1961-03-27

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Arthur Maloney (Parkdale):: I rise on a question of privilege personally affecting me in my capacity as a member of this house. The question of privilege arises out of newspaper and radio publicity concerning evidence which was given on Wednesday, March 22 last in magistrate's court in Toronto during the course of a preliminary inquiry conducted by His Worship Magistrate Joseph Addison into charges against three men, Mr. Robert J. Wright, a former constable of the Ontario provincial police, Mr. Joseph McDermott and Mr. Vincent Feeley.
Among the charges facing these three gentlemen are charges of conspiracy to bribe a police officer and conspiracy to pervert the administration of justice. The witness whose testimony was given the publicity to which I now refer is an officer of the Ontario provincial police named Scott, who is represented as being an undercover agent of the Ontario provincial police and who purports to have kept notes of conversations he had with each of the three accused. Part of the conspiracy which the crown seeks to establish in this case is that the accused tried to bribe officer Scott in order to obtain information as to raids proposed to be made by members of the police force against a number of alleged gaming houses.
During the course of the preliminary inquiry into these charges one of the documents filed as an exhibit was a brief which I am informed contains instructions designed to facilitate a successful prosecution of an alleged gaming house known as the Ramsey club in Niagara Falls, Ontario.
The crown alleges that the brief was prepared at the instance of the accused who were interested in securing a conviction against the then proprietors of the Ramsey club in the hope that a competitor in the gambling business would thereby be eliminated. During the preliminary hearing on Wednesday last, March 22, police constable Scott, while giving evidence as a witness for the crown and while being questioned by counsel for the crown, testified with reference to conversations that he alleges he had with 90205-6-212J
the accused ex-police officer Wright. The evidence he gave on that occasion with reference to the alleged conversations with respect to the brief I have mentioned is as follows. I quote briefly from the transcript when he was being questioned by counsel for the crown on that occasion, and it reads as follows:
Q. What, if anything, did Wright say on this occasion to you, as to any activities of his when he had been on the force?
A. Well, for one thing, he referred to a brief. This brief was common knowledge to both Wright and myself, and dealt with a set of instructions, how to go about prosecuting what we call the old Ramsey Club at Niagara Falls.
Q. And when you say the brief had been common knowledge to you and Wright when Wright was on the force, why had it been common knowledge to you?
A. Well, Wright saw this brief, and I saw this brief, and we both acted upon it, along with other officers of the branch, in an attempt to prosecute that club.
Q. This was, I take it, a typed brief, with details as to how to obtain a conviction against the old Ramsey club?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that had been seen by each of you, when Wright had been on the force?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you say the old Ramsey club, are you referring to, from your knowledge, the Ramsey club in its location and alleged management referred to here, or some other club?
A. Different management, sir.
Q. Yes, and prior to the present Ramsey club?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Yes, well I have interrupted you.
A. He went into-he told me that this brief was drawn up by lawyers, and also, or included in which was Dave Humphrey, and also he-Wright himself, in composing this brief, and the way he described to me-the way this brief got into the anti-gambling branch-in that he said the brief was given to Fred Maloney, the federal member of parliament, who gave it to Jim Maloney, the minister of mines in Ontario, who in turn gave it to Inspector Stringer of the Ontario provincial police, and Inspector Stringer gave it to Sergeant Anderson of the anti-gambling branch.
Q. And, speaking from your knowledge, apart from what Wright told you, you have indicated that the anti-gambling branch did, in fact, receive a brief, as you have described?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Speaker, the first point to be observed is that my name is not used at all. While officer Scott was giving this evidence he was referring, I suppose in order to refresh his memory, to the notes he alleges he kept of the conversations he professes to have had with ex-officer Wright. An examination of the notes to which he was referring as he gave his evidence reveals likewise that my name does not appear in them at all but refer to

Question of Privilege
someone else altogether; and the minister of mines for Ontario is designated as "Jim Malone". I will not mention the name of the other person referred to in these notes in the hope that I will help put an end to the character assassination that was commenced when this evidence was given in court. Some of the newspapers, however, for reasons best known to themselves, saw fit to take the liberty of inserting the name "Arthur Maloney" when in fact it had not appeared at all, and this was the news report that went across the country.
As someone who has tried to build up an honourable reputation in this place it seems to me that those responsible took an inexcusable licence with my name.
To their credit, there were certain newspapers and radio stations who, doubtless shocked that such gossip should be admitted in evidence at all in a court of law, refrained from mentioning any names in their press reports. The Ottawa Journal and the Globe and Mail of Toronto so far as I am aware are cases in point. This is true also of radio station CFRB in Toronto. And the Globe and Mail, so far as I am aware, is the only newspaper that took the precaution to refer to the fact that the name "Arthur Maloney" was not used in court at all.
Because, however, of the wide publicity given to the matter and to the suggestion contained in this publicity that my brother and I had seen the brief, I asked and received permission from Magistrate Addison to appear before him on Friday morning last, March 24, to make a statement both on my own behalf and on behalf of my brother, who is indisposed. I stated to His Worship then and I repeat now that neither he nor I at any time heard of such a brief or saw such a brief. It was never at any time delivered to me, nor did I at any time deliver it to him. It has in fact never been in the possession of either of us. To this day I do not even know what the document looks like.
I think I am bound to say that crown counsel in cases such as this has to assume the responsibility of not leading evidence in a public courtroom that is not only inadmissible and irrelevant but contrary to what he knows to be the facts, especially when it involves the use of names that are bound to receive wide publicity.
Why this piece of false and unfounded gossip was admitted at all as evidence is something that I will never be able to understand. Crown counsel last Friday attempted to undo the wrong that had been done by saying this in court:
Although the stories that had been passed to me as to how this brief came to Inspector Stringer were conflicting; that that did not support an

allegation by Wright to Scott that it had gone through the hands of Arthur Maloney or his brother, but were inconsistent with them.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, crown counsel has admitted that the facts in his possession contradict the suggestion that the brief was ever in my possession or in that of my brother. Among other things Mr. Ford said on this occasion were these:
Your Worship, first, I am very happy to say Mr. Maloney's reputation is, as we all know, completely untarnished, and I think this is an unusual opportunity extended to him. I feel it should be and I for one am happy to accept, as I would always be happy to accept, his personal say.
During the course of my presentation to His Worship the magistrate I complained about the failure of crown counsel to have informed the court that there was no evidence whatever to establish the unfounded statement that the brief had ever come to me or to my brother. Thus, on Friday, Mr. Ford stated as follows:
Now, my learned friend, Mr. Maloney, suggests that in addition to the statement made by the crown yesterday, that a statement ought to be made that there was no evidence to support any innuendo-first of all, there is no innuendo, and it's not part of the crown's case that my learned friend, Mr. Maloney or his brother are in any way implicated in this case.
In the concluding part of his statement to the magistrate Mr. Ford said:
On behalf of the crown, and with respect to the court, I was happy to accept Mr. Maloney's statement that he, personally, and through him, his brother, had no part in this. I say again that I accept his statement, that there was never, at at any time, any intended innuendo that they had any part in any way in the matter involved.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in view of what I think was a grave injustice done both to me as a member of this house and to my brother, I had no alternative but to rise today on this question of privilege to set the record straight, in the hope that those who caused the injustice will see to it that what wrong they have done is now set right.



CONGRATULATIONS TO PRIME MINISTER ON 21 YEARS AS MEMBER

Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Parliameniary Secreiary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house that our Prime Minister is now fully grown, in that he has now served 21 years in the House of Commons.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, when I entered the house this afternoon and noticed all these artificially coloured carnations-perhaps the hon. member for Halton will tell us why blue carnations cannot be grown-I knew that something important had happened. I

have since learned that this is an important anniversary for the Prime Minister, and we wish him well. There have been times in the past when I have thought his entry into the house was not an occasion for celebration, but we do wish him well on the occasion of achieving, in a parliamentary sense, his majority.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate this group with the remarks that have already been made in acknowledgement of the fact that today is the 21st anniversary of the election of the Prime Minister to the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has had a very important and distinguished political career in the house, and while we do not always agree with the statements he makes from time to time I think we can associate ourselves with others in wishing him well in the years to come.
As I recall the order of precedence, 1 believe I am right in saying there are only three members in the house who have been here longer than the Prime Minister. Although, as I have said, we do not agree with him very often on many controversial questions, I should like to say that the people of Saskatchewan take great pride in the fact that a person from that province has had such a very distinguished career in the House of Commons.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. member for Huron, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Assiniboia how very deeply I appreciate what they have said.



COLUMBIA RIVER


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the house might be interested in a brief report on the meetings I had in Victoria, B.C., on Friday and Saturday last with Premier Bennett concerning the financing of the Columbia river project.
I met with the premier on Friday morning, that meeting being attended only by the premier and myself. In the afternoon we had a further meeting in which one official on each side also participated, and I had a further opportunity for discussion with the premier more briefly on Saturday evening. The discussions were conducted in a very cordial atmosphere which enabled the exchanges to be carried on in a very candid manner.
Columbia River Power
I think the meetings did prove to be thoroughly useful. They covered very wide ground. It may be said that the discussion was comprehensive.
On my arrival on Thursday evening Premier Bennett presented me with a letter in which he set forth two alternative proposals. These two proposals, along with the federal government's proposal which I had submitted to the prime minister by a letter dated December 6, 1960, were very thoroughly discussed. The representatives of both governments, Mr. Speaker, declared their common purpose of bringing about the implementation of the project as quickly as possible. Further studies will be required in the light of the discussions. These may be expected to be followed in due course by further communications between the two governments. The desirability of the earliest possible commencement of work on the Columbia river project has been acknowledged by both governments.
For the convenience of the house, I should like to table the letter dated March 23 written to me by Prime Minister Bennett and to which are attached the alternative proposals which he submitted on behalf of the government of British Columbia, and also a copy of my letter to Prime Minister Bennett of December 6, 1960. This latter letter has already been brought to the attention of the house, I believe, but if there were any thought of having these communications printed as appendices to today's proceedings it might be convenient for hon. members to have both communications printed together.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the documents submitted by the Minister of Finance shall be printed as appendices to today's Hansard"!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: -for text of letters referred to above, see appendix.]


Lester Bowles Pearson: We on this side have listened with some interest to the minister's report on his recent visit to British Columbia and the steps he has taken on behalf of the federal government to clear up certain difficulties between the provincial and federal governments which stand in the way of consideration by this House of Commons of the Columbia river development treaty with the United States. Apparently these difficulties are to some extent financial, and to some extent arise out of certain doubts the British Columbia government has about some of the aspects of the treaty. It is unfortunate that these difficulties could not have been cleared up before the treaty was signed and which,

Trade with Hong Kong since, has been ratified by the United States. In so far as progress has been made as a result of the minister's visit, I suppose he can consider the time well spent in British Columbia.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: We
appreciate the report of the Minister of Finance on his visit to British Columbia and his conversations with the prime minister, as he called him, of British Columbia. The minister has given us some details concerning his efforts to navigate the swirling kilowatts of the Columbia.
However, this matter is of increasing concern in British Columbia, as is evidenced by the recent announcement of the British Columbia chambers of commerce and the university provincial research council that they are not in favour of ratification of the treaty in its present form. They urge further study and delay before ratification is considered.



REPORT ON CONSULTATIONS WITH HONG KONG AUTHORITIES

Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the house might wish to have a report concerning the team of officials who went to Hong Kong to discuss trade relations between Hong Kong and Canada. A question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition last Wednesday in this regard. I reported to the house that a group of government officials would visit Hong Kong for the purpose of discussions with the Hong Kong authorities in regard to trade relations between the two countries.
The purpose of these consultations was to exchange views on the difficulties which had arisen in Canada owing to a rapid increase in imports from Hong Kong concentrated in particular in certain textile products, and to ascertain whether the Hong Kong authorities would be willing to impose voluntary export controls on these products similar to the controls maintained by the Japanese government in order to ensure that their participation in this market proceeds on an orderly basis.
Canadian officials described the difficulties which had arisen in the past few years as the result of a rapid and concentrated increase in imports from Japan and Hong Kong, and explained that on the items in which Hong Kong exports to Canada were concentrated Japan was applying export restraints, and had been for several years.
The recent rapid increases in exports from Hong Kong of certain products tended to undermine the effectiveness of the Japanese restraints. The Japanese authorities had intimated that it would be difficult for them to


restrain the growth in their own exports of these products if exports of the same products from Hong Kong were not subject to any restraint. The Canadian officials made it clear that Canada had no desire to curtail the total level of Hong Kong's exports to Canada, but that some method would have to be found for avoiding the concentration of these exports in items where the Canadian market was being disrupted. In the Canadian view the solution which would be most satisfactory for both sides would be a system of voluntary export restraints applied by the Hong Kong government.
While the Hong Kong authorities recognized the nature of the Canadian problem, they could not consider it in isolation from their relationships with other important trading countries. They made it clear that they were not willing at this time to introduce a system of voluntary restraints in respect of their exports to Canada.
The discussions with the Hong Kong authorities were friendly and cordial throughout. The Canadian government appreciates the many problems, political as well as economic, which Hong Kong has to face. I believe the Hong Kong authorities understand the difficulties created for certain Canadian industries by the rapid increases in imports which have occurred.
In the light of these discussions it will now be for the Canadian government to consider what steps need to be taken, bearing in mind the need for avoiding disruption in the Canadian market and the system of voluntary restraints on exports to Canada maintained by Japan.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for his statement to the house on this somewhat difficult subject of trade in certain items from Hong Kong. There is one regrettable feature in this that I think it is desirable we should not lose sight of, however great the problem may be at the time. That is, that the proposal, perhaps of necessity, of the Canadian government in this particular context had to be a negative one and does not really go to the ultimate solution of the problem created for certain industries by this excessive and rapid increase of exports in certain products from Hong Kong.
Perhaps I should not enlarge on this subject at the moment because I would be getting into the realm of debate. However, I do want to point out that factor in the minister's statement and suggest to him that when this problem is receiving the attention of the Canadian government it should bear in mind the necessity for longer term, positive

approaches in this field as well as any negative steps that may be necessary at this moment.



WATER RESOURCES


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in the latter part of 1957 the dominion government approached the governments of Ontario and Quebec to inquire whether they would join in a study of the existing storages on the Ottawa river and the possibilities which these afford for regulating the flows of these waters in conjunction with those of the upper St. Lawrence for the benefit of all interests affected.
In making this proposal the federal government indicated that such an engineering study would assure that full attention would be given to all navigation, power and riparian interests on the Ottawa river in Quebec and Ontario in a manner consistent with the regulation of the outflows of the international section of the St. Lawrence river. The latter are, as hon. members know, under the jurisdiction of the international joint commission.
I am pleased to inform the house that the governments of Canada, Ontario and Quebec have agreed to establish a three-man technical board to be known as the Ottawa river engineering board to study the storage and regulation possibilities in the Ottawa river basin from the viewpoint of all the interests affected. The federal member of the board will be Mr. T. M. Patterson, director of the water resources branch of my department. Ontario and Quebec members will be designated by those provinces.
The first assignment of the board will be to submit to ministers for approval terms of reference covering the study. It is of course understood that arrangements will be made by my department to ensure adequate and full discussion with representatives of interested federal departments and agencies.



STANDING ORDERS


Mr. N. L. Spencer (for Miss Ailken) moved: that the eighth report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Thursday, March 23, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Railway Act RAILWAY ACT

Mr. J. S. Speakman (Wetaskiwin) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-79, to amend the Railway Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the proposed amendment is as follows. Section 351 of the Railway Act now provides that members of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada are entitled to free transportation, with their baggage, on all railway lines in Canada. The amendment will add to section 351, following the word "Canada", the words:
-and dependent members of their families.
The new section 351 will then read:
Members of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, together with dependent members of their families, with their baggage ...
-are entitled to free transportation on all railway lines in Canada. Such an amendment will do away with the present necessity of members asking each time for rail transportation for dependent members of their families, and will allow for provision of a card to these dependent members of families similar to that now furnished to members of the other place and members of the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FISHERIES


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the house would permit me to call attention to an omission or error of the Chair and ask for the indulgence of the house. It arose in a similar circumstance, where an hon. member had risen to ask leave to introduce a bill, namely on Wednesday, March 22, when Bill No. C-76 was given first reading, just as we have given first reading at this moment to another bill.
If I had performed my duty at that time I should have called the attention of the house to the fact-which I did not actually know, but I should have known, in my responsibility for the form in which matters come before this house-that the bill is designed to do only one thing; that is, to repeal and re-enact the Fisheries Act. In other words, it does not propose any legislation but it is simply a repeal and re-enactment of a statute now on the books, and accomplishes nothing whatever in a legislative way.

Motions for Papers
That, I think, should have been brought to the attention of the house by me, if it was not done otherwise, so that a point of order might be considered as to whether the bill presented and read the first time is, in fact, legislation within the practices of the house. Certainly a bill of that kind has never been introduced before in my experience, either in this or in any other house as far as I am aware.
I do not think further action on my part is necessary now, but I point out the omission on my part so as to bring the problem to the attention of the house in order that hon. members may consider what course should be taken.
The house has read the bill and ordered it for second reading, but I do think I should call attention to the course which the house adopted at a time when it did not have the bill in its hands and could not have known what it was undertaking.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 88-Mr. Chevrier (for Mr. Pickersgill):
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the federal government or anyone on its behalf and the government of Manitoba or anyone in its behalf since July 1, 1958, regarding the Red river floodway.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There is no objection to accepting this motion subject to the permission of the province being obtained, the usual provision regarding privileged documents, and an understanding that documents relating to matters under negotiation cannot be tabled at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 90-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or branch thereof and any official or staff member of the penitentiary branch since January 1, 1958, regarding the death of an inmate in the British Columbia penitentiary, Mr. John Waslychen, and for a copy of the results of the inquest into Mr. Waslychen's death.
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: have to advise the house that I am not able to accept this motion because it calls for the production of documents which have always clearly been regarded as privileged, inasmuch as it asks for the production of documents exchanged between the government or any agency or branch thereof and any official or staff member of the penitentiary branch since January 1, 1958. I am not, therefore, able to agree to the motion. I would point out, however, that a copy of the inquest referred to was tabled in this house on April 28, 1960.


Mr. Speaker:: Having regard to the explanation given by the minister, does the mover wish to withdraw the motion?


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: This matter has been hushed up in secret for too long. I think the motion should be pressed.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Howard) which was negatived on the following division:


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitations expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 89-Mr. Chevrier (for Mr. Pickersgill):
For a copy of any communications received by the minister, or the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, or any official of that department, since November 1, 1960, regarding the claims of Chief Telford Adams, in connection with the sale of the Sarnia Indian reserve to Dimensional Investments Limited, together with copies of the replies to any such communications.
Mr. John Charlfon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: This motion can be accepted subject to the usual reservation that the consent of the government of Ontario be obtained.

++YEAS
Argue
Fisher
Herridge
Howard
Messrs:
Martin (Timmins)
Pitman
Regier-7.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Aiken
Allmark
Anderson
Badanal
Balcer
Baldwin
Batten
Beech
Bell (Carleton)
Bell (Saint John-Albert)
Belzile
Benidickson
Best
Boulanger
Bourdages
Bourque
Browne (St. John's West)
Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway) Campbell
(Lambton-Kent) Campbell (Stormont) Cardiff Cardin Carter
Casselman, Mrs.
Charlton
Chevrier
Chown
Churchill
Clancy
Clermont
Coates
Comtois

Creaghan	Maloney
Crouse	Mandziuk
Danforth	Martel
Deschatelets	Martineau
Diefenbaker	Matthews
Dinsdale	Michaud
Dorion	Milligan
Doucett	Monteith (Perth)
Dubois	Montgomery
English	More
Fairfield	Morissette
Fane	Morris
Fleming (Eglinton)	Morton
Flemming (Royal)	Muir (Lisgar)
Fulton	Nasserden
Green	Nielsen
Grenier	Noble
Grills	Nugent
Habel	O'Leary
Hales	Ormiston
Halpenny	Pallett
Hamilton (Notre Dame	Pascoe
de Grace)	Paul
Hamilton (Qu'Appelle)	Pearson
Harkness	Phillips
Hellyer	Pigeon
Henderson	Rapp
Hicks	Regnier
Horner (Acadia)	Richard (Kamouraska)
Jorgenson	Roberge
Jung	Robinson
Knowles	Rompre
Korchinski	Skoreyko
Kucherepa	Small
LaMarsh, Miss	Smith (Lincoln)
Lambert	Smith (Winnipeg North)
Legere	Southam
Letourneau	Speakman
Macdonnell	Spencer
MacEwan	Stearns
MacLean (Queens)	Stewart
MacLean (Winnipeg	Tardif
North Centre)	Tass6
MacLellan	Thomas
Macquarrie	Thrasher
MacRae	Tremblay
McBain	Villeneuve
McCleave	Walker
McGee	Webb
McGrath	Webster
Mcllraith	Weichel
McMillan	White
McPhillips	Winkler
McWilliam	Wratten-138.



