1960-03-29

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Fraser.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was the minister or his department consulted about, and if so did it agree to, the showing in Canada of a United States air defence film called "NORAD Briefing"?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of External Affairs has many responsibilities but the censoring of television shows is not one of them. The Leader of the Opposition will have to direct his question to another minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a supplementary question, because it is an international matter. In view of the minister's stated belief in the sincerity of the Soviet in regard to disarmament proposals, does the minister not think it unfortunate that such a film shown in Canada should begin with a fictional episode melodramatically declaring that Russia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister has disclaimed any administrative responsibility in this matter. I do not know on what basis the hon. member could ask a supplementary question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he was consulted before this film was shown in Canada?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker. I understand that this film entitled "NORAD Briefing" was not a NORAD production nor an official United States film. I have not seen it myself, but I have been advised that some objection has been raised to certain parts of the introduction. I have therefore ordered its withdrawal
from R.C.A.F. stations until it can be examined and, if necessary, the objectionable features have been removed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the minister's statement that this was a United States production, does the hon. gentleman not know-


George Randolph Pearkes: I said it was not an official United States production.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the minister not know that at least one Canadian officer participated in the production of this film and that it was sent out for exhibition in Canada with the approval of an officer of the R.C.A.F.?


George Randolph Pearkes: As I have said, I have not seen this film and I am having it withdrawn until such time as it has been examined.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question. Would the minister inform the house what steps he is taking to make certain that the policy of the R.C.A.F. public relations department as to public relations releases and documentary films coincides with the general policy and purpose of the government in the field of international affairs as announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs from time to time?


George Randolph Pearkes: The policy regarding the publication of films is the same as that governing the publication of articles in the press. They have to be cleared by a senior authority.



BOMARC MISSILE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister care to comment on the news report from Washington that an announcement is about to be made by the United States government that the number of operative Bomarc sites will be reduced from a total of 14 to 10?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the actual report from the United States and do not know whether or not it is an official statement. I understand, however, that it is not an official statement.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Do I take it from the minister that

Inquiries of the Ministry the Canadian government has no information at this time of an impending United States announcement that the total number of Bomarc sites is to be reduced from 14 to 10?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I did not say we had no information about it. I said that I did not believe this was an official statement. When it is desirable to make an official statement as to the number of sites, that will be done.


Hazen Robert Argue: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have there been any recent exchanges between Canada and the United States on the question of a reduction in the number of Bomarc sites from 14 to 10? I think the house is entitled to that information.


George Randolph Pearkes: The hon. member may recollect that I said in the course of debate yesterday that the number of Bomarc units is being reduced from 18 to 14. I did not say anything about the number of sites which would be maintained in the United States, other than that there would be two sites in Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: Another supplementary question. Are there any negotiations now under way with regard to reducing the number of Bomarc units from 14 to 10?


George Randolph Pearkes: I know of none, Mr. Speaker. [Later:]


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask if he would care to comment on an Associated Press dispatch of March 28 to the effect that an order to stop work on the Bomarc missile base at Corvallis, Oregon, is expected any day, the base which presumably is intended to provide protection for Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is simply asking for a comment on a newspaper dispatch, which I am inclined to think is stretching both the rules and the practice. If the hon. member has a question of fact to ask with respect to work on a base which has become urgent since the debate yesterday, he might put his question.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I should like to change the line of my question. Is the minister aware that an order to stop work on the Bomarc missile base at Corvallis, Oregon, is expected any day?


George Randolph Pearkes: This Bomarc base is not in Canada; it is in the United States. It is not


one that is likely to be retained if the proposed plan to be submitted to congress is approved.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand from the minister's answer that an order to stop work on this base can be given by the United States without the Minister of National Defence being aware of it?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for an opinion as to the jurisdiction over the base in question. It seems to me this is something which might better have been brought up yesterday when this subject was being debated.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, there is an agreement between the United States and Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -and I should like to know from the minister whether an order to stop work on this base can be given without Canada being aware of it. I think it is a fair question.


George Randolph Pearkes: If the base is not to be continued as a Bomarc base, Canada will be consulted.



HONEST JOHN MISSILE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. What is the maximum range of the Honest John missile?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether that is a fair question to put orally. It seems to me that a question asking for information of that kind might better go on the order paper. If the minister has the information, there is no objection to his answering.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that information could be given to the house. Detailed information regarding the maximum range of any particular weapon is of a classified nature, and is not usually given out.



LACROSSE MISSILE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition on February 22 last regarding the procurement of the Lacrosse ground to ground guided missile for the Canadian army. My

answer at that time was that we were not in a position to make a firm recommendation or to place an order.
I would add further that in the fall of 1958 it was announced that the Lacrosse II would be provided for the Canadian brigade group in Europe. Since that time, the fall of 1958, the development of the Lacrosse has changed the nature and the tactical employment of this weapon. Instead of becoming a weapon for use with smaller formations it became apparent that the complexity of the system prevented its use in forward areas.
The Canadian army has now been authorized to acquire the free flight improved 762 millimetre rocket and the Honest John launcher. This weapon is in service with or about to be introduced by other NATO forces as the ground to ground missile at the brigade and divisional level.


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is the minister in a position to tell the house whether this American Honest John is more accurate than the Honest John with whom we are so familiar?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Did the minister say whether this is the improved version of the Honest John rocket that is being acquired by the Canadian forces?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, I said this was the improved version of the rocket which is known as the 762 and is launched from the Honest John launcher. The whole complex is frequently referred to as the Honest John system.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is it the intention of the Canadian army to acquire more than one size of this missile? I understand there is also a Little John missile. Is it the intention to acquire that one too?


George Randolph Pearkes: The Little John is an entirely different weapon, as I am sure the hon. member for Trinity knows.


Mr. Hees:: He would not know.



INQUIRY AS TO PRODUCTION OP NERVE GASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of a reply given to me on March 24, wherein the minister said he did not know whether nerve gases were being produced in Canada. Has the minister now made inquiries on this question, and is he able to make a categorical denial of the statement of Mr. Minifie that Canada manufactures nerve gases near Ottawa and Kingston?
79951-0-162
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are no nerve gases manufactured by the Department of National Defence in Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: Or by any other department?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am not responsible for other departments.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question, notice of which I sent to his office. In view of the announced policy of the government with regard to the cessation of nuclear tests with or without control, may I ask the minister what attitude Canada takes regarding the recent proposals concerning these tests beyond the threshold and underground? Will the minister also indicate whether in the light of the current discussions between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States, Canada has been consulted and has the government taken steps to make her views known because of the nature of those discussions?


Howard Charles Green: It would be quite improper for me to answer that question at length, and I am surprised that the hon. member for Essex East should have repeated a good deal of what he said in the external affairs committee. We are, naturally, very interested in the discussions taking place between Prime Minister Macmillan and President Eisenhower at Camp David, and we are very hopeful that one result of these meetings will be a long stride forward toward the abolition of any further nuclear tests.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. The minister expressed surprise at the nature of my question. Will he not understand why I am surprised at the nature of his reply?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why should
Canada be more hesitant about stating her position than is Great Britain, particularly when Canada, through the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is fast taking the character of an argument, and that is not the proper way to get factual information.
2550	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I had difficulty in seeing that you were on your feet-


George Harris Hees: Because you always look the other way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister a supplementary question. Has the position of the government with regard to the cessation of tests changed in any way since that policy was announced by the minister a few weeks ago?


Howard Charles Green: In reply to the supplementary speeches by the hon. member for Essex East, may I say that the policy of the government has not changed. We have a great deal of trouble trying to convince him it has not changed, but that is the fact.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether the Canadian views with regard to the recent Russian proposal on nuclear tests have been made known to the governments of the United Kingdom or the United States?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the views of the Canadian government on this question seem to be much more thoroughly understood by the United Kingdom and the United States than by hon. members of the opposition.



DOUGLAS POINT, ONT.-TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has there been any change in the target date for completion of the nuclear power plant at Douglas Point, Bruce county?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask if the minister can inform the house whether a new agreement has been reached at the international conference held at The Hague on the weather ships in the north Atlantic. Will Canada have the same number of ships to operate on the north Atlantic, and will the financial burden be more equitably distributed among the countries involved because of the tentative agreement?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. A conference of representatives of the various nations which support the north Atlantic weather station program has been under way at The Hague for some days and is expected to conclude this week.
It is not expected that this will lead to any change in the number of ocean weather stations and weather ships now provided, but it may lead to some change in the financial distribution of costs among participating states. The final results of the conference are not yet available since the conference itself has not, I believe, yet been concluded.



CONSULTATIONS WITH U.S. ON DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the statement appearing in the Globe and Mail of March 28 suggesting fear of controversy between Canada and the United States of America over surplus wheat disposal, can the minister say whether plans have been made to hold talks between the United States of America and Canada to develop a variable system of multilateral world trade and urge a more determined policy regarding the disposal of surplus wheat?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, Canada and the United States have developed consultative machinery so that views and grievances may be discussed at the ministerial and the official levels. One practical result has been the discontinuance of United States barter deals for wheat in many commercial markets. Approximately six months ago the United States announced that the United Kingdom, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland have been deleted from their barter list for wheat, flour and feed grains. Although the United States barter program remains a potential threat to Canadian commercial exports, its actual impact on such exports has been considerably reduced in recent years. We are keeping a close watch on developments.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF EXPORTS CREDIT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade

and Commerce. In view of the recent extension of the scope of operation of the United States export-import bank, would the minister give immediate consideration to expanding the operations of the Export Credit Insurance Corporation, and in particular to widening the basis on which direct guarantees could be issued with regard to negotiable instruments given to Canadian exporters by foreign buyers in respect of export transactions?
Hon, Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce): This is a rather complicated question. If it were placed on the order paper I think we could give a satisfactory written answer to the hon. member.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, a copy of which has been sent to him. Will the minister please inform the house whether his department received a request to free three Newfoundland sealing ships and one Halifax ship operating along the coast of Labrador? If so, what action has been taken by his department, and when? Since coming into the house I have learned that one of the Newfoundland sealing ships, the Terra Nova, recently sank but I understand her crew was saved.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question.
The C.M.S. Wolfe sailed on March 23 to assist a Norwegian sealing vessel disabled in ice on the Labrador coast. The Wolfe towed the ship to open water and met the salvage tug Foundation Vigilant on March 27. The Wolfe then proceeded to assist the Canadian sealers Camperdown and St. Addresse. When these vessels have been escorted to open water the Wolfe will proceed to assist the sealer Arctic Prowler and take on board 48 crew members of the sunken sealer Terra Nova and transport them to Newfoundland.



TELEVISION


[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. In view of current comments on the matter,
79951-0-162J
Inquiries of the Ministry can the Prime Minister tell us whether any oral or written communications have gone from him or his cabinet associates to the board of broadcast governors or to any individual B.B.G. member which suggested or indicated a preference for any particular applicant for a television station licence in Toronto, notably the successful Bassett application?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I say with all emphasis, no.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he has any comment to make on a statement by the minister of lands and forests of the government of British Columbia, reported in the Vancouver Sun of March 24, that the federal government had oifered to lend British Columbia half the cost of the development of the Columbia river?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article in question. I do not think this is a matter than can usefully be dealt with simply by a question based on an article that I have not seen.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the offer made by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) on the proposed extension of unemployment insurance benefits to Canadian woodsmen working in the state of Maine, can the minister advise the house whether he intends to accept the offer and appoint the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska as official representative of the government to meet with the governor of the state of Maine and settle this problem, as promised by the hon. member?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no.

Inquiries of the Ministry



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HOLIDAY AND SEVERANCE PAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has yet succeeded in getting a report from the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission on the matter of severance pay, which affects many people in Elliot Lake?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say I have not.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister now in a position to advise the house whether he has yet received the report of the national energy board on the recent applications for certificates of public convenience and necessity under part III of the National Energy Board Act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: A somewhat similar question was asked on March 23. My answer appears at page 2352 of Hansard, and remains the same.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: I have another question. Can the minister advise the house as to when he expects the decisions on the applications to export gas under part VI of the act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: My answer remains the same, Mr. Speaker, as at page 2352 of Hansard.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: May I
ask the minister this question as a result of reading his earlier answer, to which he referred in answer to a question a moment ago. Will he explain to the house which type of application he was referring to? Was he referring to applications under part III or part VI of the act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was referring to all applications that had been received.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: I wish to ask a question of the Postmaster General. According to the Newfoundland Herald of April 3 it appears that a mail bag containing several hundred applications for 1958 income

tax refunds has been lost or stolen between St. John's and Ottawa, thus creating confusion and delaying reimbursement to the people of Newfoundland. Can the minister inform the house how, when and where this mail bag was lost or stolen, and can he assure the people of Newfoundland that they will not have to suffer too long from the disorganization of the Post Office Department?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: I congratulate the hon. member on his foresight, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the date on which he referred to this bag as having been stolen is about a week in the future, namely April 3.


Azellus Denis: It relates to the 1958 income tax returns.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Azellus Denis: It relates to the 1958-59 income tax returns, the previous year's income tax returns. This is as it appears in the Newfoundland weekly Herald of April 3.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member advise me of the date of the newspaper?


Azellus Denis: The newspaper report is 1960, but it relates to income tax returns of 1958-59.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member had better get a new writer; he is not getting his laughs.


Azellus Denis: May I explain that this is a weekly newspaper and they put on the date of the week in which it appears. Sometimes they appear a couple of days ahead of time. Mr. Speaker will not blame me if it is brand new.


William McLean Hamilton: the hon. member will finally get the problem sorted out so that he understands it, I shall be glad to answer the question.


Azellus Denis: It is not a question of whether I understand it. It is a question of whether the Postmaster General understands it.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) has asked me to describe in more detail the policy to be followed this year by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in making direct mortgage loans under the National Housing Act.
I wish first to say how grateful I am for the opportunity afforded by the hon. member, and I thank him for giving me notice of the question. Although I made every effort to

answer questions as they arose during the debate on the resolution and second reading of Bill No. C-53, it was not possible for me to review direct lending policy in detail, particularly as final administrative arrangements were still being worked out by corporation officials. Some procedural matters are still under consideration, but I believe I can now, by virtue of the timely question by the hon. member for Nipissing, provide the house with some short additional basic information.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to read an additional answer?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Walker:: Thank you very much. Hon. members will recall that during the debate I indicated that if and when the additional funds the government had requested were forthcoming, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would make direct loans only to applicants with annual incomes of $5,000 or less. I was asked at that time whether the wife's income, if she were working, would be included and I answered "No". I should point out that the corporation has always considered up to 20 per cent of a working wife's gross income in computing the applicant's ability to make monthly repayments of principal, interest and taxes. This practice will not be changed in determining eligibility of an applicant for a loan; in other words, the corporation will take into account the applicant's gross annual income plus 20 per cent of his working wife's earned income. There is no change here; it is a matter of using the same criterion for both purposes.
There have been some comments both here and, I believe, in the other place on possible inequities arising out of proposals to channel corporation mortgage loans to applicants with annual incomes of $5,000 or less. I think we must face up to the fact that regardless of the system used, of the criteria developed, there will always be inequities. We have tried to formulate a plan that will provide the least number of inequities for the fewest Canadian families.
Finally, the $5,000 maximum income figure for eligibility refers, of course, to the average Canadian family. The average family has one or two children and during 1959 some 75 per cent of N.H.A. borrowers fell into these and the no-children categories.
For families that are larger than the average, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is now developing an appropriate adjustment which will probably have the effect of stretching the $5,000 maximum to take care of the needs of the other 25 per cent, that is the smaller number of families with three, four, five and more children.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO UNDERDEVELOPED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Recently the hon. member for Assiniboia put to my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs a request for a report on the meeting that was held recently in Washington of what is known as the development assistance group. In view of the responsibility of the Department of Finance in relation to external aid programs, perhaps he would permit me to give the house a brief report on that meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to make a report as suggested by him at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This meeting was held in Washington on March 9, 10 and 11. It was the outcome of a decision taken at the meeting of representatives of 13 countries in Paris in mid-January. At that meeting the governments of Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States and the commission of the European economic community agreed to meet to discuss the question of techniques and to facilitate the flow of development assistance funds to underdeveloped countries, having discussed also various aspects of co-operation in their efforts to provide such assistance.
The proposed discussions proceeded in accordance with the resolution passed in Paris on January 14. The resolution itself, passed in Paris, serves as the terms of reference of this organization or body now known as the development assistance group. The governments I have mentioned were joined by Japan, which was represented at the meeting as a full and original member with the approval of all other participating governments.
The results of the meeting were encouraging. All who attended the meeting were impressed with the usefulness of the meeting. A communique was issued, and the countries represented indicated their intention to continue to work actively toward the objectives indicated in the original reference. At the invitation of the government of the Federal Republic of Germany it was agreed that the next meeting of the development assistance group will be held in Bonn in June or July next.
Mr. Speaker, it is the view of the government that this new development assistance group will prove to be an effective organ
2554	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry for improving the assistance given by the participating governments to underdeveloped countries, and through a better system of exchanges of information and consultation will increase the effectiveness of existing aid programs and other similar programs.
If it meets with the wish of the house I would be prepared to table copies of the communique issued by the development assistance group at the conclusion of its meeting in Washington.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, which I asked several weeks ago. Can the minister say whether there was any discussion about areas not now in receipt of assistance but within possible contemplation by various governments? I mean, for example, countries in Africa.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the agenda of the meeting was quite lengthy and detailed, and it covered quite a wide area of discussion. It was called principally to exchange information on the part of governments represented as to their existing programs of aid. Naturally, lines in such matters are not firmly drawn, and I think it was in the minds of the representatives that there are some areas which are better served in this respect than others.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the communique to which he referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Public Works could say whether the so-called mountain of earth which is causing such a nuisance to residents in and around Shaughnessy military hospital will be removed by the contractor before April 1.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to inform the hon. member that the mountain of earth to which he has referred will be removed under the contract by the contractor on or before April 30.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I would
like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister had time to note


the statement of the minister of reform institutions in Ontario, Mr. Wardrope, in which he expressed serious doubts as to the guilt of Stephen Truscott; and consequently, is there any intention or possibility of making a review of this person's conviction?


Mr. Speaker:: If I am not mistaken, the
question of clemency is not one on which the ministry can be properly questioned in this house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for clemency; it is the question of a review.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not see any difference.
It seems to me the same thing.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase
my question. I ask the Minister of Justice whether he has received any recent communication from the Ontario government or its officials regarding the conviction or custody of Stephen Truscott?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: No,
Mr. Speaker, I have not.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister say whether the press reports of yesterday as to the conclusion of an agreement with the Northwest Territories council implementing the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act are correct? Second, what progress has been made with regard to concluding such an agreement with the legislative council of the Yukon?


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, an agreement was signed with the Northwest Territories council yesterday, and satisfactory progress has been made in this respect with the Yukon council. As a matter of fact, I understand they are sitting at this time and probably will be considering the matter.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Rodolphe Leduc: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister now in a position to report on the circumstances surrounding the death of an Indian woman which occurred recently in Vancouver,

Deliveries of Grain to Feed Mills and which he undertook on March 22 to and South American countries is under investigate and report his findings to the consideration by the department, but no par-house?	ticular decision has yet been arrived at.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. One of the Vancouver members asked that question last week. An inquest has been held; I have had the report of that inquest, and I am preparing a complete report to give the house on this matter.
(Translation):



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister aware of the debate that took place yesterday between Rev. Father Renaud, O.M.I., and his own deputy minister, with regard to the education of natives? Has the minister any comments to make on the matter?


Mr. Pigeon:: He has already answered the question.
(Text):


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.



&quot;INVITATION TO CANADA&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Would the minister be good enough to advise the house when we can expect French copies of the booklet just given to hon. members, entitled "Invitation to Canada"?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Hull asked me about a possible French version of this booklet. This booklet is entitled "Invitation to Canada" and is destined primarily for distribution in the United States. The main language there is English, and for that reason that will be the only language in which this booklet will be published.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: A supplementary question. Does the minister not think he might have a few of these booklets sent to French-speaking countries so they can also be invited to visit Canada?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, this matter of the distribution of the pamphlets of the travel bureau in European



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if there is anything he could do to expedite the return to the order of the house in response to a question of mine passed on March 9. The question had reference to federal payments to provinces.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As far as the Department of Finance is concerned, Mr. Speaker, this portion of the information sought by the hon. member was gathered and made available many days ago. I cannot of course answer for the other departments. I presume that in that case more difficult inquiries were involved as a result of the question asked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could repeat my question to the Acting Secretary of State.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):: The Acting Secretary of State will do everything that is humanly possible to be pleasant to the hon. member.



REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF DELIVERIES TO FEED MILLS

Gordon Minto Churchill: That the standing committee on agriculture and colonization be empowered to examine and inquire into the delivery of grain by producers to feed mills operating in the designated area as defined by the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and to report to the house observations and proposals thereon.
He said: This is a subject which provides a very proper field of inquiry for the committee on agriculture because it deals with a subject which is of great importance to western agriculture.
Over the last five crop years a situation has developed in connection with the feedstuff's industry of the prairie provinces which has created some difficulty. Existing statutes, both provincial and dominion, make all feed plants subject to quota regulations; and those plants that elect to have agreements with the board, making them agents of the board, are required by such agreements to buy from producers at board prices and to issue producers' certificates.
255S

Deliveries of Grain to Feed Mills
The position which has developed is that there have been, and continue to be, two different types of operation of feed plants. One type of operation has elected to have an agreement with the board and conforms with the Canadian Wheat Board Act and provincial legislation; another type of operation does not have an agreement with the board and does not operate in strict conformity with the Canadian Wheat Board Act and provincial legislation. Under the latter type of operation, feed mills may acquire feed grains at a discount under board initial payments.
Feed plants which operate under an agreement and in conformity with the Canadian Wheat Board Act and provincial legislation claim to be at a disadvantage, in that by agreement with the board they are required to buy at board prices and issue producers' certificates, all within the quota. They have repeatedly brought their case to the attention of the board and the government.
According to the records of the board there are 182 feed plants operating in the prairie provinces. These feed plants fall into three main categories, as follows:
(1)	Plants operated by large mills, with agreements with the board;
(2)	Plants operated by elevator companies, with agreements with the board;
(3)	Independent plants which, with a few exceptions, do not have agreements with the board.
Of the 182 feed plants in the prairie provinces, 60 have agreements with the board and 122 do not have agreements. By provinces they are distributed in this way; those which have agreements with the wheat board comprise 17 in Manitoba, 14 in Saskatchewan and 29 in Alberta, making a total of 60. Plants which operate without having signed agreements number 30 in Manitoba, 10 in Saskatchewan and 82 in Alberta, for a total of 122.
In January, 1958, the Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba division of the Canadian feed manufacturers' association submitted a brief to the government of Canada. The main point in their presentation reads as follows:
The three provincial divisions of the Canadian feed manufacturers' association who submit this presentation now firmly request that existing regulations, whether statutory or administrative, be amended so as to permit feed manufacturers or processors of feed grain to purchase feed grains directly from producers free of quota restrictions, and at prevailing prices on the basis of supply and demand, for processing and resale within the province in which the grain is grown.
In July, 1958 the position of the feed mills was referred to the advisory committee of the Canadian wheat board. The board


discussed the requests which had been made for virtual decontrol of the feedstuffs industry and its policy of taking effective action to apply delivery quota policy to feed mills. It was the view of the advisory committee that the provisions of the "exchange" policy instituted by the board in June, 1957 were adequate, and that the board should proceed with its policy of enforcing the Canadian Wheat Board Act as far as feed plants were concerned.
The next step was a consideration of this question by the agriculture committee of the House of Commons last year, and in its report to the House of Commons dated Wednesday, July 15, 1959 the standing committee on agriculture and colonization included the following paragraph:
The committee further recommends that the whole question of feed mills and their position in the grain trade should be clarified and, if necessary, new legislation introduced.
This, briefly, is part of the background of this situation in the prairie provinces. It appears to be a subject which could usefully be studied by the committee, and in view of its report of last year we are now bringing the matter forward. The committee has power to send for persons and papers. Consequently all interested parties may appear and make presentations. I think this will be very useful in order to clear up any misunderstanding with regard to the operation of the delivery quota system; in order to clear up any misunderstandings there may be with regard to the operation of the feed mills and, in general, with regard to marketing operations as conducted by the Canadian wheat board under the authority of the act. The committee on agriculture and colonization will have ample opportunity during the rest of the session to consider this matter fully and make such report as seems advisable for later consideration by the House of Commons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I listened to the minister I gathered', and I confess I did not recollect this myself, that the committee last year recommended that there should be legislation.
We, of course, have no objection whatever to the motion to refer this subject to the committee. It seems a reasonable thing to do. However, I am surprised that in view of the recommendation which was made last year the government has not some statement of policy of its own with respect to this matter to lay before the house. I would hope that the minister, in replying at the end of the debate, would indicate to us precisely what are the views of the government with respect to this subject, because it seems to me the

government has a responsibility for carrying on the affairs of this country and that it should give a lead on questions of this kind. If any useful work is to be done by the committee, it cannot be done without some kind' of guidance.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, this resolution may at first glance appear unimportant and innocuous. I find it is an exceedingly disturbing one that could lead to the beginning of a break-down in the orderly system of marketing grain that has been built up over so many years with such great effort by producer organizations and by producers themselves in co-operation with a number of provincial and federal governments.
For those who are not acquainted with the wheat board system of marketing grain and the shipping of grain to mills that presently have agreements, I would like to explain that in the three prairie provinces, in order to deliver grain to an elevator marketing point, such grain to be subsequently exported out of the province, overseas, or processed in the province through mills that have agreements with the wheat board, the grain can be marketed only on permit books which cover the land on which the grain has been grown.
This has made it possible to provide an orderly system of marketing grain. Although I have complained from time to time about discrimination or unfairness in the quotas that apply as between various marketing points, I have never, and I hope I never shall, criticized the principle of quotas and permit books. I am in favour of the wheat board having control over the assembling, storage, buying and selling of grain as defined in the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Many producers who are acquainted with this operation, to say nothing of people who know very little about it, are often highly surprised to find that the total cost of operation of the wheat board per bushel of grain has been in the past one half cent or up to two thirds cent per bushel. In other words this is an extremely efficient operation that has provided a measure of stability and fairness to the western producer whose grain is covered by this act.
As the minister said, the act does not apply to everyone in every single transaction. It is legal under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and as far as I know under all prevailing provincial statutes, for one farmer to sell grain to another, for the purpose of feed or seed, outside the wheat board permit system. Further, as I understand it, it is legal for a farmer to sell to any person within the province his grain or any part of it at any price he sees fit. The only limiting law is that the grain
Deliveries of Grain to Feed Mills purchaser is not at liberty to resell the grain in such a way that it goes through under a marketing permit. Therefore, as the minister pointed out, there are certain feed plants as well as innumerable livestock feeders and other people who from time to time wish to buy and sell grain, who have been purchasing grain in a legal manner directly from the producer.
What happens when this is done? Almost invariably the person or company purchasing the grain takes advantage of the surplus position and the shortage of cash on the part of the producer, and buys the grain at a cheap price. I know businessmen and farmers who may be engaged in the feeding of livestock as a side line who have done nothing to conceal this fact, and as a matter of record they have been very open in advertising for this kind of grain at prices as low as 60 cents per bushel for wheat, which is approximately half the regular initial price for No. 2 wheat in western Canada.
This means that the farmers who must sell their grain at discount prices receive only half what the product is worth. As the minister has implied this undoubtedly is a well-directed campaign organized by the Canadian feed manufacturers' association to escape the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and therefore the existing provisions of the law, so they can buy grain from producers at prices, as they state in their request to the minister, governed by supply and demand. That means only one thing, prices lower than the current wheat board marketing prices.
If the agriculture committee should bring forward a decision recommending changes in the act along the lines suggested it would mean a direct bonus from the grain producers to the feed manufacturers. It would mean the feed manufacturers have been given the legal right to chisel grain from the hard-pressed producers at as low a price as they can establish. With a tight money and surplus grain condition this could mean disastrously low prices for grain.
The effect of these proposals is that steps would be taken to reduce the total amount of money paid to grain producers. This reduction would be a direct benefit to the feed manufacturers. I find this a very disturbing move. While I am in sympathy with the reason behind the suggestion of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that there should be some evidence of government policy, I would hope that this motion and the request that the agriculture committee study the matter is not an indication, as I am seriously afraid it is, that the government is going to take a lenient attitude toward this request and open up the

Deliveries of Grain to Feed Mills marketing facilities on the prairies in such a way as to undermine and undercut the prices for wheat, oats and barley, without doubt to the detriment of grain producers as a whole.
Some may argue that this will mean lower prices to the feed purchasers. That might be an incidental result, but the purpose of the drive is to make money for the feed manufacturers and not to help anybody engaged in the business of producing grain. Grain producers are in no position to have any policy undertaken which would reduce their total gross income. I will not put myself out of order in this debate, but it is well known to hon. members that the great pressure that has come from western grain producers and farm organizations is for the government to take steps to increase their gross income from grain, not to reduce their income, which this proposal if accepted would accomplish.
For the benefit of hon. members I hasten to say that I am speaking on my responsibility as a member of this house. I have not had any submissions from any grain companies whatsoever. I say categorically that no matter whether one or another of those companies may feel there is something for it to gain in this proposal, the implementation of the proposal will do nothing but damage to the grain producers as a group.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ask the hon. member whether he is not debating the issue as though it were being decided here. All we are deciding in this motion is whether the matter should be referred to a committee which will be able to hear evidence and report back. I do not want to narrow the debate too much, because one must understand the purpose and what problem is to be referred to the committee. I hope the hon. member will not attempt to settle here the problem which the house is referring to a committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: Obviously I am not settling the question. I do not know whether a committee will settle the question. I take it the committee may or may not make recommendations. If recommendations are made for a change, perhaps it will be necessary to have amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act; certainly there would need to be changes in the regulations. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, very properly I think, went over some of the difficulties that have been experienced, according to the submissions that have been presented to him, and I have been merely giving the other side of the case which was presented to the minister, in his own words, by the Canadian feed manufacturers' association in January, 1958.
I have been in the House of Commons for 15 years, and I have taken part in a great


many debates regarding the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I was here, Mr. Speaker, at the time oats and barley were removed from the act. We had a long and bitter debate on this subject, and it was finally agreed by the government making the proposals to the house and to the provinces that the Canadian wheat board would have certain jurisdiction over oats and barley. The proposals at that time were fully justified. I do not intend to sit here silently and watch any effort by any group to tear down the great benefit that has come from years of constructive effort in building an orderly marketing system for western grain.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the proposal by the Canadian feed manufacturers' association is a misdirected one. This could be the thin edge of the wedge that begins the destruction of the Canadian wheat board system of marketing grain. I am disturbed at times by people who rise in their places in this house and say, "We believe in free enterprise; we are so much in favour of free enterprise that we do not like to see government control". If there is enough of that attitude followed, then they could open up the grain marketing situation, without any controls whatsoever, with absolutely disastrous results to producers in the three prairie provinces.
There may be pressure coming from outside the three prairie provinces; there may be some who feel that if we can break down the wheat board marketing system within the provinces then we can move in huge transcontinental trucking and freight facilities and take the processed feed which has been chiselled from hard-working farmers at 50 per cent of its value and sell it at bargain prices, and go one step further in undermining the orderly marketing system for coarse grains and feed grains within our country. I make an appeal now, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce to think very carefully on this question before he recommends to his colleagues any changes in the present policy.
The proposals that are made cannot be construed in any way as a help to the small farmer. I have seen, and members from the prairie provinces have seen, certain farmers from time to time accept lower than market prices for their grain. When that happens almost inevitably it is the wheat farmer, it is the small farmer, it is the farmer least able to accept the cut in his price who is forced by financial circumstances to accept those cut-rate, bargain basement prices. This will be no help to the ordinary grain producer; this will merely damage him.

The Minister of Trade and Commerce comes from the prairie provinces. The Canadian Wheat Board Act is being administered under his jurisdiction and in his department. This act is very dear to the hearts of most of the well-informed agricultural producers and leaders in the three prairie provinces. Although this act has been built up though not originated by a previous administration of another party, I would hope that in general the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board Act can be kept apart from and beyond partisan political considerations, and that the Canadian wheat board and the Canadian Wheat Board Act will not be weakened in their jurisdiction and their administration.
When I first saw this resolution, Mr. Speaker, I was naive enough to think it was on the order paper because the wheat board and the government were disturbed by the fact that a substantial quantity of grain is being marketed today outside of the facilities of the Canadian wheat board. I thought this would be an endeavour to plug the leaks and reinforce the orderly marketing system, and that if necessary the government, the committee and parliament might take steps to strengthen the wheat board's jurisdiction and if necessary ask the provinces to enact complementary legislation that this be done.
I would hope that the committee, after hearing all the evidence, instead of agreeing with the drive of the Canadian feed grain manufacturers' association for their own financial benefit, would turn its mind to making recommendations to strengthen the wheat board system of marketing grain. Instead of making recommendations that would inevitably lead to a reduction in the gross income of western producers from grain, the committee might make recommendations to strengthen and increase the returns from grain and improve the wheat board orderly system of marketing grain, which certainly, so far as Canada is concerned, is the best system, in spite of certain failings that some of us point out from time to time, that this country has been yet able to develop.
(Translation):


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arihabaska):: Mr. Speaker, because of this resolution which appears on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), I have been reading various farm newspapers in the prairie provinces in an attempt to learn the views of western farmers on this resolution. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any indication of the attitude of western farmers.
Deliveries of Grain to Feed Mills
We would have liked the minister to tell us in greater detail what he has in mind in asking that the committee:
Be empowered to examine and inquire into the delivery of grain by producers to feed mills operating in the designated area as defined by the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and to report to the house observations and proposals thereon.
We would have liked the minister to go into greater detail before being asked to take a more definite position on this issue.
At this stage of the resolution, when we lack the necessary details, it is hard to say what is behind this bill, or to decide whether it will be beneficial or detrimental to western farmers.
The fact that this motion providing for an examination of the delivery of western grain to the mills is being introduced today probably means, I am afraid, that surprises will be forthcoming at the committee stage. I find this amazing, because in the past there have been agricultural resolutions of a national character which were not submitted to the committee on agriculture and colonization. There was, for instance, the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act, which was quite important but nevertheless was not considered in the committee on agriculture.
There were also other national matters, such as the legislation on land use, on the conservation of forests and waters, which have yet to be introduced.
In this case, however, it is a matter of local interest, and to my knowledge, it is the first time such a motion is made, proposing that the matter be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization.
I hope the minister will be giving us more information soon, so that we can be in a better position to assess this legislation, in the interests of western farmers.
(Text):


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister going to answer the questions?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this is a subject that could involve a very long debate in the house. I gave a brief summary of some of the background material, and certain other matters were filled in by the hon. member for Assiniboia. I think it is perfectly obvious that a committee is the proper place to make a study of such a complicated subject.

Deliveries of Grain to Feed Mills
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate suggested that the government should have either introduced legislation or stated its policy on this occasion. In looking at the report made last year by the standing committee on agriculture and colonization I found that there was not an extensive discussion of this problem, and I reached the conclusion from the recommendation made by them that the committee wanted a much more extensive investigation conducted than was the case last year.
Last year they touched on the problem when they were dealing with the annual report of the board of grain commissioners. They raised a question as to the number of mills licensed by the board of grain commissioners and the number not licensed. They raised a question whether or not P.F.A.A. payments were made by the unlicensed mills. These payments are not made by the unlicensed mills. Two or three similar questions were brought up. There was not an extensive discussion, so the committee ended up with the recommendation that something further be done.
We gave consideration to the question of what type of further investigation should be conducted, whether a commission should be appointed to look into the matter or whether it might better be aired before a committee of the House of Commons. We reached the conclusion that the latter was the best method to follow at this stage.
I consulted with the members of the Canadian wheat board. They said they would welcome a study of the marketing system, the system of quotas and so on. The government has no particular intention with regard to this matter. The hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska wanted me to state what my intentions were with respect to the committee. I am not suggesting any plan or giving any directions to the committee whatsoever. The committee are simply being afforded the opportunity to do what they indicated last year they would like to do.
With the reference of this subject matter to the committee its members now will be in a position to call witnesses and have the case presented to them. An opportunity will be provided to interested parties in the prairie provinces to come and state their case before the committee. What the committee winds up with after having reviewed the situation is something we will watch with interest, but the government are not taking any position whatsoever on this problem. We are awaiting the consideration of the whole question by the committee. The committee are widely representative of the farming interests in the three prairie provinces and in part of British

Columbia. The members of the House of Commons who are on the committee are farmers with practical experience in the methods that have been followed now for so many years, and they have the background information with regard to the marketing system and the operation of the feed mills.
Nevertheless, there is a matter that requires to be cleared up; whether all mills should be brought under agreements with the wheat board, or whether the situation should be left as it is at the present time. That is a question I cannot answer. There is the question of whether something should be done with regard to the P.F.A.A. payments, reference to which will be found in a question and answer on page 421 of the evidence heard by the committee last year. I am not in a position to answer that question.
And so it goes. The committee could consider the prosecutions that have been undertaken with regard to people delivering to feed mills or feed mills accepting deliveries. Again, I cannot give the answer to the question of whether this system should be continued or discontinued. Under a proper democratic system a committee of the House of Commons, representative of all parties in the house and of the farming interests of Canada, will be able to examine the problem and come to some conclusion.
Whether any change will be required in the act, I am not in a position to state at the moment; but I want it clearly understood that there is no intention on the part of the government to direct the committee in any way. It is intended that there should be a free and frank discussion of a problem which has caused some misunderstanding or disturbed many prairie dwellers. If this is the best way to clear it up, that will satisfy the situation, but it was quite obvious that we had reached the stage where there should be a general airing of the problem. I am sure that many members of the house who have had letters from their constituents or who have written me about this matter would like to have all the evidence submitted.
The committee will be able to call before them the members of the Canadian wheat board, the members of the board of grain commissioners, representatives of elevator companies, representatives of the wheat pools, representatives of the feed mills and individual farmers who have a case to state in connection with these operations. Consequently it will be open to anyone to express his opinion with regard to the operation of the marketing system and the operation of the particular acts that govern this matter and to discuss changes that may be in the minds of some people or, as the hon. member

for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) quite rightly pointed out, who may come forward with measures to strengthen the present system of marketing.
All of this matter is now open to the committee to investigate without any intention, direction or thought in the minds of the government with regard to any changes. The matter is completely wide open without any concealed design whatsoever on the part of the government. I would hope there may be no misconceptions with regard to that matter. This is just a proper democratic procedure to clear the air with regard to certain problems that have arisen over the last few years in the prairie provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister not think that all the arguments he has advanced for this committee apply with equal force to the defence committee which was asked for by my hon. friend?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is an irrelevant question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a question if I may. It is clear, however, in the minister's mind, is it not, that if changes in policy result from any recommendation or any studies that take place, it is the responsibility of the government for any such change in policy?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, yes; by all means. The government will take full responsibility for any changes that may be subsequently proposed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

David James Walker: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to extend until March 31, 1964, the period during which contributions or payments may be made to the provinces under the act and to prolong until December 31, 1963, the period in respect to which construction costs may be incurred under this act; and to provide also that the aggregate of all expenditures under the act may be increased to a maximum of four hundred million dollars.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Trans-Canada Highway Act


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the minister going to say anything?


David James Walker: Hon. members will be glad to learn that I am not going to labour the matter on the resolution stage. The matter was gone into in extenso in the debates in 1949, when the bill was passed; in 1956 when it was amended and when my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was a member of the cabinet; and again last year when an excellent debate took place at which time the Secretary of State for External Affairs was the responsible minister. All I am going to say this afternoon is that the resolution is divided into two parts.
As to the first, we cannot hope to have the trans-Canada highway completed by the end of 1960 because most of the provinces have not yet completed their part of the project. Because of that fact we are asking for an extension of time from December 31, 1960 to December 31, 1963. We are also asking for an extension of time for the payment of the accounts from May 31, 1961 to May 31, 1964. Because of this extension there will be, of course, further building than we had anticipated. We are therefore asking that the amount of money voted by parliament, which to date is $350 million, should be increased to $400 million.
That is all I have to say at this stage on the resolution. I shall be glad to answer, within my capacity, any questions that might be asked.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has just said that he was not going to labour this question very much this afternoon. Perhaps if there had been a little more labour in the past 12 months it might have brought forth a completed highway. It was a year ago, in the debate to which the minister has referred, that we were told by the minister of that time on February 20, 1959 that with the possible exception of Newfoundland the trans-Canada highway would be completed by the end of this year.


David James Walker: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Perhaps my hon. friend does not appreciate the fact that we are not building the highway. The provinces are doing that. If he is blaming any province for not having its share completed. Do I take it that his blame is attributed to the provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know who is building the highway. It is a co-operative venture between the federal government and the provincial governments. The provincial governments, of course, are responsible for the

Trans-Canada Highway Act actual building of the highway but they get support and assistance from the federal government.


