1962-03-29

Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the house that today I have tabled with the Clerk of the house the annual report and financial statements of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1961, in English and in French.
Hon. members will recall that when the amendment to this act was under discussion I undertook to table certain information. As recorded on page 909 of Hansard for February 15, I stated:
The specific commodities in each case are not available for the moment. They will become available when the annual report of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation is made, I believe early next month. At that time the complete list of commodities will be made available.
In accordance with that promise, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the attached list be published as an appendix to Hansard today.


Mr. Speaker:: May I inquire whether the document the minister wishes to table is filed pursuant to statutory authority or pursuant to the minister's undertaking?


George Harris Hees: Both, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: In so far as the document is covered only by the minister's undertaking, has the minister leave to table the document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed also that the document be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


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



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that effective April 1, 1962 the monthly rate of family assistance paid
26207-1-146J
by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to children under 16 years of age admitted or readmitted to Canada for permanent residence will be brought into line with the rate of family allowances paid to the children of other residents of Canada. After April 1 immigrant children up to the age of 10 will receive an allowance of $6 and those from 10 to 16, $8 per month during their first year of residence in Canada. After one year they become eligible for the regular family allowances paid by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
It is felt that, in justice, immigrant families should be entitled to the same social benefits as other residents of Canada. It is estimated that approximately 25 per cent of the immigrants are children under 16 years of age.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillingaie):: I am naturally very gratified that the policy which I was able to persuade my colleagues to institute when I was minister has commended itself so much to the minister that she has made this amelioration in it. I only wish that the flow of immigrant children that this country was able to absorb when I was minister could continue today.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Without being ridiculous about it, Mr. Speaker, I only wish to associate this group with the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate to the effect that this is a laudable course to take. I wish, too, that perhaps a good many of the native Indian children in the country who find equal difficulty-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ADJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland) moved: for leave to introduce a bill to amend the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act (to include provident fund pensioners).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: Mr. Speaker, the provident fund act was passed in 1907 to permit public servants employed by government owned and operated railways to contribute to a pension plan. The fund is administered by a board of five directors, one of whom is the
2280	HOUSE OF
Public Service Pension Adjustment Act regional manager of the C.N.R., two are appointed by the Minister of Transport and two are elected annually by the employees. The secretary is appointed by order in council. The board meets regularly at the fund's headquarters in Moncton.
As of the end of 1958 provident fund pensions were paid by Department of Transport cheques to 4,013 retired employees, and at that date there were still 1,941 employees in active service and contributing to the fund. The figures are smaller today. The fund is subsidized by the Canadian National and by annual vote of the Department of Transport. This year's vote is No. 120 under the heading pensions-railway employees provident fund.
The existing legislation appears to include provident fund pensioners. This amendment will simply clarify the point and make certain that those retired public servants can come under the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act passed in this house in 1959.


Mr. Speaker:: Before placing this motion before the house I wonder whether the hon. member who proposes it could satisfy the house that the bill does not involve the expenditure of public funds. It appears on its face, if it is effective, to extend the number of ex-employees who would secure benefits under the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act, and certainly those adjusted benefits involve the expenditure of public funds. Without saying more than that, perhaps the hon. member has thought about this question and may have the answer to the difficulty I feel is inherent in the bill.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: I have given some consideration to this technicality. It seems to me that the resolution introduced in 1959 by the Minister of Finance, and the legislation passed, were broad enough to include this group of public servants. The schedule to the act, paragraph 10, contains the same words as are in the explanatory notes to my bill that the adjustment could be paid to people who in the opinion of treasury board were in receipt of pension "calculated on the basis of length of service".
I believe that the legislation already passed is broad enough to include this group, but I have ascertained that treasury board has not seen fit to so include them. When I voted for the bill in 1959 I thought the provident fund pensioners were included. As Your Honour will recall, it includes members of the armed forces, retired federal civil servants and members of the R.C.M.P. who, like provident fund pensioners prior to 1922 when the C.N.R. came into existence, were contributing to a government pension or superannuation.