DEATH OF JOHN WASLYCHEN, B.C. PENITENTIARY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 91-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or branch thereof and any other person, organization, or government since January 1, 1958, regarding the death of an inmate, Mr. John Waslychen, in the British Columbia penitentiary.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, this motion is accepted, subject to the usual reservations, and that in the case of any correspondence with the government of a province, that government should first be asked whether it has any objection to the production of the documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the explanation given by the Minister of Justice, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Inquiries of the Ministry

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 92-Mr. Chevrier (for Mr. Pickersgill):
For a copy of the order in council passed pursuant to section 14, subsection 2 of the Broadcasting Act exempting station CFCF-TV, Montreal, from the requirements of subsection 1 of section 14 of the said act.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 93-Mr. Herridge:
For a copy of the table of disabilities used as a basis for assessing war disabilities in connection with the awarding of war disability pensions under the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 94-Mr. Hellyer:
For a copy of the tender form and specifications for the supply of gear speed reducers for the vertical lift bridges, Welland canal, western district, the St. Lawrence seaway, of which the closing date for the bid was November 15, 1960.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker may I address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that in two days we shall adjourn for the Easter recess, and in view of the widespread interest in and importance of the subject, can the minister give some guidance to the house as to how soon after our return on April 10 we are likely to have a new budget and a statement of fiscal prospects?


Donald Methuen Fleming: All I can say is that the slow pace at which the business arising out of the supplementary budget has been moving through the house has greatly retarded the date of the main budget. At this present moment I am in no position whatever to give an indication as to the probable date or the probable period in which it may be possible to introduce the main budget.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the blue colour which is evident here today, and which has been typical of all the minister's budgets, including the baby budget, will he take some guidance from the colour offered by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh)?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I might be more disposed to take an example from her colour than from some of the ideas that have been expressed from that quarter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from Robert MacNaughton, president of the united steel workers of America, following a public meeting of residents of Pictou county dealing with unemployment, and in particular asking whether the government could seek to obtain an order for the Eastern Car Company to produce railway cars?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did receive such a telegram, and in a day or so I will give a reply thereto.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Might I now give a reply to the question which was asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) on Friday last in regard to uranium arrangements between the Eldorado Mining and Refining Company and the atomic energy authority of the United Kingdom. I have to ask leave of the house, because after the question was asked I promised to reply today, and I am now in a position to do so. The reply is naturally lengthy.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house concur in the request of the Prime Minister to make a rather extensive reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps it would be better to revert to motions so that the right of reply, if required, can be preserved.


John George Diefenbaker: If that is the attitude of the opposition I do not choose to revert to motions, and the matter can stand over until tomorrow. I thought they wanted an answer today, but if they do not, that is all right. I decided to give the answer in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who will not be back until tomorrow. If there is objection I will just postpone it until tomorrow.
[Mr. Benidickson.)


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, as the one who asked the question in the first place, I think it would be preferable if members of the opposition parties had a chance to make some comment. Nevertheless, I think the statement is of such importance that as far as I am concerned I am prefectly agreeable to the Prime Minister making the reply even though it is somewhat lengthy.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I deferred the answer on Friday for a number of reasons, one of which was that the United Kingdom authority had advised that it planned to make a statement later that day. Another reason was the unavoidable absence from the house of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I shall start by reading this statement by the atomic energy authority of the United Kingdom, which sets forth in particular form the situation in this connection. I do so because of the fact that much has been said outside the house with respect to this matter, and much of the recital of what took place will answer the statements that were made to the effect that it was incredible, incomprehensible and shocking that this question had not been fully brought to the attention of the house. Those statements made by the Leader of the Opposition outside the house must have been made without a knowledge of the facts, particularly the fact that he himself was a member of the government which conducted the initial negotiations in April of 1957.


Lester Bowles Pearson: "Initial".


John George Diefenbaker: Pardon?


George James McIlraith: He is just noting your language.


John George Diefenbaker: The Leader of the Opposition says "initial". May I add that they were the completed arrangements up to the time that the letters of intent had been given by the British government and accepted by the government of which the hon. gentleman was a member.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is presumably answering the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia. He has brought me into the matter, however, and I hope I will be given the opportunity to reply to those statements made by the Prime Minister which concern me and not the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the United Kingdom agency reads as follows:
The A.E.A.'s attention has been drawn to statements which have recently appeared about an exchange of letters which took place in 1957 between the authority and Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited about the purchase of 12,000 tons of uranium between 1963 and 1966. In 1958 the authority indicated that as a result of the changes in the United Kingdom nuclear power program they would like to renegotiate the terms of this arrangement. Since that time, and most recently in November, 1960, discussions have been held between the A.E.A. and Eldorado regarding the possibility of major adjustments in the program. The discussions between A.E.A. and Eldorado are continuing and it is expected that they will be resumed in London within the next few weeks. These discussions do not affect the authority's contract for 10,500 tons of Canadian uranium deliveries under earlier agreements which are proceeding.
I mention at this moment that shortly after these letters of intent were exchanged the United Kingdom government began to press for modification of their undertakings before a formal contract would be entered into, and these discussions have continued from time to time since. The exchange of letters referred to in the statement of the United Kingdom on the questions was between Sir Edwin Plowden, chairman of the atomic energy authority and W. J. Bennett, then president of Eldorado. They took place in March, April and May of 1957.
Sir Edwin asked Mr. Bennett if Eldorado would be prepared to supply 12,000 tons of uranium oxide between March 31, 1963 and December 31, 1966 at a price of $8 United States a pound, at which it would be available to Eldorado under the options for continued purchases from those holding production contracts with Eldorado under the United States procurement program. Mr. Bennett undertook that Eldorado would provide this amount on these terms, having secured United States agreement to release that amount of the options, and asked Sir Edwin to confirm that the United Kingdom authority would purchase it, and the latter did so. These undertakings were not reduced to the form of a contract; the correspondence commenced on March 29, 1957 and continued for some weeks thereafter between the president of Eldorado Mining and Refining and the British authority.
All these things took place just three days after a conference between the British and Canadian prime ministers in Bermuda, at which conference there were also other ministers present. These meetings took place on March 25 and 26, 1957. When anyone says he had no knowledge of this matter, I would point out that the ministers who accompanied Mr. St. Laurent were the then minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry trade and commerce, Mr. C. D. Howe, and the then secretary of state for external affairs, now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). If there is still no knowledge of the matter I would refer to the annex to the press release, which reads as follows:
During the meeting approval was given to a large-scale contract for the purchase of uranium which will greatly assist in carrying out the expanded nuclear program in the United Kingdom. Under this contract the United Kingdom atomic energy authority will purchase, during the next five years, uranium to the value of about $115 million from the Canadian government agency, Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, which in turn has entered into purchase contracts with Canadian mining companies. This contract has been worked out with the co-operation of the United States atomic energy commission and is similar in terms to the contracts by which that commission purchased uranium from the same agency.
Then there is this addendum:
The ministers also discussed arrangements to supply United Kingdom requirements for uranium fuel after this five-year period and agreed that further discussions on this matter should proceed between the agencies concerned.
That last paragraph was the basis upon which negotiations continued thereafter. These undertakings were not reduced to contract form as had been the case in the past. The reason for this was the fact that the United Kingdom found that its letter of intent covered a quantity of uranium far beyond that which it had expected to use and that the cost was much higher than it had expected. As a result the United Kingdom, for a year or so following the letter of intent, continued to negotiate with representatives of Eldorado.
This was the third transaction for the supply of uranium to the United Kingdom authority, as was made clear by Mr. Gilchrist in his evidence before the special committee on research early in March. The first was a contract for the supply of 11 million pounds or 5i thousand tons prior to March 31, 1962, and was to be met by diversion from the contracts originally made to meet United States requirements. This was arranged among the representatives of the three governments. The second transaction was for the supply of ten million pounds during the year from April 1, 1962 to March 31, 1963, as part of the general program worked out with United States authorities. The first and second agreements required production contracts with Canadian producers and were part and parcel of the program for which Canadian production facilities were created and for which an allowance to amortize capital costs was included in the contracts.
The third transaction, that is the one in question before us, was an undertaking which did not require any immediate production contract as it could be met, if necessary, by

Inquiries of the Ministry diversion from supplies under option as a result of the original United States contracts. Consequently there was no need to take action to implement it years before it was to commence; and this was the reason, I take it, the St. Laurent government of the day made no specific announcement of it at the time, other than a general reference to the subject in the communique issued at the Bermuda conference and which I have already placed before the house.
It has been said by Hon. Robert Winters, president and director of Rio Tinto Mines Limited, as reported in the Globe and Mail of March 25, 1961, that he was not aware that the hidden uranium contract had been signed with the United Kingdom on March 27, 1957, at which time he was a member of the Liberal cabinet. Then he goes on to explain that, in the first place, he could not remember the contract and, in the second place, even if he could he would not be able to talk about it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I simply point out that after he ceased to be a minister of the crown he became, within a matter of a few days or a week, the head of this particular uranium firm. Within a few months thereafter the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe became a director of this company. Naturally these facts arouse a question amongst minds as to whether or not there might have been some communication on a question such as this, where letters of intent had actually passed.
However, within less than three months of this existing undertaking, in March, April and May of 1957, and before the undertakings made in an exchange of letters were embodied in detailed contracts, the United Kingdom government decided to stretch out and modify this nuclear power program for which it had been ordering Canadian uranium. The United Kingdom found, as I understand, that it had ordered much more than it was going to be able to use. As a result a representative of the United Kingdom authority informed Mr. W. J. Bennett of Eldorado early in 1958 that they would like to renegotiate the commitments made for the period 1963 to 1966. Sir Edwin confirmed this by letter. Discussions followed between a representative of the United Kingdom authority and Eldorado as well as between government officials, but as yet no agreement has been entered into.
Now, there has been some loose talk about concealment. I point out in this connection that on February 1, 1958 the then minister of trade and commerce and now Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) said, as reported on page 4147 of Hansard for that date:
As announced on March 26 last at the conclusion of the Bermuda conference, a contract with an


approximate value of $115 million has been entered into with the United Kingdom atomic energy authority. Deliveries will be made over a period ending March 31, 1962, by diversion from existing contracts.
This contract is not the one in question, but it is the beginning.
It was also stated in the joint communique issued following the Bermuda conference that consideration was being given to the supply from Canada of a substantial part of the uranium requirements of the United Kingdom atomic energy authority in the period after March 31, 1962. Arrangements have now been made whereby the United Kingdom atomic energy authority will obtain an additional quantity of uranium with an approximate value of $105 million. The delivery of this quantity will be made over the period April 1, 1962 to March 31, 1963, by a diversion from quantities now under contract which are scheduled for delivery in that period.
Then I underline these words:
Negotiations are now under way with regard to the supply from Canada of a substantial part of the uranium requirements of the United Kingdom atomic energy authority over the period April 1, 1963 to December 31, 1966. These negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily, and Canada has undertaken to supply the quantity which the United Kingdom atomic energy authority has requested in this period. This will be supplied from quantities under option in the present purchase contracts.
In other words, he referred particularly to negotiations in that connection which, I again point out, have not yet been completed. The Leader of the Opposition had this to say as reported on page 4149 of Hansard of the same date:
Mr. Speaker, I think the house will have listened with great interest to this important statement of the minister which deals with the development and marketing of one of our most important products and will, I think, have learned with satisfaction that the policy of the previous government in working out bilateral contracts with other governments for the sale of this commodity is making progress.
There is another point in connection with this subject of concealment of these negotiations that I should like to mention. I would point out that there is a survey of the uranium industry in Canada issued regularly. I have before me the survey by J. W. Griffith dated November, 1959. It has been drawn to my attention that this is a government publication, published by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and widely distributed. Indeed, the distribution list includes mining societies, mining, metallurgy and research organizations, the publishers of technical magazines, the mines department and other government departments. The distribution totals several hundred copies. Then, of course, the publication is on sale to the public as well. On page 87 of this document I find this:
Arrangements are being made to supply the United Kingdom with uranium over the period

from April 1, 1963, to December 31, 1966. Supplies for this purpose will come from quantities under option in the present purchase contracts.
In addition to that, why did the previous government give the details of what had been arranged? I point out this fact, that as soon as we took office on June 26, 1957, Mr. Bennett delivered a communication to the then minister of trade and commerce which deals with uranium procurement. He sets out the facts in general, and he says this at page 15:
There has always been, and still is, close cooperation with the government of the United Kingdom and the government of the United States in the matter of the classification of information with respect to all phases of the atomic energy program. A tripartite committee is responsible for recommending the declassification of information.
Up until December 13, 1956, all information with respect to uranium, ore reserves and production was classified. This information was declassified as of that date. However,-
I emphasize this. This is what Mr. Bennett, head of Eldorado and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, said:
However, both the United Kingdom atomic energy authority and the United States atomic energy commission have asked that no information be made available as to the specific quantities of uranium which will be delivered to these agencies in any given period.
That was the course directed and determined by the president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Eldorado as representing the policy that had always been followed. The only change in that regard was when an actual contract was entered into.
Discussions with the United Kingdom government have gone on since 1958. By 1959 the United Kingdom had further reduced its planned requirements for uranium and was faced with a larger prospective surplus than it had expected in the preceding year. These discussions have continued intermittently since that time, without agreement being reached.
I underline those words. We are still in the position of having the letters of intent and the acceptance, but the course at all times followed in the past has been that the transaction is concluded by an agreement in writing giving full particulars. As yet we have not been able to secure the signing of such an agreement.
In the meantime, the demand from the other quarters for Canadian uranium has also declined and the United States atomic energy authority decided not to exercise its options to purchase additional amounts under its Canadian contracts. As a result the government decided upon a stretch-out of uranium production by the rearrangement of the existing Eldorado contracts. This has been
Inquiries of the Ministry put into effect and has resulted in enabling some mines with lower costs to continue production for a longer period.
The United Kingdom authority, as well as the United States atomic energy commission, as purchasers, have co-operated in this rearrangement of the production program.
I have already pointed out that on February 1, 1958, the minister of trade and commerce, in a comprehensive review of the Canadian uranium and nuclear power programs, announced that Canada had undertaken to supply the quantity of uranium which the United Kingdom atomic energy authority had requested for the period 1963 to 1966, and that negotiations concerning it were under way. Since then, while the negotiations have continued, we have never reached a conclusion.
Some details about the original undertakings were given early this month to the special committee on research, as was appropriate, and indeed necessary, if that committee was to do its duty properly in considering the Eldorado program as a whole. For some reason no notice was taken of that for some ten days or two weeks.
It has not yet been necessary for Eldorado to enter into purchase contracts in order to meet its commitment to the United Kingdom authority for this 24 million pounds covered by the letter of intent. Until the revision of the production contracts was made in the stretch-out program, Eldorado could get what it required under purchase options in the contracts with producers. After that revision it knew that it could obtain what it would require in the future more simply and cheaply by purchasing it from producers at competitive prices because there is a surplus of production capacity available.
I simply pause to say this. There has been no secrecy and there has been no concealment of any contract. We are still in the position of negotiation regarding the letters of intent. At no time in the past-those were the instructions given as to the procedure in the past-has there been any revelation as to the terms until the completion of a contract. Even then the price was not set forth in all cases, nor were other particulars given.
It was asked by the hon. gentleman whether or not there had been any allocation. It would be unwise, without the completion of a contract, to allocate or even to forecast the basis for allocating this quantity among Canadian producers, until the conclusion of the discussions with the United Kingdom on the terms of the contract and the possibility of major changes in the program proposed by the United Kingdom.
As I said a moment ago, in the early stages of uranium purchase programs the details of

Inquiries of the Ministry amount covered by contracts, the rate of production and delivery were not revealed. Later the main purchasers in the United States and the United Kingdom asked us to keep the details confidential for commercial reasons. In the result, only general information was given out even, as I said a moment ago, when in certain cases contracts had been signed.
There is much more information in this connection that might be brought together. What I have given represents in sufficient detail a recital of the course of events which I suggest gives the answer to the use of incredible language and incomprehensible denials of the existence of something in which the Leader of the Opposition had participated. It also belies the use of the word "shocking" on the part of hon. members opposite in describing what they charged was concealed. There was no concealment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I expect that you, sir, will give me the same latitude in dealing with this matter that you gave the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), in view of the nature of his reply and the fact that he brought me into his reply by name and referred to statements I have made in regard to this matter. I expect, therefore, to be given the opportunity of answering those statements made about me and about this matter by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the position ought to be clear before the Leader of the Opposition proceeds. The Prime Minister asked for leave to answer a question at considerable length. The Prime Minister was given that leave and answered the question, bringing in references to the Leader of the Opposition, of course.
I should think that apart from leave of the house, those hon. members who are interested would be entitled to ask questions to elucidate the answer or to explain their positions, and that the Leader of the Opposition, to whom personal reference was made, would be entitled to make a personal explanation with respect to his part in the matter. But I would not without leave of the house give the floor to the Leader of the Opposition so that he might make an extended statement, or comment in general terms. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition wishes to ask for more than that, but that is my view of what his rights are.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I ask for the right to reply to the statement which the Prime Minister made about me and about my position on this


matter which went far beyond the facts which were necessary to answer the question which was put to him.


John George Diefenbaker: The Leader of the Opposition said I went beyond what it was necessary to include in my answer. I did so because of an ex parte statement which he himself issued on Friday outside this house. I have no objection whatsoever to the hon. gentleman answering any suggestions I made regarding his conduct in this connection.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, I think it is only fair and proper that the Leader of the Opposition should be given full latitude to make a reply with regard to those parts of the statement in which the Prime Minister referred to the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the house is prepared to recognize the right of the Leader of the Opposition to deal with references to his part in this matter by the Prime Minister in his answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will proceed to do that, Mr. Speaker, and I will say at the beginning that what the Prime Minister has said, not so much in answer to a question but on this general matter, makes the conduct of the government and of the right hon. gentleman with regard to this question even more incomprehensible and incredible than I had previously thought it to be. What we have learned this afternoon from the Prime Minister is that in respect of 24 million pounds of uranium to be delivered from Canada through Eldorado to the United Kingdom atomic energy authority in the period 196366 there is no contract at all. That is what the Prime Minister says now, no contract at all. The Prime Minister went to a great deal of trouble to talk about the Bermuda conference-


John George Diefenbaker: No formal contract, I said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No formal contract is no contract. This is an easy way to slip out of this, to slip out of it by using sophistry of that kind. We shall find out whether there is a contract in the minds of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and others by quoting what they have to say. I think I have a right to do that, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister quoted at some length from the proceedings of the Bermuda conference. That conference was one which I remember very well. It took place on March 26 and 27, a few days before the dissolution of parliament which was, I think, on April 10 or 13. That conference issued a statement from which the Prime Minister has quoted. Included in that statement-and the Prime

Minister quoted from this paragraph-there is the following reference:
The ministers also discussed arrangements to supply United Kingdom requirements for uranium fuel after this five-year period and agreed that further discussions on this matter should proceed between the agencies concerned.
Well, of course, as one who was there I knew there would be further discussions between the agencies concerned. Those discussions did not result in a contract at the end of March as has been stated. They went on through May. I believe that they came to a conclusion, as far as negotiations were concerned, some time toward the end of May, a few days before the general election. The Prime Minister says now, no contract came out of those discussions. Then the hon. gentleman wonders-and some of his friends have been wondering-why we did not know all about those negotiations in the early part of June, after the general election? The election was on June 10.
After June 27, the Prime Minister was responsible for these negotiations. He criticizes us and the government of that day for not knowing all about this. We have been criticized also for not knowing that there was a contract at that time, though the Prime Minister now admits, for the first time, there was no such contract.


