1960-03-04

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk has laid upon the table the 19th report of the clerk of petitions: Nineteenth Report of the Clerk of Petitions
Friday, March 4, 1960
The clerk of petitions has the honour to report that he has examined the petition of Carl Hamilton of the city of Ottawa, presented on March 3 by Mr. Howard, and finds that it is not in the form required by the standing orders and practice of this house since the signature of the petitioner does not appear on the same page as the prayer. For that reason the clerk of petitions has the honour to submit that the said petition should not be received.
Respectfully submitted,
Clerk of Petitions
In accordance with the rules of the house, if it is reported that a petition does not comply with the rules it cannot be received.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on that point? I assume that the standing order referred to is subsection 6 of standing order 70, which reads as follows:
Petitions may be either written or printed; provided always that when there are three or more petitioners the signatures of at least three petitioners shall be subscribed on the sheet containing the prayer of the petition.
This is the only reference I can find in the standing orders to signatures of the petitioners. You will note that it refers to when there are three or more, and makes no reference to there being one or two petitioners. In this regard I should like to point out how this provision arose. I refer to Bourinot's "Parliamentary Procedure and Practice", the edition of 1884, which makes reference on page 263 to irregularities in petitions, the number of petitioners and so on. It says:
A large number of petitions are not received every session on various grounds of irregularity. The house will refuse to receive a memorial containing no prayer.
This is the relevant part.
Every petition should have the signatures of "at least three petitioners on the sheet containing the prayer."
I would then refer to footnote No. 2, which reads as follows:
The reason of this rule may be understood by reference to a statement of Lord Clarendon (Hist, of Rebellion, II, 357) that, in 1640, "when a multitude of hands was procured, the petition itself was cut off, and a new one framed suitable to the designing hand, and annexed to the long list of names which were subscribed to the former. By this means many men found their hands subscribed to petitions of which before they had never heard."
The reason for the standing order, which makes reference to three or more petitioners having their names on the same page as the prayer, was to overcome the practice of petitioners signing their names to something to which they subscribed and their names then being cut off and attached to another petition which was presented to the house. The purpose was to ensure that when there were three or more petitioners, three of the names had to be subscribed to the same sheet as the prayer to indicate that at least some of the many petitioners had subscribed to the petition itself, and so that their signatures would not be attached to a petition without their knowledge.
I think you will find that is the reason behind subsection 6 of standing order 70 in the standing orders today, and why it only makes reference to when there are three or more petitioners and no reference to when there are only one or two.
That being the case, I think it should be found that this petition meets the provisions of the standing order in all respects and should be received and proceeded with.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that I have any authority to consider the acceptance of a petition that has been reported on unfavourably by the clerk of petitions, whose duty it is to certify to the house whether or not the petition complies with its requirements. But in any case I have anticipated that the apparently rather technical objection might be disputed, and I should like to say that in my view the argument the hon. member has just made is not substantiated by the practice in the past.
The rule has been interpreted as though it meant that the sheet containing the prayer must have at least three signatures. Unfortunately the rule is not drawn as clearly as it might be. The rule in the other place is clear because it indicates that is the practice. But our practice has always been

Proposed Legislation
to read the rule as though it meant that where there is more than one signature, at least three of them must be on the page containing the prayer. It is a salutary rule. As all hon. members who have had experience with petitions will appreciate, it is easy enough to sign a sheet with other names on it and not have much knowledge of what the prayer of the petition is.
In support of my view I would cite Bourinot's fourth edition at pages 233 and 234 and at page 235, where Bourinot states as follows:
And the petition should then close with the formal words; "And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray." Here follow the signatures of the petitioners which must be in writing and at least three signatures, if there are so many, must he on the same sheet with the prayer of the petition.
On January 31, 1913 Mr. Speaker Sproule ruled a petition out of order because there were not three names on the sheet containing the prayer. That is found in the Journals of the House of Commons, 1912-13 at page 210.
Bourinot at page 263 of the first edition states as follows with regard to that rule, now standing order 70, subsection 6 to which the hon. member referred:
But this rule is never interpreted as precluding a single petitioner from approaching the house; it simply refers to petitions signed by a number of individuals.
The matter is not one difficult of correction, but I think the better course is to reject the petition at this stage.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ACT


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-50, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to enable the House of Commons to implement in part through a member of parliament outside the cabinet the most helpful, discerning and impressive recommendations in the report of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters of the 1959 session under the experienced and capable chairmanship of the hon. member for Lamb ton West (Mr. Murphy). With equal purpose the bill proposes to aid small business-and presumably most frequently retail business-presently crucified under an unprecedented tight money policy of the government.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[Mr. Speaker.)



DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes to discharge the commitment which he made in the house on March 1, by making today a statement to the house on deficiency payments to western grain producers.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question was dealt with last evening by the house leader. On the conclusion of the supplementary estimates we shall carry on with the agriculture estimates.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister not aware that he himself said on March 1, "In any event it is the intention to introduce them on Friday"?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it was. That was our intention; but as Your Honour knows, a great deal of time was taken, several days, on one item of the supplementary estimates, and we naturally expected the supplementary estimates would not take that length of time.


Mr. Pickersgill:: A supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister say what the words "in any event" mean to him?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. With certain persons found guilty of homicide and under sentence of death, and with the question of capital punishment being considered by the government and this parliament, may I ask whether any thought is being given to delaying fulfilment of such death sentences until the government and parliament have concluded their considerations of this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is rather an unusual one. If it were simply a question of commutation of sentence it would be out of order, as the hon. members knows, because it is not open to the house to inquire into the prerogative of clemency and the exercise of that prerogative. I think this question is simply the same thing in another form, and should not be asked at this point.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of commutation. I know from your previous ruling that that cannot be done. The question is asked in view of the fact that this issue is now before parliament, and I understand before the government also, while there are those who are under sentence of death and one sentence could be carried out in a matter of days. I therefore ask whether, as a matter of government policy, the government is considering taking any action with respect to the death penalty on those who may die within the next few days or the next few weeks, by withholding the carrying out of such sentences until our discussions are concluded.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the question, but the considerations which the hon. member raises are considerations for the government in the exercise of its prerogative, and it is not a matter for the house.


Harold Edward Winch: It is not a matter of commutation.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that perfectly. I think the hon. member should accept the view I have expressed.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his capacity as house leader. Will he inform this house as to whether or not a decision will be reached on the bill of the hon. member for York-Scarborough on capital punishment before there are any further hangings in Canada.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The business of the house is announced each evening, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a telegram received this morning from the president and members of Armstrong branch No. 19 of the Canadian Legion at North Sydney with reference to lay-offs at the Point Edward naval base. This is my foundation for a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
I have not had an opportunity to give him notice, but I hardly think he would require any notice of this subject. The telegram reads as follows:
Re point and seniority system at Point Edward naval base. Lay-off on 4th March 1960-
Inquiries of the Ministry
Which is today.
-with 7 years and 3 months service and 72 points. Personnel staying with less points in present category. Veterans as a whole-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know how much of a telegram the hon. member has there, but could he not ask the question which he has in mind?


Robert Muir: Well, if the house does not want to hear what the veterans have to say, that is all right. It is only one line, that is all.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member finds it necessary to read the additional line to ask his question he may do so, but I understood he was embarking upon reading a lengthy telegram.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman very rarely troubles the house, and I think we would all be glad to let him continue.


Robert Muir: It continues:
Veterans as a whole treated unfairly request immediate investigation time essential as lay-off repeat March 4.
President and members Canadian Legion branch 19.
The minister advised us yesterday that the rights of veterans had been fully protected. According to this information-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Notwithstanding the clemency given by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the hon. member, whether he troubles the house or not, must abide by the rules, and it is not in order for him to make speeches on the subject at this time. Would the hon. member please ask his question.


Robert Muir: I am trying very hard, sir, with all due respect, to establish the basis for this question.
In view of this, would the minister give consideration to the setting up of a committee composed of representatives from the Department of National Defence, the civil service commission, the national defence employees' association and the provincial president of the legion, Mr. Thomas R. Young, to investigate this most urgent problem immediately?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: In reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, I can assure him that I will undertake to have this matter looked into immediately. I can assure him also, as I have assured him already and as I have assured hon. members of this house, that the veterans of Cape Breton, like all veterans in Canada, will be
1736	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry treated with the most complete fairness. Before instituting this committee I believe we should wait until we have the results of the investigation which I will ask the officials of the department to conduct immediately.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it true that the support price for turkeys as determined by the agricultural stabilization board has been reduced from 37 cents per pound f.o.b. Toronto to 20 cents? If so, could the minister tell the house the reason for this drastic reduction, amounting to 46 per cent?


Hon. D. S. Harlrness (Minisier of Agriculture):: No, it is not true. The support price for turkeys, which had been in effect for some considerable time, was 25 cents a pound. It was reduced as of the first of this year to 20 cents a pound, and it was announced last fall that this would be done.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs based on information which I received this morning, to the effect that Premier Bennett of British Columbia stated in the legislature on Monday of this week that the federal government had made no offer to the province of British Columbia for financing the Columbia river development. In view of this very surprising statement, would the minister inform the house if it is correct?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Perhaps the best way to answer that question would be to read a paragraph from the press release which was issued after the meeting of the ministerial committee which took place in Victoria last Saturday, and which was attended by two ministers from the provincial government and three ministers from Ottawa. This paragraph reads as follows:
The policy liaison committee-
That is the official title of this ministerial committee.
-considered both the domestic and international aspects of the proposed Columbia river development. Among the domestic aspects of the problems which ministers discussed again-

I stress that word "again":
-was the federal offer of financial participation which had been made at the last meeting of the policy liaison committee in Ottawa on February 9 and 10, 1960.
That press release was agreed to by the two provincial ministers as well as by the three federal ministers.


Mr. Broome:: Could the minister tell us what the federal offer was?


Howard Charles Green: Negotiations are under way. It would be improper for me to do that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a supplementary question which I should like to ask the minister. Is the press release which has just been read what the Prime Minister was referring to when he said on television last night that the Columbia project was now a reality?


Howard Charles Green: It is sometimes rather difficult to follow the wanderings of the mind of the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was referring to the Prime Minister's remarks.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Minisier of Labour):: Yesterday the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) asked the Acting Secretary of State with respect to the printing of unemployment insurance cheques which are marked "printed in U.S.A." A question was asked last year by the hon. member for Assiniboia on the same point, and to make sure the situation had not changed I made inquiries of the unemployment insurance commission. I am informed that the Remington Rand installation which issues three forms, including cheques or benefit warrants, uses United States forms since there are no facilities for printing them in Canada as yet.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question with regard to the answer he has just given. Will the minister inform the house whether it is not possible for the government to make it possible for the printing to be done in Canada?


Michael Starr: I am going by the information given to me by the unemployment insurance commission. I can only report what is said, that there are no facilities for printing these forms in Canada as yet.


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



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
619. Acquisition of the pipe lines (including the oil therein) and related facilities that are located in Canada and that belong to the United States government and form part of what is known as the Canol pipe line system, $670,000.
Mr. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, when we rose at 10 o'clock last night we were dealing with this item concerning the purchase by the Canadian government of this section of the Canol pipe line. I have taken the opportunity of doing a little bit of study on this matter. I can assure the committee it is only a little bit, and I have only scratched the surface. However, I have at least ascertained enough to realize that this is a good bargain. I see, according to one report, that the roads that were opened up in this area of the country in connection with this pipe line amounted to more than the Alaska highway. Included along with that there are a number of airfields which possibly could be of great use in that part of the country.
I am not concerned at all about what kind of a bargain Canada is getting. However, I am a bit concerned with just what Canada is going to do with this bargain when she gets it. I was wondering if the minister could inform the house as to just what the future disposition of this pipe line will be.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Chairman, I told the committee last night that the disposition was now before the government. The first objective is to obtain this pipe line in the right of Canada; then we have the choice of selling or leasing.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, before the item carries there is a point or two I wish to make concerning the remarks I made last night. I am afraid they were very poorly put because of the construction that may be placed upon them. I should like to clarify these remarks by saying that the existence of competition in the Yukon in the matter of the supply and distribution of petroleum products is a very welcome thing as long as that competition brings about a reduction in the cost of petroleum products to Yukon users.
I said last night there may be some people who are doubtful that the operation of additional lines of supply into the Yukon will indeed have the effect of lowering the prices of petroleum products throughout the Yukon, which are extremely high now. At the moment Yukon Petroleum Distributors, who are an arm of the White Pass and Yukon Route,
Supply-Northern Affairs have as their competitors Alaska-Yukon Refiners and Distributors, Limited, Alaska-Yukon Pipe Lines Limited and Yukon Shamrock Petroleum Distributors, Limited; these are the main suppliers of petroleum products.
The fear I have is that by some disposition of the pipe line that is being taken over by the Canadian government the cost of petroleum products in the Yukon will rise rather than be lowered. Any competition, of course, that will result in the lowering of the cost of petroleum products to Yukon users is very welcome indeed. I would like to put this question to the minister, and it is a very important one in so far as we in the Yukon are concerned. What guarantees can the minister give the committee now that the cost of petroleum products will either remain the same or be lower because of the Canadian government's acquisition of this pipe line facility and whatever they propose doing with it in the future? What security has the minister to offer the people of the Yukon that the status quo in so far as the cost of petroleum products is concerned will be maintained by this government action?
I have one further allusion to make before I take my seat, Mr. Chairman. We in the Yukon have been crucified in the past, particularly under the Liberal administration, by this business of government competing with private enterprise. In almost every phase of industry, little as it may be in the Yukon, the government has entered into direct competition with local industry. This I hope is not the intention here, as was suggested by the hon. member for Kootenay West yesterday.
In past years the government have competed through the army, through the air force, through Canadian National Telegraphs, through almost every arm of government under the Liberal administration. This, I am very happy to say, has almost tapered off, but naturally at the moment I for one would be loath to see any reinstitution of this invidious process come about.
I would appreciate it if the minister would not mind answering that one rather important question for me in regard to the assurance that he has to give now to the committee as to the security which the people of the Yukon may expect in regard to the maintenance of present price levels of petroleum products in the Yukon and, in the alternative, the assurance that they might expect that prices will in no way rise as a result of the action the government is contemplating here.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, in my report to the committee last night I indicated that one of the ways in which we could protect the public interest in relation

Supply-Northern Affairs to the sale of petroleum products in the Yukon in connection with the Canol pipe line was by insisting that whatever arrangement is made, the provision of being a common carrier would be enforced. As I understand it, if we set up this requirement that the pipe line be operated as a common carrier, then we have the right to ask that the company file its tariff with the responsible or appropriate government agency, and also that it must submit its financial and statistical reports to the same appropriate government agency and also submit to the usual justification, or to the usual control, under the jurisdiction of the appropriate government agency.
I cannot speak of those things with too much precision because they are the matters which are now under consideration by the government; but I would suggest to the hon. member for Yukon that this would be the best way of guaranteeing that there was a minimum cost applied to the oil moving through those lines.
Second, there is another protective device that we could put into effect, namely to apply the rules that apply to pipe lines in other parts of the country; to see that their returns on capital expenditure and maintenance operation costs are not more than those allowed to a similar type of industry in the rest of Canada. I believe this is all I can say at this time, Mr. Chairman, as to the protective devices that we are considering to make certain that the price of petroleum fuel in the Yukon is kept to a minimum.
The hon. member for Yukon emphasized the advantage there is in maintaining price competition. In view of the energy and aggressiveness of the oil and gas industry I think this competition will bring reduced prices to the consumers of petroleum products in the Yukon.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, in discussing this particular situation with the hon. member for the Yukon I discovered, much to my surprise, that the price of gasoline is even higher there than it is in my own area, which I thought was as high as the price in any place in Canada. I understand that gasoline there is as high as 57 cents a gallon as against 54 cents in my area. I find this difficult to understand. I find it difficult to understand why gasoline practically at the very source should have this high price. It makes one wonder just how much benefit the people in that part of the country have received from competition there. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the record of the oil companies across the country has not tended to show that there


is in fact any competition among them, but rather that they prefer to fix prices and all that sort of thing.
The hon. member for Yukon has expressed the desire that the benefits of competition to the consumer should apply up there. I would say, Mr. Chairman, this is a commendable objective; but I find it difficult to follow his reasoning when he is so against the idea of a crown corporation, or any government body, entering this competitive field with a view to benefiting the consumer. Fears were expressed yesterday by both the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Vancouver South. They both seemed to have a terrible fear about a crown corporation being formed to operate this resource that the Canadian government and taxpayers are purchasing.
I would say that I entertain different fears altogether. I am much more afraid of the Canadian taxpayers being used again as they have been used in the past and not getting any benefit from competition; because oil companies, as has often occurred in the past, tend to fix their prices rather than compete with one another. But in addition the taxpayers may be stuck with the purchase price of a line that may be turned over to private industry, which will receive the benefits at the expense of the public. I suggest that both the minister and the government take special care in this case to ensure that this does not happen, as it has happened in the past.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies may I explain, with great respect, to the hon. member for Timmins, who obviously is unfamiliar with the facts as they exist, that contrary to his expectations the formation of a crown corporation to handle any of the petroleum distribution function now carried on by these two competitors in the Yukon would have very serious effects on the economy of the Yukon. One of the present suppliers is the White Pass and Yukon, who as their petroleum distribution arm operate Yukon Petroleum Distributors.
The White Pass and Yukon route has been one of the most substantial contributors to the development of the Yukon territory for the past 60 years. They have a shipping operation at the coast. They have a railroad operation of 106.5 miles from Skagway in the Alaskan panhandle to Whitehorse. They have a trucking operation along the Alaska highway. All these operations are interdependent upon each other, including their petroleum distribution operation. If you detract from the petroleum distribution operation then you detract from the whole

operation and there can be only one result. Fuel and all other consumer products will cost the people of the Yukon more, building costs will go up, and economic development will be retarded. Therefore any interference by a crown corporation operating a petroleum distribution system in the Yukon is just untenable. No matter how attractive it may appear to the hon. member for Timmins as a socialistic proposal, it would simply result in pulling the rug right out from underneath the main transportation operation in the whole of the Yukon territory.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I am rather afraid that the hon. member for Yukon is confusing the issue. A crown corporation may appear to be untenable to him, but he is certainly confusing the issue. I understood the minister to say that because of the arrangement between the sovereign governments of the United States and Canada no private company can take over the segment of the pipe line. It must be done by the government of Canada, and the purpose of the estimate now before us is to take over, on the basis of the understanding between the two governments, a certain pipe line operation in Canada. In that respect I have no objection and do not question it at all.
But is Canada going to take over this operation and then let it die? The answer must be no, because we are going to spend somewhere in the neighbourhood of $700,000 in order to take it over. But we are not going to spend $700,000 to take over this segment of the pipe line and then discard it. It is going to be used. How is it going to be used? It is not a question of entering into competition and wiping out a company which for many years has operated railroad and other transportation facilities. According to the minister, this line will be operated on the principle of a common carrier. If so it is required; because if it is not required then Canada has no business spending $700,000 to purchase something which is going to be discarded. It must be required for the economy of the Yukon. If it is, then on what basis of misunderstanding can it be said that Canada, which is putting up the capital to purchase this segment, should not operate it as a common carrier?
If the government is not going to operate it through a crown company as a common carrier, then it is going to lease it to others who will use it as a common carrier. Surely if that is the viewpoint of the minister the line will not be entering into competition with whatever else there is in the Yukon. The government must feel that it is necessary and essential, and for the life of me I cannot
Supply-Northern Affairs understand why the government should spend $700,000 of the people's money to acquire a segment of a common carrier and then not operate it.
To deal specifically with what the hon. member for Yukon has said, if the line is going to be used by private enterprise then what the government is doing is relieving private enterprise from making the required expenditure by having the taxpayers put up the necessary capital. That takes my mind back to a few years ago in the house when the Liberals put up the capital for a pipe line in northern Ontario. Why should the people of Canada provide capital for private enterprise? If it will pay private enterprise to operate this common carrier which is now going to be bought by the government, then why should it not be possible for the government to maintain ownership and operate it with a view to earning a return on the taxpayers' money in the interests of the people of Canada who are making the capital investment?
I am afraid the hon. member for Yukon is trying to argue both ends against the middle. His interest is that private enterprise should not have to put up the capital expenditure but should reap the benefit from expenditure of the taxpayers' money, whereas we in this party say that if the taxpayers put up the money the government should operate the line for the benefit of those who have put up the money. How anyone can have an argument against that I do not know.
There is no argument against the principle of crown corporations, because the present and past governments have operated a number of crown corporations. I cannot conceive of even the Conservative members of this house-at least I hope I cannot-suggesting that we now get rid of our crown corporations in the interests of Canada because they may be in competition with private enterprise or because, although Canada puts up the money, private enterprise gets the benefit. If that argument is correct then out goes the C.B.C., out goes T.C.A., out goes Polymer-


Mr. Martineau:: Out goes the C.C.F.