David James Walker: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am repeating what the minister said in this house last year, namely that the highway would be completed by the end of 1960. Indeed we were also told in the report of proceedings under the highway act, on page 1, that such happy achievement would in all probability be accomplished by the end of 1960. If you read that report-and this is the report of operations under the Trans-Canada Highway Act; it is a federal report- you will find the following:
Present indications are that, with the possible exception of the province of Newfoundland, each of the participating provinces will complete the construction of its section of the highway for 31 December, 1960.
That achievement has not been possible. Therefore the federal government have introduced this resolution on which will be based an act which will require the extension of the period so that this highway can be completed.
It is not so easy, Mr. Chairman, to understand why this highway has not been completed and why the predictions of a year ago have not been fulfilled in the case of British Columbia and Ontario. In Ontario the uncompleted part, of course, is in northern Ontario. The residents there will be disappointed that the road is not yet completed and that the province, which was boasting of its good financial condition a few weeks ago when its budget was introduced, has not been able to finance that part of the highway in northern Ontario or indeed that road which was to be built according to trans-Canada standards to Chapleau from Thessalon and then joining the trans-Canada highway on the lake Superior coast. It is also not so easy to understand why British Columbia should not have completed this highway. That is a province which not so long ago is reported to have burned its mortgage. It therefore could not have been financial consideration that stood in the way of its completion. It is also a province which has a minister of highways who has always shown a burning interest in speeed. In any event, the highway has not been completed and this resolution is required to bring that about.
The trans-Canada highway was one of the projects-this may be forgotten by some hon. members of this house-for national development recommended at the national Liberal convention of 1948 and it was initiated in the following year. Throughout the whole period that the former government was in office the minister who had responsibility for


the trans-Canada highway, the Hon. Robert Winters, pushed this project forward with characteristic energy, business ability and zeal.
Originally the federal contribution, as hon. members know, was half the cost of construction with the exception of in the national parks, where of course the federal government bore the full cost of construction of the highway. But in 1955 the federal government of that day decided that an additional incentive was needed to encourage the provinces to complete the road, and as a gap filling incentive parliament was asked, and it agreed, to have the federal government share the cost up to 90 per cent of any 10 per cent of the highway in each province; and of course naturally the provinces picked the 10 per cent which was the most expensive to build.
This amendment in 1956 resulted in greatly increased activity and in some provinces proved a sufficient incentive to ensure completion of the highway. I understand that the highway is now completed in the prairie provinces and in Prince Edward Island. But the experience of 1956 and 1957 made it clear that the cost of building the road was throwing an unfair burden on three of the Atlantic provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. All three of these provinces had to build shares of the road which were disproportionate to their share of the Canadian population and Canadian wealth. Moreover, unlike most other provinces the Atlantic provinces had not shared at all in the substantial federal contribution to the building of new railways and canals.
We felt that on grounds of equity and indeed in the national interest the Atlantic provinces deserved special financial consideration to enable them to complete their sections of the trans-Canada highway. So, Mr. Chairman, the Liberal party at its convention in 1958 recommended, and I quote from the resolution passed at that convention, "Special assistance in the provision of trunk highways in all four Atlantic provinces". Subsequently we stated that in the view of our party the federal government should assume 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway in the Atlantic provinces. That remains our policy, Mr. Chairman, and we now urge the government in the bill to be founded on this resolution to incorporate a provision to that effect.


David James Walker: Would my hon. friend permit a question. When my hon. friend was part of the Liberal government did he or did the government of that day ever make such a proposal to assist the Atlantic provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have just explained that we did make a proposal in 1956 which increased the federal share.


David James Walker: To all the provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All the provinces. Then two years later we made the proposal, in view of the experience with working out that earlier proposal and the special consideration required for the Atlantic provinces, that some special consideration should be given to the Atlantic provinces. That is the proposal we made in 1958 and on which we still stand. We urge the government to introduce a proposal to that effect in the bill which will be founded on this resolution.
We believe that this special treatment for the Atlantic provinces is in the national interest for the following reasons. First, because the Atlantic provinces now suffer under a disability compared with other provinces in the field of transportation. Second, because the Atlantic provinces have a greatly disproportionate share of the national highway to build and a smaller capacity to pay for it than the other provinces. Third, because the Atlantic provinces have proportionately less favourable employment prospects at this time than other provinces, and a speed-up of the trans-Canada highway in those areas particularly would be a stimulus to employment and economic activity in the area, and I know that economic activity would be greatly welcomed. Fourth, the completion of the trans-Canada highway would be a most effective step toward increasing economic development and activity in the Atlantic region.
This should be a very easy proposal for the government to accept because of statements made in 1956 when help was being discussed by members of the then opposition who are now on the government side, some of them ministers of the crown. I recall that in the debate of 1956 the hon. member who is now parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport had this to say, as reported at page 2523 of Hansard for March 22 of that year:
I suggest that this government should pay 90 per cent of the cost of the construction of the whole road.
Mr. Chairman, we are not going as far as that in our proposal. We are suggesting that they pay 90 per cent of the cost of construction in the Atlantic provinces. The present Minister of Justice had this to say, as reported on page 2942 of Hansard for April 16, 1956:
I said a few words prior to the adjournment on that day in which I had just got to the point where I was seeking to demonstrate that the proposal now before the house-
Trans-Canada Highway Act That is, for 10 per cent of the most expensive part of the road.
-is neither adequate to ensure the completion of the trans-Canada highway by the date mentioned in the resolution, namely, December 31,	1960,
nor is it fair as between provinces which are participating members under the trans-Canada highway agreement.
The Minister of Justice again had this to say as reported on page 2977 of Hansard for April 16, 1956:
At the present time we are not getting any action. We are not going to have a trans-Canada highway by 1960 as this resolution calls for because this government does not have a sensible, progressive, far-reaching trans-Canada highway policy.
What he meant by that was that the federal government of that day was not paying a big enough share of the cost; so the Minister of Justice will no doubt be in support of this resolution. Then the Minister of Transport had this to say, as reported on page 2955 of Hansard for April 16, 1956:
ay' wc 111 mis jt-*c*jLiiaiiicm,, particularly the government, must face up to the hard, cold fact that if this highway is to be built within the foreseeable future, the federal government must assume the financial responsibility for its construc-
Paying around with makeshift methods of trying to get it built.
In short, he was saying that if this highway is going to be built in the foreseeable future the federal government must assume financial responsibility and get on with the job.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member indicate who was speaking at that time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The present Minister of Transport, the Hon. Mr. Hees, as reported on page 2955 of Hansard for April 16, 1956.
Indeed, the Secretary of State for External Affairs took the same position in regard to the desirability of the federal government paying a larger share, because he said in the same debate, as reported at page 2965 of Hansard for April 16, 1956:
The government could well afford to offer a larger contribution to the provinces.
In view of the attitude taken by hon. members who are now in the government when they were on this side of the house, we would like to put this proposal to them and we shall, surely, be able to count on their support for what is very modest compared with what they themselves proposed in 1956, namely that the government in the bill to be based on this resolution should assist the three Atlantic provinces in the completion of this trans-Canada highway by contributing the cost of the remaining sections of the highway.

Trans-Canada Highway Act


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to express the support of this party for the purpose of this resolution. There has been a very hurried assembling of notes on my part; I got notice of this discussion about ten minutes ago. I have always taken a great interest in the building of highways. As a matter of fact, I earned the first dollar I ever earned packing supplies into the mountains for the building of trails. Since that time I have had charge of building many miles of standard highway, so I know something about highway construction. Really, I know a lot about a lot of things, apparently.
On this occasion, when we are talking about the trans-Canada highway system, my mind goes back into the past, the result, perhaps, of the affliction of increasing age. But when I was packing in these supplies I learned for the first time the recipe for what is known as Kootenay mulligan, which was made by the men in the evening for their evening meal. In case anybody is interested in the recipe-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it a drink or a food?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am going to give the recipe now, because I see that the hon. member for Essex East is interested in this, as he is in most things. Here it is:
One empty five-gallon kerosene can
One case of clams
Four gallons of water-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: One bottle of Scotch whisky
One tablespoon of 60 per cent dynamite
Boil for one hour and serve hot.
That brew was actually made on several occasions while I was employed on the first construction job in which I had the opportunity to take part. We have come a long way since those days. I remember that for one road construction job through heavy forest in British Columbia the government of British Columbia allowed the princely sum of $100 a mile-and the road was built 20 feet wide, with the stumps cut off to ground level.


Mr. McGee:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Delighted.


Frank Charles McGee: Would he tell us whether this brew was used for drinking purposes or for removing stumps?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It was used at the evening meal, and it had a most stimulating effect on the crew. I shall never forget one night when, in fear and trembling, with my horses tied up at various trees, I saw that the rest of the crew had taken off all their clothes
after dinner. A number of them were Englishmen who had received their education at various universities and who had some knowledge of classical history. They spent most of the night posing around a bonfire on various cedar stumps as Adonis, Venus, Minerva, Diana and Hercules, etc.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the hon. gentleman say "Venus"?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, in the evening-


David James Walker: Is the hon. member suggesting we should revive the making of this brew in order to expedite the construction of highways?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I can say that it was an excellent crew and whether it could be attributed to the effects of the Kootenay mulligan or not the trails were built at very low cost compared with present day costs. I mention this incident to indicate how the circumstances have changed.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds-in view of the very interesting story he is now in the process of developing, does he think that the nature of the story from now on is such that the page boys should be asked to leave the chamber?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am leaving the early history of trail building now and proceeding to modern times.
There has been a latent interest in the trans-Canada highway in Canada for a good many years. If my memory serves me aright, the first Trans-Canada Highway Act was passed in 1919 when the federal government pledged the princely sum of $20 million to be shared with the provinces on the construction of highways within each province, to be used as the provinces themselves designated. The federal government paid 40 per cent of the cost and the provinces paid the other 60 per cent. That initial enthusiasm apparently died down, as far as I had been able to gather, after a few years of experience. Then, in 1932, several measures were passed by the federal government to the general advantage of Canada, in my opinion, under that section of the constitution-I see the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate looking at me; if I make any slips I will refer to him for information concerning the constitutional procedure-providing for public works and other things including highways for the general advantage of Canada. I know that other projects were included at that time-river bank protection, and so on-and I think this was the legislation under which the first work was done on the Big Bend highway round the big bend

of the Columbia. The legislation was passed at that time, particularly, in order to provide for unemployment-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely, the hon. gentleman means "employment"?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Pardon me. I meant to say "to meet unemployment", or "to provide employment", whichever way the hon. gentleman wishes to have it put.
Since I have had the honour of being a member of this house-and I give credit where it is due-under the leadership of the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, the Trans-Canada Highway Act was passed in 1949, though only after a great deal of stimulation from many organizations throughout the country. Incidentally, I may say that the C.C.F. party can take some credit for the victory in this respect, because we have urged the advantages of a national highway program for a great many years. This follows from the fact that our policies are logical and related to planning for the needs of the country and its development.
Finally, we had the recent roads to resources program initiated by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on a dollar for dollar basis with the provinces. Just what this program has accomplished or may accomplish we are not certain at the present time; the scheme is in its infant stage, but we hope it will grow. The picture will become more clearly defined as the days pass by.
We assume that this legislation now being introduced by the minister is for the purpose of providing funds to enable the trans-Canada highway to be completed. We have all been looking forward to its completion for a number of years. I might say, before passing on, that all this legislation from 1919 onwards indicates that successive federal governments, regardless of their political nature, have had twinges of conscience in connection with their responsibility for the development of a national highway system and the assistance of the provinces in the construction of the trans-Canada highway. There can be no doubt that the development of industry, agriculture and our recreational potential, particularly the tourist industry, makes the development of a national highway system more urgent every day. One only has to read the attractive little booklet published by the Canadian government travel bureau entitled "Trans-Canada Highway" to see how the work which has been done to date has been used as a lure to tourists from other countries, particularly from the United States.
Trans-Canada Highway Act
Interesting representations on a wide scale have been made by a large number of organizations to successive governments in this connection especially following world war II when the idea again cropped up that we should do something about a trans-Canada highway. One of the first representations was made by the Calgary board of trade in 1946 to the Right Hon. Mackenzie King the then prime minister of Canada. The brief contains a complete outline of the needs. I will place them on the record because it is obvious that serious thought was given to this question by that board:
Briefly, a few of the reasons why we believe the dominion government should take an active interest in the development of an adequate highway system are as follows:
You will notice they say "system" and not just trans-Canada highway. I continue:
1.	To foster and encourage communication between the separate provinces of our dominion with a view of developing a national spirit.
2.	To insure Canada to some extent against unemployment.
That suggestion is a possible means of meeting the problem created by seasonal unemployment, particularly in a planned national highways system carried on in cooperation with the provinces given effect to at the time required to do the greatest good with respect to relieving seasonal unemployment. I continue:
3.	To attract American tourists and to capitalize on the favourable advertising we have received during the past six years.
4.	To keep Canadian tourists at home by making motor travel in our own country as attractive as it is elsewhere.
5.	To assist in the development of our natural resources, especially mining and forestry.
That is a fundamental reason, I continue:
6.	To provide a better and more adequate postal service in rural areas, and in communities not served by railways.
7.	To improve the health of our nation by bringing hospital centres and medical services closer to our rural citizens through the use of motor transport.
8.	To develop our educational system by providing roads over which buses may travel and bring the students to the centres where they will receive adequate and proper training. Seven out of ten buses operating in the United States are school buses.
9.	To encourage farming by bringing the farmer closer to his market with the use of motor equipment; reducing costs of transportation over short hauls; and making it possible for the farmer to diversify his efforts and market produce which he otherwise would be restricted from doing through lack of roads.
10.	To encourage immigration from the United States, where we find the finest type of immigrant that Canada can obtain. Farmers from the middle western states are continually looking for good land such as we have in Canada, but will not move to a country where they are not provided with facilities comparable to those which exist in the country from which they come.

Trans-Canada Highway Act
11.	To assist the individual owner of a motor vehicle to operate same more economically. It is being suggested that there will be four million vehicles operating in Canada by 1960 if adequate roads are provided.
I think that figure is already exceeded at this time. I continue:
It has been proved, by test, that it costs one half cent per mile more to operate a car on gravel than it does on pavement. It therefore costs an individual who drives his car 20,000 miles in a year, $100 extra: a national economic loss of possibly $100 million a year.
The brief goes on to state:
The United States long ago realized the necessity of national assistance in the building of an adequate highway system and that is why today we find excellent hard surfaced highways extending from coast to coast, and through areas as sparsely populated as northern Ontario.
Northern Ontario has been one of the problem districts so far as building the trans-Canada highway is concerned. The brief continues:
The history of the United States federal highway development is a revelation to most Canadians.
We will admit we are 50 years behind in our development in this respect but if we were to read the history of legislation in the United States and what has been accomplished I think we would learn a great deal. We could use the experience of the United States not only in legislation but as an illustration of the co-operation between the federal government and the states as well as in the administration of highway programs and in the methods used in the building of highways.
The brief deals with the extensive highway system in the United States and refers to the system of highways being developed in Mexico. Anyone who has been to Mexico knows that this relatively poor country from the point of view of Canada's wealth of resources has done a great deal more with its resources in the development of a national highways system than has been done in Canada to date.
This brief written in 1945 urges the dominion government to embark on a program similar to the United States federal aid program providing for the development of a national highways system.
Later on the board of trade of southeastern British Columbia-a most progressive and alert body-made representation to the federal government with respect to the southern trans-provincial highway, being made a part of a national highway system. The latest representations, I understand, have been made by the automobile association of Canada to the present government. They presented an excellent brief. All these representations indicate the growing need for

action on the part of the federal government to do something more than has been done in the past.
I will read the concluding paragraph of the brief of the automobile association of Canada to this government:
The Canadian Automobile Association, as a result of these facts and observations, requests the federal government to convene a conference of the federal and provincial governments and representatives of the major municipal governments that would have as its objectives (1) the examination of all matters commented upon in this submission, especially consideration of a national system of highways for Canada; (2) the desirability or otherwise of establishing a continuing body, to be composed of the representatives of federal, provincial and municipal governments, that would act in a consultative capacity, and would make recommendations to the respective governments on the most efficient policies that would serve the national interest in highway construction and administration; (3) the examination and study of present financial responsibilities of governments for road building that would assist governments in accurately assessing this aspect of their mutual financial problems and which would help in the broader field of dominion-provincial fiscal relations; (4) the formulation and projection of road and street programs that would best serve the national interests.
We in this group have no hesitation in supporting the representations of this association. Here is another illustration of the changing circumstances in 50 years. Fifty years ago the members of automobile associations were largely those in the upper crust, the more fortunate in society. What do we find today? The great bulk of members of these associations are working people so when the Canadian Automobile Association makes representations to the government of Canada it does so on behalf of a widespread section of the Canadian people and in so doing does not represent any particular class or interest but a national need.
In drawing my brief remarks to conclusion, I urge the government to take action as quickly as possible in completing the present trans-Canada highway. Meanwhile, a conference with the provinces should be called to prepare for a national highways policy with a view to establishing by mutual agreement and in co-operation, a policy for the building of a national highways system to meet our present needs, to assist in the promotion of the economic development of Canada and provide opportunities for what I would term some massive planning to meet the seasonal unemployment that occurs from time to time in this country.


Mr. Forbes:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my approval of this resolution to provide funds for the completion of the present trans-Canada highway, but I am of the opinion that we should be providing more money to start a second trans-Canada highway. In view of the fact that the present



I960

[Stage Direction]
trans-Canada highway is practically completed in Manitoba and is already completed in Saskatchewan, I would suggest it is time we started on a second trans-Canada highway.
I would further suggest that this highway could' well start north of Brandon, follow No. 10 highway through the Riding Mountain national park to a point possibly at Mafeking, or on to Flin Flon, and then extend west into Saskatchewan and lead into Alberta. I understand my colleagues from the western provinces are also interested in this second trans-Canada highway, therefore there is no need for me to say anything about the potentialities of this proposed route except those involving Manitoba itself.
The potentials along the northern route are particularly significant in the light of the future development of our natural resources. In Manitoba it will provide ready access to the extensive mineral development of the Flin Flon area as well as the Thompson-Moak lake developments. In both Manitoba and' Saskatchewan it touches extensive forest areas waiting for better transportation to speed the establishment of pulp mills and other forest product industries.
I would like to point out that this route has a far better potential for forest based industries as well as a highway to attract tourists than the southern trans-Canada route. The route would pass through our Riding Mountain national park, and the entire route is in either park land or forest land with numerous lakes and ever-changing scenery of rich agricultural or tree areas.
I contend that the construction of a second trans-Canada highway across the northern areas would' be the biggest contribution that could be made under a joint federal-provincial program to the tourist industry in western Canada. At the present time we are nearing the stage where we will have one paved highway across the western provinces. It is a well-known fact that tourists prefer to travel a different route on the return home than on the way out; in other words, a round trip is more interesting than covering the same ground. Not only does this enable the tourist to see more of the country but it also eliminates the tendency, engendered by travelling over the same route, to make the return trip in a minimum of time rather than taking it in a more leisurely fashion, thus spending additional days in the country.
With tourist trade ranking third in terms of foreign exchange, after only pulp and paper and wheat, a second trans-Canada highway should be built with the idea in mind of attracting more tourists to western Canada and encouraging Canadians to see as much of their country as possible.
Trans-Canada Highway Act
In conclusion, may I say I hope the minister will give consideration to commencing the construction of this second trans-Canada highway this year. I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West that the construction of a second trans-Canada highway would add greatly to the employment of men at that time of the year when there is not too much work available, in surveying, brushing and so forth. I hope the minister will give his early consideration to the commencement of this second trans-Canada route.
Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, the measure which is to be introduced to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act so that the period of construction may be extended is of particular interest to me and to all of us from Newfoundland, for a large section of the trans-Canada highway goes through my riding. The trans-island road enters my riding just east of Gander and traverses the whole width of it. Only a small part of it is paved and only a part of it has been brought up to trans-Canada highway standards. Part of it is a long difficult stretch known as Halls Bay line, which is far from trans-Canada highway specifications.
The proposed amendment to the Trans-Canada Highway Act is sound as far as it goes but in my opinion it does not go far enough. It should be further amended so that the cost of building the trans-Canada highway would be less burdensome on the tenth province. The number of miles compared with the population and the ability to pay should be taken into account. In order to finish the job I support the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that the federal government pay 90 per cent of the cost of building the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland and in the other Atlantic provinces.
I am glad that the Newfoundland situation is known to the Minister of Public Works. Last fall he visited St. John's, Newfoundland, and the press reports indicated that he was very sympathetic. Perhaps I may be forgiven if I may refer to some of the reports of that time. I read from the Montreal Gazette of October 21, 1959:
St. John's, October 19-Within the powers and capacities of Ottawa, Newfoundland will be given what it has long since deserved, federal works minister Walker said today. He made the statement as he opened a $4,500,000 federal building to house nine government agencies in the Newfoundland capital. Mr. Walker said he is taking back to Ottawa impressions of the island's problems and needs which he will place before the cabinet.
And further:
This province is entitled to a great deal, he told a conference with Newfoundland journalists yesterday, proceeding to explain that Newfoundland had