John George Diefenbaker: No formal contract.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I ask the Prime Minister-* and this is one of the questions I hope he will answer-if he will tell the house whether there was a commitment entered into with the United Kingdom authorities with regard to the supplying of 25 million pounds of uranium from Canada from 1963 to 1966. Does the United Kingdom admit there was a commitment entered into in 1957 for the supplying of this uranium and if there was a commitment why was that commitment not carried out during the time when we were closing uranium mines in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister has said there were negotiations, but no contract. Let me read from Hansard on that point-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member consider this suggestion? He has asked a supplementary question. Would he consider having it answered at this time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I have a lot of other questions to ask arising out of what the Prime Minister has said.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not happy about the prospects of a general debate on this matter by question and answer across the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry I believe the house is about to go into committee of supply and it seems to me it would be much better if hon. members would debate this matter at a time when debate is permissible because there is no rule, other than my discretion, which would permit such a discussion as this to continue. It is not too comfortable a position for the Chair to be in to be regulating a debate at a time when no debate should be taking place.
The Leader of the Opposition has the floor to make a statement which explains the Prime Minister's answer in so far as it involves him and reflected on his part in this matter. If the hon. gentleman would conclude that statement I think we might reserve any further debate on this subject until it would be proper for such a debate to take place.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall try to deal with those points with which I was directly concerned. Perhaps the most important of them is the Prime Minister's criticism that we did not know all about the subject when we were in office, and he mentioned me by name. The Prime Minister now says there was no contract. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce, only a few days ago, as reported at page 2672 of Hansard had this to say in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond:
The Canadian government through its crown corporation, the Eldorado company, has a firm contract with the British atomic energy authority. I have received from the British authorities no indication that they do not intend to honour this contract.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce left us in no doubt about what he thought of the position when he made a statement in Calgary as late as Friday last on being confronted with this report that a 24 million pound uranium deal with the British had come to light. Here is what the minister is reported as telling the Toronto Star from Calgary:
Hon. George Hees, Minister of Trade and Commerce, told the Star the contract would be of great assistance to the industry.
The report continued:
He said there had been no reason to reveal the contract earlier.
Now I quote from the report:
"The government doesn't go around shouting what it is going to do in the future".
That, Mr. Speaker, is a laughable observation. The Minister of Trade and Commerce went on to say that there was nothing hidden about it. "Nobody ever asked me about it," he declared.
So the Minister of Trade and Commerce said there was a firm contract. The Prime

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister thinks there was not. The president of Eldorado thought there was a firm contract-


John George Diefenbaker: What I said was that a letter of intent was given and accepted but that a formal contract was not entered into and negotiations thereon are still continuing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Here is what the president of Eldorado said on that score. The Prime Minister was good enough to quote selected passages from this document. Let me quote this. The president, talking about these three contracts, said that these are firm contracts. He repeated that in emphatic terms. Later, on March 3, he said that these are firm contracts and the British can be trusted to live up to their contracts. He went on to say that there are, however, always ways open for re-negotiation.
Now the Prime Minister says it is not a question of re-negotiating a firm contract, a commitment on which the United Kingdom government had entered-oh, no, it is not that -we are now in the process of negotiating a new contract. That is not what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not what the Prime Minister said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not what the president of Eldorado said, and if anyone wishes to read the evidence given by the president they will find out he was talking about the 24-million pound firm contract into which the United Kingdom government entered and which was obscured and kept hidden by the government at the time when the uranium industry in this country could have used a contract of that kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is perfectly untrue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe that the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) is now referring to evidence given before a committee of the house which has not yet reported. It seems to me that any debate that arises out of that should be deferred until that committee reports. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has had an opportunity to deal with his own knowledge and statements on this matter. If he is not through, I will allow him to finish, but I would ask him to limit himself to that aspect of it rather than refer to aspects that are obviously out of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the president and the committee report because the Prime Minister himself had done so initially to show that his statement was correct. The Prime Minister referred to the president of Eldorado and I now refer to the president of Eldorado, as the president of an agency-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was stated in no uncertain terms that there was a firm commitment, and that the firm contract for 24 million pounds was in the process of being re-negotiated with the United Kingdom government. That is a very different story from the one the Prime Minister has told us this afternoon. It will be very interesting to find out exactly what the facts are in this matter. Perhaps there will be an opportunity in debating the estimates to discuss this at greater length and in greater detail. Perhaps on this occasion I will be able to restrain myself to asking the Prime Minister some questions supplementary to that which has been addressed him by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), to which I am not sure he received a reply.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to get into any general debate. I am not in the happy or unhappy position, whichever it may be, of having a record in the government, as has the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), which can be brought forward in this debate. I think that the Canadian people are interested in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is in the happy position of having the right to ask a supplementary question. If he will do so, he will be in order, otherwise he will not.


Hazen Robert Argue: In view of the latitude that has been allowed this afternoon I think I might be allowed to conclude one sentence.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but I am not prepared to accept that position. As the hon. member knows, his question regarding this subject was answered originally, and he is now entitled to ask a supplementary question. I suggest he should proceed in that manner.


Hazen Robert Argue: I can proceed in that manner, but I am put in a very awkward position when two hon. members have made speeches based on my question and I am allowed only to ask a supplementary question. However, I would be interested if the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) could tell the house whether or not there is any firm commitment by the United Kingdom in this regard and, if so, for what quantity of uranium. I would also like to know the basis upon which the contracts will be allocated because of the very great interest of many communities in this question. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is prepared to answer the question I have just asked: whether or not the United Kingdom has given a firm commitment, and if so, for what quantity of uranium?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I endeavoured to make that very clear. There was a firm commitment, but before we are in a

position to carry it into effect, following the course that has been followed in the past, a contract embodying the terms must be signed and completed, and that has not been done, for discussions have continued intermittently over the last two years with respect thereto. Under the circumstances I spoke at length in this regard in my opening statement.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would say whether it is the intention of the government to hold the United Kingdom government to their commitment to purchase the 24 million pounds of uranium, or is Canada going to let it off the hook?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think the United Kingdom government, in its experience, has ever asked to be let off the hook.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Triniiy):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights and privileges of every hon. member of this house. My question of privilege has regard to what we have seen today, a shocking abuse of the rules of this house. The Prime Minister has-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question of privilege he should be specific. If he will specifically indicate what the breach of privilege is it will be considered.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If you will hear me out, Mr. Speaker, I will state it clearly. The Prime Minister, in flagrant disregard of the rules of this house, chose not to make a statement on motions as is the custom with statements of this importance, but chose rather to introduce it at another time on questions before the orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member, if he reconsiders what has transpired, will find that he has not risen to a point of order at the time it was relevant to do so, when he could have been heard, but at a point after the course has been set by the house itself. I see no question of privilege.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister asked the house for unanimous consent and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: think there is a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the assertion made by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) who saw fit to criticize the conduct of the Prime Minister in this regard. May I remind Your Honour that the house, including the hon. member for Trinity, gave unanimous leave regarding the course followed by the Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister and now, like a lot of spoiled children, hon. members opposite are seeking to withdraw their leave after the event. This amounts to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I rather think the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) is attempting to speak to a question of privilege which I have found not to exist.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask leave of the house to-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, I have heard the hon. member and I have given-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have not heard the point, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been present in the house and have come to the conclusion that if there was a question of privilege the hon. member is too late in raising it now.


George James McIlraith: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister tell us the date on which this firm commitment, or firm contract-whichever terminology he used-* was made?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the period of time during which there were letters passing back and forth. The hon. member will be able to ask that tomorrow, when I think the committee is meeting, and will be able to secure a full answer in that regard.


George James McIlraith: Is the Prime Minister able to tell me the precise date on which the commitment itself was made?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that when the president of Eldorado appears before the committee that will be a proper question to ask him.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. When did the Prime Minister personally first learn of this contract?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I learned of the negotiations that were taking place at the time they commenced to take place.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any comment to make on the statement made by the president of the Eldorado Mining and Refining Company to the effect that there had been no indication that this 24-million pound contract with the United Kingdom government would be-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; the Minister of Justice was interrupting on a point of order?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. I believe, Mr. Speaker- and if I am wrong I shall be glad to be corrected-that the Leader of the Opposition is again doing that which you told him was out of order; he is referring to a statement made in a committee which has not yet reported to the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I just ask the Prime Minister, does he not know of a statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the effect that there is no indication that the British government will default on its 24 million pounds uranium contract?


William Moore Benidickson: That statement was made in the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That statement was made in the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: The word used is "default". The answer is, there has been no indication of default on the part of the United Kingdom government. What the United Kingdom government is endeavouring to do is to bring about a continuing negotiation of the statements and terms made in the exchange of letters, and then to have the agreement embodied in a written contract.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that the United Kingdom government have accepted the commitment to purchase 24 million pounds of uranium from Canada between 1963 and 1966?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman will know that that was answered by the statement made by the United Kingdom authority the other day.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question supplementary to that which I asked earlier. Did the Prime Minister know about this contract with the United Kingdom atomic energy commission when the United States cancelled its uranium contracts with Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not use the expression "contracts"; I used the expression "an exchange of notes, a declaration of intent and acceptance".


Lionel Chevrier: Did the Prime Minister know about the position when the exchange of notes took place?


Edmund Davie Fulton: You were in office then.


John George Diefenbaker: I have already said I know of the general discussion and negotiations that have taken place from the time they commenced.
[Mr. Fulton.1


George James McIlraith: Could I ask a supplementary
question?


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow one more supplementary. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare has been deferred the floor for some three quarters of an hour.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. Perhaps I was not heard at the far end of the chamber, but I have indicated that I shall allow one further supplementary to close this discussion.


George James McIlraith: Would the Prime Minister advise the house as to the date of commencement of the negotiations of this commitment, or renegotiations, as they have been called?


John George Diefenbaker: They commenced in 1958. [Later:!


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. I apologize for not sending notice. It is based on a telegram just handed to me. In view of the purchase by Mr. Roy Thomson of the defunct Elliot Lake Standard on March 15, to recommence publication on March 16, is it possible that the purchase was the result of the release of information on uranium not previously disclosed to the public?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I shall take the question as notice and refer it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. F. Legere (Shelburne-Yarmoulh-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister give a report concerning the three Lockeport fishing vessels missing off the coast of Nova Scotia since the storms of March 21?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question on a subject which I know has been of vital concern to him over the past few days.
The Royal Canadian Air Force Rescue Co-Ordination centre at Halifax promptly co-ordinated the search for the missing fishing vessels, and in spite of a secondary storm and later fog conditions a very intensive search of the disaster area was made by

surface vessels of the Royal Canadian Navy, aircraft of the R.C.A.F. and the Royal Canadian Navy, with assistance from surface vessels and aircraft of the United States navy, all of which were on exercises in the region involved.
The long-liner Muriel Eileen was found with decks awash on Wednesday without any sign of life. Debris from the Jimmie and Sisters and the Marjorie Beryl was picked up in the search area by the surface vessels. Positive identification of this material was made by the owners of the respective vessels and relatives of the crew members, virtually ending any hope for the safety of the vessels and crews. I am at the same time pleased to report that another vessel, the Felix and Florence Hickey, which was disabled in the same storm, was taken into tow by the tug Foundation Vigilant on Friday, March 24, with all hands safe.
In view of the very thorough search coverage that has been given and the evidence found which indicates that the missing vessels are no longer afloat, search authorities now consider that nothing would be gained by prolonging 'the operations further. Accordingly, it is expected that the search will be suspended at the conclusion of the operations today.
I know that all hon. members join me in expressing our sympathy to the wives and relatives of the 17 fishermen who must now be feared lost, and to the 50 children whose fathers are the victims of this disaster.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In her absence perhaps the parliamentary secretary will answer.
My question arises out of a speech made by Dr. Davidson, deputy minister of citizenship and immigration, to the effect that reports of Canada's economic conditions, appearing in the British and European press, were malicious libels on the reputation of Canada. Can the minister or the parliamentary secretary indicate to the house more specifically what reports Dr. Davidson was referring to and exactly who was responsible for them?


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.
Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS



REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE BREEDING GROUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, notice of which has been given.
In view of the current very active program of exploration in northern Canada and on the Arctic islands for oil and other natural resources, will the minister assure hon. members and all sportsmen in Canada that the natural breeding ground of the Canada goose -that symbol of Canada-and other wild geese, will be protected, so that such exploration activity will not destroy another of our great natural resources, good, wild fowl hunting?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of this question, and I want to assure him that we are fully aware of the potential conflict between the development of mineral and petroleum resources in the territorial and island Arctic areas and the protection of the important wildlife resources, particularly the migratory birds of those areas.
Fortunately we have had no difficulty up to the present moment, but the whole question is under urgent study by some of the divisions of my department. These divisions are those concerned with wildlife interests, the welfare of the native population and mineral development. Full consideration is being given to the implications of resource use in the areas in question.


James Stanley Speakman: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister could be more specific, and could he tell us of anything positive which his department is doing in those areas toward conservation of the migratory birds?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Up to the present moment we have established six migratory bird sanctuaries in the eastern Arctic regions: one of these is on Akimiski island, another in the McConnell river area, and another north of Churchill; two on Southampton island and also two on Baffin island. There are no sanctuaries established in the western Arctic at the moment. Arctic biologists, however, have surveyed the problem. They are aware of the location of the nesting grounds and we hope to have a similar number of migratory bird sanctuaries established in the western Artie area.
The supplementary question gives me the opportunity to refer to the problem of the

Inquiries of the Ministry potential hazard from aircraft operations. My department has arranged with the Department of Transport to advise all pilots operating in the areas of existing sanctuaries in the eastern part of the Northwest Territories of the location of those sanctuaries. As new sanctuaries are created, similar information will be forwarded to the Department of Transport.



CROP INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister comment on a reported statement made by the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan, as found in the Leader-Post of March 25, that the federal government has agreed to amendments to the Crop Insurance Act which would make it possible for farmers to participate in an area where less than 25 per cent of the farmers are involved?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to send me a copy of his question before the house opened. The federal Crop Insurance Act does not specify that an area must have at least 25 per cent of the farmers participating in the scheme. I have seen the press report to which the hon. member makes reference and it would appear that the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture was speaking of amendments to the province's crop insurance act.
I have been in touch with the minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan and have written him to the effect that we had in mind something along the line of the 25 per cent coverage which the provincial act in Saskatchewan originally provided. However, in view of the fact that the Saskatchewan government is undertaking a pilot operation this year, I indicated that I would recommend to my colleagues that a percentage less than 25 per cent for a pilot operation should be agreed upon for one year.


Stanley James Korchinski: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would the minister indicate what percentage he has in mind?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker; I have no particular percentage in mind.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
Works. Now that the cabinet has had a chance to meet following the Prime Minister's return to Canada, is the minister in a position to say whether or not a federal loan will be made to the corporation of metropolitan Toronto to assist the corporation in the speeding up of the construction of the east-west subway?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisier of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Trinity, may 1 say that the asking of that same question is becoming a little monotonous. This is a matter of government policy which involves more than Toronto and the question will be answered by the Prime Minister in due course. I feel presumptuous even trying to answer a question of this sort addressed to me.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, even though it may seem monotonous to the minister, may I ask the same question but directed toward the proposed subway for the city of Montreal?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It should get the same answer.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister if he will give an answer?


Mr. Walker:: I thought I had answered that question in my previous answer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say when he will be in a position to deal with these matters, other than in due course?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to adopt the answer that the hon. gentleman used time after time during his tenure of office. I simply say, as the Minister of Public Works has said, that when the government is in a position to announce a policy in this regard it will be announced.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister give the house any information on the situation in Laos?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, after a week end of intense activity, including a meeting between Prime Minister Macmillan and President Kennedy in Florida, there are indications that the prospects for a negotiated settlement of the Laotian problem have improved. My understanding is that no formal reply to the

note from the United Kingdom co-chairman to the Soviet co-chairman has been received but a dispatch, as hon. gentlemen know, in the Soviet newspaper Pravda suggests that the Soviet government will agree to the main elements in the proposals put to them by the United Kingdom government.
An outline of these proposals was given by me in the house on Friday last. The first task following a cease-fire will be the immediate reconvening in New Delhi of the international commission for supervision and control for Laos. The first task of the reconvened commission would be the verification of the cease-fire. When the commission is able to report to the co-chairmen that hostilities have in fact ceased, the next stage will be the summoning of an international conference. It seems probable that the membership of that conference will be wider than that of the Geneva conference of 1954 so that it is likely that Canada will be represented thereon.
The government early made preparations to discharge the obligations that would fall on it should the commission be reconvened. Personnel for full-scale activity by the commission have been ready for some time on a stand-by basis. The exact personnel requirements for the initial meetings of the commission will be determined in consultation with the Indian chairman of the commission whenever a formal request has been received from the United Kingdom and Soviet cochairmen of the Geneva conference to reactivate the commission.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say whether the Canadian government made any representations to the United Kingdom or the United States before they made these very important representations and, if so, what was Canada's attitude?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will realize that that question would require a considerably detailed answer and I will simply take it as notice.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Prime Minister which I do not think will require as much detail to answer. Can the Prime Minister tell the house now, as a result of the statement made in the house by the Minister of Transport with regard to an impending cabinet decision under section 53 of the Railway Act, whether or not the government is prepared to disallow the 25
Inquiries of the Ministry per cent increase in grain freight rates recently allowed by the board of transport commissioners which is to go into effect on April 1?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in effect this question is sub judice. An appeal is being made to us and I think the hon. member will agree that during the period when the matter is under consideration questions are not proper or within our rules.


Hazen Robert Argue: My question is this. Will the government come to a decision, as has been indicated by the Minister of Transport, before April 1, and when will an announcement of this decision be made?


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the necessary papers are not before the government.


Hazen Robert Argue: The increase will be in effect in 48 hours.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. I propose to remind him of a commitment that I feel he made to me and, through me, to the house on March 15 when he said that during the following week he would make a statement to the house with respect to the suggestion that the important report of the governor of the Bank of Canada, a report of great democratic interest, should be referred to the banking and commerce committee of the House of Commons.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not quoted me very accurately. He asked his question on March 15 and it is to be found in the second column on page 3013 of Hansard. My answer was:
Mr. Speaker, I expect to make a statement in the house on this subject next week, after hon. members have had an opportunity to peruse the report.
Last Tuesday, March 21, when I was prepared to make a statement, the Leader of the Opposition did not wait for my statement. He triggered the matter by directing a question to the Prime Minister on the very same point, taking the question right away from the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who had first asked it. The Prime Minister answered the question. There was no need then for me to rise and merely repeat the answer

Supp ly-A griculture
given by the Prime Minister. I would suggest a little more teamwork on the part of the opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A little more information from the minister.


William Moore Benidickson: The Minister of Finance, as always, had his references ready, but when he quoted himself he did not quote what I said. My question was not similar to the one asked by the Leader of the Opposition on March 21. I asked if the minister would use his good offices to give the nod to the chairman of the banking and commerce committee, the hon. member for York North, to assure the likelihood that there would be approval of a motion to have the governor of the Bank of Canada examined by the banking and commerce committee.
The Prime Minister, as reported on page 3171 of Hansard for March 21, 1961, simply used evasive language to say that this was something within the determination of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member would agree with me that this is a matter which should be pursued in committee.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Transport, whoever he might be, whether the attention of the department has been drawn to a report in last Friday's Winnipeg Free Press to the effect that Canadian Pacific Air Lines has carried out 85 per cent of its major overhaul work in foreign countries? If that is so, what steps could be taken to give Canadian Pacific Air Lines an incentive to do its overhaul work in Canada to provide employment for Canadians?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will accept the question as notice and refer it to the Minister of Transport.

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


The Deputy Chairman:: We are considering further supplementary estimates, item No. 658.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Research branch-
658. Branch administration-to extend the purposes of vote 5 of the main estimates, 1960-61 to

include a grant of $10,000 to assist in defraying the costs of the ninth international botanical congress, $1.
(Translation):


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on item 658 of the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture. I intend to refer especially to the stabilization
of farm prices.
Mr. Chairman, we are being asked to vote $69,504,548 for the rest of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961. During the dis-cusion of the measure on agreements respecting the development of marginal lands, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) stated, as reported on page 3264 of Hansard:
Then, there was the stabilization of prices, which is in effect now and the results of which are showing in the income figures.
Mr. Chairman, if we consider the situation which has prevailed these last years,
we note that the stabilization of farm prices-
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order; I wonder whether or not the hon. member looked at vote No. 658, which is for the research branch. As a result of listening to the few remarks the hon. member has made, I have come to the conclusion he was not talking about research.
Shall vote No. 658 carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the minister give us some explanation of this vote to the international botanical congress?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this item concerns a grant of $10,000 toward the ninth international botanical congress. The congress was held and this further sum is required. The reason for the $1 item is that there was sufficient money in the item to take care of the obligation but there was no authority to use the sum for the purpose of helping defray the cost of the botanical conference. The reason for the $1 item before us is to give legislative effect to this vote.


