1960-07-27

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motions:
July 25-The Prime Minister-The following proposed motion:-That the resolution adopted by this house on the 14th day of June, 1960 and reading as follows:
"Resolved, that a humble address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words: To the Queen's most excellent majesty:
Most gracious sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the commons of Canada in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that you may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to be expressed as follows:
An act to amend the British North America Act, 1867.
Whereas the Senate and House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled have submitted addresses to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom for the enactment of the provisions hereinafter set forth:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1.	Section ninety-nine of the British North America Act, 1867 is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"99. (1) Subject to subsection two of this section, the judges of the superior, district and county courts shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General on Address of the Senate and House of Commons.
(2) A judge of a superior, district or county court, whether appointed before or after the coming into force of this section, shall cease to hold office upon attaining the age of seventy-five years, or upon the coming into force of this section if at that time he has already attained that age."
2.	This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1960, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1960.
3.	This act shall come into force on the first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-one.
be rescinded, and that the following resolution be substituted therefor:
Resolved, that a humble address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen In the following words: To the Queen's most excellent majesty:
Most gracious sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the commons of Canada in parliament 79951-0-444
assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that you may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to be expressed as follows:
An act to amend the British North America Act, 1867.
Whereas the Senate and House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled have submitted addresses to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom for the enactment of the provisions hereinafter set forth:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1.	Section ninety-nine of the British North America Act, 1867 is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"99. (1) Subject to subsection two of this section, the judges of the superior court shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.
(2) A judge of a superior court, whether appointed before or after the coming into force of this section, shall cease to hold office upon attaining the age of seventy-five years, or upon the coming into force of this section if at that time he has already attained that age."
2.	This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1960, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1960.
3.	This act shall come into force on the first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-one.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Robichaud: What was the amount to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund as of June 30, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
June 30,	1957	$852,729,261.78June 30,	1958	$644,520,634.54June 30,	1959	$434,152,690.64June 30,	1960	$296,187,477.10


C.N.R. CAR ICING, MONCTON AND JOFFRE
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways considered contracting out the icing of cars at Moncton and Joffre in the past year?

Starred Questions
2.	If so, what are the factors in favour of such a move?
3.	What effect would such a move have in each of these places in terms of Canadian National Railways employee reduction?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: The answer is as follows:
1.	With regard to Monoton this matter is now under study in connection with the operation of the new hump yard. As to Joffre, a contract was entered into with a Mr. J. A. Labrie, effective May, 1960.
2.	Moncton-Not applicable.
Joffre-It is more economical to the railway.
3.	No employees are hired for the sole purpose of icing refrigerator cars, and at Joffre only one regular employee, a labourer, has been displaced under this arrangement.
(a)	Displacement	
(b)	Speed	
(c)	Capacity (i) passengers
(ii) vehicles .
(d)	Icebreaking capabilities
(e)	Suitability for winter passages________


TOHMENTINE-BORDEN, P.E.I., FERRY
Mr. Herridge: 1.	Is consideration being given to the construction of a new car ferry between Tormentine and Borden, Prince Edward Island?
2.	If so, how will it compare to the Abegweit as to the following characteristics: (a) displacement; (b) speed; (c) capacity; (i) passengers; (ii) vehicles; (d) icebreaking capability; (e) suitability for winter passages?


George Harris Hees: The answer to part 1 is that tenders were called during 1959, and a contract for construction was entered into on May 24, 1960, with Halifax Shipyards, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
As to part 2, a comparison with the M. V. Abegweit is as follows:
Abegweit 7,600 tons 16.5 knots 950
19 railway freight cars and 58 automobiles, or 125 automobiles
Both vessels are designed to Lloyd's register highest class for icebreaking ferries.
The Abegweit is, and the new vessel will be, capable of maintaining all season service between Tormentine, New Brunswick and Borden, Prince Edward Island.
New Vessel 2,663 tons 13 knots 300
68 automobiles



EQUALIZATION OF QUOTAS-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26

Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West, the adjournment of the house- under standing order 26 to discuss a question of urgent public importance, namely the large number of marketing points in western Canada still on a 6-bushel quota and the need for urgent action at this time to assure that quotas will be equalized, thus enabling each producer to deliver his fair share of grain.
I believe that this question is of very great urgency, Mr. Speaker, because the end of the crop year is approaching. This is July 27 and the crop year ends on July 31, just four days from now. There have been commitments from the government on previous occasions that every possible step would be taken to make certain that delivery quotas were equalized by the end of this crop year. The importance of this, I should like to 
point out, is that by equalized quotas the farmers are given the same opportunity to deliver grain and therefore an equal opportunity with their neighbours to the same kind of income return.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member permit me to ask a question which might help me in determining the urgency of debate? Is this a matter within the administrative jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would say quickly yes to that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the urgency the hon. member suggests is that-the end of the crop year is when?


Hazen Robert Argue: At the end of this month, four days away.


Mr. Speaker:: And the importance of it is that-?


Hazen Robert Argue: Once we pass the end of the crop year all the quotas return to zero and the farmer has no opportunity whatever to

deliver grain. It is illegal to deliver grain on the present quotas on August 1, which is a very few days away. If equality in the delivery of grain, therefore, is to be brought about, immediate action is necessary so that this can be accomplished within the next few days.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the jurisdiction to set quotas after the end of the crop year is just as it was before; there is no change?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I feel I have heard sufficient to enable me to deal with the matter. The question is, of course, one of urgency of debate that we have to consider under rule 26. The hon. member raises a matter which is of undoubted importance, and of particular importance to the producers of grain who are making deliveries. But the problem I have to consider is whether or not there is a lack of opportunity in this house to discuss this matter which is so urgent as to warrant our interrupting a very full program at a time of the session which I think puts a rather severe onus on anyone who attempts to move the adjournment under standing order 26.
In my view there has been opportunity throughout the session to discuss the administration of the deliveries of grain, and if I am not mistaken the Canadian wheat board is under the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whose estimates are to be called within the next day or two, so I would not think it appropriate to give leave to move the adjournment.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I might make a very brief comment on that-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: The quotas will be off; the opportunity will be gone. It will be too late.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate what the hon. member says, but there will be an opportunity to discuss it when the estimates are being considered.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I claim the right to deal with the central question at this time for the benefit of the house, as to whether or not this is sufficiently urgent that it is necessary to initiate a debate at this time. A question has been raised very properly by Your Honour as to whether or not there will be an opportunity, in your own words, within the next couple of days to debate this matter.
Now Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce would bring on his estimates then that could be done; there would be no urgency if the trade and commerce estimates 79951-0-444J
Inquiries of the Ministry were brought on immediately. If they were initiated, as the minister announced last night, at the tail end of the session, then these quotas will be down to zero and there will be a great injustice done to the western producers; that is why it is urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: I took those matters into consideration in the course of making my ruling.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 132-Mr. Martin (Essex East):
For a copy of the latest report of the unemployment insurance commission advisory committee.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the minister's estimates will be under consideration either later this day or tomorrow, can the minister assure the house that the report of the interdepartmental committee trying to work out new procedures for the measurement of unemployment will be made available to the committee before the estimates are considered?


Michael Starr: In view of the numerous questions asked regarding this report I have made a number of inquiries, and I cannot at the moment give any assurance that that will be done.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can advise the house what the situation is with regard to the suggestion of the United States that the United Nations disarmament commission should meet prior to the convocation of the general assembly?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that request, I believe, has been handed to the chairman of the United Nations disarmament commission, but as yet no statement has been made as to if and when that commission will be meeting.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi):: Has Canada joined with the United States in asking the chairman of the commission, Mr. Padillo Nervo, to call the commission together?


Howard Charles Green: Yes. We also wrote to the chairman urging that the commission be called together.
(Translation):



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (SI. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees).
Has the minister any comments to make about the jet aircraft with 80 passengers aboard that went to the wrong airport and landed at Cartierville last night, instead of Dorval?
(Text):


George Harris Hees: I am afraid I have no further information than that contained in the news report to which the hon. member has referred. This plane landed by mistake at Cartierville airport. Fortunately it landed safely. No damage was done and no one was injured. The passengers were transferred by bus to Dorval airport and the plane later continued its journey to Toronto. I am afraid that is all I have to report.


Georges-J. Valade: I have a supplementary
question.
(Translation):
Could the minister ask his department to take steps to prevent similar mistakes in the future?
(Text):


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, we do everything we can to make it as easy as possible for planes to land at Dorval and not at other airports. I am sure the captain of the air liner was not too happy about having mistaken the landing field. I am sure that people will speak to him about it. I do not think there will be too many recurrences of this error.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say what action the government has taken as a result of the representations sent to the government from the three western wheat pools requesting the

federal government to set aside the decision of the board of transport commissioners that rapeseed should not be considered a grain under the Crowsnest pass agreement?


George Harris Hees: It is my understanding that this matter is at the present time before the Supreme Court of Canada. Therefore, of course, it cannot be discussed at this time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the opening of the house yesterday has he or the government received a request from the prime minister of the Congo, Mr. Lumumba, to come to Canada?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, our permanent representative at the United Nations had a long visit with the prime minister of the Congo last evening. Today the prime minister is in Washington and I believe he will be talking with our representative at the Canadian embassy there. I think he will be coming here on Friday and Saturday, but the arrangements have not yet been made definite.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillingaie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the decision by the court of appeal of British Columbia yesterday, will the minister give the house an assurance that Miss Rebrin will not be spirited out of this country-


An hon. Member:: Cheap.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -as long as she is engaged in any actions in the courts?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot stand by and let the hon. member make any such statement. She has not been spirited out of the country. There have been about three different appeals, and I see no reason why she should be so dealt with now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to ask the hon. lady if she does not recall that the words I used were precisely the words used by the Minister of Justice in another case, and that the Prime Minister in that case-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -did give an assurance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question appears to me to be more the supplying of information or an argument than a search for further information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I would like to put a supplementary question. Would the hon. lady give an assurance that this lady will not be deported as long as her action against the Toronto Telegram is pending?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I thought I made that perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DELIVERY AND QUOTA POSITION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. L. Hanbidge (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, since the crop year for the delivery of grain in western Canada expires on July 31, I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to quotas on grain.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the quota situation in the western prairies is better this year, I think, than in any year since the quota arrangement was put into operation. There are 2,007 stations on the quota distribution system. As of July 25, 1,879 or in other words roughly 94 per cent were on the 7-bushel quota, leaving roughly 6 per cent, or 128 stations, on the 6-bushel quota. This is a development which under the supervision of the wheat board has been pursued this year in an endeavour to equalize the quota distribution system as much as possible.
I have not had a communication today but I will be hearing from the wheat board, and I would expect that the number of stations on the 6-bushel quota has again been reduced, so that substantially all stations out west are on an equal basis. This is a major achievement, and every possible effort is being made during the closing days of the crop year to bring all stations up to the 7-bushel quota and to provide box cars in order that the grain may be moved rapidly. I doubt if a better showing has been made in any of the years since the wheat board has been operating.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think in view of the motion I presented this statement might have been made on that motion-


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hazen Robert Argue: -so that those of us-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: It would have been improper for the minister to make such a statement on the motion, but if the hon. member has a supplementary question he may ask it.


Hazen Robert Argue: My question is this. Is the minister prepared to recommend to the Canadian wheat board that the delivery quotas be continued into the new crop year until such time as all marketing points in western Canada are on a 7-bushel quota and, of equal importance, until every delivery point has sufficient box cars to take out the grain? I ask the minister whether it is not a fact that hundreds-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will allow the first one to be answered.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for
Assiniboia is obviously embarrassed when the-


Hazen Robert Argue: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I trust the minister will not pursue that vein.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would have been out of order, Mr. Speaker, in referring to the futility of the hon. member's original motion, but I will not dwell on that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Just answer my question and you will be more in order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This question comes up every year. The wheat board with its long experience has reached the conclusion that it is unwise to extend the quota distribution system too far into the new crop year. Every year this question has come up I have examined it with the wheat board and asked them for their experience in years gone by. They have taken the stand that when they can reach the 7-bushel quota as they are doing this year it is adequate for marketing purposes. In certain areas, depending on the arrival of box cars, a few days' grace are permitted, but then the year closes and the new quota goes into effect for subsequent deliveries of grain from the new crop. The wheat board knows this problem, has dealt with it successfully year after year, and will continue to do so.


Hazen Robert Argue: My supplementary question is this-

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was seeking to ask a supplementary question. Perhaps the hon. member would defer his until later.


Mr. C. O. Cooper (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask if it would be possible to have the wheat board open all points to 7 bushels before the end of the crop year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think that is possible, Mr. Speaker. As of two days ago only 128 points were on 6 bushels. It looks as if all stations will be on the 7-bushel quota by the end of the week.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask the minister how many hundreds of marketing points there will be where delivery space will not be available on the 7-bushel quota. How many days of grace will the farmers have in the new crop year in order to deliver on the old quota?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Obviously I cannot answer the first question; it calls for statistical information. The question should be put on the order paper in the proper way, as every experienced hon. member knows.
The number of days of grace is left to the discretion of the wheat board and to the common sense of the elevator agents. It depends on the arrival of box cars. If seven box cars arrive at a station, let us say, this coming Sunday night, any Canadian with common sense would see that those box cars are made use of even if it takes until Monday or Tuesday to make delivery.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is there under consideration-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -a 14-day period of grace as we have had on other occasions?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The wheat board will conduct itself in the same way this year as it has done in other years, to the satisfaction of the farmers of western Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is exactly what we are afraid of.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You do not like the wheat board?


Hazen Robert Argue: We do not like what is being done right now.


Mr. Ricard:: Do you like yourself?


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether he has knowledge of any extensive complaints from western Canada with respect to both quotas and box cars? My own experience is that I have none.
[Mr. Argue.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: There have been no extensive complaints. My own experience over the last three years has been that at the conclusion of each crop year messages are received with regard to box cars. I have had only a few of those this year. Immediately the wheat board has been contacted. They in turn get in touch with the railway companies, who have responded very quickly to these requests.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek still some point that is not clear even after this rather extensive inquiry?
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister if the 128 points still on 6-bushel quota are points that in past years have also been on low quota.


Hazen Robert Argue: They are.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I doubt that very much, Mr. Speaker, but I will obtain the information for the hon. gentleman. These questions may be asked tomorrow, Friday, Saturday and Monday before the end of the crop year, and the information will be available.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Gloucester inquired regarding the dispute respecting the unlicensed personnel of the M.V. Bluenose. I might also say that the hardworking and very able hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare has shown great interest in this matter and spoke about it to both the Minister of Labour and myself as long ago as Friday. He has shown a keen interest in this whole matter.
As the house knows, the management and operation of the Bluenose is entrusted to the C.N.R. I have been in touch with the management, and am advised .that the union representing unlicensed personnel on the ship has given notice that such employees will withdraw from service on August 5. Although the union has not requested a meeting since issuance of the report of the board of conciliation on June 23, the management state that they stand ready to meet the union at any time.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether

he has had an opportunity of considering the question which I asked him yesterday.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the hon. member for Laurier stated that meat inspectors in the city of Montreal had not received pay for their overtime work for the last three months. He asked if I would inquire into the situation and advise him why this condition exists. The hon. member also stated that it was his understanding that the overtime was paid by the packing houses in which the meat inspectors worked.
In fact the overtime is not actually paid by the packing plants. If a plant engages in overtime operations a charge is made against the plant to cover the approximate cost of the overtime worked by the meat inspectors, but the payments from the plants are deposited to consolidated revenue. The actual overtime payments to the inspectors are made from the regular departmental vote in accordance with civil service regulations.
Those regulations provide for overtime worked by a civil servant to be liquidated as compensatory leave at any time up to the end of the following month if staffing permits, or failing that, for the payment of overtime. For this reason payment for overtime worked in any one month cannot be made until after the end of the following month.
Cheques covering overtime payments to health of animals staff in the Montreal area for April have been sent out, and it is anticipated that payment for overtime worked during May will be made within a week.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for his reply.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Campeau (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask whether he has any comment to make as to the cause of the sinking of the S.S. Coastal Cascades of Transit Tankers and Terminals Limited in berth 110 in Montreal harbour, and as to the measures which are to be taken in this connection.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The port manager at Montreal harbour has advised me that in the early morning of July 25, the S.S. Coastal Cascades, owned by Transit Tankers and Terminals Limited, sank in berth 110, Montreal harbour and the vessel is resting on the bottom on its stern. The reason for the sinking is unknown. There is no danger to
Inquiries of the Ministry navigation. The S.S. Coastal Cascades is 230 feet long with a net registered tonnage of 651 and giross tonnage of 1,239. Investigations are being conducted as to the reason for sinking.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether Canada was represented at the three-day commonwealth conference recently held in Australia to discuss naval co-operation and, if not, why not?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I shall take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR BREAKDOWN OF FIGURE QUOTED BY MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance whether he could give the house a breakdown of the $2 billion which the Minister of Finance said the provinces were asking out of the federal treasury.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is perhaps a little optimistic in expecting to be able to get an answer to that question on orders of the day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest it is a very urgent question.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. Before the Minister of Finance gets negotiated out of all the money he has in the treasury, and in view of the fact that the interim supply bill passed a few months ago will no longer have validity after the end of this month, is it the intention of the government to have another interim supply bill introduced to carry on the public business after the end of July.

Combines Investigation Act


Mr. R. A. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister ot Finance):: I think the hope of the house is that its business may be concluded in time so that a further interim supply bill will not be necessary.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It won't be.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: Can
the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources say whether the premier of British Columbia has yet made any offer to him of Garibaldi park as a national park?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker; I have received no offer from British Columbia.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT-CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENTS RESPECTING MERGERS, MONOPOLIES, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 26, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-58, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code-Mr. Fulton- Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 13, section 33-Mergers and monopolies.
The Chairman:: Shall the amendment to clause 13, section 33, carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I was in the middle, or perhaps not in the middle; I should say I was at the beginning of a statement about this matter which has been occasioned by the observations which were made by the Minister of Justice just before I began.
In order to put what I now have to say in perspective I should like to recall just what it was I did say in my introduction last night. What I said was that, as the hon. member for Ottawa West had shown in his masterly reading of the proceedings of the banking and commerce committee, the government had made a firm and unqualified decision, and announced it to the committee, not to do anything about this problem. The government had decided that because the restrictive trade practices commission was carrying on an investigation into an export problem in British Columbia, no attempt should be made to meet the requests of the fisheries council, of the forest industries and of the metal mining industry which were

presented so ably, and I think so convincingly, to the committee, and whose views were put on the record at such length by three hon. members on the other side of the house last evening in speeches the urgency of which was apparent to all who listened to them.
That was the situation right up until the last meeting of the banking and commerce committee. At that point, sir, as I explained earlier yesterday, thanks to the courtesy of the committee and because of my absence on that Monday morning, the committee resumed its sittings in the afternoon and I introduced an amendment to clause 15 of the bill. I should like very briefly to draw to the committee's attention now the reason I gave then for doing so. This will be found at page 747 of the proceedings and evidence of the banking and commerce committee for July 18. Quite a way down the page the chairman is reported as follows:
Perhaps we could go on with Mr. Pickersgill first-
Then I am reported as having said:
I have an amendment I would like to move, seconded by Mr. Tardif. But before doing so, I would like to say that some of my friends and I on this committee were very much impressed by the representations that were made to the committee by a number of witnesses, expressing the hope that if the act was to be amended, as was the government's intention, some express provision could be put in the act to make it abundantly clear what everyone, I think, recognizes has always been in fact the situation, namely, that the purpose of the legislation was to prevent combinations within Canada respecting trade within Canada and was not intended, in any way, to cripple our export trade; and that if certain types of combination or arrangements were necessary for the promotion of our export trade they should not be hampered by this legislation.
Now I recognize-as I am sure every member of the committee does-how frightfully difficult it is to draft provisions which will make that position abundantly plain to the courts, without, in any way, having any ancillary effects or any serious ancillary effects which would enable it-as we thought might be the case with some of these new provisions that it is suggested should be inserted into one of the other sections, section 32-to be used as a cloak for combinations that are clearly intended to be against the law.
However, we do think that an amendment might be made to clause 15; and I must say that in proposing this, I am not absolutely wedded to this particular wording. It is the best, with such resources that were available to my friends and myself, we were able to come up with at the moment; but we would certainly appreciate any suggestions from any member of the committee that might make it more acceptable to the government.
In the present circumstances, when it is perfectly evident to everyone that we are not going to have the kind of sellers' market for our exports we have enjoyed most of the time since the second world war, we do think it is of the utmost importance, in the national interest, that we should do everything possible and everything reasonable both to promote our exports and to make sure,

by the laws of our country, that we are not providing any obstacles, even if only psychological obstacles, that can easily be removed.
When I made that statement I was authorized to speak, and was speaking, on behalf of my friends here in the house. That was the position, after very careful consideration of this very ticklish and difficult problem, that the Liberal party had decided to take on the matter. We had decided to take the view that even though there might be some slight risk -and we recognize there might be some risk -that such combinations for the purpose of promoting Canadian exports might become a cloak or might have effects in the domestic market which would by themselves be undesirable, for the greater good of the country and indeed the greater good of a majority of consumers, in view of the tremendous extent to which the income of the Canadian people, particularly of the people in certain provinces, is dependent upon our income from exports, that balancing the two, one against the other, it was in the national interest to move such an amendment.
Now, sir, I am glad to say that the arguments we put forward there and, perhaps more than the arguments, the knowledge that the Liberal opposition had taken this up officially as its policy, caused the government to change its mind. Let no one be under any illusion about this matter. The amendment we are now considering, for which we intend to vote and which I admitted quite frankly yesterday is better drafted than mine was, would not have been offered at all if it had not been for the stand I was asked to take in the banking and commerce committee on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and our party on the last day the committee sat on this bill.
In view of some of the things that were said yesterday, and in view of the obvious efforts of certain members opposite to get on this band wagon and try to make it appear that in some way this was their doing, I think the record ought to be set straight.


Mr. Fulton:: The hon. member has made what he alleges to be a statement of fact, and I wish to say at once and immediately following what he has said that his statement of fact is not correct. It is not the case that this amendment would not have been offered had it not been for the motion made in the committee by the Liberal opposition. It is true that I had indicated in the banking and commerce committee throughout that I was concerned as to the appropriateness of offering an amendment while a case was still under discussion before the commission and up to the time I had last previously spoken in the
Combines Investigation Act banking and commerce committee I had not been able to see my way around the difficulties.
But I had indicated clearly that we were considering the matter. I was considering the matter. I had discussions with a number of our own members, and I told them that the government and the minister were prepared at any time they could come to the conclusion that an amendment could be drafted to submit one to the house. I repeated that on the day the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate has referred to, Monday, July 18. It was not by any means simply because he had presented an amendment that we came to the conclusion that an amendment could be drafted and that we were justified in drafting and submitting an amendment at this time.
My hon. friend probably will not accept my assurance on this point. No more do I accept his statement or interpretation of why this amendment is now before the house. But hon. members on this side, with whom I had discussions both before and after he offered his amendment, will know perfectly well the truth of what I say, and they will know that it is a gross exaggeration, and immodest exaggeration for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to say it is simply because he moved this amendment that the house now has one before it from the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister, who now so passionately claims the parentage of the idea of this amendment, why, having regard to the months, indeed, the year or so when they were drafting their amendments, this idea did not appear in the bill when it was submitted to the house after all the consideration that was given to the matter by them?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This and all sorts of other ideas occurred to us.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You did not put it in the bill.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, from the activities of both the Liberals and the Conservatives. I know they are very excellent band wagon climbers, and therefore it is doubtful whether the accusation of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate should be treated too seriously. However, I think he did place some of the facts before the banking and commerce committee in a little different light. Trade is an extremely important matter because we depend so much upon it; but because we have been in so much difficulty since approximately the middle of 1957 in our trading relationships with other countries I hope the Conservative government and its supporters will not think that the change now being made in this legislation is a cure-all for our trade problems. I trust they will not
7028	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act be content to rest upon the false base that this amendment will assist to any measurable extent in increasing our trade with other nations. It only needs a cursory glance at the provision to see that it cannot be considered a cure-all for our trading problems, and that more aggressive measures must be taken by government departments, notably the Department of Trade and Commerce, to increase our exports to other countries.
Our objections to this amendment have been placed on the record clearly and I do not think there is any point in going over them again. I am only making these remarks because the feeling might develop that we have done something which will cure our trading problems or as a result of which they will solve themselves. We need a much more aggressive attitude toward trade. There are other problems and difficulties which have not been thought of or have been glossed over. We are encountering difficulties because of the activities of other nations, and those interested in export trade have used these difficulties as a basis for arguing that they should be exempted from the application of the Combines Investigation Act so far as their export activities are concerned.
A reading of the briefs presented by organizations which appeared before the banking and commerce committee and advocated that their export activities should be exempted from the provisions of the act indicates that they used arguments which were not valid. Perhaps they are most succinctly put by Mr. Nicholson, president of the council of forest industries of British Columbia, who appeared before the committee on June 22 along with representatives from the fisheries council of Canada and the Canadian metal mining association, to which reference has been made.
As found on pages 292 and 293 of the proceedings of the committee Mr. Nicholson put forward what I think were false arguments to promote an exemption under the combines legislation. I should like to refer to them in order to indicate that we need to tackle our trade problems in other ways than by means of the Combines Investigation Act. Mr. Nicholson referred to the letter read by Mr. Hyland of the fisheries council which was written by the Japanese cartel on fish, and near the bottom of page 292 he said:
I was shocked at the letter as I am sure you were-the letter that Mr. Hyland read here today which was written by the Japanese fishing cartel and written approximately eleven months ago. I am sure the words burn themselves in your mind just as in mine-"We have not yet fixed our final price for the sale of our salmon in the world market: we give you a tentative price and as soon as the Canadians and Americans have fixed their price we will give you ours." How in the world


are you going to fight in world markets where 50 per cent of the products of the forests of British Columbia are being exported and one third of the income coming into this country from the sale of our exportable commodities coming in from the sale of Canada's forest products, if we cannot meet the competition coming in from foreign countries?
Then my colleague the hon. member for Port Arthur asked a question:


Mr. Fisher:: Could the witness give us the parallels in the timber industry to the Japanese salmon industry? I do not think that is contained in the brief.


Mr. Nicholson:: I cannot give it to you for Japan, but I can give it to you for Russia. Prior to the war, and in fact up until 1954, Canada was Britain's leading supplier of softwood products-lumber, shingles and material of that kind. That is, as late as 1954 it was the leading supplier. By 1957, Canada's share of the United Kingdom imports had dropped to 14.7 per cent and Canada's position was that of fourth place supplier of products to the building industry in Britain. We had been replaced successfully by Sweden, Finland and Russia. During this period when Canadian sales were dropping off the Soviet of Russia had increased her sales from one tenth to one fifth of the total of United Kingdom's softwood importation. In the case of the Swedish and Finnish importers they were trading at a profit.
Notice the distinction there, and it is developed later on, that the Swedish and Finnish exporters were operating at a profit. The implication is that the Russian exporters were not operating at a profit, and this is developed later on. I continue the quotation:
Their objective was to make a profit, but their operating costs were lower because wages were lower. That was not so in the case of Russia, when they came in and took that market. I am reliably informed by an official of the Department of Trade and Commerce-this can be checked by reference to the minister or other officials of that department-that the Russian technique in invading the British market is that they will come in with a particular type of lumber which is in demand, and even though the lumber may be needed at home in Russia, they will quote to supply the whole demand at a price that is better than the Canadian price for a particular kind of lumber.
I imagine when he uses the word "better" he means lower.
It is even better than the Swedish and Finnish prices in some cases. Then if you repeat the order they will give you a further reduction. That is not done by any cartel. That is done by a government trade agency. Does that answer your question?
He went on then to deal with another matter. I should like to point out that our problems and difficulties in the export markets could not be even partially solved by the amendment before us now to exempt export activities from prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act. 1 refer particularly to our difficulties in so far as the Soviet union is concerned. Mr. Nicholson has pointed out here the manner in which the Soviet undertook to export lumber to Great Britain,

thus cutting into the amount of lumber that had been exported from Canada prior to 1954. I have not been in Russian nor have I worked in industry there, so I have no personal knowledge of these facts, but it is generally understood that Russian exports are controlled by a state organization. They have no worry about profits; they have no worry about costs of production; they have no balance sheets which have to be totalled up. The cost of production can be absorbed by society as a whole. The selling price in the world market means, in fact, relatively little.
Canada cannot possibly compete with the Soviet union in world markets because of the system under which the Soviet operates. When it comes to Sweden and Finland undercutting us because of wages, that is another matter. The natural implication of Mr. Nicholson's remarks is that if wages are the only factor, then one solution perhaps would be to reduce wages here to a point where they were comparable with wages in other countries so that we would be able to compete on price. Alternatively we could increase our productivity to the point where we were producing units of wood or whatever it was, say 1,000 board feet of lumber or squares of shingles, at lower per unit costs and then we would be in the position where we could compete. None of these things can be accomplished by an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act.
If it is desired to tackle this question through the Combines Investigation Act, then this amendment fails to meet the problem because it refers only to those exemptions connected with price conspiracy under section 32, which covers agreements between so-called competing corporations. There is no reference whatever in the minister's amendment to the activities of monopolies in the export market. It is true that a monopoly, because there is only one corporation, would have difficulty in conspiring with itself to set prices. It is an automatic action that a monopoly takes to meet these conditions. However, a monopoly does operate in the export markets, and that fact is not dealt with in this amendment.
Then we have to consider the problem of the merger of two companies in the export field. Suppose there were two competing firms, Anglo Canadian Fish Company and B. C. Packers or any other two fish companies or two lumber companies, which entered into a conspiracy in relation to the export of articles, and that conspiracy had no deleterious effects on the domestic market. For the sake of argument let us say that the conspiracy with regard to the export market was protected by the proposed amendment
Combines Investigation Act to add subsections 4 and 5. These two companies merge, and they are still engaged in export trade. There is then no conspiracy, because the companies have merged and there is now a monopoly or price leadership situation. What is the position of these companies in so far as the Combines Investigation Act is concerned?
As I understood the amendment originally proposed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in the banking and commerce committee, it dealt with mergers and monopolies as well as price conspiracies. It appeared to cover the whole range of illicit corporate activities with which this Combines Investigation Act seeks to deal, apart from the resale price maintenance and price discrimination provisions. These are matters which I think should be dealt with and answered.
There was one other matter which I raised and upon which I was not satisfied with the answer given to me by the minister last evening. I think perhaps the point I made is still valid and I should like to reiterate it. In paragraph (c) of the proposed subsection 5 which is before us it is stated:
(e) has restricted or is likely to restrict any person from entering into the business of exporting articles from Canada;
My contention was that there could be some conflict between that provision and the provision in subsection 3 of section 32, which reads in part as follows:
-has restricted or is likely to restrict any person from entering into or expanding a business in a trade or industry.
It was my thought that the minister should have included these words "or expanding a" also in (c). The minister maintains that these things are dealt with in other paragraphs. He mentioned that paragraph (a) contains protection in this regard when it talks of reduction or limitation of the volume of exports of an article. I believe he also made reference to paragraph (b) in which the language used is:
-has restrained or injured or is likely to restrain or injure the export business-
It could be interpreted to mean that if it prevented the expansion of business, therefore it meant to restrain or injure the export business of any domestic competitor who is not a party to the conspiracy, but I think for soundness and for sense my suggestion should be followed. There is a connection between the activities of corporations which conspire to set prices, to limit production, to limit supply or to do any of the other things prohibited in subsection 1. There is a connection as to whether these activities are in the export field or whether they are solely in the domestic field or whether they are
7030	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act all one or a bit of each. There is a close connection. It is very easy for the activities in the export field to spill over into the domestic field and to injure trade or commerce in Canada internally as a result of their extraterritorial designs and activities.
I think it would be best to place these words "or expanding a" in the subsection so that it reads substantially the same as subsection 3. It is dealing with the same thing. The minister started off in subsection 4 by relating it to a paragraph in subsection 1 and saying that in any prosecution under the subsection a corporation may be convicted if certain things take place. This is the same argument or the same thought that is expressed in subsection 2 where it refers to a prosecution under subsection 1. They are relating to subsection 1 in each case. Subsection 3 indirectly relates to subsection 1 because it talks about entering into or expanding a business. I think these things all have a connection with the basic prohibition against conspiracy to injure trade, fix prices and so on.
Accordingly in this regard, Mr. Chairman, I think I should formally place this matter before the committee by moving:
That the amendment be amended by deleting in line 2 of paragraph (c) the word "the" between the words "into" and "business" and substituting therefor the words "or expanding a".
In my view this amendment would bring the provisions or the words in line with those in subsection 3. I do not think it would have as great a tendency to leave the court in the position of wondering whether we meant something different, as to the activities of a conspiracy and their effect on the export market, from what we meant when we were talking about a conspiracy to exchange statistics internally and its effect upon the domestic market.
If it is the intention of the minister that he means something different, then that is another case entirely, but it appears to me that we are getting at the same thing. It seems to me that the minister wants to ensure that if there is a conspiracy on the export market, this should not have any detrimental effect internally, within the nation. Such being the case I think this suggestion should be adopted, for the sake of consistency and in order to make it easier for the courts, if a case such as this gets into the courts, to determine just what parliament was getting at when it drafted these particular words.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This matter was discussed last night and I explained that we had thought about this problem. It is not as though the amendment was drafted without a good deal of care and consideration. We came to the


conclusion that the problem of preventing somebody from expanding in an export industry is covered by a combination of subparagraph (a) and subparagraph (b) of this proposed subsection 5. Surely if the arrangement would prevent the expansion of some business in the export field it is covered by (a), because the arrangement is likely to result in limitation of the volume of exports of an article; and if it was not covered by that provision, the arrangement would certainly have the effect of restraining or injuring or being likely to restrain or injure the export business of a domestic competitor under (b). Hence in either one or both of those subsections the problem has been covered.
As I said last night, what my hon. friend seeks to do, whether or not there is any necessity or any logic for it, is to force words which are applicable to one situation into a section or subsection applicable to another situation. Following that course would result in the complete distortion, twisting and straining of words, or else a framing of amendments beyond their natural and proper meanings or their logical and proper compass.
I therefore oppose the amendment, not because I say the objective sought to be achieved is undesirable, but because the objective is already achieved. It has been carefully considered as a matter of drafting, and I submit that the hon. member for Skeena does not base it upon any sound proposition. He would be sound if he could show that it was not covered, but he cannot do that. He is simply basing it on the proposition that exactly the same words should be used in all parts of the bill. That is a proposition with which I cannot agree.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Frank Howard: I think we can show that it is not covered. As I followed the minister's argument, what he says is that expanding a business, for argument's sake, is dealt with in subsection (a) and that if there is a limitation on the volume of exports as a result of this conspiracy, this means that someone has been prevented from expanding.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; I put it in exactly the reverse way. If somebody is prevented from expanding, then there is certainly limitation of the volume of exports.