Harold Edward Winch: No, sir, that would really have the C.C.F. in; because whether or not my friend likes the term, and it is not one that I like either, one sees continual references in the newspapers to the term "creeping socialism". The developments in private enterprise are making governments accept, year after year, the policies of public ownership, crown corporations. However, that is getting into a discussion of fundamental policies, and I want to come back to this subject which is before us.

Supply-Northern Affairs
If the development of the economy of the Yukon territory does not require this line, then the government has no business spending $700,000 to acquire it. This is the taxpayers' money. If the economy of the Yukon can use this pipe line, then the expenditure of $700,000 of the taxpayers' money by this government should be protected. If it is going to make money for private enterprise, and they want to use it, then it is the responsibility of the government using the taxpayers' money to operate the pipe line as a common carrier so the profit return will come to the people whose money is invested in the line. We are asked this afternoon to approve an item of $700,000.
Now I ask you, just how can you answer that point unless it is the view of the minister and the government, as well as that of the hon. member for Yukon, that the taxpayers of Canada shall make a capital investment for the profit return of private enterprise. Well, that may be the view of the hon. member for the Yukon and the government, but it is not ours. We are now saying to the minister that if the acquisition of this segment of the pipe line is required in the interests of Canada and the Yukon, we are going to vote for this expenditure; but we are asking that the pipe line be retained for the benefit of the economy of Canada. We should make the capital expenditure for the profit of the people of Canada, and not as a subterfuge to assist private enterprise in making a quicker profit as a result of the investment of the taxpayers' money.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: I wonder if I might ask a few short, simple questions of the minister which might clarify this matter in the minds of the rest of us who are not engaged in, shall I call it, the private war between the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Yukon. As I understand it there was an appraisal made of this pipe line, that is the present day value of it, and that figure was given by the minister. I believe it was some $1.7 million. The purchase price, I believe, was set at $585,000 for the pipe line, and the balance of the price is made up for oil presently in the line and storage facilities. Am I correct in that?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. The only correction would be that the $585,000 was for the pipe line and appurtenances, things connected with the pipe line, and the balance is made up of the cost of the oil in the line. There was one other factor which I could look up in a few minutes.


George James McIlraith: What I am getting at is the price to be paid for the line which is under discussion, as set against the appraisal, and

that is $585,000 against the figure of $1.7 million. I think that is correct, and the figures were given last night.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to correct those figures. The figure I quoted last night is the estimated current commercial value, $1.7 million, and that is correct. Then it was agreed by the United States and Canada, as a result of the meeting of September 9, 1959, that the transfer price should be $617,000, roughly. I used the figure of $585,000, which is incorrect; it should be $617,000. In addition to the transfer price it was also agreed we would take over the oil in the three-inch line, plus a reasonable charge for handling, and the value of this oil was calculated to be $51,000. Now, if you add the $51,000 and the $617,000, as well as some small extra amounts, you get the figure in the estimate of $670,000.


George James McIlraith: I have just one or two further questions. I understand that the government was obligated by notes in existence between the two countries to take over this asset when it was no longer used for the purposes for which it was originally constructed. It is no longer used for those purposes because the United States government has put in a facility of its own to service the military and other requirements in Alaska; is that correct?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I tried to
make this very clear last night, Mr. Chairman, when I said, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Kootenay West, that the line was built in 1942. As part of the agreement by which these lines were constructed, Canada agreed to purchase these facilities when the war ended. Negotiations have been carried on since that time and they were completed last September, in 1959. In so far as the military part of it is concerned, the United States has different methods of getting its fuel into Alaska, and I believe I would be fair in saying it is hoped that the three-inch pipe line that runs from Haines Junction up to Fairbanks might also be used to bring additional supplies for United States use in that area.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the minister two
questions. He is recommending, in accordance with an agreement with the United States and also because he feels the acquisition is in the interests of the economy of that part of Canada, the expenditure of this money in order to acquire the pipe line. If that is correct, and I presume it is or he would not be asking parliament to authorize the expenditure of this money, does he not then agree that if it is a good deal and necessary to assist the economy in this part of

Canada, since the taxpayers' money is being used the line should be operated by the government of Canada?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is probably
a weakness of mine that I do not like to overexaggerate the importance of these things.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Will the minister say that about his speech over the radio two weeks ago?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Always.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was the most
exaggerated speech I ever heard.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Don't you read
your own?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This pipe line, which was constructed during the war, cost a tremendous amount of money. It was built for reasons other than those which we are discussing now. It was for military reasons.


Harold Edward Winch: You are now asking us to
authorize this purchase, not for military reasons but for the economy of that part of Canada.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Nothing could
have been more fortunate for this new territory which has been sitting there pretty well idle for 50 or 60 years awaiting a reconstruction period.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the usual modesty.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This new young community of Whitehorse in the southern part of Yukon will take to this pipe line as a person who is drowning takes to a lifesaver, because without this fuel coming in from seaboard sources and with the limited population there is in the Whitehorse area, which is mainly a transportation centre, it would be severely limited if it did not have access to this oil. If oil had to be brought in from Alaska or from Peace river, a long way from the source, the cost would be much higher than it is today.
The economics of this area at the moment are doubtful enough without taking away this pipe line from them. First of all, the pipe line is a very valuable physical asset. At the moment it is being used to bring oil into the territory because at the present time oil is not available in the territory. We hope that at some time in the future economic activities in the area will expand and create greater uses for this pipe line. This brings us to the question the hon. member raised about what we should do with it.


Harold Edward Winch: If the government are buying it, why do they not operate it if it has that value?
Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Obviously under the agreement we had to buy it. It was part of an international understanding. Now that we have bought it and own it, or rather we have not got it until we pass this estimate but when we do have it we will have this facility in the right of the crown of Canada. We have several alternatives. One is to sell it to one or two companies that now operate in the area. The other is to lease it; and of course the alternative, if we favour going into the business, is for the government to run it through a crown corporation.
I am going to suggest that with this very reduced price of roughly $700,000, while we will have an asset that at the present time, because of the smallness of the population of Yukon, is not worth too much as far as returns are concerned, to have this asset when the population grows and the demand grows will be a great advantage to the people of Canada.
One of the points being considered in the argument as to whether we should sell it outright or keep it as a government property is this expectation of an increased population later on. If we were to sell it, we would have to sell it at a price which would give the company that operated it a reasonable return over the next few years of expectation in this part of the territory. If we were to hold it and lease it, then we would obviously lease it at a return that would give us not only some control over the price of the product to the consumer but some opportunity of getting out of it the money that the taxpayers put into it.
I would therefore suggest to the hon. member that one of the strong arguments for leasing is that you have the right to renew the lease. You have the right to renew the terms. On the one hand you have to consider the consumers of petroleum products in the Yukon, and on the other hand you have to consider the taxpayer getting his investment back. If this territory grows and expands; if in future this area blossoms as we hope it will, this asset of ours may become a very sizeable asset; and if we were to sell it at this time it might prove, four or five years from now, to have been a serious mistake.


Harold Edward Winch: You are not going to sell?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I simply state that the matter is now under the consideration of the government. I gave the arguments which are being used back and forth as to the pros and cons of selling versus leasing.


Harold Edward Winch: That is the very point. As a matter of fact it is rather unfair of the minister that he will not tell us. He has
1742	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs given the arguments against selling. We are being asked to authorize this expenditure but we are not told whether it is to be sold or, if it comes to a lease, whether it is going to be short term or long term and whether the taxpayers of this country are going to be completely protected, especially on the lease.


George James McIlraith: Is it not a fact that the rates for the throughput of this pipe line are fixed by the national energy board, and that one of the criteria used is the rent paid or the capital invested, as the case may be, by the applicant to obtain the pipe line? So whether it is rented or sold, in any event the capital charge, whether by way of rent or purchase price, is a direct factor in the cost and the protection of the consumer in the Yukon lies in the fixing of the rates for transmission of the product by that board.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, that is right. As I said earlier, all these matters of tariffs and financial returns come before the appropriate government agency, and I was careful in what I said as to which agency it was.


The Chairman:: I recognize the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for seeing me finally. With great respect to the hon. member for Vancouver East I cannot allow some of the wild statements he made a few moments ago to go unchallenged. Rather than my being confused, as he alleged, I think it is more a case of the shoe being on the other foot.
I am sure the hon. member now realizes, since he has been asking these questions of the minister relating to the requirement of the international agreement between Canada and the United States, that it is a commitment of the government that the pipe line must be taken over as a condition of that international agreement. You must either abide by this agreement or you must abrogate it. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver East would be the last person to suggest that the government should abrogate its commitments internationally, and this is one of them; namely that they must take over and purchase the pipe line. This estimate is for that purpose. At least that is my understanding of the way the minister has explained the matter.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not quarrelling about that matter. What are we going to do with it after we get it?


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Vancouver East made several statements about


the reason for the pipe line being taken over and why are we spending this money on it. I am just pointing out to him that my understanding of the minister's explanation is that we must do it because it is a term of an international agreement. This fact surely should be clear now to the hon. member.
As the hon. member for Vancouver East points out, the fact that the pipe line is going to be used as a common carrier does not detract one iota from the facility of that common carrier being used in a competitive fashion, because one distributor can compete with another distributor through the same common carrier, surely. At the moment the line from Skagway to Whitehorse, a distance of 106.5 miles, is available. I understand it is still being used by only one distributor, but it has been declared a common carrier and it may be so used. Any other distributor can come in there and carry his product over that same line and compete. The capacity of that line from Skagway to Whitehorse is 45 million imperial gallons per year. The total consumption of Yukon last year was roughly 15 million gallons. Hence there is plenty of capacity in the one line.
There is another thing upon which the hon, member for Vancouver East did not comment when he was picking holes in my submissions a moment or two ago, namely the historical contribution which the White Pass and Yukon Railway has made to the development of Yukon and which it will continue to make. This company is a pioneer in transportation, and its function is still necessary to our development there. By instituting any crown corporation it would have the effect of diluting the effectiveness of the White Pass and Yukon Railway as a transportation organization of Yukon, and would have only one result, namely that of retarding development in that area.
Make no mistake. My views as to competition are shortly, clearly and concisely put when I say that competition is a very necessary element in any economy. If we had competition with this transport organization up there it would result in a lowering of the prices in the Yukon of all consumer items. That is a very desirable thing, and if we can gain this competition by building new roads, new railroads or new pipe lines, then let us do it as long as the end result will be a reduction in the cost to the people of the Yukon of the goods they purchase from these various organizations.
There is one other point I want to make, and that is that we in the Yukon, at any rate, have had just about a bellyful of government coming along and competing with local industry. The R.C.A.F. build their own

garages; the Canadian National Telegraphs build their own houses; the army build their own structures, and the territorial government have their own development program. All of this has tapered off to the point where it is almost non-existent today, but that is what used to exist up there. Because of this we could not build up any local industry. We could not build it up to the point where it is now, after two years, where we can tackle multimillion dollar road jobs, and so on; industries which are essential to the development of the north. I can only suggest again that if a crown organization is organized to take over the petroleum distribution system, local industry will once again be stifled.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, the minister has told us that this is a very valuable physical asset worth at the present time about nearly three times what we are paying for it. He has also told us that it provides an essential service which will make the line more valuable as the population of the Yukon goes up.


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


Chesley William Carter: After I have finished. I have not said enough yet to warrant asking a question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the hon. member would permit a question it might possibly affect what he is going to say. It will not take a second. Does the hon. member accept what I understood the minister to say, that what is being done is to carry out a binding agreement in writing?


Chesley William Carter: That is not a question. If you had waited until I finished you would not have asked that question. What I want to ask the minister is this.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: All this talk is unnecessary.


Chesley William Carter: It is not unnecessary. What I want to ask the minister is this. Can the minister give the house an assurance that this asset which the people are now acquiring will not be disposed of to any private party at any time for less than the fully appraised value at the time of sale?
I think that is what most of us on this side of the house are worried about. We have in mind what happened in the case of land belonging to the Indians which was sold for a song to a private individual, who later disposed of it for many times what he paid for it and made a huge capital gain. We on this side of the house certainly have a
Supply-Northern Affairs duty to get from the minister and the government an assurance that such a thing will never be permitted in the case of this pipe line.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, it is very true that we have to keep faith with the United States according to the agreement we signed some 18 years ago, but it is equally true that we must keep faith too with the Canadian taxpayer with regard to this matter That is our only concern.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I fail to follow the reasoning of the hon. member for the Yukon, who said that if this line remained under public ownership it would stifle the whole country; that competition from public ownership will stifle everything, whereas competition from private enterprise will not. I fail to follow his reasoning through. In fact you could almost draw from his remarks, Mr. Chairman, the inference that the concern is more for the business there than it is for the public, the taxpayers as a whole.


Erik Nielsen: That is not true.


Murdo William Martin: I would like to point out just one instance where a crown corporation has worked to the benefit of the public at large. All you have to do is refer to insurance companies in Saskatchewan. Insurance companies across the country have special rates for the province of Saskatchewan because they have to compete with a crown corporation there, and it is of benefit to the public and the taxpayers that that is so. I say the same thing could result elsewhere.
There is one other question I would like to ask the minister. I understand from what little study I have been able to give to this matter that in addition to this pipe line, and in conjunction with it, there are these roads and also airports. What is to be the disposition of this sort of added facility? Are they going to become part and parcel of the whole thing, or will they remain under government control if the pipe line itself is leased or even is in danger of being sold?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, two matters have been talked about. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo asked for an assurance from me. I have told the house very frankly about the arguments relating to sale versus lease. I think that should indicate how much we are aware of the fact that we have to protect both the consumer and the taxpayer. I am sure there will be no fire sale; we will take our time to make a good deal.
The hon. member for Timmins raised the question of the airfields and roads. I would suggest to him that most of the roads and airfields have disappeared in the course of

Supply-Northern Affairs time. Even though we have resurrected part of one of these roads, part of the highway up to Ross river, a little over 100 miles, the roads have disappeared. The culverts have all broken down and in many cases disappeared through the ravages of winter snow, the run-off, and so on. So I do not think there is any problem there. As to the other things we took over, I used the word "appurtenances" and I meant pumping stations and so forth, which are all part of the deal covered by the $670,000.


George James McIlraith: May I ask one question for clarification. The minister said "the other things" after speaking about roads which have been taken over. As I understand it the United States never owned the roads and never claimed to own them. They were always roads which were owned by the government of Canada, and what we are buying under this item is the pipe line and the immediate facilities, such things as the pumping stations and, I assume, the other things which usually go with a pipe line; but certainly not the roads.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is no question of buying the roads.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to the matters raised by this item now before us. The hon. member for Yukon mentioned last night the importance of this pipe line to an oil refinery, and I believe the minister also referred to that. Then the hon. member, as reported on page 1724 of Hansard, asked the minister:
Is the government in the course of negotiating with these people now for such a transfer ... ?
The minister replied on the same page:
-and the refining company has asked that they may take over the line that runs up to the Alaska border.
Then later on, as reported on page 1726, I asked the minister whether there were already agreements in existence and if there were what the terms of the agreements were, and the minister replied that there was no agreement. Well, I can understand that there cannot be an agreement until the government is actually the owner; it can hardly be expected to have an agreement until then. However, the minister in reply to the hon. member for Yukon indicated very clearly that negotiations are under way.
I should like to ask the minister whether he does not feel under an obligation to let us know the basis of these agreements which are now being negotiated. After all, if we are being asked to vote the money to buy the pipe line are we not entitled to know what the intentions of the government are?

I get the impression now that the government has not yet made up its mind whether it intends to lease the pipe line or dispose of it outright. Yet the minister admits that negotiations are actually under way.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Last night the hon. member asked if there were any agreements signed, and I said no. I also said last night in answer to a question that the Alas-ka-Yukon Refining Company had made an application to us to take over one of these pipe lines. The other thing I said which was significant was that this matter is now before the cabinet for a decision. In reaching this decision we have, naturally, to examine details of the operation of the pipe lines and the companies themselves in order to see how the public interest, the interest of the taxpayers, can be protected. While these negotiations are going on the hon. member has a perfect right to know what is decided, but I do not think he has a right to ask me to disclose the details, because the government has not decided on those details and until it has there is nothing I can tell the hon. member.


Erhart Regier: Could the minister indicate whether the application is to lease or to buy? The hon. gentleman has indicated that an application has been made to the government, to which the government is giving some consideration.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Speaking from memory I believe it is an application to lease.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is just one question I want to ask the minister, and it is on an entirely different subject. In view of these vast oil developments we were told about on television last night, how soon does the hon. gentleman expect that oil produced in the north will be flowing through this pipe line?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer to the hon. member is, a lot sooner than he would be happy to know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should be happy to know that it was going to be tomorrow. But could the minister, out of his vast knowledge of the subject, hazard a guess as to whether it might be in 1961 or 1962?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate shows his vast ignorance of the subject when he suggests that oil or gas will flow out of the Yukon in 1960 or 1961. In my estimation the delineation of that field will run for five, six or seven years. The obtaining of markets will go simultaneously. I suggest to the hon. member, not to his discomfort, I hope, that he will be as

proud as I am as a Canadian if before 1965 we see energy fuels coming out of this region.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest to the minister that he should tell some of these things to the Prime Minister, in order that the right hon. gentleman could give a more realistic picture to the Canadian public.


Harold Edward Winch: May I say one thing here, and I mean it so sincerely-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Harold Edward Winch: I have to say that because of the caterwauling and noise on the government side. I regret very much to have heard the minister of northern affairs say what he did, and I made just one comment on what has been said by the minister in answer to a question by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. When will the minister and his colleagues realize that in this committee we are all members of the House of Commons, and that irrespective of party we have love and patriotism for this country. It ill becomes the minister or anyone else, no matter where he sits, to state that any hon. member or any party in this house would not be happy to hear about developments in Canada. The sooner that sort of rot ceases the better it is going to be for us in this chamber and for the people of Canada.
We all love our country, and we all want to see it develop. It is bad for the minister to stand up and say that the official opposition or any private member would be unhappy to see development taking place. Surely the time for that kind of politics in Canada has long gone by.


Mr. Hellyer:: I wonder if the minister could tell us what the approximate cost of the annual maintenance charges of this line amounts to?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not think I could give the hon. member that information.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The position, in a word, is that we are being asked to vote this money to take over the pipe line before the government knows what it is going to do with the pipe line, or before any definite arrangements have been made.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Is the hon. gentleman suggesting that we should not fulfil our international obligations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at all. I am suggesting that before the government comes to this committee to ask for money to purchase a pipe line it should make up its mind what it is going to do with the pipe line, and tell parliament.
79951-0-110
Supply-Northern Affairs


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wonder if we are acting our age. The minister is in the position of a businessman with an agreement he has to carry out after which he will have something to dispose of. Apparently, it is suggested that he give undertakings now, without knowledge of the future, as to exactly what price he is going to accept or at any rate to fix a floor price. Would any businessman do that?
Second, the minister is criticized because of the way he is carrying out this agreement. No one has suggested that this agreement should not be carried out. However, it is suggested, apparently, that the agreement should not be carried out until he has made fixed arrangements as to the future. I hope there is no experienced businessman sitting in the gallery while this is going on, because undoubtedly he would say, "Do these people understand the ordinary processes of business?"


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I understand the ordinary procedures of government, as well as of business. The minister has just said that this matter is before the cabinet at the present time, and a decision will presumably be reached in a day or two. Yet we are being asked to vote this money while the matter is before the cabinet, without any knowledge of what the government intends to do with the pipe line when this estimate is through.