William Moore Benidickson: This is the first item of the supplementary estimates to come before us. The Minister of Finance has been in this house for the same length of time as I have been, and he will recall that the previous government was criticized, particularly by the former hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to the effect that these dollar items should not be used without exceptional justification. He felt that they were designed to give parliamentary sanction to something about which parliament had no knowledge and perhaps no jurisdiction over the amount

that would actually be spent in the long run. There are a number of items of this character in these further supplementary estimates, No. 5, 1960-61 now before us. I get the impression that this is perhaps an extension of the practice which has been criticized by private members in the past.
I note that there are four of these one dollar items in the estimates of the Department of Finance. Perhaps when the minister is dealing with those estimates he would give careful consideration to making a statement as to whether or not this is an enlargement of the practice which has been criticized in the past. Perhaps after the dinner recess the minister would be prepared to give some explanation of this matter such as I have requested, and tell us whether or not this indicates a maintenance of the practice or an extension of it. This seems to be a fairly loose method of getting parliamentary approval without members of parliament actually knowing the details of the ultimate expenditure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Each case stands on its own feet. This is a situation in which there is sufficient money in the item to meet this particular expenditure proposed, but the terms used in the item as they appear in the Appropriation Act are not broad enough to include authority to make this payment. We are coming back to parliament, therefore, not to ask for more money but to ask, in effect, for an extension of the scope of the item. A one dollar item is the appropriate and accepted legislative vehicle for this purpose.
In so far as information is concerned, if the hon. member will look at the details on page 14 of this pamphlet copy of the further supplementary estimates we are now studying, he will see that the item appears as follows:
Grant towards ninth international botanical congress, $10,000.
Less-amount available from savings in the main estimates, 1960-61, $9,999.
This leaves the balance of $1 to be voted.


William Moore Benidickson: With all the respect in the world for the efficiency of those who look after government accounts, I just cannot believe they can be so accurate as to estimate within one dollar-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has missed the point-


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister please hear me out. I just cannot believe they can be so accurate in estimating that within one dollar there will be a saving of $9,999 or, shall we say, a lapsing or shortfall in the main estimates of $9,999 and that this can be
Supply-Agriculture
put alongside a necessary new item of expenditure of $10,000 for the ninth international botanical congress.
The point I raise is that we always have lapses. I have paid my respects to the estimators in our departments, but they cannot always be accurate. If they put a suggestion in the estimates a year ahead that a certain appropriation is required for certain reasons, expenditures under one heading may prove to be either not required or plans may have not advanced sufficiently to entail spending that amount of money within the fiscal year of budgeting. In consequence, such an item would normally lapse.
I raise the question of whether we should enlarge the procedure of introducing a dollar item in the summary of our supplementary estimate requirements, where there is no requirement for the non-observant person to go to the details and perhaps find something that may be quite contrary to that which is related to the lapsing.
We have here a lapsing of $9,999. This amount is apparently not likely to be spent under the main estimates. I am not criticizing the Minister of Finance particularly in this matter, but why does not the Minister of Agriculture direct that the reason is recited in bold, clear detail under the item "Branch Administration"? Why should it not be set out in this item that we require $10,000 for the ninth international botanical congress? Would that not be possible?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what the item does. If the hon. gentleman will look at item 658 he will see that its purpose is described in these terms:
To extend the purposes of vote 5 of the main estimates, 1960-61 to include a grant of $10,000 to assist in defraying the costs of the ninth international botanical congress.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, what could be clearer than that? Parliament is told that this is the whole purpose of the item. We cannot bring in provisions in supplementary estimates unless there is some amount set forth. Hon. members will know we have never yet had an item in the estimates that did not show some amount. The accepted practice is, and has been for a long time, that where the purpose of the item is not to seek a grant of money, but to bring about legislative enlargement of the purpose for which parliament previously voted the money, the one dollar item is the method used.
What is the alternative? The alternative would be that we bring forward an entirely new item of $10,000. If we detached it altogether from existing items in the Appropriation Act and brought forward another item such as the item of $10,000 for expenditures in connection with the ninth international

S upp ly-A griculture
botanical congress, we would be asking the committee now, within four days of the end of the fiscal year, to vote additional money.
The additional money is not required in this item. The item is simply asking for legislative authority to use money that is available there now for a purpose which parliament, in the Appropriation Act, did not contemplate.
I think the situation is perfectly clear. We have to put a one dollar item here. It is not to say that we have $9,999 remaining in the item ready for lapsing. It means we have $10,000 there. This is the accepted means of showing that we already have the amount required in the item, and consequently we put in the one dollar amount. That has been the practice for years and years. The effect is legislative. It is not to seek the vote of additional money, because additional money is not required here. I would not consider myself justified, in a situation like this, in asking parliament to vote additional money in these late days of the fiscal year, unless additional money is actually required.


William Moore Benidickson: It occurs to me that we have an enlargement. I hope the minister will obtain from his officials a review of whether there is in the supplementary estimates an enlargement of the use of this one dollar estimate, such as we have in the four items for his own department.
It occurs to me that there is such an enlargement. I may be wrong. However, I can see the minister's point. The public accounts committee has for several years considered revising our method of preparing the estimates in a way which would take account of lapsing items and record them in subsequent years. That committee has also considered taking into account additional revenue, so that we have net figures with respect to items that are simply gross expenditures, such as we have here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a different matter. That is in the main estimates. That suggestion which was made in the public accounts committee has no application to this situation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production and marketing branch-
659. Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act-further amount required, $98,432.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, would the
minister tell us the terms and conditions which regulate the granting of these subsidies?


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are to be found in the Cold Storage Act, which is in the revised statutes of Canada, chapter 52 as amended by chapter 313. The cold storage regulations are published; they were first
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1
promulgated in 1954, and they were amended in 1958. Provision is made for the payment of subsidies not exceeding the lesser of 33J per cent of the approved expenditure, or $50,000. This limitation of $50,000 applies to a good many of these subsidies for the construction of cold storage warehouses.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister tell us the conditions for recovery of part or all of the subsidy in the event that the cold storage plant is subsequently sold for purposes other than those for which it was originally intended, or if it were just sold.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not quite follow the hon. member when he speaks about the subsequent price. This is a matter of the construction of cold storage warehouses. It has been public policy to encourage the construction of cold storage warehouses. Therefore there is a provision made for the payment of a subsidy toward the cost of construction.
This subsidy is $50,000 of the cost, or 33J per cent, whichever is the lesser amount. That is determined as a matter of proof in relation to the cost of construction.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understand the purpose and the policy. The minister has not answered my question regarding what provision or regulation there is for recovery of the subsidy if the cold storage plant ceases to be a public cold storage plant. What guarantee is there to the crown that the subsidy is recovered? Under what conditions is it recovered?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In a situation of that kind the statute confers a discretion on the minister.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In other words, there is no laid down rule by which the recovery takes place? It can be administered in an arbitrary fashion by the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter which has been under study in the public accounts committee. It is under discussion there at the present time and it may be the subject of a report to the house later this present session. I do not think I should go beyond that at this time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not wish to labour the point. I wondered whether the minister had under advisement the possibility of putting into effect a regulation which would govern the system of recovery, rather than leaving it a discretionary matter as it is at the present time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure that only good will come of the study the public accounts committee is making of this matter

at the present time. If a recommendation is made by the committee it will of course be very seriously considered.


Mr. Batten:: I should like to know how many warehouses are involved in this item and the location of each.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This present item involves two new contracts entered into after the previous estimates were presented. The first is in connection with the Chaine Cooperative du Saguenay of Chambord, Quebec, and the amount of the subsidy is $47,500. The second is the Barker Storage Company Limited at Meaford, Ontario where the approved subsidy is $14,615. There is a third, the cost of the completion of a warehouse being built under a subsidy contract which was not foreseen at the time the previous estimates were completed. That is the Dairy and Poultry Co-operative Marketing Association Limited of Saskatoon. The subsidy in that case is $50,000.


William Moore Benidickson: Has the minister, after looking up the details on page 14, given any thought to the fact that we are not very consistent when we set out details of these expenditures for the convenience of members of parliament? I have observed that this has been the case in the past, also. With respect to items where the expenditure is not particularly great we are given details of individuals and how much they receive-sums of the order of $5 or $20, or $70-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think that is another item.


William Moore Benidickson: I know. The total there is about $12,000. But when my hon. friend asks a question with regard to companies across this land which might have been overlooked in last year's estimates as being entitled to subsidies under the legislation dealing with cold storage he is faced by the situation that a lump sum appears in the estimates -$98,432-with no details given. This obliged the hon. member for Humber-St. George's to ask the questions he did. It seems to me inconsistent to say so little when in the course of the next few pages, with respect to agriculture, we let it be known that Mr. So and So of rural route so and so gets $5 compensation for the loss of animals. What we see before us in connection with this item is complete repetition. There is no point in putting it there, because it is a mere repetition of the gross amount, though it is called a detailed item. I am not saying this has not been the practice for a long time but I just draw attention to what appears to be a lack of consistency when it comes to giving details.
90205-6-213
Supp ly-A griculture


Donald Methuen Fleming: As the hon. gentleman has acknowledged, this is the form in which the supplementary estimates and, indeed, the main estimates have long been presented. There is a very good reason for the use of the form to which the hon. member drew attention when he referred to compensation for the slaughter of animals. If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, to comment in advance on that item in view of the fact that the hon. member has done so, may I say we are dealing there with payments which are to be authorized to individuals; there is no such thing as a shift within an item. The ordinary right to allot within the total does not apply. In the case of item 659, however, there is, of course, the normal right to allot within the item. It is because there is a deficiency to meet in connection with the three particular projects to which I have referred that the additional sum is asked for, and in keeping with the form of the corresponding item in the main estimates it is a lump sum total.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
661. Compensation for animals slaughtered-further amount required, $1,113,869.
Mr. McMillan:: This item shows an increase of about 50 per cent over the estimates of last year. It is a large item-larger than usual-and no details are given with respect to it. Could the minister give us some more information?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I shall be pleased to do so. There has, indeed, been an increase in the operations of this particular branch in relation to the slaughtering of animals and this item arises out of a need to pay compensation. The item consists of several portions. The first is the increase in the number of cattle slaughtered for which compensation is payable under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act brucellosis eradication program involving a sum which amounts to $545,662. The second portion is compensation for hogs slaughtered in swine herds infected with hog cholera. That total is $534,667. The third portion is the increase in the number of sheep slaughtered for which compensation is payable under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act scrapie eradication program, and the amount there is $138,376. The total of these three items can be taken as being $1,218,705. There is a reduction in that sum of $104,836 because of a smaller amount paid in respect of tuberculosis reactors slaughtered. Thus we arrive at a figure of $1,113,869.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) his views on the epidemic hog cholera.

Supp ly-A griculture
Yesterday, I read in the papers that the disease had now reached the epizootic stage in the riding of Nicolet, where 3,500 animals had to be slaughtered to date.
In the neighbouring areas there were many centres of infection, nine in Arthabaska, 10 in Drummond, 23 in Nicolet and 18 in Yamaska. That was on February 14.
I do not have the latest figures here, but, according to the press, the situation is very serious.
I therefore would ask the Minister of
Finance whether he has any comments to make in order to reassure the farmers of that area, who hope to see that epizooty stopped as soon as possible.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have no information with regard to widely scattered constituencies, but if the hon. member would submit a definite question, I would make the necessary inquiries and let him have any information I would receive.


Samuel Boulanger: I would like to know whether the minister is aware of the causes of that infection in that district.
This is what a news item published in the Sherbrooke paper La Tribune, said on March 25 last:
According to Dr. Armand Methot, of Acton Vale, the epizooty is now regressing.
The causes of the disease are attributed to hog imports from the United States, because of the contacts through a lack of sanitation in handling the animals.
According to comments which circulate in my riding, the disease is due to hog imports from the United States.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I must repeat to the hon. member that I have no information to give him with regard to that epizooty. If he would submit a specific question, I would get the information for him.
(Text):


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take advantage during the discussion on this supplementary estimate to put forward the suggestion to the Minister of Finance, in cooperation perhaps with the Minister of Agriculture, that animals destroyed because of rabies be brought within the regulations of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, so that the owners could be compensated in this regard. I understand some months ago there was a rabies epidemic and that compensation was made by the federal government through order in council on the basis of 40 per cent by the federal government, 40 per cent by the provincial authorities and-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that this discussion on supplementary estimates is not

the same as the discussion on the first item of the department and therefore we must confine our consideration to the individual items.


Walter George Pitman: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I simply wanted to ask the minister whether it was possible to compensate farmers in this regard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That matter does not arise under this item. I am informed that question has been discussed in previous sessions but I think the hon. member will have an opportunity to raise it during the consideration of the main estimates of the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year 1961-62.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Livestock division-
663.	Supervision of race track betting-further amount required, $35,000.
William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I notice that this involves $35,000 as compared with the amount last year for supervision of race track betting, and I wonder why the government has to spend that amount?


Donald Methuen Fleming: As the hon. member is aware, this is a service that does produce a revenue. In this particular case the additional sum of $35,000 is required to meet the increase in the cost of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police supervision as a result of the higher salaries granted to R.C.M.P. personnel, effective September 1, 1960.


William Moore Benidickson: Frankly I was not aware, and perhaps I should have been, that there are costs related to the R.C.M.P. under various departmental estimates other than the estimates of the department of the Minister of Justice. Are there many of this type of charge in votes that would not show under the R.C.M.P. vote which apparently covers the total cost of maintaining this federal police force? In other words, if members of the R.C.M.P. were to perform a service on an Indian reservation would a vote of this kind be found under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration? Apparently in this case they are operating under a federal statute in providing a service to the rack tracks in the form of supervision, but the cost is charged to the Department of Agriculture.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not aware of any other votes of this type, Mr. Chairman. This is an item respecting a service and of course a charge is made for the service, but revenue is yielded. As a matter of fact the revenue yielded is expected to be in the amount of $712,000. This is not a service through which the crown is out of pocket. This is the only service that the R.C.M.P.

renders to the Department of Agriculture and the only item of this type of which I am aware.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I always
thought that the federal government's share of the pari-mutuel take could be construed as a tax, such as a money transfer tax, and I am a little bit surprised to hear that we have to provide such an expensive service in the process of collecting this tax which the minister now describes as revenue. Is there some way that the federal government could charge the race track association for this service which is being provided so that it could be recovered?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what is being done.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the minister now saying that this cost is recovered from pari-mutuel takes?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a service that is rendered to the race tracks, and a charge is made to cover it. This is not a tax in the ordinary sense at all, but a charge for that service rendered. The service rendered here involves a statutory levy of one half of one per cent on all moneys wagered at tracks and involves R.C.M.P. supervision regarding photo finish camera finishes, and the taking of saliva and urine tests at the major race meetings.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister is now saying that the percentage taken on betting is fixed and is by way of remuneration to the federal government for services provided rather than a tax, is that the case?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is right.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would commend the minister to consider an increase in the rate when he is considering these matters in the next few weeks.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would like to ask the minister if the purpose of this service is connected with the approving of the breed of race horses, or is it a form of protection to the bettor insuring that he has a fair deal?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is to assure that we have an effective operation at race tracks within the law.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What is the reason for this charge appearing under the agriculture estimates when it involves primarily the service of Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers supervising urinalysis and that type of test?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is because the Department of Agriculture is responsible for the operation of all manner of racing at fairs and other meets of that kind which are
90205-6-213i
Supp ly-A griculture
definitely agricultural in their nature. This item covering this service has been in the Department of Agriculture for as long as I can remember.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I suggest that now is the time to raise this issue. This is obviously a very large commercial operation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that this falls directly under the provisions of the Criminal Code, and the Criminal Code makes the Minister of Agriculture responsible for the supervision of pari-mutuel race track betting.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder whether the minister's attention was directed to the debate in the Ontario legislative assembly in relation to race track betting and gambling, and in particular in regard to the percentage going to the provincial and federal governments as compared with the amount which goes to the Ontario jockey club, for example. I wondered what part the federal government would play, or whether this item would have anything to do with the part it would play in the determination of how the cake or pie is sliced?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I am not acquainted with the debate to which the hon. member refers. I must say that I am kept busy trying to keep up with the debates of this house without having to look into debates that occur in the different provincial legislatures. So far as taking into account the respective levies by the provincial and federal governments is concerned, all I can say is that this is provided to pay for the cost of these services, which an enactment of parliament has laid upon the Minister of Agriculture, in relation to pari-mutuel betting.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, under the procedure which we follow we do not receive information regarding the balancing of revenues unless we ask questions. The minister has indicated that related to this item of expenditure is an intake based on 1J per cent, is it, on the mutuel betting?


Donald Methuen Fleming: One half of one per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: We know from the main estimates that in 1960-61 it was indicated that we would have an expenditure of $593,000. This is an additional $35,000. If the minister has the information conveniently handy, would he indicate to us what revenue under this item is estimated for 1960-61? Has he a prospective figure for 1961-62, and has he the figure for 1959-60?

Supply-Agriculture


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes; the actual figure in the current fiscal year up to February 20, was $712,000, as I intimated earlier. The figure of revenue for the fiscal year
1959-60 was $673,917.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
664.	Agricultural lime assistance, further amount required, $200,000.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister give us what information he has in respect of this item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is an item of agricultural lime assistance. This is simply an addition of $200,000 as a further amount required in addition to the sum of $1,200,000 voted in the main estimates.
This assistance is based on a subsidy not to exceed 60 per cent of the total amount expended by the provinces for any direct activity in increasing lime utilization for soil amendment purposes, such as transportation costs and, in some cases, lime production.
The use of lime in the present fiscal year has extended beyond the sum that was contemplated when the item was written into the main estimates. I am told that the increased use of lime in eastern Canada is attributable to a long, open autumn season.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
665.	Contributions to the governments of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchwan, and Manitoba, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, of one half the amounts paid by the governments of those provinces to farmers in respect of their 1959 unharvested crops to a maximum of $300 in respect of any one farm- further amount required, $390,000.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister give us the details of this vote as well, if he has them before him?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is an item covering contributions to the three prairie provinces in respect of the program of assistance to the farmers in those three provinces in respect of the 1959 unharvested crops. The house previously authorized the payment of 50 per cent of the cost of the emergency unharvested crop costs in those three provinces, and this item is based upon claims filed by the provinces and as yet unpaid and on claims still to be filed by the provinces. The amount in the previous supplementary estimates was $1,060,000, and this is an addition of $390,000 thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
666.	Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural commodities stabilization account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural stabilization board as at March 31, 1961, $69,504,548.
[Mr. Benidickson.l
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for having spoken a little too soon during consideration of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture, when I raised the matter of the stabilization of agricultural prices. The fact is that I wanted to put certain questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).
The other day, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) claimed that farmers' increase in income over the past three years resulted from the operation of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. I do not think that claim is quite true.
In order to determine the average net income of farmers for the years 1947 to 1956 inclusive, and compare it with the figures for the years 1957 to 1960 inclusive, I made the calculation and I find that it is $234 million less per year. In fact, for the ten-year period from 1947 to 1956, the average for all of Canada was $1,459,000,000, as against $1,220,-
200,000	for the years 1957 to 1960, a difference of $238,800,000.
Could the Minister of Finance indicate whether, in view of the tremendous amounts spent over the past five or six years to stabilize agricultural prices, a bill will be introduced to carry out the pledges that were made to give the farmers parity, not charity.
Could the minister also give us the breakdown of the amount of $69,504,548 that we are asked to vote under item 666?
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this is a very large item. It is one of two really extraordinarily large items in these final supplementary estimates. This is the estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural commodities stabilization account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural stabilization board as at March 31, 1961, in the sum of $69,504,548.
This is an item that arises annually in the final supplementary estimates. That was the practice last year and it was the practice in previous years. It is only when we reach the end of the year, actually, that we know what is going to be the total amount required to recoup the agricultural commodities stabilization account. The practice has been to provide for this recoupment in the final supplementary estimates as close as possible to the end of the fiscal year. Even then it may not be possible to estimate it with absolute precision. We do the best we can in this respect; but from the time the item is made

up and the final supplementaries are tabled in the house to the March 31 following, there may be some variations in the amount.
This is the largest sum that has been expended in any one fiscal year thus far in agricultural stabilization. The sum voted a year ago in respect of the fiscal year 1959-60 was $57,661,176. In the previous year, the fiscal year 1958-59, the sum voted was $15,017,182. This illustrates the very large growth in the amounts provided by parliament under the terms of the Agricultural Stabilization Act to meet the problems of fluctuations in agricultural income and to make provision for stabilization of returns to agriculturalists from the various types of production of agricultural products. This year's outlays, Mr. Chairman, for this purpose, cover the purchase programs for butter, eggs, dried skim milk, Cheddar cheese, fowl, raspberries, lamb and pork. Of course, pork was by far the largest item. It covers as well the deficiency payments on the deficiency programs and it covers the subsidy programs as well.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Does the minister know the amount spent so far on butter, eggs and pork?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On butter, the amount spent is $2,208,774.


Samuel Boulanger: And what about pork? The last figure was for butter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Butter, yes.


Samuel Boulanger: What about pork and eggs? (Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as pork is concerned, under the purchase program the sum in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961, is $45,846,270.80.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Perhaps I should ask the minister to give us the list. I do not ask him to give it immediately, but perhaps he might have it printed in Hansard, where we could look it up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: For all products, or only eggs?


Samuel Boulanger: For all products.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, certainly.
Would the hon. member allow me to give him these figures in English?