Frank Howard: If someone is prevented from expanding then there is a limitation of volume, the minister says.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Frank Howard: That is not necessarily the case. The limitation of the volume or the amount of the volume is controlled by factors outside Canada. If, for argument's sake, in the fishing industry they are not able to sell the whole pack because of other factors over which we have no control, factors in other countries and so on, this is a limitation of volume and it could be agreed that this conspiracy has to a degree resulted in that situation. They could argue the other way very easily, and I think with justification; that it was not their conspiracy which resulted in limitation, that it was factors outside the country which resulted in limitation and that therefore they should not be charged.
That is one of the circumstances with respect to so-called competing companies which engage in a conspiracy in the export market, the business structure of one within Canada increasing and the volume of production expanding, and where the other one's volume of production decreases because of factors not related to the conspiracy. Due to, say, a change in ownership or better business management, company A's business expands, company B's business declines, yet the volume of exports of company A remains the same because of factors outside the company. Now, what if this conspiracy prevented the expansion of one company while at the same time another company's business declined?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then you come to (b).


Frank Howard: That is one instance which I think might occur and is an argument for putting "expansion of business" in here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Under the circumstances the hon. member has mentioned it would be covered by (b).


Frank Howard: I think not, because (b), as I read it, only makes reference to restraining or injuring the export business of a domestic competitor who is not party to a conspiracy. I am talking about people who are party to a conspiracy if an expansion and decline of business take place within the conspiracy. Subparagraph (b) reads:
-has restrained or injured or is likely to restrain or injure the export business of any domestic competitor who is not a party to the conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement;
So with regard to the case I dealt with which might arise, the minister says it could be dealt with under (a), or if not that it could be dealt with under (b). I submit that is not correct because (b) only deals with people outside the conspiracy.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But if it is not one of them which is hurt, if it is not a member of the conspiracy whose volume is reduced, obviously
Combines Investigation Act the conspiracy has resulted or is likely to result in a limitation of the volume of exports. So either way it is demonstrable that the situation is covered.


Frank Howard: The limitation could result in the volume of exports of an individual company being limited or the total volume of exports from the industry being limited. Subparagraph (a) does not talk about either one or the other; it merely talks about the limitation of the volume of exports of an article, and I submit it is the total exports which we are talking about in (a). If it is to be changed to make it clear whether it is talking of the volume of exports of an individual company or something else, then that is fine. But it talks of the volume of exports of an article, which is the total of the exports and which the minister said earlier is what we are concerned with. I was asking whether or not the word "volume" should be changed to "quantity and quality", but the minister said no, because in this context we are talking of the total volume and not the quantity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not feel that the hon. member has made any case at all for the amendment, and I do not think I would be able to support it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think I can add anything, Mr. Chairman. It is obvious that we are just in disagreement.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived: yeas, 5; nays, 52.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.


Frank Howard: May I raise a point of order at this stage. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you would make a ruling or perhaps acquaint me with rulings which have been made in the past as to the position of a member who comes into the chamber after a vote has been called and is in progress. Does he have the right to vote?


Jacques Flynn: I think the rules are clear that when a vote is being taken, no one can enter the house or walk into the chamber.


Frank Howard: I do not wish to make an issue of it in this particular case, but I did notice two members on the opposite side of the house who entered the chamber while we in the C.C.F. group were standing and being counted and the vote was in progress. They subsequently stood and voted in the negative on the amendment to the amendment. As I say, I do not wish to make an issue of it at this stage or mention the hon. members by name, but I think we should keep that in mind for future activities.
7032	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act


Mr. Palleli:: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, since the hon. member has raised it, it might be of interest to determine just what is the chamber, and whether an hon. member standing behind the curtain at the time the vote is called and who then steps in from behind the curtain is allowed to vote.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is not where one comes
from; it is what one does.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point which has been raised, I know this matter has been considered before and that when a vote is called hon. members must be sitting in their seats if they are to be allowed to vote. It has never been recognized that a member could come in once the counting started and take his seat and then stand up to vote.


Jacques Flynn: For the benefit of the record perhaps I could quote here paragraph (2) of rule 12:
When Mr. Speaker-
And I understand that it applies to the committee as well.
-is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the house, or make any noise or disturbance.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On the point of order, in
committee generally quite a number of hon. members do not sit in their own places, and it seems to me that what Mr. Chairman has read applies more to votes in the house when Mr. Speaker is in the chair rather than in committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It does not say they must be in their own seats; it simply says they shall not enter, walk out of or across the house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Then it would interest me
to know whether a vote in committee is proper if hon. members are not in their proper seats.


Jacques Flynn: When we are in committee I think hon. members must be sitting in seats. Standing order 59 (1) reads:
The standing orders of the house shall be observed in the committees of the whole house so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
I take it that it has been recognized that no hon. member, when Mr. Speaker is in the chair, can be recognized unless he is sitting in his place; but I think when a vote is taken in committee it is not necessary for an hon. member to be sitting in his own seat.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not in his own seat, but in a seat.


Jacques Flynn: Yes, in a seat.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I thought the hon. member for Peel raised a point of order in which he asked for a ruling on whether the area behind the curtains is in the chamber.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a respectful suggestion, the question of whether the area outside the curtains and inside the inner walls is in the chamber is a rather complicated matter not free from uncertainty, and I doubt if it is quite fair to ask the chairman of this committee to make a snap ruling on this question. I think it is one you would want to consider very carefully before making a ruling.


Jacques Flynn: I do not think I have to rule on that but only on the application of standing order 12.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if this interesting point has been sufficiently canvassed I should like to come back to the amendment before the committee solely for the purpose of replying out of the mouth of the Minister of Justice to the Minister of Justice the last time he spoke. The Minister of Justice said it was not the amendment that I moved in the committee on the last day that was responsible for the amendment now before the committee. I am not going to argue in any other way except in the words of the Minister of Justice, which I am now going to put on Hansard to show that the Minister of Justice said that it was precisely that. Here are the hon. gentleman's words as found at page 751 of the committee proceedings of July 18. The minister said about my amendment:
So, for all these reasons

That refers to the reasons the minister had given up to that time:
-but mainly because I do not think this amendment, as worded, contains sufficient safeguards in the interest of the domestic market and of consumers in Canada, I suggest the amendment be not accepted.
I ask hon. members to note these words:
However, I am prepared to say that, welcoming as I do the indication from the official opposition that improvements could be made in the situation of Canadian industry, without weakening the effect and intent of the combines legislation-
Perhaps I should repeat those words:
-welcoming as I do the indication from the official opposition that improvements could be made in the situation of Canadian industry, without weakening the effect and intent of the combines legislation, I am prepared to consider this question of export trade further and to see whether between the time when this bill may be reported and the time it may come up for consideration in the house we, ourselves, can come up with an acceptable amendment to deal with the position of the export trade.

For the reasons I have given, I do not think this amendment, as presently drafted, meets the criteria which this committee, or any government concerned with the welfare of Canadian consumers, could adopt.
My suggestion is that the amendment be rejected, but that the principle be re-examined to see whether a proposal consistent with the interests of Canadian industry in the export field, and the overriding interest of consumers domestically, can be devised. And, if it can, the government would be happy to suggest such an amendment in the house.
I think we can just leave those words on the record, because they speak for themselves.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course, Mr. Chairman, those words are on the record; but it might interest the hon. member to know that before had moved his amendment I had had meetings, as we believe it proper to do although my hon. friends opposite seem to think it is improper, with hon. members supporting the government who were on the banking and commerce committee. I had already indicated to them that I was prepared to reconsider the matter, so of course I was glad to have that evidence of agreement on the part of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. But I assure him most sincerely that he is in error when he seeks to attribute to himself the sole credit for the amendment now before the committee.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate whether he believes the amendment about which he is so enthusiastic and for which he wants to claim a certain amount of paternity or maternity-I could not ascertain which-will be satisfactory as a part of the law for a long period of time, or does he see it only as a temporary means of assisting certain sectors of the export trade?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to try to answer that question briefly. I have other evidences of paternity, so I am not particularly interested in the paternity of legislation. Of course I do not object to the minister talking to his friends. I talk to my friends, and I think it is very proper that the minister should talk to his. However, I will still go on believing, despite what the minister said this afternoon, that what the hon. gentleman said that day in the committee is what he really meant. But that is another matter.
To try to answer the hon. member's question briefly, I think it was always intended that, except in so far as a combination had a detrimental effect on competition in Canada, this legislation should not apply to the export industry. In any case I always understood that was the intention, I always thought it was the intention, and I think it should be the intention. I also think that in a period when we do not enjoy a seller's market in the export trade the balance as between the
Combines Investigation Act promotion of exports and making absolutely sure that domestic consumers all the time get their supplies is very often on the side of maintaining our export markets and our income in order to buy goods at all.
Anybody who represents mainly fishermen and loggers, as I do, will appreciate what I mean. I am quite sure I said that yesterday and the minister said that too. I do not think either of us is absolutely sure that this amendment will work out entirely satisfactorily. I think it is a pretty good effort at drafting. It seems to me it represents pretty accurately the kind of thing that most of us in the banking and commerce committee and most of the witnesses who were concerned about this matter really wanted. It may be that some of those in the export business would not be as much concerned about consumers as we are, but I think it is a pretty good effort and a splendid tribute to the skill in draftsmanship of the officials who prepared this amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As far as I am concerned I hope it works out not to the disadvantage of consumers and I hope it does something to help our export industry. At the same time I thoroughly agree on one point with the hon. member for Skeena, with whom I do not always agree. If I thought this amendment was going to lull the government into feeling that it has now solved the export problem, I would have grave misgivings about it. I believe this government has a terrible problem which it is not facing up to in maintaining and expanding Canadian exports, but that is no reason for not supporting anything that I think may be of some little help in this regard, and that is what I think this may be.


Douglas Mason Fisher: To return to the general discussion, I was not able to be present yesterday when considerable time was spent on this subject. I wish to reiterate my support of the stand of the hon. member for Skeena. We are not going to support this amendment. I scrutinize the statement made yesterday by the minister when he introduced this. I am curious about some things he said, especially in relation to the question asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. At page 6971 the minister is reported to have said:
-in the light of the current position in international trade, the situation of Canadian industry is declining-
At page 6972 the minister is also reported as having said:
However concerned we may be about the welfare of our industry in the export field, it still remains the primary concern of all of us to protect the interests of the Canadian consumer at home.

Combines Investigation Act
I do not suggest there is any conflict, but as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate indicated some are not concerned enough about the trade position. We feel the only way we can keep a reliable economy alive is through promoting export trade. I come from an area that is even more dependent upon the export trade than the minister's area. I might add that probably my constituency puts more into the export trade in terms of returns to the country than the whole province of Newfoundland.
Therefore when I take a position with regard to this particular amendment I do so with some care because I know there are five pulp and paper mills, mostly in the export market, in my constituency alone, plus several substantial base metal mines. The reason I do not wholly agree with the amendment is that I think it only partly meets the problem. It seems to me it has relevance particularly to the British Columbia fishing and lumber industries. It seems to me that this amendment will be more useful perhaps just to the mines or to the tender susceptibilities of the British Columbia lumber industry than to the salmon packing industry. I am not sure about the effect it may have in so far as the base metal mining industry is concerned, which seems to me to be the other large group that had a representation to make when they appeared before the committee on this matter.
I am not an expert in the international trade field, but I look at the copper situation. I understand that the world price tends to be determined to quite an extent by what is in effect a cartel, in which Canadian copper producers play some part. I think everyone who has been following the crises in Chile and the labour troubles of the Congo, on account of nationalism, recognizes that this factor has been discussed a number of times: What is going to be the effect of the particular troubles there upon world copper prices? My understanding is that several large companies which have a certain kind of interlocking relationship do play a very important part in so far as the world price is concerned.
There is a parallel to the copper situation which is recognized, and that is the question of oil. I think it is recognized here that price determination is not a matter of national groups putting copper or oil on the international trade market. This is what the minister emphasized in his speech, and this would be one means of enabling Canadian industries to face what is in effect a national type of organization. He mentioned Russia, Japan and other types of cartels.
I should very much like to hear from the minister what effect this may have in giving encouragement to Canada to play a greater


part in these international oil and copper agreements which, at least from many points of view, are looked upon as not very bad. In other words, there are two kinds of cartels operating in the international field to where our products may be going. One is the national type, or it may now be the regional type as a result of the European common market, and there is also what you might say is the industrial products kind. It does seem to me that this amendment considered this particular possibility.
I do not think that the mining industry, from what I know of it, has ever been particularly stopped by this legislation. I should like to have more specific examples before I would like their position to be taken into consideration. I understand that up until recent years International Nickel to quite an extent, because of their overwhelming share of the market, did, I will not say set the price because the price has some relationship to demand, but they were in a very powerful position and we have heard arguments in the past that they controlled the market. Therefore it seems to me that this amendment is to a degree a sop, or a go-ahead, to two specific groups, namely the British Columbia lumber industry and the salmon industry.
I do not know much about the salmon industry, but I do know what the British Columbia lumber industry does to the lumber industry in eastern Canada and in northern Ontario in particular. Here again it is always a competitive swirl. What happens when the British Columbia lumber industry has difficulty in marketing its lumber or plywood in Britain? I think the minister is aware of it. Immediately they begin to dump some of their surplus on the eastern Canadian market; and because of its very volume and certain transportation rates they have, they are able to put our spruce producers or our plywood producers almost completely out of the market. Our people who produce lumber or pulpwood in northwestern Ontario are delighted when the British Columbia lumber people have an export market, because it means they are not ruining our people.
I make this point. There is a very close connection between the export market and the domestic market in terms of the way British Columbia dominates all the rest of the lumber industry in Canada once it finds its export market has shrunk. This underlines to me the very close connection between the export and the domestic markets and the correlation of price and volume to demand. Therefore it does not seem to me that this amendment is an adequate way to face up to the general problem.
I think we are going to move to the stage where we shall have to have, despite the

fact that the lumber industry particularly is against it, some kind of marketing arrangement, with government sponsorship and government participation, which will enable us to meet the challenge in more fields than just salmon or lumber. We have already a recognition of this in fields such as wheat, where there is no problem of the exporter being ruled as a cartel, a combine or a conspiracy because the sale of wheat is government sponsored.
I would be delighted if the minister would give some indication that in the very severe trade picture facing Canada, the government is giving some consideration to sponsorship or participation in a way which will allow us to gear for great expansion in our exports, and certainly to the effect that there would be no penalty for such a conspiracy. But until we know more of the relationship between the export position and the domestic position, it seems to me that this is an inadequate measure.
I do not think the minister would go ahead with this amendment unless he had looked at all the problematical circumstances with respect to our export trade. As I understand it, the largest single export is pulp and paper, or more specifically newsprint. What effect is this amendment going to have in the newsprint field? As I understand it, at the present time the price of newsprint is not a wide open matter. There is very little price fluctuation, and in so far as the United States market is concerned, while there is a certain amount of negotiation and a certain amount of spill of production at a lower price, in the main the price is one that I would not say is set by a conspiracy or coalition but is set by what might be called the big manufacturers in the field.
I remember there were charges several years ago when the head of Abitibi, I believe, D. W. Ambridge, announced an increase in the price of newsprint. There was a big holler from the Americans. I believe a United States senator said that here was an indication of the kind of conspiracy that went on in Canada to milk or bilk American buyers. There surely is quite a close relationship between the price set by the industry for newsprint that goes to the United States and the price that is paid within the domestic market.
I should like to know, for example, the price the Winnipeg Free Press pays for the paper it may buy from the mill at Pine Falls, and the price the mill at Pine Falls gets for the paper it ships to the midwestern United States. I do not believe anyone has ever made a great issue about it, but I think the export price determines the domestic
Combines Investigation Act price completely, and that the only difference is in the packing and transportation cost of moving a roll of newsprint from Pine Falls to Winnipeg compared with moving a roll to St. Louis, Missouri, let us say.
When the largest and most profitable of all our export industries is in a position where the relationship between the domestic price and the export price is almost identical, except for the difference in transportation costs, I wonder whether in effect we have not got in this industry just what this amendment sets out to clear. In that sense I intend to argue that the amendment is not necessary. I think it was partly the view of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that he had always thought this would hardly apply in the case of something that was a great earner for Canada. These points indicate to me that this is a much larger and more complicated problem than this amendment can deal with.
It was interesting to note that to an extent the minister agreed with this view. He talked in his speech about the economic problems involved and how complicated the whole matter was, and said that perhaps they should wait for a report from the restrictive trade practices commission. Before we even think about a report from the restrictive trade practices commission I think we should consider something much broader, the whole role of the Canadian government with respect to export trade.
We are avowedly socialists, I believe, and I would expect our point of view to be markedly different from the Liberal or Conservative position. The minister referred to the crisis in export trade and our declining position. I was pleased to hear him say this, because it seems to be in conflict with the somewhat rosy picture we occasionally get from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is my view that the situation is serious enough that as a nation we must have a much grander sweep in the export trade picture, and that this amendment is more or less a temporary provision that does not make enough sense for us to be able to support it.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, there is one point which I think should be made, and I should like to move an amendment with respect to it. I am still of the opinion that there should be a relationship between the activities of conspirators under this section and the results of their conspiracy in so far as the prohibitions in subsection 1 are concerned. I believe this point should be covered; therefore I move;
That the amendment be amended by deleting the word "or" at the end of paragraph (c). by

Supply-Northern Affairs
adding the word "or" at the end of paragraph (d) and by adding the following as paragraph (e):
"(e) contravenes subsection 1."
Subsection 5 would then read as follows:
Subsection 4 does not apply if the conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement.. .
(e) contravenes subsection 1.
That is in addition to paragraphs (a) (b) (c) and (d).


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I think the arguments I advanced yesterday against a similar amendment moved by the hon. member apply here. I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived: Yeas, 3; nays, 51.


Jacques Flynn: X declare the amendment to the amendment lost. Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall the new section 32 carry as amended? Carried. Shall the title carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, do we not have to carry clause 13 of the bill?


Jacques Flynn: Yes.
Clause 13 as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I intervene to suggest that, as legislation has been considered today and by arrangement we do not go past one o'clock on such days, the luncheon recess be observed today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say in reply to the house leader I do not intend to exercise my right to refuse unanimous consent, though I must also say I do not see any reason why we should waste the next hour.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We could have third reading by unanimous consent by one o'clock.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting of the house. We want to see the amendments.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES Northern administration branch-
282. Branch administration, $1,089,198.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock on Saturday the Prime Minister was speaking on the subject of Canadian participation in the oil and gas resources of northern Canada as well as the mining properties of the future in northern Canada. I should like to take this opportunity of repeating to the committee one remark made by the Prime Minister, which can be found on page 6874 of Hansard, in the right hand column. The quotation is as follows:
But what the minister has done in connection with oil has been to take one of the major steos ever taken in Canada to provide that this vast but exhaustible resource shall provide not only for economic expansion in our country, and ensure an exploitation of them which we can only consider in imagination, but at the same time maintain for Canadians their sovereignty over their country, because no nation worthy of the name can maintain its political sovereignty unless it has every regard for the maintenance of its economic sovereignty.
I read this statement by the Prime Minister to give me the opportunity of emphasizing again that since this government took office, not only have we moved to allow insurance companies to mutualize themselves when they are threatened by an invasion of foreign investment, but we have also passed the national energy act which ensures that before any monopoly or quasi-monopoly is given to any pipe line company, that company will have to satisfy the national energy board that full opportunity has been given for Canadian participation in the ownership of the shares of that company.
The other day I read to the committee the United States regulations, which indicate how that country tries to ensure that no alien shall have control over the resources on the public lands of their country. Their legislation goes back to 1930. As the Prime Minister pointed out, this great concern of the people of the United States over outside investment coming into their country and taking over their natural resources caused them to put these regulations in their statutes 30 years ago, and we only moved in that direction in Canada in 1959.
These regulations in the United States are identical to the regulations in Canada. The thing to remember is that all they had to worry about at any time in their history was the fact that about 15 per cent of the investment in their resources was foreign investment, while the foreign investment rate in Canada is much higher. This has caused considerable concern and anxiety among Canadians. As a result, we believe that we have

7037 moved in a major way to give Canadians the chance to participate in the ownership of the resources of this country. We believe, furthermore, that this step was long overdue in this country.
At this time I should like to point out that the regulations in connection with oil, gas and mining only become effective at the time the company goes to ownership. It does not affect them during the exploration period. We simply make certain that every company taking out an exploration lease knows that before it goes to ownership there will have to be an opportunity for participation by Canadians. I should like now to read another of the mining regulations of our country dealing with the processing of these resources. This is regulation 101, and reads:
All grants and leases issued under the provisions of these regulations are subject to the provision that all ores or minerals mined from locations described in such grants or leases shall be treated and refined within Canada so as to yield refined metal or other product, suitable for direct use in the arts without further treatment: in default whereof the grant or lease issued for such lands shall be and become null and void:	and the
said lands shall forthwith revert to and become revested in the crown freed and discharged of any interest or claim of any person or persons whomsoever and shall be open to disposal in such manner as the chief may decide:	iron ores
produced in excess of smelter requirements from locations situated on any of the islands of Hudson bay in the Northwest Territories may, however, be exported for treatment.
I have read this regulation 101 into the record in order to make it absolutely clear that the thinking does not confine itself just to ownership of the mine taking the resources out of the ground. I think it also indicates the government's thinking that there has to be some control over the use of those ores extracted from Canadian soil. Obviously it is to our advantage wherever possible to have these ores processed or refined to the maximum in Canada.
I point these things out in order to make absolutely clear which way the government is moving in regard to meeting the anxiety of the Canadian people over the fact that so much of their natural resources has gone into the hands of foreign investment. As the Prime Minister said on Saturday, we welcome foreign investment here, but we should like them to set up Canadian subsidiaries in which Canadians can invest and have ownership and control, and also we should like the Canadian subsidiaries to act with the national interests of the Canadian people in mind and not those of their parent corporations in whatever country they are situated.
This is a major step forward. I pointed out on Saturday that this is just a start. I have to say at this time that I think this brings into clear focus some of the differences that
Supply-Northern Affairs exist between the vision of development of Canada for Canadians by Canadians that this government has and the vision which was described on Saturday by one of the opposition members as the Liberal vision. In view of the fact that, in the case of oil and gas, between 80 per cent and 87 per cent of the reserves of Canada are now under foreign control and ownership, the question that we must ask ourselves is this. Where were these people with the vision of the Liberals these last 25 years? We have to ask ourselves, what did they do to reconcile the differences or clashes that occurred, as the Leader of the Opposition said1, between this question of Canadian control and obtaining international investment? These are the questions which I think we have the right to ask the opposition. The debate we had here on Saturday in my opinion was a good1 debate, because it brought out in an objective way, and in a way that has been fair I think on both sides, the clear issues which are before us on this subject.
I think it is right for me to say, at least it is an opinion of mine, that the people of Canada ruled on this matter in 1957 and 1958. They thought that the government which had been here for 22 years sitting idly by while these resources had gone into foreign hands did not deserve the confidence of the people of Canada, and they therefore put in power the government led by the present Prime Minister.
The Liberals say they have a vision. I say they have no vision, because if we allowed this type of thing to continue for which they stood, Canada would soon be in a position in which, no matter what governments did, her resources would be gone unless there was a willingness to go into the policy of repudiation and taking over of contracts just as other countries have done.
The previous government is on record as saying that nothing could be done; that it was not the place of the federal government to do anything; that these resources belonged to the provinces and nothing could be done by the federal government to be helpful. I say that we have done something, and we intend to go on giving a lead. We know that the resources in the provinces belong to the provinces, and there will be no interference on our part; but I also suspect that as the provincial governments read these regulations we have put into effect dealing with our resources in the north, they will be following suit; because if they do not follow suit the people of the provinces will force them to do so by changing governments. We want to give Canadians a real chance to participate in the ownership of their resources. We have taken the lead as a federal government in

Supply-Northern Affairs those areas over which we have jurisdiction, and we expect that the provinces will follow.
A second theme that arose during the debate on Saturday and on which I want to say a few words is this question which the Leader of the Opposition, with his fondness for parallel structure, put forward in this way. He said the Conservative vision was a mirage, that it was a series of declamations and not development. He said it was words, not action. I should like to join issue with the Leader of the Opposition on this point with a series of things that this government has done. But before I do that I should like to remind the committee of something that occurred in 1955 and 1956, namely the submissions of various groups to the Gordon commission which made a series of reports in 1955 and 1956. For example, I should like to start with a document that the Leader of the Opposition used, namely a brief presented to the Gordon commission by the commissioner of the Northwest Territories. The date of his submission was November 22, 1955.
I am going to read into the record the recommendations made by the commissioner of the Northwest Territories; then I shall have something to say about what was done by the previous administration and what was done about these recommendations by the present administration. I am quoting from page 23. The heading of the section is "Ways and Means of Encouraging Economic Development". I will start at paragraph 3 on this page:
Before discussing how the costs of transportation can be brought down, the first question to be decided is whether it is desirable, at this stage of Canada's economic development, to introduce any special measures to stimulate economic development in the north. It could be argued that the development of the mineral resources of the country should be determined entirely by the current supply and demand position of the resources in question.
I am interrupting myself here in order to say that I have heard this argument presented in this House of Commons on several occasions.
If a zinc-lead deposit is found in a region which is so remote that it does not pay the mining company or the railroad company to build a railroad to the deposits, the normal contention would be that the deposits should be allowed to stay in the ground until other mines are used up and it becomes profitable to build a railroad. The same line of reasoning could be applied to the economic development of the north generally.
This line of argument might have considerable validity but for three facts. The first is that it is exploration as well as production which requires the stimulus of adequate transportation facilities. The second is that there is often a gap of between five and ten years between the time when a promising mineral deposit is discovered and when a mine can be brought fully into production-and in the north it is usually closer to ten years than five. This means that it is desirable to stimulate exploration approximately ten years


ahead of the time when it is believed that the production from a region will be required. If nothing is done until the demand exceeds the known supplies, then additional supplies in the remote area will not have been discovered and will not be ready to come into production. Consequently, for a period of five or ten years prices of certain vital raw materials will be substantially higher than would have been necessary if a more far-sighted policy had been adopted.
Then it goes on to give the reasons, that is to say the needs of the people who live in the north. Then this brief to the royal commission recommended three things that should be done in opening up the north. The first of these was a railroad to Great Slave lake. The second was development roads, not roads to known developments but roads to open up virgin resources in new areas. The third was air routes to the Arctic.
Mr. Chairman, I mention these three practical suggestions put forward by the commissioner of the Northwest Territories as evidence that there was knowledge in the ranks of officials of the federal government of what had to be done. But what was the attitude of the government in power? This report was never submitted to cabinet. There was no action taken on these recommendations made by this commissioner. It was left to the new government coming to power in 1957 to pick up this report ignored by the previous administration and take the necessary steps.
I would like to make it abundantly clear that when we speak of these development roads and I hear members of the official opposition standing up and saying that this submission was given to the Gordon commission when they were in power and that all these are their ideas, nothing could be further from the truth. Because a year after this submission was being transmitted to the Gordon commission we had a minister of the crown in that government, the former minister of northern affairs and national resources, speaking in Toronto at the meeting of the Empire club, on December 13, 1956.
I will not go through the whole 18 pages of his speech, but I would just read his conclusions. In his speech he described the list of things which the federal government was doing by itself and the list of things the federal government was doing in co-operation with the provinces. Then he pointed out that these resources belong to the provinces and that there is not very much the federal government can do. Then this is what he said about our national development plan, and I quote now from his speech:
To go beyond that, however, to try to impose an over-all blueprint, a national policy as some understand it, for resource management, to do that is to depart from the facts of our national situation. I have suggested already why such a master plan must fail in its purpose. In a country

as vast as Canada with widely different conditions and with different problems in different areas, there cannot be a single and unified policy for the management of resources.
Mr. Chairman, I have put this on the record before. Mr. Lesage's attitude was that you could not call a conservation conference, that the difficulties were so great and the regional problems so intricate that it would be impossible to get anything done. Therefore the government of that day continued a characteristic which had become part and parcel of them in the last ten years of their office. They were passive. They did nothing. They let these problems mount up and mount up and mount up and did nothing.
Mr. Chairman, that is why I used the expression in my opening remarks that this government differed from the previous administration; that we were a dynamic government; that we believed that private enterprise should develop our resources. We believed there were certain things which governments could do which would encourage private enterprise to go into the remote areas of our country and develop these resources for Canadians and by Canadians.
The Leader of the Opposition was somewhat concerned when I mentioned this and saw fit to get up and say that his party were dynamic. He quoted a speech of his in 1953 which listed all those things which should be done. All I point out is that if you want to say that some believe in declamations and not developments, there was that government. They made the declamation in 1953. There were officials of the government who made the representations to the Gordon commission, but the government did not take those recommendations seriously and did nothing about them.
I would like to point out by contrast just what this government did. Communications have been mentioned; I and other hon. members, including the hon. member for Mackenzie River, have said that communications in the north are vital. At the present time there is telephone communication-in fact at this very moment-between Ottawa and Frobisher bay; it went into effect last December. At the present time there are communication lines being built through Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, right through to Alaska. At the present time there are communication lines being built leading up to Yellowknife; I think the target date for completion of the last two I have mentioned is next year. We have demonstrated, not by speeches made in 1953-


Lionel Chevrier: What about the Pine Pass railway?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will come to that.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Lionel Chevrier: You had better hurry up.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have lots of time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Repetition is reputation.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In spite of the fine speeches of the Leader of the Opposition in 1953, we have the speech of the responsible minister saying that nothing should be done.
Let me now pass on to the next thing we have done. It was clearly evident that there should be more knowledge of the north, one of the great valuable areas of the world lying unpopulated and uncontrolled. Outside of a few meteorologists, a few mounted policemen, a few Eskimos and a few odds and ends of government personnel from various sources, there was no one in these Arctic islands. We set up a polar continental shelf study under the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, and now leading scientists of the government service are finding out these necessary things about our Arctic islands; they are providing the knowledge about and sovereignty over our country and helping private enterprise industries to go up there and find resources.
As to oceanography, there is an institute of oceanography being set up now in Halifax. Why was this not done years ago? To move into our northern islands in order to fully develop our shores we have to know about ocean currents. The Russians are leading the world in this work at the present time, and we are finally doing the things which should have been done a generation ago.
Then last year we spoke a little bit on the estimates about airfields. I would like to read a list of airfields built by this present government to help mining operations in the north. There is the airfield at Yellowknife mines; the airfield to be built at Rayrock mines in the Northwest Territories. There is the airfield we are still building for Taur-canis Mines Limited; and now there is a proposal before the government to build an airfield for Canada Tungsten Limited at Flat lake, Northwest Territories. I mention these things in communications and Arctic research to show we are moving forward.
With regard to the depths of our waters off our coasts, I asked the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys when we first came into office how long it would take, at the rate we were going, to get information about the depths of our channels and harbours in these northern areas and on our coasts, and the answer was 250 years. I maintain that a government that can move at that pace is not dynamic; it is as passive as a piece of jelly. It just jiggles and does not go any place.