Trans-Canada Highway Act dropped behind normal Canadian standards of government services because she had entered confederation in 1949, instead of 1867.
He called the trans-Canada highway a gigantic undertaking, requiring a great deal of study. Answering a question regarding the trans-Canada highway across Newfoundland, Mr. Walker said:
"Under the Trans-Canada Highway Act the road is to be built across Newfoundland under a partnership between the provincial and federal governments. I can't say when the highway will be completed, as this also depends on the provincial government, but as far as the road through Terra Nova national park is concerned, for which the federal government alone is responsible, that will be completed in 1960."
And further:
"Will there be any reduction in public works expenditure in Newfoundland next year?" one newsman asked. "Not if I can help it", Mr. Walker replied. "Development here is long overdue", he continued.
Perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will agree with that. There are other reports, all, I am glad to say, very sympathetic toward us, showing the minister's keen interest in the problems of the tenth province.
I am not alone in believing that increased financial support is necessary if the trans-Canada highway is to be finished in the Atlantic region within a reasonable length of time. The national Liberal convention, in its declared policy early in 1958, said:
The Liberal party, to help remove the economic disabilities of the Atlantic provinces, advocates special assistance in the provision of trunk highways in all four Atlantic provinces for heavy traffic to and from central Canada and the United States, to promote trade and the tourist industry.
The most important of all trunk highways is the trans-Canada highway. Earlier, before the election of 1957, the Progressive Conservative party, in their Atlantic resolutions, promised:
Adjustments of freight rates and provision of transportation facilities to allow our producers reasonable access to the markets of Canada.
And further:
A capital projects program to provide federal capital assistance for provincial projects, destined to enlarge the basic economy of the area.
These are the commitments of the two great parties. The difference, of course, is that we in the Liberal party are in opposition and can only suggest and request, while the Progressive Conservative party is in power and can, if they want to, carry out their promises to provide better transportation facilities in the Atlantic region and to provide federal capital assistance for this important project which would enlarge the basic economy of the Atlantic provinces area.
The most crucial need of Newfoundland is more and better roads and the trans-Canada highway as the spinal column of the provincial road system. In fact, the whole matter

of transportation is of the utmost importance to the tenth province and I trust that all Canadians may realize the necessity of bringing the trans-island road in Newfoundland up to trans-Canada specifications and bringing transportation in Newfoundland abreast the rest of Canada.
To my way of thinking the lack of transportation facilities in our province is the concern of all of our nation. When Newfoundland became a member of the Canadian family it was the general intent, and the public seemed to agree completely, that as soon as possible the tenth province would enjoy the public services so long enjoyed by those who have had the benefits of confederation for half a century. One of the greatest of all needs is an adequate road system.
Historically, most of the province's transportation was done by sea. The island was settled by men whose business was fishing and they settled along the deeply indented seacoast as near as possible to the fishing grounds. Hundreds of settlements grew along our coastline. Transportation was mostly by water. The schooner was the stagecoach and the small boat the cab. In time coastal steamers provided more regular service, but the whole of transportation was largely seasonal and isolation was accepted as part of the way of life. This continued for generations, and when road building did begin it was restricted for two main reasons, lack of money and difficult terrain. I might add that these two severe restrictions are still with us at the present time.
Like the other Atlantic provinces, Newfoundland cannot boast of the flourishing economy with which some other parts of the country are blessed. The result is that there are not sufficient funds to build as quickly as is desirable and to maintain the road system which is necessary if the province is to maintain a rate of progress commensurate with the rest of Canada.
I do not think it is necessary, or for that matter proper, to dilate upon the matter of economic ability here except in so far as it affects road building. I should like to emphasize that our province has improved greatly since confederation but at a cost which is draining its resources, and the greatest drain of all is the trans-Canada highway, a highway which Newfoundland must have if she is going to develop.
Before going further I should like to speak briefly on the general concept of the trans-Canada highway. Certainly it was an enlightened move and followed in the traditions of those who dreamed of and built the great transcontinental railways. Great

Canadians of the past were well aware of the need for and value of a transportation system. They realized very clearly that transportation was the real key to nationhood. They acted with wisdom and daring and they employed the means of transportation which in their day was the most efficient, the railway. At that time the railway was the most modern and efficient means of transportation. Water transportation, with all its great values, was limited in its uses, and while water transportation provided and still provides vital services it could not do the job which nationhood required. Land transportation could and at that time the railway was the best means available.
I mention this to show that it was not railways as such which the statesmen of the day were concerned with but rather transportation, transportion on a national scale, which was the business of the federal government and which only the federal government could effectively create. The value of rail transportation, its effect on unifying the nation, of which there is living proof in the cities and towns to which the railways gave birth, strength and vigour, and the unity with which Canada has been blessed are all matters of history now. But it is in the light of this history that the trans-Canada highway must be viewed, for whether the transportation is by narrow ribbons of steel or by broader ribbons of concrete the results to nationhood are the same and the principle is the same although the practice is not. The same national concept of transportation is applied to the modern air lines, and who can deny the great service which the federally instituted Trans-Canada Air Lines had rendered Canada.
Canals too have received much federal support. In fact, federal governments of the past were very much alive to federal responsibility in transportation. But in between the railways, canals and air lines the evolution of transportation worked strange wonders with roads. Roads were largely parochial until the advent of the motor car when they were extended from populous centres until they become provincial, and although the twentieth century rolls along on the wheels of motor cars and the whole pattern of transportation has changed, roads still remain anchored to parochial and provincial traditions while in fact the highway has long since surpassed the railway in its importance to national unity and growth.
The originators of the trans-Canada highway recognized the importance of a road from one coast of Canada to the other and the great movement was launched. It was farsighted and enlightened and on the whole
Business of the House
has worked out amazingly well. But time has marched on and, like every device of man, weaknesses show up which have to be corrected. The formula that launched the highway and brought it close to fruition needs adjustment to finish the job.
The sharing of costs between the provinces and the federal government on a 50-50 basis was eventually modified so that 90 per cent of the cost of some sections would be borne by the federal government. The reason simply lies in a practical assessment of the facts. Half the cost of building a road to trans-Canada standards was too high an amount to be borne by some of the poorer provinces. Directly and indirectly the trans-Canada highway is of benefit to all of Canada for highways in fact truly carry traffic both ways. This one great road, this trans-Canada highway, is in fact the nation's business. Delay in the completion of the trans-Canada highway has come about because of the kind of terrain, the distances involved, density of population and the ability to pay. In all of these respects the formula is unfair to Newfoundland. Within my own district of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador there are 151J miles of trans-island road and of this 18.8-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. It is now
five o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to private and public bills, I wonder whether I could ascertain from the leader of the house if I am correct in understanding that we go on with the supplementary estimates at eight o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is correct, and if we complete them in short order we will come back to the trans-Canada highway resolution.


Mr. Morton:: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to orders Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 and 76 and on behalf of the sponsors of these private bills ask that they be given precedence over divorce bills. In some cases delay may bring hardship on the companies concerned. With respect to the bill I am sponsoring I know that the company hopes to start operations by May 1. We have had consent before that such bills take precedence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sorry, sir, but I am afraid we cannot agree.

Private Bills-Divorce


Mr. Peters:: On behalf of the C.C.F., may I say that we will be very pleased to have these bills brought forward. We believe that this is not-


Mr. Speaker:: It is obvious there is not unanimous consent. We shall proceed with the order paper.


Mr. Howard:: Unadulterated Liberal obstruction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Obstruction?


Mr. McCleave:: Talk about obstruction: C.C.F. hypocrites.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-31, for the relief of Donald Snowdon-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Murdo William Martin: With regard to this Bill No. SD-31, may I say that it seems to me there are a great many inconsistencies and contradictions. There are in this bill any number of things which make one wonder how it could have been passed in its present form without at least being tidied up a bit. The first inconsistency we find here may be a minor one but, as I say, in order to tidy the bill up I think something should have been done at some stage. At page 5, which contains the petition, we find that clause 5 thereof states as follows:
5. That alter the said marriage your petitioner lived and cohabited with the said ... and there is living of the said marriage one child,... age seven years.
Then when we look at page 12 of the evidence given before the committee we find that the petitioner was asked this question by one of the hon. senators:
Q. Have you been looking after your little boy since you separated?
A. Yes.
Q. How old is he now?
A. Eight years old.
This may be a minor mix-up but at the same time it is something which, when taken into consideration with the evidence as a whole, points up one of the many things which I intend to point out, one of the many inconsistencies contained in the evidence presented in connection with this bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Murdo William Martin: Yes.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will he not agree that the petition was dated the 16th day of July, 1959 and the boy could have grown a bit since then?
(Mr. Pickersgill.]


Murdo William Martin: I thank the hon.
member for pointing out that fact. Possibly that may be one of the things I overlooked in this bill. That would account for this particular difference. I hope the rest of the inconsistencies I intend to bring out can be explained as easily.
We have, for example, on the night in question, which I believe was June 18, 1959, the date on which the alleged adultery occurred, a description of the apparel worn by the respondent and the corespondent. We find at page 12, when the petitioner was being questioned-I believe this time by the attorney, Mr. Cohen-the following questions:
Q. Could you tell us what happened on the 18th of June, 1959, at 5175 Charles rol in Montreal?
A. I went there myself. I found the address where she was living and I went there about 9 o'clock on the evening of June 18. I rang the doorbell, she answered; she was in her nightgown-
Then again, on page 12, the question was asked by Mr. Cohen:
Q. The madam was in the nightdress and ... was in his pajamas?
A. Yes.
Then on page 14, in an answer which the-petitioner gave to one of the hon. senators:
When I went there this man was sitting there with her and she was in her nightgown and he in his pajamas.
A. Yes.
Then over on page 15 when the respondent was being questioned she was asked, again, by the attorney:
Q. How were you dressed that evening?
A. Baby doll pajamas.
I do not profess to be an expert; I do not know the difference between a nightdress, a nightgown and baby doll pajamas. I do not know whether she was wearing one or all three. But if she was wearing all three, it might lead one to wonder how the alleged offence took place.


An hon. Member:: Ways and means.


Murdo William Martin: Then we have again some inconsistency with regard to the residence of the corespondent. If we look: at page 15 of the evidence, when the corespondent was being questioned by the clerk of the committee, he was asked his name and his age and we find the following question:
Q. Where do you live?
A. 7100 Querbes, Montreal, Quebec.
Then again when he is questioned by the attorney, we find the following question:
Q. ... have you ever had sexual relations with ... and if so, more particularly on June 18, 1959 at your residence at 5175 Charles roi?'
I do not know whether his residence was at one place and he was living elsewhere or whether his residence was the other place-

and he was living some place else again. But to me there seems to be a contradiction. I will grant you it may not be a serious contradiction but at least it is one that should have been tidied up before this bill was passed.


An hon. Member:: Surely you can do it anywhere.


Murdo William Martin: Maybe the hon. member has more experience than I have in that line.
Then we come to the matter which is the basis for the divorce being granted, namely the proof of adultery. If we look again at page 5 which contains the petition, article 7 thereof which states as follows:
7. That on or about June 18, 1959, at 5175 Charles Roi, city of Montreal, district of Montreal, in the province of Quebec, the said . .. committed adultery with. .. who resides at 7100 Querbes, apt. 3, city of Montreal, district of Montreal, in the province of Quebec.
But then when we turn again to page 12 we find his question: This is a question by the attorney Mr. Cohen. I would submit that it is not a question at all but rather a statement supposedly placed in the form of a question. The question reads as follows:
Q. Since the date of the adultery on the 18th of June, 1959, have you ever had sexual relations with your wife?
A. No.
I submit that is not a proper question. That is a statement rather than a question. If it can be classified as a question at all, it is certainly a very leading one. Then on the same page we find the following question. This again is a question by the attorney to the plaintiff in this case. The question reads as follows:
Q. Was there any conversation between you and your wife at that time? Did your wife tell you anything at that time?
A. Nothing. I just said that I had come to visit her and wanted to know where she was living.
Then further down on the page we find the following question:
Q. Did your wife ... admit living as man and wife with... ? Did she admit living with him and having sexual relations with him?
A. No.
Hence it is conclusive that, on both statements contained in the question by the same attorney, the allegation had no basis in fact, at least at that time. This, of course, is supposed to be the day on which the offence was committed. Also at least a shadow of doubt is cast on the statement in article 7 contained in the petition.
Now let me turn to something else, Mr. Chairman. If we look at page 12 we see the question I read a moment ago:
Q. ...Did your wife tell you anything at that time?
Private Bills-Divorce
A. Nothing. I just said that I had come to visit her and wanted to know where she was living.
Then on page 13 we find this question by one of the hon. senators:
Q. What did you say to her?
A. I said I had come to visit her. She had a child of her own before our marriage, and we had looked after him.
Then the same senator asked:
Q. When you went to this house where she was living in 1959, give us the conversation you had when she opened the door.
A. When she opened the door she said "Oh Donald.' I said "Hello", that I had come to see her. I did not stay too long. I stepped in the doorway for a while, and she introduced this fellow.
Then on page 14 the solicitor jogs his memory a little. He asks:
Q. May I refresh your mind? When you came to my office did you not tell me that your wife said she wanted to marry-
-the respondent, and the answer is yes. The same senator had questioned this matter closely on the previous page because it apparently bothered him. He then asked:
Q. I already asked you about the conversation It seems difficult to get it.
A. It is over a year since I went there. I went there for one purpose to see how she was living. When I went there this man was sitting there with her-
And so on. It seems to me that this a pretty loosely knit case. I think it is one that certainly could stand much closer scrutiny and I submit that evidence of this kind would never pass any court. I am sure the hon. members of this house who are lawyers would never permit testimony of this kind to go unchallenged. I think this committee should study this matter a little more closely before this bill is passed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on bill No. SD-32, for the relief of Mary Nisbet Clements-Mr. McCleave-Mr, Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this case appears to me to be one granted by the Senate committee on the ground of desertion. I believe the hon. senators are perfectly within their rights in saying that adultery does not have to be proven and that desertion is a good cause for divorce; that they can grant divorce on the ground of desertion if they wish. But I am surprised in reading this particular bill

Private Bills-Divorce
at the fact that it does not establish very clearly who wants this divorce, the man or the woman. It would appear to me that they both want it quite a bit, and I think this is ascertained from the evidence.
The evidence indicates that this divorce has been arranged by agreement. The husband deserted the wife in the first place and they are both very happy to be freed from the contract of marriage. The wife points out that she had some trouble with her husband, that he was very expensive. It was a luxury she did not feel she could afford. She points out that she had to keep him. He did not particularly like being married. Though she had known him for some time she had not found out how expensive his tastes were. She says she had to pay as much as $800 to $900 expenses incurred by her husband, and that this was a calamity that she had not intended to have visited upon her and that she could not afford to keep this particular husband. Anyway, the problem was solved because he left her and so deserted her.
I think that in looking at this case the senators felt that the desertion and the fact that he was a very expensive husband were grounds anyway for granting this divorce, and I agree with them. Even in this type of case where there is some agreement it is surprising that questions asked are as inconsistent as they appeared to be in the case we have just listened to. For example, in answer to the question "Was he working right along?", she answered:
No, he just held a job until a seizure was put on his salary and then he left, and I never knew where he was until he came back.
She has already said he had not come back, that he had left, that his desertion was a permanent affair, but I suppose this inconsistency is not of any importance anyway.
I would like to read the type of evidence given in this particular case to prove the adultery charge. I think it will be agreed that this evidence did not prove an adultery charge at all; the question hinges on desertion and the fact that this woman was much better off without this expensive husband, because her job at the office did not pay enough to keep the poor chap. The adultery section of the bill was brought out by Senator Bradley in his questioning on page 13 as follows:
Q. What time of the day was this?
A. About 10 o'clock in the evening. We knocked on the door which was opened by Mr. Clements, who was in bluish-grey pyjamas. I identified myself, told him the purpose of our being there, to get evidence to use in a divorce at a future date. He invited us in, very cordial like. It is a two bedroom house, a bedroom is on the left hand side. The first bedroom was one that had been used. The next bedroom they were using as a utility

room; a living room on the right hand side, and a kitchen at the back of that. In the living room there was another young lady, who Mr. Clements introduced me to as Chloe Thomas. He said, "This is the woman I am living with right now."
Q. That is what he said?
A. He did definitely say so, sir, right in her presence and that of my associate.
Let us look at this for a moment. I suggest that evidence would indicate that there were two ladies in this house, and I think the sponsor of this bill has been very slack in not ascertaining who the first lady was. It may even be possible that it was the wife who was the first lady and the second one was the one introduced as the corespondent.
On page 12 there appears this question:
Q. Do you know this woman Chloe Thomas?
A. No, I don't.
I wonder why they asked her if she knew Chloe Thomas? I suggest that the lawyer in this particular case knew that she knew Chloe Thomas and that the two ladies were together in the house with the gentleman. I would also suggest it is rather surprising that at 10 o'clock in the evening they were both wandering about in pyjamas, because in modern living in the city it is not normal for people to go to bed very early. We are not suggesting that this was a one-night stand. We are suggesting they were living together in common law and I suggest therefore it is not normal for them to be standing around in pyjamas at ten o'clock in the evening unless they have invited the detectives to come that particular night.
I am happy if the Senate has seen fit to grant this divorce on the ground of desertion. I am happy to note that the Senate has decided that a common law alliance will do; that instead of proving adultery, testimony can be given: this is the name of the woman I am living with right now. I am happy that as long as a man will do this it will be accepted as grounds for divorce. I think the Senate is to be complimented on broadening the grounds for divorce and holding that adultery has no longer to be proven.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-33, for the relief of John Thomas Francis White -Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
Charles Benjamin Howard: If I may, I will make a comment or two on this bill. I had thought in my mind that I might at this stage make some comments also about an extremely unkind

and unwise remark passed when we entered upon this particular hour by somebody at this end of the chamber. The remark had to do with hypocrisy, but on reflection I realize that such a discussion would be out of order, no matter how unfair and derogatory the remark itself was.
With respect to this particular bill now before us, I should like to point out that it is one to which we should pay somewhat more attention than to certain of the others, because there are two young children born of this marriage, who are involved. One of them is ten years of age, and the other is eight. In addition, this is one of those instances where private investigators or private detectives are concerned and in which they gave evidence on behalf of the petitioner. I should like to make some comments about the evidence which was given by one of these investigators and draw some conclusions with regard to it later on.
The couple in this case were married in 1948, and they parted in April, 1959. An indication is given on page 10 of the evidence in a question put by Mr. Joyal, the barrister who appeared as counsel for the petitioner, when he asked of the petitioner:
Q. When did you cease living with her?
A. Some time this spring. In April, after I had been told she had been seen with somebody else.
Then, later on, the question was asked by Senator Taylor:
Q. That would be April, 1959?
A. Yes.
The respondent-the wife-now has the children, and it is pleasant to note that the committee of the other place, as indicated in the evidence, was concerned about the welfare of the children although they are, apparently, restricted in their consideration of that sort of thing, because it is none of their business, and none of our business, if we are to follow the rulings which were given earlier. Nevertheless I think that though strictly speaking this question may be outside our authority it is a matter which we ought to consider, whether we deal with it openly and express ourselves here in the committee, or whether we keep it to ourselves. I think we must consider what might happen to the children involved not only in this case but in all other such cases if we are to discharge our responsibilities.
This reference to the care of the children is more a hope than an actual indication of something which will exist. On page 12, reference is made to a question asked by the chairman, Senator Taylor. He said:
Q. You mentioned you would like to be able to take the children yourself-
79951-0-163
Private Bills-Divorce
The question is addressed to the petitioner
-and bring them up as they should be brought up. Is there any hope of your doing that?
A. I have made arrangements for an aunt and uncle to move in with me, and my aunt to take care of the children. I feel once I have this divorce and I get a legal separation in the province of Quebec giving me the right to have the children-
I do not know what the possibilities are of the petitioner obtaining a legal separation and custody of the children in the province of Quebec. I do not know what his chances are of obtaining an endorsation of the decision of the committee in so far as his present petition is concerned, though I should imagine his chances are relatively good. I mention this because I think it is something with which we should concern ourselves.	The
petitioner is at present supporting the children financially, even though the respondent has the children in her care. This is also indicated on page 10 in reply to a question asked by a senator:
Q. What do you mean by saying she has the children at present?
A. I intend that in the future I shall have them as this becomes legal. In the meantime she is maintaining them and I am paying the room and board for her and the children.
Q. You are?
A. Yes.
I raise this matter not only because I think we should concern ourselves with the welfare of the children and their maintenance together with their opportunities for education and so on if the divorce should be approved, but because notwithstanding the indication given by the hon. member for Halifax on another occasion that it is not within our jurisdiction to deal with the question of custody and maintenance of the children, I think it is within our responsibility to speculate and wonder about the welfare of these children in cases where petitions are granted. With regard to this case, I certainly hope that the desires of the petitioner as indicated on page 12 will be met. I feel that his aunt and uncle will provide the children with the best upbringing that is possible for them to give.
I should also like to indicate the possibility of some understanding, some arrangement, existing with respect to this particular divorce, and to suggest that the evidence, was to a degree, manufactured. Perhaps I could refer to one of the investigators whose name is Charles Charron.
I notice that you are looking around the chamber, Mr. Chairman. Is there a quorum of 20 members present so that I shall be able to proceed? I certainly hope that hon. members are not so lax in the discharge of their responsibilities as to allow us to be left with less than 20 present.