I feel I am not asking this parliament to vote money. I want the previous legislation clarified and, second, I would point out that the bill I am introducing today does not say that parliament shall vote the funds. It simply says "if in the opinion of treasury board," which means parliament will not be deciding, but treasury board will.


Mr. Hellyer:: Abrogation of responsibility.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: If Your Honour looks at the explanatory notes accompanying the bill, although I presume it has not been distributed as yet, you will see it is very much in line with a bill already introduced in this current session without a resolution.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: On a
point of order, the hon. member who has introduced this bill should advise the house whether he has contacted the government and received the approval of the government. We are not against the principle of the bill, but it is a decision to be taken by the government.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: I would like to speak to the point of order. As a member of parliament interested in the railway workers of this country, I have been in continuous contact with the government on this point.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Order.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: However, I did not in any way contact anyone on the treasury benches concerning this bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government should adopt this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The point in issue is not whether the hon. member has asked the government to bring in this bill. The fact is that the government has not brought it in. If it is a bill requiring the expenditure of money, it can only be introduced in this house by resolution sponsored by the government.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Let the Prime Minister introduce it as a government bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether any hon. member wishes to add something further to what has been said, but I have a fairly definite view that this is a money bill and it is my duty not to accept it.


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice):: May
I with respect, Mr. Speaker, suggest that possibly the best thing to do would be, without prejudice, to allow the bill to be introduced and distributed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.
[Mr. Creaghan.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: and at that time, before it is called for further debate, it could be considered. If it is then found to be a bill that does require a resolution, it seems to me it would be within Your Honour's power to order it withdrawn from the order paper. But I think it would be difficult to ask us, and I think difficult to ask Your Honour, to reach a decision on a point of that sort without having seen the bill.
I would only like to add that the doctrine just put forward by the hon. member for Gloucester is to my mind the most extraordinary I have heard in this house, namely that the consent of the government should be obtained before a private member introduces a private bill.


George Harris Hees: That is the way they did it.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the decision you have made is the right one, that this bill should be withdrawn from the order paper and reintroduced by the government as a government bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The latter part of the
argument of the Leader of the Opposition is not for me to deal with at the moment. I think perhaps the suggestion made by the Minister of Justice is the proper course to adopt. I have a fairly definite view now, but as an issue has been raised, without opportunity for hon. members to consider whether I am correct in thinking that this bill does involve the expenditure of money and therefore should be preceded by a resolution, it might be left so that there would be an opportunity to review the matter, on the understanding that when the bill again comes before the house the issue will be determined. Then if I come to the conclusion, or retain the opinion, that it is a bill involving an appropriation of funds, it is my duty to direct that the bill be withdrawn and that it shall not be proceeded with. I think that is clear. I refer hon. members to Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 250 which reads, in the fourth paragraph:
"If any motion, or bill, or proceeding is offered to be moved, whether in the house or in a committee, which requires, but fails to receive, the recommendation of the crown, it is the duty of the Chair to announce that no question can be proposed upon the motion, or to direct the withdrawal of the bill".
I think the preferable course would be to stand the motion and deal with it at a subsequent sitting, rather than to have it remain on the order paper.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: Mr. Speaker, may I just say one word on your ruling. Could I not introduce the bill and personally undertake to withdraw it if it is ruled to be a money bill?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this matter but he would gain no advantage by having the bill on the order paper-and it would complicate the order paper to have it there-and then for me to direct its withdrawal. Therefore with the leave of the house I shall direct that the bill stand until Monday. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether he can tell the house what is the estimated cost to the railways of the settlement which they made with the engineers?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have not as yet received the full report on the settlement; I have been informed that there are still a number of small items to be ironed out. Consequently I am unable to give any estimate of the cost of the settlement because of the fact that I have not received all the details of that settlement.


Lionel Chevrier: Could I ask the Minister of Transport if he could inform the house what would be the estimated cost of Canadian National Railways share of this settlement?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would give the same answer as my colleague the Minister of Labour.


Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him if the amount which is represented by this settlement will be obtained on behalf of the railways and, more particularly, on behalf of the Canadian National Railways by an application to the board of transport commissioners for an increase in freight rates, as the Prime Minister indicated in his speech in November, 1960 in connection with this matter, or whether an estimate by way of a subsidy will be introduced by the government to provide payment thereof.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: When a determination of the
amount has been made, the government will be in a position to advise the house concerning the course which will be taken to meet the situation.

Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



PUBLICITY GIVEN TO NEW REGULATIONS RESPECTING SKILLED WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I
wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of newspaper reports that little publicity is being given to the relaxed admission requirements for skilled immigrants, would the minister inform the house what action she is taking to ensure that people are informed of, and understand, the latest regulations?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I saw the article referred to in this morning's press, and I should like to say that there is no truth whatever in the suggestion that the immigration department is deliberately holding back on publicizing the recent changes in the immigration regulations, as was said in that article.
When the changes were announced in the house on January 19 last, full publicity was given to them in the press and through the news media both in Canada and overseas. Copies of the new regulations and information pertaining to them were distributed immediately to the ethnic press in Canada. There has been wide editorial and news comment on the new regulations.
In addition we have supplied all our immigration offices overseas, all our Canadian diplomatic missions abroad, and British consular authorities who act for us in other places with full information in respect of the new regulations and how we expect them to operate. This information is available to any and all who may be interested. We have provided information through established diplomatic channels here in Ottawa to all governments which have expressed an interest. We have supplemented the written information with discussions in a good many instances with representatives of India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Japan, to give but a few examples.
We have not, of course, inserted paid advertisements in the press overseas or gone on radio or television in foreign countries. That has never been the policy of the government or of the department. Moreover, many overseas governments exercise very firm control over the types and amounts of publicity relating to immigration which they will permit within their jurisdictions. But it is nonsense to suggest that publicity relating to the new regulations is being deliberately held back.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question. Can the hon. lady say whether there has been any increase in the staff of any of the immigration offices in order to deal with the additional applicants resulting from the less stringent regulations, and whether any new offices have been opened anywhere?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The answer to that question is no. During consideration of the estimates last year, I think, someone asked me whether we had decreased the overseas staff. The answer to that question was no. We expect that the existing staff will be adequate to handle the increased flow. However, we do anticipate that there may be additional countries to which it will be necessary to supply staff, possibly, in the first instance, in the form of travelling teams. The hon. member is familiar with that procedure. If there is sufficient flow from any country to warrant the opening of an office, that may well have to be considered as the need arises.
Although I told the hon. member yesterday that it was as yet too early to expect any actual entries into Canada, I might say that the increase in interest abroad and in applications from abroad has been pronounced since February 1.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might be permitted to ask the hon. lady another supplementary question. Can she say whether the department has sent any officials to the British West Indies, or whether such action is contemplated?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: When any decisions are made along those lines they will be announced.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the parliamentary secretary in a position to indicate to the house that the government is prepared to take any steps to expand or increase its meat inspection services?


Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: The
answer to the question is yes. A considerable number of meat plants have applied recently to have their operations brought under the federal meat inspection service. In order to provide the staff required for this service the department has been authorized to increase

its establishment by 41 positions of meat inspection assistant and 11 positions of veterinarians.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Since navigation is due to open on the Welland canal this week end, can the minister say whether the government has reached any decision regarding the abolition of tolls on that canal?


Léon Balcer: As I said earlier, if and when a decision on this matter is taken by the government it will be announced in the house.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of recent press speculation about a subject which has generated a large number of letters directed to me from the people of the Yukon, can the minister assure the people in the Yukon territory that the conjecture that the Doukhobors, Sons of Freedom sect, are going to be moved into areas of the north, including Yukon and Northwest Territories, is unfounded?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, what may be the thoughts of those who have suffered as a result of the activities of these people as to where they should be sent, I am unable to say. However, I can assure my hon. friend that whatever area they might wish them consigned to, there has been no consideration given to that suggestion by this government.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I
wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house whether Canadian National Railways has reached an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway to construct a joint microwave communications link across Canada? If so, what is the Canadian National Railway's share of the cost?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Léon Balcer: A statement was made to the press the other day by the presidents of the two railways, making their intention to proceed with the building of a microwave system across Canada at a cost of $38 million, to be shared evenly between the two railway companies.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In his absence perhaps I could direct it to the acting minister. Has the minister seen the article in the March 23 issue of the Financial Post under the heading "Mortgages Merit Very Close Look" which states as follows:
The difficulty in financing older homes is one reason for the unnecessary decay of the heartland of our cities.
Will the minister comment on that article, or say whether the government is giving any consideration to the subject matter?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Acting Minister of Public Works):: I have not seen the article in question. When I see it I will have it looked into and will indicate whether there is any fact on which the conclusions of the article can be justified.