Supply-Northern Affairs
I would like at this time to list the development roads we have built under the recommendation of this submission to the royal commission. There are the Yukon, Pelly and Stewart rivers which now have bridges across them which were not there two years ago. This makes it possible to double and triple the tonnage coming out of the mines in question there. We have rebuilt the Canol road up to the Ross river, and one of the most interesting discoveries in Canada is taking place there, the discovery of molybdenum which is used in hardening steel. Then there is the road from Watson Lake to Carmacks; construction was started this year. There is the road from Eagle plain which I have already described, and that was a road so vital to the oil industry that when we did not get through the pass which we had to overcome in the first 50 miles last year, the oil company was not even willing to wait until this year to do its exploration and built a temporary road 300 miles round the mountains so they could do their exploration last year.
Mr. Chairman, I mention these things in passing. I did not mention the road around Slave lake because it is under survey this year. I mentioned that our interest had been switched to the Fort Simpson-Laird-Fort Nelson road. I just list these things. We did not talk about what the royal commission recommended, nor did we make declamations about it. We took action, and that illustrates the difference between the passivity of the previous administration and the dynamic activity of the present government.
We know there is much to be done. We see these great sources of hydro power on the Yukon river. We see them in the east on the Hamilton river in Labrador. We know that before this country can move forward to the point where cheap processing of our goods is possible, we have to be able to harness and move tremendous reserves of energy from surplus to deficit areas.
The Prime Minister put this on record last September in the town of Kitimat, British Columbia. He indicated that what this country needs is a national power policy. This national power policy has as its heart and centre a grid tying together these great reserves of power in the remote areas in our north into which large quantities of surplus energy in electrical form can be poured at any time and taken off at any point.
This government did not just talk about this matter. It set up a special research group on long range transmission. I call as witness
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1
to this action the premier of British Columbia. Mr. Bennett knows about this and approves. He is quite interested in the Peace river and in having the northern part of his province hooked into this national grid. I call as witness the premier of Newfoundland. He has been made aware of our thinking in this regard and has spoken of it highly. In fact I think he got carried away with enthusiasm one night at a service club dinner and divulged what was going on with respect to the possibility of some people from Russia coming in. I call as witness, too, the previous administration of the province of Quebec, as well as a representative of Ontario hydro, Mr. Hearn, the president, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Cass-Beggs of the Saskatchewan power commission.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: We did on Saturday and
we do again now, so carry on.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I thank the committee, Mr. Chairman. I mention this because it is important. The plan we have of national development does not just concern itself with "ad hoc-ery", to use a term taken from Mr. Lesage's speech, "a little bit here and a little bit there". We had to cut out the undergrowth and pick up a series of projects in various parts of the country to enable what had to be done to be carried on.


Lionel Chevrier: Is this "in-mockery"?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I suggest too, Mr. Chairman, that a country with the great resources we have of butane, propane and other L.P.G. fuels which are going to waste in many parts of the country must bring these into deficit areas. If this were done our whole country would be better off.
The hon. member for Laurier asked about the Pine Point railway. I think it is time I put before the committee some of the facts about this matter. The Pine Point railway was recommended in the submission of the commissioner of the Northwest Territories in 1955, and the previous government did nothing about it. In 1958 there was mention of it in the speech from the throne. We were willing as a government to go ahead and build that railway, because we knew first of all from the over-all position of the lead and zinc supplies of the world that there was

need to get moving fast in the production of more lead and zinc in Canada. At that time we knew there was a surplus, but we also knew it would take several years to bring this mine into operation.
We put ourselves on record as being willing to build this railway. However, the local people in Alberta, by representations to the government and by statements in the press, indicated that there was a difference of opinion as to where this railway should be built. We had cognizance of the fact that in a democracy where there are differences of opinion, those differences should be brought before a body who could reach some determination. The governments of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta and the people of those provinces as well as various companies made representations on the subject. The report is now before the government.
I am not going to make any comments on the report itself with but two exceptions. The decision of the members of the commission is clear to all those who have read the report. I think certain facts should be brought forward. In the first place this railway is estimated to cost over $65 million. The government will have to put up not $65 million or $68 million-whatever it comes to, we do not know-but the traditional subsidy to development railways which is $25,000 per mile, or roughly $10 million, and the railway companies will have to put up the balance. That is one fact.
The second thing on which I should like to comment is this. The suggestion was made in the report of the royal commission that it might be possible to take this tonnage out by road from the Pine Point mine. Theoretically that is possible, but I want to warn hon. members of the committee that the report ignores the question of who is going to build and who is going to pay for the road to bring out this 200,000 tons of ore a year. In the opinion of my engineering officials the capital cost of building a gravel road would be in the neighbourhood of $39 million, and the capital cost of a paved road would be $53 million. The cost of the operation and paying capital expenditures indicates that once you reach the figure of approximately 95,000 tons per year it would be cheaper to build the railroad than to construct a road. If the road were paved and the cost were higher it would take a higher tonnage before it was balanced off; or in plain terms, the cost of building and maintaining a road for a tonnage greater than roughly 100,000 tons a year is such that it would be better in the long run to build a railway.
Supply-Northern Affairs
I mention that because with these facts in mind, in view of the government's willingness to go ahead with this railroad, it is clearly evident where the government stands on what it wants to do. I have not had much help from the commission in deciding on the route.
Let me deal with another point under this heading. I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition if we considered markets when we went into these development projects. The implication was that if you did not consider the marketing possibilities there was no use opening up the mine. It is no longer a secret that if this mine is not in production by 1963 or 1964, lead and zinc will have to be imported into Canada to keep the smelters going at Trail. Those things were in the mind of my department when we made the proposition to the government that this railroad should be built. It is true that world lead and zinc prices had gone down at that time. It is true that there was an embargo or quota system against lead and zinc going into the United States. It is also true, however, that we proceeded in spite of these things, because we believed that the United States had no right to look upon us as an extension of their economy.
As minister of Canadian resources it was my responsibility and duty to recommend those things that would keep Canada in a position wherein our great reserves of lead and zinc in this country could be utilized and we would not be forced into the position of having to import. The extent of the importation can be realized by the following figures which I wish to place on the record concerning average foreign purchases.


Lionel Chevrier: Before the minister proceeds perhaps he will permit me to ask a question. If parliament were to approve the building of the Pine Point railway at its 1961 session how long, according to the information available to the minister, would it take to build the railway and have it ready for operation?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My estimate on the basis of the information given me is about four years.


Lionel Chevrier: In that case it would not estop the importation of lead and zinc from other countries?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is quite true, Mr. Chairman. What I am trying to do is build up the evidence that assists people to realize the importance of going ahead with this railway.


Edwin William Brunsden: May I ask the minister a question? Is there any disposition, as seen

Supply-Northern Affairs by the minister, on the part of the Alberta government to participate in the capital cost of the railway?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The MacGregor royal commission report on northern Alberta recommended that the government of Alberta participate in the cost of the bridge going across the Peace river, but I have not had any communication from the Alberta government showing its willingness to participate.
May I now give the figures to which I referred. It is estimated that the cost of imports at the Trail plant would be $14 million; it is estimated that in addition we would lose exports valued at $7 million a year, or there would be a total change in our foreign exchange balance of $21 million a year, owing to this railway not being built.
I have put the facts before the committee, Mr. Chairman, with the idea of giving some basis for an objective conclusion on the part of the people of Canada in making up their minds about what should be done with respect to the Pine Point railway.
I have transgressed on the time of the committee, Mr. Chairman, so I am going to conclude with this statement and I shall make it as strong as I can. The purpose of the government in its national development policy is to have more processing in Canada. This processing in Canada cannot come from sitting here idly, passively and letting things work out by themselves. We believe that in today's economics and today's world competition what is required is to get down to the simple basic facts of producing something cheaper than any other nation can produce it. This means that where you have great resources of energy in juxtaposition with great resources of natural products, and where these can be brought together to produce something cheaper by uniting the energy with the resources, we can hold our own in the world competition battle as a processing country.
Second, we believe that with the Canadian ingenuity, so well demonstrated in the past, in the field of metallurgy, our scientists will produce new types of steel, steel mixed with uranium, steel mixed with molybdenum, steel hardened with titanium, steels that can stand cold weather, steels that will meet competition all over the world; and by keeping ahead in the metallurgical field we can move into foreign markets and retain our position in our own markets.
Also we do believe that there has to be a great deal of co-operation between the federal government and the provinces in working with our resources as a whole, and not 11 different government agencies all going


their own way and all losing out in this battle that we are in. Whether it affects the Combines Investigation Act, which allows industries to share market information or to combine on research or to come together on export products; whether it is a question of the scientific work of governments or industry, these are things that must all be tied up under the over-all watchfulness of 11 governments which own these resources, and that is one of the main reasons why we have set up this conservation conference to meet next year.
No, Mr. Chairman; the vision that we talk about as a government does have enthusiasm, but it is no mirage. It does have idealism, but we do the things that are practical and realistic. It is a vision which to us is logical and coherent in so far as development is concerned. It does take in all the facts of life there are in Canada in relation to these resources. Let me put it as simply as I can. Canadians all working together can achieve the things that we have in mind.
I think I should point out that the program I have described is a national development program only in the first stages. The second, third and fourth stages are still to come, but much has to be done before we even reach those stages. I am very glad of the opportunity the committee has given me to meet head on the statements of the members of the opposition on this question of the national development policy of the government. It gives me a chance to put forward very clearly the distinctions between us. I think the debate has been carried on on a very high level; I think it has done a great deal of good to clear the minds of many hon. members and I do trust of the people of the country as a whole.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question now that he has completed his remarks? Is it fair to say that from what the minister said during the course of his statement this afternoon and on Saturday, the government to which he belongs is a government "des visions" and not a government "de vision"?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am not trained in the dialectics of certain people, and all I can say in answer to the observation of the hon. member for Laurier is that I think the people will measure us by results and not by the words we use.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say it was not a dialect I was using but the other official language of Canada.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Still dialectic.


Lester Bowles Pearson: 
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder
whether the Leader of the Opposition would permit me to ask a question. In view of the protests of the people of Alberta, would he have built the railway without giving them a chance to put forward their viewpoint?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the minister why they said in the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958 that they would do it at once. Why did he not think about this consideration then? Why did the government put in their very first speech from the throne that they would appropriate money for the building of the railroad in 1958? Why did they not think about this other factor at that time? Now he tells us they had to take a lot of time to get the views of the people, and in order to do so they had to set up a royal commission, all of which takes time. Of course it does. But when we point out to him that it took time when we were in office he says that we were passive and did not do anything. Again there is a contrast between the words of the minister and the facts.
Although not strictly relevant to this item, the minister talked this afternoon about roads to resources, development roads. When I was talking the other day I mentioned one particular road which would be a road to a resource and which would assist in the salvation of the community at Elliot Lake. He had never heard of it. The provincial government of Ontario had heard about it, his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce had heard about it, but the minister had never heard about it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, what I said was that I knew the road the Leader of the Opposition mentioned had been under discussion by this committee, but I had not been informed-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I do not see
any question of privilege. It is just a disagreement.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am very sorry, but I must insist-


Charles Edward Rea: Order.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Lester Bowles Pearson: I accept the minister's remarks even though there is no question of privilege. He says he knew there was such a project but it had not been brought to his attention.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I must rise again. If the Leader of the Opposition will examine the record, and I did not change it, he will And I said I had not been informed officially by the government of Ontario. I knew the committee had been discussing that road, but I had not been approached officially.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All right; the minister has not been informed officially about this particular road to resources which had been announced officially by the province of Ontario as something that was going to be done and about which they had been in conversation and conference with the federal government. The minister had better consult his colleague and his friends in Toronto. He says he had not been told about it officially, but his government apparently has, because they seem to know something about it.
I mention this matter once again to pour the cold water of reality on the minister's exuberant statements. The other day and again this afternoon the minister seemed to take a great deal of pleasure in deprecating the record of his predecessor, Mr. Lesage, a record which will stand on its own and does not need any apology from us on this side. As found on page 6869 of Hansard of last Saturday, the minister was trying to point out that nothing had been done by the previous government. He said that he held the previous administration responsible for not looking after those very valuable resources in the north country. He repeated this afternoon that nothing had been done until 1957 and that we were responsible, especially Mr. Lesage, for the fact that the resources of our north country had not been looked after.
He criticized Mr. Lesage particularly because apparently at one stage he had made a statement in Toronto in which he pointed out and underlined the difficulties of management of our resources in this country except in full co-operation with the provinces, he quite rightly pointed out that the federal government has not control of and cannot plan or manage resources except in co-operation with the provinces, which is a very sound and sensible doctrine, the only doctrine under which we can develop our resources in Canada.
I am going to quote some of the statements the minister made on Saturday, because I cannot be contradicted when I read from Hansard. My memory of what the minister said this afternoon might not be accurate in every respect, because the minister proceeded very quickly and eloquently
[The Deputy Chairman.]
and it was hard to follow his words; but in talking about the development of the north he did say on Saturday, as found on page 6869 of Hansard:
The real task was to make certain that the oil, gas and mineral wealth of our northern areas, particularly those in the Arctic islands, would be preserved for Canadians-
"Would be preserved".
[DOT]-now and in the future.
He also had this to say about the oil, gas and mining regulations which have been put into effect in recent months, which show how this wealth is going to be preserved for Canadians now and in the future. He was referring to the regulations, the exploration permits which were given and the methods that were adopted to attract foreign capital, which he thinks can be so damaging to us, and as found on page 6870 he said:
In other words, we gave a cheap land proposition to the oil industry of the world-
Presumably that is how the minister is going to preserve-that was the word he used-for Canadians the resources of the north by giving a cheap land proposition to the oil industry of the world. He also made this statement, as found on page 6869, as another illustration of the virtuous endeavours of the government in this field of development of resources:
Naturally when we began to work out these new regulations we began to think in terms of how we can stop, how we can prevent what has happened in Alberta...
In other words-perhaps the minister will explain this-what they were thinking about, among other things, was how they could prevent federally what has happened in Alberta in this industry. On the subject of preserving for Canada control of its resources, there is no difference of opinion between members of the house as to the desirability of ensuring maximum Canadian participation and maximum Canadian control in the development, management and ownership of these resources. We are all agreed on that, but some of us know more than the minister seems to know about the difficulties of reconciling the necessity of foreign investment and the primary necessity of Canadian control of our own resources.
As found on page 6871 of Hansard the minister talked about the yoke-that was the word he used-of foreign capital, the yoke of foreign investment, and the great progress that had been made in Canada under the present government in freeing Canada from that yoke of foreign investment. There has been a great deal of progress, I admit, in talking about that freedom and that yoke, but what do the figures show as to the progress that has been made in freeing

Canada from what the minister called the yoke of foreign investment? Referring to the dominion bureau of statistics "Balance of International Payments 1959", page 14, and the "Canadian Balance of International Payments, 1958", table 8. I am only going to quote one excerpt from these publications. They bear reading in relation to the boast the minister has made about the progress this government has made in freeing us from this yoke. These figures are from official publications; on the balance of international payments, from the part entitled "Non-resident ownership and control of Canadian industry".
The last detailed analysis of foreign ownership was issued in December of last year and covers the year 1957. The balance of payments officials have, however, made estimates of the total non-resident owned long term investment in Canada for the years 1958 and 1959. This series contains an estimate of retained earnings in Canada plus long term investment. It thus is a valid measure of the growth of foreign ownership in Canada.
Here are the figures: 1956, total non-resident investment in Canada amounted to $15.6 billion; 1957, $17.5 billion; 1958, $19.1 billion; 1959, $20.6 billion. The only conclusion that can be drawn from these figures is that total non-resident ownership has increased by one third since 1956. This is how we have been freed from the yoke of foreign investment. While the minister talked about the "yoke" his leader, the Prime Minister, referred to foreign investment in somewhat different terms. I quote from his statement which appears on page 6873 of Hansard for July 23, 1960:
Foreign investment is beneficial. Foreign investment has done much to improve the economical situation in Canada.
Then he went on to emphasize that external capital had played a very important part in our development. This is just another example, Mr. Chairman, of that schizophrenia that seems to afflict the members of the cabinet. The minister in his statement this afternoon repeated what the Prime Minister said; that the yoke, in so far as foreign investment in the United States was concerned, was never at any time more than 15 per cent of the national income. That was the figure the minister used, while the Prime Minister said that in Canada the corresponding proportion as late as 1957 was almost 75 per cent. Perhaps the minister will try to confirm this figure, that as late as 1957 the corresponding figure for foreign investment in Canada was 75 per cent of our national income. Obviously the Prime Minister was not very careful about his statistics on this matter.
79951-0-445J
Supply-Northern Affairs
Then the Prime Minister went on to say, and the minister confirmed it this afternoon, that this situation is improving. I have given the figures to show how the situation is improving. The total non-resident ownership has increased by one third since 1956. If the situation has improved however, in the sense that in the last 18 months less foreign capital has come into this country for development purposes, we know the reason for that. Perhaps the minister will get a lot of comfort out of the fact that there has been a decrease in foreign investment capital coming into this country lately. Perhaps he will be very pleased that this may be interpreted as freeing us from the yoke of foreign control. There is another reason to explain that decrease in foreign investment in the last 18 months, and that reason was given by the deputy chairman of the dollar-sterling trade council, writing in the Financial Post of May 21, 1960. I shall quote two paragraphs from this article by A. G. S. Griffin, deputy chairman of the dollar-sterling trade council. He said:
The past 18 months have seen an important change in the attitude of U.K. and foreign investors toward Canada.
Visitors to London and other European financial capitals can no longer bask in a glow of satisfaction from plaudit heaped upon plaudit over the way we run our country, treat our foreign capital and develop our resources.
There is a good deal of grumbling and some positive indignation-as if the overseas investor had been the victim of some vast conspiracy.
Then, Mr. Chairman, on Saturday the Prime Minister had something to say about his vision of the north. Perhaps I had better read what he said:
Mr. Chairman, a word on these vast potential resources. Somebody spoke of a mirage. Until the vision of the north turns out to be a mirage let me say that the millions and millions of acres which have been taken up in the north, the developments which have taken place there, the opening up of the country and the rendering available to private enterprise of an opportunity and a climate for development has meant much to Canada during the past three years.
I will ask the minister now to give us the figures in regard to this development in terms of oil and gas exploration permits, and also to give us the figures or give us the information regarding the nationality of the companies and corporations that are responsible for taking up these permits, whether they are United States corporations, whether they are Canadian subsidiaries of United States corporations, whether they are other foreign corporations or whether they are bona fide Canadian individuals and Canadian corporations.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
I remember speaking in 1957 and in 1958 about the highways in the north and the opening of the north igloo to igloo. That was the viewpoint of the opposition.

Supply-Northern Affairs
I will repeat what I said the other day, Mr. Chairman; that the program put forward by the Prime Minister and his colleagues during that election period was not a program of development, it was a program of electoral intoxication. When they talked about this great program of development, this great billion dollar public works program, this great program of communications and transportation which was going to solve the unemployment problem or play a large part in solving the unemployment problem, we on this side said that was a phony program in terms of employment. It has turned out to be just that.
The minister did not reply to me on Saturday when I asked him how much employment had been provided by road development in the north since he gave the last figures, which was something over 2,000 men for the previous year.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition what he means by "north"? I want him to be specific.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I mean by "north" the areas under federal control, and those areas where the government has initiated a roads to resources program with the provinces; that is the kind of roadbuilding and communications program which was put forward by the government to cope with our unemployment problem.
Then the minister had this to say, as reported on page 6869 of Hansard for July 23, 1960. He talked about this great Canadian proposal which has won for Canada the control of the continental shelf. I will read what he had to say about it.
We have brought those regulations in, using the Public Lands Grants Act and the Territorial Lands Act, and for the first time in Canada's history we have the legal machinery to give to Canadians or to anybody else the right to explore in our Arctic Islands or in those islands off the coast. I hold the previous administration responsible through the error of omission for not looking after those very valuable resources north of our country.
Well, I have dealt with that. Then he went on to say that as the result of a Canadian resolution-no, I had better quote what he said about it:
It is no accident that the Canadian resolution on the law of the sea conference in Geneva suggested that all the lands that lie beneath the sea, the continental shelf, as far out as you can develop them, should belong to the littoral state for exploration purposes.
Well, I should like to have the minister tell this committee when that specific Canadian proposal was put before the international law conference at Geneva which established the jurisdiction of the littoral state over the continental shelf. If I am not wrong- and the minister can correct me if I am wrong

-the proposal appeared in the original report of the United Nations commission which was preparing for this conference. The minister now points out that it was the Canadian proposal that secured for Canada the continental shelf. What happened was that this was discussed at the conference at Geneva. There was general agreement on it, and as a result of that agreement all countries now have accepted and recognized control over the resources of the continental shelf. But when we asked the minister, as reported at page 6873 of Hansard of last Saturday, what was the relationship of this doctrine to provincial control-and this is an important matter, who actually controlled the continental shelf off provincial coasts as contrasted with the continental shelf off federal territories-who actually controlled the resources of that part of the shelf, the provincial government or the federal government, the minister said:
This is a matter of government policy and will be declared in due course.
My friend the hon. member for Ottawa East asked this question:
Has the minister had any requests from the provinces for the transfer of rights on the continental shelf?
The minister's reply was no, but the fact is this, as the minister must know. Indeed, in an earlier question-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder
whether the Leader of the Opposition would help me. I just want to understand clearly what he said. He stated that I said that the matter of the continental shelf ownership was a matter of government policy. Can he point out to me where I said that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have said two things. The minister now claims that this great development in international law by which the state has control of the continental shelf was the result of a Canadian proposal at Geneva, and I asked for information about that matter. I have also said that the minister said that the question as to whether the crown in the right of the provinces or the crown in the right of the federal government controlled the resources on the continental shelf off provincial coasts is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: From where does that quotation come? I never made that statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the minister will just read his own words in Hansard of last Saturday as reported at page 6873, and that is not very far back, he will find that in answer to a

question asked by my friend the hon. member for Villeneuve, to be found down toward the end of the page, he replied as follows:
This is a matter of government policy and will be declared in due course.
He also said earlier, according to press reports, when he was questioned about the matter of ownership of the continental shelf by the federal or provincial authority, "So far we have not stirred anybody up on this". But this is a matter which has already been stirred up in the provinces. At the Atlantic provinces conference last September, held in Fredericton, the premier of Nova Scotia at that time-that was last September-called, for a decision on the ownership of submarine mineral rights. I am now quoting from press accounts of the meeting:
Premier Stanfield also called for a decision on the ownership of submarine mineral rights. He said the constitutional question of whether they belonged to the province or to the government of Canada should be settled.
Indeed it should be settled, because it is one of the most important questions that can face the federation at the present time; that is to say, who owns those rights on the continental shelf. The minister says, however, it is a matter of policy and "we are not stirring anybody up about this".
There are many other things I could say and there are many other questions that we shall be asking because of what the minister has already said. But I think I have put on the record sufficient to indicate the situation. In spite of the eloquence of the minister and in spite of the exuberance of words that came from him this afternoon and on Saturday, the record itself will determine, as the minister says, the result that will be achieved. And when he talks about the passive record of the Liberal government in the past I ask him to look at the record from 1900 to 1910, from 1920 to 1931 and from 1945 to 1957. If he thinks that Canada developed in those great years of development through passive governments he had better read a little bit more of his history than he has been reading lately. In conclusion I remind the minister once again that no matter what he may say, history in this country did not begin in June of 1957.


Douglas Mason Fisher: As the third history teacher speaking in this debate, I should like to get into it and say that I should like to make some historical comments also. I was flabbergasted last Saturday when, in the quiet of this committee, with perhaps 30 or 35 members present, who should rise and take part in the debate but the Prime Minister. Here on the eve of a dominion-provincial conference he found the time to come in and give us his reinterpretation of the vision.
Supply-Northern Affairs This procedure seemed to me to underline the importance that he and the minister must attach to the vision for some purposes which I hope to analyse.
I thought at first that this was a bit of an insult to the minister. It is a rare occasion when a prime minister comes in and defends in essence the general position of a department in the government frame of policy when the minister is before the house. But I do not see the matter in quite that way now. I see it more in terms of an abnormal sensitivity on the part of the Prime Minister and the government with regard to the most blatant or, one could put it, the most flagrant of their political promises and their inability to live up to it.
I should like to ask the minister whether he has ever stopped to wonder why it was that in northern Ontario, from the Manitoba border all the way down to south of Sudbury, the Conservative party in this last election, which he said gave them carte blanche, or words to that effect, or at least a criticism of the Liberal party's position toward the north-did so badly in that part of the country. I should like to tell him one of the reasons is that the people of northern and northwestern Ontario live in an area where we have, to use this phrase that is so overused, vast, boundless natural resources, loads of them. They are much closer to markets and to people in this country than are the resources of the north.
I cannot think of a bigger laugh than that which was caused in our particular region during that election campaign when the minister, I think, or perhaps it was the Prime Minister, came up with the story of how they were going to build a road from somewhere up near Hudson bay down toward lake Superior. It was almost as ridiculous as this suggestion that they are negotiating with the Ontario government to build a road north somewhere between Nakina and the Manitoba boundary, over 400 miles of space.
The people of northwestern and northern Ontario were sceptical of this suggestion on practical grounds. They know that within their region they have copper prospects, zinc prospects, iron ore prospects, gold prospects and all sorts of forest resources that are still not being used. They know they still have certain water power resources. They know they have natural gas moving through there in a pipe line so that it can be used for various developments. They also know that their resources which are being exploited at the present time in the main are being exploited by United States capital and United States corporations.

Supply-Northern Affairs
Hence they are sceptical of the northern vision on two counts. Why not a bit of concentration upon an area that is closer to markets and closer to where there is a labour force that is in trouble? Second, the taint that this particular government in electioneering put upon United States capital does not make much sense to people in an area which for most of its industry depends upon United States capital. This phase of the Prime Minister's electoral activity of trying to batten upon the almost natural instinct of the people to distrust United States efforts it seems to me has gone far enough. It seems to me that the Prime Minister himself has spoiled it by his inability really to do anything about it.
I note that in his speech on Saturday he mentioned going down to the city of Detroit and laying some things on the line. I can remember that Right Hon. C. D. Howe went down to Chicago, to Milwaukee and to Washington, and that he laid some things on the line; but it did not seem to do very much good. It did just about as much good as what the Prime Minister has done. I would suggest to the minister that he throw away this word "vision". Let us have a fairly cool policy of northern development and stop all the extravagant claims about what Canada is going to get out of the north.
In his remarks just after lunch the minister indicated that while this government would never interfere with provincial jurisdiction, these new mining regulations would be a bellwether to the provinces, that the people of the provinces would demand legislation just like it. I know that school teachers- the minister was one and so was I-tend to be naive, but I refuse to believe the minister is that naive and that he really thinks these regulations will be a bellwether to the provinces and will lead the people in the provinces to demand from their governments the kind of redress which one can find, say, in the iron ore contracts in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I do not know why Duplessis and Smallwood sold out to these companies in the way they did for so little by way of fee; but to suggest that we will get any kind of redress through a few regulations is beyond me, and I cannot understand how the suggestion can be made. If the minister is going to say at his conservation conferences that this government would project a policy on the development of Canadian resources in the provinces or in the Canadian north in the highest possible finished state, then I can see that he would be making a contribution; otherwise this is just a continuation of the sham stuff we had in the last election, and which


I repeat northwestern Ontario did not buy; and they sure are not going to buy it next time either.
The Prime Minister in his remarks touched on what this country had done to really put Americans in their place; at least I interpreted it in that way. He said something about insurance companies and he said something about oil. Oil certainly is not a minor factor, and I suppose insurance companies are not. But if you are going to do something about United States investment, and this government feels that something should be done, why does it not begin with iron ore? Across the country from contacts I have had with ordinary people I hear time and again, why can we not process iron ore in this country?
The minister has economists who turn out reports. There have been several in the last year right on this very question. What do the reports say? That the economics of the situation are such that we cannot look forward to any great expansion in the treatment of iron ores in Canada other than perhaps in a minor way so far as beneficiation is concerned. The most recent report on the direct reduction process indicated that there might be an economic feasibility of having such a development at Port Arthur and Seven Islands. However, in the main the great bulk of our ore will continue to go down in a raw or semi-raw state to United States smelters.
If this government feels so strongly and wants to give leadership to this blatant antiAmerican feeling that there is in Canada, how about doing something about the iron ore situation? The sound and fury we have heard in connection with what the government is going to do in the north is to me about the worst kind of nonsense that this government has come up with.
I suggest to the minister that in population terms the north is really not growing, except in civil servants who are being sent up there. I would ask, in investment terms what is being turned out in the north? Is it possible that in the north, in the sense of the northwest, are we really going to get any forestry production which will enter the markets of the world or even the markets of southern Canada? How many tons of iron ore are being shipped from the domains which are under the minister? How many barrels of oil are being shipped? How much is being shipped in the way of base metals? I think that is about the only area where the minister will find he has any production, and it is not very large.
Mr. Chairman, one could spend much more time than I have and the Leader of the Opposition has spent on this question of the

vision. I want to make the point that in my remarks I am not supporting the great defence he has made with regard to activity in the past. It seems to me that this government has the intention of doing better than the Liberal government did in pushing the greater use and manufacture of Canadian resources in Canada, but I certainly cannot see that they have attained any success in this field. All they have done is make a great deal of propaganda, and make the very word "vision" in political terms a joke across the country.
Now I would like to turn to something a little more specific, and that is the statement which was apparently made by the hon. member for Yukon either on June 1 or May 31. I cannot find any record of it in the House of Commons debates, but he is on record as having said, according to a Globe and Mail story by reporter Walter Gray:
A bureaucratic regime is operating in the office of the commissioner of the Yukon territory, the territorial member of parliament charged here today.
Eric Nielsen (PC, Yukon), added quickly that he was not criticizing the incumbent commissioner, F. H. Collins, but the office itself. He blamed the five-man territorial council for failing to assume more executive responsibility in an effort to correct the situation which has built up over the years.
The young member noted that of 112 ordinances consolidated by territorial council in 1958, 71 gave extraordinary powers to the commissioner who is able to issue regulations without reference to council.
"These powers have not been abused so far, but the ease with which they could be abused is frightening", said Mr. Nielsen in an interview.
He went on to give a more detailed criticism, and then said:
"The council should be encouraged to take on more executive responsibility," he said. "There must be a feeling in the commissioner to relieve himself of administrative powers to assist in the democratic development of the Yukon. I'm afraid there is a reluctance on the part of the administration to divest itself of these powers."
Mr. Chairman, we cannot get into the private circles of the government in power, but we would not have expected that the hon. member for Yukon would have had such difficulty. I understood that he had practically a free run of the bureaux at the department of northern affairs, and that he spent more time there than he did anywhere else; yet after almost three sessions at the job, what could he come up with except criticism of this northern administration?
Mr. Chairman, I think we deserve a satisfactory answer, not from the hon. member for Yukon but from the minister. How can he explain that a member of his own party, to whom he has given a great deal of credit
Supply-Northern Affairs for his interest, can come out into the open with criticism like this and not expect us to want an answer?
It would be foolish for us to assume that we know anything about the northern administration in relation to what the hon. member on the scene must know. I would say the hon. member for Yukon, according to this account in the Globe and Mail, has been exceptionally critical. I wonder why he has not been put into the same category as the hon. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska, because this is real criticism. When you consider that he has had three sessions to go to work on this to get some kind of redress, is this an indication that the minister has no control over his own civil servants?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the hon. member permit a question? I think in the interests of saving the time of the committee the hon. member for Port Arthur should realize this.
The hon. member for Port Arthur should
realize that the hon. member for the Yukon is also a citizen of that territory. His criticism was of the territorial government. That has nothing to do with my jurisdiction at all. I do not interfere in any way with the territorial government which is an elected government. If the hon. member has any criticisms they should be directed to the people in the territories. Those criticisms of the hon. member for the Yukon were directed against the local government in that area and not against my civil servants at all.


