts had been received, and I think everyone was satisfied the work had been done and therefore there was nothing to hold Saskatchewan to. They had completed their part of-I do not want to use the word "agreement" because it has been used in three or four senses in this debate-but their part of the bargain.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: How soon does the minister think a formal agreement will be reached, or is it the intention to supplement the existing exchange of letters with a formal agreement?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I cannot give a precise answer to that because the matter has to go before cabinet, and I have a feeling that it will not be going before cabinet for at least two weeks.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister tell us if the Prince Albert bridge has been completed?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could the minister tell us if any part of the funds which were passed to
Supply-Northern Affairs the province of Saskatchewan are earmarked as part of the expense for that bridge?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If I understand the hon. gentleman correctly, he is asking me if any part of the $750,000 advanced went to pay for the bridge?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is right.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer is no.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then is it correct to assume that any expenditure on that bridge will be included in the present vote 280 if agreement is subsequently reached?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to ask the
minister if there are any provincial governments which have been pressing the federal government to conclude these agreements?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The federal government and provincial governments are anxious to conclude the agreements, but I can honestly say that no government is pressing because these debates on these legal points in the contracts, as well as over the physical condition of the roads sometimes, have been going on in a friendly manner although we have had sharp differences. But we see each other's viewpoint, and I do not think any province is pressing the federal government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say in how many provinces work is now in progress on roads which are contemplated for inclusion in these agreements? That is, leaving out British Columbia where there is an agreement.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: All of them are.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The actual work is proceeding on all of them in default of agreement?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes; always leaving out Quebec, of course. In every one of the other nine provinces work was done by various dates which we agreed upon up to the end of March 31, 1959, and is still continuing in this fiscal year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No money has been paid to any province except Saskatchewan and British Columbia?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to ask the
minister if there are many projects actually completed?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not think there are any, Mr. Chairman, except the one at Otosquen in Saskatchewan. My officials do not know of any more.

Supply-Northern Affairs


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister tell us briefly what these legal difficulties are holding up these agreements?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The first difficulty we ran into was what they called the time payment clause. This was proposed as a difficulty by Saskatchewan last November or December, if my memory serves me correctly. Then Saskatchewan proposed a new type of paragraph to cover this, and we finally agreed, as the federal government, to accept it. We said we would not accept it until we had spoken to all other provinces, and this led to a renegotiation of the time clause. When the time factor was changed, all the programs had to be re-examined and spread over the program, so that each province has a different amount planned for all the years of the program. This is not precise because in some provinces we have not fully concluded what the exact roads will be.
Then there is another legal difficulty about covenanting beyond the amount of $15 million if a road program costs more than $15 million. There is debate as to whether they should covenant themselves to complete the road when we do not know what the final cost will be. They were the same difficulties in the trans-Canada agreements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister explain why it was possible to conclude the agreement with British Columbia? Surely the same difficulty arose there as with the other provinces.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This was done before I came into the department. As I understood it, it was a kind of quick deal on the part of the provincial and federal governments, and the province was not fully aware of what they had committed themselves to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister has really let the cat out of the bag now. The one agreement which was concluded was concluded before this very experienced minister came into the department. It really is a very sorry chapter of fumbling and bumbling that we have been listening to all last Saturday and all this evening. All the time this minister has been in this department, with all his vast experience of domestic affairs, and in all those years he was losing elections in Saskatchewan when the Leader of the Opposition was sitting in the government of Canada helping to carry on the affairs of this country; during all that period when he was getting that experience, he was learning how to conclude agreements with his own province; secret agreements, agreements about matters so
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1