REPORTED DECLINE IN STARTS IN FEBRUARY 1962

John Angus MacLean: Yesterday the hon. member for Nipissing asked me a question which I took as notice. He referred to the current housing program and made particular reference to limited dividend loans by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
At the present time C.M.H.C. is negotiating with limited dividend companies toward the approval of 44 limited dividend projects, comprising 2,544 housing units, for total loans of $16,500,000. It is likely that these negotiations will result in firm applications for limited dividend loans during the next few months.
The hon. member also asked me about housing starts in February this year as compared with those in February 1961. As to the rate of starts for February, I should like to point out that, seasonally adjusted, this represented an annual rate of 95,400 for urban centres of 5,000 and over, little changed from the January rate or, indeed, from the average rate in 1961.
I think hon. members will recall that in December, 1960 the down payment requirements for housing were lowered, and this action resulted in a higher than usual number
2284	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of starts in the following January and February, with the result that the starts for February this year are down, as the hon. member said, 16 per cent as compared with starts for 1961.


John Richard Garland: I wish to thank the minister. I wonder whether he could say with respect to the first question that he answered for yesterday, why no loans were approved in the limited dividend field in February.


John Angus MacLean: I do not know of any particular reason. I think it is not intentional. As I said, 44 projects are being negotiated at the present time. It would appear that it just happened that during that month no contracts were entered into.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister say whether an under secretary of state has been appointed? If so, what is his name?


John George Diefenbaker: An appointment has been recommended. However, it requires the approval of the Governor General, and I hope to be able to answer the question tomorrow.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister in November, 1960 with reference to the royal commission on transportation, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to implement any of the recommendations of the commission as contained in either volume 1 or volume 2 at this session of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman, having at one time been a minister of the crown, realizes that questions such as that are answered when the government is in a position to do so. If the opposition will only get along with the supplementary estimates and get them passed we can deal with other matters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that they do not like this, Mr. Speaker. If they will get along with the passing of the supplementary
[Mr. MacLean (Queens) .1

estimates we shall then be in a position to deal with some of these matters that ought to be dealt with. However, altogether too much time is being spent on repetition, thereby denying the government the opportunity of bringing in legislation which it desires to bring in.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the Prime Minister telling us that in order for the government to do its job we must refrain from doing ours?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While it is in order to discuss the business of the house, I think it would not be in order to debate how it should be conducted.


John George Diefenbaker: I agree with that statement. The answer is obvious. If the hon. gentleman were here, possibly there would be more expedition in dealing with these matters.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I remind the Prime Minister that no member of the government except the house leader was here during the discussion of the estimates yesterday. Neither the Prime Minister nor any of his colleagues was here.

On the orders of the day:


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of his belated but undoubtedly real interest in the dispatch of public business, can he tell us when we may expect at least one report from one of the 13 royal commissions now touring the country?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will look back over the period when he was on the treasury benches he will find out about the number of royal commissions.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the number of royal commissions was approximately the same for a comparable period and some took longer to report than those now operative.


Lionel Chevrier: It did not take two years to bring in legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: We are getting the latest Gordon report every week.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister obviously did not hear my question, and I wonder if he would be good enough to answer it.