Douglas Mason Fisher: As I understand it, the minister has something to do with the incumbent commissioners.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My job is to
appoint them. I have nothing whatever to do with the decisions of the territorial council either in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What role does the northern administration play in the Yukon territories? Does this not come up under the northern administration branch?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The explanation, Mr. Chairman, is that we look after resources in the territories and also some aspects of Eskimo welfare and education and Indian welfare and education.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In this article I notice that Mr. Gray states that the commissioner, with a salary this year of $10,500, is appointed at the pleasure of the governor in council. When we are talking about other government appointees of the governor in council I always thought this meant that the governor in

Supply-Northern Affairs council had some kind of control over the appointees. Is the minister suggesting that Mr. Collins operates in limbo without any departmental or cabinet control?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is precisely what I am saying, Mr. Chairman, that the federal government appoints the commissioner but exercises no control whatever over matters under territorial jurisdiction. The practice has been growing up of permitting an increasing autonomy in the area. I am trying to encourage that in every way. I would not think of interfering in a matter between the territorial government and one of its citizens.


Douglas Mason Fisher: To what audience does the hon. member for the Yukon address himself? Did the minister tell the hon. member that this was something in which he did not take an interest because he feels the federal government should not interfere in any way with the council there?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is not under my jurisdiction but I understand the hon. member spoke to the board of trade in Whitehorse on their invitation purely as a citizen of the Yukon. It does not come under my responsibility. In fact, I would fight very hard to protect the rights of the territorial government to look after its own business.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The article, quoting the hon. member for the Yukon, states:
Mr. Neilsen maintained that, until the Yukon is raised to provincial status, provision should be made under the ordinances for council ratification. instead of allowing the commissioner undisputed power.
Was he talking to the local people or did he have in mind the deputy minister of northern affairs who has something to do with the board that produces these ordinances. The hon. gentleman is quoted as going on to say that the council should take on more executive responsibility. Is he talking to the council or to the government?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the language is very clear. The hon. member was apparently speaking to the council and not to me. I direct the commissioner in so far as the matters of resources and the education and welfare of Eskimos and Indians are concerned but the territorial council directs the commissioner in relation to territorial matters. Apparently the hon. member disagrees with the way the council is making full use of its powers. That is the understanding I have of the speech the hon. gentleman made.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I will quote another paragraph:
Mr. Nielsen saw some progress in the correction of the bureaucratic condition in the government's


move to establish a three-man advisory committee to consult with the commissioner on the expenditure of territorial revenues.
What could be more explicit? Is this one of the hon. member's recommendations? Did the minister have anything to do with the setting up of this committee?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the hon.
member had been in the house this session he would have known we passed amendments to the Yukon act setting up this advisory committee.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In other words did the government make this move as a result of representations made by the hon. member for the Yukon?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have to be fair. All throughout this matter the hon. member for the Yukon has shown a keen interest. There were discussions last year between the hon. gentleman and myself about strengthening the council. Also the council met last year in formal session and passed a resolution-not an ordinance-suggesting that this change be made. I asked the House of Commons to make that change and it did.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am still bothered by this question of the man appointed being outside the orbit of departmental control.


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Since this discussion commenced the hon. member for Port Arthur has been making reference to the hon. member for the Yukon with whom I have the honour to share an office. The hon. member for Port Arthur suggested that the hon. member for the Yukon spends most of his time over at the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I would say to the hon. gentleman that if he worked half as hard as does the hon. member for the Yukon he would be considerably better informed and would not engage in nonsensical allegations.


Jacques Flynn: Order. The remarks of the hon. member are argumentative. If the hon. gentleman wishes to rise after the hon. member for Port Arthur has concluded he may do so, but he is not allowed to interrupt the hon. member for that purpose.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member has made a wrong interpretation of my remarks. I did not intend to reflect on the work done by the hon. member for the Yukon. I admire him very much for getting up and saying this kind of thing. What I meant by his being over at the department was this. I served on the committee with him last year. It was obvious that he knew everyone there. The hon. gentleman told me he spent a great deal of time

with the department and I have heard others say he does. If there are matters affecting him he should spend as much time as possible pressuring civil servants. I am merely trying to find out if he has been making any headway. My remarks were not intended to be derogatory or insulting to the hon. member for the Yukon.
Perhaps the minister could explain in greater detail how he reconciles the fact that he and the Prime Minister speak of the north as a great area where the federal government is showing leadership and yet the representative from the area makes a criticism which seems to indicate that the great vision is blurred in at least one of the most important fundamental areas involving the democratic control of the affairs of the area by the citizens who live there under this bureaucratic regime.
The minister has often talked about the road to resources program. I raised this matter with him last week in connection with the access to roads where the government makes a contribution. The hon. gentleman gave me the flat assurance which I accepted that wherever the federal government makes a contribution to the roads to resources program and no matter what contribution the company may make the road is open and free of access to everyone.
Perhaps the minister is aware that we have an example in our constituency. The road runs for some 60 miles. The two governments and the company made a contribution. Sixty miles of the road is open but in the middle of the wilderness the road comes to a gate on the edge of the company's property. There is a further stretch of six miles of road that leads to where activities are actually going on. There is public access to the first 60 miles but no one can get through the gates to travel the last six miles unless the company wants them to. I hope the minister will give an assurance that in future agreements that may be made under this section of the act care will be taken to see that this kind of situation is not repeated.
I can underline this by pointing out that this United States corporation has set up what we call a company union and is involved in certification proceedings at this very moment. It uses that gate to keep union organizers out. I do not know whether they are also using it to keep out salesmen or other entrepreneurs who want to get in; but in effect this government has supported, through funds, a 60-mile road that leads to nowhere in so far as the public is concerned. I have to assume that a vacuum cleaner salesman or a union organizer has just as much right to go to the end of a road that the government helps pay for as 79951-0-446
Supply-Northern Affairs anyone else, and yet this road ends at a gate in the bush. No one can go past it. I should like an assurance from the minister that in future in connection with roads to resources we shall not have roads which in effect end nowhere. If these roads lead to resources development, then the public should have access to that development. I do not see why the minister cannot make that part of the agreements in the future. Take as an example Anaconda. The minister has a good argument with the provincial government and any firm which may be involved in a matter of this kind. I should very much like to have his comments on this particular story.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In regard to the road to the Anaconda property, I informed the committee on Saturday that in so far as any road in which we share the costs with a province and a company is concerned, there certainly is public access. It poses a very difficult problem for me. If any company builds up to that access road a private road of its own and pays 100 per cent of the cost of it, do I have to insist that a road connecting on to our road shall have public access? I do not think I can give that assurance, frankly, because first of all it does not lie within the jurisdiction of the federal government to insist on what shall be done in a province. Second, I think it would be an interference with the rights of private ownership. If I am a private owner in that area and I build a road up to a road built by the federal government and the province in co-operation, have I not a right to maintain my private property? I think we would be interfering with the rights of private property. I am putting the argument forward. I realize what the hon. member has in mind, but I do not think I can go beyond saying that the roads that we have already built are free access roads. That is as far as I can go.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister may be aware of the mining laws and claims in that area. The Anaconda interest can stretch for some 20 or 30 miles, and other properties go even farther. We can see where we have a virtual private empire of a United States corporation up in northern Ontario. The government of Ontario has committed itself to putting the road in there, and yet the company can determine everything that takes place in that big empire. I will admit that there may be some limits on what this government may be able to argue other than the lever it has through its contribution.
Surely the provincial government which issues the licences for these huge territories that come under the sway of such men should

Supply-Northern Affairs be prepared to listen to suggestions from the minister. I cannot help but feel that the minister and the department are letting themselves into an almost indefensible position from the public point of view. If the minister wants to look at the general unpopularity that the pulp and paper companies have managed to maintain by keeping their roads closed on much greater justification than this, I think he will see what I mean. There is a potential here for one of the sharpest issues that have ever come up in our part of the country.
I just suggest to the minister that in writing any new agreements he does more to see that such a thing does not happen again. If Anaconda actually had an open pit or a shaft, or something like that, going on in there I could certainly see every reason why they should have the right to protect that property from access by outsiders, but when you are going to have what is in effect a town developing in there a townsite, and you are able to put up a gate and keep everybody out of that area because you control the gate at the end of the road toward which the government contributed I think it is going too far. I think a narrower distinction may be made. I suggest to the minister he should try to make it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to give the hon. member for Port Arthur the assurance that I shall certainly keep that in mind. I should like to say that we impress on any government that makes this arrangement with us that as far as we are concerned these are public access roads and we are not a party to practices such as have been described here. But legally I do not think I have the power to change any agreement already made. I will certainly give the assurance that in the future I shall make it very plain that these are public roads. I have already done so but I will do so again.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am tempted to rise at this point and take issue with some of the things that were said by the minister on Saturday and again this afternoon as well as with what was said by the Prime Minister on Saturday prior to the opening of the dominion-provincial conference. I am surprised that in his remarks the minister would have been so pronounced in the general statement that when he took office little or nothing had been done by the previous administration and that everything that has been done, has been accomplished since he and those associated with him have been in office.
I should like to remind the minister-I cannot remember the date now but certainly it would be around 1950-that when I occupied a position on the other side of

the house similar to his I made a trip over the northwest passage and to airports that had been built by the previous government and not by this government. He had a great deal to say about airstrips that had been built and roads and a future railway. The trip that was made by my officers and myself, was by way of Edmonton to Fort Smith.


Georges-J. Valade: Get to the point.


Lionel Chevrier: I am getting to the point, and the point I am getting to is that before this government came into office in 1957 a great deal more had been accomplished by the previous administration than the minister would like us to believe. One of the first things that was done was the establishment of the department over which the minister presides now. This department was established by the previous administration. It was taken out of the department of resources and development and made a department by itself, namely the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources at the head of which at one time, if not at the beginning, was the present premier of the province of Quebec. I deprecate the statement which the present minister made on Saturday, on the very eve of a dominion-provincial conference, when an attempt is being made to bring the 11 governments together on fiscal matters affecting the future of our country, and that the minister should attack, 48 hours before that meeting, a former minister of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the present premier of Quebec. I do not think that attempt will help in any way the progress of dominion-provincial relations.
When I was interrupted I was about to say that airstrips were built by the former government at Dawson, Whitehorse, Hay River, Yellowknife and Fort Smith, all along the northwest route. The Canol project was also built during the time of the previous administration. One would think that in the north country absolutely nothing was done prior to 1957. What about the Kitimat-Ter-race railway? What about the extension to the P.G.E. railway, for which the same subsidy to which the minister referred, namely $25,000 per mile, was paid by the previous administration? I could go on and speak of roads running from Edmonton in the direction of Dawson Creek. I have to rely on my memory now as I have no documents before me, but if I had them I am sure I could convince the house that a great deal more had been done in the field to which my hon. friend referred earlier.
There is one other matter for which the present administration seems to be taking credit, the processing of material in this

country. The processing of material in this country started long before the minister was in office and long before his government took office. When the Prime Minister was campaigning in 1957 he took from Hansard and out of context a statement I had made concerning the St. Lawrence seaway to the effect that the St. Lawrence seaway was being built to take iron ore to the United States. No mention was made, however, of the fact that the St. Lawrence seaway was going to create secondary industry and was going to bring primary industry along the shores of the St. Lawrence. If that statement had not been taken out of context it would have been clear that those of us who sat on the other side of the house prior to this administration coming into office were as keenly interested as they are and as every true Canadian is in the processing of Canadian materials in this country.
I am sure that is the objective of all of us who sit in the house, and when it is necessary to export to the United States very often it is because there is not a sufficient market in our own country. The proof of the effect of the development of the St. Lawrence seaway on a number of areas lies in the fact that today natural resources are being processed in various parts of our country.
The Leader of the Opposition dealt at some length with statements made on Saturday by the Prime Minister and also by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I shall not add to that other than to refer to the billion dollar program of public works which was put forward in one election campaign and which unquestionably contained the essence of tremendous development by way of employment in the north. As the house knows, little or nothing has been heard about it since.
Finally, I should like to refer to the development in this country both during the war period and the post-war period under the aegis of the Right Hon. C. D. Howe. I do not think history will indicate that at any time has there been a greater development of industry and natural resources than at the time the Right Hon. C. D. Howe was first minister of munitions and supply and later minister of reconstruction and development. There are many people in the country today who would like to see him back in office again and directing the economy of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friends laugh-


Mr. Graffiey:: The pipe line debate.


Lionel Chevrier: -but they have no one on the other side of the house who compares with him, with his genius, his ability-
79951-0-4461
Supply-Northern Affairs


William Heward Grafftey: And his respect for parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: -in the development of industry.


An hon. Member:: Who wants another C. D. Howe?


William Heward Grafftey: And his respect for parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, the Right Hon. C. D. Howe not only had the respect of members of parliament-


William Heward Grafftey: I said respect for parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: -but had the respect of all Canadians and still has, I believe, the respect of all Canadians today.


William Heward Grafftey: I said respect for parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: Those who interrupt me now are envious because they do not have within their ranks anyone able to direct the industrial economy of our country as Mr. Howe was able to.


Mr. Maclnnis:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has just taken it upon himself to say that he can speak for all Canadians. Here is one Canadian whose respect Mr. Howe did not have.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member rose on a question of privilege. First, there was no question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: Certainly there was.


Lionel Chevrier: Second, the hon. gentleman rose, as he does on many occasions, to say absolutely nothing, to lose his temper and to try to divert someone who is dealing with the matter that has been under discussion this afternoon but he has not succeeded nor will he succeed in diverting me from the point I was about to make.


William Heward Grafftey: What was it?


Lionel Chevrier: That point had to do with the matter of processing our natural resources in Canada and the minister dealt with this matter as though it were something that had been discovered by those on the other side of the house. Neither was it discovered by the other side of the house nor will the other side of the house be able to claim credit for the development of our natural resources and our industry.


William Heward Grafftey: Or for closure.


Lionel Chevrier: I say to my friend on my left, the young man with the short crop from Brome-Missisquoi, who loves to interrupt, and I do not say that to him in any unfriendly way-

Supply-Northern Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Foriin:: Let us get back to the point.


Lionel Chevrier: If you would allow me to speak to the point without interruption I would soon finish.


Mr. Fortin:: We have been waiting for 20 minutes for you to get back to the point.


Lionel Chevrier: I have been interrupted repeatedly by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet and his interruptions have not been too enlightening. Like many other hon. members on his side, he usually speaks from his seat rather than from his mind. If he would speak from his mind more often and get up and deal with matters affecting his own province perhaps it would be much better for his constituents than for him to seek to interrupt us in the manner he does from time to time.
I was dealing with the development of our country under Mr. Howe. I should like to conclude my remarks by asking the minister a question, as did the Leader of the Opposition in concluding his remarks, although the minister did not reply. After the speech the minister made this afternoon and also last Saturday, is it logical for us to conclude that the administration over which he and those associated with him preside is in fact a government "des visions" rather than a government "de vision"?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, it is a considerable delight to me to hear the debate on my estimates going forward. I made the remark earlier that so far the debate had been conducted on a very high level. At the present time, I am not so sure about that. As for the use of the word "vision", I am not sure of the words.


Lionel Chevrier: I said "des visions" as opposed to "de vision".


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have a little difficulty in translating from the French into English. I said to the hon. member at the time that I was not skilled in dialectics. I am not now any more skilled in dialectics. In any event we have heard from the opposition as to what they have done; that Mr. Howe is the greatest man who ever sat in the House of Commons; that they built airfields at Fort Smith and Edmonton. Yes, they did, and I am not going to enter into a debate on that at all. I am trying to make the point objectively that this government did try to meet a situation which was concerning the people of Canada in relation to the ownership of resources. We have taken certain steps and will take other steps to try to push this program forward in order that over the years we can


buy back the ownership in our resources, and maintain them especially in our oil and gas resources of the north.
There were many figures quoted to indicate the extent of investment of nonresidents in our country in the last two years. This is the same point that I have been trying to make, that this great investment in our resources is alarming Canadians. This government is trying to do something about it. I do hope all Canadians will rally behind us in our efforts. I do not believe there are many who would support the hon. member for Port Arthur when he says that we want more investment from the United States. I do not believe he speaks for his party, either. I think the figures are fairly well known. I did not understand the Leader of the Opposition to ask what the percentages were in the northern areas, but I can repeat those figures. In the Arctic islands, 78 per cent are Canadian held and 22 per cent are non-Canadian. This illustrates the fact that we are reversing the percentage that existed in Alberta.
I have made the statement in the house that I did not blame anyone in particular for what happened in Alberta. I am simply saying we do not want it to continue. We welcome foreign investment. However, we want these investors to set up subsidiary companies in which Canadians have an opportunity to participate, and we know there will always be the opportunity for us, as we grow in wealth and accumulated capital, to own these resources. I believe that point has been well covered.
Another point was raised concerning who made the proposal over in the Geneva conference in 1958. Was it something dredged up by the delegates or was it a Canadian proposal, as I said? The best answer to that is the report of the fourth committee on the continental shelf dated April 16, 1958. This is how the secretary of that particular committee describes the events of that day. The delegate from Colombia had spoken, and then we find this:
Mr. Carty (Canada) formally proposed that the committee should recommend to the conference that the results of Its work be embodied in a separate convention relating only to the continental shelf. The purpose of the proposal was to direct attention to the general committee's recommendations contained in paragraph 5 of its report. The fourth committee had made good progress; it should accept its responsibility and formulate, in the form of a convention, the articles which it had adopted. He agreed that the topics discussed at the conference were interrelated and that it would be desirable to decide on the form of instrument for articles 67-73 in the light of the results achieved by other committees.
Then, going on after discussion by the other delegates from the United Kingdom, Yugoslavia, Switzerland, Mexico, Argentina, Chile,

Venezuela, Ceylon, Brazil, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, India, Israel, the Union of South Africa-just listen to this, Mr. Chairman:
The chairman put to the vote the Canadian proposal, as amended orally by the U.S.S.R. representative.
The Canadian proposal, as amended, was adopted by 39 votes to 6, with 7 abstentions.
The Canadian proposal was put forward on April 16, 1958, and it so happens I was over there as minister of the federal government responsible for the team at the law of the sea convention. I do believe I have the right to say that it was no accident that proposal was put forward. We met every morning to discuss the strategy of that conference. I recall speaking very forcibly on the point that the main consideration we had was to get this one part of the work of the conference clearly into an international convention so it would be of some use to us in case there was a breakdown on any other point. I do not believe my claim was made in any sense as boasting.
There were several other points raised which I think will be straightened out in the record. The first one deals with the statement that I said it was government policy to do certain things on the continental shelf. At the time I objected to that statement, but to make the record absolutely clear I would cite page 6873 of Hansard for July 23, 1960, where the hon. member for Villeneuve said:
So I would suggest the government give serious consideration to granting the provinces the rights to those natural resources on the continental shelf adjoining their own boundaries.
I was not the one who said that, it was the hon. member for Villeneuve. He made the suggestion that we give serious consideration to that matter and naturally, in answer, I said:
This is a matter of government policy and will be declared in due course.
I did not make the statement that these resources should be given back to the provinces because I have no right to make that statement. What I have said in the past is that we have made it very clear that the legal officers of the crown say the continental shelf belongs under federal jurisdiction. If there are any disclaimers to that, there is a proper course to take and that course is up to the persons who feel offended.
I believe those are the main points I have to answer, Mr. Chairman. I am very grateful to the committee for debating this subject of the Liberal versus the Conservative vision so vigorously because I think it will help many Canadians, not only in this committee but outside, to understand what the differences are between us.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Lionel Chevrier: During the course of the discussion earlier, an hon. member-I believe it was the hon. member for Port Arthur- asked a question about the Yukon. The minister seemed to indicate that he disclaimed jurisdiction. If we have any questions concerning the Yukon, to whom do we direct them?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, I think that is quite correct. The set-up in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon is that we have given jurisdiction to elected councils to look after matters concerning the territories, with the exception of natural resources, education and social welfare for the Indians and Eskimos. The commissioner acts in a dual capacity. When it is a matter that comes under territorial jurisdiction he deals with it without any directions from Ottawa. When it is a matter over which the federal government has jurisdiction he, of course, consults us and is responsible to us for his actions.
This is a very delicate matter in connection with the development of the territory leading finally to the concept of provincial status. In so far as the responsibility of the minister here is concerned, I would suggest it is 100 per cent in connection with matters of federal jurisdiction but in so far as territorial matters are concerned all I can do is relay to the house what is going on there as I see it. I would not want to interfere in their right to decide on such matters as the game laws or the liquor laws which come under their jurisdiction. I can only facilitate any of their actions because everything they do does come under the governor general in council who has to approve all their ordinances. I am not an authority on just what I should be responsible for in the house. I would be glad to discuss any of these matters, as I did with the hon. member for Port Arthur because the case he was discussing was that of an individual criticizing the territorial government. I do not think that I should be required to defend a territorial government or to defend a member. It is a matter between the two and I did not want to get into that discussion.


Mr. Peters:: I have been waiting for some time, for this particular item to be reached, Mr. Chairman. Early in March this year we passed a bill which took over for the Canadian government from United States control a pipe line in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. At that time there was a great deal of controversy as to what the government intended to do with this pipe line. It was my hope and desire that the Canadian government would take it over as a crown corporation and would operate the pipe line

Supply-Northern Affairs and would also rebuild those roads and airports that were going to serve in the development and the opening up of the particular area.
At that time we were told that because negotiations were being conducted at the time we could not be told what was going to happen to the Canol project. Since then on several occasions I have asked the other minister of northern affairs, the hon. member for Yukon, what the situation was in relation to this matter and he said that he did not know. Now that we have had an opportunity of buying it and have in fact bought it, I should like to know what we are going to do with it and what the disposition of it is. It is now no longer a buying proposition; it is something that the Canadian people own. I think that now is the time to tell us whether we are going to get it as a crown corporation or whether we are going to sell it or lease it to companies as was suggested at the time of the discussion.
I think this has been an opportunity for development in that area. Connected with the projected has been extensive road development, extensive airfield development as well as the pipe line itself. We were told we were getting a real bargain, that we were getting about a $1,700 million proposition for about $600,000, that this was a bargain. I think this type of bargain could and should be used for the development of that area. I am still of the opinion that the best way in which that can be done is through public ownership and operation as a crown corporation.
I was also interested in the statement the minister made about developing the lead and zinc mines in other areas. While I am not familiar with what the background is or what the situation is, I think the minister should bear in mind something that Larry Sefton, district director of district No. 5 of the united steelworkers said a few months ago when they were discussing the Elliot Lake proposition and the uranium industry in general. He made the statement-and I think it is a correct one-that if we do not plan what we were going to do with our natural resources, it is much better to leave those natural resources alone and not touch them at all. There would have been less of a problem at Elliot Lake to the miners, to the people of the community, to the government of Ontario and to the municipal governments that put money into this project, if we had never operated the uranium industry at all. People are going to lose their life savings in the houses they purchased there when no jobs are possible for many of them in the future.


I think we should be giving serious consideration to developing new industries. It is quite true, as the minister said, that if we are going to fit this into our economy, this is the time in which to do it. We must ascertain for ourselves what is the marketing potentiality, what the needs are and then develop a fairly long range program. However, I am not in agreement in any way, shape or form in developing natural resources that are going to be at the expense of the people themselves if we have not a long range program under which we can foresee the sale at reasonable prices of the minerals we are going to produce. Otherwise, it would be much better that we did not operate these mines at all or that we did not do any of the development that is necessary.
I am also interested in another field. I am pleased that the minister has divided his department into two sections. I suggest there should be another section. I come from a part of Ontario that is still in a period of growth, a period in which it is dependent entirely for its existence on its primary natural resources. These resources of minerals such as gold, silver and the other metals and the lumbering industry have been the basis for the development of northern Ontario. This development has all taken place within the last 60 or 70 years.
We have now reached the stage where the development of the natural resources of the nothem area has come to an end. Within the last few weeks in Kirkland Lake we have notice being given of the closing down of two large mines that have been in operation for many years, one of them for 25 years. We have taken the precaution of keeping these properties in production through emergency gold mining assistance and in other ways have assisted them to stay in production. But we have done nothing whatsoever as a government to further the secondary development that is absolutely necessary in order to carry on the second stage. To me it seems rather silly that we should be interested in going into new areas and developing new mines and in going into new areas and developing towns like Frobisher Bay when we have towns much closer that are already there and that are completely dependent on the government for starting the second stage of their development and bringing them into the general economy of the country through the expansion of secondary industry.
This must be the responsibility of the government. If we are going into the production of minerals, into the lumbering industry or any of the other natural resources, I think this must be a planned forage into those industries. I think we must know how far we are going to go, how extensively we are

going to support it, what protection we can give for the lifetime of that particular industry but, particularly in those industries that are not renewable, we should be prepared to start a secondary development so that we shall not have ghost towns all throughout northern Ontario, the north of Quebec and, I imagine, all through northern Canada including the Northwest Territories.
It is all very nice to say that this vision keeps moving farther and farther away. We were greatly impressed in Ontario to find that the people in Toronto bought this because all they ever knew about northern development was that if you bought stock on Bay street you could make a fairly good profit on those stocks and that it was a nice thing to get more mines in production because there was a great deal more money to be made on Bay street in the development of those mines. But they never came north to see what was developed and they were not particularly interested in doing so. They were more interested in getting premiums or in clipping coupons of those that were successful and they wanted to forget about those that were not successful.
If we are going to be honest about the vision in northern Canada-and I think we should be, it seems to me that we are going to be going north, we are going to develop the north; there is no question about that- I think we should consolidate some of the northern development that we have already done. In my opinion, there is no better place in which to live than in northern Ontario where the mines are now starting to close down. Sylvanite will be laying off 300 or 400 men in the next few weeks. Kirkland Lake Minerals will be laying off at the end of this month or on the 31st of this month half of their staff. The other half of the staff will be doing a clean-up operation and then the mine will be completely closed in a very short time.
It seems to me that one of the branches of the department of northern affairs should be a branch that will handle secondary industry. I suggest that the minister give serious consideration to this matter. It is not good enough to leave them trailing all over the country, with public works giving a handout here and northern affairs putting their foot in it in another place and the minister of mines making promises in his jurisdiction and none of them actually facing the problem that must be faced, namely that of secondary industry.
In speaking of natural resources and of northern development, may I say that I think the time has come when we must be realistic about putting secondary industries
Supply-Northern Affairs into northern Ontario. This can be done only on a planned basis by a department that is situated so that it can take advantage of the natural development that flows from primary resources and puts some of that money and some of those resources and some of the development that is possible into secondary industries so that when the one dies, the other is being born and communities are able to continue. It will not impress the people of the Kirkland Lake area and the other mining communities at all to hear about the future development of places like Frobisher and other mining communities when they themselves have no jobs or places to go to or no secondary industry in sight.
I think the minister should give serious consideration to this matter of secondary development which is a natural offshoot of primary development of our natural resources. While it may be difficult to convince a Conservative government that this should be done, because it means economical planning and the taking of some money out of the pockets of those who have been scavengers throughout the ages on both the lumber and mining industries, some money must flow back into the development of secondary industries. If we offer the considerations which have been offered in other countries to develop secondary industries we can have secondary industries in our northern areas of Ontario and Quebec.
It is not good enough to say that we will do it five years from now. As far as Kirkland Lake is concerned two of the producing mines are now closing in the next few weeks and I am sure others will follow because some of them have been in production for 25 to 30 years and this is the lifetime, in the main, of these industries. The protection we gave to the forest industry has not made it possible for us to have a continuing industry in that field either, so that secondary industries are the only answer we have to this matter of solving the problem which arises after you complete the first stages of development in the field of natural resources.
There is another problem which affects us, and that is the matter of a seaport on James bay which is not the responsibility of any department of government. We have raised this on almost all the estimates but we are always told it belongs to somebody else. Surely, Mr. Chairman, this belongs at least partly to the department of northern affairs because this is one of the methods, in my opinion, by which we will be able to bring in secondary industries to areas which to a

Supply-Northern Affairs great extent are now devoid of natural resources, and at the same time it will start a flow into that area of natural resources from other areas.
I think the minister is fully aware of the potentialities we have in the Hudson bay and James bay areas which will flow into the heart of industrial Canada and the Toronto area if we are able to develop a port which will make it feasible and economical to produce the iron ore and other minerals in the area to the point where they can be transported to the companies and the areas which will use them. If we do that I think also in the process we will be building secondary industry all along the route which will follow from the fact that we will be supplying finished products, the things which are necessary to develop new areas, mining equipment, all the feeder equipment which will go into production. We will be able to produce that all along the line and this will in turn be a partial solution to the problem which is now faced by those areas which only a few years ago were part of our northern development and which are now nearly devoid of any secondary industry unless it can get it from the reflection of the vision this government has.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall vote 282 carry?


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Chairman. I would like an explanation particularly about what happened to the pipe line projects.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Negotiations are still continuing, but I can tell the committee that we are now trying to lease to the White Pass railway in the Yukon a four-inch line which goes south of Whitehorse toward the United States boundary leading to Skagway. In the case of the three-inch line leading from Whitehorse to the Alaska border, we are negotiating with the Alaska-Yukon Refineries and Distribution Limited for them to lease that. Therefore, we will retain ownership of these two lines but will lease them to the two companies to keep down prices of fuel in that area. There is a two-inch line which rims from Carcross up to Watson Lake, but so far we have not found any person interested in it and we may have to salvage it and take the pipe out. There is very faint chance we might find a use for it, but I think it is very faint.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
290. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including costs arising out of the relocation of the town of Aklavik and payment of such compensation as governor in council prescribes to persons affected by such relocation, $9,805,370.
Lester Bowles Pearson: This vote covers, among other things, communications, roads, bridges, and there is a reduction of some $2,800,000 I believe. I wonder if the minister would explain that?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Is the Leader of the Opposition referring to item 290 or 289?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know whether it is under 289 or 290. I am talking about the details which are to be found on page 394 under the Yukon territory, construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, and construction of roads and bridges is one of the details, and the amount being asked this year is $3,367,000, which is a considerable decrease over last year. In view of the minister's statement about the importance of communications and roads and all that kind of thing, I thought perhaps he would explain that decrease.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Are we on vote 290, Mr. Chairman?


Mr. Robichaud:: I think the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition is on item 288.