secret that the public could not be told. I suggest to the minister, and I will not do anything more to hold up his estimates now, that he get rid of all this secrecy nonsense. If the minister had been able to get elected to any riding anywhere before 1957 he would have heard in this house, and probably joined in, the most terrific denunciation from his present leader about secrecy, orders in council, and things concealed from the public. Yet here this minister boasts day after day of how he is keeping things secret from parliament which are parliament's business. It seems to me that the sooner this ridiculous practice ends the better.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I had something to do with this matter days ago and I am still a bit confused about what has happened. The minister did give some information, but I suggest to the minister that this information has been kicking around in various forms for some time. The hon. member for Timmins will tell you that the Chapleau-Foleyet road has been in the process of being built for many, many years; and also at the present time the minister of mines and forests in that area announces every week that another ten miles has been built. So there have been politics playing a part here, whether the minister knows it or not, and I suggest he has heard enough in this debate to realize that a great many of the problems would have been eliminated if he had brought in a report on the progress of these access roads. There is no secret about them. You may even find that some of the hon. members representing these areas know more than the minister's officials. Many of them have worked for the company involved and know considerable about them. I do not think there need be anything undercover about it. I think there needs to be a contract which will bind all parties with regard to these particular roads.
One of the minister's supporters the other day told me of his particular riding where this program is being used where they were fencing along the side of the road and they dug the fence posts the day before the provincial election, and the day after the election he informed me they went around and did not put posts in the holes but put the dirt back in, and that was the end of the program.
These things are happening. The minister can ask his backbenchers in the 26 seconds that each of them has in caucus, and they will tell him about these things. In any case, I suggest that he should set forth an account of how this money which we vote towards these roads is spent, in the same way as details of other projects are outlined

in the estimates. We should be told what progress is being made in the construction of these roads, where they are going, how they are being financed, and who is going to control them. I am very interested in these access roads. Many have been put in by the companies for fire protection and other reasons; they are fine, big, wide roads and there is often a gate on them. I recall in particular the road from Gowganda to Ramsey or to Sultan a few miles down the railway track. This road has been built for some time and is travelled by a number of people on permit. It could be made into a suitable highway, and I suggest this is one of the roads about which something could be done. But an agreement is going to be necessary or one of these days we will be told in this house that a road toward which federal grants have been contributed has a gate on it. The Abitibi company or the Marathon company will say it is not a public road and that the public has no right to travel over it. I suggest that some of these roads might with advantage be taken over by negotiation.
With regard to the other question, I do not think it is necessary to write a letter and take several weeks to consider these matters. I think these are decisions which would be made public at a time when tenders are called, as is the case with other jobs. We know of cases where roads have approached completion, yet the people in the area have never been informed where they are going or who is financing the project. I suggest the minister should take a lesson from this discussion which has, I believe, contained constructive criticism. The money which is spent by the federal government on this program gives us a complete right to know the details of these contracts, and I suggest that there must be contracts or we are not handling our finances in a satisfactory manner. If we give this money out in the form of grants, we should consider, say, $15 million to be a grant and give the money to a province to do with it what it likes. But as long as we are exercising some control we should give serious consideration to a better accounting system and to reaching a signed agreement in each case.
We in northern Ontario appreciate this program but we are losing a good deal of faith in it because we are always hearing some politician saying he has been given the latest word from the provincial parliament and the next road is going to be built for four miles in this or that direction to open up resources. I am sure that is not what the minister contemplated when he began to administer this program, and I say to
Supply-Northern Affairs him that it is within his power to end this type of speculation and give the people a much better understanding of the developments which are going to take place, and where the development roads are going to lead.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Did I hear well when the minister answered the hon. member for Trinity by saying that the bridge in Prince Albert was under a special agreement. Was that what the minister said?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: 
Alexis Pierre Caron: That is 50-50-12J?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No. We are
paying 50 per cent and the province is paying 50 per cent but out of the province's share the city of Prince Albert is paying 12J per cent.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Was that included in the $9 million?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, it will come out of this vote.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Which definition of agreement is the minister using here? Which of the three or four definitions which he has been using all the afternoon?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The total
amount of the estimated cost of the bridge is $2,500,000 but under our agreement we cannot pay any more than $1,250,000.


Alexis Pierre Caron: And over and above that there is an amount of $780,000 for the roads to resources program?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: $750,000 last year.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That makes almost $2 million.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member is lumping the total cost of the bridge into one year, if I understand him correctly, and the advance we pay to Saskatchewan.


Alexis Pierre Caron: According to that program a maximum of $1,500,000 can be spent in a year. If there has been an expenditure of $1,250,000 plus $750,000 that makes $2 million spent in one year, which would be $500,000 over the amount which it is possible to spend on that item.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The $750,000 was spent last year. Then as progress is reported on the bridge we shall pay certain

Supply-Northern Affairs parts of our share of the $1,250,000. I imagine it would last over at least two years.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Could we have the figures for the money spent in the same year on the bridge and on the road?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There has been no money spent by the federal government on the bridge yet out of this vote for $9 million.