George Harris Hees: He did not miss a thing.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. A. Cathers (York North):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I regret I have not sent him notice. In the interests of several million spectators in the Toronto area who are interested in watching the Toronto Maple Leafs win the Stanley cup, will he do what he can with the C.B.C. so that these millions may see the whole game and not just half of it?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I am glad to know that the Toronto area now has so many millions, which I presume makes more difficult of achievement the prophecy I made the other day of Sydney, Nova Scotia some time equalling that population. Nevertheless, I am sure all hon. members would like to see more publicity given to the Maple Leafs, as well as to the Canadiens, but under the practice which has prevailed for the last nine, years these teams will have to first win the semifinals in which they are now engaged-perhaps prayers to that end will be rewarded- and having achieved that objective the C.B.C. will cover each of the final games in its entirety.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has anything further to report on the proposal for a meeting of the commonwealth prime ministers.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Heath was here a few days ago I again emphasized the necessity of there being a prime ministers' conference before a final determination is made by the United Kingdom on entering into the common market. As I recall, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom earlier today was asked in the House of Commons about this matter. He said, as I read the report of his statement, that before this decision is made, inasmuch as the question of commonwealth trade is so important to the economic life of the members of the commonwealth, the subject would be discussed in a prime ministers' conference and, furthermore, that within a week or two he might be in a position to make an announcement.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The determination as to the date of a prime ministers' conference is, of course, always difficult. There are all the various eventualities that arise, and there are circumstances peculiar to one or more of the countries. All these things have to be taken into consideration even after acceptance of the principle before a definite date can be fixed.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could he acquaint the house with the latest developments concerning the federal government's intention of removing the tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have been in communication with the provincial government so that a meeting could be arranged between the chairman of the national harbours board, the assistant deputy minister of transport, the provincial government's representative and the deputy minister of the provincial department of highways, to discuss conditions concerning the federal government's intention of removing the tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges, in Montreal.


Lionel Chevrier: Pursuant to the question which was just directed to the minister, may I ask him whether the Champlain bridge will be discussed during the talks he mentioned a while ago?
If not, could he tell us if he has made up his mind to levy tolls on that bridge after it is officially opened?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the talks which will be held next Tuesday will bear exclusively on the question of tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges. As far as the Champlain bridge is concerned, there is no change for the time being in the plans to charge tolls on that bridge. In that, we are following the policy adopted by our predecessors.


Mr. H. Pit Lessard (St. Henry):: Has there been an exchange of correspondence or notes between the city of Montreal and the minister concerning the question of toll-collector bridges?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Further to the question asked by the hon. member for St. Henry, could the minister give us a definition of a toll-collector bridge?

Supply-Agriculture
(Text):



PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Levis asked me the following question which I took as notice:
Can the minister explain the sudden lay-off at the beginning of the construction season of a considerable number of the members of the staff of the development and engineering branch of the department?
I am able to inform the house that there has been no sudden lay-off of construction staff of the development and engineering branch of the Department of Public Works. It may be that the hon. member noted that 25 vacant positions in the establishment of the branch were deleted during the present year and do not appear in the 1962-63 estimates. These positions were provided in the establishment for this branch some years ago when the extent of its program was not definitely known, but they were never filled. The positions have therefore been deleted.


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is the minister able to say that no employees of that branch have received letters informing them that they will be laid off at the end of this month?


John Angus MacLean: Yes. I think what the hon. member has reference to is the fact that four technical officers employed in the Atlantic provinces will be laid off effective March 31. This has resulted from a reduced requirement for staff due to the approaching completion of certain federal road construction in the maritime provinces. I might add that three of these members of the staff have been offered employment in other localities in Canada but have declined this offer.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration branch-
675. Departmental administration-further amount required, $77,500.
(Translation):


Mr. Racine:: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned yesterday, I was saying that the government resorted to all possible publicity