Charles Edward Rea: That was passed but perhaps the minister can answer it now.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Yukon, which was item 288, but the figures he quoted are under item 290 and that is why we are confused. But I think the chairman will allow me to answer this question on any one of the votes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the minister would answer under 288 and 290 because there are two separate votes for the construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, construction of roads and bridges, one in the Yukon and the other in the Northwest Territories. They both show a decrease and perhaps the minister would explain the reason for it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The votes referred to by the Leader of the Opposition are construction votes in the Yukon and construction votes in the Northwest Territories. The construction vote in the Yukon is down by approximately $665,000. This is largely due to the fact that this is the completion of the big program of building bridges which was announced in the estimates for 1958 if I remember correctly. The three major rivers that intersect the road leading from Whitehorse to Mayo were a great barrier to the movement of goods north and south in the Yukon. These bridges have been built and will be completed this year. There will be no necessity for the vote continuing on

to the next year. The reduced amounts are to cover the finishing off of the bridges which are three in number.
In this vote also is the money required for the Flat Creek-Eagle Plain road which runs north from Dawson City to the new oil find in Eagle Plain. I gave the committee a report on that project on Saturday but will repeat it again. In the first year the progress was slower than we expected due to the fact that there was heavy rain last year in this area for the first time in many years. This year the progress is much faster and we expect by the end of the year to come close to getting back on schedule over the two-year period. I have the details of all the roads in this program. Does the hon. member want that information?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think not, Mr. Chairman, but could the minister tell the committee whether there is any new road construction involved in votes Nos. 288 and 290?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, the new construction is a continuation of the Flat Creek road up to Eagle Plain. It will take six or seven years to move forward on this schedule. The other runs from the southeast corner of the Yukon to a place called Watson Lake and then will head in a northwesterly direction up to Ross river finally reaching the Whitehorse-Keno road at Carmacks. The road goes through one of the most promising mineral areas of the Yukon. We will start our construction program on that road this year. I believe the program for this year calls for the road going to Frances lake a distance of 28 or 30 miles from Watson Lake. I do not have the figures. The program will be carried out year by year until completed. It may interest hon. members to know that on the road from Frances lake to Watson lake we will be building, when we can see the economics of it, an access road up to the tungsten development on the border of the Yukon and Northwest Territories.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it from what the minister said, Mr. Chairman, that this reduction in road and bridge construction in the two votes is due to budgetary considerations largely and not to the fact that there is no longer a necessity for developing communications and roads in the area concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forestry branch-
291. Branch administration, $172,333.
Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I am not an historian but I want to speak on this item. I always feel at home in tall timber. We discussed this thoroughly on the bill to set up the new Department of Forestry so I will be brief. I think it is safe to say that this is
Supply-Northern Affairs the last time the estimates of this branch will come before us as a branch of this department because next year I presume the item will be a main one in the estimates of the department of forestry.
We hope that as a result of the conference on resources for tomorrow there will be an agreement on certain principles between the government and certain provinces respecting policies concerning the development of forest research and forestry in general. We appreciate the work done by this department and particularly the forest products laboratory which produced many splendid booklets which I have in my hand. When the department is well under way we hope the branch will have ample funds to extend its work in connection with keeping in contact with the lumber industry and especially small operators. Despite the good work done in the past small operators did not know the information was available but knowledge of it is more widespread today.
I shall deal with an immediate problem that can be tackled in the immediate future through efforts on the part of the federal and provincial governments to prevent losses from fires that are occurring even at the present time. The Nelson News of July 21 mentioned that in the Kootenays at the present time approximately 2,000 men are fighting fires and a more recent report indicates that 10,000 acres of timber are on fire. The expenditure on the part of the provincial government is very heavy. There is a worse state of affairs in the region north of Kamloops and to some extent in central British Columbia. I see by the press that there are heavy fire losses in other parts of Canada.
I am keen on this question because I witnessed some bad fires. My first experience was that of being the youngest man on a fire fighting crew in the early days of this century when I was given the job of leading 10 young ladies through the mountains in the dark and depositing them safely at a lakeside some 10 miles away and I have seen many fires since. I stood on a mountain and saw timber in a valley 15 miles long and three miles wide completely destroyed in three hours; 200 million feet of commercial or near commercial timber almost completely destroyed, nothing left but charred stumps and trees killed by the heat. These experiences have led to my keen interest.
Fire prevention is not just a matter of more funds but a question of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, various government departments and other agencies in the province and even in the

Supply-Northern Affairs municipalities in some cases, and the organization and better mobilization of presently available resources.
I do hope that one of the first things this conference on resources for tomorrow tackles is an immediate problem, something that can be done, as it were, overnight, compared with forestry laboratory research, forestry research or forestry fire protection reseach; that is, some program and planning which, as I said before, will enable us to organize the capacity we have today to fight forest fires in Canada and to mobilize our resources. I suggest that we should have an over-all national policy in this respect that provides for the throwing into a forest fire situation first of all the local resources in manpower, materials and equipment, and when it is obvious that that is not sufficient, then the provincial resources come into play and then finally if necesary we can throw in the national resources.
In the national resources I include the armed forces. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that we should have thousands of men in training at the present time, particularly those men in engineering corps and certain infantry units in the army who could be spared for a month or two, if necessary, to fight fires, and not use them. We have a situation in British Columbia where the armed forces of the federal gov-vernment could be used. The Department of National Defence should be willing to co-operate with the provincial, regional and local authorities to use the armed forces, whether it is the air force transporting troops, or troops from the infantry or other services, and throw them into a certain area when required to build roads and to assist the local people in fighting the fires which are raging at the present time. The experience would be a good thing for our armed forces. It would be good practice for them in meeting emergency situations and dealing with problems. Very often the problem has to be met under very difficult circumstances of rough terrain with difficulties in respect of transportation of food, men and equipment, and so on.
As I said before, I am going to be quite brief, but I do suggest that one of the first questions that should be considered by the resources for tomorrow conference should be the organization and mobilization of all our resources in Canada as the result of co-operation among the federal and provincial governments and the regional and local authorities in an effort to limit as much as we can the destruction of our forests by fire which is so devastating from year to year and particularly at this time
[Mr. Herridge.l
while we are discussing the estimates of the forestry branch of this department.


Mr, Chevrier:: I have a question or two for the minister in connection with this division of his department. I take it that this is the division which is going to be transferred to the new department of forestry.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Since it is a very important division of the minister's department, he should tell us, if he can of course, what will be done with this particular branch. Has the minister any information as to when the new department is likely to be established? Can he tell us what other aspects of forestry over and above those that were mentioned during the discussion of the legislation to establish the new department are to be transferred, and any other information that I am sure he must have at his disposal now in connection with the establishment of the new department?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: First of all, I should like to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West for his kind words to the members of the forestry branch and both -research and forest products laboratory, because I do not think there is a group of people more deserving of the thanks of their fellow Canadians. I should like to add my words of appreciation in the committee at this time of the officials of this branch who will soon be moving to the new department.
The hon. member for Kootenay West raised the question of forest fires. When I introduced second reading of the forestry bill I suggested that something could be done in setting up reservoirs of trained personnel and equipment. I should like to inform the hon. member and the committee that just last week end there was a meeting in Oris-kany, Quebec, of representatives of the forest industry, the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario, and the province of New Brunswick, represented by ministers; also representatives of the armed services, the army and air force, wondering and working out plans that I hope will be put before the new minister in connection with the proposal that I originally hinted at when I was speaking on second reading of the forestry bill and which has been amplified to a degree by the hon. member for Kootenay West.
I think I can say on my part that until this branch is removed from my jurisdiction I will push as hard as I can to see that everything is done in the form of planning for the new minister; that he will have research work that we have done, at least planning for research work that we have done, and planning

better forest fire co-operation with the provinces. All these plans will be turned over to the minister and I will not stop because the branch is leaving me sometime this year.
The hon. member for Laurier asked for details of what is being done with this particular branch. The actual divisions that will go over to the new department from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources are: forest research division; forest products research division; forest operations division and the administrative division. From agriculture there will go just one division composed of the two sections, forest entomology and forest pathology. In addition to this, there will have to be built up an administrative corps under which these various branches will operate. I do believe there has to be an economics section and a section on marketing to co-operate with the Department of Trade and Commerce, and some administrative officials.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt to ask whether that will include votes 291 to 301? They would go to the new department?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, I think it will include all of those votes, but there would also have to be some additional administrative personnel, the nature of which I just described. At the present time the officials are busy working out the organizational plan for bringing these two branches together. Also, we have the question of housing the new department, and that is now in the hands of public works. I think these are all the details I can give the committee at this time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to support very strongly the point made by the hon. member for Kootenay West about the armed forces. It seems to me it could be very much a part of their training to have them work in fire prevention, especially since it would require their movement at speed to different parts of the country. If the minister runs into any difficulty in getting co-operation in working out such a plan and such a task force, I would suggest to him that he compare, at least in the cabinet and with the Minister of National Defence, the efficacy of the changing of the guard out on parliament hill with the contribution that a force of equal size and of equal training, but in a much more utilitarian field, could play in fire fighting assistance.
The hon. member for Kootenay West has fires in his area similar to those which we have had in northwestern Ontario recently. The problem of the Ontario provincial fire service is not one of bad organization but has to do with the fact that they cannot keep up to strength to master completely all fire problems on any kind of a permanent
Supply-Northern Affairs basis. Last year was a wonderful year in Ontario from a fire point of view in that because of a combination of weather and other factors there was very little in the way of threat. This year the situation is much different, and I have great sympathy with the provincial authorities and the problems they face.
In the Canadian army we have a corps of men whom we can only look upon as being primarily to defend our own country and who could form a kind of task force which could come into the picture when a fire problem arose and because of the experience they would have they would gain very much in a military way. If we contemplate fighting the Russians some day, I imagine most of the fighting will take place in the boreal forest area, and the experience gained in the bush, with all its tribulations, fighting fires is something that I think our army could well afford.
I have noticed in the press the magnificent manoeuvres that are taking place near Petawawa at the present time and the cost to the taxpayers. I am pleased to think our soldiers are being trained but I also think of how comparable in worth the training would be that they would get in moving to danger areas where there are fires. That is why I should like to support very strongly the suggestion that the minister take the lead through this branch in seeing such a force developed.
I should like to ask the minister several questions about the branch. What is going to be done about the library services and facilities for the new forestry department? I am not critical of the forestry branch library. The last time I was there a few years ago it struck me as being a fair though not an excellent library to serve the specific branch, but if we are going to have a forestry department it seems to me it has to be much larger.
The minister is probably aware that from a research point of view the papers and documentation on file now in the Department of Agriculture are much more complex and go much deeper in terms of classification than much of the general forestry literature whether it has to do with economics of forest management or silviculture. Therefore I should like to know what the plans are for the library service in the new department and just what role is now going to be played by the library that now exists in the forestry branch. If, as the minister indicates, the new department is going to be the leading research organization in Canada for forestry in all its aspects I suggest we need more space than we have at present, more librarians and real
7062	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs planning in this field. I should like to know what the minister can tell us about this matter.
There is one other piece of information I should like to have. How much time was given by the foresters of the forestry branch to assistance of the Indian affairs branch in relation to Indian lands in the last year or so? Is there under consideration at the present time any arrangement with the Indian affairs branch that would lead to greater provision of the services of professional foresters to the Indian affairs branch than exists now?


Edwin William Brunsden: Will the hon. member permit a question? Those of us on this side of the house find it difficult to follow him in his various ramifications. Is he suggesting that the ceremony outside the parliament buildings each morning should be discontinued?


Douglas Mason Fisher: If it is a good tourist attraction, it is a good tourist attraction, but I would suggest that in terms of actual dollar return to the country, in terms of real military training, a military task force which could handle forest fire crises would be of greater value to the country than the ceremony in front of the building.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: With respect to the question of the library in the new department, I can say we will be taking over the libraries in the head office of the forestry branch, the laboratory offices and the field offices. The library in the agricultural division will be taken over but it is recognized there will have to be considerable effort to build up the forest biology section because to a great extent that library is tied in with the very fine libraries in the Department of Agriculture. The one in the new department will have to be built up. With respect to Indian affairs, there are plans now on foot to assist Indians in two parts of Canada next year but that does not come under this vote. It will come under next year's estimates.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could the minister give some indication of just what negotiations have taken place? After all, this matter must come under the general forestry branch item and I think it is fair to ask about it. I would emphasize this point by saying I have not been satisfied with the explanations of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in this regard. I welcome very much the minister's statement that there is going to be more assistance in the future but I think we are entitled to know what is involved.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is the policy of the forestry branch to accept requests from any department of the government to do surveys and studies and to help plan forest management with respect to forests under
[Mr. Fisher.J

the control of any department. As the hon. member knows, we have done a good deal of this work for the Department of National Defence. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has asked us to do work in two places in Canada next year. I understand that the planning is going forward but there is nothing in this vote for what is planned for next summer.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Has the minister carried on any negotiations in the past year or had any conversations with the Minister of National Defence on the question of a military task force giving support in the summer time to meet forest fire crises?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Minister of National Defence and I have been working on this matter for a year and there is perfect harmony and agreement on both sides. What I said to the committee today is the first indication that the matter has moved into the field of ministers meeting with the provinces. These are informal meetings but we are trying to find out what the problems of the various provinces are and to see if we cannot come up with a plan that will be satisfactory to the industry, to the provinces and to ourselves. The military people are very interested in the matter and are co-operating with us in working out plans.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Can the minister tell us whether part of the consideration is the use of some of the facilities of the Royal Canadian Air Force in such a field as water bombing? I raise that point because this appears to be a practical means of bringing medium or small fires under control. Yet very few provincial forestry services can afford the kind of concentration in terms of planes to make this method most effective. Here again, it would seem to me this might fit in with some of the cargo carrying and transportation duties of the R.C.A.F. I should like to know whether that is part of the consideration.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
296.	Contributions to the provinces for assistance in forest inventory, reforestation and forest fire protection in accordance wiht agreements entered into by Canada and the provinces, $2,450,000.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Since the election in Quebec has there been any change in the attitude of the Quebec government toward these agreements?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. Informed approaches were made on these matters by both the previous administration and the present administration in Quebec.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is the increase enough to take care of any participation in the present fiscal year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The vote is set up on the basis of all provinces coming in and if any province does not come in the amount left over is distributed among the other provinces. If Quebec comes in they will get their allotment which is based on a formula.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
297.	Contribution to the province of New Brunswick for assistance in a program designed to combat the spruce budworm infestation, in accordance with an agreement entered into by Canada and the province, $550,000.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before I say a word on this item, may I be permitted to welcome the new premier of New Brunswick, whose presence has been noted in the gallery.
This item has to do with the contribution to the province of New Brunswick for assistance in a program designed to combat spruce budworm infestation in accordance with an agreement entered into by Canada and the province. The minister will recall that a few years ago there were some unfortunate instances connected with the spraying operation. Certain streams and certain ponds were infected and the fish were being killed. Could the minister advise this committee if the necessary precautionary measures have been taken to avoid a repetition of such unfortunate incidents?
It seems to me that I recall reading an article in one of the New Brunswick newspapers a few days ago in which it was stated that certain streams had been depleted of sport fish. I believe trout was mentioned in that instance. The main reason for this was the spraying operation. I am not against the spraying of New Brunswick's forests to protect them from budworm infestation, but I do believe certain precautionary measures should be taken. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee if this matter has been looked into?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, this has been a matter of considerable interest to both governments. In the past the spraying has been done on the basis of using 1| pounds of d.d.t. per acre. We have been in consultation with the Department of Fisheries here, and of course the same department in New Brunswick, and this year in areas close to streams we have decided to use only one-quarter pound of d.d.t. per acre. The fisheries people advise this will not do too much harm to fish, and of course I accept their advice. I think there is a reasonable chance that this compromise will succeed in slowing down
Supply-Northern Affairs the budworms and at the same time not do too much damage to the fish.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forest products laboratories division-
298.	Operation and maintenance, $966,063.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Could the minister indicate just how many research people are being added and to what areas are the specialists going? Is it more toward the pulp and paper side or is it more toward the lumber and preservatives side?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The additions to the research staff this year do not do work for the pulp and paper companies directly. The pulp and paper companies do most of their own work in basic research. The 11 new forestry officers put on this year will be doing basic forest research, which will apply to the trees whether they are used for pulp and paper or lumber.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This is not very clear to me. There are a number of people whom I know at the products laboratory who are working in fields that relate to the pulp and paper industry. I am quite aware that the pulp and paper research institute does a lot of work, but I just wanted assurance from the minister that the increase is not in that particular field but is in the field of preservatives and lumber.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think I may have left a wrong impression as a result of my last remark. At division headquarters the number has increased from 4 to 13, that is an increase of 9. At the Ottawa laboratory the number has increased from 108 to 113, that is an increase of 5; at the Vancouver laboratory the number has increased from 53 to 61, an increase of 8. This makes a grand total of 22, of which 11 are scientific personnel. The impression I left at the end of my last answer was that the work of these fellows was connected mostly with the trees themselves. However, these 22 extra people on the research side are working in laboratories which are concerned almost entirely with the uses of wood other than pulp and paper.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
301.	Eastern rockies forest conservation board- Remuneration and expenses of the federal member of the board, $5,575.
Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps this question should have been asked on the first item concerning the forestry branch, but in answer to my question earlier the minister gave very little information. Is the minister able to say when the new department is to be established?
7064	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman. Incidentally, since we are on this question of the eastern Rockies, I may say that the agreement that we have will be transferred to the new department. I do not know the time when the new department will be set up. There is still considerable work to do.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National museum of Canada-
302.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $736,904.
Douglas Mason Fisher: I hope the minister can give us a statement on how the national museum has been adjusting to the problems it had in the last two or three years, the scandal, if I might call it that, within the management. I should like to know, especially, about the performance of some of these central figures in the Rousseau charges, and generally how the museum is coming along now, especially since it now has the building all to itself and is in a position to get moving along in a more constructive pattern. I should like to know whether the government is still searching for a senior appointment amongst the French-Canadians of the population. I should like to know what balance is being sought in connection with that particular matter in order to give French-Canadians some representation at the senior level that they had on such a temporary basis before what was, in effect, the dismissal of Dr. Rousseau.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: First of all, I think the committee will agree with me that there was hardly a scandal down at the museum. It is true that one or two newspapers had headlines which made it look as if there were something very odd going on down there. Fortunately, in the interests of justice and fair play, they stopped that and I am very grateful to them for doing so.
At the present time the director of the museum and the permanent head of the natural history museum is Dr. Russell. He is also the acting head of the human history side of the museum. Recently we have been able to recruit a topnotch person by the name of Mr. Wilson, who will be the assistant director of the human history and natural history side. We are looking forward to gradually straightening out the administrative problems that have arisen in the museum.
I should like at this time to make certain that everyone knows some of our thinking on the museum. The national museum is the place where we keep a record of those things dealing with our natural history and human history. This museum has worked under a
[Mr. Chevrier.l

very severe handicap because it had to share the building with the geological survey of Canada and the national art gallery.
After many long years the building has now come back to the museum. Certain repair work must be done to modernize the museum for better use. I want to make this point clear. The primary purpose of the museum is to collect our history. However, an important secondary purpose is to make this history accessible and available to all Canadians. It is extremely difficult to move every Canadian to Ottawa. Therefore the museum has done wonderful work in the scientific field in preparing booklets and brochures on various parts of the work we are doing. Indeed, I should like them to push this work further.
Through the medium of television, for example, I should like to be able to take and make alive the exhibits we have there in a dynamic form and send them all across the country through the means of television. In the replanning of the Victoria building I hope that space will be set up for a television studio. I also hope that the various television companies, in trying to achieve their 55 per cent Canadian content, will realize that the best entertainment over a period of years is education and that the great knowledge collected by great scientists in this building will become the real heritage of people all across the country by having it taken to them in the form of television. There are other ways of taking museums to the people. I do not want to bore the committee with details but I will say this. I am quite proud of the way in which the museum is taking hold of this task and with the great ability and the great sense of scientific accuracy possessed by the staff, I am sure the Canadian people, when they have the museum taken to them, will be seeing some of the best examples of the collection of knowledge that we have any place in the world.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the fact that historically Conservative parties have always looked upon nations as national museums and the parties in question as the curators of those museums, the government should meet its greatest success in the administration of this national museum of ours. I think there have been some improvements since the Conservatives came to power. That is one of the branches of the various departments for the improvement of whose administration I give them great credit, although it has been slow. However, I presume it is in line with their historical role in history.
However, I rose particularly to deal with a matter that is of particular concern to people in other museums across Canada and those people who are interested in preserving

the archaeological finds and artifacts and other things of the past. In this connection I wish to quote briefly from the report of the committee on mines, forests and waters of the last session in connection with the museum. This report starting at page 671 of Votes and Proceedings of July 6, 1959 reads as follows:
Your committee recommends that the government examine the adequacy of present legislation and regulations concerning protection of archaeological discoveries and artifacts, and their export from Canada. Such examination should include liaison with the provinces for exchange of information on archaeological discoveries and for uniformity of protective legislation throughout Canada.
I should be interested in knowing what has been done to give effect to that recommendation on the part of the committee because of the interest that is shown in this question by persons across Canada. My attention was drawn quite recently to an article in Maclean's magazine of July 4, 1959. It is written by Fred Bodsworth and it is entitled "The scandal of our lost art treasures". In it he goes to great lengths to indicate how our lost art treasures are going to the United States particularly and in some cases to other nations because apparently we have not in the national museums, the provincial museums or among private persons the initiative to make certain that these treasures are not lost to Canada. I want to quote just a few comments made in this article because they -impressed me greatly and in order to emphasize the importance of this question to the committee:
For 200 years such treasures of Canadian art and history have been pouring unnoticed out of our country into the museums and private collections of the United States and Europe. They have included not only historical treasures of our own pioneer era, but also vast quantities of primitive Indian and Eskimo art-irreplaceable examples of the now forgotten crafts of our first Canadians.
Then he goes on to deal with the places to which these things have gone. He states:
The Detroit institute of art has a collection of French Canadiana (church sculpture, silver and pioneer furniture) much choicer and comprehensive than anything in Canada, including French Canada.
New York's museum of the American Indian alone has seventy superb examples of a much-sought type of abstract, wooden, Eskimo mask; in all Canada there are fewer than a dozen comparable specimens.
Then he goes on to say this:
But the world's biggest Haida argillite collection is a privately owned one in Florida, its 527 specimens probably outranking all Canadian collections combined.
The art's earliest and most primitive period, prior to the 1830's, is represented in Canada by only one specimen-a pipe in the Hudson's Bay Company museum in Winnipeg. But there are scores of specimens dating back to that period-in the
Supply-Northern Affairs Paris museum of man, the Peabody museum of Massachusetts and the U.S. national museum in Washington.
While we neglect taking care of these treasures, he goes on further to say this: Meanwhile collectors from other countries, especially the United States, were overrunning Canada and carting our heritage away by the boxcar load.
I know that the protection of Canadian archaeological discoveries and artifacts is not the sole responsibility or jurisdiction of the national museum. However, I urge that everything possible be done by this government to interest provincial museums and historical associations. I think it is an excellent thing to get the co-operation of local historical associations in connection with the preservation of these interesting relics with respect to our history and former civilization on this continent. I know that our own historical society-I refer to the West Kootenay historical society; and I have never been backward in saying that we are extremely progressive in West Kootenay in many respects-has been greatly interested in making certain of the preservation of Indian relics and things of that sort, of early relics of the pioneer settlements in the fur trading days and the early lumbering days, of the early agricultural settlements, and so on.
I am sorry to know that the only specimen of a Kootenay canoe in existence in Canada was brought from the Kootenays to the national museum, was hung from the ceiling and was allowed to perish from lack of care. One morning when the caretaker went into the museum he found it had fallen to the floor and had broken into many fragments. It is a most unfortunate thing that this canoe, which represents a type of canoe that is found only in two places of the world, namely on the interior lakes in the Kootenays and on a small lake in northern Siberia, was allowed to perish in the national museum because of lack of care.
I mention that matter because this occurrence was greatly regretted by people who were interested in this matter in my district. I am glad to know that I obtained a good photograph of it before it was allowed to collapse and fall to the floor. The situation arose because of lack of a certain moisture content in the air in the building and because of lack of protection of the surface so that the moisture would not evaporate and it would not become so brittle that it would disintegrate.
Before I sit down I also want to bring to the attention of the committee the comments that were made by my leader, namely the hon. member for Assiniboia who I hope will

Supply-Northern Affairs be national leader of the C.C.F. in Canada. On page 1105 of the committee report appears the following:


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the minister can comment on this if he cares to. Surely there is no suggestion that the Canadian government does not have the constitutional authority to promulgate regulations controlling the export of goods of all kinds-artifacts, specimens, and so on-from this country.-
Then in reply the minister said:
-I know the provinces look after the archaeology of their provinces, and if they had a regulation and would agree that a number of these things could be taken out, at first glimpse, I do not think the federal government would want to set up a national policy to override a provincial policy and look on these as trade goods.
Then the hon. member for Assiniboia goes on to say:
-but I would suggest that general regulations in this field are as necessary and important as are general regulations in the field of taking any other commodities outside of the country.
Then the minister replied:
That has concerned me very much.
And I am sure it has.
X have started a study of provincial legislation and what is operating there.
There is one advantage the federal government has in this field and that is that it can prevent the export of certain things from Canada although it has not jurisdiction over any of these archaeological discoveries or artifacts within the province as within territories. When the minister replies I would like him to say what has been done to remedy this situation and to protect as far as we possibly can these very interesting historical relics which are the heritage of the Canadian people and should be retained in Canada.
(Translation):


Louis Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few words to say. A few years ago, a very cultured gentleman in my province, Mr. Gerard Morrissette, proceeded to make a complete inventory of the riches and invaluable treasures that were going to waste in the province.
In setting up a national museum, we must not overlook its French aspect, that is, we must attach great importance to the souvenirs and treasures still to be found in the province of Quebec, and which are surely valuable.
Therefore, I take the liberty of suggesting to the minister that, in every province of Canada a high official be instructed to make an inventory of those riches and treasures. This task could be entrusted to the curator of each provincial museum, who could at the same time assess their value. Some of those treasures could be given to the Ottawa national museum and would surely enrich it, because
[Mr. Herridge.l

in many cases they are on the verge of being forgotten or lost. The situation is the same throughout Canada.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Kootenay West I would like to inform him, because I know he is interested in this, that it is recognized I think all over the world that the finest display of west coast Indian relics is in the national museum here, and at the present time the museum is running in Stratford a big exhibit of the west coast Indians, in connection with the Stratford festival.
The hon. member also spoke of the air conditioning and I can assure him that is being remedied as fast as we can do it in reconstruction of the building. In connection with the Kootenay canoe, the Indians there were kind enough to build one for us so that we have a new Kootenay canoe now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Which Indians built that canoe?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will have to wait to get that information.
I should like now to deal with the other subject raised about archaeological site protection. This is a matter which some of us have been interested in for a good many years, and hon. members will remember the strong views which I expressed in the committee in this regard. The hon. member will also remember that one of the recommendations of the standing committee was that some action be taken. I think I have made it clear during the discussion of these estimates that every recommendation of the standing committee has been followed up and action of some sort taken.
I should now like to report to the committee the result of the action we have taken on the recommendation that the hon. member for Kootenay West just quoted. This deals with the promise I made that I would make a study of what was going on in the various provinces. In the national parks we have complete power to prohibit removal of these artifacts. In Indian reserves, under the Indian Act, we also have power to restrict the removal, acquisition of title and trespass. In the Yukon and Northwest Territories, under the amendment we have brought about in the last two years, we are required to obtain permission for control of the minister of northern affairs for their export.
Here is the report for the provinces. Newfoundland, no regulations. Nova Scotia, no regulations. Prince Edward Island, no regulations. New Brunswick, the historic sites protection act 1954, amended 1958. This regulates the designation of sites, issuance of permits and establishment of an advisory

board. Quebec, no regulations. Ontario, the archaeological and historic sites protection act 1953. The minister is to issue permits, require reports and specimens and set up a board. In Manitoba, the historic sites protection act 1954. This is modelled after the Ontario act. Saskatchewan, no regulations; but in view of the fact that a letter has gone out with the general suggestion that the provinces should do something to protect these sites, I think Saskatchewan is going to do something. Alberta, the provincial parks act 1955 provides for regulations in the provincial parks only. British Columbia, the archaeological and historic sites protection act 1960 provides for the minister to designate sites to purchase and/ or protect sites and to issue permits. It also provides for penalties and the setting up of an advisory board.
I think the report I have just read to the committee illustrates that the value of the work members do in committee does have its effect, and that over the next two or three years more of the provinces will yield to this gentle pressure and set up protection for archaeological artifacts which exist in their province.
I am now informed that the Kootenay canoe which the hon. member was interested in was arranged by the Indian agent at Cranbrook, but I do not know the name of the band.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is the Kootenay tribe. I was afraid it might have been Eaton's.
Just before the vote passes I want to thank the minister for his explanation and to say that he was quite correct in mentioning the fact that it is the work of this committee and this report which I think spurred interest in the protection of archaeological discoveries.
I also want to make it quite clear that when I referred to the disintegration of the previous Kootenay canoes, I did not mean the staff; I meant on the part of those responsible for providing the air conditioning and the atmospheric conditions required to keep such things in perpetuity.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I was very pleased to hear the accolade of the minister for the committee and I wish he was in a position to tell the committee who it was who wrote that particular recommendation.
I would like to ask the minister how much of this money is going to brighten up the museum and make it somewhat more attractive? I spent quite a few hours last year in the museum with my children, and in doing so I heard quite a number of comments from people going round. The kids are
Supply-Northern Affairs usually impressed with the exhibits but I often hear the comment from adults that the place tends to be gloomy and rather dry.
It does not provide many places where you can sit in comfort nor does it compare with the royal Ontario museum in that regard. If the minister is familiar with the latter he will know there are seats arranged near the best exhibits so that you can sit and enjoy them in comfort. What will be done to brighten up the building? I realize there are limits on what can be done with old buildings. The ground floor display could be improved. If I were from Alberta I would urge the minister to arrange to present the dinosaurs and other relics more impressively than they are presently arranged in that room. Some of the animal and mineral exhibits also should be given better treatment. What are the plans in that regard?
The minister wants to bring the attractions of the museum to the country through television. What contribution does it make in terms of travelling exhibits across the country? Are there plans to increase them? Last year I had the pleasure of seeing a group of students visit the royal Ontario museum in connection with some classes in history. The presence of the attractive exhibits breathed reality into their lessons.
The museum is limited by staff. Much of its material I understand is not on exhibit. What is planned in this respect for next year? This would be interesting news for the people of Ottawa and the country as a whole.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member has just said about making the presentation of natural or human history more dynamic and living is the same point of view I hold. I wish to present to the hon. member a concept of the extent to which the estimates this year attempt to achieve this end. I have in my hand a list of contracts that come under these votes.
A contract has been let covering the taxidermy for two large habitat groups representing the mountain sheep and the mountain lion. One has been let for the construction of four large fibre glass background shells for habitat groups of moose, antelope, mountain sheep and mountain lion. If the hon. member is familiar with the exhibits in the museum of natural history in New York he will know how effective these fibre glass background shells are in presenting exhibits.
Another has been let for the construction of three miniature dioramas of prehistoric life for the new hall of fossils. A contract has also been let for the construction of three miniature dioramas for the hall of geology. A further contract has been let for the painting of the backgrounds of the caribou, grizzly

Supply-Northern Affairs bear and moose dioramas. A contract with another artist has been let for the painting of the backgrounds of the gannet and prairie water fowl dioramas. Another has been let for the preparation of accessories including artificial grass, leaves, flowers, etc., for four large dioramas.
I list these things because they indicate that we are putting into effect the very sort of thing the hon. member is asking for and which I heartily support.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian government travel bureau-
303.	To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada including a grant of $5,000 to the Canadian tourist association, $2,687,178.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important vote as I need hardly tell the minister and before it is passed perhaps there should be some statement from the hon. gentleman. I do not mean that he should make a long statement-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: -and I say that with deference to him. Perhaps, however, the hon. gentleman could deal with European travellers, the extent to which the movement of tourists has been affected by exchange restrictions, United States travellers as tourists into Canada and what effect the reduction in the premium on the Canadian dollar has had. If he could make a short statement covering these points it would be of assistance to the committee.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, this is a subject which lends itself to extended statements but I shall confine myself to what I think are salient points. First of all the government recognizes as did the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, that a determined effort has to be made to increase the tourist business in Canada, not only with respect to the question of trade and commerce to reduce the adverse trade balance but also to ensure the recognition of this industry as a basic industry.
The first thing we did was to increase the amount of direct advertising in newspapers and magazines. This increase for the first time raises the amount of advertising slightly beyond what it was before. It is only fair to point out that the inflation in the advertising costs results in not very much over-all space increase.
Second, we have set up the office in Chicago. We had hoped to set one up in San Francisco as well but we had to live within the terms of our budget and make our contribution in that field. Therefore we were not able to get the office in San Francisco going.

I wish to briefly discuss with the committee something in which I know they will be interested. I refer to the relative merits of advertising over the establishment of offices and other techniques. I know that advertising is very effective in bringing in an increasing number of requests for information. I cannot deny that the effects of the advertising is being carefully evaluated year by year. Every step the advertising agencies can make to prove the effect of our advertising is being taken. However, we have no clear-cut way of evaluating the relative merits of advertising over other forms of inducing tourists to come to this country.
I hold in my hand a page out of a recent Sunday edition of the Chicago Tribune. Hon. members will be able to see that it contains three large beautifully coloured pictures taken along the Alaska highway and a map showing how the people of the United States can get to Alaska. How did this article happen to get into the Chicago Tribune's weekly supplement? The answer is that one of our staff working in the Chicago office became acquainted with members of the staff of the Tribune and I suppose through his enthusiasm and providing them with pictures was able to sell them the idea that their readers would be interested in knowing about the highway that runs into Alaska, the type of scenery that is found along the highway and how to get there. This illustrates one way in which the tourist offices can achieve results.
Third, I wish to mention that for a number of years we have carried out a special program of advertising in an effort to induce people on the eastern seaboard of the United States to go into the four Atlantic provinces. This inducement has been successful to a remarkable degree particularly in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia which are not separated by water from the road system of the United States. This program has resulted in a sizeable increase each year in the tourist revenue of those provinces.
This brings to mind something I discussed with the standing committee and that is the need for a similar type of program of advertising with respect to the whole of Canada, centering the program around the fact that in every province the trans-Canada highway is completed or soon to be completed. Personally I should like to see a special campaign inaugurated that would point out to all Canadians the completed parts of the trans-Canada highway and the beautiful attractions that are found tributary to the highway.
Each province has a number of attractions that it would like to make known to all Canadians and tourists coming to this country from the United States. I therefore hope there

will be some agreement reached between the provinces and the federal government with respect to a special program of advertising emphasizing the trans-Canada highway linking Canada from east to west and associated with this campaign I hope, too, that the attractions in the northern parts of our provinces will be made known to the travellers along that highway.
I wish to put in a special plug, if I may, for the people at the end of the road to Yellowknife which will be opened this fall and on behalf of the people of Whitehorse where so much is being done to build up the tourist industry. It is not without interest that reports which have been made public recently about development of the north show that the report dealing with Alaska puts at the head of the list that the leading industry of Alaska in the near future will be the tourist industry. The Sandford report dealing with Saskatchewan also puts the tourist industry at a very high level.
I would suggest to the committee that the importance of this industry is being very widely accepted, and we have to draft plans that will help push this thing forward with the utmost efficiency. Therefore, I would like to complete that work by saying that I should like to see a program that makes Canadians aware of the trans-Canada facilities that are available nearby and particularly the attractions of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, leading on to Alaska. If we do this I think there is a tremendous number of adventurous Americans who, when they realize there are good roads, good accommodation and tremendous scenic attractions at the end, will want to see their 49th state.
The final thing is this question of European tourist trade. In Europe today there is a relaxation of restrictions, particularly in the United Kingdom, which makes it possible for Canada to move into this market and see whether we cannot induce people to use the cheaper fares that now exist to come to Canada, just as Canadians are using those cheaper air fares to go to those countries of Europe this year. The director of the travel bureau is going to Europe to visit the high commissioner in London and various European countries to talk to their tourist officials to see whether there could not be a program worked out whereby we would in some measure begin to reverse the trend which has become apparent in the last few years of Canadians going to Europe. We do not want to stop that but we do want to try to get more Europeans to come to see Canada, and to make known what is available to them. I do not know whether this summary answers what the hon. member for Laurier has in mind.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Lionel Chevrier: I will not insist.


Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: Mr. Chairman, I feel this is such an important subject that the views of hon. members should be heard. From his opening statement in introducing his estimates and from his statement in the committee of mines, forests and waters last year and from his statements outside the house, it is evident that the minister has a very keen appreciation of the value of the tourist industry and of the development of the industry in Canada. But this, I feel, is a commercial problem and the technique of dealing with it must be borrowed from the field of commerce and the practices of the market place must be common to all our thinking in endeavouring to develop effective means of drawing more business into Canada for the tourist industry.
I appreciate very much the fact that the minister is aware of the value and of the necessity of increasing the number of offices we have in the United States, in addition to an increase in the amount of advertising we do in that area, because advertising of itself is not enough. Even if we were to double our present budget, which I think we ought to do as quickly as possible, anyone in the field of commerce realizes that advertising alone is not enough to sell products; a sales force is essential to follow through on the effects achieved by the advertising program. Advertising softens up, but the sale is undertaken by personal contact. Therefore, a sales force and a travel office can be seen as a branch office of Canadian tourism in the United States, and the staff of those offices should be seen as a sales force for Canadian tourism. Unless the techniques of commercial salesmanship are used those offices are of no value whatever, or at least not the value that they might be.
The minister mentioned the photographs in the Chicago Tribune recently. I would hope that it is common practice of the staff of our travel offices in the United States to constantly endeavour to secure this kind of publicity. If they are not trying to do that they might as well be brought home and be replaced by people who are aware of the necessity of this type of salesmanship and will make it one of the first essentials ol their approach to increasing our tourist trade.
I feel that the offices must be considered as sales offices. This is their primary and most important function. The people in those offices must be endeavouring to reach out to our customers, the tourists for Canada, the people of the United States, whether it be service clubs, fraternal organizations, associations of professional people, audiences of

Supply-Northern Affairs Americans that may be reached through any media whatever, in co-operation with Canadian travel organizations, Canadian tourist organizations, Canadian organizations having to do with hotel accommodations, motel associations, Canadian restaurant associations. They must endeavour to sell the ideas of a packaged travel program to groups of people, by making arrangements to make travel in Canada attractive by providing easy and inexpensive opportunities for people to come to Canada, with the co-operation of all those groups in this country that are interested in providing for tourists.
What we want is an imaginative program. We want vigorous people, and they should realize one thing above all, that they are salesmen and they have to get out and reach the customer. They cannot sit in offices and wait for customers to come to them. As long as that concept is realized, then those offices that we have plus those that we add will be worth while. But unless that concept is to be used and put in practice throughout the United States-I hope in far more places than just the three offices, the two now established and the third one contemplated in San Francisco-we shall not be as successful in that effort as we should be. The committee on mines, forests and waters last year recommended Cleveland, Boston and other locations. If these offices are established, then we ought to make sure that the people who go into them have a very clear conception of what their responsibility will be and that they are going to the United States to sell Canadian tourism.
Further than that, the committee recommended last year-and I think the minister is very conscious of this requirement also- that the concept of the responsibility of the tourist bureau be enlarged to include the promotion, in co-operation with the provinces, of increased tourist travel by Canadians in Canada, because while the United States expenditure in Canada increased by $10 million over the previous year, the fact is that Canadians are spending half a billion dollars in foreign countries on travel while foreign visitors are spending $353 million, or thereabouts, in this country. That is not satisfactory.
The minister recognizes that and I believe in his recognition he must be supported by the government and by hon. members to see that the expansion that he has envisioned will come into being and come into being quickly. But particularly, I would suggest that in reviewing how we are going to take advantage of the expanded facilities that are provided we realize that this is a commercial problem; it is a selling problem and the only techniques


that are going to be effective in any measure whatever are to see that the people we send into the field are salesmen and when they get there that they sell by every means possible and if they are not capable of doing it they should be brought home and replaced by others in Canada who are.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just a few words-


Lionel Chevrier: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think I have been very restrained, indeed, this afternoon and not as loquacious as the hon. member for Laurier on occasion.
The tourist industry is a matter of great importance to Canada and is increasing substantially in importance right across the country as people discover the garden of Eden in Canada.
I see, regardless of cuts in other respects, that the vote this year is $2,687,178, which is an increase over last year. I am very pleased to see this increase because I think it is a good investment in the circumstances.
The department is engaged in the function of answering inquiries, which is a very necessary one, in issuing publications and in advertising in various forms. I think these are all worth-while activities which have borne fruit in past years.
I think something more than that is required to achieve success so far as our tourist industry is concerned, namely co-operation with local organizations, with the people of the country, as it were, tourist bureaux, chambers of commerce, tourist camp operators, persons who cater to the tourist industry in various ways, and particularly those engaged on a somewhat smaller scale in the more remote places. You do not have to advertise to get people to go to Banff, Lake Louise and other internationally known resorts. As a result of my experience I find that an increasing number of people want to do two things. First, they want to go to our national parks and their remote and less developed areas. Second, they want to go to the smaller tourist camp operations in the remote areas away from the centres of civilization.
I should like to suggest three things before I sit down. First, it would be a good idea, and I make this suggestion with the best of intentions, for the travel bureau to keep in touch with the operators of smaller tourist camps throughout the country and get suggestions from them as to advertising and publicity and information as to the comments that are heard from tourists from other parts of Canada or from the United States or other countries as to what they enjoy, what they would prefer or what they miss and so on.

Second, I suggest it would be an excellent thing to keep these people, and I know a lot of them, well informed of the work of the bureau and supplied with information to keep them in touch with the industry in their own province and in the rest of Canada as far as possible.
As to my third suggestion, I find that generally speaking tourist camp operators are all in the same circumstances as the hon. member for Kootenay West, always short of funds. I know people with excellent sites and good fishing and that sort of thing and yet they lack the capital to expand their business to meet the opportunities today. I suggest that the minister bring that particularly to the attention of the Minister of Finance because in the last year or two I have had many complaints from persons operating small tourist camps against local banks because of their tight money policy, shall I say, although I do not really like the term. The banks do not seem to have much confidence in the development of our tourist industry. I know of one particular case in my constituency where the value of the operation to date is over $200,000 and the bank looked down its nose at a request for a loan of $5,000 over a period of a year in order to carry out certain developments.
I suggest that the government should include tourist camp operations within the ambit of the Industrial Development Bank Act or similar legislation. I have had this matter brought to my attention by a number of those in my constituency who are interested in the industry and by others in southeastern British Columbia. With these few remarks I will take my seat, I presume much to the satisfaction of the hon. member for Laurier.


Mr. Beech:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the minister has given consideration to inviting to Canada the American society of travel agents which holds a convention every year. The society is composed of members of the travel industry from all over the world and the convention is in great demand. If the minister could see his way clear to trying to bring the convention to Canada it would be a great help to the travel and tourist industry of Canada and as a result of the convention we would have many good will ambassadors in all corners of the world.


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


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to thank hon. members for the kindness with which they have treated my estimates. I
Supply-Secretary of State should also like to give the committee a bit of good news. I have had a wire from the Northwest Territories saying that four whooping cranes have been born with the result that the number of whooping cranes has now reached a total of 43 instead of 39 as I reported the other day.
DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE 383. Departmental administration, $311,264.


Mr. Balcer:: May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, first of all may I say that my remarks will be very brief. As hon. members know, in addition to the Department of Secretary of State, the minister is responsible for the department of public printing and stationery, which is a service department at the disposal of the departments and agencies of the federal government. He also acts as spokesman for the civil service commission and the chief electoral officer.
The committee will recall that last spring the standing committee on estimates presented a report concerning the Department of Secretary of State. Of the five recommendations that were then advanced, one, four and five, dealt with accounting matters which were brought to the attention of the secretary of the treasury board by my officials. The second recommendation was concerned with lessening the gap between the large expenditures on the printing of patents and the revenue from the sale of printed copies of patents. We have increased the sale price of these printed copies of patents to $1 per copy, and this was made effective on January 1, 1960. I might say that at the same time this change was instituted, there were further amendments made to the scale of fees by increasing certain fees and charges and instituting a new charge for services, all of which should result in some further increase in revenue.
There is also the problem of accommodation for the patent, trade mark and copyright offices. Hon. members will appreciate that the allocation of space is the responsibility of the Department of Public Works and that, consequently, the recommendations of the committee on this subject were brought to the attention of that department. May I remark in passing that when tabling the report of the royal commission on patents, copyright and industrial design, I stated, as reported in Hansard at page 2857:
Since this report contains matters of a highly technical nature, the government does not intend

Supply-Secretary of State to introduce the necessary legislation to bring a new act into force at the present session. We intend to give to all those who are interested time to study this report and submit their suggestions before introducing appropriate legislation at the next session of this parliament.
For the above mentioned reasons, may I say that the government is quite prepared to postpone, if necessary, the introduction of appropriate legislation.
May I add just a word concerning the civil service commission and remind hon. members that, as mentioned by the Prime Minister, the civil service bill will be left on the order paper. It will be introduced again at the next session of parliament and a committee will be set up for the purpose of going thoroughly into this matter.
I should like to remind the committee also that the house has passed an act respecting the enfranchisement of electors and the election of members of the House of Commons, after long and fruitful work by the standing committee on privileges and elections.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, as you can see, my remarks are rather brief. Since the Secretary of State Department is one of the oldest, most hon. members are quite familiar with all its branches. I am sure, therefore, that all explanations I might give at this time would be superfluous.
I therefore leave it up to hon. members and suggest they concentrate their questions on a particular item and when that item comes up, I shall be very pleased to answer their questions.
(Text):


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Acting Secretary of State for his brief statement. I must take this opportunity to state it is unfortunate the government has not seen fit to name a full-time secretary of state for the duration of their term of office instead of keeping the present incumbent in an acting capacity.


Edwin William Brunsden: He is acting very well, too.


Jean-Thomas Richard: You were acting very well, too, up to the present.
As I was saying it is much better for the department itself to have a minister on a full-time basis. I know that the Acting Secretary of State is doing his best, but he also has the responsibility and duties otf the Solicitor General. He is subject to a decision from day to day by the Prime Minister who might select another secretary of state. I am not saying this in order to play politics because I am interested particularly in this department which affects so many working
[Mr. Balcci'.j

branches of the government in which a fulltime minister could take an interest and render a great service. I express the hope that at an early date the government will see fit to designate a full-time secretary of state who will occupy that office for as long as this government is in power. What I am saying should not be considered to be any reflection on the present incumbent. So far as I am concerned, it does not matter very much if he occupies the post or someone else does. I am quite pleased with the manner in which he has carried out his functions so far.
I do not intend to say anything about the civil service commission this evening. I feel there is a very good reason why we should not say too much about this. The minister has already indicated that at the next session we will have an opportunity of discussing a new civil service act. It is unfortunate, once again, that although this legislation was forecast in the speech from the throne, we did not get this committee started in the early days of the session. I am sure, however, the government will have no reason for not establishing this committee at the earliest possible date next session.
I am particularly interested, Mr. Chairman, in the report of the royal commission on patents, industrial design and copyright. The minister did make a statement a while ago as to the report on patents which was presented last year. There was also the report on copyright which was presented in 1957 and the report on industrial design which was presented in 1958.
To go backwards, I start with patents. I understand that at this time we cannot hope to change the patent law; nor do I expect that this government or any other government at the next session, in accordance with the report of the royal commission, could produce a Patent Act which would be satisfactory even to any hopeful beginner in patent law. I do not expect action. I am reasonable about this matter. But I expect that the government will listen to representations from various groups and interested parties and will give an opportunity to a committee, perhaps at the next session or a subsequent one, namely a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.
If my memory serves me rightly, I think it was in 1935 that a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons made a general study of the Patent Act. That procedure worked out well. In studying the project of a new Patent Act or a new patent law, if such a thing is in the mind of the government, after representations have been made I hope that any new legislation will be

submitted to a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, which committee I think should formulate a law as to patents which will last for at least some time.
We have had a great many changes in legislation as to patents and trade marks in the past 25 years. In a small country like Canada it is really an extravagance to have what is going on at the present time. I am a practising lawyer and I have never been able to catch up with the changes. It took me some time to learn something about the 1935 Patent Act. We have had many amendments since then and it is now suggested that we should have a new patent law. We had a Trade Marks Act which was revised only a few years ago. Now there are suggestions to be made about designs.
I think that any steps which should be taken in the future should be constructive ones. I hope the government will take its time so that any law which we adopt will be a more or less permanent institution. This country cannot afford to change its law on trade marks, industrial design, and patents every 25 years.
However, I would point out that in the case of the copyright law this report was submitted two years ago. The Copyright Act is one that has not changed over the years and it requires real revision and real amendment. I would suggest to the government that it immediately institute some study with regard to the copyright law. I urge the minister, through his officials and interested parties, to seek to draft a proposed copyright law so that at the earliest opportunity parliament may consider it. As to the copyright law, there are many facets which are undesirable. In connection with any of these laws may I say this, and it will appeal to the government; it appeals to many of us and it appeals to the government, apparently. In connection with these laws it is time for us to look after interests of Canadians. We always speak about looking after the interest of Canadians. In patent matters, industrial design matters and copyright matters, while we should respect as much as possible international agreements, we should first consider Canadian interests.
One does not need to be a student of statistics to understand the present situation. One can look at the grants of patents, for example, and it will be seen that a small proportion of them are granted to Canadians. I think the figure is 1,506 out of a total of about 24,000, which is a small proportion while the United States proportion is 64 per cent as against 6 per cent Canadian and 10 per cent in the United Kingdom. Therefore in drafting laws of that kind in the future,
Supply-Secretary of State we should be extremely careful to see to it that we protect the interests of Canadians and also that we are not merely passing laws to help people who are foreign to this country, although they are our friends, providing patent protection which may be of some use to them but which is detrimental to us.
By that I am not saying that the Patent Act as it stands now is detrimental to the Canadian people. However, I say that there are some aspects of the law which are not helpful to Canadians. They create a sort of tariff bar against Canadians. Our law does not protect Canadians as it should. When this matter comes up for consideration on another occasion I should be glad to express my views on it. However, I urge the government to go carefully about redrafting the Patent Act and to consult not just one group but all the interested parties who may want to make submissions, even though we have a report from a royal commission. A report from a royal commission may be a fine guide but I still think that the government and the members of this house must take responsibility for passing legislation which will be of the greatest benefit to the people of this country.
In connection with this matter I was going to say that while we have a technical report from the royal commission on patents, copyright and industrial designs, their field did not cover administration. I come back to this matter before this committee because I think it is the government's responsibility to seek some better way in which to administer these three branches of the Department of Secretary of State. At some time I am sure a government will decide that there should be a head over these three departments who will have the rank of deputy minister. At the present time we have branches under the secretary of state such as the Queen's printer who has the rank of deputy minister. We have the chief electoral officer and we have others such as the dominion archivist. But in the case of patents, trade marks and designs, these men do not hold office with the rank of deputy minister. They are under the undersecretary of state. While that situation is all very well, I do not think this important branch should be without its own head reporting directly to the minister.
I urge the government to consider this suggestion because this was not a matter for the royal commission to consider. I think the government will be instituting an important advance in the interest of the department of patents, trade marks and copyright if it would establish such a department under such a head. I think the Prime Minister will agree with me that matters arising under the patent law, the trade mark law and the

Supply-Secretary of State copyright law require a head who will understand and be responsible for these acts. I know that is the feeling of solicitors and counsel who act before the department. They feel there should be one head over this department, with a director for each branch. This is a suggestion I make to the secretary of state and I hope it will be given further consideration in the near future.
I know that the question of a building for the patent office, the trade mark office and the copyright office is not exactly within the purview of the secretary of state. However, this is an opportunity to tell the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works at the same time that it is not satisfactory to go to these departments in No. 8 building, that wooden building out at the farm. It would do some of the members of the government good, in connection with some duties relating to patents or trade marks, to go running around the halls in No. 8 building, in order to find out how difficult the problem is. These are departments to which the public has access all the time and in which business is being carried on for the public in various parts of the country. I feel that a building should be provided as soon as possible in the vicinity of the parliament buildings-for example, on Sussex street near the research council-where all the offices of the patents, trade marks and copyright divisions would be concentrated. I will reserve any further remarks to the separate items.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a few brief remarks I should like to make at this time. I do not think any of us are ready to complain about the person holding the office of Acting Secretary of State, but I do want to say, particularly since the Prime Minister is in the committee, that it would seem to me it is a mistake to keep a minister in an acting position on almost an indefinite basis. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that it might be very much in order for him either to appoint the present person as a permanent minister as ministers go and remove him from the necessity of acting as the Acting Secretary of State-


Edwin William Brunsden: Are you not in that category?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, I am, but that does not mean I necessarily agree that it should be on a permanent or semi-permanent basis.


Mr. Chown:: It will not be long before you achieve that.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not going to make any forecasts. Time will decide these things. I notice the Prime Minister smiling, and he was smiling some time ago as soon as I started to say this and I expected he would.


But I do feel that since the Prime Minister is in a position to do something about it it would be a very good thing to have a regular secretary of state instead of a genial and competent Acting Secretary of State on what appears to be a rather permanent basis.
The Ilsley royal commission was asked to inquire into the whole question of patents, copyrights and trade marks and these reports have now been made to the government. I would hope that appropriate action can be taken at an early date. It is a long time since I have said anything in this house on the question of patents, but I do feel that patents in the past have been used as a method of obtaining artificially high prices; that they have been used to maintain a monopoly position in many instances; that they have been used to prevent competition; and that they have been a very heavy burden on the general public.
The purpose of that inquiry, I take it, was to revise the Patent Act and these other acts so as to make competition more effective in the hope that prices of important commodities might be brought down. It has been suggested in the report of the commission that patents on food, drugs, surgical and therapeutic devices have been used in such a way as to maintain unnecessarily high prices in these fields. I realize that many submissions have been made to the government following the publication of these reports. The government wants to consider these submissions but I would hope that at the next session of parliament appropriate action can be taken in these fields.
There is one other item to which I wish to refer and that is with regard to the work of the civil service commission in filling the vacancies in various departments. I have in my hand a very voluminous report which was tabled in this house as the result of questions which I had placed on the order paper. These questions were as follows: How many resignations have been received in each government department or crown corporation in each month in each year since January 1, 1957, from (a) professional personnel (b) administrative officers? Second, I asked: How many vacancies presently exist in each government department or crown corporation for positions to be filled by (a) professional personnel (b) administrative officers?
Now the report has been tabled in the house, and in the Department of Agriculture within this period, in the professional category there were 336 and there are still 194 vacancies. In the Department of Justice, 43 resignations, 21 vacancies still existing. In the

Department of Mines and Technical Surveys 92 resignations, 47 vacancies. In the Department of National Defence, 193 resignations, 119 vacancies. Department of National Health and Welfare, 704 resignations, 110 vacancies. Department of National Revenue, 413 resignations, 278 vacancies. Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, 60 resignations, 25 vacancies. Department of Public Works, 71 resignations, 63 vacancies. Department of Transport, 111 resignations, 135 vacancies. Department of Veterans Affairs, 854 resignations, 223 vacancies.
Mr. Chairman, the return is not complete in that every department does not provide information as to the length of time these various vacancies have been in existence; but in looking over the information that has been given it would seem to me that there are hundreds of vacancies in the government service which have been in existence for many months.
I would ask the Acting Secretary of State to comment on why there has been such delay and apparently such difficulty in filling so many of these posts. I would think from looking over the return that perhaps the salaries which are provided in Canada for technical and professional personnel are inadequate and should be increased. It would seem to me that it must detract from the efficiency of the public service to have this very large number of vacancies apparently so difficult to fill. I would hope that speedy attention is being given to this problem. I feel that in a country like ours providing adequate and competent personnel for government departments is very essential and that these vacancies should not exist over a long period of time.
I would ask the Acting Secretary of State to give the committee any information he can as to why there are so many vacancies in existence, why apparently it has taken so long to fill them, and to say what action the government is taking or has under consideration in order to attract into the public service adequate numbers of competent and well-trained men and women.


Edwin William Brunsden: Would the hon. member permit a question. Has he noted any diminution in the public service of Canada as a result of these vacancies?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am afraid there is evidence that the efficiency of the public service is suffering because of these many vacancies. Otherwise the government should not be advertising for people. Surely they do not want to waste money. The government must feel that technical officers, nurses in the Department of National Health and Welfare, 79951-0-447
Supply-Secretary of State chemists and botanists and field husbandry and animal husbandry people are important to the Department of Agriculture. These vacancies have existed on a long term basis and I think the public service is suffering.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, would the
gentlemen permit a question. The hon. member for Assiniboia said that the granting of patents on medicines has caused an increase in prices. Since I doubt that, could the hon. gentleman illustrate his point by offering a few examples?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, I am not able to at this time. I have referred to some of the statements contained in the report of the royal commission. That, to me, is very weighty evidence that it is a fact.


Georges-J. Valade: It has not been proved. (Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to hold up the estimates of the Acting Secretary of State (Mr. Balcer), but I just want to say a few words.
I realize that earnest and sincere efforts have been made in the last three years to make Canada as a whole, and more particularly the Canadian administration, not only bilingual, but also bicultural. A striking proof of this is the simultaneous interpretation system which has been wanted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself.
But as the federal administration cannot be bicultural unless it is perfectly bilingual, it is impossible not to discuss the problem of translation, a field which comes under the secretary of state.
I often complained, both in and outside the house, of the fact that not all documents, even sessional papers, reach hon. members in the French version at the same time as does the English version.
The secretary of state answered an earlier question of mine in this regard by telling me that our translators are remarkably able and quick at their task but that they are overworked. Quite obviously there should be considerably more of them. It is likewise obvious that they ought to be better paid, in the first place because they deserve it by reason of the excellence of their work and also-and this is perhaps rather more serious than it seems-because if our translators are paid more in accordance with their worth, many officials for whom and with whom they work will have much more regard for them. Those officials will look upon translators as fellow workers not merely as a necessary evil. In drafting a report, for instance, consideration could be given to the fact that the report is to be published at the

Supply-Secretary of State same time in French as in English. There would be no waiting until an hour before a document has to be tabled to realize that it should be tabled simultaneously in both the official languages of the country.
I have heard all kinds of complaints about the way the translation service is organized. No one questions the high intellectual qualifications of the heads of that service, but there are many who question their sense of organization.
I wonder if it might not be advisable to appoint, under the superintendent of translations, a manager, or whatever title might be given to the appointee, who would see that the services of better paid and more numerous translators are put to the best, most effective and most economical use in all respects.


Mr. Bourque:: Mr. Chairman, at the outset of my remarks, I wish to commend the Acting Secretary of State on the occasion of the appointment, as printer to Her Majesty the Queen, of Roger Duhamel, a newspaperman with extensive experience and a man who is very highly regarded in leading literary circles of the province of Quebec. It is an excellent appointment, and a wise choice. It gives me pleasure to commend the government for selecting a man of that calibre to fill this important post.
I am confident that the new Queen's printer will enjoy the respect and admiration of his entire staff.
The appointee is an upright, highly regarded man, a distinguished newspaperman who has written for many periodicals, an author with several works to his credit, and I feel sure that his appointment will be welcomed by every political party in this house.
(Text):
I have many questions to ask concerning the administration of the printing bureau. I was inspired to ask these questions after reading an address given to the employing printers' association of Montreal on June 8, 1960 by David MacLellan, general manager of E.P.A. and of the graphic arts industries association, a national body embracing all employing printers' organizations from coast to coast, entitled, "Printing-Canada's Biggest Employer in Manufacturing and How the Industry is Taxed, Trammelled and Trimmed".
As the new Queen's printer has just taken up his new post no doubt he will find it interesting to listen to these questions. My questions will bear mostly on a comparison

of the cost system of the government printing bureau with that of other firms in the printing industry. I do not know whether the minister would like to listen to these questions now or if he would prefer to listen to them when the estimates for the printing bureau are before us.


Léon Balcer: I wonder if the hon. member would mind if I answered his question at the time when the vote with respect to the printing bureau is before us.


Romuald Bourque: 
Léon Balcer: I glady give the hon. member that assurance, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
385.	Trade marks division, including a contribution to the international office for the protection of industrial property, $199,906.
Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the paying branches of the department. I should like the minister to tell me what is the salary of the registrar of trade marks and if there has been any increase?


Léon Balcer: It has been the same salary for the last year and a half, $10,000.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Can the minister give an indication whether it will be increased?


Léon Balcer: I understand that this position is in a group that will be considered very shortly. We should be in position to correct this situation within a short time. I cannot say exactly how long it will be before there is a correction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
386.	Bureau for translations, $1,639,678,
(Translation):
Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, I note that this item involves an increase of $40,303, which will allow the bureau for translations to hire five more persons.

I wonder whether the number of translators is adequate to give us the service we are entitled to expect with regard to the translation of some reports.
I have noted, this year, that the French version of the Canada Year Book has been distributed six months after the English publication. The same goes for several other reports. In fact, committee reports often reach us several days, and even several weeks, after the English version has been published.
With regard to the Atlas of Canada, which was published last year, I believe the French edition came out a year after the English edition and, if I am not mistaken, the French version is out of print.
I have no doubt that our translators are efficient workers, nor do I doubt that their output is as high as it can be. That is why I say that last year, especially towards the end of the session, the health of several translators broke down. One of them suffered a stroke, and I understand that this year again some of the translators have been ordered to take a rest cure.
Therefore, could the Acting Secretary of State (Mr. Balcer) give us the assurance that we will have the French translation of the documents I have just referred to, as well as that of many others, fairly soon after the publication of the English version, especially as far as the proceedings of the committees of the House of Commons are concerned?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger), and to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Pigeon), who both dealt with the bureau for translations.
I take this opportunity to tell the house how fortunate our government and country are in having such devoted civil servants, who perform a task that is often very thankless, the translator's role being extremely important and his work most difficult.
There is no doubt that there have been regrettable delays. However, I do not think these are merely due to an inadequate number of translators on the staff, because the production of some translations is less dependent on the number of people available to do a particular job than on the division which handles it. As we know, during the session a group of excellent translators is responsible 79951-0-447J
Supply-Secretary of State for translating all the debates in the house. This work is done under pressure, and the result is that there may be delays in other services.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm suggested a moment ago that we appoint a manager of the bureau for translations. It gives me pleasure to report to the house that we have precisely made such an appointment. Mr. Henriot Mayer has been appointed manager of the bureau for translations. His job will be to keep in touch with the various departments, so that the latter may supply the bureau for translations will all manuscripts and documents as soon as they are available. It has happened, in some cases, that a book was completely printed before it was sent to the translation service; I therefore think there is a certain amount of education to be done in some departments, it is to get them into the habit of sending their manuscripts to the translation service as soon as available so that both versions may be published at the same time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Hear, hear.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the Acting Secretary of State that I am very happy to hear the good news he just announced; however, I disagree with him when he says that the present number of translators is adequate.
The appointment of a manager for the bureau for translations is a step in the right direction, but I believe that translators now employed by the department are handling more work than they can fairly be expected to handle. The new manager of the bureau for translations will possibly agree, with the least bit of encourgagement from the Acting Secretary of State and those who are familiar with prevailing conditions, that the number of translators might be substantially increased. I believe it is unfair to demand from translators the amount of work that has been demanded from them for a number of years when they have to work outside normal hours. In all positions in the civil service employees are expected to turn out an average amount of work. Now in the case of translators, or at least of a great number of them, the maximum output is demanded, and when it is a matter of translating a technical paper or professional document it is somewhat difficult to demand of those people that they work without respite, particularly under the pressure of circumstance.
Consequently, I ask the secretary of state and his new manager of the bureau for

Supply-Secretary of State translations to consider the situation and determine whether the present number of translators is really adequate.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I would
not like to give the house a wrong impression. I have no doubt that, if the number of translators can be increased, work will be better distributed and the service will be improved accordingly.
The remarks just made by the hon. member for Ottawa East will be given serious consideration.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Office of the chief electoral officer-
45. Salaries and expenses of office, $76,925.
Jean-Thomas Richard: Are the positions of the chief electoral officer and the commissioner of patents being considered for increases?


Léon Balcer: I am very pleased to say that the new act which was passed just recently increased the salary of the chief electoral officer substantially.


Jean-Thomas Richard: What about the commissioner of patents? Is he included with the registrar of trade-marks in the group that is being increased?


Léon Balcer: I will have to check this when the civil service commission item is before us.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil service commission-
65. Salaries and contingencies of the commission including compensation in accordance with the suggestion award plan of the public service of Canada, $3,853,967.
Romuald Bourque: Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring the case of Catherine Ann Meredith to the attention of the Acting Secretary of State. I read from a letter received from Letourneau, Quinlan, Forest, Emery, Raymond & Bouchard, barristers and solicitors:
Our client, after 15 years in the civil service, is being arbitrarily dismissed despite the fact of an excellent record, as attested by the copy of letter enclosed from D. R. Campbell. Esq., director of civilian personnel (navy) dated as late as December 15. 1959. Mrs. Meredith also has excellent references from the first administrative officer. Lieutenant Commander Thomas, R.C.N., retired, as well as the supervisor at Saint John, N.B., in the Department of National Revenue where our client was employed previous to coming to Montreal, in 1953.
In the circumstances, it would certainly be a shame to deprive our client of the pension which she has earned by good and faithful service over all these years, which retirement pension will become due in November, 1961.
I have a copy of a letter written to Captain J. S. Somers, R.C.N., principal naval overseer, Montreal area, dated June 23, 1960.

It is from the same lawyers. I will not read the whole letter but just some parts of it:
We note that after some 15 years of valuable experience and excellent record in the Department of National Defence, you give her less than one week, to wit: until the 27th of June, to optate for four months retiring leave beginning on August 1 and terminating on November 30, 1960 or three months cash gratuity payable on separation after November 30, 1960. From the information contained in our file, it clearly appears that our client has enjoyed an excellent record up to and including December 15, 1959, as attested by the photostatic copy of letter addressed to our client from D. R. Campbell, Esq., for the director of civilian personnel (navy).
Our client would be entitled in the normal course of events to receive her pension in the month of November, 1961. She was with the Department of National Revenue in Saint John, N.B., from the year 1945 until the year 1953. She has been in her present location with the civil service since the year 1953, adjacent to the Canadian Vickers Limited, but not connected with the latter...
Apparently, from the information contained in our file, you have sent the above letter basing yourself on article 13.02 in the civilian personnel administration and accounting manual, subsection 1 (d), which provides:
"Any employee who has attained the age of 60 years but who has not attained the age of 64 years and 6 months may be retired for reasons of age, in unusual cases where continued employment involves a serious problem."
Then there are certain matters mentioned which are not relevant. I continue:
We cannot see how these incidents could by any stretch of imagination be construed as serious problems, more particularly in view of our client's record with the department over many years.
In view of the foregoing, we do believe that it is only fair, equitable and just that our client be kept on by the department until she has reached her normal retirement age next year and be given when she is retired in November, 1961, the pension she has earned by her excellent record as any civil servant has the right to expect and get.
In view of the very short notice given, we must ask you without delay to explain the option which you set forth in your above mentioned letter, which our client does not understand.
Again, there is another letter written to me by the same firm of lawyers under date of June 30, 1960, which reads in part as follows:
I can only repeat that it does seem a shame that Captain Somers sees fit to dismiss Mrs. Meredith after all these years of good and faithful service to the Department of National Revenue and to the Department of National Defence. Especially, when she will be in the normal course of events coming of age to receive her pension next year.
In the circumstances, it seems to me that the least that they could do would be to transfer her to another department until such time as her time for pension has elapsed.
I will now read a letter from H. Thomas, lieutenant-commander (E), R.C.N., retired, no date.
I have been requested to supply a reference to the above mentioned person dealing with her duties during the period of my appointment as staff officer on the staff of the principal naval overseer, Montreal.