Private Bills-Divorce


An hon. Member:: So as to be bullied by three.


Charles Benjamin Howard: We are not bullying anyone. We are not bullying a soul. We are indicating that if parliament is to be asked to pass divorce bills it should accept the responsibility of studying them instead of rubber stamping the bills.


Robert Jardine McCleave: How do you fellows know, you never show up at the committee?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I cannot because I am not a member of it. Even though the hon. member extended an invitation to me to attend one day I had to decline because I had made a previous arrangement.
On pages 12 and 13 evidence is given by the detective, Mr. Charron, who appears on behalf of the petitioner and who was questioned by counsel for the petitioner. Although the evidence is not usual it has some bearing on what I intend to say later and therefore I shall read it. Mr. Charles Charron was sworn and gave his occupation as investigator. He was questioned by Mr. Joyal, counsel for the petitioner, as follows:
Q. Here is exhibit 2, a photograph. Who is that?
Mr. Charron replied, giving the name of the respondent. I continue:
Q. Was this photograph given to you by the plaintiff in this case?
A. Yes.
I will delete the names of the central figures in this case and the address as I go along. I continue:
Q. Do you remember seeing this Mrs.-on or about the 14th of March?
. A. I saw her quite a few times with the same guy that we caught her with at-a duplex upstairs. On a Saturday morning I went there at nine o'clock and Mrs.-came out about one o'clock in the afternoon and she went out. So I lost her. She took a bus and I lost her. So X came back to the house and waited there and about three o'clock she came back with a man and they went up to the house. I went to the telephone booth on the corner and telephoned for Mr. Morin-
Mr. Morin is another detective who appears in this case. I continue:
-to come and meet me, and he met me at four o'clock and we went upstairs and knocked at the door several times before Mrs.-came and opened the door with a pink dressing gown on and bare legs. I asked if she was Mrs.

and she admitted it and X showed her the picture I had in my possession and she admitted it was one taken of her, and we walked into the bedroom and there was a man in bed. So I asked the man his name and when I asked him his name he sat in the bed and you could see that he was nude. His legs were bare. So he said-So she started to scream so we went away.
Is there anything more foolish than to ask us to accept this evidence? Can you imagine two complete strangers at four o'clock in the afternoon being admitted to a home by a

woman in a dressing gown who states her name in response to a question, and identifies a photograph of herself, and does not protest when the two strangers walk into the bedroom and begin questioning the nude man in the bed? The detective testified that the woman then began to scream and they left. This occurred at four o'clock in the afternoon and the people had returned home about an hour previous. This is pretty hard to swallow. If this were the only case in which such events occurred the evidence would not be so difficult to accept but the detective is not a novice at this sort of thing.
According to information given in the Senate in answer to a question asked by Senator Pouliot, this detective appeared in 36 cases before the Senate committee in 1959, 41 cases in 1958 and 19 in 1957. He has served his apprenticeship as an investigator in divorce cases. He knows all the answers and what arrangements to make in order to gain entry into homes.
The same individual is also involved in Bills Nos. SD-34 and SD-35 in which his evidence is almost identical except that in the case of Bill No. SD-34, the respondent is a man and the corespondent a woman. He testified that after the completion of the investigation the man started to get angry and so he and his companion left and in one instance he testified that the man started to get angry and pushed him out. I realize it is not in order to discuss other subjects when a bill is before the committee but the frequent appearance of this man in these cases and his behaviour pattern is a point I wish to draw to the attention of the committee.
One wonders from reading his evidence if his questions and answers are not like a gramophone record and if he mentions hostility on the part of the individuals concerned in order to create the impression that no collusion has taken place. I think the gentleman protests a little too much.
The evidence of this man, Mr. Charron, is corroborated by that of another detective, Mr. Morin, who confirms that the woman answering the door wore a pink dressing gown, that they went to the address at four o'clock in the afternoon, that the woman identified the photograph and gave her name, that the nude man in bed identified himself, and so on. It is therefore not a mistake on the part of the first detective when he stated in the evidence that the woman started to scream and so they left.
I submit Mr. Chairman that if she started to scream and if this scream was an indication of objection to those two strangers being there, then it might be quite natural for

that scream to be translated eventually into a charge of illegal entry, unless she allowed them to come into the house herself, which is even more strange, if they pushed their way in. If they did that and walked into the bedroom, they were in effect making an illegal entry, and she started to scream. Would it not be logical to assume that they would sit down and that an attempt would be made to find out who those people were and have charges pressed against them. That is not what happened. It may be logical to assume she invited the investigators in because they were not strangers. She knew what was going to happen; she knew they were going to walk into the house; she knew they were going to ask who the particular person was who was in the bedroom, what his name was, in order that his name might be presented in evidence to guarantee that he was the corespondent and that, in fact, he was not her husband. I submit this is the situation.
It is extremely unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that people have to go to these lengths to fabricate the situation, to manufacture it, to develop it out of thin air, regardless of whether or not adultery had taken place between the corespondent and the respondent. That is beside the point, but it is unfortunate to have to manufacture, to develop, to fabricate a situation and pay $300 to $400, or whatever the charge is, to those so-called investigators who apparently, from the number of cases in which they are involved, have a pretty decent income, and who do relatively little work except phone somebody up and say, "Will you be in a particular apartment at four o'clock with a pink negligee?" They will probably provide that for the person if she has not one herself. They say, "We will come along". That is about the extent of the operation that is carried out by those investigators. It is unfortunate that people have to go to this extent, pay $300 to $400 and pay I do not know how much to the lawyers. I have had figures running from $1,000 to $1,500. Then pay the cost of the private petition to the other place, plus the cost of transportation of the witnesses and the lawyer to the meeting of the committee in the other place and back again, in order to meet the requirements of a statute. It is extremely unfortunate that this sort of thing exists.
What it means, Mr. Chairman, is that we are developing a situation where the rich can get a divorce but the poor cannot because they cannot dig up $2,500. If the poor cannot find it someone else will have to pay it for them. Because of the general situation that is indicated here, this was a strained marriage in so far as its relationship was 79951-0-163J
Private Bills-Divorce
concerned. There was evidence given to that extent. The petitioner points out that there is no hope of reconciliation. He would like to bring his children up under different arrangements. A broken home could have extreme psychological effects upon the children which would affect them in their later years.
There is no evidence of relations having taken place between them. They tried everything. They have gone to the welfare people and there was trouble almost from the start. The wife said she would be quite willing to live in the same house but would have no relations with the husband. At meal times there was a complete disregard of the husband in so far as meals are concerned. She hardly talked to him except to ask for money. She would not bother to have anything to do with him. These circumstances are not the ones in which a family should be raised.
If we take all these things into account it would appear-I hope this is so-that the children themselves will remain in the custody of the father. This is what will happen if the hopes and feelings of the petitioner come to full realization. If he is able to get custody and have them under his supervision he says that his aunt can look after them or can do the work a wife would normally do in raising children. If that takes place, then they will probably grow up in a much better home environment than would be the case if this divorce were not allowed to be proceeded with.
I raise this question. The investigators have been mulcting the unfortunate souls of every penny they have. People have to make arrangements in order to secure evidence to meet the requirements of the law. In many cases I am sure they have to perjure themselves in order to ensure that the requirements of the law are met. This is an unfortunate reflection upon our system of considering divorce cases. This arises not only in the particular province where these people live but in other provinces as well where the law is just as strict.
This is probably sufficient comment from me on this point to give to the committee my point of view and understanding of what existed. Perhaps others may have some comments to make on the question of whether adultery took place and whether there were arrangements or not. I submit it is quite clear that this evidence was manufactured; it was fabricated. An investigator had to be hired at a cost of $300 or $400, or something of that nature. These people are placed in the unfortunate position of having to go through these steps in order to obtain just an equitable relief for themselves, when,

Private Bills-Divorce
from the evidence, nothing but harm would accrue if the divorce were not granted and the people who would suffer the most are the children. They are ten and eight years old. They will have a much better opportunity to grow up in a less strained and more decent environment than they would have if the divorce were not granted.


William Arnold Peters: I am quite concerned with this case, too, because this appears to me to be what I would call a run of the divorce mill that is being operated in the Senate. As the hon. member for Skeena has pointed out, we have in this case the ingredients that make for the effective functioning of this divorce mill. We notice another aspect of this case, Mr. Chairman, that indicates-and it has been indicated in the detective's evidence- that this is an operation which is carried out in a cold and calculated manner by the legal authorities also. Hon. members will notice that in this particular case the lawyer was Mr. Joyal, a barrister-at-law, Ottawa, Ontario. From his questioning it is evident that he is a very competent lawyer and a very capable one. In his questions he leaves no alternative but to get the answer he wishes. He asks the question in such a manner that he cannot help but get the answer he wants. He asks questions like this:
Q. You have no intention at the moment of adopting a new domicile?
A. No.
I suggest that this is a planned question. He did not ask: Do you intend to live in the province of Quebec? Are you giving up your home? Have you any intention of moving out of the province of Quebec? No. He asks this question:
You have no intention at the moment of adopting a new domicile?
Putting in the words "at the moment" would indicate that there was some question of the domicile. Mr. Joyal, being very scrupulous and honest as a member of his profession, asks the question in such a way that he gets the answer he wants. Even if the fellow intended to move in four or five hours, at the moment he has no intention of adopting a new domicile. As was indicated to the committee a few days ago, "domicile" does not necessarily mean where your house is but where you decide to set up your domicile, and it does not necessarily change because you move from place to place.
Mr. Joyal goes on to ask the questions in a very precise manner. I think it would be advantageous for the committee to examine the number of cases that Mr. Joyal handles in this divorce mill because I made inquiries and I found that the lawyers have raised their price within recent times. Their fee
[Mr. Howard.)
to handle a case before the Senate committee used to be $1,000 but now they have raised it. The best information I can get is that they have raised it to $1,500.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does the $1,500 include disbursements to detectives? Will he break down that amount to give us the lawyers' fee and can it be related to this case?


William Arnold Peters: I do not know if that amount includes the detective fees. We will come to the detective fees in a moment and probably now is a good time to do it. The investigator in this case, Mr. Charron, has handled 36 cases this year. It is true that he is not the senior man. Mr. Etheridge has handled 67 cases this year so Mr. Charron is not by any means the senior man. However, he is not the junior in this field because he handled 36 cases.
These investigators operate with the legal profession and if you check the evidence you will find that it takes a few days for them to complete their work on a case. Sometimes, as in the previous case, they are occupied for several months. I am not too sure how much money they are paid but I have been told that it is at least $25 a day plus expenses and other costs. If Mr. Charron had 36 cases and takes an average of 10 days per case he works for 360 days in a year. As a member of a union I object to him working for that number of days. I think he should at least be able to leave this dirty business alone on Sundays. I presume he has not a union contract and therefore can work overtime if he wishes. He probably calls himself an entrepreneur who runs his own business.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will my hon. friend permit a question? Will he try to unionize these detectives and have them join the labour party that the C.C.F. is forming?


William Arnold Peters: I certainly would like to organize them because if they were organized I think we could demand that they meet certain conditions. If they were organized they would not be able to break down people's doors or steal nameplates off doors. I think we would limit them to certain hours. They would have to work shifts.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: How about moonlighting?


William Arnold Peters: I think I agree with the sponsor of the bill that this would be a very good thing and we would like to do it. It appears to me that Mr. Charron only has five days

off in a year and in my opinion he is entitled as a human being to more time off. If we get these people organized-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I do not think the committee is concerned about the organization of these people. We are concerned with Bill No. SD-33.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If I may make a comment about the point of order, I respectfully submit that my friend is out of order because in labour matters there is divided jurisdiction. It is obvious that this is a matter that comes under the provincial labour code and not the federal labour code.


William Arnold Peters: I appreciate the advice that is being given about the organization of these people. As I was pointing out, Mr. Charron earns considerable money. If he gets $25 a day and works 360 days because he has 36 cases he earns at least over $9,000-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must
advise the hon. member that the committee is not concerned with the earnings of certain investigators. We are concerned with Bill No. SD-33. I will have to ask the hon. member to come back to the bill.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I humbly submit that some of these investigators, this one in particular, are organized in some ways. Let us look at his evidence and see how stereotyped it is. He is asked this question by Mr. Joyal:
Q. Here is exhibit 2. a photograph. Who is that?
A. Mr. White. That is the photo I had at the time of the investigation.
I should like to refer to the evidence of Mr. Charron in the next case which we will be coming to shortly. He was asked this question by Mr. Joyal:
Q. This is exhibit 2, filed by the petitioner. Can you identify that photograph?
A. That is Mr. Edwin Leacy Freeman. That photograph I had at the time of the investigation.
Here we have the same lawyer, the same investigator, the same question and the same answer. I am surprised that they do not get mixed up. The words used are identical with those in the case now before us. I submit this is not very good evidence. It would appear to me that it is rather unusual for a young lady to be entertaining a gentleman in her house at four o'clock in the afternoon and for her to be wandering around in a pink negligee or nightgown. I am surprised about the ease of accessibility to these places. A rap comes on the door.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 1 carry?
29. 1960	2577
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys Mr. Peters: I have a few more remarks, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
668.	Polar continental shelf project-further amount required, $376,622.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister tell us whether the Canadian government still subscribes to the sector theory of sovereignty?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We subscribe to the Canadian theory of sovereignty.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This was a Canadian theory. I just wondered whether the government still holds to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion coal board-
669.	Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council-further amount required, $1,069,866.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the Minister of Finance tell us just what industries in the Atlantic provinces are receiving subventions? The last time the estimates were before us we were told that subventions were being paid on coal not merely for power but also for industrial purposes. It may be that the Minister of Finance would not have this information but I see that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is in his place. I know he would have it at his fingertips.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The subvention, of course, is available to any company that qualifies by shipments and sales in the areas of Canada in respect of which the subventions are payable. The Dominion Coal Company is by far the biggest of the companies that are in receipt of this subvention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know something about the subject, of course. I know that for many years subventions have been paid high enough to make coal from Nova Scotia competitive with coal from the United States in the Montreal market and that some extension has been made of that subvention to make it competitive a little bit further upstream than Montreal. In addition to that, I know
2578	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys the amount of the subvention had to be increased because of various increases in costs, mainly of transport although I believe some labour and other costs as well entered into the matter. I know the rate of subvention is very much higher to central Canada. At the moment I am not interested in that matter. However, I understood that a new departure had been made by the present government. We were told that on several occasions. I am familiar, of course, with the subvention paid on coal for the production of power but I was not particularly asking about that matter. What I should like to know is how much is being paid in subventions and what is the rate for industries other than power industries in the Atlantic provinces.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My understanding is that these subventions are, in all cases, payable on shipments out of the maritime area into Quebec and Ontario. As the hon. gentleman is aware, we increased the scale of the subvention, in so far as maritime coal is concerned-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -two years ago and again one year ago in order to make it possible for maritime coal to have access to the markets in eastern Ontario.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could spare the minister some effort here. I am not particularly interested at the moment in that matter. What I am interested in is this. I think the Minister of National Revenue told us- as I believe did the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys on one occasion-that subventions were also being paid on coal used within the Atlantic provinces for industrial purposes, and that this was a new policy instituted by the present government. If I am wrong about that matter I should like to be corrected. If the minister will say no subventions are paid for coal used for industrial purposes in the Atlantic provinces, that disposes of the matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can say there is nothing in this additional appropriation for that purpose. There are three elements in the additional appropriation that is now asked. There is first an increased subvention payment on water-borne and transshipped coal, as a result of an increase in the pithead cost. The second element is increased export shipments to Japan from our western seaboard. The third consists of payments to the Dominion Coal Company to assist in maintaining a larger than usual stockpile. Against these three elements there were some amounts previously provided that were not required. They had been provided for the shipment of


Alberta and Saskatchewan coal. There has been a declining movement from that area and what was not expended for that purpose has been offset against the three elements of increase.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say what the main appropriation is?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The main appropriation was $10,089,350. Already supplementary estimates have been voted of $4,332,900. With the present proposed vote of $1,069,866 this will bring the total amount required for the present fiscal year to $15,492,116.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say how much of that amount is for the development of thermal power in the Atlantic provinces?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of that total?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not believe any of it is but there I speak subject to correction. But I can say that of this additional sum none of the three items of increase relates to the use of power from thermal sources in the maritime area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister does not know whether any amount out of the total appropriation, including this amount, is being used for subventions for coal for industries in the maritime provinces?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I think that matter comes under a different vote but I speak subject to correction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys can throw any light on the point?


Mr. Comiois:: No; there is none on this item. There is another vote.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is another vote?


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Yes, for thermal power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 thank the minister.


George James McIlraith: I should like to ask the
minister whether he would outline the method of payment and the amount of the subvention being paid on western coal being exported to Japan. It was the second element to which he referred in his remarks a few moments ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a shipment that has been increasing and the government saw fit, two years ago, to increase the subvention for this purpose and one year ago to increase it again. The result has been a quite gratifying increase in the volume of coal being shipped to Japan.
When I was in Tokyo a year ago last autumn I had talks with some of the Japanese

ministers and they showed a good deal of interest in increasing their purchases of coal and other raw materials from Canada, particularly through the port of Vancouver. The facilities in the port of Vancouver have been improved for this purpose. This, too, has contributed to and facilitated the substantial increase in the shipments of coal to Japan. The additional amount required for this purpose is $556,402; the rate is $4.50 per ton.


George James McIlraith: To whom is that rate payable? I understand there is different treatment with eastern coal; am I right in that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The rate is available in respect of coal which moves to Japan. This is related and confined to the shipments to Japan.


George James McIlraith: This item, dealing only with coal being shipped to Japan, has the effect of reducing the price of that coal by $4.50 a ton; otherwise I presume they would not buy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes; it is to make it competitive in Japan. That was the reason not only for the original institution of subsidies but for the increases which have been made in them; first, to make it competitive, and in the second place to enlarge, it was hoped, the sales, and the result has been successful.


George James McIlraith: Just two further points. Would the minister give me the total amount out of this item, the earlier supplementary and the main item dealing with coal being shipped to Japan? I have another question which I think I can pose at the same time, and it is this. I recognize the great difficulties of coal mines in the west and I am not unmindful of them, but we are on the one hand subsidizing an export to Japan to enable them to compete with us, and at the same time we are working with them in having them apply quotas on their exports to this country. Is that correct?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the first point, the main estimates and supplementary estimates provided subsidies of $675,000 on these shipments of coal to Japan. It was expected that there would be 150,000 tons exported at $4.50 per ton, and that made a figure of $675,000. A revision of the calculation has now advanced the estimated export to 280,000 tons and that accounts for the additional amount now sought.
The hon. member asked about quotas. The fact is that this has been operated as a particular type of export. The government sought to encourage this in the hope that if the market were won in Japan for coking coal from British Columbia, in course of
29, 1960	2579
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys time the market could be expanded there. It is not expected that the subsidy may always have to be paid, but it was thought to be a good investment in the meantime in the hope of opening up a new market. In addition, the hon. member will appreciate that one of the compelling reasons was to assist the Canadian coal mines in the west coastal areas.


George James McIlraith: I quite appreciate the compelling reason for adopting this subsidy, I am not quarrelling with that at the moment. But I think it is well to point out that the rather substantial subsidizing of this coal does create other problems in the trade field, problems with which the minister is quite familiar. It means that we are directly subsidizing Japanese exports to Canada. There is some concern in parts of the country about the extent of those exports in some fields. I merely want to point out the problem. I am not being critical of the minister, but I think this problem should be understood.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister tell us where the coal is coming from which is going to Japan?


Donald Methuen Fleming: British Columbia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exclusively?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. Crowsnest pass.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, this item has to do with payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council. Could the minister tell us approximately how many tons of coal comes under this program? I understand a total amount of $15 million has been voted so far, including the amount we are asked to vote today. How many tons of coal have been moved?


Donald Methuen Fleming: According to the revised up to date estimate for the current fiscal year, the total from Nova Scotia, in round figures, will be 3,075,000 tons; from New Brunswick, 151,000 tons; from Saskatchewan 108,000 tons; from Alberta, 129,000 tons; from British Columbia, 280,000 tons.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Could the minister tell us how many tons have been moved to power plants in the maritime provinces? I also understand that part of this item is to cover transportation of coal to power plants. How many tons does that involve?