Alexis Pierre Caron: If no money has been paid it will be paid in a lump sum and so, for the one year, the government will pay over $1 million when it should not spend more than $1,500,000.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the phrase which should be used is "not more than half of $3 million can be spent in respect of any one year." If there are delays in payment and overlapping the actual amount paid out could, I suppose, be more than $1,500,000, but in respect of one year the moneys we could pay to a province would be $1,500,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forestry branch-
285.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $36,330.
Douglas Mason Fisher: I think I can bring up under this particular vote something that I think needs underlining because in my opinion it was one of the most regrettable bits of evidence that came before the committee looking into the affairs of the forestry branch. I refer to the evidence that this branch let some of its best silvicultural projects that had been in effect for some 30 years, and some of the best sample plots they had, go to the Department of National Defence because that department wanted a bit larger tank proving ground or manoeuvring ground for their troops. This to me is almost laughable when one considers the importance of silviculture in relation to the need of the army for an increased training ground. I know that national defence controlled this property at Petawawa and perhaps the forestry branch was there on sufferage.
I ask the minister this question. Why did he ever O.K. the wiping out of almost 50 per cent of the research areas for silviculture at Petawawa? Why did he not make some attempt to acquire that particular land on a permanent basis so these experimental areas could have been kept going? To me it was one of the most grievous blows silviculture has suffered. I understand that Major General Young was instrumental in bulling this through from the point of view of national defence. Someone bulled it through, anyway. To me it was a bad and stupid decision. I would like an


explanation as to why the forestry branch and the minister gave in so easily on this point.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I share and
appreciate the feelings of the hon. member concerning the loss of the silvicultural experimental areas at Petawawa. Every member of the forestry branch of my department would agree with me. The exigencies of the training program for national defence made it imperative for them to ask for this territory. I can assure the committee that the department has been reasonable with us. They are delaying the taking over of the property for defence purposes until we can get the maximum information available before the area is taken over.


Douglas Mason Fisher: With sample plots it is not a question of 15 or 20 years to get results. You sometimes have to go through a whole cycle of up to 70 or 75 years. If there is any way the minister can salvage any of the regions that have been turned over I think he should give us his assurance that he will try to do so. When we consider that the Department of National Defence has that big camp at Gage-town and large areas at Camp Borden, and so on, to carry out manoeuvres, we fail to see any reason either in terms of economics or in terms of the defence needs of this country for the areas being allowed to go as a camp training ground or something of the kind. I do not think national defence is that important that in the light of the other areas national defence has silvicultural areas should be jettisoned. I hope the minister will try to save any of the plots that have not been already damaged by the military. In other words, I am suggesting to the minister that he try to renegotiate the matter if it is at all possible.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the hon. member may have that assurance. First of all they have agreed to delay. Second, we are seeing what we can do to make the best of the situation. I think what the hon. member really wants is a statement of policy which I feel I can give him.
As far as the department is concerned we would like to have experimental areas entirely our own. As hon. members know the use of forest areas in the military reservations was just the start of the program but now that everybody accepts the task of the federal government in these vital research programs we do not want our programs hurt or interrupted by changes of policy on the part of the military who have a prior interest in the reservations. I will certainly take what the hon. member said into the most careful consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