Erik Nielsen: With due respect, I suppose the Leader of the Opposition realizes that the agreement which it now falls to the minister to carry out is one which was entered into by the Liberals in 1942. The operative clause in the agreement was placed there by the hon. gentleman's own party.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know, and the government has had nearly three years in which to fulfil that agreement and make up its mind what it was going to do with the pipe line.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask one question arising from the statement which was made by our revered friend the hon. member for Greenwood. It is my understanding that throughout his great lifetime he was a respected and honoured executive in business. It was most amazing to hear from the hon. member for Greenwood what he has just said. I wonder how long he would have been an honoured and respected executive in business if he had authorized the expenditure of $700,000 without knowing what policy would be followed after that expenditure had been made.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This expenditure is incurred in the carrying out of a contract. If I understand the situation, we are wasting

Supply-Northern Affairs our time in asking whether we should carry it out, because we are bound to carry it out. That is my understanding. Does anyone question that?


Erik Nielsen: Does the Leader of the Opposition not agree that this situation arises because of the policy of the previous government?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would not feel it necessary to give a whole lot of details in a contract of this kind. It seems to me we are confusing this by not dealing with one point at a time. If there is a contract to be carried out, then that is one point and we can settle it. These other things are separate.


Mr. Peters:: The hon. member is indicating to the committee now that this is only the purchase of this pipe line, and that as soon as the purchase is made and before any further action is taken this matter will come back to parliament. I would think this may not be so, because there are a number of things that could happen. The pipe line could be leased; it could be run as a crown corporation; it could be sold. Certainly the hon. member for Yukon indicated that there was an agreement or there was discussion going on under which this pipe line would be sold. If that is so, then we are going to have the opportunity of deciding what the policy is to be only if we buy the line. I do not think there is any question in anybody's mind that we should buy it, because we have an obligation to do so. What we are concerned with is what is going to happen to it when we get it.
This appears to be the only opportunity we will have to decide what happens to this line because I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that an agreement has already been made between the minister and one of the private companies to operate this particular pipe line; therefore the authorization of the purchase of this line is not really what is being done at the present time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am afraid I will have to ask the hon. member to withdraw that allegation. I have told the committee the truth. There is no agreement with any of those companies. I have told the committee that an application has been received. When the hon. member rises in his place and suggests that there is an agreement it is an allegation on my personal honour that I cannot allow. I would suggest it is a violation of the privileges of every hon. member of this house. I am just waiting to get this vote through to carry out the purchase. May I have a ruling from the Chair?


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


William Arnold Peters: This government seems to be very particular about what is involved in an agreement. I am not suggesting that the minister has signed an agreement or anything of that nature. I am suggesting that what the hon. member for Yukon has said would indicate that there has been some agreement. This is not a contract, but there has been some agreement that this pipe line will be operated by-


Erik Nielsen: I never suggested for a moment that there is any agreement. The hon. member took my remarks wrongly also.


William Arnold Peters: If they consider an agreement to be a contract then I will withdraw the remark that there is an agreement, but I think there is an understanding of some kind. If it is not the same as an agreement probably I have misinterpreted the remarks of both the hon. member and the minister.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I must agree with the last sentence of the hon. member, for he has misinterpreted the remarks. I am going to say flatly there is no agreement or understanding or otherwise, or any other type of agreement between this government and any company with regard to the sale of this pipe line.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point, might I ask the minister whether there is an intention?


Mr. Grafftey:: Oh, no.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I go so far as
to say there is no intention on my part as minister to make any type of understanding or agreement with any of those companies until my colleagues in cabinet can examine all the figures and all the facts and make the best decision for the people of the Yukon.


George James McIlraith: There is one matter I should like to clear with the minister. In an exchange a few minutes ago with the Leader of the Opposition he went on to say that this action could have taken place many years ago. I think he will find on an examination of the facts that this line was created for military purposes, and that these requirements for defence needs under a joint arrangement did not terminate until very recently, in fact in the last year. I think he will find that is a fact, and I am sure he will agree with me that the other impression should not be left. It was a matter of these requirements disappearing. A line was built from Haines to Fairbanks and tested the first year after it was built. It was found that there was some trouble with it, and the line we are now discussing could not be released from defence needs for defence reasons by the two governments. It is only in the last-I do not know how long, but

in the last comparatively short time that there has been a release of this line by United States authorities.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am glad to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa West, because they take the ground out from under the Leader of the Opposition, who said we were negligent.


George James McIlraith: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, just the
opposite is true. My hon. friend in his remarks suggested that we could have taken this over any time since 1942.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would help the whole committee a great deal, and more particularly the hon. member for Greenwood, if the minister would read to us precisely what the obligation is. There has been a lot of talk in this committee about what the obligation is. I am sure the minister would not have asked for $670,000 of the taxpayers' money to honour an agreement if he did not know what the agreement is. I think it would be a very good thing to read the words precisely as they are in the agreement, so we will know what we are paying for and why we are buying. I am sure the hon. member for Greenwood would agree with that.


Murdo William Martin: Along that same line, as I understood the minister and as I understand this proposition the original agreement was that the Canadian government would take over their responsibility after the war. For the benefit of the hon. member for Greenwood I would like to point out that the war ended in 1946, and that we had 11 years of Liberal government after that. Then we have had three more years of Conservative government. It is now 1960. I do not think there has been any particular rush. I do not think the agreement was that the Canadian government would take it over in 1960. As I understood the minister they were to take it over after the war. It is now 14 years since the war.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The war ended in 1945.


Murdo William Martin: Well, 1945, 1946; that makes it 15 years instead of 14.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, my esteemed friend the hon. member for Greenwood said that we should act our age, and I agree with him. He also said that a businessman sitting in the gallery would be appalled at the discussion here, and I agree with that. I think any businessman who heard the minister say that he was buying an asset without knowing the actual carrying charges on that asset would in fact be appalled.
79951-0-1104
Supply-Northern Affairs
The hon. member for Greenwood has been a businessman most of his life. What would he say if a junior came to him and said, "I want to spend $700,000 on an asset", and he asked him what the carrying charges, the interest and the other charges would be per year and he said, "I do not know; I have no idea". I am sure the hon. member for Greenwood would say, "You had better go back and get the facts before you come in here with a recommendation". That, Mr. Chairman, is the situation in which we find ourselves.
In the interim since I asked my question I am sure the minister has had that information sent down by his officials. Can he now tell us what he should have been able to tell us before, namely what is the government committed to by way of annual expenditure for this asset that is being acquired?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I told the committee I did not have the information; I still do not have it. I can assure the hon. member that on such a small price as $670,000 the biggest share of the cost is in the amortizing of the capital charge. I have seen the figures; I just do not have them available, but it strikes me that the whole cost of amortization and maintenance combined was a figure of-I am quoting from memory now a figure that I have not seen for several weeks -approximately $41,000; a figure in that neighbourhood.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thank the minister for a figure which he does not remember as being the correct one. I hope it is, because I once remember a chap who bought an old used car and it cost him more for repairs in the first year he had it than he paid for the car in the first place. I certainly hope the same thing will not prove true in relation to this pipe line.


William Arnold Peters: The minister questioned my accusation that some decision had already been made. All I was going to say was that in a few minutes we could have passed this estimate and we would then have held the pipe line. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the government what they intend to do with it. I presume it is being operated now and carrying oil. In a few minutes we may own this asset. I am quite sure the minister has made some decision as to what he is going to do with it, because we will have ownership in a few minutes; and if it is not going to be sold, if no negotiations are going to take place, I think he has an obligation to say what he is going to do with it.
It is my understanding from the remarks that have been made that negotiations for sale to private companies have proceeded to

Supply-Northern Affairs some extent, and if that is so I think we should know it. If we are going to maintain the line we should know it. With respect to the matter of roads I was interested to find the following in the Canadian Geographical Journal for March, 1947:
On the heels of the Canol constructors came naturalists and geologists of the Canadian government and of private organizations, and last spring over some of the roads of the project rolled the snowmobiles of exercise Musk-ox. I hope that these roads will be maintained and improved so that other vehicles may use them, the trucks and cars of prospectors, settlers, and tourists.
The writer goes on to say why these people would go into that area. It is my opinion that if these things were true in 1947 it is still true that this project could be of great assistance in opening up the north if the Canadian government owns the line. It would seem to me that if we were to rent this line or operate it under a crown corporation we would be able to use the money we realized to maintain the roads, airports and other assets that would come to us with this purchase. It would seem to me that this would be worth while.


Erik Nielsen: There are none.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member says there are none. There were some in 1947 when this article was published.


Erik Nielsen: The Liberals let them go to rot.


William Arnold Peters: The article points out that 9,000 miles of roads were built at that time, and it would seem to me that there must be something left of this 9,000 miles of construction. I would think those roads would be worth saving and could be brought back into shape for development purposes if we have the money available that will flow from the line. Somebody says that maybe there will not be any money, but if there is no money in it then there is no question about who is going to own it. The Canadian government is going to own it and will operate it as a crown corporation. The only reason these other companies are interested is because of the money to be made. We in Ottawa do not want the money from the pipe line for other uses, but we would like it to be used in the area in which the pipe line runs. I suggest that from ownership of the pipe line the assets realized would be of great value to the people living there now or who will live in that area in the future.
I think the hon. member for Yukon is being very shortsighted when he only looks at the situation from the point of view of the private companies in the area who want to use the line rather than looking at it from

the point of view of the over-all development, particularly the visionary part of the development that could come about if we had the money to develop that area.
I suggest that the minister has an obligation to tell us what is going to happen. He will not be letting out any secrets. We are going to own the line in a few minutes. I do not think it will make a great deal of difference if he tells us now what he is going to do with it, inasmuch as we will own it shortly. If he is going to negotiate he can say so.
I suggest that a number of things have been done that should not have been done. The minister should not have come to parliament with an offer to purchase without having had a survey made to ascertain the actual value of the pipe line. It may be that we are being badly rooked by the United States. As the hon. member for Trinity suggested, the line may be a liability rather than an asset.
We also want to be fair to the United States. If an estimate is made of the value and it is worth far more than we are paying for it, then we do not want anything for nothing from the United States. We should be willing to pay a fair price for the line. But if we are buying a pig in a poke I do not think it is a bargain no matter if we get the line for nothing. If we are not going to get any advantage from the line, then it is not of much consequence if it is cheap.
I come from a northern riding where we have heard of the vision of northern development. I am questioning whether the people are going to get any value out of this if some oil company has a finger in the pie already. I suggest that the minister is going to have to say what is to be the disposition of the line when we acquire it.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, I am always
interested in something that reaches an ideological basis, and it seems to me this debate has reached that stage. I should like to know from the minister whether he or the government has any preconception against running the line as a crown corporation. If he has such a preconception it would seem to me to be good, free enterprise economics as understood or misunderstood by the government. Could he tell us whether, with respect to the disposition of these assets, he intends to make the toughest, hardest possible deal he can for the benefit of the taxpayers?
I will repeat my question. Is the minister reflecting government policy and will he reflect this policy and say that the government will have no part of a crown corporation in this regard; that we are merely doing this to carry out an arrangement; that we are merely

going to act as agents, and are going to give this to private enterprise as quickly as possible?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked me to read the annex to the note. This note was sent by Canada to the United States on November 22, 1944 and it was signed by an official of the government by the name of L. B. Pearson.


Harold Edward Winch: Is that the last letter, 1944?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is an exchange of notes under dates of November 22 and December 20, 1944 between Canada and the United States of America constituting an agreement concerning the post-war disposition of United States defence projects in Canada. I will quote the relevant section in the annex dealing with the subject of immovables:
In the case of each of the facilities included in the list referred to in A, the Canadian government and the United States government will each appoint one qualified appraiser whose joint duty it will be to appraise such facility in order to determine the fair market value thereof at the time and place of appraisal. If the two appraisers cannot agree on the fair market value they will select a third appraiser to determine this value. The amount set by the appraisers shall be paid to the United States government by the government of Canada, provided that the foregoing paragraphs A and B shall not apply to any facilities heretofore specifically provided for.
I think that is the relevant section.


Harold Edward Winch: Did it take from 1944 to 1960 to have the appraisal made?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not think that is precisely relevant, because the installations were used for military purposes for some time after the war. There has been a long period of discussion back and forth, and these discussions were well under way when this government took over. I simply picked them up in 1957, and I think we have done a very fair job of getting a good price on it.
While I am on my feet I should like to answer a question which was raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur. It really refers to the subject the hon. member for Timiskaming is pursuing. I have made it very clear that the cabinet has not made a decision. The matter has been before the officials for some time who advise us in cabinet and a very close examination is being made of all the factors.
The factors, as I explained to the committee before, are, on the one side, the consumers of petroleum fuels in the Yukon, including the government itself, the industrial people in the community and the people who live there. On the other hand we have the
Supply-Northern Affairs interests of the taxpayers of Canada who will now own this very useful asset, and we want to see that those interests are served by getting the best deal possible consistent with the fairest deal to the consumer.
I tried to illustrate the various protective devices we have to guarantee that this situation is maintained. We insisted that the line be a common carrier, which means that competitive fuels could be put through the line. We asked the companies, if the line was sold or leased to them, to present their financial statements so we could check the amount of money they would be making on this operation and also check to see that the greatest possible amount of saving would be passed on to the consumer, regardless of the decision of the government as to whether it is leased or sold. I think we can be regarded as trying to make the best type of compromise between the interests of the people who live there and the interests of the taxpayers of Canada who will have purchased this very valuable asset.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister's explanation
goes to some length to answer my question, but it still seems to me we have a question of principle here. We had a similar situation with the Trans-Canada pipe line, under which the government built a section of line in northern Ontario and a certain deal was made through the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation to lease to Trans-Canada, with a final agreement to purchase. I think anyone who looks at that particular situation will agree that Trans-Canada pipe lines, a private corporation, really obtained a magnificent deal out of this. At the same time, if the government were in the position of not going through with the sale to Trans-Canada but continued the present lease, the taxpayers of Canada would have a wonderful deal because the rental that is coming in at the present time to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation is very high.
I should like to ask the minister whether this type of lease has been given very serious consideration, because there may be private groups who are wanting to buy this line and the interests the minister has to protect, of course, are those of the ordinary citizens up in the Yukon in addition to the interests of the taxpayers as a whole. It seems to me we now have three distinct possibilities. One is for the government to run this line as a crown corporation; second, to lease it; third, to make an outright sale. I think the minister could be a bit more candid with us by telling us which of these three possibilities conforms most with government policy, assuming that this government is, as has been proclaimed, a free enterprise government.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not want to say too much, Mr. Chairman, about the relationship between Trans-Canada and the northern Ontario distribution company, and this operation. I think the best way I can point it up is to say that across Canada, along the Trans-Canada pipe line in Ontario and Quebec, there are probably two million or three million people affected. All we are talking about here is a little community of 6,000 people, and in the whole of the Yukon there are only 13,000, so it is hardly the type of thing we can compare with the Trans-Canada pipe line.


Harold Edward Winch: There is a matter of relative value. The minister has pointed out, and reiterated time after time, what an asset this pipe line has been to the Yukon and the adjacent territory. He has told us in the past few minutes that in his opinion it is going to continue to be an asset, and to be necessary for development of the Yukon.
All we are trying to emphasize, therefore, is this. In view of the minister's own statements of its value in the past and its value as an asset now; what in all probability it could do for the economy of the Yukon in the future, and since the taxpayers of Canada are buying it, then what is the policy of the minister toward holding it as a government asset and not turning it over for the profit of private enterprise?


Murdo William Martin: I think this is an important point. We have had the hon. member for Yukon come out and say point blank that under no condition does he want to consider a crown corporation up there. The hon. member for Vancouver South has said the same thing. So far we have been unable to get from the minister any information along these lines. Does the minister agree with the two hon. members who made their position completely clear on this point? Does he not think there might be something in the idea of keeping this as a crown corporation?


Douglas Mason Fisher: If the minister is not quite ready to answer, I might just say that my reason for bringing this question up is that we keep getting the members of the government making statements which commit the government, but no official spokesman for the government makes the position clear. I think, for instance, of the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard. If he has his way the government is going to underwrite the next winter Olympic games and also develop Garibaldi park. I do not particularly disagree with him, that is with his aim, but there are

areas of fuzziness in these various propositions. I think there are many, many of these hon. members-


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Jacques Flynn: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Parks Branch-
620.	National aviation museum-Administration, operation and maintenance, $75,000.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Has the minister a statement to make on this item?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Last autumn the government agreed to establish a national aviation museum as the first step toward the eventual setting up of a museum of science of Canada. The decision to proceed in 1959 was based in part on the wish of the government to commemorate suitably the anniversary of power flight. However, the fitness of recognizing the substantial and unique contributions made by this country in the field of civil aviation has been before the government for some time.
The problem of working out the concept of a national aviation museum was given to an associate committee of the national research council under the chairmanship of General A. G. L. McNaughton, known as the associate committee on the national aviation museum. This committee raised funds from private sources to enable a practical start to be made pending the provision of funds through normal government channels. Under an interim acting curator Mr. M. G. Kuhring, made available to this committee by the national research council-that is pending the recruitment of permanent personnel by the civil service commission-excellent progress has been made with the preparation of displays and their installation in the museum's temporary home. The temporary home is located on the second floor of the new Department of Transport air terminal at Uplands. This should provide adequate accommodation for the next few years.
My department which will administer the museum initially through the historic sites division of the national parks branch has recently been authorized by the treasury board to spend the sum of $45,000 for the purpose of developing this museum and operating it for the balance of the fiscal year. The balance

of the vote, $30,000, is made up of rent for the new accommodation. We expect that the museum will be ready to open this summer and it will probably be the same time as the opening of the Uplands airport terminal.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I received a clipping from one of our newspapers containing a report by the Canadian Press which indicated that this museum would only have space for one aircraft, that is the replica of the Silver Dart. I should like to make a plea on behalf of the Avro Arrow, that graceful and manoeuvrable bird which was shot down by a single poisoned arrow. It would make a wonderful museum piece. Had it been allowed to fly with the engines designed for it, it would have captured the world's speed record for Canada. It would make a wonderful museum piece. Since it was cancelled the United States has changed its mind about interceptors. Now it would be delighted to have a plane as good as the Avro Arrow in the North American inventory and is asking Canada to equip its air defence squadrons with a lesser United States fighter. The Arrow would be a wonderful museum piece.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I thought that in one minute the hon. member should have been able to make his point. But if he does not succeed in doing that, I am going to mention to him the fact that I do not think his remarks are strictly relevant to the item under discussion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If you will just hear me out, Mr. Chairman, you will find that you are mistaken in your apprehension.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Walker:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Must you, sir, submit to the impudence of the hon. member for Trinity?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing a museum for the preservation of relics of Canada's aviation history. We were just told that by the minister himself. Surely any of Canada's air achievements during this period are appropriate to such a museum and should be considered at this time. As I said, the Arrow was Canada's greatest aviation achievement.


Jacques Flynn: Order. Again I would
remind the hon. member that he should be strictly relevant to the item under discussion. I do not think that the Arrow story is old enough to make it a suitable object for the museum. I would ask the hon. member to please stick to the item under discussion.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will do so precisely, Mr. Chairman. This museum which is to be established is to contain symbols of Canada's products and achievements through the years in the field of aviation. It is only right and' fitting that it should contain a symbol of Canada's achievement during the first 50 years of aviation history. This plane, as I say, was the crowning glory of half a century of growth and development in Canadian aviation and it would be a wonderful addition to this museum of aviation and should be preserved there. Canada celebrated the golden jubilee of Canadian aviation by issuing a new stamp. It was a pleasant stamp depicting the Silver Dart and the Avro Arrow, alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. They both are now museum pieces. It will not tell the complete story if the government displays only one of these great achievements in this aviation museum. We should like the minister to assure us that he will exhibit both.


Jacques Flynn: I think humour has a place in our deliberations but it should not take up too much time. I shall be obliged to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the chairman, after having called the attention of the committee to the conduct of an hon. member who persists in irrelevance, may direct him to discontinue his speech.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is no more of it. I have only three more lines:
It flew through the air with the greatest of ease; yes, far too successful Prince Albert to please. The Arrow would make a wonderful museum piece.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: What a clever little boy.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have no soul.