Donald Methuen Fleming: None of this item under discussion applies to movement to power plants in the maritimes.

Supply-National Defence


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is it under a separate item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: None of it is under this item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or the main item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Defence Services Pension Act-
671.	To authorize payment of an amount of $1,431.02 (to be charged to the permanent services pension account) to former Flying Officer T. R. Dunbar (33732) in an amount equal to the difference between the gratuity which was paid to him under section 51 of the Defence Services Pension Act and the amount he would have received had he been paid a gratuity equal to his contributions under section 52 of the said act, $1.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, this is a dollar item and I do not think any dollar item should be allowed to pass without an explanation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I quite agree, Mr. Chairman. This item has to do with a situation involving the flying officer named in the item who was in the air force to begin with on a short service commission. On retirement, he was paid a gratuity for that period of service plus a refund of deferred pay withheld during a particular period. Then he re-entered the Royal Canadian Air Force on a long service commission in April, 1957. He was retired on July 2, 1959 as medically unfit and had no option under the existing regulations except to accept a gratuity.
However, under the revisions in the act which received royal assent last July he would have enjoyed the option had the act applied to him of accepting either a gratuity covering the whole period of service or the repayment of his pension contributions without interest, whichever would be the greater.
In brief, because he just missed out on the effect of the legislation it was the view of the government that it would be only fair to put him in the same position he would have been in if the act had applied to him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the case unique?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understand so. It came before treasury board and treasury board considered it on the basis of a possible ex gratia payment. It was felt the more proper course, having regard to control of parliament, was to bring it before the house in this way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Water resources branch-
672.	Saint John river-federal expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out by the Saint John river board-further amount required, $25,000.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I understand that this item has to do with the federal contribution to the investigation which is being carried out by the Saint John river board. Could the minister give us some details about this investigation and the work which has been done so far? Could he tell us what has been the federal government's share of the cost, and whether the province of New Brunswick has contributed to the cost of this investigation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In March, 1959, pursuant to an agreement between the government of Canada and the provincial government in New Brunswick, a four-man board was established to plan, supervise and carry out an investigation to determine how present and future power developments in New Brunswick would be affected by the development and operation of storage on the upper Saint John river and its tributaries. An equal proportion of the cost was to be paid by the two governments. The board was directed to report its findings to the two governments not later than June 30 next.
I am informed that satisfactory progress is being made with the studies essential to the completion of the task, and present indications are that work will be completed and a report made by that date. As to the cost, it was estimated originally at $150,000. That proved to be an underestimate, and the estimate has now been revised upwards to $235,000. Canada's share is 50 per cent.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Could the minister tell us the names of the members of the board?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are two officials from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and two members appointed by the government of New Brunswick.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In other words, the salaries of these men are already covered by the estimates of the department of northern affairs, and this total amount is for other expenditures.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is my understanding.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Northern administration and lands branch- Northwest Territories and other field services-
673.	Operation and maintenance-to extend the purposes of vote 278 of the main estimates for 1959-60 to include the contribution detailed in these estimates, $1.
John Whitney Pickersgill: This is another dollar item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This item of $1 is intended to amend the scope of vote No. 278 in the main estimates and the reason for the extension that is requested is to provide authorization to increase payment of a contribution to Taurcanis Mines Limited of 50 per cent of the cost of improving the airstrip and constructing an access road to the mine.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister could say something about this policy of the government paying 50 per cent of the cost of this airstrip? Is this applied uniformly across Canada, or is it done only in the Northwest Territories?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am informed that it has not been applied in any other place but the territories. Under this policy, the Department of Transport contributes toward the cost of publicly used airports in certain circumstances. There is no provision in the policy by which federal contributions can be made towards private airstrips required by mining companies for the establishment and servicing of mining properties.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does this airstrip belong to the federal government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The land in question is crown land. The mining company concerned is working claims on crown land.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that from the point of view of the treasury this does seem to me to merit a little more explanation than the minister has given. If this mine were in northern Alberta, or Labrador, or somewhere else, then apparently the mining company would have to provide the airstrip itself. However, because it is in the Northwest Territories we are apparently paying half the cost. There must be some principle behind this, and that is what I am seeking to find.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The principle is that where the public is permitted to make use of these airstrips it was felt proper that the federal government should contribute toward the cost. That is the basis of this present contribution, and the reason for the enlargement in the authorization attached to the vote of item 278 in the main estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want to be difficult about this. We know there is not a very big public in the Northwest Territories. Most 79951-0-164
Supply-Northern Affairs of these settlements are not very large. It would be interesting to know, outside of this mining company and its employees and a few federal government officials who have to go there because the mine is there, just how much public use is made of this airstrip.
I am not saying whether I object to the policy or not. I do not understand the policy, that is all, and I think that before we vote the money we should understand it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has been found cheaper to encourage the use of these landing strips than it would be to construct roads. This, coupled with encouragement to open up the use of airstrips to the public, is the reason it was considered a sound policy to make this government contribution of 50 per cent toward the cost of providing an airstrip and an access road to the airstrip.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will understand, I am sure, that I would feel that a policy of this sort, if it is a good policy, would be equally good in Labrador which happens to be within the bounds of a province. I do not think the minister has given us any reason why this sort of thing should be applied specially to the Northwest Territories.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thus far it has
been applied only in the territories. After all, the federal government has responsibility for the development of resources in the territories, and as the program is developed it has been confined to the territories for that reason.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree that the federal government has a responsibility for providing in the territories many of the services which the provincial governments provide in the provinces, but I do not know any provincial government which gives 50 per cent of the cost of building an airstrip for the building of a mine. There may be some who do. But it does seem to me that when we are dealing with a mining company we are not dealing with the territories or with a province; we are dealing with a mining company, and because it happens that a mine is in the territories I do not see why it should appear to be placed at an advantage which would not apply to another mining company elsewhere. The minister has given no convincing evidence that there is any real public use of this airstrip apart from that incidental to the working of the mine. I do not know where this place is; I do not pretend to know. It is only the principle in which I am interested.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps the hon. gentleman is forgetting that the agreement in question with the Taurcanis Mines Limited
2582	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs was authorized on May 3, 1957; the order in council at that time provided for a federal contribution of 50 per cent toward the cost of improvement of an airstrip and construction of an access road to serve the mine up to a maximum federal contribution of $16,000. That has been done. The cost has increased, and that is the reason we are asking for a supplementary estimate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister really has me this time. It is just conceivable that if he did a little more research he might find out that I was at the treasury board that day. I do not think it likely that I was as late as May of 1957. I assume that the present government in asking for this additional amount has satisfied itself that the policy adopted by its predecessor was a thoroughly beneficent policy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forestry branch-
674.	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-further amount required, $100,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions. First, why do we have this item relating to forest fire inventories, forest protection services and reforestation just previous to the commencement of April in view of the time of year when these activities are normally carried on?
Does the department have a ground check of the work done in connection with each of these activities or do its officials content themselves with an audit of the books or accounts in question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on the first point I can assure the hon. gentleman there is no seasonal significance to this matter. It is a question of estimating. In other words, the estimate that came before us in the main estimates was one prepared in the autumn of 1958. With the development of the programs of the various provinces that are parties to the two respective plans the amount proved inadequate and this is not the kind of program that can be suddenly arrested.
On the second point I am told that there are spot checks made. It is not possible to make a complete universal check but spot checks are made under the two programs. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister what part of that amount is paid to the province of Quebec.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, no amount is provided for the province of Quebec.


Samuel Boulanger: Is it because the province of Quebec has not entered into agreement with the federal government that it is not getting any help under this item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the province of Quebec has entered into no agreement in this field.


Samuel Boulanger: Now that the province of Quebec has a new premier, has there been any correspondence exchanged with a view to sharing in this scheme?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that there has been no correspondence to this effect, but that there have been some discussions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister tell me how much the province of Newfoundland has received under this item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the amount paid to the province of Newfoundland is $88,654.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say whether any part of that is for forest inventory?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is for forest fire protection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say whether any recent efforts have been made to conclude an agreement with the province of Newfoundland with respect to forest inventory? I know something of the difficulties in that field but would like an answer to my question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am told there have been no discussions, Mr. Chairman. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell me what amounts have been spent since this policy was adopted by the Liberals?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, over $7 million were spent over the past eight years.
(Text):


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, can the
minister tell us if any part of this appropriation is allocated for the fighting of tree diseases such as the Dutch elm disease or the new blight that is affecting the maple tree?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not under this vote.



POST OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
675.	Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and water, including administration-further amount required, $2,344,000.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, this is a substantial amount. Can the minister tell the

committee why the vote with respect to transportation fell so short for the present fiscal year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of the increased volume of mail and the extension of the services. With the development of the country, it is a growth factor we are facing here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are there any increases in rates involved?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are increases in the contract rates, but apart from that the increases are all in volume and services.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say whether he knows if any recent consideration has been given to the possibility of having an all-up airmail service across Cabot strait? As the minister knows there have recently been a lot of snow storms and there have been periods when the Newfoundland express has not moved very far within a week. In this modern age there would be, apparently, much to be said for having an all-up service from Sydney. Could the minister say whether any recent consideration has been given to that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
there is nothing in the present item for that purpose but I will be pleased to bring the point raised by the hon. member to the attention of my colleague, the Postmaster General.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, would the
minister be good enough to place on the record how much the main estimates contain and also the supplementary estimates in order that we may appreciate the relationship?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I think that is the only item of the kind. At this moment I do not have the vote in the main item but I am sending for it and will get it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
676.	Expenses of the royal commission on the Great Slave Lake Railway including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board, to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission-further amount required, $7,500.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to hear a progress report on the railway which the government was going to build in 1957 and which is now just a royal commission.
79951-0-164]
29, 1960	2583
Supply-National Capital Commission


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the present item relates entirely to the expenses of the royal commission. The committee is well acquainted with the terms of reference to that commission. It was expected that the commission would complete its work by this time and I am told that the work of the commission is almost complete.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
677.	Expenses pertaining to the visit to Canada in 1959 of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, including authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act or any other act but subject to the approval of treasury board, to appoint and to pay persons to be engaged temporarily in connection therewith- further amount required, $43,000.
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, is this amount of $43,000 additional to what has already been spent for the Queen's visit?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The original
amount, Mr. Chairman, was $300,000.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
678.	Interest charges on outstanding loans that were made for the purpose of acquiring property in the national capital region-further amount required, $110,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could say whether the government has yet reached a conclusion as to who is to take the place of Major General Kennedy? I am sure all of us are very sorry to learn that a gentleman who has done so much for the development of the national capital is no longer to be there and there is, of course, the greatest concern in the capital that the ablest possible person should be chosen to get on with this work.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to join with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, with whom I rarely find myself in agreement, in the complimentary remarks just made with respect to Major General Kennedy whom all of us realize has rendered great service to the Canadian people in his work in connection with the national capital commission.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I, too, am pleased to join with the two hon. members in paying tribute to the work which has been accomplished by Major General Howard Kennedy. The matter will be referred to on some other occasion, but on this occasion I am happy to join with them in this tribute.
We are all aware of the formidable nature of the work that has been performed by General Kennedy. For some years now he has headed the national capital commission.
2584	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Public Printing and Stationery
It has been a project and responsibility very secretary of state I increased quite a num-dear to his heart.	He	has given yeoman	her of	those fees and put these things	on aservice to a cause that	I think has left all	paying	basis instead of leaving them	as aCanadians conscious	of	their indebtedness	charge	on the general taxpayer. I wouldto him. I am not in	a position to make any	always	commend that policy to the	govcomment on the filling of the vacancy.	ernment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the Minister of Public Works could throw some light on it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
679.	Printing of Canada Gazette-further amount required, $21,000.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the minister tell us why there is an extra cost for the printing of the Canada Gazette? Can he inform the committee whether all the work is being done by the printing bureau or is it given out to outside printers on tenders?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The occasion for this supplementary estimate is simply that the costs of printing the Gazette have exceeded the estimate. The original amount in the main estimates was $110,000. The amount of expenditure has fluctuated quite a bit year by year. For instance, in the year 1957-58-I will just give round figures- the expenditure was $110,000; in 1958-59, it jumped to $156,000; in 1959-60, $110,000 was provided, and it is found now that an additional $21,000 is required. But, even with this addition, raising the item to $131,000, it will be seen that the expenditure is still $25,000 below that of the previous year. There are wide fluctuations. There is, of course, revenue derived from this publication in the form of advertisements and sales. As to the placing of printing, my understanding is that it is printed in the printing bureau.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is the reason for this increase attributable at all to the fact that the extra cost is incurred by the publication of notices of increasing bankruptcies?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the item carries, can the minister give us some notion of what the revenue is?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The revenue this year is estimated at $110,000. Last year it was $109,000 and the year before $93,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister given any thought to raising the fees?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister does not like to raise fees. If the hon. gentleman urges me, in deference to him, I will be bound to look into it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, I took considerable pride in the fact that when I was


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In view of the explanation given by the minister, and in view of the fact that in 1957-58 the total cost was $110,000 and in 1958-59 it was $156,000, how did they arrive at the estimate of $110,000 for 1959-60?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was thought that the need this year would not be as great. There was an underestimation this year and we either have to have this $21,000 or there will be a carryover. I think the hon. gentleman will appreciate the fact that the size of this publication varies literally from week to week. It depends on what notices come in for gazetting, and it is extremely difficult to estimate this precisely in advance. I can only point to the experience of those recent years as illustrating the wide fluctuations in expenditure year by year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say
whether the number of statutory orders is increasing?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would have to look into that matter before attempting to answer the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will readily appreciate the reason I asked the question. When we were in office we were accused of government by order in council, and I have taken a certain amount of interest in this question over the years. I have the impression that there are just as many orders now, if not more, than there were when we were in office.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; I think we are operating on a much more limited scale. Orders in council are made where necessary, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course they were just made for fun when we were in office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Public buildings construction and services- Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amount required-
681.	Ontario (other than Ottawa), $1.
John Whitney Pickersgill: This is another dollar item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Item 681 appears as a dollar item; it is an authorization in respect of a public building at Spencerville. It is put in here as a dollar item because it is a new building project, and it is a matter of submitting it to parliament. No additional amount is required. Actually, the expenditure is being provided for out of the existing vote, but it is a matter of putting before the committee the fact that a new public building project which was not included in the estimate when the original estimate was passed' has now been undertaken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I get a lot of discouraging letters from the Minister of Public Works, who I hope is paying attention to what I am saying now-I got a lot more from his predecessor, I admit-about the difficulty of including new works in the supplementary estimates. I just wonder whether the minister can tell us how this new work managed to get into the supplementary estimates and what special urgency there was in this particular case?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a post office at Spencerville and there is authority, as the hon. gentleman knows, for incurring expenditure up to the statutory limit of $25,000. The post office was considered to be very necessary. There has been pressure for improved and enlarged accommodation since May, 1955. After some months of negotiations and advertising for rented space it was found that suitable quarters could not be obtained at a reasonable rental, and accordingly the treasury board advisory committee on accommodation standards recommended the construction of an 800 square foot standard plan post office building, and the tenders were called for and the work authorized.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can tell the minister about another place named Hare Bay in Bonavista bay where I have been trying to get a post office building since May of 1955. I appeal to the minister to show the same consideration for Hare Bay that the treasury board has shown for Spencerville.


Erhart Regier: Will the minister explain why this item has to be listed at this time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have referred to the statutory limit of $25,000. It had been expected that the cost of this structure could be met within the statutory amount. When the tenders were called and as the work proceeded it was found that the work was going to exceed in cost the $25,000; therefore, we brought it to the house for approval.
Supply-Public Works


Erhart Regier: Am I right in assuming that this post office is some 800 square feet in size?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Erhart Regier: Is it normal for a post office to cost over $30 per square foot?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It depends, of course, on the nature of the construction, Mr. Chairman. I am told that this particular building is one that was found to be necessary. It is not altogether unusual to find at times that the cost exceeds the estimate originally prepared in the department. We are happy, of course, when we find that the contract price can be lower than the departmental estimate, but it is not always so.


Erhart Regier: I assume the minister's parliamentary secretary has the details there. Can the minister say how much of this money was spent for the purchase of the land?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman,


Erhart Regier: Approximately what is the population of this place?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am told that it is approximately 400 souls.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The population of Hare Bay is larger.


Erhart Regier: Does the minister regard the expenditure of $6,000 for a lot as being reasonable in a place with a population of 400 souls?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, as choice locations go in Spencerville, this was regarded as a choice location. It is at the intersection of South and Centre streets.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers engineering services-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
682.	Nova Scotia, $1.
John Whitney Pickersgill: This is another dollar item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this is another project at Pictou involving an expenditure toward harbour improvements of $125,000. No additional money is required. It is a matter of including this in the scope of the vote.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is this to replace the wharf and warehouse that burned down last fall?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-R.C.M.P.
683.	Quebec, $1.
John Whitney Pickersgill: This is another dollar item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The added enterprise here is wharf reconstruction and enlargement at Riviere au Tonnerre and the cost is $82,442. The money is available. Again it is a matter of enlarging the scope of the original authorization.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This item reads, "to complete payments". Was this project not in the original estimates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is an extra payment for the construction and enlargement of the wharf under a contract amounting to some $421,000. The contract was terminated on March 28, 1958, with a final payment of $362,000 in round figures. The contractor submitted a claim for losses incurred in the performance of the work involved, specifically in connection with maintaining facilities for continued traffic during the carrying on of the work. Additional expenses were incurred in the construction of temporary trestles and this delayed the entire project. Since the traffic problem was not mentioned in the specifications, as perhaps it should have been, treasury board took the view that the contractor was entitled to compensation and the extra payment should be sufficient to cover the cost of construction of trestles and the increases in equipment, labour and overhead expenses due to the prolongation of the contract. It is under that circumstance that this payment arises.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
684.	Land, air and training divisions-construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $164,000.
(Translation):
Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, I should like the Minister of Finance to explain this $164,000 increase of the item for the construction or acquisition of property and equipment.
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: The amount involved here, $164,000, represents an advance from the consolidated revenue fund to be charged to the fire losses replacement account for the purchase of an Otter aircraft and accessories to replace a Beaver aircraft and equipment destroyed in a fire on November 4, 1959, at municipal hangar No. 1 at Regina.