Samuel Boulanger: I have not asked the minister to give the figures today, but he could have them printed in Hansard. That would be satisfactory, as I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you very much.
Supply-Secretary of State
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: I understand that the consent of the committee to put these figures on Hansard is desired. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Editor's note: The table of figures above referred to follows.)
Estimate of Net Loss of Agriculture Stabilization Board, April 1, 1960, to March 31, 1961. Purchase-Sale Program
Butter	 $ 2,208,773.92
Eggs	 12,854.93
Fowl	 295.27
Dry skimmed milk	 5,019.03
Cheddar cheese	 253,329.12
Lamb	 90,000.00
Pork	 45,846,270.80
Raspberries	 269,343.22
Deficiency Payments
Eggs	 2,110,978.40
Wool	 1,268,695.62
Hogs	 15,039.46
Soya beans	 862,761.94
Sugar beets	 2,715,764.73
Sunflower seed	 44,377.49
Subsidy Payments
B.C. tomatoes	 36,027.77
Milk for processing	 11,100,513.87
Loss underestimated in 1959-60	2,664,501.80
69,504,547.37


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Civil service commission-
667.	Salaries and contingencies of the commission -further amount required, $30,000.
(Translation):
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with a subject coming under item 167 which deals not only with the civil service commission but with the Department of Transport as well. I am going to try and be as brief as possible in order not to delay this item.
I have here a letter from Riviere-Made-leine. A man named Josephat Ste-Croix, assistant lightkeeper on Anticosti island, has been laid off, just like that, though he had worked seven years for the department and in spite of the fact that he has seven children. He was given only a week's notice that his services were no longer required. He asked me to take the matter up with the civil service commission and with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer). I first wrote to the Minister of Transport who is primarily answerable for lightkeepers. Here is a paragraph of the letter I received from the minister under date of November 8:
It so happens that this case falls under the juridictlon of the civil service commission and I hasten to draw your letter to the attention of the president, the Hon. S. H. S. Hughes, asking him to get in touch with you on this matter.
3376	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State
Meanwhile, I had also written to the president of the civil service commission asking for explanations about that case.
The president of the civil service commission told me that the matter was outside his province. Here are the contents of the letter he sent on November 25:
I am fully conscious of the obligation of the civil service commission to protect classified employees of the civil service and I know where my own duty lies as chairman of the commission, but we must not forget that Mr. Ste. Croix, as assistant light-keeper is not and has never been under our jurisdiction.
Now, here is what happened. After that man had worked for seven years as assistant keeper, the civil service commission was asked to open a competition. Mr. Ste. Croix was invited to compete, which he did, and he succeeded, as was indicated by both the Minister of Transport and the chairman of the civil service commission, since his result was 75 per cent; but another person, who had obtained 72 per cent, but who was entitled to veteran's preference, supplanted him.
I do not complain of the fact that a veteran should come ahead of one who is not. What I do complain about, however, is the fact that as a result of a competition in which he succeeded, Mr. Ste. Croix was dismissed from his employment, after spending seven years in a position with which, by then, he was thoroughly familiar, while his successor knew nothing about it. He was laid off, he is now seeking a job and depending on unemployment insurance, notwithstanding the fact he is the father of seven children.
Above all, I complain of the fact that the Minister of Transport and the civil service commission are both passing the buck to one another. It is clear that lightkeepers come under the Minister of Transport, but assistant keepers come under the keeper himself, in accordance with a contract. That is the situation which has been existing for years. But it has been established in the Department of Transport for many years that every effort would be made to provide work to assistant lightkeepers who might find themselves in similar circumstances.
Perhaps his political affiliation may have been taken into account-but I would not like to raise that matter, although he wrote to tell me he had been dismissed only on account of that. I do insist on the fact that the policy which has been in force in the Department of Transport for years has not been adhered to. In this particular instance, I complain, above all, of the fact that the Minister of Transport wrote me to tell me that the matter
[Mr. Chevrier.j

comes under the civil service commission, while the civil service commission states they have nothing to do with the matter, as indicated in the letter I received from Mr. Hughes. When the civil service commission, according to Mr. Hughes' letter, says that Mr. Ste. Croix obtained 75 per cent, while the other obtained only 72 per cent, I say, Mr. Chairman, that this is an injustice. If the Minister of Transport to whom I sent a note to advise him of our intention to raise the matter were in the house, he would partly agree to my assertions since one of his letters implied that the department would try to find a job for that assistant lightkeeper.
Mr. Ste. Croix has unfortunately been out of work since last November and despite the efforts of the Minister of Transport-if he made any, and I am willing to believe that he did-he is still unemployed.
Therefore, I wish to bring that case to the attention of the Minister of Finance because it involves a serious injustice to the above-mentioned person.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to communicate the representations of the hon. member for Laurier to my colleague the Minister of Transport.
(Text):
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS A-Department-
668.	Canadian representation at international conferences-further amount required, $31,500.


Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Chairman, there is a further amount required of $31,500 under this item for representation at international conferences. I know it is quite difficult to estimate the actual amount of money that will be spent on conferences such as these, but I wonder whether or not this particular amount has been earmarked for a particular conference or whether it represents a general increase in expenditures?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It will be voted as a general increase, but there were several conferences in particular, the holding of which has led to this additional requirement. There is the multilateral tariff conference of the contracting parties to GATT which has been proceeding at Geneva. This is one of the meetings that has led to this additional requirement. There is also the cost of representation at the resumed session of the general assembly of the United Nations this month. In addition there was the NATO ministerial

meeting in December, 1960 and the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of radiation which met this month.


Mr, Cardin:: Could the minister give the total amount of the expenses?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I could give the items in total, Mr. Chairman. The main estimate provided $295,000 and this vote of $31,500 will bring the total for the item to $326,500. If the hon. member wishes a breakdown, I can give him a breakdown. The item is made up chiefly of travelling expenses, telephone, telegraph expenses and so on.


William Moore Benidickson: I notice that the form in which the details are provided on page 16 indicates that is the case. I do not know whether or not it is convenient for the minister to break down the total sum as between conferences rather than for items of expenditure. Has the minister that information?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Naturally these are estimates. I may say that approximately half of this additional sum is considered to be required by reason of the resumption of the United Nations general assembly meeting this month.


William Moore Benidickson: This is quite unusual.


Mr. McGee:: I wonder whether or not the minister could make any comment on the adequacy of the expense money paid to our representatives at the United Nations. I have heard from various sources that New York is becoming an increasingly expensive place to live. Has any serious consideration been given to any change?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have heard it said that the expense allowance provided is inadequate to pay the expenses of delegates attending these conferences. In fairness to those who represent Canada at these meetings, I should like to say that there may be some people who think that being appointed a delegate or a parliamentary observer to the Canadian delegation to the United Nations assembly is something of a joyride. As hon. members who have been there well know, these delegates put in long hours of intensive work. Having regard to the cost of living in cities like New York, I do not pretend for one moment that the present allowance is generous.
This matter has been brought to my attention by some hon. members who have been through the experience of representing Canada at these sessions, and they have told me that they have been substantially out of pocket in consequence. I will say for myself, Mr. Chairman, that I do not believe any Canadian delegate should be denied a reasonable
Supply-External Affairs sum to meet the costs of sojourning in cities like New York, well knowing that the cost of living in such cities is very high indeed. What has been said by hon. members is being examined.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I am very sympathetic toward any member of parliament who is sent abroad to attend these conferences. I also feel that they should be given greater expense allowances.
I wonder if the minister could give the committee the amount of the living allowance for a delegate attending the United Nations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps the hon. member would permit me to send him that information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
669.	Gift on the occasion of the wedding of the King of the Belgians, $1,500.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This item covers a gift on the occasion of the wedding of the King of the Belgians. I would be interested to know what the gift was and who was responsible for purchasing it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The purchasing, in a case like this, is carried out by the Department of External Affairs. The gift, in this particular case, was essentially a Canadian product, namely a Canadian wild mink stole.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
670.	Gifts to commemorate the independence of African states, $1,200.
Lionel Chevrier: The committee will recall that in connection with this matter the Secretary of State for External Affairs rose in the house some time ago and referred to an agreement which had been made between the government-perhaps I am mistaken as to the details-and the University of British Columbia concerning scholarships.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This item has nothing to do with those.


Lionel Chevrier: I think it has, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to discuss the subject very briefly. If the minister will bear with me. I think I can conclude my remarks rather quickly. I believe the committee was very happy with the arrangement which the minister announced, namely that there should be an understanding between the University of British Columbia and a university in Malaya or some other federated state-I think it was Ceylon-in connection with an exchange of students.
I wonder whether the government had ir is giving consideration to a similar arrangement, (1) with reference to universities in other parts of Canada, and I have in mind
3378	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs particularly those in the province of Quebec and, (2) with reference to the French communities of the African states? After all, this gift is to commemorate the independence of the African states, and there are quite a number of them that have now joined the United Nations. I am anxious to know what the government is doing with reference to that matter which has been mentioned in the house from time to time. The government has said repeatedly that consideration was being given to it.
I think the universities in the province of Quebec, particularly because of the language aspect, and in other parts of Canada could be of tremendous assistance in so far as the French communities of the African bloc are concerned. My purpose in bringing the matter to the government's attention was to inquire where the government stood on the matter with reference to both the commonwealth nations and the African states.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Item 670 relates merely to gifts to the African countries to commemorate their independence. These gifts, apart from special cases like Nigeria or Ghana which are commonwealth countries, have taken the form of Canadian books. In the case of countries in which English is the spoken tongue, the books of course have been English. In countries where French is the spoken tongue, the Canadian books have been in the French language. There were 13 of these African countries, and the first six are included in these supplementary estimates, Mr. Chairman. There will be gifts of $200 each made to them in the form of Canadian books. They are the Republic of the Congo, Mauritania, Republic of Cameroon, Malagasy Republic and the Central African Republic and Somalia Republic.


Lionel Chevrier: May I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, before the committee rose at six o'clock I was making inquiries of the government concerning vote 670 relating to gifts to commemorate the independence of African states. I was referring to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs had stated with reference to an arrangement made between the University of British Columbia and one of the universities of the federated state of Malaya in connection with an exchange of professors.
I realize that perhaps my question is not entirely germane, but none the less I believe


it can be brought under this item. I do not wish to delay the passage of this item, but I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to bring the committee up to date on what has been done with reference to assisting universities in other provinces, particularly the province of Quebec, in so far as commonwealth scholarships are concerned, and also scholarships to the French community of states in the African bloc.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the lending of a professor to Malaya related to the provision made for sending a professor to that country recently. That, of course, had nothing to do with the question of bringing students to the French language universities of Canada.
Some students are already studying at the French language universities of Canada under Colombo plan aid. This plan for students from the French speaking states of Africa to come to Canadian French language universities is a matter which has been under study.
My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has mentioned this plan in the house on several occasions and has indicated the efforts he is making to facilitate aid in such cases.


Lionel Chevrier: I am grateful to the minister for what he has said. I hope the government will give consideration to this latter matter, namely the establishment of bursaries in Quebec universities for the French community of states in the African bloc.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Communications have been passing between the Department ^ External Affairs and the French language universities of Canada on this subject.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say just a word in connection with this item. The minister has indicated the nature of Canada's gifts in this respect. The hon. member for Laurier has indicated that we should perhaps give more consideration to Canada providing bursaries to students from those areas of Africa which have French speaking populations.
During the short time that I spent at the United Nations last year, when there were in attendance so many new delegations from Africa and Asia, I was greatly impressed by the delegates whose native tongue was French. I wish to pay tribute to a member of the Canadian delegation who was in constant attendance at the United Nations last fall, and who I think is there at the moment.
I refer to the hon. member for Charlevoix. The hon. member was relied upon very much by the Canadian delegation. He performed a great deal of good work in his approaches,

through his knowledge of their tongue and because of his own personal qualities, to these people from the African states who spoke French and who were attending the United Nations.
I think it is very important to make sure that we make provision, not only in this item but in other items in other estimates, for students to come to Canada. There should be proper provision for students to arrive from Asia, Africa and those countries where French is the native language.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
671.	To provide for memorial plaques presented to Ireland to commemorate the life and work of Thomas D'Arcy McGee, $800.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, vote 671 is to provide for memorial plaques presented to Ireland to commemorate the life and work of Thomas D'Arcy McGee. I am rather curious as to what was the inscription on these plaques. Has the minister any information on what was the inscription and who composed the inscription, and can he assure us that it did not contain any Progressive Conservative propaganda?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell the hon. gentleman exactly what the inscription was, but I would not be surprised if it had something to do with Dublin's fair city, where girls are so pretty.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, this is not a large item. We heard previously about transferable items. I think I have read that these plaques have already been erected. Under what circumstances are we now being asked to authorize this expenditure?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government has power, of course, to make provisions of this kind under the minor and unforeseen vote provision.


William Moore Benidickson: This is a replacement from that fund?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.
[April 10, 1961]
I have since been informed that the sum in question is not a replacement to that particular fund. I had previously referred to the minor and unforeseen vote provision. The Department of Public Works had paid for the two plaques in question and provision was made in item 671 for a replacement of that expenditure on behalf of the Department of Public Works.


Lionel Chevrier: Why is it "plaques" and not
"plaque"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: How many were there?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There were two plaques. One was written in Irish, and one in English.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
90205-6-214
Supply-External Affairs Contributions to international economic and special aid programs-
Special aid programs-
672.	Contribution to the United Nations fund for the Congo in an amount of $1,000,000 U.S. notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February 1961, which is, $991,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the minister would give us some information about this item which is a contribution to the United Nations fund for the Congo. What proportion of the total contributions to this fund would this vote of approximately $1 million represent? What is the work covered by this vote? I am certainly not quarreling with Canada's contribution. Do we get any consideration for the money which we are already spending on the maintenance of our force in the Congo and that kind of thing?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This item of
$991,000 is the equivalent in United States funds of $1 million. It has nothing whatever to do with the support of military operations carried out by the United Nations or the support of Canadian forces in the Congo. It relates only to civil operations of the United Nations.
Last September the Secretary General of the United Nations urgently recommended to the security council that a fund of $100 million be established for the Congo. That recommendation was approved at the fourth session of the general assembly and the secretary general then requested all member governments to give urgent consideration to making a contribution to this fund. Canada's contribution, as recommended in this item, is $1 million. The fund is intended to bring immediate financial assistance on a large scale to re-establish stable administration and internal security in the Congo and to restore normal economic life. It is not designed to set up a permanent subsidy as the Congo is expected to pay its own way both currently and for development purposes in what, it is hoped, will be the near future.
The Prime Minister in his speech at the United Nations general assembly on September 26 pledged Canada to contribute a portion of this proposed fund. The United States has made two contributions of $5 million each. The Netherlands has contributed $1 million. New Zealand, for example, contributed $280,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Are those the only members who have made contributions to this fund?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The pledges which, of course, are not all paid, are as follows according to the latest information I have: Australia, $750,000; Cambodia, $2,040; Den-

Supply-External Affairs mark, $600,000; Haiti, $2,000; India, $105,000; Iran, $25,000; Ireland, $25,000; Liberia, $250,000; Morocco, $39,526; The Netherlands, $1 million; Norway, $490,616; New Zealand, $280,000; The Philippines, $10,000; Sweden, $1,391,304; Tunisia, $10,000; United Kingdom, $3 million.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think ours is a very worth while contribution and we certainly do not oppose it in any shape or form. I note that no communist member of the United Nations has made any contribution to this effort. Perhaps that is not surprising in view of the general attitude they take towards these United Nations activities.
I wonder if the minister has any information about the actual administration of this fund, which is a substantial one designed to assist the authorities in the Congo to establish themselves. I should like to know something about the administration of the fund if the minister has that information available. I should like to know whether the United Nations authorities are getting co-operation from the local authorities in the Congo? We read a good deal in the press about the- perhaps I can call it negative-attitude taken towards the United Nations activities and I was wondering what had been the experience of the United Nations in administering this fund in the Congo.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I speak with some diffidence because I am not at all sure that my information is complete but I understand that the fund has not yet reached its objective by any means. As a matter of fact it amounts thus far to less than $20 million of the $100 million which the United Nations assembly envisaged as an objective. So the experience thus far may be too limited to be an indication of what may be expected on the whole. My information is that the work of the United Nations in making use of this fund has been on a very limited scale thus far.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister and I were together in November when something of a financial crisis developed at the United Nations because it was not clear whether or not all members of that body were prepared to bear their proper financial share in support of the United Nations peace effort in the Congo and the forces which had been sent there. Has that picture cleared, and to what extent has it any relation with the item before us?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That, Mr. Chairman, is a different item-item 678-and we shall come to it in due course.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
673.	To reimburse the agricultural products board account for whole milk powder donated for international relief purposes, $2,420,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We are very pleased to support this item. However, could the minister give us some idea of the distribution of this amount of powdered milk by countries?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This item has provided for the distribution of 22 million pounds of milk powder as shown in the following table. I will give round figures if that meets with the hon. member's approval. The table
follows:
UNICEF	
15,600,000	poundsGold Cross	
2,105,000	"Canadian Save the Children Fund	216,000	"Canadian Lutheran World Relief	552,000	"Care of Canada	
2,005,000	"Canadian Red Cross	
80,000	"Council of Churches	
65,000	"Mennonite Central Committee ..	500,000	"TOTAL	
21,123,000


William Moore Benidickson: If we did not have this item in its present form as a contribution to international relief and special aid programs, would it otherwise have some bearing on an item we passed earlier when we were dealing with agriculture, item 666 concerning the agricultural commodities stabilization account?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


William Moore Benidickson: It would otherwise, perhaps, have had a relationship to that other vote?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	*
674.	To reimburse the agricultural commodities stabilization account for canned pork and the agricultural products board account for whole milk powder supplied as emergency food relief for the Congo, $6,200.
Lester Bowles Pearson: This is another small vote for the same purpose as item 673. We have heard and read reports to the effect that some of these relief supplies, more particularly canned pork, have been sent to certain areas-and, again, I am thinking of the Congo-with the best of intentions to assist in relief and rehabilitation in those areas, but that they have not proved too effective for that purpose. Can the minister indicate whether the allocation of canned pork for relief has proved a happy experience on the whole or has there been trouble about this?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the problem of the pork surplus has now been largely resolved, but I must say it was found, when inquiry was being made around the world as to countries in need which might be glad to have this food assistance, that the number of countries which had the problem of hunger and under-nutrition did not coincide with the number of countries willing to take pork. We found that pork was

unacceptable in some countries even on an aid basis. However, this small item is to recover the gift of canned pork on an emergency basis to assist famine victims in the Congo.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I wonder whether the minister can inform the committee whether this total amount in the special aid program of $3,417,000 is in addition to the amount of $2,481,000 in the main estimates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, the $3,417,000 item is simply the total of the three new votes, 672, 673 and 674.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
675.	Assessments for membership in the international (including commonwealth) organizations that are detailed in the estimates including authority to pay such assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied-further amount required in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1961, $401,500.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman,, if one looks at the details of this item it will be noted that the amount of $401,500 is that amount required to pay the assessment for the fiscal year ending 1960 for all of these international conventions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: These are payments which fall due in the fiscal year
1960-61.


Lionel Chevrier: How are these amounts
arrived at? Are they arrived at on the basis of population or on some other basis?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The shares of these various committees all follow an established division upon the basis of the assessment to different countries. This particular total of $401,500 is actually composed of about one dozen items including the United Nations organization, the food and agriculture organization, the international atomic energy agency, and so on. In every case the assessments are arrived at by decisions of the budgetary committees of these organizations.


Lionel Chevrier: What are the countries that do not pay their assessments?


Donald Methuen Fleming: To which organization?


Lionel Chevrier: I refer to the organizations mentioned in detail, and there are about ten of them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That does not, as I understand it, enter into this question at all. This involves simply the matter of paying Canada's contribution in full to these organizations. That is not to say that this is an additional assessment that arises out of the failure of some other country or countries to pay its or their assessments. This is a matter of making an estimate at the beginning of the year when the main estimates are 90205-6-2144
Supply-External Affairs being made up for presentation to the committee in an attempt to arrive at the best estimate of what may be Canada's assessment in these various organizations. In these cases the Canadian assessment is larger than was estimated. For instance, this supplementary estimate for the United Nations organization provides an additional $248,354, and in regard to the food and agriculture organization provides an additional $11,230, and so on down the list.