Mr. Matthews:: I do not know whether or not it is an honour to follow the ace of the opposition. I think probably he is an ace for the reason that he has been shot down in the house more than anybody else. But I would certainly like to contribute a little bit to this museum of the aeronautical history of Canada which is so important, one reason being that I identified myself with it 43 years ago in Canada. I understand there are certain things they would like in this museum. I have a few things I certainly will offer to the minister and it will not be the Avro Arrow, I assure you. I certainly think it is a wonderful thing to have this museum opened. I think the people of Canada will certainly appreciate the fact that aviation in

Supply-Northern Affairs which Canada has made such a tremendous mark will be finally appreciated' in this way in Canada. That is all I have to say.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am not too sure what this is about. Mention has been made of a museum piece and there is some argument as to whether the Arrow fits into that category. It reminds me of another plane which I consider to be a museum piece, the old Delta which we worked on at the air training school in St. Thomas during the war. The Delta aircraft was at that time a very modern plane, much more modern than the ones we were flying, but some particular modification was built into that aircraft and it was not very suitable for the job for which it was intended.
As far as I know there were only four or five of these planes made before they discontinued its production, and they had them at this establishment for the trainees to work on. I would consider that the Arrow would probably be in that class, and I would think that if there is going to be a museum in Canada we might as well have one which would be of some interest to the Canadian people. I am sure that as far as people who are concerned with and interested in aircraft are concerned, this battle over the Avro Arrow, and so on, will be argued for many years. I certainly hope that one of these Arrow aircraft can be kept in shape and installed in a museum, because this argument will go on, but if it is installed it would be one of the showpieces of the museum. I may have arrived one minute too late to hear the minister, but I would like to know where the museum is going to be.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The temporary home of the museum will be on the second floor of the Department of Transport air terminal at Uplands, until we can make space available for the permanent museum of sciences. This is the first step.


William Arnold Peters: Then this may have eliminated immediately the storing of the Avro Arrow. While I do not know how big the space available is, would it not be difficult to install on the second floor a number of large aircraft to constitute what would be, in my opinion, a study of Canadian aviation and what it has done over the period of years it has existed? I would imagine space would be very limited. I can think of many things in the aeronautical sphere that I would like to see in an aviation museum and I would think that would be a very limited display area.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon.
member is quite right. It was never intended that this aviation museum would house all
the relics which have been used across Canada in the last 50 years. It was primarily to record the history of the development of powered flight in Canada, and the only aircraft which has been considered for display is the Silver Dart, which was the first aircraft to fly in Canada under powered flight.


William Arnold Peters: In the expansion of the idea of an aviation museum, it is one field in which Canada has made, in my opinion, quite a contribution and it would be quite important to the Canadian people. The contribution was all the more so because of the training and work done during the last war in Canada in the aviation field. I would think that we have many firsts in aviation which I would like to see stored some place. I have in mind particularly the old flying box car which we used in the northern development of our country when they flew by the seat of their pants in the wake of a prayer. There was the old Fairchild, and it is that type of aircraft I would like to see in a museum big enough to store them. This, rather than the history of the development of aviation, would probably be of much more interest to our children and grandchildren in years to come than some of the technical advances which we have made in our development. I think a good deal of credit goes to the people who flew in the type of aircraft I have mentioned in the bush flying stage.
Of course, this is one of the few countries which has this type of development, and I would like to know if the minister is contemplating eventually moving out of this temporary building into some type of museum which would be on a par, probably, with the war museum we have on Sussex street in Ottawa, or the war museums you And in various cities in the United States which trace the history of the development of a particular aircraft. In the navy they have their ships of various ages; in the army they have different types of weapons used over the years, and I would like to know if the minister is contemplating establishing an aeronautical museum which will contain an example of the old flying box car, the early Norseman, and planes of that nature. Then a little more up to date I would say that probably the last stage in this development would be the Arrow program, and we should have one of the Arrow aircraft maintained.
I suggest that the minister should give us some assurance that at least one of the Arrows will be kept so that we can put it in a museum if such museum is finally expanded to the extent it would house this particular type of aircraft.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to the minister, while I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, that it will be, of course, from a housing standpoint almost impossible to house the variety of aircraft which many of us feel should be located in such a museum, and this point is appreciated.
I know the minister is aware of the fact, however, that a number of organizations within Canada have already attempted to establish museums of their own in some instances, using the Lancasters as war memorials and a number of other Canadian aircraft which have serviced bush pilots as well as those used in the early stages of the commonwealth air training program. It seems to me that perhaps we could satisfy the suggestion which has been made by co-operating with these various groups. In many instances it would have to be for the defence department to make available replicas which are still being used, but I would hate to think we would lose a single model of, for example, the Lancasters which were manufactured here.
I congratulate the minister on taking this step forward, and there is no question that it is an important step, perhaps in keeping with the other organizations within Canada. There should be this liaison to provide the establishment in various centres of a representative aircraft which could become part of the general museum.


William Arnold Peters: Would the minister give us an assurance that at least one Arrow will be maintained?


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think the hon. member was here when I ruled on this question when the hon. member for Trinity was speaking, and I think the hon. member should not insist.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northern Administration and Lands Branch-
621.	Branch administration-To extend the purposes of vote 275 of the main estimates for 1959-60 to include a grant of $2,000 to assist in defraying the expenses of the first international symposium on Arctic geology, $1.
Mr. Dumas:: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions on this item. This vote represents a very small amount, $1. In fact it is to extend the main vote 275 in the main estimates, to include a grant to the international symposium on geology. I would like to know if this symposium has taken place, where it took place, who sponsored the symposium, and how many companies attended?
79951-0-111
Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, this first symposium on Arctic geology was held in Calgary under the auspices of the Alberta association of geologists. I would like at this time to thank them on behalf of all Canadians for initiating this symposium.
Representative geologists, geophysicists and geographers from the United Kingdom, United States, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, France, the U.S.S.R. and across Canada. The federal contribution, as the hon. member states, is $2,000. The Alberta government contributed the same amount, and the item in the estimates is one dollar because the balance is available from other allotments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forestry Branch-
Forestry Operations Division-
622.	Contributions to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council by Canada with the provinces, of amounts equal to one half of the amounts confirmed by the provinces as having been spent by them in establishing forest access roads and trails for the attainment of adequate fire protection as well as other aspects of forest management- further amount required, $596,000.
Douglas Mason Fisher: I have three questions to ask on this item; two specific questions, and one on general lines. I should like to know what happened to a proposed road location survey for a road from Hornepayne to Manitowaning to link up with the timber limit roads of Abitibi Pulp and Paper Company which would have the effect of opening up this country down to the lake Superior highway. I understand that this was included in the forests roads access program and that it had been agreed to, but it appears the government has done nothing about it.
The second question is this: is there any part of the road north of Port Arthur, which is being developed in conjunction with the Abitibi Paper Company and the provincial government, which is being subsidized by this forest access program, or does this fall completely within the roads to resources program?
My third, and a general question, deals, let us say, with the interpretation placed upon these programs by the minister's department. Is it still true that the department of northern affairs will not put forward any funds in respect of crown lands held under lease in connection with this forest access program? If it is true, what consideration is being given to altering this condition, or what are the reasons for sticking to this particular approach?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I cannot give precise information with regard to the roads in the hon. member's constituency because,

Supply-Northern Affairs as he realizes, there are a good many of these forest roads scattered across Canada. With regard to the question asked about crown lands under lease, the answer is that as far as I know most of the roads built in those areas are used under the managerial arrangements of the companies. I do not know what has been arranged between the companies and the provincial governments, but I do know that as far as our policy is concerned it was made clear in a letter to each of the governments concerned. This letter said we would pay half the cost of forest access roads, and there was no limitation connected with where those roads would go, except that they had to be the property of the provincial government concerned.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The difficulty is this: Kimberly-Clark, or Abitibi or the St. Lawrence Corporation have long leases on lands amounting to thousands of square miles, and they have developed a considerable road network on their properties. Where the roads are to go is a problem for the provinces and the companies to thresh out, but there is always very strong pressure from the public seeking the use of these roads for fishing and hunting purposes. One noticeable thing in northwestern Ontario is that there has been very little forest access road development within the limits of land held by these companies, and I should like to know why more is not being done. Further, I should like to know whether it would be possible to work out an agreement with the provincial government making it clear that the general public would have guaranteed access to any road which the federal government makes a contribution under this program. If this government puts up money for any of these forest access roads which happens to be on crown land, the company concerned should not have the right to keep the general public off these roads.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I shall be glad to take this matter up with the respective ministers concerned. I believe the hon. member is referring to the province of Ontario in particular, and I shall be glad to take this up with the minister in that province. As a matter of fact, it has already been discussed, but no agreement has been reached.


Mr. Batten:: Would the minister give a breakdown of this item to show the amount paid in each of the provinces concerned?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will list the provinces under the headings "first agreement" and "second agreement", and give the sums in round figures, if I may. The first agreement runs from January 2, 1958 to January 30, 1958, and the second runs from November 1, 1958 to January 30, 1959.

	First	Second
	agreement	agreement
Nova Scotia 	$ 34,000	$ 45,000New Brunswick ..	
35,000	20,000Ontario 	1,055,000Manitoba 	
232,000	252,000Saskatchewan 	
183,000	152,000Alberta 	.... 93,000	167,000British Columbia ..	.... 323,000	835,000Newfoundland	.... 59,000	8,000


Mr. Denis:: What about Quebec?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Quebec did not come into the agreements, neither the first nor the second.


Mr. Caron:: Was this program offered to all the provinces?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The program was offered to the provinces in the form of a letter to the premiers in each case. Some of the provinces, such as Prince Edward Island and Quebec, did not come in.


Azellus Denis: What was the date of the last letter sent to the province of Quebec telling them about this possibility?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I cannot tell the hon. member the exact date, but the matter has been raised as recently as during the last three or four months. I think the last time the offer was made it was made orally.


Azellus Denis: Did the minister receive any answer from Quebec?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The intimation was that it was being considered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the item carries, I want to ask the minister if he can give us any explanation why the participation of the three Atlantic provinces which did take part is reflected in such very small amounts, particularly in view of the fact that the forest industries of these provinces are to a great extent the mainstay of their populations.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: With regard to Nova Scotia, I think the answer probably is that the forests have been worked for at least 250 years, and access to them is now largely available. In the case of New Brunswick, I cannot give any reason why they have not taken more, except that the roads to resources program in that province does cover many of the forest areas. In the case of Newfoundland, I do not know why there has been a drop-off in the second year. In the case of Prince Edward Island, I do not think there are any forests.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if there is the same problem in Newfoundland as the one which the hon. member for Port Arthur raised a moment or two ago in respect of crown lands under lease, and whether, perhaps, the conditions in the program ought

to be reviewed. I am not going to labour this point, but I wonder if the minister would agree to look again at these conditions to see if they are not too restrictive. I certainly agree with the hon. member for Port Arthur that if any public money is going into these roads the public should have access to them.


Harold Edward Winch: Did I understand the minister to say that participation in this program is dependent upon application being made by the provinces, and, if so, does the hon. gentleman's department accept the proposals made by the provinces? If so, does his department accept the offer or the proposals made by the provinces? I am putting it bluntly. Does the participation of the federal government in this plan depend upon the proposals made by the provincial governments?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is largely the fact. The provincial government proposes certain roads will be built for general purposes to make forests accessible. If we agree that they do make forests accessible we pay half the costs of the roads built during the periods mentioned in this agreement.


Harold Edward Winch: Is it within the power of the minister, who is interested in development under this policy, to make a proposal to the provincial governments and ask whether they will come in and participate? If it is, has the federal government, through the minister, ever made a proposal to a provincial government under this policy?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The attitude of the government is that these resources are completely the property of the provincial governments, and we offer these agreements which are entirely voluntary and co-operative. It is true the provincial governments and the federal government are meeting now in a steering committee and getting ready for a conservation conference, which is trying to look at these resources from a broader point of view. In this conference we can discuss proposals from all parts of Canada and try to work out general principles. The government would be reluctant to force its opinions or requests on any province which owns these resources and has full control over their management.


William Moore Benidickson: Is this conservation conference to take place in 1960?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We are working toward a conference this fall, Mr. Chairman, but the officials have indicated it is very doubtful whether we can get it in 1960; it is more likely to be the spring of 1961.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
79951-0-1114
Supply-Privy Council

[Stage Direction]
Special-
623.	Expenses of the royal commission on coal including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board, to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $25,000.
Mr. Robichaud:: I understand that this item is to cover the expenses of the royal commission on coal, the appointment of which was announced by the Prime Minister on August 20 of last year. In making the announcement the Prime Minister said the government felt that the coal problem was a special one and so urgent as to require a special inquiry rather than be considered by the Borden commission on energy. I note in this press release, which was made at the time and which came from the Prime Minister's office, the Prime Minister pointed out that subsidies alone were not a final answer to the coal problem, and indicated that a thorough study of the long term market outlook was required. What was striking was that the Prime Minister said a readjustment of coal production had to be made in such a way that the industry would serve its future markets efficiently and economically. I feel that this particular statement of the Prime Minister should be considered very seriously by members from the coal production areas who criticized so openly the statements made by Mr. Louis St. Laurent previously to the 1957 election.
We are pleased to see that this commission has been appointed and we feel that it will offer more to the coal producing areas of the maritimes than did the Borden commission on energy which did not even hold meetings in the maritimes, notwithstanding the promise made in this house by the Prime Minister to the effect that following the adjournment of the Borden commission in Montreal it would have further sittings in the maritime provinces. The fact is that the two briefs which were presented to the Borden commission from the maritimes were heard in Montreal on July 16 and July 22 of 1958.
We also deplore the fact that it took the government 14 months after we introduced the motion in this house, which in fact was done on June 30, 1958, to bring to the attention of the government the critical situation in the coal industry, when we exposed the lack of government policy to take care of the situation. It was over 14 months after that the Prime Minister made the announcement of this commission and admitted the seriousness of the situation.
I do not want to elaborate on this subject, Mr. Chairman. I know we shall have further

Supply-Privy Council opportunities during the present session to discuss the serious coal problems of the maritime provinces; but I wish to say that we rejoice in the appointment of Mr. Hand to head this commission. In fact, as was said in the Ottawa Citizen of October 8, 1959, that one of the best minds in Canada was to be applied to the problems of Canada's coal industry, especially in Nova Scotia where the situation is grave. Indeed, Ivan C. Rand, as he now is, after 16 years of impressive service on the Supreme Court of Canada, will be tackling one of the most formidable tasks of his career. If he cannot produce a happy solution, it is unlikely that anyone else can.
The Rand commission, Mr. Chairman, is holding sittings in the maritime provinces at the present time and we feel sure that if there is a solution to be found to the coal industry, the present commissioner, Ivan C. Rand, is the right man to have as head of this commission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
624.	Expenses of the royal commission on the Great Slave lake railway including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board, to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $37,000.
William Arnold Peters: Can the minister indicate
whether there has been any agreement yet as to the route?


Paul Raymond Martineau: The commission has been appointed and is sitting and is considering that and other problems.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the parliamentary secretary any notion as to when the commission will be in a position to report?


Paul Raymond Martineau: The commission will report as soon as it has completed its sittings and has properly deliberated.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it the intention of the government to accept the route which is recommended in the commission report, if one is recommended?


Paul Raymond Martineau: It certainly is the intention of the government to consider all the recommendations that the commission make.


Erhart Regier: Is the commission looking only into a possible route to be taken, or is it also looking into the whole problem of whether or not it is advisable that this railway ought to be built?


Paul Raymond Martineau: The commission is proceeding according to the terms of its appointment, which was made by order in council on June 4, 1959.


Harold Edward Winch: This is a very important matter. I am not questioning the building of this railway but for about 18 months now there has been a question as to its route. Unfortunately there has been a great deal of publicity to the effect that it will be a political railway. I hope that is not the case, but I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether or not consideration of the route will be based on the economic development of that part of Canada, irrespective of whether it may hurt one area, one province or another. Can he give any assurance that consideration is being given on what is best for the economy of Canada?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I think the best way to answer the question is to read from the appointment as to the particular duties of this commission. These gentlemen have been appointed commissioners under part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire into and report upon the respective merits of the alternate routes which might be followed by the railway line to be built from northern Alberta into the southern portion of the district of Mackenzie, Northwest Territories, for the purpose of providing access to and contributing to the development of that portion of the territories tributary to Great Slave lake.
I am sure that the commissioners are following the terms of their appointment and will certainly consider that aspect of the question to which the hon. member for Vancouver East has just referred. His suggestion certainly appears reasonable.


Harold Edward Winch: I have raised the question for one reason only. I want to point out this fact. If you are elected as a member of parliament you are under pressure. If you are in the opposition you are under pressure. As an electrician may I say that I did not blow the fuses and cause the lights to go out. As a matter of fact, if I talk long enough you will see the light. I should like to say this, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Harold Edward Winch: If you want to hear my voice I will let you have it. To carry on with what I was going to say, there is no question whatsoever that when you are elected to parliament you are under pressure. Individual members are under pressure, parties are under pressure, the official opposition is under pressure and I feel certain that the government is under pressure. From what I have been able to read in the past few months the government is under pressure as to the route this railroad is to take. I have no hesitation whatsoever in standing in my place today and

expressing the hope that the decision, whatever it may be, will not be made on the basis of local pressure, area pressure, provincial pressure or any other pressure. I hope that any decision as to the extension of the railway system in Canada will be based wholly and solely on what is in the best interests of the development of Canada and our economy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Acquisition, construction and improvements of
public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvement of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-
625.	Outside Canada, $450,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, it is a little difficult to speak from my notes on this important item. I was wondering whether the lights have been turned off because the government has not been able to pay its bills.


An hon. Member:: The estimates have been held up too long.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In any event, perhaps in the dark the minister might explain the purpose of this $450,000 vote.


David James Walker: 
George James McIlraith: Why don't they pay their electric light bills?


Mr. Nesbitt:: You will not let us; you
will not pass the estimates.


David James Walker: We are trying to get through these estimates as quickly as possible this afternoon but I should like to summarize the avantages of this purchase. First, there is the over-all accommodation. Second, the location is so close to the centre of London. As my hon. friend knows, it is about a six minute fast walk from Trafalgar square and a ten minute slow walk or three minutes by taxi.
Second, there is no traffic problem in Grosvenor square. Third, the parking facilities are excellent, including the underground

Supply-Public Works
parking in the former U. S. embassy. In addition to that, we will be able to dispose of the property now used by the departments of national defence and immigration and expect to get $500,000 for that. We will also be able to give up the 14 leases, I think it is, and have an over-all picture of Canada with its government departments under one roof, one accommodation for them all. This will he a great saving to the taxpayers of Canada, not only initially as I have indicated, but all through the years there will be substantial savings as well. We will have the efficiency of our government departments very greatly improved as a result of this move.
In brief, Mr. Chairman, those are the reasons why we purchased this magnificent property, and why we are asking today for the sum of $450,000, which is the deposit price of this purchase.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister
has given us a very attractive picture of this move into Grosvernor square, into a building which apparently is, from his point of view and the point of view of the government, quite satisfactory in every respect but which is, in fact, a discarded United States embassy building. The minister has said that this change will save, I think something over $1 million or $1J million to the taxpayers. This, of course, remains to be seen.