Mr. Van Horne:: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering what is meant by "training division" with regard to the R.C.M.P. Does that mean an increase in the actual cost of training members of the mounted police?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, this has nothing to do with training policemen. It has to do entirely with the replacement of an aircraft that was destroyed in a fire.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why does it mention the training division?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Because that is
the broad heading under which this matter is listed in the estimates. Reference to the main estimates will, I think, make that quite clear to the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
685.	Reimbursement of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police revolving fund for the value of cloth which has become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $878.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This item is one for reimbursement of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police revolving fund for the value of cloth which has become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed. Can the minister explain how cloth under the control of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police can become lost?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is the law that
items of this kind cannot be written off against this particular revolving fund account without authorization, and that is the purpose of this item. This is cloth that was acquired a long time ago. It consists of 258J yards of serge. It was purchased originally for sea dress for the marine division personnel. It was brown when it was purchased from the Department of National Defence. The hon. member will understand that this happened a long time ago. Then it was dyed blue and then is was found-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Was that after the government changed?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Was it never dyed red?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was dyed blue
for conversion to the battledress type of uniform worn by the special constables who are crew members on board R.C.M.P. marine ships. That type of uniform is now obsolete since special constables are issued a restricted kit similar to that worn by regular members of the marine division. Consequently this cloth is now obsolete and surplus to requirements, but we have to have authorization in this form in order that it may be written off against the revolving fund.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What happened to the
cloth?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister explain
how it was lost when it was under the control of the R.C.M.P.?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The uniform that
it was dyed and adapted for was discontin-

ued and the cloth was then no longer suitable for any of the purposes of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What has happened to the cloth?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The cloth has
no value now, I am told.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Should it not be declared surplus and dealt with by crown assets? Is the government not taking a lot of responsibility on itself?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can assure the hon member there will be no wastage if there is anything to be salvaged but it happens to be a requirement that authorization be obtained in order to square parting with this cloth with the requirements pertaining to the revolving fund inventory.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would there have to be an adjustment of the revolving fund if the lost cloth were found?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not the cloth that is lost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE Patent and copyright office-
686.	Patent division-further amount required, $248,500.
Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Chairman, for a number of years I have been concerned about the cost of printing patents in the patent office record. The patent office is a would-be revenue producing office. It is a very efficient and necessary office and has a large revenue in filing fees, final fees, assignment fees and other types of fees under the Patent Act. If I am correct in my figures, in 1958-59 we find $520,000 in the blue book. I think I am right in that matter. This year the general estimates were for $608,000 and the supplementary estimates were for $175,000, making a total for the printing of patents of $783,000 or an increase of 50 per cent. In the case of the Patent Office Record, last year the total sum was $165,000 in the blue book; this year the main estimate is $256,000 plus $165,000 in the supplementary estimate, making a total of $271,500, or an increase of over 67 per cent. I have said this previously and I repeat it.
I am under the impression that it is time to make an investigation into the cost of the printing of these patents in the printing bureau. I think the cost is too high. There is no reason why for a continuous operation of this kind it should be so high. The average cost of the printing of a patent I think runs over $5. You cannot expect any more revenue
Supply-Secretary of State from those buying the patents. The price has been raised to a dollar this year. That is the limit. There will not be any sizeable revenue from that source. On the other hand, the patent office is put in a bad light at a time when the actual income is very large for fees and at a time when the patent office requires better housing facilities as quickly as possible.
The minister knows the situation, as does his assistant. I must say to his credit, that together we led a small band under both administrations-the former one and this one -to try to get a suitable building for the patent office and the trademark office. At the present time it is unfair to be asked to run out to the experimental farm, No. 8 building, to make a small search. It takes half an hour to get there and back to complete your search. If that charge for the patent had not been so high, the patent office would have acquired enough revenue to justify a building at the present time.
I am sure that something must be done. I am sure the Minister of Finance who is eager to save money will ask for an inquiry into the cost of printing the patents. This year these totals are very substantial. The amount runs over $1 million for printing. In a small department like the patent office that is the cost for printing patents and the Patent Office Record. I hope at this stage the members of this committee will start to open their eyes and realize what a sizeable sum is being spent for printing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman is, of course, quite right in the figures he has used. I appreciate his raising this question and the concern he has expressed over the cost. He has made reference to the fact that on January 1 of this year there was inaugurated an increase in the sale price per copy of a printed patent. The price was doubled from 50 cents to a dollar. But broadly speaking, the problem has been present for some time. I may say frankly that with the current study being undertaken by Chief Justice Ilsley and the royal commission it was thought to be not the time to be embarking on any substantial revision of the fees and printing requirements involved. However, when the report comes forward I can assure the hon. gentleman that I will be more than pleased to consider carefully the suggestions he has made tonight.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I am quite aware of that royal commission. I do not expect much action to be taken on the report for maybe two or three years. I do not think the report of the royal commission will affect at all the situation as to the printing of the

Supply-Secretary of State patents. This is a matter in which it would be well for the printing bureau to produce costs and perhaps compare costs with outside sources so that we can see whether the actual cost of the printing of a patent is as much as the patent office is paying now. Mr. Justice Ilsley will not be examining the cost of printing patents at all.


The Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before we pass the item, can the minister give the balance of revenues and expenditures?


Donald Methuen Fleming: For the present fiscal year, receipts, $1,672,000; expenditures for salaries, printing and other matters amount to a total of $2,463,000; or a deficit of $791,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a considerable burden on the taxpayers generally. I wonder whether the minister has given any thought to that problem?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. The minister is doing his best to give thought to these problems.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
687.	Special expenditure in connection with a commission under the Inquiries Act to inquire into the workings of the Patent Act, the Copyright Act, the Industrial Designs Act, and other related legislation-further amount required, $13,000.
Jean-Thomas Richard: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance what is the total cost to date of the royal commission on patent, copyright and industrial design and whether any further amount is expected to be expended outside of this supplementary estimate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is expected that this estimate will complete the cost of the royal commission. I refer to this item of $13,000. The item in the main estimate was $11,900.


Jean-Thomas Richard: What is the total to date?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am afraid I cannot give that information to the hon. gentleman offhand but if he wants the amount for the previous years included, I shall be glad to make inquiries and send it to him.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Before we proceed to discuss the item I wonder whether I might ask the minister again at this time, as I have asked him on other occasions, whether he will consider, not only in the supplementary estimates but in the main estimates also, so arranging the printing that the number of the vote appears in the details section of the pages


also as well as in the front section in order to make it easier to find the particular item one is looking for. I raised this matter with the present minister and other ministers. Everyone seems to think it is a good idea but no one seems to get around to taking any action in the matter. Are there any complications or reasons why it could not be done?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course nothing can be done about the matter this coming year because the main estimates have been printed. However, I shall be glad to give study to the hon. member's suggestion.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is what the minister said last year when I asked him the same question on the main estimates. In any event, I hope that perhaps later on we shall get some indication as to what is the situation.
I wonder whether the minister can indicate when he might expect the commission to complete its inquiry especially in so far as its studies of the Patent Act are concerned?


Jean-Thomas Richard: The report is being printed now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. The Acting Secretary of State referred to that matter in the house a few days ago. A report has been submitted by the royal commission and it is being printed now.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I did not realize that was the situation or did not appreciate it.
Perhaps I might be a bit out of order but I will attempt to say what I have in mind anyway, Mr. Chairman, knowing that, with the ability you have, you will soon come to a conclusion as to whether I am in order or out of order. However, I will try my best to stay as close as I can to the question of this royal commission and the issue of patents in a preliminary way and perhaps expand on that matter later on under the main estimates dealing with the patent office.
Some days ago, in answer to a question of mine an order for return was made and a return was issued with respect to drugs and pharmaceuticals in the drug manufacturing industry, especially antibiotics and some of the tranquillizers and as to those about whom patents had been issued. The return was granted. I have not got it with me at the moment, but in a preliminary way I would like to say that the drugs I referred to in the question which was answered cover entirely, or almost entirely, the whole range of antibiotic or wonder type drugs which exist and are in use in Canada. Without mentioning the names, generally they are in the tetracycline group, and so on. The return showed that pages and pages of patents have been

issued by the patent office, all of them to corporations in the United States and not one to any company in Canada apart from Frosst and company.
I think this is one thing which perhaps the royal commission might deal with. If it has done so we will know when its report is printed and circularized. If not, there is one thing which I think the Secretary of State's office and the patent office might conduct an inquiry into themselves, and that is the need of granting patents for control and manufacture of goods in Canada exclusively to United States corporations. All of these corporations, incidentally, have subsidiary companies in Canada, but it is the head office and address of the corporations in the United States to whom the patents are issued.
Why is not some use made of the licensing section of the Patent Act to ensure that Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturing industries are developed under patents issued by the commissioner of patents in order to bring some competition into the drug field and also assist in bringing down the price of drugs in Canada, which are, as has been indicated, the highest in the world?
I had better not go further on the drug question, and I appreciate the fact that you have let me get so far.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the question asked earlier, the cumulative cost of the Ilsley commission to the end of the present fiscal year is $60,200.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General administration-
688.	Exhibitions branch-further amount required, $63,400.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal of interest in exhibitions. Perhaps the minister could start out by telling us why this extra money is needed and then perhaps go on from there and give us the latest dope on Montreal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
there are two items involved here, an item of $14,600 for salaries and wages following the reorganization of the branch in the Department of Trade and Commerce. Then there is an item of $48,800 to cover the cost of participation in the Daily Mail ideal home exhibition which has been held in London, England, from March 1 to March 26.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This seems to have been a kind of expensive reorganization, to cost $14,000. Could the minister say what the purpose of the reorganization was?
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Donald Methuen Fleming: To make a more effective organizational structure in the branch for this purpose. There has been quite a lot of activity in this field. There have been a great many exhibitions and the reorganization which was carried out in this branch was considered necessary to cope with the burden being cast on the exhibitions branch. It is not a very large item. The size of it can be judged in relation to the original item in the main estimates of $790,592. This portion of the supplementary estimate is $14,600.
The other and larger item of $48,800 is attributable to the exhibition I mentioned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister tell us about the Daily Mail ideal home exhibition? It has certainly caught my fancy and I am sure the public would like to know what it is about.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The exhibition opened in London on March 1 and ran until March 26. It was estimated that approximately 1,500,000 people visited the exhibition. Retail sales were permitted and consumer interest was high. Canadian firms showed a lot of interest in the exhibition and cooperation was excellent. This particular exhibition lent itself to the display of many types of consumer goods, such as household appliances, toys, footwear, textiles, hi-fi, luggage, sporting goods, ladies wear and similar items. Emphasis was placed on processed food such as canned fish, and perhaps there may even have been some from Newfoundland there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister assure me that there was some from Newfoundland?


Donald Methuen Fleming: A trend house was constructed to promote the use of Canadian lumber in construction. The cost of this particular house was shared with the British Columbia lumbermen's manufacturers' association.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could the minister tell us if consideration is being given to the re-institution of the international trade fair which we used to have in the city of Toronto, or something comparable to it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understand not, sir.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister did not tell us anything about the proposed fair in Montreal. Is that being run by the exhibitions branch?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is nothing in this item for that purpose.

Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister throw any light on it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think nothing
new. The hon. gentleman is aware of the situation. No decision can be expected on this matter until, I think, the month of May.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since this is an exhibitions item, perhaps I may make a slight exhibition of myself and ask the minister if he would do something which I tried to get his predecessor to do, which I think he said he would consider but never did, and that is to put the numbers of the votes in the details as well as in the votes so that it is possible quickly to look from one to the other? The minister would not have to answer half as many questions if he did that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That suggestion was made five minutes ago by the hon. member for Skeena, and I told him I would be pleased to look into it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister tell me if he will do this, now that he has looked into it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will tell the hon. member, as I told the hon. member for Skeena, that I will look into it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister not commit himself for once to something?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Canal services-
689.	Payment to the Canada Starch Company, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, as part of the cost of construction of dikes and other works erected as a result of the St. Lawrence seaway and power development, to prevent flooding of land owned by the crown and leased to the company, and in lieu of compensation otherwise payable by the crown to the company on cancellation of the lease, $955,048.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister for an explanation of this item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is an item to pay compensation to the Canada Starch company for property damage the result of flooding of land owned by the crown and leased to the company.


Lionel Chevrier: Why is this not a payment by Ontario Hydro?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This whole aspect of the matter was carefully considered in the light of the agreement between the federal government and the government of Ontario in respect of the hydroelectric power development in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river. However, in order that the lease be not

cancelled and that the premises be not transferred to Ontario for flooding purposes in connection with power development, Canada Starch Company Limited constructed dikes and other remedial works preventing the flooding of the leased land and adjoining land owned by the company to a total cost in excess of $2,500,000, for which the HydroElectric Commission of Ontario agreed to pay the sum of $1,326,000 in round figures. The construction of the dikes and remedial works permits Canada Starch Company Limited to carry on its business on the leased premises following the raising of the water level in the St. Lawrence river upon completion of the power development works.


Lionel Chevrier: Just another question or two. My understanding of the agreement between Ontario and Canada was that all the works having to do with power were to be performed by the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission and that they would pay the damages occasioned thereby. What I am inquiring about now is why this was considered as part of a navigation expenditure rather than a power expenditure. I presume that is what it is, since we are required to pay a portion of it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. It will be seen in the proportions in which the cost has been shared. The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario is bearing close to 60 per cent of the total.


Lionel Chevrier: Why should they not pay it all?


Donald Methuen Fleming: First of all, let me point out that under the lease in question, which goes back to 1937, between the Department of Transport and Canada Starch Company, the company was granted the use of a parcel on the canal reserve land on the St. Lawrence, with the use of 280 horsepower of surplus water from the canal. The lease ran from 1937 to 1944 and was renewable in 10-year terms in perpetuity.
I have referred to article five of the agreement of December 3, 1951, between the government of Canada and the government of Ontario, under which Canada agreed to transfer to Ontario the administration of such lands belonging to Canada as are required for the purpose of the said development, and in accordance with the said provisions the lease is required to be cancelled in order that the leased premises be transferred to Ontario.
This, obviously, was not a simple situation at all. There are three interests involved here. There is the interest of the Ontario government in respect of the Hydro-Electric

Power Commission in relation to power development; there is the company, operating on land leased from the crown in right of the dominion-and the company has unquestionably sustained damage to its property in excess of $2.5 million-and then there is the federal government with an interest in this situation in two respects, first of all, as the lessor of the land and, second, in respect of the navigation on the river and canal. This whole subject was very carefully studied. It came before the treasury board, and this proved to be a way of bringing about a settlement of a tangled situation. On the whole, this was thought to be the most successful way of bringing the matter to a conclusion.


Lionel Chevrier: If I understand the matter correctly, then, it is one which appertains both to power and to navigation; to navigation, because of the interest which the Department of Transport had in the lease with the Canada Starch Company; and to power, because of the flooding that took place, or which would have taken place, to the premises of Canada Starch had it not been for the construction of the dike to protect the company's property. I suppose that the agreement reached, from what the minister says, was a solution in dollars and cents covering the compensation to be paid to Canada Starch, part of which was paid by Ontario Hydro, in so far as the power developments is concerned, and part by Canada in so far as navigation is concerned. If that is the case, I can see no objection to this.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine services-
690.	Nautical services, including Canada's share of the cost of the North Atlantic ice patrol; grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates; rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidy to a salvage company; and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act-further amount required, $4,880.
Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister give some indication of what is Canada's share in the cost of the North Atlantic ice patrol? I know this situation has been going on for some years, and while this is a small item I presume the minister is in a position to give us the cost of the patrol.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The share of the federal government used to be 50 per cent. It is now 70 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Transport Railway and steamship services-
691.	Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals, $825,090.
Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister tell the committee whether or not the government intends to build a new car ferry for service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland? The minister may remember that every time this estimate comes up, that question is asked, and I think the Minister of Transport has initiated some surveys which, I believe, indicate that an additional ferry vessel is required. I wonder if the minister could give some indication that such will be forthcoming?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think I shall have to ask the hon. member to reserve that question for my colleague, the Minister of Transport, on his main estimates. The hon. member is, of course, aware of the third vessel, the S.S. Scotia No. 2. In April 1959 the treasury board gave approval in principle to the proposal to supplement the existing ferry services with that vessel. But as to additional ships, I think I must ask the hon. gentleman to reserve his question for the main estimates. There is nothing here dealing with it, anyway.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the vessel S.S. Scotia No. 2 presently under construction?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is in dry dock.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not a new ship?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, there is a modification being carried out on it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Modifications to an existing vessel which is being converted for use as a car ferry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister bring to the attention of his colleague, the Minister of Transport, the question raised on this side as to whether it is proposed to add a new ferry to the present facilities?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. As a matter of fact I think this matter was referred to in the house not very long ago by my colleague the Minister of Transport, and I believe reference was made to the fact that tenders had been called for the new ferry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
692.	Newfoundland ferry and terminals, $649,886.
Lionel Chevrier: I wonder whether the minister
could tell us what the operation of this ferry cost during the present fiscal year? Was there a deficit and to what amount on the operation?

Supply-Transport


Donald Methuen Fleming: In 1959 operating revenues amounted to $2,116,157; operating expenses totalled $7,916,043; leaving a net deficit $5,799,886.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the item now required exclusive or inclusive of that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is inclusive. Part of this deficit was provided in earlier votes and -this is the balance required.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
693.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels and equipment-To extend the purposes of vote 415 of the main estimates, 1959-60, to include the vessel detailed in these estimates, $1.
John Whitney Pickersgill: This is another dollar item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This supplementary estimate is required to provide for expenses arising out of the installation of transverse propulsion equipment and water filtering system on the Newfoundland ferry vessel, the William Carson. This additional work costs $167,415. There were funds available within the existing appropriation for transfer to cover the amount, but this item was brought before the committee for approval.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
694.	Yarmouth, Nova Scotia-Bar Harbor, Maine, U.S.A., ferry service-deficit 1959-further amount required, $63,203.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, could the minister give us a quick break-down of the operation of this vessel?


Donald Methuen Fleming: For the year 1959, the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry service shows the following results: Operating revenues, $1,166,454.02, total expenses $1,360,656.88, showing a net deficit of $194,202.86.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
695.	Degaussing Canadian-owned merchant ships of 1,000 gross tons and over, of Canadian registry, or of United Kingdom registry if subject to retransfer to Canadian registry under special intergovernmental arrangement-To extend the purposes of vote 418 of the main estimates, 1959-60, to include Canadian government vessels, $1.
Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering why there is apparently a threat from magnetic mines approximately 15 years following the cessation of hostilities?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this item is a $1 item, the purpose of which is simply to extend the scope of the purposes for which the house approved the original vote, item No. 418, in the main estimates. This extension is required to authorize an amendment by adding Canadian government vessels

to the scope of the original item. In the current and previous fiscal years expenditures were made on account of installing these protective devices not only on merchant ships but on transport ships such as icebreakers, supply and rescue ships, and those of other government departments. This item is designed to give approval.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That does not quite answer the hon. member.


Frank Charles McGee: As I found out from an exploration I conducted in the dictionary "degaussing" means a device to prevent magnetic mines exploding in the immediate area. Is that not correct?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member's question should be answered, sir.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I have already indicated the purpose of the amendment. I have indicated the work that has been carried on and for which approval is sought. This work is supervised by technical officers of the Department of National Defence. The committee is comprised of representatives of the Canadian maritime commission, the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence approve of the ships to be degaussed. This is to permit the extension of the service to government ships.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am
wondering what the chairman of the treasury board asks the department about when an item comes up. Could the minister take us into his confidence and tell us that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I would be more than pleased to take the hon. gentleman into my confidence on a great many things but the proceedings of the treasury board are, of course, secret, and I think it would not be proper for me to discuss what goes on in the treasury board in reporting here. I can assure him, however, that the purpose of the treasury board is to make very certain that the expenditures for which approval is sought are authorized, are necessary, and that the taxpayers are receiving full value for every dollar to be spent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, why is this necessary?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Because it is necessary in the interests of safe navigation. I am sure the hon. gentleman would not want government vessels to be exposed to hazards when modern science can contribute to the reduction of the hazards.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is quite right, Mr. Chairman. Is the minister able to tell us when

the last floating mines were found in the coastal waters off eastern Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, but there are quite a few floating around here sometimes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought that the minister's last observation to me was very appealing but why did it become necessary only in 1960 to extend this to Canadian government vessels? It seems very late in the day to be giving a protection to Canadian government vessels that was previously given to others. If they have gone without protection for all these years why was it suddenly necessary in the further supplementary estimates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think I have already dealt with that. This practice is not confined to this year. As a matter of fact it goes back, I am told, to the time of our predecessors in office. The treasury board thought it was high time this matter was brought before parliament for approval.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister mean to say it has been done illegally for the last three years? Is that what the minister is telling us now?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did the hon.
gentlemen say for the last three years? I am told that the practice went on before that. I will not say it was done illegally but
there was just enough doubt about it to make it desirable in the view of the treasury board that this matter should be brought to the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no new practice if I understand the minister correctly but just a change in language to make sure that every kind of vessel is covered?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just to remove any question about the practice that has been followed, to make it quite clear that government ships are included within the scope of the authorization.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could the minister tell us who does this degaussing process? Is it done by some branch of the government service or by a private company?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I indicated the direction under which the work is carried on, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it it is a service of the Department of Transport.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister feels it is done by officials of the Department of Transport itself?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, but the work is supervised by technical officers of the Department of National Defence, the navy.
Supply-Transport
I mentioned earlier the committee that is composed of representatives of the Canadian maritime commission, the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
696.	Maritime Freight Kates Act-Payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the act, of the difference occurring on account of the application of the act, between the tariff tolls and normal tolls under approved tariffs (estimated and certified to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian National Railway Company and approved by auditors of the said company respecting the eastern lines of the Canadian National Railways and in the case of the other railways by the board of transport commissioners for Canada) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1959- further amount required, $179,500.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, could the minister give some information to the committee in view of the reports which have been made by the maritime transportation commission as to whether the government is giving consideration to extending the rollback beyond the expiry date of July 31?