to praise certain measures it had implemented. Now, I shall tell you about the pitiful situation of the dairy industry.
There are 350,000 dairy farmers in Canada and 100,000 in the province of Quebec alone. That is why, of course, I made those few remarks yesterday and I should like to proceed along that line today.
While in 1957, every Canadian consumed an average of 1,021 pounds of dairy products, that figure fell to 940 pounds in 1960, and there is every indication that the consumption of those products is still decreasing.
Three years ago, Canada was the fourth highest consumer of dairy products in the world and it was only the sixth in 1960.
If you refer to La Presse of February 21, 1962, under the heading "Lowest farm income since 1957", you can read the following:
Net farm Income, In 1961, including changes in stocks of grain and livestock, amounted to some $1,006 million, a decrease of 24 per cent from the adjusted estimate of 1960 ($1,319,600,000) and the lowest income since 1957 ($1,058,300,000).
Well, I think we are justified, Mr. Chairman, in regretting the government's attitude towards agriculture.
Recently, we heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) stating on television that he would rely on his own record in the next election. I wonder whether the Prime Minister did not wish to compare his own record with that of the American cosmonaut.
Of course the American cosmonaut was in orbit three hours and some odd minutes, while the Prime Minister has been in orbit for four and a half years. Maybe that is why he cannot see the domestic problems.
As for his record, he should not forget that the capsule holding the American cosmonaut has been recovered, while his own not only has not been recovered but is not recoverable, and it will land in opposition on election night.


Mr. Pigeon:: You have a leader-
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take advantage of this item, departmental administration, to deal very briefly with the policy of the party we represent in respect of agriculture. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance is looking askance at me, but I am quite in order and I shall be as brief as possible.
Everyone here who thinks at all about the development of our economy gives some consideration to the necessity for planning, whether it is in the field of agriculture, in the field of industry or in other aspects of

our economy, and recognizes that major planning must take place. Some want this planning under the auspices of the large corporations, others want it under government auspices, and others want it from other directions. However, I believe this principle is generally accepted in our modern society.
There are different approaches toward planning. I would say that in so far as planning for agriculture is concerned-I intend to use agricultural terms-the attitude of the Progressive Conservatives is one of somewhat laying back on the breeching; so far as the Liberals are concerned I would say they are pawing the ground, and so far as the New Democratic party is concerned I would say they are leaning forward and straining in the collar. In case some of our suburbanite representatives do not understand that language and are not acquainted with horses, possibly I should put it in other terms. I should say that members on the government side are inclined to have their foot on the brake; members of the official opposition have their feet on the floor, and members of the New Democratic party are stepping on the accelerator. I think in general that fairly describes the approach toward planning of the various groups in this house, and toward agricultural planning in particular.
If I might digress for a moment I might say that I am delighted to see the hon. member for Cariboo listening intently, as he always does during the discussion of agricultural subjects. I wish to give the house of piece of interesting information, of which perhaps it has not been aware before. The hon. member for Cariboo, I understand, is a graduate of the Red Star livery grain and feed stable, and he could write a thesis on "The horses I have known". I am glad to see the hon. member here today.
I do want to say a few words about our policy. First of all, let it be clearly understood that the members of this party are firm supporters of the economic family farm unit. We believe in the dignity of the individual, and we believe this is one way of maintaining it in this country. We believe in the very definite values of rural life which are being discarded in many quarters today for a less satisfactory way of life. We believe that the family farm could be and should be an economic production unit, and could be made so at the present time by each farmer having the necessary acreage of good land, the necessary machinery and the requisite skill in management. We also believe this way of life provides the opportunity to practice democratic planning and in
Supp ly-A griculture
so doing derive the benefits of the application of the principles of the mixed economy in which we believe.
There is a great opportunity here for the practice of these principles in our country life. It gives the opportunity for federal and provincial governments to plan, first of all, for conservation of our soil, forest and water resources in relation to agriculture. It gives the opportunity for planning in respect of research, which is very necessary and should be greatly increased. There should be more research in respect of production, and further research in respect of marketing. It gives also the opportunity for planning in respect of marketing legislation on both the federal and provincial levels. It gives the opportunity for planning a sound crop insurance scheme applicable to all branches of agriculture from the Atlantic to the Pacific. As a result of co-operation between federal and provincial governments the foundation in principle has been laid in the legislation passed by the house, but we believe it has to have wider application and apply to larger groups of people if the premiums are going to be such that the average farmer can pay them.
Now, the idea of the family farm unit also provides the opportunity for the development of co-operative ownership and, shall I say, the co-operative philosophy of life which has been so well illustrated in some Scandinavian and other western European countries. We could develop the co-operative ownership of processing plants and packing plants, as they are doing in the fruit industry. We could develop co-operative ownership of farm machinery where the investment is too large for a single farmer. This is happening in my own constituency, where fruit growers while owning some equipment, other expensive and heavy equipment is owned co-operatively. The co-operative packing house purchases it and it is owned co-operatively but used individually. This is another field that can be very well developed.
Then we have the development of farmers marketing in co-operation with federal and provincial planning and marketing boards. It also provides the opportunity for the government to co-operate even more closely than they do today with the farm organizations of this country. Finally, although we require this planning at federal and provincial levels and this extension of co-operative ownership in the ways I have mentioned, at the foundation we have the private ownership of the land by the farmer himself.
We believe that our program does provide the opportunity to practise the principles of the mixed economy in the co-operation of the farmers and their organizations. We believe