David James Walker: It will be $1,675,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This remains to be seen. The
original purchase was obviously a good purchase because the government was able to get all its money back, and then some, when it disposed of the property as being unsuitable for the purposes which the government had in mind. I would point out that the original purchase was a property adjoining Canada House. In fact, it could even have been connected to Canada House in Trafalgar square by an overhead bridge. It would have been a matter of great convenience to have had as many government offices as possible practically under one roof. No doubt that was a consideration important in the minds of those who made the decision in the first place. Whether it will be as economical to divide the staff at Canada House and have half in the new Canada House and half in the discarded United States embassy in Gros-venor square remains to be seen. We will have to find out how much money will be required to remodel this former United States building.
We shall also have to find out by experience whether or not it is an advantage to have the second Canada House in what is now known as Little America, Grosvenor square,

which is going to be an increasingly busy part of London because the new United States embassy and its offices will be located in that square. Parking is not going to be quite as easy and simple as the minister has indicated in his remarks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It will still be a lot better than around the Hampton property.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It ought to be better, but it is not going to be an easy situation in that respect. Grosvenor square is not traffic free by any means. However, the minister has said that the decision has been taken. A great deal of money, no doubt, will be required to remodel this building. The minister has said it is going to house all the Canadian offices which will not be in Canada House, Trafalgar square. I have been informed, perhaps my information is not accurate, that there will only be available for office accommodation in this new building some 60,000 to 65,000 square feet, whereas the joint staff, et cetera, requires over 80,000 square feet for its accommodation.
I should like to have the minister confirm, if he can, the statement he has just made that there will be ample accommodation in this building for all the Canadian offices which will not be at Trafalgar square. I understand also one of the disadvantages of this building, which may have been responsible in part for the United States government giving it up, is that it includes a great many flats and that some of the leases on these flats cannot be taken over. There will be tenants in the building after we take it over. It is said it is the intention of the Canadian government to accommodate Canadian government officials in some of these flats, something to which I do not necessarily take exception at all. It may be a very good thing to do. Presumably they will pay rent for their flats and it will be a convenience and help to have them accommodated on the property.
However, with accommodation of that kind in this building, and with the floor space as I have indicated, I do not see how all the Canadian government offices could be put in this one building. The minister has said that is going to be done, and perhaps the information I have is not accurate. I wish he would correct me if I am wrong in that regard. He may also tell us how much money will be required to remodel this building. I would have hoped that if we could not find suitable accommodation at Hampton, it could have been found in some place other than Grosvenor square. I understand there may have been accommodation in Berkeley square which is even

closer to Canada House. This accommodation might have been more suitable than any building in Grosvenor square. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister and perhaps it will serve to correct some of the exuberance and optimism which he has just exhibited.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I am still exuberant. I should like to point out that in the original estimate of saving of $1,675,000, there has been included $250,000 as the cost of remodelling the offices and getting them in shape. The sum of $250,000, therefore, has already been added and we still have the saving of $1,675,000 to the Canadian taxpayer.
My understanding is, also, that not only have we enough space but at the moment we have too much space for all the other offices and that includes the department of defence which is going to move in there. It is true there are some tenants on the top floor, but we are having no trouble with their leases. As we wish them to move out, they will move out. We hope, in the meantime, to keep all the property we can vacant. We not only have enough property, but I ask my friend to recall this was a United States embassy for a country of 170 million, and we have acquired it for a country of 17 million. We have this property for a very reasonable price under all the circumstances and have lots of room, not only for our present requirements but for expansion as well.
In so far as the square footage is concerned, I could not give my friend an answer on that at the moment. I shall be glad to supply him with it when the figures are available. If there are any further questions, I would be delighted to try to answer them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The fact that this building was once a United States embassy for a country of 175 million has nothing whatever to do with the question because this was only one United States building. They had half a dozen others scattered around London in which they housed members of the embassy staff and other United States government agencies.
However, the important thing is that the minister has said all the Canadian government offices that will not be accommodated in Trafalgar square Canada House can be accommodated in this building. He has given a specific assurance that that can be done. If that is the case, and I have been informed to the contrary, then of course that puts a different light on this transaction. It will be interesting to ask the minister a
Supply-Public Works
year from now how many Canadian officers are still accommodated outside the building in Grosvenor square.


David James Walker: I understand, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, that the Leader of the Opposition himself was not in favour of carrying on with the Hampton site and realized the former government had made an error.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think that is true. The minister said I was not in favour of carrying on that Hampton site. I do not know where he got evidence to that effect.


David James Walker: You had a unified cabinet, I know, but the hon. member's individual opinion was against it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a strange statement for the minister to make, and I do not know where he got evidence of that.


David James Walker: Perhaps you will verify it for me.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is an even stranger position for the minister to take. I subscribed to the decision to purchase the Hampton property. It seemed to be a good decision to make and, perhaps, it will turn out to be a better decision than the one the present government has made; that remains to be seen. The fact that it was good business to purchase this site was shown by the fact that the government could sell it at a profit. I have told the minister my information is that there are only 65,000 square feet in this building and that the staffs require 81,000 square feet. The minister has said there is going to be ample accommodation in this building for all Canadian offices not accommodated at Trafalgar square. We shall find out about that in the months to come.


Harold Edward Winch: I rise on a question of privilege Mr. Chairman. I think it is unfortunate that we are in darkness but that you as chairman should try to make it clear to the fourth estate that although the House of Commons is in darkness, the speeches are most enlightening.


Mr. Bourgel:: May I ask the minister
whether plans have been prepared for the alteration of that building?


David James Walker: I want to tell my hon. friend, and I should have added it, that we have today Mr. Freeze, the head of the property department who himself is an architect, over in England consulting on the matter. I should add this; my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, speaks with a certain amount of finality on the question of whether the actual

Supply-Public Works
joint chiefs of staff aside from the department of defence and all its offices are staying behind. He states that is something about which there is some question and I am trying to put in a phone call at the present time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a good thing I did speak with some finality because the minister has just repudiated a statement he made a few moments ago in arguing how advantageous it was to buy this discarded United States embassy. A big advantage and one I must say appealed to me although it surprised me that all Canadian government offices not at Trafalgar House would now go into that building. But he has now said that the joint chiefs of staff, which is the Canadian organization in London outside of Canada House, may not go into it.


David James Walker: We will check on that matter.


Maurice Bourget: If I understood the minister correctly, he said the cost of alterations would be about $250,000.


David James Walker: That is the estimate.


Maurice Bourget: May I ask the minister how he can arrive at such a figure without having plans prepared?


David James Walker: As I say, Mr. Chairman, the estimate of the cost of these changes is $250,000. All we can do is to accept the best estimate we can make at the time when the architect is over in England, if there is a variation in price, it will be brought to the attention of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister to confirm that in the earlier plans for the Hampton building all Canadian officers in London would have been accommodated in this adjunct to Canada House, including the joint staff?


David James Walker: I am glad my hon. friend raised that question. As a matter of fact, I am not particularly glad but it gives me an opportunity to point out that had the Hampton site been proceeded with and had the plans of the government of that day been consummated the whole department of defence in England-our representatives there-would have refused to go into the building and no plans were made for them to go there. I understand the matter came to cabinet and that it was approved that the department of defence should not be forced to go into this impossible site in the middle of one of the worst traffic arteries in the world.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask a question in connection with the purchase. Is the property being acquired on the basis of freehold, copyhold or leasehold?


David James Walker: May I just add one word more in answer to the Leader of the Opposition? My information is that the joint chiefs of staff as well as the other branches of the department of defence who are in London will be housed in the new Canadian building in Grosvenor square.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are back to the original statement that all Canadian government offices in London not at Trafalgar square will be in the new building. Is that the situation?


David James Walker: That is our understanding. It will also interest my hon. friend to know that there are about 80,000 feet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is that 80,000 feet in all or 80,000 feet in the building for offices alone?


David James Walker: Eighty thousand square feet of space in the building, which is 20 per cent more than the Liberal government planned to build on the Hampton site at a cost to Canada of $1,675,000 more than this Grosvenor square building.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That 80,000 square feet includes accommodation for several apartments, I believe. Does the minister deny that?


David James Walker: My friend the Leader of the Opposition has been wrong in nearly every statement he has made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has contradicted himself already three times.


David James Walker: After all, when he brings forward these strange things, I will send out and get information but it is hard to get a positive answer to a hypothetical question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister not do what he recommended in another place during another session and have all the plans here before he attempts to put his estimates through?


David James Walker: In answer to that question may I say that we have to get occupation of the property before we can do that?


Harold Edward Winch: May I point out that I was on my feet when the lights went out and that I was on my feet when the lights came on.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like an answer to my question. Are you acquiring freehold rights or leasehold rights to this property?


David James Walker: We are getting, as I understand it, a 100-year, or almost that, leasehold which one gets in London in that area.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is this to the property or to the actual building? I know that in London they are quite often separate. Is it all in one package? How far along in the 99-year term is this particular lease?


David James Walker: We had to arrange with the borough, the council and after long deliberations succeeded in getting their consent to take over this long term lease.


Lester Bowles Pearson: How much is left of the lease?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE Pensions and Other Benefits-
626.	To authorize payment of a pension during the current and subsequent fiscal years, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or any other act or law, to Francis L. Casserly, a former locally-engaged employee, at ani annual rate of Jamaican £760, the equivalent in Canadian dollars for the balance of the present fiscal year being estimated at, $508.
William Arnold Peters: May we have an explanation of this item?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This item refers to administrative assistance to the trade commissioner of Canada in Jamaica. He is a locally employed person who has served continuously for 37 years and is now on retirement. This amount of $508 will pay his retirement allowance for the three months that remain in this fiscal year, January, February and March.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Energy Board-
627.	Administration, $177,000.
George James McIlraith: I should like to raise one point here and I will try to abbreviate my remarks bearing in mind the desire of the house to proceed to other business very shortly. My point is simply this. The national energy board has been set up but apparently no adequate provision has been made for it by way of boardroom or courtroom in which to conduct its hearings. It will be appreciated that these hearings are quite important hearings. No provision whatever was made for this matter when the board was set up. I would ask the minister to take this matter under advisement and to arrange to have a proper boardroom or courtroom provided, particularly bearing in mind the inadequacy of the room presently used by the board of transport commissioners of Canada and the inadequacy of the room used by the tariff board for the conduct of hearings; and also bearing in mind the sharp increase in the use of royal commissions
Supply-Transport
and the demands they make from time to time on space for conducting public hearings.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just on that point, I was going to ask the minister where the national energy board at present holds its hearings. In what way can the public become informed when they wish to attend those hearings? Some of them are of great interest to an increasing number of Canadians.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the point raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West was very well taken. For the future I think better accommodation for hearings may have to be provided. They commenced their hearings in the board of transport commissioners' courtroom in January and then shifted to the dominion bureau of statistics' conference room which was somewhat better.
For those who wish to attend the hearings, a public notice is published which gives the public information.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister if it is the intention of the government to make public the reports of the national energy board?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That question keeps coming up, Mr. Chairman. I have answered it in this way, that according to the act the board reports to the government, and when that occurs the decision will be reached as to those reports. But I have not been under any necessity to make that decision yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Marine Services-
Marine Service Steamers-
628.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment-further amount required, $2,500,000.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Chairman, this item
amounts to $2,500,000. It is made up by taking the sub-items on page 7 which amount to $3,085,000, and it is decreased by $585,000 which is described as savings. My question is this: In this amount of $585,000 are there included any items which were listed in the 1959-60 estimates and later cancelled?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member repeat the latter portion of his remarks? I lost his last sentence.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the amount of $585,000 described as savings include any items which were listed in the 1959-60 estimates and later cancelled?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The $1 million deduction applies entirely to the contract for dredging on the St. Lawrence river-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is looking at the wrong item.

Supply-Transport


Herman Maxwell Batten: It is item 628.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry; I have not got the point of the hon. members question yet.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Item 628 on page four is for an amount of $2,500,000, and on page seven this $2,500,000 is made up from the total of the sub-items amounting to $3,085,000, from which is subtracted the amount of $585,000 which is described as savings. My question is, does this $585,000 include any items which were listed in the 1959-60 estimates and later cancelled?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. This $585,000 relates entirely to items which were voted in the main estimates for 1959-60.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But my friend's question is, were any of those items cancelled by the treasury board?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it is not a
question of cancellation; it is a matter of these amounts not being used.


Herman Maxwell Batten: In this amount of $585,000 are there any items which were not proceeded with which were listed in the 1959-60 estimates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: They were all listed in the 1959-60 estimates; they were all in the estimates.


Herman Maxwell Batten: That is not my question. I know they were all in the 1959-60 estimates, but what I want to know is, are there any items included in this $585,000 which were not proceeded with?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am told that this sum is made up entirely of funds available due to under-expenditures on other projects than those for which this additional sum is required.


Frank Howard: Can the minister tell us what these items are? What are the savings accrued from?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not in a position to pinpoint them, but this happens to be the total of a number of items distributed largely throughout what is a substantial item in the main estimates of $13,575,000. As the year progresses naturally the total of actual expenditure is not going to tally precisely with the estimate, and out of the total provision in the main estimates of $13,575,000 the Department of Transport has estimated that there will be under-expenditures on projects other than those to which this supplementary estimate relates amounting to $585,000. Naturally, in coming to the house for the voting of an additional sum they have

deducted the $585,000 which they think will not be required in connection with other projects.


Frank Howard: One other point on this. Is the saving of $585,000 from the $13 million odd total item in the main estimates under the same grouping as those listed, that is to say, marine service steamers, construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment? Is it in the same general class of expenditure, or does it include other types of expenditure within the department?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The item pertains to marine service steamers, and there is a corresponding item in the main estimates. The additional sum of $2,500,000 now sought in this supplementary estimate relates entirely to and is intended to be an addition to the vote in the main estimate of $13,575,000.


Frank Howard: But the savings of $585,000 comes entirely from the same class of item, namely marine service steamers, in the main estimates for 1959-60?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. It is an underexpenditure in this same item of $13,575,000.


Maurice Bourget: I see an item here on page seven of $1 million, an icebreaker for northern areas. Can the minister say if this $1 million is for the completion of the John A. Macdonald?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The sum provided by the supplementary estimate for the John A. Macdonald is an even $1 million.


Maurice Bourget: If I understand it, this icebreaker will be used in northern areas during the summertime. In the wintertime will that icebreaker be used to help winter navigation for ocean-going vessels up to Quebec city on the St. Lawrence river?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not in a
position to indicate what use might be made of it in such a season, but I am sure that if the need exists and the vessel is available and can be put to that use there will be a desire to make the utmost use of this ship.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I am most interested in this item, the construction or acquisition of vessels, particularly the construction of them. I must admit that I am not prepared at this moment to speak on the matter, but as we are only passing supplementary estimates can the Minister of Finance assure me that under the main estimates there will be an opportunity to speak in detail on the construction of vessels between the east coast and the west coast?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. These construction items listed here, I think with only one or two exceptions, are items pertaining to vessels which will continue under construction in the next fiscal year.


Harold Edward Winch: I am most interested, as a representative of British Columbia, in this entire question, but I am not prepared to discuss it now. I take it there will be full opportunity to discuss the government's policy with regard to this subject.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh yes, there is certainly an item concerning marine services under the Department of Transport in the main estimates for 1960-61.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loans, investments and advances-
Northern Affairs and National Resources-
630. Loans to the government of the Northwest Territories during the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $400,000.
Erhart Regier: I wonder if the minister could tell the house the interest rate which is being charged on these loans by the government to the Northwest Territories.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Five and three-quarters per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: That completes these supplementary estimates.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Rea in the chair.
["In this particular case, the evidence is as the evidence which would be given in a framed case. He went home and changed into civilian clothes, they left the restaurant and went to the Royal motel which is perhaps three blocks away from the man's place of employment. The evidence continues:\nI saw him enter the office, came out shortly thereafter, and he took a cabin which is located just about two doors away from the office, unit No. 6, I believe it was.\nQ. Was he with the petitioner on that occasion?\nA. Definitely not.\nQ. Could you describe the respondent, and the co-respondent?\nA. The respondent is a heavy set man about 200 lbs. in his middle or late 30's, has a mustache, light brown hair. The co-respondent is a woman about 24 or 25 years old, blond, very fair, about 5 ft. 4 or 5 inches tall.\nQ. Was there any conversation when you went into that cabin?\nA. Yes. What happened was, when I had seen him enter the cabin I parked my car in a nonconspicuous spot, and I surveyed the area and the cabin. At about 10 p.m. the lights in the cabin went off. I waited some one-half hour or so, then called our office and asked that my associate, Mr. Hiddell, join me down there at the motel. Mr. Riddell probably arrived about 11.15, or there abouts.\nProgress reported."]
Donald Methuen Fleming: That towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1960, the sum of $32,360,511, be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-51, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1960.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Later this day.

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



[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $777,657.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, in introducing the main estimates of the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year 1960-61 I shall today, in view of the circumstances, merely review briefly some of the activities of the department and developments of interest during the past year.
The main estimates for the coming year at $113.5 million show an increase of $4.2 million over the amount provided in the main estimates and first supplementaries for the present year. There are minor increases and decreases in several items of expenditures, but additional requirements in connection with the South Saskatchewan river project represent the major portion of the net increase.
The amount provided for agriculture research is $30 million, which is about 27 per cent of the total departmental estimates. The production and marketing branch accounts for $54 million, about 50 per cent of the total. Under this provision comes the administration of a wide variety of agricultural legislation and policies, grants, subsidies, quality premium payments, freight assistance on western feed grains and the administration of the Agricultural Stabilization Act.
The third major category of departmental expenditure covers activities under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, and the administrative costs of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The provision for these is $26 million, about 23 per cent of the departmental total. The committee might be interested in developments with respect to some of the major P.F.R.A. activities.
Work on the South Saskatchewan project is proceeding on schedule. There was a delay last fall, due to weather conditions, in placing the fill for the embankments but it has been possible to catch up with this during the winter. Some 500 men have been working on the dam all winter.
The construction bridge will be completed by June. Contracts have been awarded to date to a total of some $16 million. It is expected that a further contract will be awarded shortly for the construction of the downstream half of the five diversion tunnels, which will bring the total to approximately $24 million.
Work is proceeding satisfactorily on the Watertown river diversion of the St. Mary river project, which is the remaining main works of that undertaking. Some 4,400 small water projects, consisting of dugouts and

Supply-Agriculture
small dams, were constructed during 1959. This represents a considerable increase over previous years.
Three new community pastures, totalling 156,000 acres, are being established in Manitoba. One, near McCreary, was completed in 1959 and will be in operation in 1960. Construction of two others in the Dauphin-Mossey River-Ethelbert area will be started this spring.
Operations under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act are also proceeding satisfactorily. The main projects at present under way are the Tantramar and Annapolis river dams. The Tantramar dam, with the exception of some minor work to be done in the spring, is completed and is in operation. The Annapolis dam, which is a much larger project, is on schedule, and work on the main fill has begun. Closure of the dam is expected to take place in the fall of this year, leaving only a small amount of work to complete the project in 1961.
Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act some 34,503 awards, to a total of approximately $11 million, have been made to date with respect to the 1959 crop. Because of the difficulties in completing harvest, it is not possible to make an accurate estimate of the total payments but they are expected to be in the order of $16 million. Payments for the 1958 crop total $23.1 million.
The health of animals division has continued to make good progress in brucellosis testing and in the establishment of brucellosis certified areas. This, of course, is extremely important in maintaining free access to the United States market for export cattle in view of the new regulations of the United States with respect to brucellosis certification. As members know, areas are accepted for brucellosis testing and certification on application from provincial governments. In the east, areas consist of counties; and in the west, municipalities or groups of municipalities. To the end of January, 378 areas with over 5 million head of cattle had been accepted for testing. Ninety areas, with 1.5 million head of cattle have been certified, and a further 124 areas are under test. To expedite the brucellosis testing, we have established new laboratories in Guelph, Winnipeg and Regina to supplement the facilities already provided in departmental laboratories at Vancouver, Lethbridge, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Sackville, and at the main laboratory in Hull.
I think I will skip over a few other points I was going to make, particularly in connection with the grading of hogs, which we will go into when that particular item comes up.
[Mr. Harkness.l
Under the agricultural stabilization board support prices have been prescribed for 18 commodities during the past year. With respect to some of the commodities for which support prices have been prescribed, it has not been necessary for the board to enter into actual support operations, since the market prices have been above the support level. This is the case, for example, with cattle.
Of the 15 active programs, the market is supported in the case of five commodities by offers of outright purchase by the board. Eight commodities are supported by deficiency payments, now including eggs and hogs, and in two instances there are flat payments to producers.
Members who are familiar with the departmental organization will recall that last year we joined the previous experimental farm service and science service together into a research branch. In this we now have a cohesive organization in which the various scientific disciplines can be brought to bear under unified direction in dealing with specific research matters. The total organization includes, apart from Ottawa, 31 experimental farms, 17 substations, 29 laboratories and two forest nursery stations. In these, we are endeavouring to maintain a proper balance between fundamental and applied research and to make the best use of our scientific resources in the interests of Canadian agriculture. The more fundamental research is being conducted primarily at the more specialized research institutes and laboratories. The field establishments, as in the past, are continuing to concentrate on applied research problems of particular importance to their own areas.
A new forest biology laboratory was opened recently at Quebec city. Two other new major laboratories are now nearing completion on the experimental farm property at Fredericton and at Vancouver, on the campus of the University of British Columbia.
The committee will be interested to know that we are making progress in the establishment of animal research facilities on a property of more than 4,000 acres in the green belt southwest of Ottawa. The drawing up of plans has been under way for some time and we hope that construction on some of the functional buildings will start in the fall of 1960. Eventually all the livestock and poultry activities will be transferred from the central experimental farm to this new location, as will the main animal pathology laboratories of the health of animals division.
In these remarks I have dealt with some of the major highlights of departmental activities which I thought might be of interest to