I will pass over some matters that are not relevant.
Mrs. Ann Meredith joined the staff in October, 1953, as a typist. Having regard to her experience and the duties required she was employed as a clerk. She worked well, with initiative and loyalty. At that time, in the circumstances, her work was invaluable. She has one highly valuable quality that fits in a technical activity-she can and does follow instructions from appropriate authority implicitly.
Observing that clerical staff can never fully understand the technical details involved, this attitude is reassuring to the responsible officer. He knows that his instructions will be carried out as required.
I also have a letter dated July 28, 1953, written by R. G. McKenna, reading as follows:
To whom it may concern:
Mrs. Catherine A. Meredith has been employed in the income tax office in Saint John, N.B., for a period of eight years. During this period she has been employed in the accounts-collections section, performing various clerical duties as well as being employed as a stenographer and typist. Her work has always proven to be very satisfactory.
I have been personally acquainted with Mrs. Meredith since July, 1951, at which time I took over the supervision of the section in which she is employed. I have found her to be a very conscientious, capable and dependable employee and believe that she will be very satisfactory. She has demonstrated that she has a considerable amount of initiative and has readily adapted herself to various new duties which she has been called upon to perform.
Then a further letter dated December 15, 1959, from D. R. Campbell for the director of civilian personnel (navy) which reads as follows:
Mr. Sharpe has requested that I forward a personal note to you expressing his regret that the authorities concerned have not found it possible to amend the civilian complement of P.N.O., Montreal, as discussed with you in his office on December 7.
In so far as your own position is concerned, the duties and responsibilities are considered to be consistent with the present classification, clerk 2. The reclassification of the other position to clerk 4 has been found to be unjustified.
It is suggested that you continue to avail yourself of every possible opportunity to enter promotional competitions in the Montreal area. By so doing it seems likely that, in due course, your valuable experience and excellent record in this department will be properly recognized and your advancement to more responsible duties will follow.
Then there is a further letter dated June 21, 1960, from J. S. Somers, captain, R.C.N., which reads as follows:
Dear Madam:
Mrs. Catherine Ann Meredith N.D.-P.N.O. 72-Clerk 2 P.N.O. Montreal
I am advised by the area civilian personnel officer that records on hand in his office indicate that you have to your credit six and a half days annual leave to which you are entitled upon separating from the service. Consequently, in order
Supply-Secretary of State to liquidate this annual leave, you will cease active duty in this office at noon hour, 21 July, 1960.
Under existing regulations and in view of your length of service, you have an option to choose either of the following:
(a)	4 months retiring leave beginning on 1 August and terminating on 30 November, 1960, or
(b)	3 months cash gratuity payable on separation after 30 November, 1960.
Observing that prior approval must be obtained from the naval secretary for either retiring leave or cash gratuity, you are hereby requested to inform me in writing of your decision before 27 June, 1960.
I believe that in the normal course of events a person who has worked 141 years for the civil service would naturally expect to receive a pension at the age of 60. This lady had worked for some 14J years and just at the time when she is looking forward to retirement on a satisfactory pension she is thanked for her services and let go. She seems to have a perfect record but after all these years she is fired from her position and asked to take some examination to see if she can qualify for some other position. If she has served the government well for 14J years I think the government should know whether she is qualified and whether she should get a pension. To say to her after all these years and just about the time she would have been eligible for a pension "We are going to let you go" seems to me to indicate that the government is trying to get away from some responsibility. They put this lady out of a job with no future in front of her on a mere whim just because they do not want to pay a pension. I should like to hear what the minister has to say about the matter.


Edwin William Brunsden: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Romuald Bourque: Certainly.


Edwin William Brunsden: In one of the earlier letters which the hon. member quoted there was reference to some relationship between Mrs. Meredith and Vickers. Would he explain that?


Romuald Bourque: I could not say positively, but I believe the government has employees whom they send-they may send a clerk from here-to a place where they are building a ship. This person may look after their interests at the place where the ship is being built. This lady was evidently sent there for the government, and I assume was working for the government at Vickers.


Léon Balcer: I was very interested in listening to the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean, and his full explanation of this case. I would say that he appears to be on fairly sound ground in his argument. Unfortunately, in so far as the civil service commission is

Supply-Secretary of State concerned, this particular case does not come under their jurisdiction because all that the civil service commission is asked to do in a case like this is to concur in the decision taken under the provisions of the superannuation act. Unfortunately, there is no appeal. However, I can assure the hon. member that I will take up this case with the proper authorities, and we will try to find a way out of the problem.


Romuald Bourque: May I ask the minister if we are to understand that a civil servant has no more protection than that? He can work at a job for 15 or 16 years, and then be summarily dismissed for no reason whatever, just about the time he is coming into his pension? Is this the only guarantee we offer the civil servants of Canada?


Léon Balcer: Unfortunately, we have not got the details with respect to the decision taken by the department. There must be some reason behind their decision because according to the superannuation act there is no doubt that this person is entitled to a pension. There must be some other reason, and I can assure the hon. member that we will make the proper inquiry into the matter.


Mr. Bcurque:: May I leave it in the minister's hands on the understanding that he will look into the situation, because this lady should have an answer. She should know why she was dismissed.


Léon Balcer: I will be pleased to do so. If the hon. member had communicated with me directly I would have taken up the matter directly with the civil service commission and the other authorities. This is the first time I have heard about the case.


Romuald Bourque: Possibly the minister's advisers could tell him because no doubt the civil servants of Canada will think their position is not very sound if this can happen to anyone, and they have to have recourse to a member to bring up their cases. They seem to have been fighting this case for the last six or eight months.
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few moments of the committee's time to point out to the Acting Secretary of State a disparity between the salaries provided for some classifications and the functions those employees have to perform.
For instance, I refer to the salary scale paid certain professional classes, among others, doctors, economists, stenographers and chemists.
These are approximate figures. For instance, doctors are offered a salary of approximately $10,000 for their services.

With regard to economists, the salary offered them varies between $8,000 and $9,000; stenographers get about $6,000, whereas pharmacists are only offered some $4,500 for their professional services.
May I, Mr. Chairman, in this matter, call the minister's attention to page 38 of the civil service commission report which was published in Ottawa in December 1958, page 38 of the English text. I do not have the French version here; may I therefore quote the English text:
(Text):
4013	(ACT)
The establishment of grade levels in any class shall, within the limits set by the nature of the work to be performed, be such as to provide for a career pattern.
4014	(REG)
The commission may revise the classification or grade of any position to provide for an unusual degree of competence demonstrated by the incumbent.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Acting Secretary of State will give my remarks some favourable attention to the effect of considering the professional services of pharmacists, in the civil service; thus, I would ask him to see whether it would not be possible to increase their salaries so as to put them in line with their functions in the federal administration.
Mr. Chairman, with regard to another matter, I wish the minister would take the necessary steps to change the method of interdepartmental promotion through competition.
We know it is customary in the civil service, to have inter-service competitions for the promotion of an employee to another post; that was done in a somewhat unorthodox manner until the Conservative party took over.
May I be allowed to mention, among others, the fact that under Liberal administration, certain practices or certain undue influences were resorted to, in order to have a personal friend promoted within the civil service; thus, a special competition was prepared to give him a particular promotion in the civil service. As a matter of fact, I received some time ago a communication in this respect from an employee who had been appointed to the ordnance depot in Montreal by the former administration. Now, this gentleman, who allowed me to reveal his name here, informed me of the method used by the former administration for the purpose of promoting one of their friends. The case is that of Mr. Henry Sibley, of 7286 Musset street, Ville St. Michel, Montreal.

When a competition was advertised in the department, Mr. Sibley was approached by an official of that administration who is then supposed to have given him all the information and all the answers to the questions which were to be asked at the competition in order to allow him to get the position applied for.
Afterwards, that gentleman, wishing to be promoted, had been assured that he would be rendered the same service. Unfortunately, the necessary information could not be given, because the person who was supposed to provide it had been transferred to another department; and that gentleman could not know in advance the answers to the questions which were to be asked to those interested in taking part in the competition.
There, Mr. Chairman, you have an instance of an abject procedure which was in use and had even become prevalent under the former administration.
I am sure that the acting minister will consider it a duty to correct such an anomaly which involves an injustice towards all those who work in the civil service.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I know that bilingualism in the civil service has made great strides. And I am happy to commend the minister (Mr. Balcer) for his constant efforts to protect and emphasize the necessity of bilingualism in the federal administration.
However, I should like to call the minister's attention to the fact that a short time ago I phoned the civil service commission here in Ottawa to ask information about summer jobs for university students, and I unfortunately noted that there was no bilingual employee there to reply to the questions I wanted to ask.
I have here the name of the person concerned and the date of that occurrence and I am sure that the minister will consider it a duty and a pleasure to meet our requests.
Once again, I take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to congratulate the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and the minister for their constant efforts to establish a perfect bilingual system in the civil service.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, I had thought we would pass the estimates of the civil service commission rather quickly, considering that this is the first time the minister has introduced his departmental estimates and that a
Supply-Secretary of State commitee is to be set up next year to consider the new civil service act.
However, having heard the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) lay a serious charge and mention a name, that of Mr. Henry Sibley, I think the minister now has a duty to make a thorough investigation of the case. He can no longer ignore it. The hon. member for St. Mary has laid a charge which may be based just on hearsay. As we know, he always likes to rise and throw charges around. Now that it is done


Georges-J. Valade: On a question of privilege-


Alexis Pierre Caron: -we demand that-


Georges-J. Valade: I rise on a question of privilege. The member for Hull has just stated that I have laid charges. I laid no charges, but I laid down definite facts on the complaint referred to me.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The hon. member is trying to start a debate; it is not a point of privilege.


Mr.   Chairman@: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Are you the authority on questions of privilege?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Questions of privilege are clearly set out in the standing orders.


Georges-J. Valade: He is afraid of mosquitoes.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I was saying that, in view of the serious charge laid by the hon. member for St. Mary, the minister has a duty to direct the civil service commission to investigate. Names have been mentioned, and it is claimed that examination questions and answers were supplied in advance to one of the examinees.
That is one of the most serious charges ever laid against the civil service commission. I think the members of the civil service commission have always been honourable people. If any one of them had committed such an action, he would have been guilty of a crime, and would no longer be honourable. The charge just laid by the member for St. Mary implies that within the civil service commission, whether it be the commissioners or other people, there were persons of questionable integrity. The minister therefore cannot ignore this charge; he must investigate the matter fully and report to the house as soon as possible. I would even go so far as to demand that the minister let the estimates of the civil service commission stand until the last minute of the session,
7082	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State to give him time to conduct an investigation and report back to the house.
I realize that the civil service commission, as any human organization, cannnot be perfect. It will make mistakes. However, in the many years I have been observing its behaviour, the commission has done a first rate job for the government and has striven to eliminate patronage to the greatest possible extent. And when I hear people-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Tell us about your nephew Lupien, who is a manager for the central mortgage and housing corporation.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) has just mentioned the name of one of my nephews who has been appointed manager of the Montreal office of the central mortgage and housing corporation.


Georges-J. Valade: On your recommendation.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I give my word to the hon. member that I have not intervened in any way, directly or indirectly, nor to the civil service commission or the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in favour of or against my nephew. I never had the opportunity to talk about him with anybody, either on the telephone, nor verbally, nor by letter or otherwise. And when the hon. member claims such a thing, it is another charge he is making just like all the unfounded charges he makes, without ever being able to substantiate them.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Is he your nephew, yes or no?


Alexis Pierre Caron: He is my nephew. And the fact that he is my nephew does not prevent him from trying to earn the right to advancement in the civil service commission or elsewhere.


Louis Fortin: It did not do him any harm.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I feel that a man who claims to be serious and intelligent and who raises such a question as this, reveals his habitual state of mind. It reminds me of his state of mind when under the former administration of the province of Quebec, he was the secretary of a minister of that government.
I hope that when the hon. member makes charges, he will at least have the courage to rise on his feet and make them directly rather than in the underhand way he is making them now.
I say that anyone who suggests that a man who has earned advancement by his work does not deserve it, and has no right to promotion, either in the civil service commission or elsewhere-I say that anyone who claims such a thing is devoid of any sense of honour.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I hope the hon. member for Hull, on thinking over the words he just used-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman-


Jacques Flynn: -will realize they are obviously out of order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, is it-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Jacques Flynn: Order.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. My understanding of the rules of this house is that if a member of parliament on his responsibility makes a statement such as that which the hon. member for Hull has just made, then the hon. member who makes the accusation must accept that statement. That is the rule.


Jacques Flynn: I agree with the hon. member for Laurier, but I was not objecting to this statement. I was simply objecting to a statement made by the hon. member for Hull concerning the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. That is quite a different matter.


Lionel Chevrier: I still rise on a point of order. Before the other point is disposed of I ask you to demand of the hon. member that he rise and accept the statement which has just been made by the hon. member for Hull. (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has attacked me. He told me that I am devoid of honour. I ask you to order him to withdraw his words, which are not parliamentary.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I never said, Mr. Chairman- (Text):


Lionel Chevrier: I still rise on a point of order and the point of order I raise was the first one, namely that it is the rule of this House of Commons that if an hon. member states on his responsibility that such and such is not the case, the hon. member making the accusation must accept that statement.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I have told the hon. member for Laurier that he is right in principle. However, in the present case the hon. member for Hull has not challenged the statement made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. There was no contradiction.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; there was.


Jacques Flynn: No; there was no contradiction. The hon. member for Hull made a statement which was not a denial of any statement made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm; it was an explanation. There is therefore no reason for the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to accept the statement made by the hon. member for Hull, as he did not deny it. If he had denied it, I would have asked him to accept the statement made by the hon. member for Hull. But the point I raise-and this is the first point that must be settled-is that the hon. member for Hull, I am sure without reflection, mentioned that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had shown that he had no honour. Of course that is against the rules as clearly indicated in citation 155, paragraph 3 of Beauchesne. That is where I intervened and asked the hon. member for Hull to correct that statement.


Lionel Chevrier: Will Your Honour hear me?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Jacques Flynn: I will hear the hon. member for Laurier further if he wishes to speak on the point he has raised, but first I must dispose of the point raised by the Chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Will Your Honour hear me on this point later?


Jacques Flynn: On the point I have just discussed?


Lionel Chevrier: On the point I raised earlier.


Jacques Flynn: I have already indicated to the hon. member for Laurier that if he wishes to deal with his point of order I will listen to him after I have disposed of the point of order raised by the Chair prior to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Laurier.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I am reported by the hon. member as having said that he was devoid of honour, and you repeated the same thing. That is not what I said. I said that he was devoid of a sense of honour. What is it to have a sense of honour. It is to understand something. To have the sense of something, is to understand what it is. By saying that, I did not say that he, himself, was devoid of honour, but that he did not understand its value. In my opinion, this is not against the house rules.


Jacques Flynn: I am prepared to believe that the hon. member for Hull can explain what he said. The hon. member is well aware that it is no more in order to say that an hon. member does not quite know what 79951-0-448
Supply-Secretary of State honour is, than it is to say that he is devoid of honour. I am sure that, on second thought, the hon. member for Hull will agree to withdraw his words.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that he was devoid of honour. If I say, for instance, that a man lacks a sense of justice, does that mean that he is unjust? No, it means that he does not have a complete understanding of the word justice, that he cannot understand the sense of the word justice.


Jacques Flynn: I ask the hon. member for Hull to please accept the interpretation of the Chair and to withdraw the words he used when he said that the hon. member was devoid of honour or lacked a sense of honour.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I did not say that the hon. member had no honour. I merely meant that he did not understand the principles of honour. That is what I meant. I did not mean to say that he had no honour. And I wonder if it is against the rules to say that an hon. member knows nothing about the principle of honour.


Jacques Flynn: I am simply expressing my opinion to the hon. member in this matter. I am telling him that he cannot say directly or indirectly, or question directly or indirectly, anyone's attitude in this house and I am simply asking him to withdraw the words he used when he said that the hon. member was devoid of honour.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I withdraw the word "honour" but not the words "has no sense".
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: If Your Honour will hear me on the point of order which I raised earlier I say that the interruption made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm was by inference equally an attack upon the honour of the hon. member for Hull. The fact that he was asked these questions left the inference immediately that influence had been used by the hon. member for Hull in connection with the appointment of a relative of his, and it seems to me that the ruling the Chair has made, if it applies to the hon. member for Hull, applies equally to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who, by inference committed the same infraction of the rules, if I understand them aright.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order. In order to establish precisely what the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has just said, I denied a moment ago having

Supply-Secretary of State intervened directly or indirectly. And to show that there was a direct implication, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Pigeon) made the gesture of someone picking up a telephone receiver and listening in, to indicate that I had intervened by telephone. He was implying in another way that I had intervened, and in so doing he was still trying to insinuate that I had intervened. The hon. member implied that I had unduly and unjustly intervened on behalf of a relative of mine.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I explain myself, Mr. Chairman? The hon. member for Hull quite reluctantly withdrew what he had said. I simply said in the course of this debate that Mr. Lupien, a nephew of the hon. member for Hull was working for the C.M.H.C. in Montreal, and that a son of the Leader of the Opposition is an employee of the Department of External Affairs. I do not know if it hurt the hon. member for Hull and his friends, but that is all I said without any comment.


An hon. Member:: With innuendos-


Jean-Thomas Richard: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the Chair that it would be better to go on with the estimates of the secretary of state, instead of listening to those interventions from the hon. members who are saying things that they should not be saying or that are altogether meaningless.


Jacques Flynn: No doubt the debate would be more orderly if the rules of this house were respected. In any case, and only to clarify the situation, because I feel that the point of order is not quite well taken, I would simply ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to say that he accepts the statement of the hon. member for Hull to the effect that he did not intervene directly or indirectly on behalf of his nephew concerning the appointment mentioned.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman-


Jacques Flynn: Does the hon. member for St. Mary wish to speak on the point of order?


Georges-J. Valade: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman-
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, will you hear me on the point of order. I noted the chairman asked the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to accept the apology of the hon. member for Hull, but before doing so I did not hear the hon. member for Hull

say that he was taking back his words. If I may be permitted I would refer you to Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 123, article 141, which states:
It is impossible to lay down any specific rules, in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular members, or to declare beforehand. what expressions are or are not contrary to order:-
Et cetera. I would ask that the members of the opposition kindly allow me to make my point clear; I can see they do not want to hear.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Georges-J. Valade: I ask you call them to order. May I now refer to page 123 again, citation 141, which continues:
When the Speaker observes upon any expression as personal and disorderly, and tending to introduce heat and confusion, and this appears to be the general sense of the house, the member offending ought immediately to make an apology,-
May I refer you back to page 117, citation 134, which says:
In case a member persists in using unparliamentary language, the Speaker will be compelled to name him-
Mr. Chairman, you can read the rest of the article from Beauchesne, but I do not think the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has been satisfied in this respect.


Jacques Flynn: I must inform the hon. member for St. Mary that the point of order has been settled, the hon. member for Hull having withdrawn and the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm having accepted the withdrawal.
I said that in my view it was not absolutely necessary for the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to state that he does not pretend to deny the declaration by the hon. member for Hull that he did not intervene directly or indirectly in favour of the appointment of the person he mentioned.


John Russell Taylor: Let us get down to business.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the various questions that have been asked about the civil service commission-
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, since the point of order has not been dealt with, I think that the Acting Secretary of State should resume his seat. Anyway, I have not completed my remarks.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I was rising precisely to answer the questions that were put to me.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I have not completed my remarks.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I never said in this house that the hon. member for Hull had intervened directly or indirectly; I simply stated that his nephew, Mr. Lupien, had a first class job with the C.M.H.C. Therefore I have nothing to withdraw; I never said that.


Mr. Habel:: Base innuendos.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I still rise on the point which I brought to your attention earlier-
(Translation):


An hon. Member:: In French.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: -and I do not think the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has met the requirements of the rules.


Jacques Flynn: I indicated that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had not denied the declaration of the hon. member for Hull. He affirmed that he did not intimate that the hon. member for Hull had intervened directly or indirectly. I think under the circumstances the statement made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm should be accepted. I recognize the hon. member for Hull.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, may I go on with my remarks in connection with the civil service commission?
Though I complained of the way in which the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) reported some situations which arose under the former Liberal administration-as if errors were not committed under any administration-I just wanted to point out that while there had been no sign of party politics since the discussion started, I found his attitude in very bad taste; and I hope this expression is in order.
On the other hand, the hon. member made some remarks which were devoid of party politics, and which I approve. I believe he is right. He was justified in complaining of the fact that some professional civil servants are not adequately paid and that it is the reason why the civil service commission which has such great need of professional experts to carry out certain tasks, is unable to find them.
Every week, we read notices asking for accountants, and the salary offered by the civil service commission is of $3,000, $3,500 or $4,000 a year, whereas those working in
79951-0-4481
Supply-Secretary of State an accountant's office get $6,000, $7,000 and even $8,000 a year, even when they are only employees. How can the civil service commission possibly obtain the services of competent people if it fails to pay them salaries comparable to those paid in private business?
It is the same for nurses. Lately, there was a demand for a nurse to manage a hospital. She was to be sent to northern Canada, and the salary offered was the fabulous sum of $3,600 a year, to leave everything and go north. It is absurd; it is simply ridiculous.
If you want good employees, you have to pay them properly, give them salaries that are paid in private industry. I know that salaries in private industry have substantially gone up in recent years; 1 know also that it may be somewhat difficult to keep pace with salary trends everywhere, and I would not like to criticize the commission too harshly.
I remember having dealt, on another occasion, with the various job opportunities advertised by the civil service, when I showed that it had been difficult to find the required personnel for hundreds of positions, precisely because the salary offered was not reasonable.
As I said a moment ago, the same goes for accountants and nurses and, as the hon. member for St. Mary pointed out, the same goes for druggists and chemists. It is true that chemists are classified in various categories. At the very beginning, a chemist only gets about $3,000 a year, and it is only after constant labour and years of work that he can get a reasonable salary. Besides, if he is competent, he goes to work for a company like the C.I.L. and right away he is offered a high salary.
Canada is now losing several of its doctors precisely because they do not get adequate salaries. In fact, American professionals have called at our universities, and even before our medical students had received their degree, they were offered a remuneration so much higher than that which they could have got in Canada, that those young people went to the United States to complete their studies and, afterwards, they settled there.
We have also seen a California lecturer come to Toronto and Montreal to give lectures to our doctors. This lecturer was a Canadian who had emigrated to the United States because he could not get the necessary facilities to work, and the salary which would
7086	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State have allowed him to complete his education. He is now a United States citizen, and he comes back to Canada to lecture our Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that in this field the civil service commission would do well to make a serious and thorough study of the situation in order to meet the needs of the civil service and to give satisfaction also to those who, because of their education, deserve to get a salary at least equal to that they would receive in industry.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to deal with the matter of appeals to the civil service commission. It is a situation which should be seriously examined, because many of the appeals are rejected. Why? It is because the civil service commission is not giving serious enough consideration to those who make an appeal? I do not know, but in the few cases I have studied, I have noticed that the civil servant, who was a very good employee, fully qualified for the work he had to do, did not get the appointment to the higher position he had applied for. The promotion has been refused to him in favour of another civil servant. He filed an appeal. He appeared before the commission and his appeal was fruitless. Why? Because he was naturally shy and did not have the necessary knowledge to plead his case. This is why I believe that in cases of appeal-I am now talking for the benefit of lawyers-the applicant should have the right to be represented by a lawyer, who would know how to make the necessary representations to the commission and would know how to examine the witnesses.
Otherwise, the man who is not used to speaking up, who did not make special studies in that field is stuck; he is embarrassed because he is not used to expressing his views publicly. He is terrorized by the presence of the members of the civil service commission, and, for those reasons, he often loses his appeal simply because he does not know how to go about it.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the civil service commission take steps so that those who make an appeal have the right, if they so choose, not to be represented by another employee of the public service, nor by a member of his association, but by a lawyer of his choice.
Another field where there is some injustice, perhaps unintentional, is in what we call the


rating system. The rating is a survey made by the department concerned, on the value of the employee. They say, for instance, that the employee is worth so much per cent in this and so much per cent in that and at the end, it should give a total of so much.
But in the army, they instituted the rating system. The rating was shown to the person concerned who considered the matter, and if dissatisfied, asked to be paraded in order to discuss the situation.
Things are different in the civil service commission. The head of a department-


Mr. Drysdale:: More slowly, please.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am sorry I was going too fast. In the civil service, the person concerned is treated the same as in the army. I do know, however, that an employee's rating is arrived at on the basis of a numerical system and that outside the Department of National Defence, which has been following a system similar to the army system, an employee is not given an opportunity to see his rating. Now, in the event of a promotion, the rating has more weight than the person's real value. In my view, the employee should be told about his rating, so as to be able to study it and appeal to the civil service commission if he disagrees; if satisfied, on the other hand, he could just initial the rating. In that way, no unfairness could arise.
I have referred to that system in the past. I discussed it when the Liberals were in power, and I raise it again today because in my view, it is a means of avoiding cases of gross unfairness. Indeed, it may happen that a head of a division, who for some reason dislikes a particular employee, will rate him accordingly. As the employee never sees that rating, and comes under the civil service commission only when a promotion arises, his chances are jeopardized in advance because of the fact that in a fit of temper against an employee, the section head does not grant him the rating he is entitled to.
Those are matters that deserve consideration as well as the question raised earlier by the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque).
Mistakes might happen, the civil service commission may do someone an injustice; but the greatest danger of injustice is not in the civil service commission itself, but mostly in the departments where people work side by side all day long and where there

are clashes of temperaments. Those people do not always get along together and this is what gives rise to injustice, because very often reports submitted to the civil service commission on applicants have more weight than the true merit of the applicants and are more important than the results of the exams they passed. I suggest that this situation should be corrected in the interests of the civil service.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, various questions were brought up by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade), for Hull (Mr. Caron) and for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) concerning the civil service commission.
(Text):
First of all, I should like to answer briefly the remarks made by the hon. member for Assiniboia about resignations from the civil service. The hon. member for Assiniboia included in the figures he gave to the committee all types of resignations. They were not confined to only one category; they included all those who retired because of age, illness or in the case of women because they got married. It included also those who were returning to schools and universities and all those who retired for personal reasons and also who accepted employment elsewhere. When all these factors are taken into consideration the percentage of vacancies and resignations is not so large for such a huge number of employees.
It is true that in certain fields vacancies are a little more numerous on a percentage basis than in other fields, but I should like to tell the committee that if the civil service commission, for instance, is experiencing certain difficulties with such classes as veterinarians, nurses, meteorologists and accountants, I think it is a good thing for the committee to know that in all these classes industry is facing the same difficulty and is experiencing the same shortages; but I can assure the committee that the civil service commission is doing its very best to remedy this situation and is paying special attention to these fields.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) has dealt with the case of pharmacists and some other professionals. The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) referred to it, too.
According to them, the salaries of those professionals as compared to those paid in private industry were not attractive.
I want to remind the house that on June 1, various professional groups received
Supply-Secretary of State salary increases from the civil service commission and among those were the groups of engineers, chemists, scientific officers, statisticians, teachers in our miltary colleges, medical officers, legal officers, and some other groups of public relation officers as well as other groups of university graduates.
Unfortunately, the salaries of both classes of pharmacists and accountants have not been increased yet, but the officials of my department tell me their cases are to be revised soon.
As for the case about which the hon. member for St. Mary complained, and about which the hon. member for Hull insisted I make a thorough investigation in order to know all the facts, I want to assure the house that I will study this matter which has been raised by the hon. member for St. Mary, and if I come to the conclusion there are grounds for an investigation, I will not hesitate to order that it be made.
The hon. member for Hull raised the question of rating. May I say to him that there is at present an interdepartmental committee which is studying the possibility of establishing a system which would apply to all departments. This interdepartmental committee is expected to report to the commission in the very near future.
As for the matter of appeals, which was raised by the hon. member for Hull, I must remind him that the new civil service bill includes several amendments on the matter, and that new bill provides a well defined procedure about that.
I am told, at this time, that a civil servant who lodges an appeal, may be represented by a lawyer.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I regret, Mr. Minister-


Léon Balcer: That is the information I got from some officials of my department.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Some will try to be represented by lawyers who know very little about such defence. They were told they were entitled to be represented by a member of the association only. I think that the act now provides for that. They are entitled to be represented by a member of the association, but not by a lawyer.


Léon Balcer: I am very happy to announce to the hon. member for Hull that, very recently, it has been decided that a civil servant who lodges an appeal is entitled to be represented by a lawyer.

Supply-Secretary of State


Alexis Pierre Caron: Then I must congratulate the minister on behalf of the employees and of the lawyers.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, some objection was raised a moment ago to the fact that I raised the point of order which I did in the English language, and if I did so it was for an obvious reason. I want to continue not on the point of order but with respect to the matter raised by the hon. member for St. Mary, equally in the English language for equally obvious reasons. The charge which was made by the hon. member is a serious one and I do not think it can be allowed to remain in the manner in which the minister has left it. It is a charge against the civil service of Canada as a whole and more particularly against the chairmen of the civil service commission who have occupied that post over the years. The charge made was that an applicant for a position in the civil service of Canada was given the questions and answers with respect to an examination which took place. The point is so serious that I think the minister should take the first opportunity not only to make an investigation but to state here and now that he does not believe that those persons who form the civil service commission of Canada are responsible for such an act.
I refer first of all to the present chairman, who was not accused, and to the preceding chairman, the Hon. Mr. Heeney, now ambassador at Washington, who was appointed by the former Liberal administration and whose term of office was extended by the present government. If the charge is a valid one then it reflects indirectly upon his tenure of office. Again, his predecessor in office was Mr. C. H. Bland, who for many years was chairman of the civil service commission. He was appointed by a Conservative administration and his term of office was extended by a Liberal administration. Before his retirement he was asked to make a report on the whole purview of the civil service commission.
What I deprecate in this attack is not so much the fact that it is directed at a previous administration but rather the fact that it is an attack upon the civil service commission of Canada. I have been a member of the house for many years. I came here in 1935 and I have heard silly rumours such as that to which the hon. member for St. Mary gave vent this evening, but I have never yet seen the proof established of any such thing as was stated this evening. I say to you, sir, with respect, and equally with respect to the Acting Secretary of State, that it is not enough for him to say what he did say. In

all fairness to the men and women who are under him he must say that they are not in any way responsible so far as this kind of ignoble attack is concerned. I hope the minister will conduct an investigation at the first opportunity and let the house know what the facts of the case are.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier has said that in his 25 years in the house he has heard all kinds of rumours of this type and that when they were looked at closely most of the time they did not stand up or make sense. That is precisely the reason why the commissioners cannot order a full inquiry with respect to every little rumour that comes along. I think it is the duty of the minister to study and investigate every charge that is made and, if the charge is serious, to go very deeply into the matter and make sure that every accusation is answered. In my view I think I am just following a very proper course.
As far as the present and past chairmen of the commission and the other commissioners are concerned, I quite agree with the hon. member for Laurier that they have given excellent service to the state and have always done their duty as far as the people of Canada and the government are concerned.
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer the few remarks which were made in a less than accurate manner by the hon. members for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and for Hull (Mr. Caron).
I never charged the civil service commission or its officials with playing such a game. I pointed out that the promotion system, or the rating test, to which candidates were submitted is defective, and that consequently some people were awarded undeserved promotions. That is what I wished to clear up. I also want to reply to what the hon. member for Hull said to the effect that he thought the civil service was not quite honourable.
I think the civil service is very honourable. I know, a great number of federal civil servants in my riding who are honestly doing their work. I have never had any quarrel with them in respect of what I know. And I am today giving credit to the civil service and to its employees for the magnificent co-operation they give to public servants, to the government and to anybody by whom they are approached.
I just wanted to say again that there was a defective system which had to be corrected, and under which some employees had been given certain promotions.
I want to recall the name of the person who authorized me to name him, and to give his address and his telephone number, telling me that he would be available if needed.



I960

[Stage Direction]
I did not start a ridiculous rumour, as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said. I just established a certain fact, and I fail to understand the turmoil which took place in the ranks of the Liberal party following my stating the facts in this house.
I just wanted to take this opportunity to say how the Conservative party has given consideration to civil servants, who had been neglected and forgotten by the Liberal party. Under the Conservative party, Mr. Chairman, civil servants received a generous salary adjustment which had been refused by the former administration. And I took that opportunity to point out that I felt the rating system is faulty and should be corrected in the interest of the government.
Alexis Pierre Caron: I much prefer the last statement made by the hon. member for St. Mary to the first one, because the last statement may be a matter of taste, to use the words of the member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), while in the first statement, he mentioned a name, that of Mr. Sibley Henry and-


Georges-J. Valade: Read the Hansard, and you'll see what I said.


Alexis Pierre Caron: He said that this person had been supplied in advance with the answers to the questions that were to be asked.