Supply-Agriculture
that development along these lines will provide basic security and maintain freedom, as well as lay the material foundation on which we can build a civilization that will provide the opportunity for the development of what I would term a genuine spiritual and cultural life.
Having dealt very briefly with the sort of over-all philosophy of our approach to agricultural policies and planning, I want to bring to the attention of the house the program for which this party stands, on what may be the last occasion before the advent of the day which, from our respective positions, we all look forward to or otherwise. The family farm is the basic unit of agricultural production and a desirable institution of our society. New Democratic objectives for agriculture are maximum food production for Canada and a hungry world, and effective marketing machinery to ensure fair and reasonable farm income.


Mr. Brunsden:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is this a debate on an estimate or an enunciation of a political party platform?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is a debate on the administration estimate of the Department of Agriculture, and it has always been the accepted practice that we can deal with policy on this occasion. If the hon. gentleman is getting restless I can assure him that I am not going to speak at great length, because in this party we are in the habit of putting good things in small compass.
We believe that we must free the farmer from the effects of the cost-price squeeze, and that we must lower farm production costs by ending monopoly control over farm machinery, fertilizers, chemicals and other supplies. We also believe in the extension of long term loans at low interest; and to offset the adverse effects of vertical integration of farm processes by private companies we believe assistance should be given to farmers to build cooperatives for processing and marketing their own farm produce.
Our party will assure producers of sufficient marketing power by (a) development of federal producer marketing boards to coordinate the work of provincial marketing boards; (b) encouragement of co-operative and publicly sponsored facilities for storing, processing and distributing farm products; (c) development of programs to increase domestic levels of consumption; (d) distribution of surplus food to the needy of other lands in such a way as to avoid economic dislocation, and support for the establishment of a world food bank; (e) vigorous and imaginative efforts to sell surplus products such as wheat, including the acceptance of part payment in

sterling or currencies of other countries, longterm commodity agreements, credit arrangements, barter and other bilateral trade agreement; and (f), giving the wheat board permanent status.
I place this on the record as a brief summary of our policy, and with these few remarks I urge the government to consider this policy prior to the election period to see if it can embrace this policy which is the result of the thinking of farm organizations in co-operation with many segments of agriculture across Canada, and is the result of the experience and research of hon. members in this house and people from all parts of Canada.


Mr. Argue:: This discussion has developed into a very general consideration of rather broad agricultural questions. We have just listened to a statement by my good friend the hon. member for Kootenay West in which he said many things with which I am sure all hon. members are in wholehearted agreement.
The agricultural industry of this country is based on the family farm, and in my judgment anything which interferes with that unit as the basis of agriculture is not only against the interests of agriculture but is against the general interests of the people. We have heard a great deal about vertical integration and I am afraid we shall hear a great deal more bout it in the future. Policies and action must be forthcoming to arrest a trend which I am sure all those interested in the agricultural industry must fear. That trend is the encroachment of large corporations in a field of production which better serves the nation in the control and ownership of the farm family.
Steps will have to be taken to remove some of the heavy burdens that fall on agricultural producers. One of the burning issues, so far as agriculture is concerned in every province and municipality, is the very rapidly growing taxation burden on farm property, and this taxation burden is one of the costs which help drive the agricultural industry into vertical integration.
The Liberal party has given a great deal of thought to an agricultural program. Certain aspects of its program have already been made public, and further important, far reaching and advantageous planks in the Liberal platform will be made public in the days and weeks ahead. One of the things which is already public information is the policy of providing loans to municipalities at reasonable rates of interest in order to provide them with credit facilities which are not now available to them for undertaking the essential work that is part of municipal government.