286.	Contributions to the provinces for assistance in forest inventory, reforestation and forest fire protection in accordance with agreements entered into by Canada and the provinces, $2,200,000.
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to get the minister's view on the recommendation in the committee's report in so far as money for reforestation is concerned going to crown lands that are under licence to companies. At the present time I understand that is not possible. I wonder what course of action is likely to be taken in this regard?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The report of the committee is very recent, as the hon. member knows. We will have to take a very good look at the renegotiation of these agreements. I think the hon. member is aware that most of the provinces are finishing up their inventories. There may be a possibility of arriving at some type of rolling inventory to keep it up to date. Is that what the hon. member is referring to?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No, it is the question of artificial reforestation and the fact that at the present these funds cannot be spent on crown lands that are under licence to pulp and paper companies. We have a real problem in Ontario. In our cutovers almost half of the regions are not regenerated. It is the policy of some companies to plant and others do not bother. There are a number of ways you can try to bring a site back especially if it is a good one. One of the best is to plant good spruce or pine stock on the best sites. At the present time there is encouragement to the provincial forest service to do this kind of thing because they get financial support but the pulp and paper companies or the department of lands and forests working in co-operation with the companies do not get any support for the lands that are already under licence. This is something that should be changed at once. I think it would give a real impetus to some of the forestry departments of some of the larger companies, and give a sort of raison d'itre for getting into a much larger plan of artificial regeneration than the companies are involved in at present.
I know that the difficult factor is that the question has not been settled as to whose responsibility it is to undertake regeneration measures. As long as this government gives any money for artificial regeneration for any crown lands I fail to see why other crown lands should be discriminated against.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I suggest that Ontario make its agreements in the fashion in which they are made in British Columbia where the companies concerned are entirely responsible-


John Whitney Pickersgill: And where the ministers go to jail.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The policy I am speaking about was initiated by the former Liberal government of British Columbia-or rather the former coalition government-so both get some credit. I am pleased at the increase in this vote. I intended to say a great deal about this but I will be brief to facilitate the passage of these estimates.
It is important to continue forest inventory work but the most urgent thing is adequate fire protection. I urge the minister to give consideration to the excellent suggestions of the committee with respect to increased financial contributions on the part of the federal government toward forest fire protection.


William Arnold Peters: I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Kootenay West has said. Forest inventory is vitally important but it must be tied in with another fact. Some of our companies such as Spruce Falls Pulp and Paper Company have done a fairly good job on reforestation. Abitibi, which holds immense limits, have done practically no work at all in this field. We suggest that before any assistance is given that this requirement be made mandatory. It is of vital importance in my particular part of the country. In discussing this matter with some of the companies I have learned that where virgin stands of white pine existed previously there is no reforestation taking place in that particular area. Hon. members need only to go a few miles out of Ottawa to learn that where there were vast timber stands of white pine before, there is no regeneration at all of white pine. White pine in the Ottawa valley is almost extinct. We suggest that the federal government could expend their money in no better way than to increase this vote to encourage the reforestation of those areas that are suitable only for the white pine industry and where regeneration under natural conditions has not taken place to any extent.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I have just one question. With respect to the program of reforestation and fire protection, is there any agreement in this field for the province of Quebec?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
287.	Contributions to the provinces pursuant to agreements 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, $1,000,000.
6184	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs
John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the minister would like to tell us how many provinces he has agreements with under this item?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Eight, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Have the agreements all been concluded and signed?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Is the province of Quebec the only province that has no agreement?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Quebec and Prince Edward Island.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forest products laboratories division-
288.	Operation and maintenance, $820,097.
William Arnold Peters: On this matter of forest products laboratories division, I should like to ask the minister whether any consideration is being given to helping small companies which are interested in establishing in those areas where the lumberng industry has been very hard hit? Are they giving any consideration to research into new methods of increasing production, either in the lumber field or in the secondary industries which are connected with the lumbering industry? I have a particular case in mind where a company has been interested in manufacturing or using a new process of making fibre-board on patents from Sweden. They have been attempting to get permission for some time now. I believe that assistance in such methods as that would affect them in that particular area. If reseach were done into the secondary products it would be of great advantage in establishing this type of secondary industry. Many of these plants are small, their resources are limited, and yet they have shown initiative in a desire to re-establish themselves in secondary products. I know that the manager of this company has made a trip to Sweden on two occasions at his own expense. I am wondering whether any work has been done in this particular field. The program that he is interested in is a type of excelsior and cement fibre board. It is manufactured, or would be manufactured, under international patents. But there are other types of processes that are taking place, including the use of sawdust and shavings, and things of that nature, which could be advantageous to small companies if the research was done for them.
I know that some of this work has been done by the larger companies into such things as patent lumber, plywood, or bondwood-it is a kind of board, anyway, that is being manufactured by Abitibi at Sturgeon Falls. 