the committee. I will, of course, be pleased to elaborate and provide any detailed information which may be desired during the consideration of individual items.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I intend to say a few words generally with regard to the agricultural policy of this government, and then to deal with a request that was made by representatives of the western farmers in support of deficiency payments for wheat, oats and barley produced during the years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 195758. I will begin by simply outlining some of the general principles that this government has followed, particularly since I enunciated the general guiding principles that we intended to follow in a speech made in this house on August 30, 1958, as reported in Hansard of that day at page 4345.
In my speech on that occasion I dealt with the general plans of the government, with the viewpoint in general representative of the Conservative party policy. I set forth some of the stands that had been taken and were intended to be taken. Summarizing them, and without going into detail, they were, first:
The government proposes, subject to approval by parliament at the next session-
That was in 1959.
-to continue the fund to assist in the export of surplus wheat stocks to non-commercial markets under the Colombo plan.
I pointed out on that occasion that the amount contributed under the Colombo plan by Canada per year had been raised from some $34 million to $50, three years in advance. Second:
The government is studying in consultation with the provinces legislation to provide for a comprehensive crop insurance program.
On that occasion I said that it had been one of the demands of farmers in general throughout the years that something be done to protect, within reason, against the uncertainties to which agriculture is subjected. That portion of the policy, the long term policy for agriculture, has been carried into effect, as has the earlier one to which I referred. Third:
In recognition of the recurring hazard of drought to the stability of livestock production in the prairie provinces, the government has taken steps to provide assistance to provincial governments, which have the prime responsibility for meeting the needs of feed deficit areas, and is giving sympathetic study to the establishment, under provincial administration but with federal financial assistance, of a forage bank program.
This particular portion of the enunciated policy has not been carried out as yet. Fourth:
That the government is presently engaged in a comprehensive study and review of the Canadian
Supply-Agriculture
Farm Loan Act, the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Veterans' Land Act, with a view to determining where enlargement of scope, expansion in function, or improvement in methods of operation may be required.
Also, increased credit through amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act and the authorized capital. Fifth:
As a means of meeting the small farm problem the government has under consideration ways and means of improving the level of living for farmers on small farms by means of better land use, encouraging the formation of economic family farm units, improving technical training-
And so forth. That particular portion is still under consideration.
Then plans are under way for a national conservation conference which will have important and far-reaching effects. I shall make reference to that in a moment.
Then I dealt with a request which had been made even at that time respecting deficiency payments and I stated:
The government has come to the conclusion that deficiency payments, however attractive they appear to be at first glance, would not provide a solution to the problems facing prairie agriculture but would indeed create new problems.
I set out the reasons for that view and I ended by saying:
For these general reasons we have come to the conclusion that deficiency payments to producers are not in the long run interest of either the western grain producer or the nation as a whole.
Then I referred later in my remarks to a request which had been made throughout the years by western farmers for the establishment of a two-price system for wheat, having in mind a domestic price considerably higher than the selling price of wheat for export. The proposal has to do, of course, with wheat for human consumption within Canada, the farm organizations having contended throughout the years that the Canadian consumer had been getting wheat too cheaply. As found at page 4347 I made this point in connection with the proposal:
An increase of 50 cents per bushel in the price of wheat for domestic consumption would be reflected in an increase of only 6.5 cents per bushel on the basis of total marketings.
On the basis of an average consumption of wheat within Canada through the years of 45 million bushels, an increase of 50 cents a bushel, as I said a moment ago, on wheat for domestic consumption over the world price would result in a sum of approximately $22J million. On that occasion I announced that, regard being had to these circumstances, a payment to western grain producers of $1 per acre up to a maximum of 200 acres per farm would be provided, or a total amount of some $40 million. As it turned out, the amount was somewhat in excess of that sum.

Supply-Agriculture
Finally, I summed up the viewpoint of the government and its plans for agriculture in general across Canada in these words:
The immediate and long term approach to the basic problem facing Canadian farmers is a recognition of the fact that the prosperity of Canada is indivisible and that a reasonably high and stable level of income in Canadian agriculture adds to the welfare of all Canadians.
That in general represented an enunciation of certain general principles and specific courses of legislation anticipated at that time. I now sum up once more the objectives of the government's agricultural policy.
We believe that agriculture is one of the most important sectors of the Canadian economy; that the prosperity of agriculture is an integral part of Canadian prosperity; that governments do have a responsibility in a constructive and effective manner to strengthen Canadian agriculture for in doing so the economy as a whole is strengthened. We believe that the national interest can best be served if we endeavour to do our utmost to develop efficiently and economically our resources, including agriculture; that farmers should have continuing opportunities to earn sufficient income to enjoy the benefits of our rapidly growing economy and the rising standards of living enjoyed by the population as a whole; and that a reasonably high and stable level of farm income is an essential prerequisite to a high level of employment and income in Canada generally.
We take the stand, and have, that government action to help Canadian agriculture to help itself is in the Canadian tradition of self-reliance and that government action primarily designed to provide and round out opportunities for farmers to do well on their own is a desirable objective.
Some of the agricultural problems are national in scope while others are regional. The policies that we have followed have been designed to deal with problems where they occur. Where the problems are national, national solutions are sought. Where the problems are regional and special, affecting, for instance the prairie wheat farmers, then solutions are designed to deal specifically with them. When policies are formulated to deal with the symptoms only, they do not solve the problems, but are likely to prolong their existence. All such policies usually do is to offer some temporary relief at the expense of somebody else.
We have endeavoured to place before the house a well thought out, carefully formulated and generally acceptable agricultural program as an integral part of the Canadian national development program. That being the general objective, I now want to refer to some of the stands that we have taken in that connection.

When we assumed office one of the first things we did was to examine the agricultural policies that had existed for a number of years under the former government. During many of those years the Progressive Conservative party insisted there was a need of basic reform measures in agriculture. We maintain that the very cornerstone of national development is a dynamic and flexible national agricultural policy.
Following that viewpoint we introduced, pursuant to the national agricultural policy of the government a long range farm policy comprehensive and co-ordinated. We did not in doing so neglect regional interests. We recognized in the most fundamental terms the national requirement that men and women on the land be given their right to a fair share of the national income.
In that connection I will merely summarize some of the legislative enactments which we have placed before parliament since then. There was the Farm Credit Act of 1959, authorizing long term mortgage credits to farmers and providing new hope for agriculture, particularly in the field of credit where it was so long desired and for which there was a clear and definite demand. Since the Farm Credit Act came into effect, some 1,900 loans have been extended involving some $16 million.
In addition, there was the Farm Improvement Loans Act available to farmers. Under the extension of this act in 1959 for a further three years, banks are guaranteed against losses up to 10 per cent of the aggregate principal amount lent by each bank, subject to an over-all government liability of $300 million in the three-year period.
Another subject of legislation is the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act. This act authorizes the Canadian wheat board to make a payment to the producer in respect of a crop year as an advance on the initial payment for threshed grain in storage, but not in an elevator, prior to delivery to the board.
Then there was the legislation recently enacted, the Prairie Grain Provisional Payments Act, designed to help relieve the financial difficulties of grain producers in western Canada who, because of abnormal and unseasonal rain and snowstorms, had been prevented from harvesting their crops.
Then, as I mentioned a moment ago, the Crop Insurance Act of 1959 was passed to assist the provinces in establishing crop insurance legislation, and under which the federal government is authorized to make a grant in the amount of 50 per cent of any administrative cost, paying as well 20 per cent of any premiums arranged by the provinces. In addition to this, there was action

taken, as I mentioned earlier, under the Colombo plan designed to accelerate the exports of wheat and flour, either in the form of gifts or long term loans.
The Canadian gifts of wheat and flour were stepped up from $826,000 in 1955-56 to $2.7 million in 1956-57 and $19.5 million in 195859. In the current year, 1959-60, $11.2 million worth of wheat and flour has already been shipped in the form of gifts. In addition to this, the government has extended long term loans for the purchase of wheat and flour amounting to $24.2 million in 195758; $10.8 million in 1958-59.
Another source of action was the export credits insurance that extends a three-year credit for the sale of wheat and barley under the Export Credits Insurance Act. This has been in effect since 1952-53. Sales during the past two years under this act have averaged $17.5 million per year. These are but a few examples of what has been done, initially by legislation or by the extension of legislation already in effect, in order to bring about an extension in agricultural exports and in the development of a sound, practical agriculture.
Mention was made by the Minister of Agriculture a few moments ago of the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project. This was something that through the years had been bandied back and forth. This government acted immediately it was possible to do so, and has made the expectation of the completion of the dam a reality through a tremendous amount of financial assistance. The design and purpose of this is to make possible an improved agricultural prosperity in the area adjacent to the South Saskatchewan river which, for many years, has been an area in which drought has been a regular occurrence.
When in 1958 I placed before the house the facts as they were, as we saw them, and undertook to have brought before the house for its consideration an acreage payment of $1 per acre up to 200 acres the reception which that action received will be remembered by most hon. members in this house. Acreage payments were equated to the amounts or at least bore a relationship to the amounts that would be available to the farmer, and on which the highest domestic price was being paid to him rather than the selling price of wheat for export.
You will remember, sir, the reaction at that time. I am not going into it in detail, but to sum it up it was simply this: The payment of some $40 million to $41 million, as it turned out, was ridiculed by both the Liberals and C.C.F. parties and also condemned by various western farmer organizations. To
Supply-Agriculture
some the plan was looked upon with downright derision, although it represented a major benefit to the small farmers of western Canada. Today, as my correspondence indicates, many individual farmers in western Canada would have been most appreciative if something in the nature of that system could have been continued.
All hon. members will recall the reaction and the reception given to it in this house. In reality, it provided for farmers receiving an amount which as I said a moment ago, was roughly the number of bushels sold for domestic consumption in Canada. There are administrative difficulties in connection with the two-price system. In addition to that, there is the recognized fact that the two-price system, if it were carried into effect on the basis of the production of an individual farmer, would discriminate against small farmers, but would hurt most those who decided to feed their grain, or those who had a poor crop or nothing at all. Having given the fullest consideration to the two-price system, we determined that the plan used before was a fair and practical one.
There are some who advocate, and only recently representations were made in that connection by one of the farm organizations, that the two-price system should be brought into effect and the consumer must pay the higher price for bread. I have the record here of representations that were made in that connection in a submission of the western farm delegation liaison committee on January 30. On page 5, it says:
As an example, if the domestic price of wheat were increased by $1 per bushel, it would increase the price of a loaf of bread by less than two cents per loaf and would increase the revenue to the producer by about $55 million.
So far as the opposition is concerned, the stand taken by the opposition and represented by the Leader of the Opposition in this connection is most clear and definite. Speaking at Regina, according to a report in the Regina Leader-Post, in an article by Robert Moon, the Liberal leader told prairie farm delegates the most important thing the government could do is to preserve farm income stability. The Liberal leader did not want the farmer to be assisted by means of raising the price of food for the consumer. This was one of the representations that was brought before us, that the two-price system should be brought into effect and that the people of Canada as a whole could, by the simple expedient of that additional amount per loaf, provide the two-price system.
I pointed out the figures in connection with the two-price system, and I have pointed out one or two of them now. It was because of that that we, as I said earlier, followed

Sup p ly-A griculture
the course in 1958 of acreage payments. I should like now to refer to the reception that was given to that policy. On August 28, 1958 the hon. member for Assiniboia directed to me a question in which he said this, and I am just reading the pertinent parts unless someone wants me to read it all:
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a disturbing report in the Globe and Mail that the government will not make deficiency payments on western grain but will instead pay $1 per acre up to $200 per farmer, a most disturbing and inadequate amount.
The answer was as follows:
I am not going to announce government policy by way of comment on any newspaper article, but I can say this to the hon. gentleman. No matter what is done he will always say it is not enough.
To that answer he replied:
Especially if it is peanuts, like this announcement.
Mr. Chairman, $40 million from the people of Canada which went to the benefit of the western farmer, and particularly benefited the small farmer, would not, I am sure, today be so regarded, in the light of the retrospect of the last year and a half. Then the Leader of the Opposition said this, and I quote his words, as reported at page 4348 of Hansard of August 30, 1958:
We are quite sure, on this side, that the grain producers... will welcome this particular assistance, will welcome this particular grant, though they may be disappointed in the amount. I have no doubt that when my hon. friend from Assiniboia gets up immediately after I conclude he will call it peanuts.


Mr. Argue:: I did that a couple of days ago. I shall call it a pittance today.
Then the Leader of the Opposition is reported as having said this:
Perhaps he may even refer to it as salted peanuts.
I read these remarks in the light of the attitude of western farmers today as they look back on the benefits that were theirs in consequence of that $1 per acre up to 200 acres. This brought great benefits to small farmers particularly.
There was a like attitude on the part of various farm leaders, one of whom referred to it as a pittance. I refer to James Patterson, president of the interprovincial farm union council, who also stated:
It takes a long time to pay bills with nickels.
Then again, the hon. member for Assiniboia stated in effect, that the present payment represented less than 10 per cent of the total amount of deficiency payments to farmers that they have asked for these two years. That is a summary of his words.
That was the reception that was given not by the average western farmer but by some who set themselves up to speak for the
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
western farmer. Then came the question of the request for deficiency payment. A moment ago I mentioned that the hon, member for Assiniboia stated that the $40 million represented about 10 per cent of the amount of the deficiency payment which the farmers expected to get for two years. What is now being asked is a deficiency payment, as I mentioned a moment ago, for the crop years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58, a total amount, if given, of well over $325 million, if not more.
All of us would like to be able to provide hundreds of millions of dollars, but I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what the situation would be if parliament were to vote such an amount in respect of the wheat, oats and barley produced during those years.
We believe that agriculture deserves every support. We have followed that course. We have examined the proposals for deficiency payments and we have spent many hours in the fullest examination of the matter. We did this because a large delegation came here almost a year ago representing all parts of the west. I for one, as a westerner, complimented them then, as I do now, for the manner in which they presented their case and for the degree of restraint they showed in the discussions that took place. We studied this problem.
In August, 1958 I set out the reasons why, in our opinion, deficiency payments were not the answer to the western farm situation. I am not going to repeat those reasons. They can be found at page 4306 of Hansard of that date.
These proposals, as we consider, after giving the matter the fullest and most comprehensive study, tend to neglect the needs of the smaller farmers. They provide no aid to the farmer who has suffered a crop failure. They give little to the mixed farmer and livestock raiser who markets a limited amount of wheat.
However attractive it is to secure that amount of money to be distributed among the western farmers whose needs I know, and whose requests I view with more than usual sympathy, the proposals had weaknesses. The most grave weakness is that the payment of deficiency payments would not touch the fundamental problems of the farmer on the land.
The most outstanding characteristic of the prairie farm economy is the variability of income. In 1937 the crop in most parts of the west was scarcely worth harvesting. Three years later and again in 1942 very large crops were threshed.

As I said a moment ago, one of the major reasons for the South Saskatchewan river dam was the fact that such failures in certain areas were typical of farming in those areas.
Technological improvements, and marketing techniques, have both tended to reduce some of this income variability but he would be irresponsible who would suggest that any easy solution will be found to the age old problem of farm income variability.
The farmer who suffers most acutely from this problem of income variability is the small farmer. Also affected is the farmer in a district that has a poor crop record as a result of natural hazards. These so-called deficiency payments are not deficiency payments at all in the term used in the Agricultural Stabilization Act or in the support programs in various other countries.
Under the stabilization act a deficiency payment is the amount paid to a farmer to bring his return up to the price guaranteed him for the current year. It therefore involves the concept of forward pricing. The payments requested on western wheat, oats and barley are retroactive flat payments rather than forward prices. What they, in fact, amount to is a request to put into effect in Canada the same kind of fixed support prices which have been in effect in the United States and which have resulted in the piling up of such large surpluses of wheat and other commodities in that country.
The proposal is that the price of wheat, oats and barley should be the same for those years as it was, on the average, in the eight-year period from 1945-46 to 1952-53 when grain was at the highest price in our history. This, in effect, would be the same as the United States fixed formula. It differs from that only in that a different period of years has been taken as the base period, and the relationship of the price asked for to the cost of goods and services bought by farmers has been left out.
Mr. Chairman, one thing concerns me about the time and I do not want in any way to place the Leader of the Opposition or other hon. members in the position of not being able to reply today. If I am not out of order, I would like to suggest, with unanimous consent of the house, that the private members' hour from five to six o'clock might, to the extent necessary, be given up. I make that suggestion because I do not want anyone to say that I came in late in the afternoon so as to make it impossible for hon. members to have their say.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure that would be agreeable to us.
Supply-Agriculture


Charles Edward Rea: May I say that that matter will have to be taken up at five o'clock when Mr. Speaker resumes the chair. The committee cannot extend its own time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the committee, in these exceptional circumstances, in reply to the Prime Minister's request and in order to have continuity could not itself agree unanimously to go right ahead?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this group has foreseen and considered this question and has come to the conclusion it is not willing to forgo the private members' hour on this occasion.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I do not want to leave the Leader of the Opposition in an impossible position, and I will have to conclude after a few preliminary remarks and proceed later, I presume next week, to place before the country the views of the government on this question.
I mentioned a moment ago that there would be no benefit to any extent to the small farmer. An examination of the record in that connection shows that 9.4 per cent of the holders of wheat board permits have 99 or less specified acres; nine and four tenths per cent of the grain producers would, under this proposal, receive 2 per cent of the aid that would be extended under the deficiency payment. Some 25.5 per cent of the holders of wheat board permits have between 100 and 199 specified acres, and to them would go some 12 per cent of the total of the payments. In other words, 35 per cent of the smaller farmers on the prairies would receive only 14 per cent of the proposed deficiency payment if this scheme were brought into effect, and the remaining 86 per cent of the payment would go to 65 per cent of the farmers.
The proposed program would give a maximum of $1,500 a year to each farmer, or $4,500 to the largest farmers in a district. But to the small neighbours, or the farmer in an adjoining district who had suffered a series of crop failures, little or nothing would be paid. In other words, if this plan were carried into effect the greatest help would go to the people who need it the least.
The other fundamental weakness in the program is that it could not fail to intensify the grain surplus problem. If the proposal were a deficiency payment in the sense in which that term is ordinarily used, this might not be the case. In the stabilization act a deficiency payment is an amount paid to bring a return up to a guaranteed level for the current year. This means that the commodity in question tends to find its