Lionel Chevrier: In the case of ICAO this provides for $1,817 out of a revised total assessment of $192,496. The question I have is, do all member nations or states of ICAO pay a similar or proportionate amount?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, each member country has an assessment to meet. I am told that much of this particular item, and indeed others, is the result of the reduction in the premium of the Canadian dollar during the past year. The ICAO item is all attributed to the reduction in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the amount of $248,000 in respect of the United Nations due to an alteration in our percentage, or the application of the same percentage to additional expenditures?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no addition, I am told, to Canada's percentage but the increase is caused by the application of Canada's percentage to a larger total, plus again the exchange difference.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it the item in regard to the commonwealth shipping committee is $17?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, and that is the difference of the exchange value in sterling.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the purpose of the commonwealth shipping committee?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I speak only from recollection because the information is not on the table before me at the moment. The commonwealth shipping committee, as I remember, is one of two organizations-the other of them being the commonwealth economic committee-which have their headquarters in London and are some years old. These two organizations are not among the recently formed commonwealth organizations. They have existed for some considerable time and I am sure that the hon. gentleman to the right of the hon. member for Laurier may be able to give a very complete account of these two commonwealth organizations and their beneficent work. As a matter of fact, I think this involves largely the pooling of information and methods of shipping.

Supply-External Affairs


William Moore Benidickson: I take it from the minister's reply to other hon. members that we have nothing unusual in this particular item but that it represents changes in the exchange rate on our dollar, and perhaps the over-all cost to us of our normal percentage of contribution to these various organizations to which we belong. The hon. member for Laurier raised a question regarding ICAO, and I believe we will find another item in the estimates with respect to the special Canadian obligation to ICAO. Regarding the United Nations will we not also find a special item where the percentage payments may not be supported on the usual pattern and that in consequence Canada will be asked- for instance with respect to the Congo as I suggested before-for special contributions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: In this item we are dealing with the normal percentage and there is nothing unusual which changes the pattern from that of the main estimates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is correct. The distribution among the different countries
and the assessments for the ordinary budget of the United Nations are, of course, different from those which apply to some of the special funds created by the United Nations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
676.	To provide the international civil aviation organization with office accommodation at less than commercial rates, further amount required, $40,778.
Lionel Chevrier: This has to do with the rental arrangement in the international civil aviation building in Montreal. I presume this building is the property, or under the ownership, of the Canadian National Railways and is leased in large part to the international organization. What are the terms of the lease? If I read this item correctly, the lease provides for a fixed amount, but then by virtue of certain arrangements made between Canada and the nations which have agreed to come here and have this country as their headquarters in international civil aviation matters, Canada has agreed to make a certain deduction in the amount of the rent. Can the minister give an answer to these two questions?


William Moore Benidickson: While this is being calculated, may I add this. Does this involve extra space for the international organization, or the re-assessment of what would be a proper commercial rate? I presume it involves the payment of the difference between the rate agreed upon by these international organizations and the present-day commercial rents in the area of Montreal where this accommodation is provided?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The building in question is owned by the Canadian National Railways, and the Department of Public Works leases space from the Canadian National Railways and sublets it to ICAO at a reduced rate. The reason for the reduction in the rate is, of course, well known to hon. members and is approved.
The space in question is 30,000 square feet and the rate paid by ICAO is $1 per square foot. This proposed appropriation of $40,778 is to take care of additional floor space provided for ICAO in this way. On May 1, 1960, the Department of Public Works leased two additional lots of space in the building, one of 11,800 feet and the other of 3,450 feet. These two lots were leased in 1960. Then, just last month, the public works department leased an additional 3,500 square feet, and this proposed appropriation will take care of the portion of the rent chargeable to the Department of External Affairs and is what is in effect a subsidy payable to ICAO.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has said that the rate is $1 per square foot. What I was trying to ascertain, although I did not put it in that way-I put it in the general rather than in the particular-is what is the per square foot rate paid by other tenants in the building? I am thinking now of the international aviation offices such as K.L.M., T.C.A. and others. Air France is not there, but there are other corporations that do not benefit from the advantage obtained by the international organization.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am told that the commercial rate varies somewhat, depending upon the space and the floor. The commercial rate is not the same in all three instances of those areas that have been leased. It runs between something over $2 and up to about $3 in those three lots. Therefore, the extent of the subsidy is the difference between those figures and the $1 per square foot which is paid by ICAO.


Lionel Chevrier: Has the matter of deciding on Canada as the headquarters for this international organization been finally concluded? As the minister knows, there was, because of some of these difficulties in the past, an attempt and a desire by not a majority but many of the member states to move their headquarters elsewhere. I think it is because of the manner in which the various governments of Canada have attempted to treat this international organization that it has decided to stay here; but I do remember there was a vote taken not many years ago, and I wondered whether it has now been finally decided that Canada will remain the headquarters of ICAO?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am aware that at one time there was a strong suggestion that ICAO might move its headquarters away from Canada, but I believe talk of that kind has subsided. I have not been hearing anything of it for the past year or more. There can be no finality about matters of this kind, but my understanding is that there is a reasonable degree of satisfaction now, certainly a greater degree than previously, with the retention of the headquarters at Montreal.


William Moore Benidickson: For the past year, then, our apparent subsidy or assistance to encourage the maintenance of this international organization in Montreal would include the item of $40,000-odd which we are now discussing. To this item should we add the item of $215,000 in the estimates of 1960-61? In other words, would it be about $255,000?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The total it $256,494, with the inclusion of the requested additional sum.


William Moore Benidickson: For the current year, the subsidy is $256,494 to encourage the maintenance of ICAO in Montreal in the building that otherwise would charge rents beyond what is being charged to them?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
677.	Assessment for the United Nations Congo ad hoc account for 1960 in an amount of $1,506,232 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1961, which is, $1,493,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a vote of almost $1,500,000 for Canada's assessment for the United Nations Congo ad hoc account. Can the minister give the committee some information as to the purpose of this vote?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is Canada's share of an assessment for the United Nations Congo ad hoc account for the year
1960.	The United Nations operation in the Congo was established by the security council in July last. I do not think I need to go over all of the details. Hon. members are aware of the necessity of providing funds for this purpose, and of the steps taken at the fifteenth session of the assembly for this purpose.
The resolution passed at the assembly last year permitted the secretary general to expend first of all $15 million, and then later $40 million. When he presented his estimates for the Congo operation for the last six months of 1960 only they were in an amount totalling over $66 million. The secretary general put these costs in the supplementary
Supply-External Affairs estimates for 1960. No budget has yet been drawn up for the 1961 operation and that subject is being discussed in New York at the present time at the resumed fifteenth session.
So far as the distribution of the burden of these expenses is concerned, the obligation rests on members in accordance with article 17 of the United Nations charter. Several countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, agreed to absorb certain claims so as to reduce the large over-all total of the cost of the operation. Canadian bills for the cost of the initial airlift of the Canadian contingent to the Congo amounting to some $600,000 were absorbed by Canada and have not been carried into the cost chargeable to the United Nations.
The Canadian government has indicated Canada's strong support of the United Nations operation in the Congo from its inception. All political considerations point to the necessity of continued Canadian support for United Nations action in the Congo. Canada's share of the cost of the operation in 1960, on the basis of the regular scale of assessments, is $1,506,232, and this present estimate is designed to provide that sum in United States dollars.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to this appropriation in any way. I am anxious, however, to have it made clear that this appropriation, from what the minister has said, is in addition to the expenses we bear for our own forces in the Congo. We pay the expenses of our own forces and in addition we are subscribing approximately $1J million to the general fund to cover the expenses of the Congo intervention. So, unlike the situation in Palestine, I believe, we are not being credited in this fund for the expenses of our own contingent. I am not complaining about that. Canada is one of the countries trying to play their role in the Congo, at times without much co-operation from the Congo authorities themselves, and I think it should be made clear that Canada is one of the countries trying to play its part by providing for all the expenses of its own intervention and also making a contribution to those United Nations forces from countries that charge their expenses to the United Nations. Is that the situation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps it is not quite that. We have not received any reimbursement whatever so far from the United Nations on account of the expenditures we have incurred in supplying Canadian forces in the Congo. That is not to say that we do not hope some day to recover some portion
HOUSE or
Supply-External Affairs of that expense, but there is no fixed arrangement yet and this item has nothing whatever to do with the fund in item 672 which we have considered and to which Canada is contributing $1 million for civilian assistance.
This item represents Canada's assessment with respect to the military costs for the last six months of 1960 alone. No one can yet see the end of the road in the matter of cost in this United Nations intervention in the Congo nor the extent to which nor how long assistance may be required. One can only hope that good reason will prevail and that order will soon triumph over the chaos that has persisted in areas of that country. In the meantime we are bearing the outlays required in providing Canada's contribution to the United Nations forces there.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, in the wording of the item the phrase "ad hoc" is used. While I belong to the legal profession as does the Minister of Finance, I find that many people today use this phrase in a rather broad way. Am I right in thinking that when the words "assessment for the United Nations Congo ad hoc account" are used, what is meant is that this is an account which is special to the extent that it does not include participation by all normal participants in the United Nations activities and that this account is one to which Canada is contributing on a basis different from that normally applied in respect of other contributions? I understand that a number of nations which normally participate in United Nations affairs are remaining apart from this ad hoc account. Is that right?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. The significance of the expression "ad hoc account" is to indicate that it is special. It has a special purpose and thus far the money has been raised, to the extent it has been raised, by special means. The ordinary budgetary arrangements have not applied in this area. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, special contributions by some countries, the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, have had the effect of reducing the sum to be raised by ordinary assessment by some $17J million. In other words, the total amount to be raised by assessment has been reduced by these special contributions from $66 million to $48J million.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have heard it stated, and perhaps the minister will confirm the statement or otherwise, that notwithstanding the contributions of countries like our own and the United States, the United Kingdom and others who customarily discharge their responsibilities to the United Nations in this manner, so completely negative has been the


response of other members of the United Nations that the expenses of the United Nations intervention in the Congo at the present time are being borne by overdrafts, that the secretary general has had to borrow money. I saw in the newspapers this morning that he had had to borrow money from Mr. Hoffman of the international development fund. Is it a fact that the United Nations has been unable to raise enough money to cover the expenses which have been entailed in the Congo as a result of security council resolutions supported by those communist countries in the United Nations which have not only refused to contribute but have done their best to frustrate the efforts of the United Nations in the Congo?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is quite true and the secretary general, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, has been obliged to draw on credit balances standing in some special accounts under United Nations auspices. It is a deplorable situation.


William Moore Benidickson: That is what ad hoc means here, that just some participants in the United Nations are prepared at the present time to do as we are doing in advancing funds for this particular purpose?


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as the ad
hoc account is concerned, it is a special account set up to meet the expenses of this particular intervention in the Congo. When it was set up it was not assumed there would be defaulters and the special contributions made by the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have really been made to relieve the United Nations in the face of the very serious difficulties confronting the secretary general in trying to make ends meet when his budget assessments have not been paid by some of the countries on whom they were levied.


William Moore Benidickson: Despite a resolution to that effect.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Quite.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
678.	Assessment towards financing the United Nations emergency force in an amount of $892,680 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1961, which is, $885,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the minister
could give us some indication of the operations of the United Nations emergency force for which this appropriation is to pay? How many troops have we now in Palestine still working for peace in that area? How many other countries are continuing to participate in the United Nations emergency force? Perhaps the minister could indicate whether we

are still being credited with that money which we have already spent as against our ultimate expenditures. When this United Nations emergency force was set up, it was understood we would pay our own expenses as we went along, and eventually there would be payments received from other members of the United Nations and our expenses would be credited against those receipts. Would the minister make a report to the committee on this matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have not the precise figures on the strength of the Canadian contribution to the United Nations emergency force in toto, but the strength has been running in the neighbourhood of 1,000 to 1,100 men. As to the strength at a particular moment, I speak subject to correction.
In so far as financing is concerned here again it is a case of the general assembly starting out bravely in 1956 with a decision that the expenses of the force should be collectively shared by all members of the United Nations in accordance with the scale of assessment approved for the regular budget of the United Nations for 1957. It has not been possible to adhere to that because the communist countries have flatly refused to make any contribution toward meeting the expenses of the United Nations emergency force.
There has been a continuing and serious contention in the United Nations as to the financing of these forces. In 1959 the general assembly adopted a resolution, of which Canada was a co-sponsor, which incorporated a formula designed to preserve the principle of collective responsibility while reducing the burden on the underdeveloped countries which had found it impossible to meet their obligations. Under this formula it would be open to the participating governments to accept or decline a 50 per cent rebate of their assessment which the United Nations was able to offer as a result of voluntary contributions pledged by the United States and the United Kingdom. In October, 1960, the Canadian government considered this offer and decided to forego the rebate. This means that Canada has become liable to pay a full share of the $20 million total costs of the force in 1960. This full share is 3.11 per cent of the total, which is the same percentage Canada pays to the regular budget of the United Nations. Pending a decision on the rebate, Canada has already paid half of the 1960 assessment. This payment-adjusted to take account of certain credits in the United Nations budget of which Canada is entitled to a share-amounted to $307,182 U.S. The remaining portion of Canada's assessment
Supply-External Affairs for 1960 amounts to $310,764 U.S. What is submitted in these estimates represents the Canadian equivalent of the balance of the 1960 assessment and the full 1961 assessment, totalling $892,680 U.S., converted at the current rate of exchange.
I expect the Leader of the Opposition is going to ask me a question, as he did last year, about the defaulters so perhaps I might as well go on to that. The following members of the United Nations are respectively in arrears in their contributions to the support of the United Nations emergency force at March 7, 1961. The countries that are in arrears for four years are, Afghanistan, Albania, The Argentine, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Bylorussia S.S.R., Chile, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Greece, Hungary and Iraq.
Those in arrears for three years are Costa Rica, El Salvador, India. Those in arrears for two years are Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras. Those in arrears for one year are Austria and Denmark.
There is another page containing these names, so may I qualify that answer by adding to those who were four years in arrears the following:	Jordan, Libya, Mexico, Nepal,
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sudan, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R., and the U.A.R. and Yemen. We add to the three-year list the Philippines and Venezuela. We add to the two-year list Lebanon and Liberia, and to the one-year list Morocco, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.


William Moore Benidickson: We thank the minister for that information which he anticipated would be requested. I do not have in front of me the estimates for 1960-61, and I should like to know if there was a special item to which this is an addition or is this something that comes completely on its own at the end of the year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This item, Mr. Chairman, is quite apart from the ordinary budgetary contributions of Canada to the United Nations. It is also quite apart from Canada's contributions of all kinds to the special United Nations undertakings. As I mentioned, the amount of this item represents the Canadian equivalent of the balance of the 1960 assessment and the full 1961 assessment, converted at the current rate of exchange.
While I am on my feet, I think I should, in fairness to certain countries that appear on this list, say that while Afghanistan, Chile, China, Cuba, Iraq, Mexico, Nepal, Panama and Peru are in arrears for four years in connection with United Nations emergency force operations, each of those countries has made at least one direct contribution to the fund which, however, was not sufficient to

Supply-External Affairs offset completely their respective assessments for the year during which it was made.


William Moore Benidickson: While we are dealing with supplementary estimates, I believe the minister has indicated this is not a supplementary item but a distinctive item in so far as 196061 expenditures are concerned. It is not supplementary to anything else, apart from the general United Nations appropriation. Is that correct?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is not one of those items described as, "further amount required".


William Moore Benidickson: We already have in front of us the estimates for the forthcoming year which commences April 1, 1961 and ends March 31, 1962. There is nothing in the estimates for the next year that is comparable to this item of $885,000 that we have here?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am told that this item is always in the final supplementaries.


William Moore Benidickson: We might, therefore, expect that next year we would have a further obligation similar to this, but it is something not contained in the main estimates for
1961-62?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, in respect of the 1961 assessment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it, Mr. Chairman, from what the minister has said that Canada gets credit for some of the expenses in connection with its force for this year against its assessment, perhaps not all of it but some of its assessment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was very interested to hear the minister give the list of those members of the United Nations who for one reason or another, good or bad-and I do not want to be captious or critical in this matter- have not been able to make any contribution to an effort which in the first instance they supported, and which some of them very actively supported. It does underline a difficulty which I think is facing the United Nations in an increasing proportion of members of the United Nations voting resolutions which impose on the United Nations certain obligations, activities and responsibilities, and then leaving it to certain members of the United Nations to discharge those responsibilities.
In so far as the communist members are concerned, we can expect that; but it is unfortunate that members of the United Nations-I am sure the minister will agree with me, and I know the difficulties involved here- who vote for resolutions imposing certain responsibilities and duties on the organization


do not see fit at the same time to discharge their own share of the obligations involved in the resolutions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I agree entirely with what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Apart from the fact that the burdens have fallen with unfair weight on certain countries, our own included, some of the countries which have undertaken these special burdens have had at the same time to submit to a great deal of abuse from the countries which have completely left the United Nations to find the means as best it can.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, for bookkeeping purposes does the minister carry the cost of our forces in the Congo or Palestine as a debit to the United Nations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Department of National Defence is keeping a record, and the record will be employed if the day ever comes when we can have a final reckoning in this matter.


William Moore Benidickson: These items are constantly conveyed to our delegation, and when negotiations take place in one of the committees of the United Nations-and I think one of the committees is on finances-they are up to date on Canada's expenditures beyond the common account, are they?
Our delegates are fully aware of these special expenditures, are they?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is quite correct. The hon. member is of course speaking from personal experience.


William Moore Benidickson: No; I never attended that committee. However, I think Senator Bois did good work in this regard. I think all members of the committee would want to know that our delegation in New York would know that these extra expenditures had been made by Canada and were not charged to the common account, and of course they would be taken into consideration when Canada speaks in that committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish to say a few words before this vote is passed, Mr. Chairman. The Canadian members of the United Nations emergency force have been in this area now for a good many years serving the United Nations and the cause of peace. They have willingly gone to this area and they have done their work there with efficiency and credit to themselves and their country.
They have been there perhaps long enough that we are now inclined to take them a little bit for granted, and we are perhaps not as aware as we were a few years ago of the importance of the work which they are still doing.

I should like, therefore, to pay tribute to this work and to associate with these remarks the Canadian members of the United Nations Congo force. These men have not had such a long experience in international service, but in their relatively short experience they have been exposed to difficulties and tribulations which have been very great indeed. In facing these difficulties and tribulations they have conducted themselves with characteristic courage and that kind of discipline, in the face of great provocation, with which Canadian soldiers in my day were not always credited.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure that all hon. members of the committee share in the sentiments which the Leader of the Opposition has expressed. The task of the United Nations expeditionary force has now slipped out of the headlines. Africa leaped on to the centre of the world stage in 1960 and there has been relatively small place left in the headlines for the United Nations expeditionary force.
However, that force has been carrying on, and its Canadian component, with patience, perseverance and in a manner that continues to make Canadians proud of their armed forces wherever they serve.
With regard to our forces in the Congo, I am sure all Canadians are aware of the dangers under which Canada's armed forces are serving. In the face of attacks, and indeed some very severe dangers, they have come through. Their role has been one of hardship and peril, and in the face of these challenges these men have acquitted themselves with gallantry and courage, again in a manner that makes Canadians proud of them.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to cast a disparaging note on the very amiable discussion that has just taken place. However, I have had the privilege of attending the United Nations for three years now and the discussion we have just heard between the government and the official opposition is rather fantastic. It indicates a lack of realization of the problem with which other nations of the world are faced.
We have to realize that the personal income of Canadians is second in the world only to the personal income of the residents of the United States of America, and for us to be blowing our horn-and this has now been going on during a number of speeches of the government and the official opposition-is, I feel, most unseemly and most unchristian.
I would be the last one to disparage the efforts of Canadians who are serving overseas. However, I am reminded of the little quotation, "I thank thee, Lord, that I am not a sinner like the others are". I think it is most
Supply-External Affairs unseemly to adopt this attitude on behalf of Canadians and to be listing other nations not in the communist bloc which have not met the obligations expected of them.
These other nations have problems that are beyond our comprehension. I feel that for us to be scratching each other's backs and praising the Lord for what good people we are is most unseemly indeed, and I am a little bit ashamed to be a Canadian tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is of course entitled to his own feelings. If that is the way he feels, as a Canadian, I can only say I am quite certain there is no other hon. member of the committee who shares the feelings which the hon. member has just expressed.
I will say this, that nothing that has been said here tonight deserves to be regarded as-


William Moore Benidickson: He has been here only for ten minutes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -clapping ourselves on the back. The references to the list of delinquents concerns those countries which have failed to meet obligations in respect of assessments made by the United Nations. In arriving at these assessments the United Nations takes into account all the circumstances of these countries. It is not a question of arbitrary assessments being applied. All the considerations pertaining to the respective economic strength and means of these countries are weighed and taken into account before the assessments are ever arrived at. This is a matter of countries not measuring up, not paying assessments which were arrived at after a vote of the organization in question. Therefore, in drawing attention to the fact that there is a substantial number of countries who are in a delinquent position with respect to these assessments it is right we should bear in mind that the delinquency arises in respect of assessments levied by the organization itself after taking due account of the circumstances in which those countries find themselves. We must bear in mind that the countries which measure up to their obligations and which, as in the case of Canada, have gone beyond the extent of their obligations in order to help out, do so in the face of the fact that other countries have not lived up to their obligations.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Is seems to me that the criticism we have just heard is wide of the mark not only because of what the minister has just said but for another reason. Surely, what the Minister of Finance was doing was to discuss our position frankly, recognizing the fact that there are certain outstanding obligations which someone has to take care of. I

Supply-Finance
did not in the least feel he was taking a "holier than thou" attitude. He, and others, who spoke, were being realistic in order to give us a picture of the circumstances as they exist. Not to have let us know about the shortcomings and the reason for them would have been to keep back part of the story from us.