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as the
present item is concerned, obviously no extension is contemplated or is involved beyond that previously approved. This is simply the vote of an additional sum.
As to the question the hon. gentleman has asked, I think it would be more properly directed to my colleague the Minister of Transport on the main estimates for 1960-61.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, this is the usual item which is voted in the main estimates and the addition in these further sup-plementaries to cover the difference between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls in the select territory. The question that comes to my mind now is this. The minister will remember that a statement was made in the house that there would be no increase in freight rates for a period of one year. I believe that statement was made both by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport in the course of a debate relating to a reduction under the freight rates act and also in answer to a question on the orders of the day which I believe was directed to the Prime Minister.
The year expires pretty soon and I am wondering if the minister is in a position to tell the committee whether we can expect a statement either by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Transport as to whether or not there is going to be an increase allowed. By that I mean, will the railways be allowed to file their applications with the board of transport commissioners for an increase in freight rates? As the minister knows, the Canadian National Railways already filed an

Supply-Transport
application for what I believe was a 12 per cent increase though I may be corrected as to the amount and because ol the statement made by the government the application had to be withdrawn. I am wondering whether, because the year expires soon, there will be a statement coming from the government in this respect?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Any such statement, of course, will have to come from the Prime Minister or from my colleague, the Minister of Transport. I do not think it would be proper for me to attempt to answer the hon. gentleman's question.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister know
whether a statement or an announcement will be made before the expiry of the year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will bring my
hon. friend's inquiry to the attention of my colleague.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
697.	To authorize the governor in council to grant to Canadian National Railway Company a subsidy of $25,000 per mile, but not exceeding $7,450,000, towards the construction of the line of railway referred to in chapter 49 of the statutes of Canada, 1953-54, as branch line number 1 (described approximately as a line of railway from St. Felieien to Chibougamau and from Chibougamau to Beattyville in the province of Quebec); such grant of subsidy to be made in such manner and in such amounts and subject to such conditions, if any, as the governor in council deems expedient-further amount required, $35,750.
Erhart Regier: I believe the minister will
recall that about a week or so ago on the orders of the day I -asked, I believe it was the Prime Minister, to comment on the claim of the premier of British Columbia that the federal government still owed the sum of $13 million to British Columbia as a grant for the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern railway from Prince George into Fort St. John. At that time the Prime Minister replied that the federal government had met its commitment; that it had paid its commitment of a grant of $25,000 per mile for a limited length of the Pacific Great Eastern, and no more money was owing to the government of British Columbia. Would the minister care to state whether the government of British Columbia has applied for a $25,000 a mile grant for that portion of the railroad from Prince George to Fort St. John? As the minister knows, the grant that has been paid applied to a section from Quesnel to Prince George. Exactly how can the premier of British Columbia claim that this money is owing?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Item 697, Mr. Chairman, really has no application to any railway but one, and that is one in the

province of Quebec running from St. Felieien to Chibougamau and from Chibougamau to Beattyville. It has no application to any other province or to any other line than that one.
As to the matter concerning which the hon. gentleman inquires, I suggest he raise it when the estimates of the Department of Transport are in the committee of supply, the main estimates for 1960-61.


Erhart Regier: Is it the policy of the government to grant railway building assistance to the extent of $25,000 per mile anywhere in Canada, or does each specific case need to be looked at on its own merits?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, every case
has to stand on its own merits.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question with
reference to the eastern part of the line. I understand the western part, that is the part from Beattyville to Chibougamau, has been completed and is now in operation. The other half has been completed and is just starting in operation. Can the minister give some indication of the financial position of the line? For instance, what freight is moving on it and are the anticipations of the railway when it asked for this subsidy being met?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it is really too soon to expect any statistical information that would have any value. The construction of the last section between St. Felieien and Cache lake was opened only on October 28 last.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
698.	Canadian National Railways deficit, 1959- Amount required to provide for payment to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the National Company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the National Company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the National Company in payment of the system deficit (certified by the auditors of the National Company) arising in the calendar year 1959 subject to recovery therefrom of accountable advances made to the National Company from the consolidated revenue fund, $43,588,290.
Lionel Chevrier: This is a tremendous amount, Mr. Chairman. I do not think we can allow it to pass without some more detailed comment by the minister. This is the amount of the deficit of the Canadian National Railways. While it is true that this matter is being investigated in the committee on railways, shipping and air lines, owned, operated and controlled by the government, at the present time, it is unfortunate that the committee of the whole house and the committee on railways and shipping is sitting at the same time, because it does make it difficult to follow both; certainly, it makes it extremely difficult for those of us who sit on

this side of the house. The minister himself would not want this item to go through without giving a more detailed explanation of it. First, we should be given some reason why the amount of the deficit is as high as it is. What are the reasons for it, and what are the prospects for the calendar year 1960?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I share the hon. gentleman's concern over this very substantial sum. This, of course, is an annual vote in years when the Canadian National Railways show an operating deficit, and it has to come before the house in the late stages of the fiscal year.
The results of the year in question, 1959, from the financial point of view, are not as good as the railway had expected at the beginning of the year. In the budget for 1959, which was approved, it was anticipated that there would be a deficit of $34,400,000. Operations did not develop during the year as favourably as had been hoped, with the result that the company shows an operating deficit for the year 1959 of $43,588,290. While this is not as favourable a result as the budget for the year indicated, it nevertheless is an improvement over the operating results for 1958. The committee will recall that a year ago it was necessary to provide for a deficit of $51,591,424 for the year 1958.
The hon. member has asked as to the present outlook. I may say that the outlook for 1960 is somewhat brighter than the results for 1959. The indications are that unless the company encounters an increase in its operating expenses it should in 1960 show an improved operating result over 1959. But the hon. member as well as anyone in this house knows how difficult it is to forecast nowadays the results of the operations of the line a year in advance.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure the minister will not feel that I am trying to hold up this item because I ask for some additional information. As I said earlier, I really feel the minister would be advised to give some further information. Can the minister tell us whether this additional increase in the deficit from $34 million, which was estimated, and the $43 million which we have before us, was caused by an increase in over-all labour costs; whether it was because of the failure to obtain increased freight rates or whether it was because of the financing costs of the Canadian National Railways? By that I mean the high interest rates which the Canadian National Railways had to pay. Would it be for those three reasons or some of those three reasons, or other reasons?
Supp ly-Transport


Donald Methuen Fleming: The reason was a disappointment in respect of operating revenues. The budget had contemplated operating revenues of $756,500,000; the actual operating revenues proved to be $740,165,041. There were some savings with respect to operating expenses, but the reason the deficit has exceeded the budget in that respect is the disappointment in respect of operating revenues.


Erhart Regier: Would the minister care to comment on newspaper reports of a little while ago that the government of the province of Quebec has agreed to subsidize the trucking industry there? Does the minister know whether this is actually being done and, if so, how can we say we are looking after the welfare of the taxpayers if one level of government subsidizes the chief competitor of the railways while another level is subsidizing the railways?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not seen the article to which the hon. member refers but, of course, the federal government has no jurisdiction in respect of highway transport except in the case of interprovincial and international movements. For that reason I think the hon. member has invited me to comment on a subject that is entirely within provincial jurisdiction. Canadian National Railways, as he is aware, does operate some trucking services as ancillary to its rail operations.


Erhart Regier: Will the minister agree that if provincial governments begin to subsidize the trucking industry the federal government should give consideration to curtailing interprovincial and long distance trucking?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What we are doing in the present item, of course, is subsidizing rail transport in Canada. The present item is a governmental contribution to the cost of operating the Canadian National system, but I would not wish to go further into this field because there are hypothetical elements in the situation in the article to which the hon. member referred.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister did not answer the question I asked him earlier as to what was the reason for the difference in the estimate of the deficit of the C.N.R., $34 million compared with $43 million, and I asked whether it was due to increased labour costs.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did answer the hon. gentleman's question. I pointed out that the cause was a disappointment in operating revenues, that the operating revenues fell $16.4 million short of the operating revenues anticipated in the budget.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, but the operating
expenses did not fall in proportion, and that is why I asked whether it was due to labour costs.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I pointed out that there had been some savings. The actual operating expenses were not as much as were budgeted for, but whatever reduction was achieved in that respect did not equal the reduction in the operating revenues compared with the budget. To put it in a concrete form, the deficit of $43.5 million was $8.9 million greater than the budget contemplated but the actual operating revenues were $16.4 million less than the budget contemplated.


Lionel Chevrier: What about the failure of the Canadian National Railways to get any increase in freight rates? Does that constitute one of the reasons for the increased deficit?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No one can say
whether Canadian National Railways, if its application had proceeded, would have succeeded in obtaining an increase in railway freight rates by decision of the board of transport commissioners. No one can say that. If one could assume that they would have been granted an increase in freight rates and had carried as much freight at the increased rates as they carried at the present rates, then obviously there would have been a higher operating revenue. I presume that at the same time there would perhaps have been some added operating expenses. But here we are in a completely speculative field and I cannot go further in making assumptions in regard to the possibility of their having obtained higher freight rates or having retained all their traffic.


Lionel Chevrier: But was the 17 per cent increase not reduced in part? It was an interim increase and it was reduced in part. Would that not account for the increase in the deficit?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Again I think we are in the field of speculation. The subsidy that the government provided recompensed the company.


Lionel Chevrier: I will not insist, but will the minister answer this question? Will he attribute any of the increase in the deficit to interest rates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as the deficit is concerned, obviously interest rates enter into the company's expenditures. They must. It has fixed charges in its total budget amounting in 1959 to $52,918,886. Those are fixed charges. The company has a very substantial outstanding bonded indebtedness and of course this has to be serviced.


Lionel Chevrier: What was the interest rate on the last loan floated by Canadian National compared with the previous one?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will have to speak from memory, but I think the coupon rate on the last loan was 5J per cent and the bonds were sold at a small discount. I do not have those figures with me but I will be glad to furnish them.


Lionel Chevrier: I will take them subject to correction in Hansard. Can the minister say how that compared with the previous issue?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The previous issue was the year before and interest rates at this time were somewhat higher than they were a year ago. Interest rates have risen in the early or middle part of the year and there has been some tapering off since. I will be glad to get the hon. gentleman the exact figures.


Jacques Flynn: Order. It being ten
o'clock-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the committee care to go on for a few minutes more? We only have ten items left.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee unanimous?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: That issue was put out about three months ago. For the past three years there has been an annual issue by Canadian National Railways. I will be glad to furnish the hon. member with the details of these issues if he wishes them.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister know whether there will be one in 1960?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That depends. We never indicate in advance but there has been an annual issue for the past several years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was just wondering
whether the minister could give us the figure for the comparative amount of interest charges borne by the C.N.R. in the current fiscal year and a year ago. I refer to the total.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have given the actual figures of fixed charges. It was about a million dollars less than the budget contemplated. In the previous year the fixed charges amounted to $46.5 million.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

General-
700. Reimbursement of the Department of Transport stores account for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $221,348.
John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the point of this vote?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This item No. 700 is
a recurring year-end item provided under the authority of section 60, subsection 2 of the Financial Administration Act in order to enable the write-off from the Department of Transport stores account and deletion from the inventory of certain plant, equipment and materials. In this case two sums are involved. There is equipment that is now obsolete or unserviceable and the write-off there is $42,950.34. Another item refers to equipment destroyed, the amount in that case being $178,397.13.


Lionel Chevrier: I should just like to tell my hon. friend that I am going to be a little bit kinder to him with reference to this vote than his colleagues were to me when I introduced the legislation-and I have reference to my dear friend the hon. member for Greenwood. I was obliged to come back several times with a bill to amend the Transport Act. I am not going to make my hon. friend's life miserable, although I think I could do so on this occasion. Does my hon. friend remember that incident?


Mr. Macdonnell:: The hon. member flatters me.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This item of $178,397, the component for equipment destroyed, is a sizeable item. Can the minister give us some indication of the type and variety of equipment that item would include?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. There are two items here into which that sum is broken down. The first represents a total of $127,245.74 of equipment, the contents of the radio test room destroyed by fire on May 15, 1959. The other item amounts to $51,151.39 representing food supplies destroyed by fire at the Frobisher Bay airport.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-telecommunications branch-
702.	Radio aids to air and marine navigation- Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-To extend the purposes of vote 427 of the main estimates for 1959-60 to include the construction of works during the current and subsequent fiscal years on Anticosti island on land owned by the Consolidated Paper Corporation Limited, $1.
John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a dollar item and it is a peculiar one. My attention was drawn to it particularly by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who has been obliged to
Supply-Transport
spend the whole evening in a committee and was not able to be here. He drew attention to the curious wording "to include the construction of works during the current and subsequent fiscal years". This would appear to be in anticipation, and I say "would appear to be" because the minister may have some perfectly proper explanation. It would appear to be in anticipation of parliamentary control over expenditures in subsequent years. Perhaps the minister could give some explanation dealing particularly with that point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Recently treasury board authorized the Department of Transport to enter into long term leases with the Consolidated Paper Corporation Limited for lands on Anticosti island for the purpose of the establishment of a remote transmitter site and associated staff dwellings. Normally the department does not erect works on land not owned by the crown but in this case the company refused to sell and it was considered that the crown's interest was adequately protected by the long term lease. That lease guarantees the crown undisturbed possession for 20 years. I may say that the company has been extremely co-operative in permitting the use of its roads, construction equipment and other facilities. It will therefore be seen that this is an authorizing item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand it is extremely unusual for the government to build any structure that is owned by the crown on land that is not owned by the crown. Of course there is a right of eminent domain. Perhaps the minister would explain why there was not expropriation in this case.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This was thought to be a much better deal from the point of view of the crown. As to protecting the interests of the crown in the light of its having erected transmitter sites and the associated staff dwellings, it was felt that the 20-year lease gave adequate protection to the crown. To have proceeded beyond that point and to have expropriated would have been, it was felt by the treasury board in this case, not good business for the crown. This is a better arrangement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is no rent paid or is it a dollar a year? Is that it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not here information as to the exact rent paid. I will be glad to furnish that information if the hon. gentleman wishes it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will admit that it is a little bit difficult for us to form an opinion which we ought to try to form here in the committee as to whether it is good

Supply-Transport
business if we do not know what the rent would have been over the 20-year period as compared with what the probable cost would have been in the case of expropriation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the minister also should give us some indication of the nature and extent of the installations. This period of 20 years is quite a short period for a lease and is not compatible with the policy of some other government departments. For example, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would not guarantee a mortgage where the house was built on leased land unless the lease ran for considerably longer than that period of time. Can the minister give us information as to the nature and the extent of the installations and tell us how permanent they are and what their anticipated life would be?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if we let this item stand for a moment and went on to the next one, I might have that information shortly.


Jacques Flynn: Shall this item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.
703.	Radio Act and regulations-
Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $50,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is this item about? Perhaps the minister could give us a brief explanation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is an addition of $50,000 to the sum of $405,000 that was voted in the main estimates. The amount arises out of a fire in the Ottawa radio test room. This $50,000 is to replenish the fire losses replacement account from which an advance of $50,000 was received.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That explanation raises a very interesting point. In the old days when the hon. member for Peterborough sat on this side of the chamber we had our attention drawn in the house to every fire that affected government property. Now that the hon. gentleman is over there on the opposite side of the chamber there sems to be no one who is taking the same interest in fires. Has the minister any figure as to the total fire losses in the last fiscal year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not offhand. I could get that information. The hon. member in effect is asking me what sums were provided for out of the fire losses replacements account during the year. I shall be glad to make inquiries. Is the hon. gentleman asking the amount for the fiscal year or the calendar year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think for the fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation branch-
704.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-To extend the purposes of vote 437 of the main estimates, 1959-60, to include construction work on local roads providing access to the new air terminal at Ottawa airport, a contribution to the province of British Columbia in the amount of $22,500 towards construction of a by-pass road at Terrace airport, British Columbia, and authority to charge to that vote the cost of lands purchased, by means of loans provided for the acquisition of land required to control properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports in order to prevent the erection of hazards to flying and for future development of new and existing main terminal airports including facilities for relieving congestion thereat, that are not held for resale, $1.
Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister give an explanation of this item? Can he say whether any of this amount has to do with the buzzing by the supersonic United States plane of the Uplands airport?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer to the second question is no. This is a one dollar item and it is intended to amend vote 437 of the main estimates in order to extend the scope of the item. Item 484 authorizes loans up to $4 million to be used for acquisition of land to prevent the erection of hazards to flying and for future airport development. Such a loan item has been provided annually since 1954-55 when the major airport construction program started. At the present time loans to a total figure of $8.2 million are on the asset side of the balance sheet of which about $2 million are being held for resale. It is proposed to transfer to the current account the cost of those lands which were initially purchased through the loans account which it is not intended to resell. The amount involved is $6.2 million. No additional funds will be required since there will be a lapse in this vote sufficient to cover these amounts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian maritime commission-
706. Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $1,095,154.
Lionel Chevrier: Could we get some explanation of these subventions, and also can the minister give some indication of the present status of the Canadian maritime commission? I attempted to get some information earlier but was not too successful. By that I mean, what is the position of the maritime commission? Is it the intention of the government to carry it on? It has had certainly not the activities it used to have, and I do not mean that in any derogatory sense. I certainly do not mean that in a sense which



I960

[Stage Direction]
would affect the present holder of the chairmanship of that commission for whom I have a great deal of regard. Incidentally, I think the present holder is a man of many qualifications and I am sure would fill this job satisfactorily.
The point I make now is this. Over and above the subventions which are mentioned here, what are the intentions of the government in so far as the future of the commission is concerned?
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. gentleman is aware, there was a change in the chairmanship of the Canadian maritime commission during the past year when Mr. Louis Audette, who had been for some years chairman of the maritime commission, was appointed chairman of the tariff board. There has been no change in the status or function of the Canadian maritime commission. If any were to be announced I think the announcement would have to come from my colleague, the Minister of Transport. Certainly there is none which I can announce, and the maritime commission is carrying on precisely as has been the case hitherto.
As to the item in question, this is an enlargement of an item which began in the main estimates with a vote of $5,553,500. It was increased in the supplementary estimates by $54,700 and is now proposed to be increased by a further $1,095,154, required to provide the expenses arising out of the operation of steamship services in various localities. In the eastern local services we have lie aux Coudres and Les Eboulements. Next is Murray Bay and the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, winter service. Next is Pelee island and the mainland of Ontario. Next is Rimouski, Matane and the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, Quebec. Next, Newfoundland coastal steamship services.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loans, investments and advances-
External affairs-
709. Additional advance to the working capital fund of the United Nations organization in the amount of $30,230 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars esitmated as of March, 1960, which is, $28,728.
Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister give some explanation of this item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This item comes under the loans items and is intended to provide an additional advance to the working capital of the United Nations organization in the amount of $30,230 U.S., which is $28,728 Canadian.
Supply-Transport
In his foreword to the 1960 budget estimates of United Nations the secretary-general once again invited the attention of all member nations to the fact that the cash position of the organization continued to be a source of grave concern. This gave rise to studies of the matter and the result was that the advisory committee made recommendations to the assembly on this and associated questions. A decision was taken to provide an increase and the increase was approved by the United Nations assembly. Canada's share of the $25 million increase is 3.11 per cent, and taking account of credits and advances which had been made in previous years, the amount now required to pay Canada's share is the figure of the item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
710. To increase to $7,000,000 the amount that may be charged at any time to the revolving fund mentioned in subsection (2) of section 101 of the Financial Administration Act, chap. 12, statutes of 1951 (2nd session), and extended by vote 630 of the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1955, and vote 662 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1958; additional amount required, $1,000,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Could the minister tell us what the object of the revolving fund is and why it is necessary to increase it by $1 million?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this is the revolving fund in the Department of Transport. The amount of the fund at the present time is $6 million and it is used for the purpose of stores required for the various operating services of the department. The situation at July 1, 1959 was that the stores inventory charges against the fund were $5,651,386. The balance for working capital at that time was less than $350,000. There is an average delay of one month in receiving credits to the fund for store issues, and on the basis of an annual stores turnover of approximately $7 million a balance of approximately $600,000 was considered to be necessary to provide adequate working capital. Consequently it is now proposed that the authorized item be increased from $6 million to $7 million on this account.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-
Telecommunications branch-
702.	Radio aids to air and marine navigation-construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-To extend the purposes of votes 427 of the main estimates for 1959-60 to include the construction of works during the current and subsequent fiscal years on Anticosti island on land owned by the Consolidated Paper Corporation Limited, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I now have the information on vote 702. The rent in question is nominal. As to the buildings, the radio transmitter and houses to be erected, I might say that the department expects that 20 years will equal the useful life of the facilities. That fact was taken into account when the arrangement was made with the company.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: That item completes the further supplementary estimates.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1960, the sum of $117,844,324 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-55, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1960.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


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


Lionel Chevrier: Next sitting of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house what we shall be doing tomorrow?
I am sure the opposition would appreciate it if we could be told what we shall have under consideration this week until budget time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Before my colleague answers that question, may I thank the house for its co-operation in sitting beyond ten o'clock to enable us to complete the review of the supplementary estimates.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we shall begin with the second reading of the appropriation bill. We shall follow that with the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works dealing with the Trans-Canada Highway Act. If these items are completed we shall take item No. 11 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources dealing with the amendment to the Yukon Act; followed by item No. 12, the resolution in the name of the same minister dealing with an amendment to the Northwest Territories Act. That is Wednesday. On Thursday, the first item of business will be second reading of a bill to amend the National Energy Board Act which I expect will receive first reading tomorrow, followed by any of these three items which have not been completed. Thursday night is budget night. On Friday, we shall commence with the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance on the subject of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act. If on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday any of the items which I have outlined have been completed and we want more business to do, we would refer to page 3 of the order paper where six bills are listed for second reading, and we would take them in that order.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.