Supply-Agriculture
own level in the market place, and the tendency is for the surplus to be cleared away by the purchases of consumers. The hard fact is that the deficiency payment total is indistinguishable from the inflexible price supports which have been in effect in the United States which, as I have said, have accumulated unmanageable surpluses in that jountry.
I have already referred to the cost, but it is more than just the cost of the payment to the western farmers. It would also involve an extra cost for storage. The government last year paid $39,800,000 for storing grain in excess of 178 million bushels for which it was not responsible. There would also be the additional cost of moving the grain to consumers in a situation of world surplus.
As to oats and barley, it is probable that the United States would exclude these coarse grains from their markets or would place countervailing duties against them.
In summary, it has been urged that this government introduce a program of costly deficiency payments which will do relatively little for at least 35 per cent of the smaller grain farmers it is designed to help. It would increase surpluses and, in respect to oats and barley, would shrink markets. We recognize the principle that public money should be used to relieve distress on the basis of need, and any scheme which gives no help, or very little, to those who are most in need is socially indefensible. Any proposal to augment the admitted income deficiency of western grain producers must be of such a nature that the bulk of the assistance provided is directed to those most in need of it.
We recognize that certain grain farmers in western Canada require assistance, but we are unable to accept the suggested program of deficiency payments for the reasons which I have outlined. We must again conclude, as we did in 1958, that the fixed support type of deficiency payment is not the most equitable way of giving assistance to western farmers during this period of adjustment while the national farm program begins to take hold and work for the farmer.
In saying that I want to make this very clear. I was surprised at the reaction in 1958 when we placed before the house a plan whereby payments were made on an acreage basis. The opposition spoke strongly against it. In the province of Saskatchewan the members of the C.C.F. ridiculed it, condemned it, and held it up to public scorn. I felt at that time, and I feel now, that it represented a step which would have given the farmers new hope, and that it represented the only 
way in which farmers could be helped, particularly small farmers, and enabled to carry on.
In regard to the other matters upon which I intend to speak, I will reserve that opportunity until later in order to give the Leader of the Opposition the right and the privilege of placing his views generally before the house.
I will conclude by saying this: there are many other matters in connection with agricultural policy to which I shall direct attention. We shall always be ready to consider appropriate measures to benefit agriculture, but I say through you, Mr. Chairman, to the western farmers that when we took the course we did in 1958 to help the small farmers, the opposition we received from the opposition in general and from the members of the C.C.F. party in particular did come as a surprise. It came as a surprise that such an attitude should be taken. I conclude by saying that with reference to the other matters to which I had intended to direct my attention, I will do so at the very first opportunity which comes to me during discussion of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister having spoken for 40 minutes, and the Minister of Agriculture for 15 minutes before him, and the C.C.F. party not being willing to give up 15 or 20 minutes of the private members' hour, I find that I have six minutes in which to put the position of this party, generally, before the committee and this country. That does not give me much time, but I can say that after more than a year of consideration of certain requests made by farm organizations with regard to deficiency payments on grain or other methods of maintaining farm stability the Prime Minister has made a statement in reply to those representations which have been repeated, and that statement, stripped of its verbiage, while not agreeing to the proposals made by the farm organizations, means that the Prime Minister and the government have no definite proposals to put before parliament at this time with regard to the emergency and the proposals raised by the farm organizations.
During this year the position of agriculture in this country has deteriorated, and the cost-price squeeze felt by farmers is worse than it was a year ago, and the farmers' share of the national income is less than it was a year ago. The Minister of Finance has stated that the national income may increase during this year by 7 per cent, but at the same time we learned today that net agricultural income in 1959 has declined by 7 per cent. Therefore, if any

of those terms were justified a year ago, they certainly are justified today in the light of the deterioration of the farm situation.
In regard to the request by the farm organizations for deficiency payments on grain, speaking for my party, I said on May 27, 1959:
It was recognized by the Liberal party that the balance in the national economy had in recent years turned against certain agricultural and other primary producers. That balance should be restored.
The position is even worse now than it was in those days. I went on to say:
It was recognized that difficulties by grain growers were, in recent years, due particularly to farm costs increasing and declining incomes.
Then I continued:
So far as the Liberal party was concerned, they were on record as supporting the principle of deficiency payments when appropriate.
Declining incomes and increasing costs seem to us to make the situation now appropriate for this kind of assistance to the farmers and grain producers of this country. We feel that grain is a suitable commodity for this particular method of maintaining and stabilizing farm income. The price mechanism and marketing procedure in respect to grain are very different from those existing in the case of hogs and eggs which are not, we think, susceptible to this kind of assistance. The Prime Minister's argument against deficiency payments states that one of the reasons why deficiency prices should not be put into effect is that they will create surpluses.
In any event, we feel in view of the situation which is now confronting the grain producers of this country that deficiency payments would be an appropriate method of helping the producers. It is a method based on principles which can be applied generally, and therefore can be supported at this time. When we have an opportunity we shall put forward in greater detail proposals based on this principle. We support deficiency payments in accordance with a formula which would take into account rising costs. In other words, the deficiency payment would be based on the increased cost of production of the farmer compared with a base period when costs were relatively stable.


John George Diefenbaker: What base period?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister cannot ask me questions now, because I have one minute in which to complete this statement. If I had more time, I would be glad to answer him.
That is our position. We favour a system of deficiency payments for grain producers which would take into account rising costs. This would be no handout. It would be no
Private Bills
ad hoc solution. It would be compensation based on a formula which I shall be glad at an appropriate time to discuss in detail. We think that in view of what has happened in the last year, in view of the situation in agriculture, a 7 per cent reduction in net agricultural income against a gross national income which is increasing, we are told, by 6 per cent; in view of the increase in the severity of the cost-price squeeze the time has come when the grain producer is entitled to this kind of assistance based on principles-an assistance which will not be considered as a handout.
Therefore, we share in the disappointment which will be felt by all farmers in this country at the entirely negative statement made by the Prime Minister. All the Prime Minister has done in this statement is to tell us how much this government has done for the farmer in the past two years while the net agricultural income has gone down 7 per cent. The time has come when the farmer is entitled to a better deal than that, and at the proper time, if we get the opportunity, we shall put that deal forward in all its aspects.


Charles Edward Rea: It being five o'clock it is my duty to report progress.
Progress reported.


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


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Mandziuk:: May I ask unanimous consent of the house that consideration be given first to Bill No. S-8?


Mr. Speaker:: It is suggested that item No. 70 on the order paper be taken first by unanimous consent, namely the house in committee on Bill No. S-8 an act respecting the British and Foreign Bible Society in Canada. This would give it priority over the divorce bills in committee. Is that agreed?


Mr. McCleave:: I have no ojection to this, but I would suggest that the group of divorce bills immediately preceding be referred, together with Bill No. S-8, in one motion, and that Bill No. S-8 be dealt with first and disposed of, instead of going through certain formalities. It would save a certain amount of time.


Mr. Speaker:: The divorce bills are already referred to the committee and no further motion is required.

Private Bills-Divorce


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-8, respecting the British and Foreign Bible Society in Canada-Mr. Morton.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-15, for the relief of George Barrington Redfearn -Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have taken the suggestion of the hon. member who suggested that I should read the evidence. I have done so. I notice that the investigators who were concerned with the previous case are again the investigators in this particular case. Would the chairman of our committee like to comment on the investigation of these investigators?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I presume the question is addressed to me as sponsor of the bill. It is true that the investigators involved were in the previous case that we considered and it will be found when we get to the next one that no doubt they are also involved in it as well. Then there is a hiatus until they appear in future bills; but the evidence established in this particular case was that the investigators had seen the respondent husband with the co-respondent on previous occasions. Entry was gained to the husband's apartment at an early hour in the morning and there the evidence was established.


William Arnold Peters: In this particular case, Mr. Chairman, I look at page 12 of the evidence and I find the clerk asks these questions:
Q. What is your full name?
A. George Roland Foucher.
Q. What is your age?
A. Forty-three.
Q. Where do you live?
A. Montreal.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Insurance investigator.
I should like to ask the sponsor of this bill what special qualifications does an insurance investigator have for this particular business? It appears to me that in this particular instance it is a false label that the gentleman is using. Certainly in this instance he would not be doing any insurance investigating. Has he any qualifications that make him any more capable of doing investigations into divorce than anyone else because of the fact that he lists himself as an insurance investigator?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the obvious and short answer is that an insurance investigator spends most of his

time studying collisions between two automobiles, and therefore it takes only a step further to study collisions between two human beings who wind up in divorce actions. The long answer is that this is the gentleman to whom I referred on Tuesday when the same matters were brought forth. It is true that he does come before parliament in, say, half a dozen or a dozen cases to give evidence. He has chosen to classify himself as an insurance investigator. I presume by that means he is trying to cover himself with more respectability than the other people who simply come and say that they are private investigators.
The man in question, as I mentioned last time, was the subject of some concern between myself and the chairman of the committee in the other place. We felt that it would be better if he took out a private licence so that if there were any hints of malpractice-and I must say immediately in defence of this gentleman whose name was mentioned, Mr. Foucher, that I have never heard of any at all

we felt it would be better if he intended to make a career of this, and intended to take part in at least half a dozen or a dozen investigations a year, for him to be properly licensed so that he would find himself under whatever advantages there are from being licensed in the province of Quebec, and would also be subject to any penalties the province might choose to inflict on an errant private investigator.
Again, so far as this gentleman is concerned, I have read his evidence in this case with great care, and it is very much like his evidence in other oases. He is very thorough-going in his methods. It seems to me that if he did become a private detective or received that licence he might very well become president of the Montreal private detective agency or association because he is an extremely thorough and capable investigator.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, on reading the evidence I agree he appears to be very capable. I have read the evidence. I do not want to read it all; I did not want to read it in the first place. On instructions from some hon. members I did read it and I find that again in this case he not only put his foot in the door but he took away the name plate on the door with him when he left. I should like to ask the sponsor if any consideration was given to this particular matter because I find the following questions were asked and answers given:
Q. Where did you find they were living?
A. I found them living at 1610 Sherbrooke street west, apartment 9A. Both names were shown over the name plate on a piece of paper.

Q. Is this the name plate of that apartment?
A. Yes.
Q. You removed that from the apartment building?
A. Yes, I did.
It would appear to me that a man who was so well versed as Mr. Foucher appears to be in investigations used some very unethical methods in obtaining evidence because would it not have been just as simple for him to have copied the name on the doorplate instead of stealing it?
From reading the evidence I am in agreement with the sponsor of the bill that Mr. Foucher, who is 43 years old, is probably not in the worst class of these investigators. His evidence is straightforward. I have seen these gentlemen give evidence before the house committee but when they give evidence before the Senate committee do they read their evidence? Is the evidence all written down? How are these private investigators able to be as factual as they are in a particular instance? I would presume that over a period of time the investigator has acted in a number of these cases and it is always surprising to me that he is so sure about exactly what happened when he is carrying on 10 or 12 investigations in various parts of the city over the same period.


David James Walker: On a point of order, surely the hon. member has the privilege of going into these details in the standing committee. Is this an example of the power of this party, that it makes the house shut off discussion on a question of great national importance as to what can be done for the farmers so that the hon. member can conduct a minute, detailed inquiry into the subject of fornication? It is ridiculous.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, I would think that every hon. member has an opportunity to discuss any of the details of these bills. It is not my desire that these bills should come before parliament at all but as they do come before parliament I think the minister and every other member of the committee should give them the same full consideration as would be given any other private bill brought before the committee. I submit that the point of order is not really a point of order at all. I intend to ask these questions. No one else seems to be concerned. If we are not concerned then I suggest that we should find a better way of dealing with these things because I have no desire to discuss these bills for an hour. But I also have no desire to sit in the house and see 90 or 100 of these bills passed en bloc.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must remind the hon. member that we are discussing Bill No. SD-15.
Private Bills-Divorce


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the sponsor again if he is aware of how the evidence obtained in this particular case was related to the Senate committee. Did the investigator give any indication that he remembered it out of his head or was the information prepared beforehand and read to the Senate?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, to answer some of the many questions raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming, first of all with respect to taking the nameplate off the door, it is true that the nameplate was removed. It was not in the form of metal or anything of very great substance. It was a sheet of paper. I presume if anybody had decided to pursue the matter further they could have charged the investigators with petty larceny of something with a value under 25 cents. I do not know what the penalty in law is in such a case.
In this particular case entry was gained by the two investigators using the pretext that they were fire insurance inspectors, that they had tried to get in during the day and could not and so they had come early on Wednesday morning about 7.15. To answer the last question of the hon. member, it is the custom in the other place when these cases are being heard to permit investigators to refer to their notes from time to time if they wish to refresh their memories. If such a course is followed it is no secret and and no more than is allowed by a judge of the supreme court in those provinces where these cases are heard. There is no reading under oath of prepared statements into the record. If my hon. friend would take the opportunity to see cases such as this heard in the Senate he would realize that they adhere quite meticulously to the pattern of the conduct of trials in the supreme courts.


William Arnold Peters: Does the sponsor of the bill not think that the methods used to gain entry constitute other than a lawful practice by an investigator? In the evidence I see the following:
Q. On what pretext did you enter the apartment?
A. I used the pretext that we were fire insurance inspectors and that we tried to get in during the day and couldn't-
I should like to ask the sponsor whether they did try to get in during the day when nobody was there.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the hon. member, who is a member of the standing committee and was in a position to ask these questions there, does not even attend that committee. He comes to the House of Commons and at $600 an hour uses the time of the house to ask these most

Private Bills-Divorce
irrelevant questions, the details of which he had every opportunity to get at any time in the standing committee. Is this not out of order?


Charles Edward Rea: No, I am sorry, it is not out of order. The hon. member has a perfect right to ask these questions.


Ernest James Broome: On that same subject, I quite understand that the hon. member is acting like Horatio at the bridge. The minister is correct. The hon. member is a member of the private bills committee, and I remember that recently we had a long discussion on the question of referring work to committees to save the time of the house. The C.C.F. group supported that stand and this shows how sincere they are when they can go to these committees, listen to evidence and then come back in the house and do this sort of thing. It is not a matter of $600 an hour. According to figures given by an hon. member in the house, it is $600 for a 20 minute speech so that we are going through $1,800 of time so that the hon. member can show that his group, which wants to control industry-


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Ernest James Broome: -is also ready to regiment the House of Commons.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must
remind the hon. member that we are on Bill No. SD-15 and he can only refer to that.


Ernest James Broome: I think I am talking to the bill. I am talking of the fact that the hon. member is trying to bring out information in the house which he could very easily have got in the committee. He is too lazy to get it in the committee and then he comes to the house and makes a travesty of the rules.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member is referring to another member's conduct, not to Bill No. SD-15.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-16, for the relief of Shirley Veronica Hannah Groves-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I notice that there were two investigators in this case, Louis Marcel Lymburner, age 27, Westmount, Quebec, and Daniel Brian McKenna, age 22, Montreal, Quebec. Would the sponsor of the bill

care to indicate who these investigators are? Are they also connected with insurance companies and, if so, what is their connection?


Ernest James Broome: Before the chairman of the standing committee answers, I should like to know why the hon. member did not ask these questions in the standing committee when he was there and so save the time of the house. I intend to do the same thing to him that he is trying to do to the house on every point he brings up to show the tactics his group are trying to use, tactics that show they are utterly irresponsible.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. We are back on the conduct of another hon. member instead of discussing Bill No. SD-16 this time.


Ernest James Broome: Is that not what this whole thing is about?


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member for Halifax.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The answer is that I have never heard of these gentlemen before.


William Arnold Peters: Is it not true that Mr. McKenna has appeared before the committee in a number of other cases previously?


Robert Jardine McCleave: To my recollection, as I told the hon. member through you, Mr. Chairman, I have not heard of him before, and his second question still does not jog my memory to the point that I can recall either of these gentlemen.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the chairman of the private bills committee whether or not the hon. member for Timiskaming attends the committee meetings.


Charles Edward Rea: Order; again, I want to ask the hon. member if he will keep his remarks relevant to the bill in front of us.


William Arnold Peters: Would the sponsor of this bill indicate how entry was gained in this particular case?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the information requested will be found on page 13 of the evidence, toward the end of the page.


Ernest James Broome: Perhaps he cannot read.


Robert Jardine McCleave: They rang the doorbell and then walked in.


Ernest James Broome: Is the hon. member for Timiskaming ready for clause 1 to carry?


William Arnold Peters: If the hon. member down at that end of the chamber would cease his interruptions it would be much easier for these bills to pass.


Ernest James Broome: You want to kid all the people all the time. Take that guff some place else.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask the sponsor if, in his opinion, adultery was committed in this particular case.


Robert Jardine McCleave: This is one of those very special cases, Mr. Chairman, where the man had established a liaison with another woman, who was not his wife, and it continued for quite a period of time.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-17, for the relief of Leonia Szafarz Falk-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: I noticed that again there are investigators-


Ernest James Broome: Can you not ask a different question?


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Ernest James Broome: Use some more imagination.


William Arnold Peters: I notice the investigators were Gerard Daignault, age 38, of Montreal, and Jerry Brault. I should like to ask the sponsor of this bill if these two investigators have been active in this field in recent years.


Robert Jardine McCleave: If the hon. member would care to check the records of the committee he would find they are very active indeed.


William Arnold Peters: Has the presentation of their evidence always been satisfactory?


Robert Jardine McCleave: So far as I know it has. I believe there was one case in which two other members of that particular firm gave evidence which was under question. In the time I have been here, which now seems to be stretching into eternity, I have never found the evidence of these two men questioned.


William Arnold Peters: I notice that according to the evidence, page 10, these people came from Poland and settled in the city of Montreal. A question was asked about children and the answer was that there was one son. Has there been any indication that this child will be supported?
Private Bills-Divorce


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the boy is in good shape. Actually, he graduated from university, is a doctor of chemistry and now works for the national research council. I hope that does not open up an argument on the salaries of civil servants.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-18, for the relief of Audrey Louise Bryan Sevi-gny-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Again, in this case there are investigators.


Ernest James Broome: We are back on that.


William Arnold Peters: Their names are Kal Wiseman and William Riddle. Is either one of these men licensed as an investigator?


Robert Jardine McCleave: My understanding is that both are.


William Arnold Peters: Would the sponsor indicate whether or not consideration has been given to a reconciliation of the two parties?


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit to you that this kind of questioning is absolutely irrelevant. It is true we have to consider these bills, but you cannot go behind the information that is already available, and it does not behoove the hon. member for Skeena-


William Arnold Peters: Do not blame him.


David James Walker: The hon. member for Timis-kaming-you are both partners in this and your whole party is greatly interested in this subject. You have no business taking up the time of the committee with these ir-relevancies. The report is here, and to ask questions about it at this stage is to go behind the rules of this committee. There is no reason why we should not accept all the evidence of the committee. I am satisfied these questions are irrelevant and we are only adding to information which should have been given in the committee. The hon. member for Timiskaming did not take the trouble to attend committee meetings where he could have obtained the information which he is now seeking.
My point in a word, is this: These questions are irrelevant. They are not part of the issue, and apparently they were not part

Private Bills-Divorce
of the case as brought out in evidence. It ill behooves the hon. member to take up the time of this committee with what, I suggest at this stage, is completely irrelevant matter. Furthermore, it is obvious that the hon. member is attempting to use this occasion, not only to deny the Prime Minister the opportunity of making a statement to Canada, to all western farmers, but to indulge in a subject which he finds dear to his heart. In addition, he is really putting on a filibuster.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. In my
opinion, there is no doubt about the fact the hon. member can discuss the evidence that was given in the committee. However, I do feel he is going a little far in starting this question and answer period when the evidence is already printed. I understand that most hon. members have the evidence. I cannot quite understand this question and answer period. The hon. member can discuss the evidence, but I am wondering whether or not this question and answer period is in order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, you gave the Minister of Public Works considerable latitude in making his point-


Ernest James Broome: No more latitude than you have taken.


Douglas Mason Fisher: An accusation is made about not allowing the Prime Minister to speak. I think perhaps that could be clarified in this way-


Charles Edward Rea: Order; we are discussing Bill No. SD-18.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Perhaps you may allow some latitude, since you allowed the Minister of Public Works to get the matter off his chest. The minister has made the point that the questions are irrelevant, that there is no point in any question when the committee report is there. Is he going to go further and say that the point the hon. member for Timiskam-ing is trying to make, that this whole matter of bringing divorce bills before us is irrelevant to the proper functions of this House of Commons, is out of order?


Charles Edward Rea: Order; we are not
discussing the method of divorce bills being brought before the House of Commons. We are, at the moment, discussing one bill, No. SD-18, so I must once again request all hon. members to make their remarks relevant to this particular bill.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, thank you
very much, for that interpretation. I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken

that there is a time and a place for a discussion of what we are doing in the House of Commons, but that does not add to or take away from the evidence in connection with each one of these bills. It is completely irrelevant and out of order to discuss that. There is a time and a place for a discussion of what we are doing in bringing these bills before the House of Commons. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to make a ruling on this so that we can have an end to this nonsense.


William Arnold Peters: I do not think I should be denied an opportunity to reply to these charges. I think the minister is completely in error when he says we cannot discuss reports that are printed and I think the chairman implied somewhat the same thing. Is it not true that almost all the committees of the house bring back written reports? Does the charge mean that on those reports coming back from the committee there should be no discussion of any of the evidence given in the reports?


Charles Edward Rea: The Chair gave as its opinion on that matter that it was quite in order to discuss the matter as given in committee. There is no question about that point. But the point about which the Chair is concerned is this question and answer period that goes on between hon. members on matters that have already been printed and of which each member has a copy.