Erhart Regier: I should like to remind the minister that the United Nations a number of years ago asked Canada to make no less than 1 per cent of her gross national product available to help these nations, including the nations listed a few minutes ago. Yet Canada at this time gives only 20 per cent of the amount which the United Nations deemed it necessary to ask our country to give in order to aid the establishment of international peace and security.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to hear the hon. member spell out the particular resolution passed by the United Nations in the normal way, which imposes on us an obligation to contribute 1 per cent of our gross national product for international purposes. That is a new resolution to me. I know it has often been brought up but I did not know it had been passed.
I want to say to the hon. member who not long ago resumed his seat that he has misrepresented and distorted the position I have taken in connection with this matter. All I have ventured to point out is that all members of the United Nations, however impoverished they may be, should have the privilege as well as the responsibility of discharging their obligations. They experience the privileges; they should discharge their responsibilities. When those responsibilities are taken into account by the United Nations and when the allocation is made all the factors mentioned by the hon. member are taken into account. That is why the contributions of some of these countries to these international activities are almost nominal, only a few dollars, $50 or $100 a year. It should be a matter of pride for each member of the United Nations, however impoverished, to spend even such small amounts on these international activities and I think they should be very glad to do it. I do not think we are unaware of their difficulties when I suggest they should all discharge their obligations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Administration of various acts and costs of special
functions-
Royal Canadian Mint-
679.	Administration, operation and maintenance-further amount required, $65,000.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister would indicate the necessity for this additional expenditure and tell the committee if it is in any way related to the fact that the banks for a time during the year no longer accepted United States coinage at par value.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The demand for Canadian coins from the mint in 1960 reached record proportions. No doubt the withdrawal of United States coins had something to do with that fact. The sum in this item takes account of additional express on coin shipments as a result of this extraordinary activity in the mint in 1960.


William Moore Benidickson: Are there still shortages in particular denominations of coins?


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are working heroically at the mint to keep up with the demand. The demand has not been uniform with respect to all coins but it is continuing to be heavy. Indeed, for a time it was not possible to get certain shipments of ingredients from the United Kingdom in the amount required and it was necessary for a short time to seek supplies from elsewhere.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contingencies and miscellaneous-
680.	Telephone service at Ottawa for all departments-further amount required, $40,000.
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 
Mr, Fleming (Eglinion):: Before the hon. member goes any further, perhaps he would be interested to know why this further supplementary estimate of $40,000 is required.
Numerous unforeseen developments involving the provision of additional telephone service account for this additional requirement. One item not anticipated when the original estimate was made was the expansion of service for members of parliament in the House of Commons and in the west block where they now occupy rooms. There has been a substantial increase in the telephone service on parliament hill. Similarly, it was not anticipated when the original estimate was prepared that the house would adjourn for only three months during this current fiscal year as against the usual five or six months. This has also added considerably to the requirement.
The Congo crisis has increased our telephone expenditure in the Department of External Affairs and the Department of National Defence. The inauguration of a parole board and the setting up of royal commissions and committees on publications and government organization are also among the contributory obligations that were not foreseen when the item was first prepared. Moreover, effective November 1 the Bell Telephone tariff covering the cost of installation and movement of equipment was increased by 150 per cent. The charge for the movement and/or installation of a telephone was increased from $2 to $5. This increase in the movement of telephone equipment from November 1 has been a very substantial factor in the increase in cost. The average number of moves and installations per month throughout the government service is 300 telephones. I think hon. members can see why it is necessary to have this additional amount of $40,000.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The minister has been giving us reasons why the increase of $40,000 was necessary and, of course, I was questioning that figure, but I also referred to the fact that since 1957-58 this particular item has increased almost $500,000. I wondered whether the minister thought that the problems he now faces were problems that the previous government did not have to face?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think we are facing some problems that the previous government did not have to face.


William Moore Benidickson: I am disappointed with the Minister of Finance, regarding the increase in telephones, telegrams in the estimates which have risen to the extent they
Supply-Finance
have, when he starts off by saying that these are largely attributed to expenses-and he puts this at the top of his statement-which would lead one to judge that they perhaps belong to parliament hill. First of all, I would point out that the members on parliament hill, to an extent never before, belong to the government party. Whether or not they are getting telephone consideration that is different than in the past I do not know, but I want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that I have made an offer to the Sergeant-at-Arms, and other authorities in this house, in asking for a second telephone such as I would have if I were carrying on normal business, to pay the additional expense. I feel it is ridiculous for me to have to continually change places with my secretary because we have only one telephone.
I have been denied the opportunity of personally paying the extra $1.50 per month for that extra service which I would certainly have in my office in the normal course of business. I have not asked that the crown pay the additional cost but have offered to pay it myself and that privilege has not been afforded me. I have offered to contact the Bell Telephone Company in this regard but because of the red tape that is involved in the government service I am denied that privilege.
I think it is very unfair for the Minister of Finance to suggest on the basis of economy that a good portion of this increase in the expenditures is attributable to parliament hill. Certainly this increase of $40,000 cannot be attributed to that small portion of the service on parliament hill, and certainly not to the very small opposition that is assembled here in this parliament.


Mr. Aiken:: Before the minister answers, if he intends to, one thing ought to be straightened out. I should like to comment, in case the impression is left otherwise, that long distance telephone calls made by all members of parliament are paid for by those members.


William Moore Benidickson: The members of parliament pay for their own long distance calls.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I thank the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River for his assistance. He has said exactly what I intended to say. I should not like the impression to get abroad that the government is paying for private members' telephone calls.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has brought to our attention a point with which I think the minister should deal. We have before us now this substantial increase in the cost of telephone service. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres has

Supply-Finance
referred to the attitude taken by the minister when he sat on this side of the house in assailing the government for the increase in telephone costs. I am not going to challenge the items which the minister has put on the record, namely, the increase incurred by the board of transport commissioners, the increase in calls because of national defence and the Congo situation, and the increase brought about by the members of parliament in the west block. But, I would have felt a great deal better if he had not mentioned that last item because I think it is a drop in the bucket compared to the tremendous amount that we will have to vote in the main estimate.
I think the minister should tell the committee why it is that a member of parliament who, because of the population in his constituency, or because of the extra work he may have-this is not a reflection on anyone else-feels that he should have a second telephone, is denied that convenience. The minister should also tell us why a member is not entitled to that convenience if he is willing to pay for it himself, and why that policy should not be amended if it is in existence.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think in the
observations of the hon. gentleman it has been overlooked that this is not a matter of government responsibility but a matter concerning the commissioners of internal economy who are the officers, appointed by this house, who deal with matters of this kind.


William Moore Benidickson: You are the senior member of that committee.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister why this does not apply as well to telephone service provided for the members of parliament, to which he has referred?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what I thought we were talking about. I felt this was the point raised by the hon. member for Laurier and the concern of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River when he asked me about second telephones for members. Am I not right in assuming that was the question he was putting to me?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a matter for the commissioners of internal economy in the last analysis, and our guide has been-


Lionel Chevrier: The minister is quite right in giving the answer which he has, but he gave as an excuse for the increase in this cost the fact that a number of members of parliament required additional telephones, and now, because of the suggestion which was made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy

River, he states that it is a matter to be dealt with by the commissioners of internal economy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Laurier is getting this mixed up. Let me start again. I pointed out the various additional outlays, imposed for various reasons, which account for the fact that we are here now with a supplementary item of $40,000. The member for Kenora-Rainy River asked why he could not have a second telephone and made some comment about the Sergeant-at-Arms in this respect. I must say that the Sergeant-at-Arms operates under the direction of Mr. Speaker and, in relation to matters of this kind, Mr. Speaker operates in association with the commissioners of internal economy who are members of this house, appointed by this house to consider matters pertaining to the operation of the services of the House of Commons. In this respect, thus far, this view has prevailed. This is not the first time the question has been raised but is a view that has been consistently taken over the years, and I am sure the hon. member for Laurier will recall this. It would not be wise to introduce the practice of allowing members to have their own special lines introduced in the house, or additional lines, because this would eventually lead to some increase in expenditure. It was felt that this is a matter in which all members should be treated alike. This is the view that has prevailed.
Apparently the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has taken this up with the Sergeant-at-Arms and has taken the Sergeant-at-Arms to task. I must remind him again that the chain of command here would lead the hon. member, if he thinks he has reason to do so, to go to some other level in this respect. The Sergeant-at-Arms is simply operating under instructions that have been given to him.


Mr. Anderson:: I should like to make an observation on this point and tell the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that possibly he is very fortunate to have one telephone and one secretary in this house, because many of the members on the government side have one telephone and one secretary to answer the telephone for two members.


William Moore Benidickson: Just the same as in the opposition.


William Anderson: I think that is not the situation on his side.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are two things which the minister said which I found quite surprising. First of all, he attributes part of this increase to the Congo crisis. Surely, Mr. Chairman, the government does not budget so closely that it has no leeway for potential crises. There have been crises almost every year for many years. Surely, in his estimating, the minister makes some allowance for the inevitability of international situations.
Second, the minister said that there had been a considerable increase in the functions which are being carried out by government; that is, we know there have been extensions, and new services are being provided, but what the minister did not explain is where the cutting has been done, where he has trimmed off the fat, where he has found the waste, extravagance, and so on, that he used to speak of so eloquently. Perhaps the minister would now tell us what increased functions and requirements there are that make for additional telephone services. He might also tell us in what directions he has been able to make savings, what sections of what departments he has eliminated in the thrift under which this government operates the affairs of the country?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If I started out to answer that question we would be here for a good many hours. In this item we are asking for $40,000 to cover additional telephone service at Ottawa and might I suggest, now that the explanation has been given, we reserve that other larger and interesting question for a suitable occasion.


Erhart Regier: I noticed that one of the last members in this house has his office in the west block, namely the hon. member for Peterborough. Exactly how much did it cost the government of Canada to persuade the Bell Telephone Company to supply the hon. member for Peterborough with a telephone? I mean the installation cost?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have just said the installation cost of putting in a telephone has been raised from $2 to $5, an increase in the Bell Telephone tariff that became effective on November 1. In addition to this cost of installation, of course, there is the monthly charge and beyond that, the service charge.


Erhart Regier: If I might pursue this a little bit further; take a matter of four months, five months or six months, plus the installation cost, and it would run to roughly $30. I understand there are about 40 members in the west block. Does the minister consider it exactly fair to blame members of parliament in the west block for the $40,000 expenditure,
Supply-Finance
or even for any significant portion of it, and to list that as the initial reason for the expenditure of $40,000?


William Moore Benidickson: I want to re-emphasize to all my colleagues in the committee that I would not have raised this point had not the minister in defending the increase of $40,000 in the telephone account attributed it in the main to expenses on parliament hill for members of parliament. First of all, I think he had better tell us how many members of parliament have actually been located in the west block. There are not very many. If we had that number we could then easily do the mathematical part of the equation ourselves. The sum of $3 or $4 apiece would be involved in installations over there.
I have raised my personal grievance only because of the aspersions that were cast on members of parliament and everybody else on parliament hill with respect to their telephone bills.
The minister has referred to some special, extra line in a member's office. I was not asking for a special line in my office; I was asking simply for an extra telephone which would cost me personally $1.50 a month, or something of that kind, which I indicated I was prepared to pay. I have given full credit to everybody. I am not casting aspersions on the Sergeant-at-Arms who is enforcing the economy of the house. The Minister of Finance suggests there is extravagance here. I wish to point out there was no extravagance here. I offered to pay for my own extra telephone, as I would have to do anywhere where I was in business. There is such economy being practised here that I could not pay for my telephone myself, despite the fact that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka points out that we are billed personally and individually for our long distance calls and we pay for them. Because of that I saw no reason whatsoever why I could not be provided by the Bell Telephone Company with an extra telephone, be billed for it personally and pay the $1.50 a month, or whatever it might be, for this telephone which I would have if I were carrying on business in a similar office elsewhere, rather than have to jump up and down and take the telephone from my secretary, or vice versa.
It was only because the minister suggested that this extra amount was largely attributable to extra expenses for telephones on the hill that I raised this as an example. I want to assert that there is the utmost economic control of telephones on parliament hill, to the extent that I cannot even pay for that kind of service out of my own pocket.

Supply-Finance


Frank Charles McGee: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has not considered that perhaps the exercise of jumping up and down for the telephone might be just what the doctor ordered, so to speak. I would also like to offer him the suggestion that if he moves his secretary's desk over close to his own he could simply hand the telephone back.


William Moore Benidickson: I can see that the hon. member is an efficiency expert.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I hate to be the dreadful Willie in this but I should like to inform the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that I know of one member of parliament in the opposition who has two telephones in his office. I do not want to be sneaky and reveal the name, but there is a member in this committee who has two telephones in his office. It is not too big an office, and his secretary and he sit facing each other and each has a little telephone. I think it improves their efficiency tremendously. I hope no one is going to run around trying to find the office with the two telephones in it. I think it works out very well.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is over in the west block; he is one of those who caused the expense.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Someone suggests this office is in the west block. This man is not in the west block; he is in the centre block. In the west block there are special considerations. I know one Conservative member over there who has an office so big it is a route march from the door over to his desk. His poor secretary is really in trouble. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has a little office. This member's office is a great big office, and the hon. member sits away over in the big bay window looking out on the Ottawa river and his secretary is over by the door. When the telephone rings there is all this jumping back and forth.
It seems to me that we have a problem here of great importance. I refer to the juxtaposition of the member and the secretary. It could raise all kinds of questions. I am very much bothered that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River should bring up the question. I know it has been brought up about my office. I have my secretary sit right next to me so she can answer the telephone.


William Moore Benidickson: Is that the reason?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Therefore, in fairness to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and the Minister of Finance, I think that maybe someone with the authority should approach the members of the internal economy commission to see if we can all have telephones just

where we want them. In particular, if it will improve the efficiency of some members of the House of Commons I think it would be an excellent idea. I can just tell from the look on the faces of most hon. members that they would like to see the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River have two telephones in his office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
681. To authorize the treasury board to delete from the accounts certain debts due to, and claims of Her Majesty, each of which is in excess of $1,000, amounting in the aggregate to $4,071,008.80, $1.
William Hector McMillan: This vote authorizes the treasury board to delete from the accounts certain debts, which I presume were legitimate debts, each of which is in excess of $1,000, the total amounting to $4 million. That seems like a lot of money to be writing off. I notice that in the Department of National Revenue there are 913 claims each of which is for $1,000 or more and amounting in total to $3.7 million. I should like to know whether the department is forgiving people their income taxes or just what this means.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The details on page 18 indicate the amounts in relation to each of the eight departments concerned. It will be seen that by far the largest amount is in the Department of National Revenue where there are 913 claims within the scope of the proposed write-off. In general the cases presented in these estimates fall within one or the other of two categories: first, uncollectable debts due the crown in excess of $1,000 where treasury board has approved deletion subject to inclusion in a special estimate item and, second, debts due the crown in excess of $1,000 in respect of which the governor in council has granted authority not to take recovery action and where sufficient time has elapsed to ensure that their status is unlikely to be altered as a result of changing circumstances.
I can give more information about these various categories if that is the wish of hon. members. They will see from the details the number of claims involved in each case. I have before me a very long list of the items concerned. To take the Department of National Revenue, for instance, most of the claims are very old, some of them having been incurred as long ago as 1935. There are no live claims written off here where there is any hope at all of collection. I see others here going back to 1931, 1929, and 1928. Therefore I think the hon. member can be assured that there is nothing written off that has any material value.


Lionel Chevrier: What are they for?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The ones affecting national revenue are all debts incurred between 1926 and 1957 representing arrears in sales and excise taxes where it is considered impractical or impossible to collect due to various reasons. I can detail those reasons if that is the wish of hon. members or give some examples. Bankruptcy was the reason in 273 cases.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps we could save time if the minister would agree to table tomorrow, if not tonight, a list of amounts that have been written-off and the details. This would satisfy any hon. member who wished to look into the matter more thoroughly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That would be entirely agreeable. That was done last year and I will be glad to do so again. I have the list before me and it is very long.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the minister what is the procedure here. I heard him mention a claim that had been uncollectible since 1926. Is this a periodic cleaning up of accounts or why would an account be uncollectible from 1926 and written off in 1961? Can the minister give the committee some idea what the practice is?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
apart from the normal work of review that goes on within any individual department there is a committee of review of debts that may be thought to be uncollectible. That committee makes reviews and then the matter goes before treasury board. I think the hon. member can be assured that by the time anything goes through these three bodies it has been pretty carefully winnowed down. We do not propose the writing-off of anything where there is any likelihood at all even of partial recovery.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It seems to me that maybe the process is rather slow if it takes from 1926 to 1961 to decide that a debt is uncollectible. Can the minister give the reason for some of these accounts going back so far in the past?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are some of the old ones that have obviously been kept open in the hope the debtor would acquire some means some time that would enable recovery to be made in whole or in part. Time goes on, sometimes a long time, until in the end the conclusion is drawn and the decision taken that the claim is utterly uncollectible and might as well be written off. Sometimes a claim is incurred when a man is in full vigour of middle life and hope exists that he may acquire means, but by the time he reaches a more mature age, let
Supply-Finance
us say, it appears that his earning power is gone and there is going to be no possibility of recovery.


William Hector McMillan: Are some accounts written off every year? Were there some written off last year, for example?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, yes, we went through the same procedure last year and we followed the same procedure as has now been suggested by the hon. member for Trinity. Last year the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River suggested it and I tabled a large number of sheets listing all these claims.


William Moore Benidickson: Is there any requirement in the Financial Administration Act to report this kind of write-off in the public accounts?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Under the Financial Administration Act there is authority in the treasury board to write off claims under $1,000.


William Moore Benidickson: I mean to report in the public accounts-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: -anything over $1,000 on a similar basis as in the case of rebates of duties and excise taxes where there is an obligation to report anything over $1,000. Is there a similar obligation under the Financial Administration Act to print these write-offs in the public accounts?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will not say that every item written off is shown in full in
the public accounts but the details are given there of the write-off in terms of the reduction of the crown's claims.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
683. To provide that paragraph (c) of subsection 4 of section 8 of the Public Service Superannuation Act, as amended by section 6 of chapter 38 of the statutes of Canada, 1960, shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of January, 1954, $1.
William Moore Benidickson: In items 683, 684, 685 and 686, we are dealing with the dollar items to which I have referred, though perhaps with not as much justification as when I raised the matter on vote No. 658, the first item in the supplementary estimates. My concern with these items is that I suspect they have the effect of legislating and perhaps amending a statute in a way that, if the items pass, they will not have to be brought back annually for parliamentary attention. They would not have to come back annually for parliamentary attention and, of course, no amendment to the statute itself comes forward in the form of a bill. However, some of these items have an effect that goes beyond one year. Am I right in thinking that that might be so?

Supply-Finance


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I think we should consider these items one at a time. Item 683 is intended to give retroactive effect to 1954 to one of the amendments passed to the Public Service Superannuation Act at the 1960 session of parliament. I think the hon. member will recall the amendments to section 8 of the act which were introduced last year.
A question has arisen as to whether those should not be made retroactive. This could be called an act of grace on the part of parliament.


William Moore Benidickson: I am thinking more of whether or not there is a future effect.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They have a future effect only in the sense of having permitted a retroactive effect to the 1960 amendment; so that they may have effect from January 1, 1954, these benefits will be available to those whose claims under section 8 of the act would have come into existence between 1954 and 1960. I would be the first to say it would have been better if this matter had been taken care of at that time. However, under these circumstances, it was felt this was the most direct way of accomplishing the purpose now because the numbers affected by this item are quite small.