Georges-J. Valade: That was under the former administration.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is not exactly what he said. However, if it is true, that one Sibley Henry was supplied with competition questions, that is a very serious matter which deserves to be enquired into, because a direct charge has been laid. But, if he merely said that the rating form can involve injustices, I fully agree with him, and there is no use discussing the matter any further.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, in view of the charges made recently that so far as foreign service officers are concerned people of French Canadian origin are not getting a fair share of the posts, could the minister explain how much control the civil service commission has over examinations for the post of foreign service officer? Does the civil service commission set the complete examination or is there a special examination set by the Department of External Affairs?


Léon Balcer: The examination is set by the civil service commission.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In other words, the civil service commission is completely in charge of the examination set-up for foreign service officers in the Department of External Affairs?
Supply-Secretary of State


Léon Balcer: That is right.


Douglas Mason Fisher: So if there were any criticism of the selection, as it works out, then some responsibility must rest with the civil service commission rather than upon the Department of External Affairs? Would that be a fair assumption? Would the minister not care to answer that?


Léon Balcer: This is precisely what I said earlier. It is the civil service commission that makes the appointments.


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe I was out of the chamber when the minister made his general statement in reply. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on the large number of resignations, the large number of vacancies in the various departments to which I referred? What is being done to fill them?


Léon Balcer: I explained briefly that the figures that were given by the hon. member were not the actual figures for vacancies. They include all the people who have resigned from the civil service because of retirement, because of age, because of illness, because of marriage in the case of women, to fill alternative positions such as returning to universities and schools, as well as for personal reasons of some other nature. When you take into consideration these various groups you will see that the actual resignations are not so numerous for such a huge service.
In so far as these vacancies are concerned, the commission has experienced shortages in certain fields, such as veterinarians, nurses, meteorologists and accountants. Industry is also experiencing shortages in these classes. I can assure the hon. member that our civil service commission is doing its best to recruit these people.


Hazen Robert Argue: My main point was not the number of resignations. The point was that in relation to resignations there were so many vacancies. I have in my hand a particular return for the Department of Agriculture. For example in two instances the position of engineer has been vacant one year and one month; two veterinarians have been required for this length of time; two librarians, an inspector of poultry products, a poultry field-man. The position of economist has been vacant one year and five months, and so on. It would seem to me that there has been something of a collapse in the civil service of this country in these important positions. The fact is that the government is not offering enough money, in my opinion. Some of these positions have been vacant for years.

Supply-Secretary of State
I am not criticizing the civil service commission for failing to have them filled. I think the personnel are not available at the salaries that are being offered. My complaint, as I said initially, was not the number of resignations. I expect there will be a large turnover, inevitably, in any service because of promotions, transfers, new recruits and so on. As I said earlier, I do not have the full information because it was not supplied for every department. I would ask the minister to look into this question. I feel that it is a very great problem for the civil service of this country, and it is a shame that these positions should be vacant for years. I would suggest that one of the reasons the government is unable to fill them is that the salary which is offered for people with these kinds of qualifications is too low.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I am told by the officials that there is an actual shortage of veterinarians, for instance, and they are just not available. In so far as many of the other positions are concerned that the hon. member has listed, very often the department concerned does not request the civil service commission to fill these vacancies. The department just wants to keep these positions open.


Hazen Robert Argue: Why would the department want to keep them open?


Léon Balcer: That is the problem of the various departments; so far as the civil service commission is concerned, they only recruit people to fill vacancies when the *department requests that these vacancies be filled.


Hazen Robert Argue: I did not expect to hear from the minister that these were fictitious vacancies. 1 think it is a rather disgraceful position if the Department of Agriculture is going about the country saying we have many vacancies; we need a number of qualified people for many posts, but we do not want these posts filled. It looks ridiculous.


Léon Balcer: Many of these vacancies remain unfilled because applicants do not come.


Hazen Robert Argue: Very well; in other words, in relation to the salary there is a severe shortage of these people and the government is unsuccessful in having these positions filled.


Léon Balcer: At the present time the government is granting all kinds of salary increases. A few minutes ago I listed a group of professional men who received increases on June 1, quite substantial increases. I feel these increases compare quite favourably with the salaries paid in industry for similar work.


Edwin William Brunsden: There are some vacancies in the Department of Agriculture, and the hon. member for Assiniboia is a trained agriculturist. I sincerely recommend to the minister that he consider an application from the hon. member for Assiniboia in order that he may use his great talents in a field outside this house.


Hazen Robert Argue: I suggest to the hon. member that my application is in for much higher stakes than that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: I suggest that the record of inefficiency and ineptitude of this government will result in innumerable vacancies on the other side. My hon. friend's advice, I would suggest, would be more appropriate to the droves of his colleagues around him who, in a very short time, will likely all be looking for work.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I was going to ask the minister a question related to one of his own divisions. Has the civil service commission any request from the companies division of his department for additional staff, especially in relation to the carrying out of what will be great changes in the functions of that division if the present dealings with the provinces in an effort to smooth out the whole Companies Act operation in Canada should be successful.


Léon Balcer: I cannot answer that question offhand; I shall be obliged to inquire. Perhaps I could let the hon. member know personally outside the house with regard to this matter because I do not think I can get an answer tonight.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That will be satisfactory. Will the minister also let me know at what time it is expected that some kind of crystallization will take place on this program to consolidate the various provincial and federal companies acts across the country and when he expects that this program will have some kind of policy application?


Léon Balcer: I could not tell exactly how many months it may take. This process is a long one, as the hon. member knows. At the present time this committee, which consists of representatives of the federal companies section and a representative of each of the companies law section of the various provinces, is preparing a joint draft to be submitted to the government of each province and of Canada. If I remember rightly, this draft at the present time has not been given to the government and the government has not considered such a draft at the present time. I do not know about the various provinces but I do not think the matter has reached the government level. I believe it is

still on the official level, or on the level of this committee of which I was speaking. However, I can assure the hon. member that when we have uniformity of companies law across the country, if there is a need to increase the number of officers in the companies law section of the department, we shall do so.


Mr. Crestohl:: Can the minister inform the committee whether there is at the present time an active chief or an acting chief of the companies branch?


Léon Balcer: We have only an acting chief at the present time.


Leon David Crestohl: How long has the position of chief of the department been vacant?


Léon Balcer: I am not too sure but I think it is over five months; between five months and six months.


Leon David Crestohl: Has the minister taken under active consideration the appointment of a chief for that department? I know the department is in need of a chief.


Léon Balcer: Yes. We want to fill this vacancy. At the present time we are discussing the matter with the civil service commission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public printing and stationery-
320. Departmental administration, $675,523.
Douglas Mason Fisher: On a previous occasion when these estimates have been before a committee I made a request of the minister to use his influence to see that contracts were spread out more across the country or in other words that there be less concentration in the Mont-real-Toronto-Ottawa triangle and on at least two occasions, once by the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and once by the minister who was in charge of this section last year, I received the assurance that this was the policy of the government and that they were going to see to it that more contracts and subcontracts went to the western provinces and to some of the eastern provinces. I should like to ask the minister whether he can give some indication as to whether this policy has been effective.
In previous years I put on the order paper a request for information that it took many pages to give. However, from it I can determine this information. Last year in this particular return I could not see that more contracts were going to provinces other than Ontario and Quebec. I wonder whether the minister could give us an indication now as to what increase there has been, perhaps in percentage terms, of contracts going to printers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and the maritime provinces?
Supply-Secretary of State


Léon Balcer: I am glad the hon. member has asked me this question because the figures that I can give at the present time show quite a definite increase. For instance, in Alberta in 1957-58 the total value of departmental purchases from the Queen's printer was $55,014; in 1958-59 the amount increased to $75,451; and in 1959-60 it has reached $83,018. In British Columbia, for instance, it was $110,000 in 1957-58; in 1958-59 it stayed at about the same level of $108,000; but in 1959-60 it increased from $108,000 to $164,000, which is quite substantial for British Columbia. With regard to Manitoba the amount increased from $80,000 in 1957 to $137,000 in 1959-60.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should just like the minister to give the pattern. I appreciate knowing the figures. Has there been any percentage increase over-all in these particular years that would indicate that we are just following a general trend? I should like to determine whether this is following a general trend or whether it is a real fruition of a change in government policy.


Léon Balcer: If one looks at the total record, it will be seen that in 1957 the total sales were $17,400,000. The figure increased in 1958, one year later, to $18,330,000 and in 1959-60 to $18,400,000 which is an increase of only $100,000. I therefore think there is a definite movement of decentralization.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am pleased to have this indication of a change in policy. Will the minister indicate how much of this $18 million is put up for bid, where you have an open bid or an open tender? I should like the figure, roughly, as to how much is on the basis of a selective invitation to a few people who happen to be on the list of the department?


Léon Balcer: It is practically all open bids. The only cases in which there are no open bids are in respect of these punch cards or specialized equipment like that which are produced by only one producer and where there is only one firm from which they can be purchased.


Douglas Mason Fisher: How does a job printing firm in a small town in northern Ontario like Geraldton or a town like Brandon or Selkirk in Manitoba know, find out or hear about these tender possibilities in order that they might submit a bid?


Léon Balcer: They are invited by area. Every time there is a printing contract to be let we always invite a certain number of printing shops to tender. As I understand it, the Queen's printer has a list of practically all printing shops in Canada. Any printing

Supply-Secretary of State shop can write to the Queen's printer giving its name, qualifications and details of its production possibilities, and the Queen's printer tries to encourage all printing shops in Canada to submit tenders, and the Queen's printer tries to give a chance to the printing shops in one particular area. It would be practically impossible for a printer in Brandon, for instance, to compete with a printer in Ottawa or Montreal or Toronto on account of shipping charges, and things like that. So we arrange to have these bids submitted by area, and that is the reason why in the last three years there has been an increase in contracts granted outside of the central provinces.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could the minister tell me if there have been any contracts let in the past year in the area I call northwestern Ontario, which is between the Manitoba boundary down to North Bay or Sudbury? Have there been any contracts let in that area; or if that question cannot be answered, have firms in that region been invited to make bids?


Léon Balcer: In view of the importance of cities like Port Arthur and Fort William I am sure that there are some printing firms there which have been asked to tender on contracts, but unfortunately I have not the breakdown for the region specified by the hon. member.


Douglas Mason Fisher: One last question, and this is more specific. How much does it cost, and who is the printer who does the job on the Canadian army journal?


Léon Balcer: The successful tenderer was Charters of Brantford, Ontario. Unfortunately I have not the amount.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Can the minister tell me how many firms bid or were invited to bid on this particular job, and did the lowest bidder get the job?


Léon Balcer: At least a dozen printing shops were asked to tender, and the hon. member can be sure the contract was given to the lowest tenderer.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I thank the minister for the information. It does not match with what I have but I will have to check my information.


Alexis Pierre Caron: In those cases do they call for public tenders or do they just call certain firms?


Léon Balcer: What is being done in practice is that we call for a specified job according to the equipment of the various tenderers. I mean by that that for a definite printing job which requires a certain type of printing

press we call for tenders from various printing shops where they have the required press.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is what we call invited tenders. By which means do they establish that they are better equipped than other firms to do the job? Who makes the inquiry about that?


Léon Balcer: Nobody decides which is better equipped. The various printing shops send to the Queen's printer details of all their equipment, and it is very easy for the Queen's printer to be able to judge from the equipment on the card if a particular printing shop can do a certain type of work or not.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Anybody who has good equipment can send a demand for work at the printing bureau and they would be put on the list and asked to tender?


Léon Balcer: Yes; and I can assure the hon. member that we receive requests like that every day and all of them are considered for tenders.


Romuald Bourque: As I said previously, Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of questions to ask. I am a printer by trade, and therefore when you talk to me about printing, after having spent some 50 years in the trade, I have learned a lot of things in that time.
The evolution which has taken place in the printing industry during the last few years is so tremendous that it would be difficult for anyone to call it an evolution. When tenders are asked for by the printing bureau, if you want to have cheap tenders you could ask ten people and know before you start which one will be the lowest. Because the machinery is such today that certain printers can turn out a job at say, $1.94 a thousand, yet you can ask another big printer equipped with the most modern equipment possible and he can turn out the same job for about 46 cents a thousand, a difference of 75 per cent. So therefore I am sure the printing bureau has a list of all firms in Canada with the equipment they possess, and I am sure they would ask ten printers having similar up-to-date equipment to tender so that they will get the best price. I would like to ask the minister if this is so?


Léon Balcer: Would the hon. member repeat his question, because I was disturbed and missed part of it?


Romuald Bourque: I will give an illustration of my question. Say the government wanted 500,000 dodgers 9 x 12 printed in two colours and two sides. If they asked a small printer with automatic machines, say Kelly presses, he will give you a price of, say, $2.25 a thousand and that will be a fair price

for him. But if you asked a big lithographic printer which had all the modern and latest type presses, his price would be perhaps only 75 per cent of the other price. So I think the printing bureau should have a list of all firms in Canada with the equipment each firm has, and they should ask similar firms with similar equipment to tender, because the difference in cost can be tremendous.


Léon Balcer: Yes, I understand the question. We divide the various orders up into three categories; small, medium and large. With the small printing shops we ask them to tender on the smaller contracts. The huge, big concerns are invited to tender on the really big contracts. We understand the situation pictured by the hon. member and he can be sure that the Queen's printer is very much in the know as regards this situation. That is why they always divide these contracts into three classes, and when we ask for bids on a small contract we always ask the small printing shops.


Romuald Bourque: As I said earlier I was led to ask these questions after reading an address given to the employing printers' association of Montreal on June 8, 1960 by David MacLellan, general manager of E.P.A. and of the graphic arts industries association, a national body embracing all employing printers' organizations from coast to coast entitled, "Printing-Canada's Biggest Employer in Manufacturing and How the Industry is Taxed, Trammelled and Trimmed".
My first question is this. Are the salaries of the officials-the Queen's printer, his assistant and other officials-paid by the government printing bureau or are they included in the civil service and paid by the government?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the Queen's printer and his assistant are paid out of the vote in the estimates but all the production people are paid out of revenues from our sales and charged to expenses.


Romuald Bourque: I am sorry, but I did not hear the answer.


Léon Balcer: As far as the Queen's printer and his assistant are concerned they are paid out of the vote in the present estimates. As far as the production people are concerned they are paid out of general expenses and charged to the cost of jobs.


Romuald Bourque: Are these the only two officials paid from the estimates or are the salaries of other officials added on to the hourly cost, because the hourly cost has a great bearing on printing costs and estimates. If only the two are paid from the estimate it does not amount to much but
Supply-Secretary of State there may be other officials who are not on the payroll of the printing bureau.


Léon Balcer: I do not quite appreciate what the hon. member is after. Does he want to know, for instance, if there are people other than the officials whose salaries are charged to the ordinary expenses of this department?


Romuald Bourque: Right. I want to know what officials, employees and staff are paid out of the estimates. Is it only the Queen's printer and his assistant or are the proofreaders, the chief accountant, the accountants and other officials included? What other officials are there that should be on the payroll included in the estimates or paid directly through the printing bureau and do they count on the hourly cost?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Consult page 426 of the estimates.


Romuald Bourque: It is all on the first item.


Léon Balcer: It would be difficult for me to tell exactly because some do and some do not. It depends on the work being done.


Romuald Bourque: You have your officials there, Mr. Minister. Why can they not tell you? They should be able to tell you. It has a great bearing on what I have to say.


Léon Balcer: If the hon. member will refer to page 426 of the estimates he will see that the Queen's printer and his assistant-


Romuald Bourque: Do all of these officials come under the vote?


Léon Balcer: I apologize for giving the hon. gentleman incorrect information. At page 426 are listed all the people who are paid out of the vote. All the other employees of the Queen's printer, and there are over 1,500 of them, are paid out of the ordinary expenses.


Romuald Bourque: That is the operating staff, the typesetters, the pressmen, all the people working in the offices of the department? Their salary is charged against the hourly cost of the printing bureau?


Léon Balcer: Yes, and also the production men, the planning manager, the planning clerk, the storekeepers, the shipping employees and various others.


Romuald Bourque: Did the minister say creative men? Did he say he has a creative staff in the printing bureau and that they create all kinds of ideas?


Léon Balcer: I did not mention that. I referred to the shipping employees. Perhaps the hon. member misunderstood me.

Supply-Secretary of State


Romuald Bourque: Who purchases the necessary equipment such as presses, flat-bed and offset presses, linotype and monotype machines, gathering machines, varitypers, Xerox, I.B.M. equipment, collating and cutting machines, bookbinding equipment, etc.? Who pays for this equipment? Is it paid for and charged directly as an overhead expense in the printing bureau or is the cost of these machines calculated as overhead and included in the hourly cost of operations?


Mr. Creaghan:: See page 437.


Léon Balcer: All these expenses are included in vote No. 326 covering plant equipment and replacements.


Romuald Bourque: Do you charge depreciation on this equipment?


Léon Balcer: No.


Romuald Bourque: An ordinary printer could not very well operate unless he charged depreciation.


Léon Balcer: This is not an ordinary printing shop.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: This is the Queen's printer.


Romuald Bourque: Years ago we used to buy a press and try to make it last for 20 years but now competition is so keen that a press should be operated 24 hours a day and worked until it is absolutely through. That is the only way you can operate a printing plant today.
Who pays for the lighting, heating, maintenance, etc.? Is it charged to the printing bureau and has it got any bearing on the cost of operations? In other words, does it form part of the actual hourly cost?


Donald MacInnis: If you know, why ask all these questions?


Romuald Bourque: I have to ask them. The hon. member obviously knows nothing about business.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: If you know so much why not help them at the printing bureau?


Romuald Bourque: I am not interested in working there.


Léon Balcer: Anyone who is a little familiar with government operations in the cities of Ottawa and Hull is aware of the fact that this building was constructed by the Department of Public Works and is heated by that department.


Romuald Bourque: No rental is charged that goes on the hourly cost?


Léon Balcer: None. The Department of Public Works looks after this building as it looks

after the House of Commons. The House of Commons is not charged rental.


Romuald Bourque: That is what I wanted to know and that is what the printers of Canada wanted to know. What department is the rental value of the printing bureau charged to? Is it charged to a specific department or is it just an overhead charge that adds nothing to the hourly cost of operation? Does the cost of the building enter into the hourly cost of operation? Is any rental included in that cost?


Léon Balcer: The printing bureau, like other similar establishments of the government of Canada, operates under the same rules applying to them.


Mr. Hellyer:: It is unique. There is nothing like it.


Romuald Bourque: There is a difference. I should like the minister to tell me if the delivery of printing to the various government departments, the cost of automobiles and trucks and other equipment, is included as overhead? Who pays for that?


Léon Balcer: The charges for operating expenses of the trucks are charged to the operating expenses of the Queen's printer.


Romuald Bourque: Does this go on the estimate or does it go on the hourly cost?


Léon Balcer: On the hourly cost.


Romuald Bourque: Does the printing bureau pay a municipal tax for its building or is the tax included with the stipulated amount the government pays to municipalities? If so, is there any charge made for this item to the printing bureau?


Léon Balcer: No. The hon. member is seeking to make out a case to illustrate that the Queen's printer has not the same charges as an ordinary printing shop. We all agree with him; we have not the same charges. It is a completely different establishment. It is a government establishment created to print government publications and it is doing a very good job at the present time.


Romuald Bourque: I did not ask that; I did not say it was not doing a good job. I just want information. After all, the printing bureau does not pay for lighting; it does not pay for heating; it does not pay for the building. It has no overhead costs, or anything. Is it charged any income tax?


Léon Balcer: No, it does not pay any income tax.


Romuald Bourque: If it succeeds in making a profit in competition with private industry, why should it not pay income tax, the same

as any private printer who has to pay for all the services that the printing bureau is granted by the different departments such as public works, national revenue division, and so forth?


Léon Balcer: The hon. member has been asking so many questions of me about this matter that I wonder whether he would answer one for me?


Romuald Bourque: Yes.


Léon Balcer: Does he think the printing bureau should pay income tax?


Romuald Bourque: I think it should if it is going to be in competition with private industry and the printers who are competing with it right along. They have to pay rent, light, heat, and so on. That is exactly the question I wanted the minister to ask me. The private printers who are in competition with the printing bureau have to pay for rent, light, heat, maintenance, delivery, promotion, advertising, taxes of all sorts, wages, salaries, legal expenses and so forth. I can assure the minister that the printers are very much worried at the present time because of the work that the printing bureau is doing in Canada today. The printing bureau has no sales staff going to the different departments to find out what work needs to be done, or is the work brought to the printing bureau? The printing bureau has no public relations officials, no creative division of artists and top executives who create all kinds of mailing pieces, packagings, labels, promotional work, and so forth, for the different departments? Therefore, the overhead is reduced practically to wages only.


Léon Balcer: And materials.


Romuald Bourque: And materials, of course; you have to buy the materials. How is the hourly cost arrived at in the printing bureau? If you wish to estimate a job and you want to get out 500,000 booklets for tourists and the job is worth say $25,000 or $35,000 and you ask for bids outside, what do you do? I believe you have an estimating department in the printing bureau which says that the job should be worth so much. If you do not pay any overhead, and you do not pay any income tax, and you do not pay lawyers' fees and you get a free building, free light, a president, a vice president, a superintendent, a foreman and everybody, and nothing is charged on the job, how can you come to a price that is competitive with that of a printer who has to pay all those charges?


Léon Balcer: The Queen's printer does not have to pay income tax; he does not have to pay selling expenses; he does not have
Supply-Secretary of State any depreciation and he does not make a profit. The formula that they use in assessing the price of a certain job is that they subtract 36 per cent for the cost of the printing job.


Romuald Bourque: I did not get that.


Léon Balcer: They subtract 36 per cent from the cost of the printing job. Their regulation is that this 36 per cent is to represent the fact that there is no charge for profit, for income tax, for selling expenses or for depreciation.


Romuald Bourque: They do not know whether it is right or wrong.


Léon Balcer: They do.


Romuald Bourque: They start and finish-


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I cannot let that go. They have made accounting studies and they have come up with a figure of 36 per cent. It did not come out of thin air. They take the usual expenses of an ordinary printing shop and with those figures they have come up with the exact percentage of 36 per cent, and that is how they come to their costs.


Romuald Bourque: Mr. Chairman, take the case of the working man an ordinary compositor in a plant who may be paid $1.98 an hour. He has two weeks' holidays, some have three. There are so many legal holidays a year and there is so much sick leave and everything. By the time you figure all the costs of that man-I am not saying the unproductive time but the productive time-that rate of $1.98 an hour may rise to $2.48 before you even begin to add profit or anything. How can you come up with a figure of 36 per cent if you do not know just where you are starting, from? In bookkeeping you must start with a figure; you do not guess and say we take 36 per cent off.


Léon Balcer: I know the hon. member is trying to make a point and I am ready to agree with him that it is less expensive for the Queen's printer to operate than it is for an ordinary printer, but as far as the costs that we charge are concerned, they are the same as those of any other printer. I referred to the cost system.


Romuald Bourque: I can tell the minister that if he were in private enterprise and running a private firm he could take a job today for approximately $10,000 and it might cost him $18,000 to turn it out. The next day he might take a job for $15,000 and it may cost him only $12,000 to turn it out. At the end of the year he might arrive at a figure something like the 36 per cent that the
7096	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State minister has mentioned, but I do not understand how the printing bureau can arrive at a figure of 36 per cent unless they start with something. You must have a firm figure. You cannot afford to guess at something; you have to know where you are going to land.


Mr. More:: Mr. Chairman-


Romuald Bourque: Wait a minute, I am not finished. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: No, I have a question.


Romuald Bourque: I am not finished. I should like to ask a question about apprentices. Does the printing bureau train apprentices, or does it absorb apprentices trained by free enterprise as fast as they become journeymen? It costs a printing firm thousands of dollars to train apprentices. According to the rules, a printing firm can have only three apprentices. Out of every three apprentices who start in the printing business only one finishes. Does the printing bureau train its own apprentices, or does it take apprentices that private printers have trained? Does it recruit apprentices from those people who have trained them, and bring them into the printing bureau?


Léon Balcer: We recruit from technical schools.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Did the government of Canada operate the printing bureau during the years 1935 to 1957? I should also like to ask the minister if there has been any change in the method of valuation since 1957.


Léon Balcer: No, it is exactly the same as when the government of the party to which the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean belongs was in power.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You mean you have not been able to find any method of improving it since?


Léon Balcer: We have changed the minister.


Mr. Monteith (Perth):: We did not lose as much money.
(Translation):


Mr. English:: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) is very interested in the matter, and I simply wanted to ask him, as a recently elected member, who has only been here since 1957, and who needs to gain some experience, whether he would explain the difference between the former Liberal policy in this field and that of the party now in power.


Romuald Bourque: I can tell the hon. member that I have been here longer than he has.


I have been sitting through four different parliaments, so that 1 have a little more experience than he has.
(Text):
I should like to ask another question. I have not received a reply so far as printers are concerned. No doubt the minister knows, as I said, that master printers spend thousands of dollars and the government should not take advantage of the printing industry by taking from them the apprentices that they train. Does the minister not think it is a grave injustice to the printing industry to take these apprentices from them?


Léon Balcer: I certainly do not think so; I do not think it is an injustice at all. I think the Queen's printer is an establishment that is rendering a tremendous service to the people of Canada. It is producing for the government of Canada and its agencies and if it can operate at a low cost I think that is a splendid thing. If we can save money for the taxpayers of Canada that is a very good thing.


Romuald Bourque: The government should not take advantage of the printers by raiding their establishments to get staff. It should form its own staff.


Léon Balcer: I do not agree.


Romuald Bourque: Does the minister know that the graphic arts are first among Canadian manufacturing industries in employment and fourth in dollar value of production? From the standpoint of income taxes, the graphic arts industry pays the highest wages of any non-seasonal manufacturing industry and the amount of income tax paid by the employees is considerable. Does the minister not think that the government should not cripple the goose that lays the golden egg by competing with private industry unless it be on the same level? Does the minister not think that the minister should take into consideration all the items that enter into the cost of a finished job in the printing industry before presenting competitive cost figures from the government printing bureau that show only one half of the real cost?


Léon Balcer: The hon. member has been asking me the same questions over and over and over again.


Romuald Bourque: No, I have asked different questions.


Léon Balcer: He has repeated himself about five times and his last question is the same.


Romuald Bourque: I have not.


Léon Balcer: I do not agree with him and I still maintain that this establishment is not creating trouble for the printing industry in Canada but rather is rendering a great

service to and doing a very good job for the Canadian people and is saving money.


Romuald Bourque: I would say to the minister-


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for
Burnaby-Richmond.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister might like a little variety in the questioning. Under this item I should like to make a plea primarily for the benefit of the judges and lawyers of Canada and it has to do with the printing of the annual statutes of Canada. Last year, for example, the session ended on July 18 and yet I was not able to obtain the statutes of Canada until the beginning of January. Out of curiosity I went to the library of the Supreme Court of Canada. When they receive the statutes they stamp them and I found that an interval of six to eight months was the average over several years.
I believe that one of the most important things parliament does is to enact legislation and in my view it is important that we place the statutes, comprising new legislation and amendments to existing acts, in the hands of the judges and lawyers of Canada as soon as possible. I believe it is extremely important that they receive them with the greatest expedition. I am not being critical of the minister or the Queen's printer because I realize they have a variety of matters to attend to but I do not think it is right that the judges and lawyers of Canada should be in the position of not knowing what the up-to-date law is. I urge the minister to expedite, if possible, the printing of this very important publication and I suggest that perhaps it could be done in a period of two months.


Léon Balcer: The hon. member has asked a very refreshing question and has made a very sound suggestion. I think it is most important that the statutes of Canada should be printed as quickly as possible because they play an important part in Canadian life. I can assure the hon. member that we will take his remarks and suggestion under very serious consideration and will do our utmost to complete the printing of these statutes earlier this year.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I must confess I have been quite amazed and rather confused by the running battle we have seen tonight between the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean and the minister. My confusion arises from the fact that I cannot
Supply-Secretary of State make out whether this is the new liberalism of the Conservative party or the new conservatism of the Liberal party. However, one thing strikes me as very strange. It has been repeated many times by the hon. member that the Queen's printer competes with private printing companies. I do not know of one instance where the Queen's printer has gone out and competed with any printing company in Canada. I think his whole argument is based on a myth.


Romuald Bourque: May I ask the minister another question? Does he know that our small population supports the greatest volume of imported printing of any country in the world? Sixty per cent of United States printing exports are absorbed by Canada and only 5 per cent of our printing exports are absorbed by the United States. We absorb 60 per cent of printing exports manufactured by 170 million people and they only absorb 5 per cent of printed material manufactured by 17 million people. If it were 5 per cent to 60 per cent the situation would not be so bad, but it is like an elephant and a rabbit or comparing 60,000 elephants we take from them with 5,000 rabbits they take from us. In addition, I understand that the Japanese are now coming into the market.
I am sorry if I have annoyed the minister but these are all things that the printing fraternity are very anxious to know. As we have a new Queen's printer I thought it would be well to make him aware of the things he will have to put up with and that is why I have asked so many questions tonight. I can assure him I wish him well and I hope he will make a success of his new job. I hope he will also take the things I have said tonight into consideration and try to bring about a fair distribution of the woi'k that he gives out.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have one question which I have been waiting quite a while to ask. Would the minister inform the house who prints the Parliamentary Guide and, if it is printed privately, what is the name of the company and what do they charge for it?


Léon Balcer: It is strictly private. The copies that we have are bought by the House of Commons, and it is the commissioners of internal economy that do that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The right to print is given by the commissioners?


Léon Balcer: It is purely private. It has been done by the same family for quite a

Supply-Secretary of State number of years. The copies are bought by the commissioners of internal economy of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: This completes the estimates of the Department of Secretary of State.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Will the business for tomorrow and the rest of the week be as announced last night?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There will be no change, Mr. Speaker. The business will be as announced last night and as shown on page 7017 of Hansard.


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

[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Northern administration branch-
282.	Branch administration, $1,089,198.
Education division-
283.	Administration, operation and maintenance including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the government of the Northwest Territories of expenditures on education and vocational training, $5,204,138.
284. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the government of the Northwest Territories of expenditures on education and vocational training, $2,496,287.
Welfare and industrial divisions-
285.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,531,368.
286. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $542,700.
Yukon Territory-
287.	Operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,176,695.
288. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $3,706,900.
Northwest Territories and other field services-
289.	Operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates and authority to make recoverable advances by services performed on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. $5,308,685.
290. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including costs arising out of the relocation of the town of Aklavik and payment of such compensation as the governor in council prescribes to persons affected by such relocation, $9,805,370.
Forestry branch-
291.	Branch administration, $172,333.
Forest research division-
292.	Operation and maintenance, $1,727,079.
293. Construction or acquisition of buildings, work, land and equipment, $221,147.
Forestry operations division-
294.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $349,390.
295. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $11,350.
296.	Contributions to the provinces for assistance in forest inventory, reforestation and forest fire protection in accordance with agreements entered into by Canada and the provinces, $2,450,000.
297.	Contribution to the province of New Brunswick for assistance in a program designed to combat the spruce budworm infestation, in accordance with an agreement entered into by Canada and the province, $550,000.
298.	Operation and maintenance, $966,063.
299.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $60,685.
Supply-Items Passed
300.	Grant to Canadian forestry association, $20,000.
301.	Eastern rookies forest conservation board- Remuneration and expenses of the federal member of the board, $5,575.
National museum of Canada-
302.	Administration, operation and maintenance. $736,904.
Canadian government travel bureau-
303.	To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada including a grant of $5,000 to the Canadian tourist association, $2,687,178.
486.	Advances to the northern Canada power commission for the purpose of capital expenditures in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, $1,825,000.
487.	Advances in accordance with agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $4,958,500.
Loans, investments and advances-
574. To authorize the operation of a revolving fund, in accordance with section 58 of the Financial Administration Act, for the purpose of acquiring and managing stores that are required for the purposes of the northern administration branch: the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed, $500,000.

[Stage Direction]
383.	Departmental administration, $311,264.
384.	Companies division, $119,558.
385.	Trade marks division, including a contribution to the international office for the protection of industrial property, $199,906.
386.	Bureau for translations, $1,639,678.
Patent and copyright office-
387.	Administration division, $197,442.
388.	Patent division, $2,308,558.
389.	Copyright and industrial designs division, including a contribution to the international office for the protection of literary and artistic works, $31,325.
Special-
552. 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, $12,500.
Office of the chief electoral officer-
45. Salaries and expenses of office, $76,925.
Civil service commission-
65. Salaries and contingencies of the commission including compensation in accordance with the suggestion award plan of the public service of Canada, $3,853,967.
Public printing and stationery-
320.	Departmental administration, $675,523.
321.	Purchasing, stationery and stores, $1,139,999.
322.	Distribution of official documents, $426,888.
323.	Printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public $650,000.
324.	Printing of Canada Gazette, $130,000.
325.	Printing and binding the annual statutes, $35,000.
326.	Plant equipment and replacements, $282,426.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 28, 1960