Ernest James Broome: As has been said, Mr. Chairman, surely the chairman of the private bills committee is not to be put on the witness stand in this way and be asked to carry on a dialogue between himself and the hon. member for Timiskaming continually for this one hour and on the same sort of thing. I agree entirely with the Minister of Public Works, that they want to discuss the principle behind this procedure I will be right with them but let us not twist-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must bring the hon. member back again. We still have before us Bill No. SD-18. Shall clause 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: 1 am of the opinion that this bill should not be accepted by the house. I have objection to this particular bill being passed in this way. I am not satisfied that all the conditions which would be met in a court have been met in this particular case. I think, if necessary, I should like to read some of the evidence that was given in this particular case.
It would indicate that, in my opinion, there was no justification for this divorce to be granted. In the evidence in this particular case it was pointed out that the man and

woman were married after a very short courtship. During the evidence the indication was that the husband, who was 31 years of age, was not willing to undertake any responsibilities at all and that this was particularly true after their baby was born. It would seem to me that probably justice could be better served if this gentleman were made to bear some of the responsibilities that are his.
I therefore do not think in this particular case it has been proved to be advantageous to grant a divorce. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this divorce does not have to be given in the House of Commons on the ground of adultery. It is quite true that if the wife comes forward and says that the husband will not assume any responsibility and that therefore she would be better off if he were not around because she may have to feed him, we can grant divorce on those grounds in the House of Commons if we wish to do so. However, I think this bill may not serve the ends of justice. I think it may be much more of interest to establish some responsibility in the gentleman wherein he would resume the responsibility he has taken on, and that justice could be served better in that way.
It has been alleged that adultery took place in this particular case. In discussion of this matter in the other place some question arose as to whether or not the adultery was by arrangement. When a question of this nature is asked "Did you ever place any women in his way?", it would indicate to me that the gentleman doing the questioning would obviously be of the opinion or would appear to be of the opinion that this particular adultery charge was by arrangement. While it is possible for the House of Commons to grant a divorce by arrangement, if it wishes to do so, I think this should be stated and we should disregard the fact-


Mr. Chambers:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Egan Chambers: Can the hon. member tell the house whether he voted for or against this bill in committee?


William Arnold Peters: That is very difficult to say.


Ernest James Broome: The hon. member was not there.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have been at a number of the meetings of the committee. I am not sure whether or not I was at this particular one. It is extremely difficult to relate the Senate report, which in this particular case is Senate report 27, to the bills as they are introduced in the House of Commons.
79951-0-112
Private Bills-Divorce


Ernest James Broome: Did you ever vote against any divorce bills?


Egan Chambers: Did the hon. gentleman ever vote against any?


William Arnold Peters: The question has been asked whether I ever voted against any divorce bills. The answer is yes, that I have voted against divorce bills.


An hon. Member:: This session?


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member will recall that there have been a number of divorce bills that did not pass this house, not because his vote would not have been for them but because some hon. members at least thought that the case was not-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must come back to the same thing. We are now discussing Bill No. SD-18. Please come back to Bill No. SD-18.


Mr. Stearns:: I rise on a point of order. Some hon. members, including myself, do not seem to have a copy of this Bill No. SD-18. Do you suppose the discussion of it can be postponed until we are furnished with copies of it?


Charles Edward Rea: That is not a point of order. I understand the evidence is mailed to every office. You have just to make a request.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have listened to some of the surprising comments made by the hon. member for Timiskaming on this particular case. It seems to me that for a person in a group which expresses such great hope to cure the problems of mankind in whatever form they manifest themselves, even in these divorce matters, he is taking a strange tack indeed. The evidence as shown on page 10 of the Senate committee report clearly establishes that the man was very indifferent toward his wife and his small child; that he preferred to live his own life; that he was completely irresponsible in the matter of looking after them in a satisfactory financial way; that he left his wife to pay a considerable number of bills. For one thing, he seemed to have a habit of going out and buying a car every year. This event had happened for five years and his wife got saddled or "stuck" with a large amount of the bills concerned. To suggest that he somehow be pushed back into the home and be made to live up to his responsibilities is to me completely absurd. You cannot possibly do it unless you establish the largest and most powerful-

Private Bills-Divorce


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I just cannot understand how anything the hon. member is saying has anything to do with adultery when he talks about the fact that a person bought a car every year, and so on and so forth.


Ernest James Broome: I rise on a point of order-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Adultery is what this bill is based on. I would therefore ask the hon. member kindly to read the preamble of the bill. He will then understand what I am getting at. Shall clause 1 of Bill No. SD-18 carry?


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, may I ask for some clarification with regard to just what are the obligations and duties of the chairman of the private bills committee in relation to these divorce bills?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Read Hansard of last year.


Chesley William Carter: As I understand it, the chairman's name appears as sponsor simply because he happens to be chairman of that committee. Surely that fact does not compel the hon. member who is chairman of the committee to have detailed knowledge of 77 private divorce bills so that he can get to his feet and answer any questions pertaining to any one of these bills that might be put to him by any hon. member. I should like you, Mr. Chairman, if you can do so, to advise me whether the chairman is obliged to answer questions of that nature and whether he is obliged to reply to comments which hon. members might care to make about a bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo has raised a point of order. If he has not I will sit down, but if he has perhaps I could be permitted to say a few words on it.


Charles Edward Rea: I think the hon. member raised it as a question.


Chesley William Carter: Yes, I asked for clarification.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps I could give some information which would be helpful to the house.
I understand in years gone by it was the custom for people bringing divorce cases before parliament to look around for individual members to sponsor them; but in recent years, in the last five or ten years, it has become the custom to ask the chairman of the miscellaneous private bills committee to do that in the hope it would expedite matters. So the chairman of the miscellaneous private bills committee in the last four or five years has developed what I might call

a bifurcated role in which he is both sponsor and also chairman of the committee. That, I understand, is the practice which has developed in recent years, and perhaps it answers the question of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, I would also like a little clarification on this point. If the hon. member for Timiskaming stands up, asks a question or makes a speech consisting of 15 words and then sits down, and then no other member, including the chairman of the miscellaneous private bills committee, says anything, is the hon. member for Timiskaming prevented from standing up again or does he have to have an intervening speaker before he can speak again? In that way we could shut him up unless he is able to get co-operation from some silly-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Any hon. member in committee, of course, can speak as often as he wishes as long as he does not exceed thirty minutes. It is not the Chairman's duty to tell the committee what are the duties of the chairman of the miscellaneous private bills committee.
We shall now get back to Bill No. SD-18 Shall clause 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the suggestion has been made that reconciliation is not possible in this case. I agree-


David James Walker: Mr, Chairman, on a point of order, I have asked you for a ruling and you have not yet made it. You have made other rulings but not on this matter. Is it relevant that the hon. member should raise questions which are not within the context of that particular divorce? I suggest to you it is completely irrelevant, and if I am wrong you can make a ruling to that effect; but you have not made such ruling so far.
The speeches made by the hon. member for Timiskaming are on matters which are irrelevant to the evidence. He is going beyond the evidence. A decision has been made in each of these cases, and I understood it was the duty of this committee to review these cases, not by going into the evidence but by finding out whether or not the actual case as such is in order. It is not within the competence of this committee to go beyond that and investigate the evidence. That is done by another committee. This is not a court of appeal, it is a committee of this house which has either to approve or reject these bills. In doing that we are not required, with great respect, to go into the evidence of adultery, nor has the hon. authority for Timiskaming the right to enlarge on it.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, can I remind the minister who

has resumed his seat that to my knowledge he has on many occasions stood up and discussed committee reports. I can remember very well one such occasion a year or so ago where he quoted at length from committee reports. I do not think that because he has now assumed an office in the ministry he should suggest that this practice should be stopped.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this bill is exactly the same as if the government were bringing in any other legislation. The government is passing this bill, and the government will have to assume the responsibility for it. I can see no difference between this Bill No. SD-18 and any other bill. The evidence we are reading from is evidence which comes from another place. It is documentary evidence taken in that other place, and I suggest that this evidence has never been before a committee of the House of Commons, and if it had, then that evidence also would be admissible in this debate.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, the hon. member for Timiska-ming has given you his opinion. Has he any authority for the statements he is making or for the suggestion that he can go into this evidence, examine it and enlarge upon it?


William Arnold Peters: What authority have you?


David James Walker: I have the authority that there is no such authority, and unless you produce authority it cannot be done.


Charles Edward Rea: On the point of order raised by the Minister of Public Works, I would like to go back to standing order 59 (2) which is as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
Therefore, the only thing we can discuss in these divorce bills is what is enumerated in the preamble to the bill. This committee, of course, has nothing to do with the question of whether the committee went outside the preamble. That we cannot discuss. So we must keep our discussion absolutely relevant to what is in the preamble of the bill.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, can you read into the record the preamble of the particular bill we are discussing so that the hon. member, if he can read, will see it?


William Arnold Peters: I am reading it, you are not.


Charles Edward Rea: I do not think I can read the names. 1 could say:
Whereas . .. residing at... in the province of Quebec ... wife of . .. who is domiciled in Canada and residing at the said city, has by her petition alleged that they were married on ... on the ... at the said city, she then being . . . and whereas by 79951-0-112J
Private Bills-Divorce
her petition she has prayed that, on the ground of his adultery since then, their marriage be dissolved; and whereas the said marriage and adultery have been proved by evidence adduced and it is expedient that the prayer of her petition be granted: Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-


David James Walker: Thank you Mr. Chairman. That is the point. All we have to do is either to approve the bill or disapprove it. But we cannot go behind the bill. The finding has been made that adultery has been committed. We are not a court of appeal, and with great respect I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to stay within the purport of your own finding, and that is that we cannot go beyond the preamble of the bill and cannot go behind the adultery which has been proved. Nor can we adduce further and irrelevant evidence.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, on this question of private bills I have never heard it suggested in the committee before that it was not competent for the committee of the whole with a private bill based on an allegation of fact, to examine into that fact and the evidence adduced in a standing committee of the house, in this case the miscellaneous private bills committee. It is quite common to question that evidence in detail and go over it and argue it and suggest that the standing committee making the report was wrong, or misinterpreted the evidence, and so on. I have never heard that suggestion before and I must say, with deference to my hon. colleague the Minister of Public Works, my classmate, that his position is not tenable. However regrettable it may be, we do have to listen to some of this unpleasant evidence.


Charles Edward Rea: As long as the evidence is relevant to the debate.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the suggestion has been made that this was a fairly straightforward case. I would agree that it reads that way except for one or two matters. One is that we have two investigators doing the investigating and making the statements, and I consider their information to be always suspect, having found some of it not to be reliable. I think one of our problems in granting this divorce is whether we would be better advised to try to obtain a reconciliation between the two people, or whether we should grant this particular bill for their relief.
The husband has not been irresponsible. The fact that he bought five cars does not necessarily make him irresponsible. That would all depend, I think, on how much money he was making at the time. The gentleman named is employed as a fireman in

Private Bills-Divorce
the Verdun fire department. I would assume that because he is in the service of the municipality he has, probably, a much better reputation than this particular document would indicate. The fact that he has been employed there for a number of years would indicate to me-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member is discussing the private life of one of the parties concerned and I must ask him to come back to the bill.


William Arnold Peters: What I am suggesting is that collusion may have been a factor in this particular case, and I am suggesting that though the evidence goes in one direction, the characters of the people involved do not indicate that this is what one would necessarily expect. One of the people involved was a nurse, and the other was a fireman, and I am suggesting that because these investigators have been called in there may have been some consideration between the man and his wife as to obtaining this divorce, and if there was any question about that I am quite sure the committee would not want to grant a divorce when they are assuming that the grounds for adultery have already been proved in this case.
I point out that one of these two people was a nurse, and the other a fireman. They are stable factors in the community, and it is not likely that they would do what has been alleged in this particular case. This is a fairly comprehensive and straightforward case and I should like to read the questioning by Mr. Cohen:
Q. Mr. Wiseman, I show you a photograph, can you identify this exhibit No. 2?
A. A very good likeness of Mr. Sevigny.
Q. When did you first meet Mr. Sevigny or see him?
A. In June, 1959.
Q. Tell us where he is working?
A. Employed as a fireman, Verdun Police and Fire Department, in Verdun, a suburb of Montreal.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.	,


William Arnold Peters: Anyway the evidence tells about his going to a restaurant and meeting a girl in this restaurant. The two went a few doors down the street to the Royal motel-


Mr. Pigeon:: On a point of order, last year the government passed a law against indecent literature. I do not know why we should have to listen to the reading of that evidence since we are supposed to give an example to the people.


Mr. Cardiff:: The hon. member made a statement about a minute ago that this was a forward case. Can he tell me the difference between a forward case and a backward case?


William Arnold Peters: If I used the term "forward", I meant straightforward.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could I ask the hon. member a question? Earlier today, when the Speaker was in the chair, we dealt with Bill No. C-51, and it was ordered to be read a second time later this day. It would take only about five minutes to pass if the committee would rise and report progress. Perhaps we could do that piece of business.


George James McIlraith: I am afraid I cannot agree to that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was ordered for second reading later this day.


George James McIlraith: Permission was granted for later this day, but I regret that I cannot acquiesce.


William Arnold Peters: In this particular case, the evidence is as the evidence which would be given in a framed case. He went home and changed into civilian clothes, they left the restaurant and went to the Royal motel which is perhaps three blocks away from the man's place of employment. The evidence continues:
I saw him enter the office, came out shortly thereafter, and he took a cabin which is located just about two doors away from the office, unit No. 6, I believe it was.
Q. Was he with the petitioner on that occasion?
A. Definitely not.
Q. Could you describe the respondent, and the co-respondent?
A. The respondent is a heavy set man about 200 lbs. in his middle or late 30's, has a mustache, light brown hair. The co-respondent is a woman about 24 or 25 years old, blond, very fair, about 5 ft. 4 or 5 inches tall.
Q. Was there any conversation when you went into that cabin?
A. Yes. What happened was, when I had seen him enter the cabin I parked my car in a nonconspicuous spot, and I surveyed the area and the cabin. At about 10 p.m. the lights in the cabin went off. I waited some one-half hour or so, then called our office and asked that my associate, Mr. Hiddell, join me down there at the motel. Mr. Riddell probably arrived about 11.15, or there abouts.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder if I may have permission to say a word about the request which was made by the leader of the house a moment ago that the house should give leave to proceed today with the second and third readings of the appropriation bill? Hon. members will recall that the various stages were passed earlier today, but when you asked about second reading the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) said: "Later this day." The leader of the house has raised the question now

as to whether consent might not be given to proceed with the later stages of the appropriation measure today. I understand that the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), speaking for the official opposition, has declined to give that unanimous consent. May I put this point to him and to the house: it bad been indicated earlier in the week that it would be the intention of the government on Monday next to offer a supply motion. Standing order 56 provides that on such an occasion such a motion must be the first motion of business. It also provides in subsection 2 that on Tuesday, the second day of such debate, the resumption of such debate must be the first order of business. That would mean that apart from unanimous consent of the house we would not be in a position to return to this appropriation measure before Wednesday. Mr. Speaker, I am asking hon. members if they will give unanimous consent to our proceeding now or, at any rate, to waive that provision on Monday so that we can take this appropriation measure as the first order of business on Monday.
There are some very urgent matters provided for in these times, and I have to tell the house that if this measure is not passed right away in time to be in the Senate on Tuesday we shall be obliged to stop making certain payments, because we simply have not the money for the purpose. Some payments are not proceeding that are urgently desired now. I make this plea to the house. If the house is not prepared to give unanimous consent to proceeding now I would urge that the house do give unanimous consent to our proceeding as the first order of business on Monday with this measure and put it through its remaining stages, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 56.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I regret I did not see the leader of the house come into the chamber during the committee stage at five minutes to six o'clock. I had been watching for him. I appreciate the difficulties in which the government finds itself on this, but perhaps I will not say anything about some of the things that went on earlier today that maybe took more time than was expected on this matter in the committee stage, but I am unable to give the consent at the moment.
As I understand the matter, the other place meets on Tuesday night. I think I am correct on that, and I would be very glad to take up the question of having consent given at some appropriate time in order to have the measure before the other place without delay, when they meet again, so that there would be no time lost by reason of my withholding
Business of the House
consent at the moment. I shall be very glad to do that. I think that will meet the difficulties in which the Minister of Finance finds himself at the moment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this group, realizing the circumstances and the explanation of the Minister of Finance, is quite willing to support a waiver of the rules for unanimous consent on Monday in order that this measure be passed and receive royal assent on Tuesday.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to make an order now? Is the hon. member for Ottawa West prepared to agree that an order of the house be made now that, notwithstanding rule 56, the measure which has had first reading be taken up on Monday?


George James McIlraith: I would prefer to speak to the leader of the government in the house and give formal consent on Monday, rather than give it now, so that we can fix a mutually convenient time. It is a very simple thing. As I understand it, so long as it is done on Monday there will be no loss of time involved in the ultimate passage of the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Unless I know now I would, in suggesting the business for Monday, have to call for private members' day on Monday so that government business would proceed on Tuesday, on which occasion this would be the first matter for consideration; whereas I have indicated already we intend having a supply motion on Monday and Tuesday.


George James McIlraith: 
Mr. Speaker:: Let me put it this way. The house will take up this bill again no later than the first order of business on Tuesday.


George James McIlraith: That is agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: If agreement is not obtained on Monday, then at least the bill will be taken as the first order of business on Tuesday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, if it could
be the first order of business on Monday I am sure everybody would be satisfied. I do not want to be placed in the position now of having to change the order of business for next week.


George James McIlraith: I expect it can be the first business on Monday, but I have not the assurance of one person who desires to speak that he will be available for the opening of the house on Monday.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I appeal to hon. members to have this matter clarified because it is so important and so urgent; and there

Business of the House are such important payments that will simply not be made; payments that have been made hitherto but can no longer be made unless we pass this measure through. I do not think the matter should be left in the air; I do not think the government can take the responsibility of leaving the matter up in the air. In appealing to the hon. gentleman I remind him that in my 15 years in the house I never remember a case where objection has been taken to proceeding with all stages of an appropriation measure on the same day once the resolutions have been reported out of committee of supply.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to pursue this situation further. I have made it perfectly clear that there will be no delay whatever in the passage of this bill, and I have indicated that it was purely a matter of arranging the time on Monday for the discussion of this particular bill. I hope it will be possible to have it the first thing on Monday but I should like to avoid giving that firm commitment at this moment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will be satisfied if an order of the house issues now that this bill be taken up and considered on Monday.


George James McIlraith: That is all right.


Mr. Speaker:: The house understands the point; the business on Monday is a supply motion, but notwithstanding that the house now orders that this bill be appointed for consideration on Monday. If not by agreement, it is definitely understood that it will be called in the course of Monday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And the understanding is that all stages will be considered.


George James McIlraith: Yes, that is right.


Mr. Speaker:: And that all stages will be considered on Monday? Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: Is the minister in a position to indicate the business for Wednesday, following the supply motion?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker: I will have to announce that on Monday night.
It being nine minutes past six o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
619.	Acquisition of the pipe lines (including the oil therein) and related facilities that are located in Canada and that belong to the United States government and form part of what is known as the Canol pipeline system, $670,000.
National parks branch-
620.	National aviation museum-administration, operation and maintenance, $75,000.
Northern administration and lands branch-
621.	Branch administration-To extend the purposes of vote 275 of the main estimates for 1959-60 to include a grant of $2,000 to assist in defraying the expenses of the first international symposium on arctic geology, $1.
Forestry Branch-
Forestry operations division-
622.	Contributions to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council by Canada with the provinces, of amounts equal to one half of the amounts confirmed by the provinces as having been spent by them in establishing forest access roads and trails for the attainment of adequate fire protection as well as other aspects of forest management- Further amount required, $596,000.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
623.	Expenses of the royal commission on coal including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board, to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $25,000.
624.	Expenses of the royal commission on the Great Slave lake railway including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board, to officers, clerks or employees
Supply-Items Passed
permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $37,000.

[Stage Direction]
Public buildings construction and services- Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-
625.	Outside Canada, $450,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Pensions and other benefits-
626.	To authorize payment of a pension during the current and subsequent fiscal years, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or any other act or law, to Francis L. Casserly, a former locally-engaged employee, at an annual rate of Jamaican £760, the equivalent in Canadian dollars for the balance of the present fiscal year being estimated at, $508.
B-National energy board-
627.	Administration, $177,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Marine Services-
Marine Service Steamers-
628.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment-further amount required, $2,500,000. Ship channel service-St. Lawrence and Saguenay rivers-
629.	Contract dredging-further amount required,
[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
Northern Affairs and National Resources-
630.	Loans to the government of the Northwest Territories during the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $400,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 7, I960