William Moore Benidickson: The numbers affected are quite small, and that excuses the failure to introduce an amending bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The effect of this-


William Moore Benidickson: It appears that something was overlooked when we had the amending bill before us in 1960. This may be the easy method of accomplishing the purpose, Mr. Chairman, but I just raise the point that this is a back door method of legislating which has been criticized in the past. This item will have the same force as if an amending bill to the Public Service Superannuation Act had been introduced because next year it will not be necessary to have anything along these lines in the estimates. The administrative officers of the crown will be able to take this language as being equal to an amending bill approved by parliament.
As I have pointed out to the committee, the danger of this type of item is that it will have exactly the same force and effect as if we had had a formal amending bill to a public statute approved by parliament. This item will not appear in the index to our public statutes, so it will be difficult for members of parliament to find this amendment. Those who are expert in these matters, of course, will have in their offices a reference to an obscure item in supplementary estimates No. 5 of the session of 1961. Other people looking for this authority, however,

will not find it so easily. I say this is a rather obscure method of legislating.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have just two brief observations. The first is that a reference is made to these amendments in the index to the public statutes. The second is that what is proposed here is of a financial nature. It means, in effect, that permission is given to grant a waiver. That is the reason the procedure of an amendment in the estimates is suitable.
This particular item, No. 683, is intended to authorize and validate the returns of contributions on the part of the superannuation account. This takes care of cases where contributions will be permitted to be returned to employees who ceased to be employed for a second time following two periods of employment which were separated by an interval of less than a year. There were several cases where payment of return contributions was, in fact, made by mistake so this retroactive effect is required to validate those, while future returns of contributions in similar cases simply permit equal justice to be done in all these cases.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
685. To provide that any reference to the "Civil Service Superannuation Act" in subsection (5) of section 20 of chapter 38 of the Statutes of Canada, 1960, shall be construed as including a reference to the "Public Service Superannuation Act", $1.
William Moore Benidickson: All of these items are of a similar character. I know the minister will take notice of the objections and perhaps give consideration to dealing with such matters next year, if they are of sufficient importance, by way of an amending bill to the particular statute. The minister will realize that if amendments are made in this way next year with any degree of frequency, he will meet with similar objections to those which have consumed the time of the committee. I suggest to the government and to the minister that they give consideration, in future years, to the introduction of amendments to the statutes themselves, if the matters are of sufficient importance to warrant this course.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lionel Chevrier: Ten o'clock.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I take it that we will be dealing with supplementary estimates tomorrow and Wednesday.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why Wednesday?


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder what the business of the house is for tomorrow and whether consideration has been given to the business with which the house will be dealing when we reconvene on April 10.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will carry on with the supplementary estimates, followed by items Nos. 1 and 2 on today's order paper,
Business of the House
if there is time for them. These items are concerned with Bills Nos. S-5 and S-6 dealing with insurance matters.
I hope to make a forecast, perhaps tomorrow night, concerning the business with which the house will be concerned immediately following the Easter recess.


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

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

Mr. Argue: 1.	How many work permits have been issued to (a) American citizens; (b) other foreign nationals, for each year since 1955, and for what provinces were they effective?
2.	How many (a) American citizens; (b) other foreign nationals are presently in Canada on a work permit, in what provinces and in what industries or services are they working?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	No "work permits" as such are issued to foreign nationals seeking temporary entry to Canada for employment. They are either admitted for employment or other designated purpose or are refused entry. There may be a great number of categories of persons admitted to Canada "for employment" including diplomatic and consular representatives, foreign armed forces, members of religious orders, professional entertainers and athletes, seasonal workers, professional practitioners (doctors, lawyers, etc.), businessmen, trade representatives, executive and technical personnel of foreign concerns with Canadian interests, persons entering to service foreign built machines and systems, representatives of international trade unions and persons entering to perform labour or service for which Canadian labour is not available.
Statistics showing the number of persons who entered Canada for employment of one kind or another are available for 1959 and 1960 but cover only persons admitted from countries other than the United States. Under section 7(l)(h) of the Immigration Act, which provides for the temporary admission of "persons engaged in a legitimate profession, trade or occupation entering Canada for the temporary exercise of their respective callings" 6,733 persons entered from countries other than the United States in 1959. In 1960 these totalled 7,277. Documentation for all temporary entrants from the United States has been reduced to a minimum and does not facilitate statistical analysis.
2.	Toward the end of 1960 the immigration branch instituted new procedures to document the admission of non-immigrants. An analysis of the resulting information shows that, as of March 1, 1961, a total of 1,067 persons, who entered under 7(l)(h) of the Immigration Act were in Canada. Statistics regarding the occupations of the persons are not available; however, the table below
provides a breakdown by province of residence and shows the numbers who entered from the United States and those who entered from other countries:
From From U.S.A. Other Totals
Newfoundland 	10	Countries 7 17	Prince Edward Is. . .	-	-	"Nova Scotia	13	13	26New Brunswick ....	28	8	36Quebec 	191	173	364Ontario 	258	181	439Manitoba 	15	19	34Saskatchewan	6	10	16Alberta 	1	2	3British Columbia .	69	3	72Yukon and N. W. T.	41	19	60632	435	1,067


FARM BOARD AND CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS, N.B.
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What was the total number and the total amount of loans approved by the Canadian farm loan board for each of the years ended March 31, 1957, 1958, 1959, and by the farm credit corporation for the year ended March 31, 1960, (a) in the province of New Brunswick (b) in each of the federal constituencies of the province of New Brunswick?
2.	What was the total number of applications received from the province of New Brunswick for each of the years referred to in question 1?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Minister of Agriculture):
1. (a) Loans placed with solicitors
Year Ending	No.	Amount



1.	(b) The farm credit corporation does not maintain records respecting applications and loans by federal constituencies or parts thereof as it does not require to do so for administrative purposes and the information requested is therefore not available.
2.	Year Ending	No.


C.M.H.C. DWELLING UNITS, ELLIOT LAKE, ONT. AND WHITESHELL, MAN.
Mr. Badanai: 1.	How many dwelling units have been built with the assistance of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans in the residential area associated with the uranium mines at Elliot Lake?

2.	What was the total cost of building those homes?
3. How many of those homes would C.M.H.C. estimate as likely to be occupied by gainfully employed workers in the uranium mines at the end of 1964?
4.	How many dwelling units are planned for the residential area to be associated with the Whiteshell atomic research station at Manitoba?
5.	How many of those will be built with the aid of C.M.H.C. funds?
6.	What is the total estimated cost of building those homes facilitated by C.M.H.C. loans?
Answer by: Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of
State):
1. N.H.A. loans	No. of units
Approved lenders	 1,647
C.M.H.C	 242
Total	 1,889
2. The actual costs are not known to
C.M.H.C. However, the aggregate of the estimates of costs, including land, provided by the borrowers at the time the loans were applied for, is $23,116,870.
3. C.M.H.C. is unable to make such an estimate.
4.	Atomic Energy of Canada Limited expects to have a requirement for 100 dwelling units by 1964 at the residential area to be associated with its Whiteshell nuclear research establishment in Manitoba.
5.	It is planned that the residential area will be a local government district of the province of Manitoba so that private builders will be able to build houses in this community. Hence, there is no way of knowing how many of these dwelling units will be built with the aid of C.M.H.C. funds.
6.	See 5 above.


RADAR BASE, MOOSONEE    WAGE RATES FOR CARPENTERS
Mr. Badanai: 1. What are the wage rates paid to carpenters in the construction of the R.C.A.F. radar base at Moosonee, Ontario?
Questions
2.	What is the per diem rate charged to the men for room and board?
3.	What is the lodging and accommodation, and are there single beds or double-decker bunks?
4.	What medium of transportation is being used to take the men from the camp to the work site?
5.	Do men, who are fired from the job between train days, there being only a tri-weekly service, have their belongings thrown out of the camp?
6.	Who is the contractor?
Answer by: Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):
1.	$1.85 per hour minimum, being the rate set out in the labour conditions which form part of the construction contract.
2.	$3.00.
3.	The accommodation consists of standard general purpose army huts, 22'0" wide x 86'0" long. Rooms are 8'0" X 12'0" or 8'0" X ll'O", some with double-decker bunks but the upper deck is not used. Only two persons are assigned to one room.
4.	Trucks.
5.	No.
6.	Carter Construction Company, Limited, 419 Cherry Street, Toronto 2, Ontario.


MAIL CONTRACT, CARBONEAR-GRATES COVE, NFLD.
Mr. Tucker: 1.	To whom was the latest contract awarded to carry mail between Carbonear and Grates Cove, Conception Bay, Newfoundland?
2.	Was the contract awarded as a result of tenders being called?
3.	If so, how many tenders were received, and was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer?
4.	What was the amount of the tender?
5.	Who carried mail previously, and what was the amount paid?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	Contract was renewed with the same contractor, Mr. Patrick Paul Quinlan, on October 1st, 1960.
2.	No (see No. 1).
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Mr. Patrick Paul Quinlan of Red Head Cove at the rate of $7,582.30 per year.

Supply-Items Passed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:
DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE Research branch-
658.	Branch administration-to extend the purposes of vote 5 of the main estimates, 1960-61 to include a grant of $10,000 to assist in defraying the costs of the ninth international botanical congress, $1.
Production and marketing branch-
659.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act-further amount required, $98,432.
Health of animals division-
660.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $153,000.
661.	Compensation for animals slaughtered-further amount required, $1,113,869.
662.	Payment of compensation to owners of animals affected with diseases coming under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, which have died or have been slaughtered in circumstances not covered by the above act and regulations made thereunder, all as detailed in the estimates, $12,008.
Livestock division-
663.	Supervision of race track betting-further amount required, $35,000.
Plant products division-
664.	Agricultural lime assistance-further amount required, $200,000.
665.	Contributions to the governments of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, of one half the amounts paid by the governments of those provinces to farmers in respect of their 1959 unharvested crops to a maximum of $300 in respect of any one farm- further amount required, $390,000.
Special-
666.	Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural commodities stabilization account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural stabilization board as at March 31, 1961, $69,504,548.


SECRETARY OF STATE
[Stage Direction]
Civil Service Commission-
667.	Salaries and contingencies of the commission -further amount required, $30,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
668.	Canadian representation at international conferences-further amount required, $31,500.
669.	Gift on the occasion of the wedding of the King of the Belgians, $1,500.
670.	Gifts to commemorate the independence of African States, $1,200.
671.	To provide for memorial plaques presented to Ireland to commemorate the life and work of Thomas D'Arcy McGee, $800.
Contributions to international economic and special aid programs-
Special aid programs-
672.	Contribution to the United Nations fund for the Congo in an amount of $1,000,000 U.S. notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February 1961, which is, $991,000.
Special aid programs-
673.	To reimburse the agricultural products board account for whole milk powder donated for international relief purposes, $2,420,000.
Special aid programs-
674.	To reimburse the agricultural commodities stabilization account for canned pork and the agricultural products board account for whole milk powder supplied as emergency food relief for the Congo, $6,200.
Other payments to international organizations and
programs-
675.	Assessments for membership in the international (including commonwealth) organizations that are detailed in the estimates including authority to pay such assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied-further amount required in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1961, $401,500.
676.	To provide the international civil aviation organization with office accommodation at less than commercial rates, further amount required, $40,778.
677.	Assessment for the United Nations Congo ad hoc account for 1960 in an amount of $1,506,232 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1961, which is, $1,493,000.
678.	Assessment towards financing the United Nations emergency force in an amount of $892,630 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1961, which is, $885,000.
[Stage Direction]
Administration of various acts and costs of special
functions-
Royal Canadian Mint-
679.	Administration, operation and maintenance-further amount required, $65,000.
Contingencies and miscellaneous-
680.	Telephone service at Ottawa for all departments-further amount required, $40,000.
681.	To authorize the treasury board to delete from the accounts certain debts due to, and claims of Her Majesty, each of which is in excess of $1,000, amounting in the aggregate to $4,071,008.80, $1.
General items of payroll costs including
superannuation payments-
682.	Government's contribution to the hospital insurance (outside Canada) plan-further amount required, $40,000.
683.	To provide that paragraph (c) of subsection 4 of section 8 of the Public Service Superannuation Act, as amended by section 6 of chapter 38 of the statutes of Canada, 1960, shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of January, 1954, $1.
684.	To authorize payments to be made from the superannuation account to such persons as the treasury board determines to be persons from whom moneys were recovered or withheld pursuant to paragraph (a) of section 16 of the Public Service Superannuation Act as it stood before the 14th day of July, 1960, and from whom moneys in the same amount would not have been required to be recovered or withheld had section 11 of chapter 38 of the statutes of Canada, 1960, come into force on the 1st day of January, 1954; such payments to be made in an amount to be determined by the treasury board but in no case shall the amount be greater than an amount by which the amount recovered or withheld exceeds the amount that otherwise would have been required to be

recovered or withheld had section 11 of chapter 38 of the Statutes of Canada, 1960, come into force on the 1st day of January, 1954, $1.
685.	To provide that any reference to the "Civil Service Superannuation Act" in subsection (5) of section 20 of chapter 38 of the Statutes of Canada, 1960, shall be construed as including a reference to the ''Public Service Superannuation Act", $1.
686.	To provide that where the governor in council is of opinion that a person, without fraud,
Supply-Items Passed
continued to render services to the crown after attaining the age at which he automatically ceased to be employed pursuant to regulations made under the authority of paragraph (ad) of subsection (1) of section 30 of the Public Service Superannuation Act, such person shall be deemed, notwithstanding anything in those regulations, to have been employed in the public service during such period after attaining that age as the governor in council determines, $1.


[Stage Direction]
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Province of British Columbia
VICTORIA 1961 March 23rd
Honourable Donald M. Fleming, Q.C., Minister of Finance, c/o Government House,

[Stage Direction]
Dear Mr. Fleming:
Because your own time here is limited and since it appears, at this writing, that I shall have to contend this week with several extra sittings of our legislature, I am taking the opportunity to extend to you through the medium of this letter a warm personal welcome to Victoria.
I am certain that our discussions relative to development of the Columbia river will be extremely useful and I should like to assure you further that the government of British Columbia is genuine in its desire to co-operate with the government of Canada in order that Canada's obligations under terms of its treaty with the government of the United States may be carried out fully and without delay.
It is with these thoughts in mind that I am attaching two alternative proposals for Columbia development which British Columbia feels may serve as a firm basis for discussion tomorrow. In doing so, I should state further that these proposals are not designed to limit in any way the range of our talks; I shall, of course, be pleased to study and discuss any proposals of the government of Canada which are brought forward either during or following our discussions.
With your agreement, I would suggest that we meet in my office at 10 a.m. tomorrow. A number of arrangements which will, we hope, make your visit an enjoyable one have been worked out in detail, and these will, I believe, be outlined in a separate letter to you from my executive assistant, Mr. G. D. Ekman.
With kindest personal regards, I remain, Yours sincerely,

[Stage Direction]
Number One
A.	The government of Canada to construct on its own account the storage dams and transmission lines necessary to carry out requirements of its treaty with the government of the United States.
B.	Generous compensation to be paid by the government of Canada to those citizens of British Columbia whose homes and property will be affected by flooding.
C.	Payment of flood control indemnities in the approximate amount of $64,000,000 as provided by terms of the treaty, to the government of British Columbia, which government will keep these moneys intact in perpetuity with earnings only to be used as compensation for economic loss to the province resulting from flooding.
D.	Assumption by the government of Canada, or its appropriate agency, of pre-engineering costs in the approximate amount of $4,000,000, this sum representing necessary expenditure already authorized by the government of British Columbia for investigations into Columbia development now being carried out on its behalf by the British Columbia energy board.
E.	Ownership of all works and transmission lines constructed pursuant to the United States-Canada treaty to be transferred without charge to the government of British Columbia 50 years after the commencement of the treaty development, or at such time as the works are paid for, whichever occurs the sooner.
Number Two
A.	The government of British Columbia to undertake full financial and fiscal responsibility for construction on its own account of the storage dams and transmission lines necessary to carry out requirements of the United States-Canada treaty.
B.	The government of Canada and its officials to be afforded full access to engineering data, together with scrutiny and approval of all contracts in the manner now employed in the trans-Canada highway program.

C.	The government of Canada to guarantee, by appropriate financial measures, that the net cost of Columbia river power delivered to the Vancouver area will not exceed 4.25 mills per kilowatt hour.
D.	The government of Canada to arrange with United States authorities, should any Columbia river power become surplus to the needs of British Columbia, for purchase of such surplus power in the United States at a price not lower than 4.25 mills per kilowatt hour.

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa December 6, 1960.
The Honourable W. A. C. Bennett,
Premier of British Columbia,
Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, British Columbia.
My dear Premier:-
I duly received your letter dated October 27th concerning the financing of the Columbia river power development. Your writing of the letter followed our personal discussion of the same subject on October 26th.
You will undoubtedly have been advised by now that at the meeting of the Canada-British Columbia policy liaison committee on November 23rd and 24th the federal ministers amplified the nature and effect of the federal government's offer as first put forward on February 9, 1960, and confirmed in my letter of April 21st. Since the questions in your letter under reply were based on the situation previous to the elaboration made at that meeting, 1 believe it would be appropriate if I were to repeat the outline of the federal offer here, in order that my answers to your questions may appear in their proper context. Subject to satisfactory agreement on the character and functions of a joint federal-provincial co-ordinating agency, along the lines indicated by federal representatives at the recent Canada-British Columbia policy liaison committee, the federal government would give financial assistance in the following manner:
1.	The government of Canada is prepared, subject to the approval of parliament, to advance one half of the capital cost of creating the storages necessary to implement the proposed treaty between Canada and the United States for the co-operative development of the Columbia river.
2.	The government of Canada will advance these moneys as an investment in a joint project of Canada and British Columbia which will be self liquidating.
3.	The government of Canada proposes the creation of a joint entity for the purpose (amongst others) of receiving and advancing
the federal government's financial contribution. It is understood that you propose to designate the British Columbia power commission as the agency to have physical responsibility on behalf of British Columbia for construction and operation of these projects. Subject to satisfactory agreement between our two governments as to the role and position of the joint entity in safeguarding the obligations of the federal government under the treaty and the interests of the federal government (including such matters as the giving of necessary clearances called for by the treaty, adherence to completion dates as may be agreed in the treaty, Canadian content and employment in construction, etc., and such other matters as are appropriate to be entrusted to the entity), and subject to the approval and authorization of parliament, the joint entity could be authorized to advance the federal moneys for capital costs, to British Columbia power commission in accordance with the schedule of construction as contracts are approved.
4.	The financing thus provided by the federal government (or guaranteed, if a guaranty arrangement is agreed to be more suitable) would be looked upon as a joint investment with British Columbia, and be repayable by the operating entity to the joint entity on behalf of the federal government, out of revenues earned from the project after operating costs are met. Since it would be a joint investment, capital repayment out of revenues to the federal government would be in the same proportion to total earnings as the capital contribution by the federal government bears to the total capital contributed to bring the project into operation and would be subject to the same maturity dates and other repayments conditions as were applicable to the capital contributed by the provincial government, or by private investors.
5.	Under this arrangement, it would also be possible for the joint entity to receive and disburse the proportion of the capital to be contributed by British Columbia, if the province wishes to handle it that way. Alternatively, it would be possible for the entity to raise the finances directly from the public, with each government agreeing to guarantee the issue proportionately and to purchase proportionately any part thereof from time to time not taken up by public subscription.
Subject to the foregoing, I would answer your request for information on five precise points as follows:
1. and 5. You now inquire as to "the maximum amount which the federal government would be prepared to lend to the B.C. power commission". In our oral discussion on October 26th, your question was put in rather different form. You then asked if
[Stage Direction]
there would be any strings attached to any loan that the federal government might make and, if the loan were to the B.C. power commission, whether the federal government would wish to have a guarantee by the government of the province and, if so, whether on principal, interest or both. As indicated above and as stated in my letter of April 21st, I wish to confirm that the government of Canada is prepared, subject to the approval of parliament, to provide one half of the capital cost of the approved storage required to implement the proposed treaty between Canada and the United States for the co-operative development of the Columbia river, as an investment in a joint project of Canada and British Columbia that would be self liquidating.
2.	The financing provided or guaranteed by the government of Canada would be recoverable with interest from the revenues earned from the project.
3.	The precise interest rate to be fixed would depend on the form of financing agreed to, but it would obviously have to bear a direct relation to the rate at which the entity could borrow in the market. With guarantees as suggested above, and in view of the advantageous nature of the project which has been arranged, it should be possible to secure a favourable interest rate. The point to be
emphasized is that, on the basis of this concept of a joint invesment, there would be no question of an interest charge to the British Columbia government for any investment by the government of Canada. Interest will be paid at the same dates as interest is paid on the capital provided by the provincial government, or to private investors on the bonds guranteed by the provincial government.
4.	Until its investment has been recovered by it, the federal government would be entitled to receive a share of the net revenue earned from the project in proportion to its contribution to the total capital contributed by the two governments.
You will appreciate that, apart from answering your specific questions in the context of the elaboration of the federal offer referred to, I have confined myself to a very general outline of the nature of the offer and of the ways in which it could be implemented. We are ready and shall be pleased to discuss the details of these and all other questions pertaining to the financing of the Columbia river project, in which the government of Canada has such an important interest, and express the hope that you may see fit to authorize your government's representatives to discuss these questions at the meeting on December 8th and 9th.
Yours, sincerely, DONALD M. FLEMING.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 28, 1961