These programs take a great deal of money to develop. If some of the knowledge or information was available to much smaller companies they could probably go into production and thereby establish secondary industries.
I also think that some research should be done into handling the reforestation of a different kind of tree from what we are now growing. I am thinking of the United States where in the southern states they have developed a type of weed tree which, instead of taking 80 or 90 years to grow, as the white pine does, grows to a usable size in about 12 years. Some type of development along these lines would be very advantageous in northern Ontario and would help establish secondary industries.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer very briefly the first part of the hon. gentleman's remarks about the helping of the small lumber operators. There is a great interest in the department in how we can shift our forest products research in helping the small operator. I have a few notes that I think would be of help to the committee.
The utilization of sawmill waste for the manufacture of wood pulp continues to show encouraging progress. Our laboratories continue to carry out research in barking, chipping and transportation of mill residues. Field studies of logging operations and of manufacturing plants include investigation into the effect of tree size on lumber manufacture, the influence of log defects on lumber quality, and the effect of prebarking on sawmill operations. Before we can speed up this help for the small operator we have to build up our research staff. This year we made a small start on what I look on as a five-year program. This year we put into the forest products research staff three additional professional officers and four technicians. I hope that by the end of about five years it will have the effect of doubling our efforts.
I would like to tell the committee about something else that has not been mentioned. What we are very proud of is a series of two-day courses on improved sawmilling techniques conducted by the Ottawa laboratories. This series was commenced last year and courses were given in April, 1959, at La Sarre, Quebec, and at Timmins, Ontario, each course being arranged in co-operation with the provincial department concerned and with the Canadian Lumbermen's Association. Further courses are to be given in British Columbia and in Saskatchewan this autumn. These courses have been attended by practical sawmill operators and have given rise to most favourable comments.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to put a question to the minister in regard to the recommendation for the setting up of a marketing section.
I could not say whether it should be dealt with by the forest products laboratory set-up or whether it should be a section that would be outside of that and work sort of generally in liaison with the Department of Trade and Commerce. I just wonder whether the minister has any news or any ideas as to whether that particular section has been gone ahead with as recommended and how it would fit into the department's scheme of things?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that I have not had time even to consider that report. I saw it there and thought about it once or twice, but I have not had time to discuss it with anyone, or consider it, but I will promise the hon. member that I will take a good look at it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National museum of Canada-
292. Administration, operation and maintenance, $675,776.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I should like an answer from the minister on the remarks I made on the first item in connection with the museum. What are his plans to end the trouble with Canadians in this particular field of specialization? What arrangements does he think his department could make with the universities to bring along people and enable us to get rid of persons like MacNeish who have been with the museum for years and have not bothered to become Canadian citizens?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have discussed the matter of qualified Canadian personnel for the museum with several university presidents and some of the reactions have been most favourable. I have informed the university presidents that if they can supply qualified senior and graduate students we will provide them with summer employment to keep them coming along and give them in-service training within the museum.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like the minister to comment on two other things. What are his views on the way in which the recently departed head of one of the branches of the museum was recruited? Does he think that recruitment was done fairly and without any political considerations? The other matter I should like him to comment upon is the need and how, if he sees a need, he is going to act with regard to controlling archaeological artifacts in so far as moving outside the borders of the country is concerned.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I hope the hon. member will accept my statement on the recruitment of the past head of the human history branch of the museum. It will be a simple statement. It was an example of positive recruitment that did not turn out too well, and this is no reflection on the man's ability as a scientist at all. As to the second part of his question, I am very keenly interested in the protection of archaeological artifacts. We have amendments in both the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act in order to look after that region and we are now studying what is being done in each of the provinces with the intention of holding discussions with them in the hope that they will set up protection for artifacts found within their boundaries.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder whether the minister would consider this request. If it is at all possible and if the minister discovers within the government service any possible post that the recent director of one section of the museum could fill because of his undoubted scientific abilities, will he try to do his best in that regard? I feel that here is a gentleman who through a number of most unfortunate circumstances has had what appeared two years ago to be a most bright and promising future disappear through factors which were to quite an extent beyond his control. I should like to ask the minister to retain his interest and to seize the opportunity if he can ever make a recommendation or sees a spot where the man's undoubted scientific abilities can be used.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I did go to
some length in making a job offer to the director before I asked him to resign and if I do hear of a job suited to his particular abilities I will certainly do everything I can to bring him in touch with it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have had a number of letters and inquiries about this senior civil servant, the director of the archaeology branch, who has held this position for 10 years, I understand, and is still not a Canadian citizen. Has this civil servant been asked to take out his citizenship or asked why he does not want to become a citizen of Canada when he holds a senior position?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We had a
pretty thorough discussion of this matter in the standing committee. One of the members of the C.C.F. party was there and questioned me about it, and I think I made my position as clear as I could. I said that I would never make a request or exercise any form of pressure to force a person engaged in scientific work at the museum to take out Canadian citizenship. I would be very happy,
6186	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs of course, if they would. I would be very proud to have them. But you must remember also that in the world of science we do not want to close off scientific information coming into this country in the form of personnel of other nationalities and at the same time we do not want to close off scientific knowledge going from this country to other countries. I pointed out in the committee that all over the world and particularly in the United States many bright Canadian scientists are making their contribution even though they maintain their Canadian citizenship. There are only four or five people in a division of 76 who are not Canadian citizens and I do not think this is causing any great danger to the institution at all. I know that they are very highly qualified and I certainly would never think of asking them or putting any form of pressure on them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian government travel bureau-
293. To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada, including grant of $5,000 to the Canadian tourist association, $2,319,342.
John Richard Garland: Would the minister care to comment on the activities of the bureau and its effect on this important Canadian industry?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Under its terms of reference the Canadian government travel bureau operates primarily to advertise Canada in the United States. Its purpose is to make as many Americans as possible conscious of the possibilities of Canada as a tourist spot and to draw them to this country. The bureau does not advertise in Canada. That is left to the provincial governments. There was a very thorough discussion of this matter in the standing committee, and I gave evidence there to the effect that I did think that selective advertising of the right sort, of a discriminatory sort to achieve the ends you wanted, would be wise. I said that in addition to advertising, some attention should be paid to what we call the tourist plant. In other words, there is very little use in advertising the beauty of an area if there are not facilities to handle the tourists going into that area.
We have tried to help out, as far as my department has been able to go so far, by the provision of the camp and picnic ground program which has been very successful. I think total expenditures amount to $6 million to date and in the next year or so expenditures will reach $10 million. The purpose of the program is to provide camp grounds and picnic sites along the highways of the provinces and the trans-Canada highway.


There are two separate types of agreements. There are many other things that have to be done.
This afternoon the house was discussing credit for small business. The tourist industry is largely a small business industry, and this is one of the things the government has been considering very seriously ever since the new government was formed. The problem has many complexities and one is the tourist business. The additional complexity affecting the department has to do with the national parks. The national parks do not give ownership of the land or property to a person building any type of plant and therefore it is very difficult for that person to get credit. There is a great need for credit in the tourist industry, which is mainly a small business industry. It is also an industry that we can use to attract many more people into Canada and equalize our balance of trade and develop the country. There is much to be done.
There is one other thing I have not mentioned. I have received a number of letters from various people across Canada saying that our forest access roads and roads to resources are being received with considerable satisfaction because tourists are very keen about finding their way into new areas. These roads are yielding revenues and benefits to the communities even before the forest areas or mineral resources are developed. I think that covers the activities of the travel bureau with the probable exception of the film activities which I think are well known.


John Richard Garland: Can the minister tell the house the volume of the tourist business to date this year compared to the same period last year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is a little above last year, Mr. Chairman.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the minister could say what measures are being taken by the government through the travel bureau to offset the loss of business resulting from United States promotion urging their citizens to see their own country first, and what effect it has had?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The tourist business today is highly competitive. We have Europe, the West Indies, Mexico and even Asia now moving into competition in this tourist industry. Canada has to gear itself to meet this new competition because this is big business all over the world. Every year the dominion government and the provinces meet in a dominion-provincial conference. This year it will be in the latter part of November. In this meeting each of the eleven governments tries to lay down

a plan that will build up our operations, both at the provincial level and at the federal level. Both levels of government are always subject to the fact they have the fiscal conditions to meet.
I can assure hon. members that there is no activity between the federal government and the provinces in which I think there is more enthusiasm more awareness that much has to be done to help this tourist industry take advantage of the opportunities that are here and help meet this increasing competition.


John Richard Garland: I was asking what precisely is being done to offset this United States promotion this year; I am not talking about generally.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We have spent a little more money, not very much I know. We have a little more enticing advertising. We had openings in Chicago and New York of new offices and we are hoping to get enough money to get offices in the west coast of the United States, as well as other places.
Then again, we have been looking at the advertising and trying to get it into broader fields. Let me put it this way. One assumption we have been making in our advertising is that the people who are primarily interested are those who are close to Canada. I am not sure that is true. There is a large amount of evidence collecting that people who are getting information from away out in San Francisco are not interested in just going across the border, they are interested in the more distant parts. There has been a tremendous increase in long distance travel in both Canada and United States. We are trying to reach those United States citizens who are farther away from the Canadian border.
Then, some of us have the feeling that we could put on a special type of hot weather advertising in the southern states, advertising how cool it is in Canada while they are suffering from the heat.


John Richard Garland: Of this vote of $2,319,000, the largest single item is one of $1,468,000 for advertising in United States newspapers and magazines. I was wondering if the minister would be kind enough to give me the number and names of the agencies that place this advertising.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There were
three Canadian advertising agencies handling the business in 1958. They were Locke-John-son Company Limited who handled the general magazine campaign; Harold F. Stanfield Limited, who handled the newspaper
Business of the House
campaign and Hayhurst who handled the special Atlantic provinces campaign.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to discuss this very important subject at some length, but in view of the disposition of this committee this evening, and in view of the fact my remarks will probably be equally appropriate a year from now, with the indulgence of the committee I shall leave it to a later date.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: This completes the estimates of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I know that the members of the committee have enjoyed the estimates of this department and I want to assure them that I have enjoyed them as much as anyone. Quite sincerely, I want to thank everyone for taking a keen interest in the department. It is always an interesting occasion when I have a chance to defend my program.


Lionel Chevrier: Before the minister leaves, I think the house should take cognizance of the fact that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys has been waiting here for several days to pass his estimates. I suggest that we continue with his estimates at this time.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I think the
agreement was quite well understood. I sympathize with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, but he has been in this position several times, and I suggest we call it ten o'clock.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Will the acting house leader tell us what we will do tomorrow and Saturday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to express a word of appreciation to the committee for its co-operative attitude tonight and, I think, a word of appreciation to the staff of the House of Commons because they are working long hours under difficult conditions. The general plan appears to be to complete the business as expeditiously as possible with the most careful scrutiny. Tomorrow, we will carry on with mines and technical surveys, followed by fisheries and post office. I shall list the others in the order in which I gave them the other day, subject to perhaps a change if we run over to Saturday:	Secretary
of state, privy council, national revenue, C.B.C., legislation, health and welfare and

Business of the House
finance. There are obviously nine departments to consider, but four of them have been through the various committees of the house.
I am not in a position to announce the business for Saturday until we see what progress we make with the estimates. It is possible, I think, to complete the business
of the house if we sit Saturday night because of the eight items on the order paper of a legislative nature, five are of a very minor character. We will see what progress we make tomorrow.
It being 11.31 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

[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. Mcllraiih: 1.	Has the Canadian government since January 1, 1959, sold pork for shipment out of Canada?
2.	If so, (a) in what quantities: (b) to what countries; (c) at what price?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 3,918,550 pounds of frozen products.
(b)	Mexico, Italy and Czechoslovakia.
(c)	Prices ranged from 16 to 30 cents per pound, ex warehouse, depending on type of frozen product and place of sale.


DELAYS AND NON-DELIVERIES OF MAIL
Mr. Denis: For each of the fiscal years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58, how many inquiries have been received by the Post Office Department, concerning delays or non-delivery of mail matter?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
Delays Non-delivery X1955-56	
62,561	145,2791956-	57	
29,966	36,1181957-	58	
26,595	41,840
xPrior to 1955-56 there was some duplication of recording statistics due to the fact that many inquiries had to be investigated in more than one postal district. To improve the accuracy of the statistics a change in recording was made in 1956. This explains the variance in figures for 1955-56 when compared to the succeeding years.
(The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE
[Stage Direction]
General administration-
380. Departmental administration including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $2,636,084.
383.	Exhibitions branch, $790,592.
384.	Standards branch, $2,383,690.
385.	Dominion bureau of statistics, including the fee for membership in the inter-American statistical institute and a contribution of $500 to the international statistical institute, $8,565,609.
Board of grain commissioners-
(Canada Grain Act)-
386.	Administration, $173,931.
387.	Inspection and weighing of grain, and related services, $4,427,169.
Supply-Items Passed
Canadian government elevators-
388.	Operation and maintenance, including authority to purchase screenings, $1,464,517.
389.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $194,000.
390.	International economic and technical co-operation branch, $410,903.
Pensions and other benefits-
391.	To authorize payment of a pension during the current and subsequent fiscal years, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or any other act or law, to Ryuji Yoshimura, a former locally-engaged employee, at an annual rate of $600, $600.
Trade commissioner service-
481. To increase to $350,000 the amount that may be charged at any time to the special account, mentioned in vote 511 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1958, that was established for the purpose of providing for working capital advances to posts and employees on posting abroad, $50,000.
General administration-
582.	Departmental administration, including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates-further amount required, $700.
583.	Dominion bureau of statistics-further amount required, $121,935.

Atomic energy control board-
37.	Administration expenses of the Atomic Enerev Control Board, $62,800.
38.	Grants for researches and investigations with respect to atomic energy, $650,000.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (research program)-
39.	Current operation and maintenance, including expendable research equipment, $20,582,800.
40.	Construction or acquisition of buildings works, land and equipment and to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to undertake construction of works at Deep River for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, $10,796,700.
Loans, investments and advances-
Atomic energy of Canada limited-474. Working capital advances to Atomic Energy riitinnnada ^mlted' subject t0 such terms and con-^SOO.OOO	g°Vern0r in council may approve.

[Stage Direction]
252.	Salaries and other expenses, $26,192,170.
253.	Construction or acquisition of buildings works, land and equipment, $3,941,410.
549. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works $600 000 equipment further amount required.

[Stage Direction]
280.	Contributions to the provinces to assist in the development of roads leading to resources in accordance with agreements entered into by Canada and the provinces, $9,000,000.
Forestry branch-
281.	Branch administration, $163,785.
Forest research division-
282.	Operation and maintenance, $1,470,657.
283.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $123,240.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed Forestry operations division-
284.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $343,468.
285.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $36,330.
286.	Contributions to the provinces for assistance in forest inventory, reforestation and forest fire protection in accordance with agreements entered into by Canada and the provinces, $2,200,000.
287.	Contributions to the provinces pursuant to agreements 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, $1,000,000.
Forest products laboratories division-
288.	Operation and maintenance, $820,097.
289.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $68,190.
290. Grant to Canadian forestry association,
[Stage Direction]
291.	Eastern Rockies forest conservation board- remuneration and expenses of the federal member of the board, $5,575.
National museum of Canada-
292.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $675,776.
Canadian government travel bureau-
293.	To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada, including grant of $5,000 to the Canadian tourist association, $2,319,342.
Loans, investments and advances-
476. Advances to the northern Canada power commission for the purpose of capital expenditures in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, $6,050,000.
477. Advances in accordance with agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $11,627,000.
National parks branch-
National parks and historic sites services-
551.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $358,463.
552.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land equipment-further amount required, $500,000.
Water resources branch-
553.	Saint John river-federal expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out by the Saint John river board, $70,000.
554.	Fraser river-federal expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out by the Fraser river board, $150,000.
555.	Construction of a fishway on the Yukon river at the site of the hydro-electric power development being constructed by the northern Canada power commission for the Whitehorse area (revote), $525,000.
Northern administration and lands branch- Northwest Territories and other field services-
556.	Operation and maintenance-to extend the purposes of vote 278 of the main estimates for 195960 to include the contributions detailed in these estimates, $1.
557.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment-further amount required, $306,000.
Forestry branch-
Forest research division-
558.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment-further amount required, $12,000.
Forest products laboratories division-
559.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment-further amount required, $19,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 17, 1959

[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on broadcasting-Mr. Halpenny.
(Translation):