Edwin William Brunsden: On a point of order, the hon. member is discussing provincial and municipal policy-


Hazen Robert Argue: No, no.


Edwin William Brunsden: -which has no point in this discussion. May I suggest that the hon. member is going entirely beyond the scope of the debate and should keep his remarks related to agriculture in Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: Another important national plank has to do with the provision of crop insurance. The present government has a so-called crop insurance program which is not working across the nation. It is working to a very limited extent in the province of Manitoba, and to such a limited extent as to be of very little value in the province of Saskatchewan. It is not really working in any other place, and many improvements will have to be made to the crop insurance scheme before it can work successfully.
One of the things which needs to be done is for the federal and provincial governments interested in this field to expeditiously work out means by which there can be a real insurance against the great losses that might result from a crop insurance plan. As the formula is set up now, with the very limited contribution by the federal government, the major part of the burden of serious financial losses falls upon the farmers themselves and the provincial governments. This has brought the crop insurance scheme almost to a standstill and in many respects has made it an unworkable proposition.
Another plank in the Liberal platform which will have great appeal to western grain producers, and which is not a slogan or something directed merely to gaining popular support with little chance of being implemented, is the provision of the two price system for wheat. This is a well considered part of the Liberal program, and on the advent to power of a Liberal government it will be inaugurated. Under the two price system, wheat consumed in Canada by Canadians will carry a parity price, a price higher than the international price. This will implement a unanimous demand by farm organizations for a two price system, and the benefits from this system will be paid to the agricultural producers on the basis of certain deliveries, so that the financial benefits will be divided among the producers in a more equitable fashion than if they were paid on a strictly per bushel basis for all deliveries.
Those are some of the planks that have already been made public. Others will be forthcoming, and they will be forthcoming on the basis of a responsible program that will be placed on the statute books of this country in due course.
Su pp ly-A griculture
Another question I would like to raise today is this. I appreciate the difficulty of the parliamentary secretary in answering or trying to comment upon some of these general propositions. There is one parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture in his seat. If anyone has any information on this question, I would like it given to this committee after I conclude my remarks. There is a drought crisis on the prairies, of which all hon. members are fully aware, and there is a real possibility that there may be a second disastrous crop failure in western Canada this year. A disastrous crop failure this year following the disastrous crop failure in 1961 would entail tremendous hardship for western farmers since their financial reserves have already been largely depleted. The surplus of grain built up on the farms over a number of years has largely gone. The government has decided-and everyone is in favour of this-to make as many payments as possible to the farmers in as short a time as possible. If there is a crop failure this year the amount of income that farmers will have will be exceedingly small.
There is another crisis in the west that is being superimposed upon this drought crisis. I refer to the forecast of one of the largest grasshopper and cutworm infestations in the history of western Canada. This is a further danger to the very limited prospects of a crop in western Canada in 1962. The farmers are very much aware of this crisis. It is a common topic; one hears farmers saying "What about the grasshopper forecast? What about possible cutworm damage? If we are lucky enough to have enough moisture in the ground for the crop to sprout, will the insects devour the crops, so that even if we get rains at a later date they will be of little advantage?"
There was a conference held in Regina on March 23. This conference was reported in the Regina Leader-Post of March 24. More than 450 persons crowded into the museum in Regina, representing municipalities, provincial government departments and the federal government. They discussed this crisis. My plea this afternoon to the parliamentary secretary is for the federal government to take some responsibility by assisting in the provision of the chemicals necessary to fight this plague. I mean financial assistance. I think this is exceedingly important. The cost of spreading dieldrin or sevin at first sight may not seem to be an exceedingly expensive proposition; it is from 15 cents to 25 cents per acre. However, that is only part of the cost. There is also the cost of application, and if there is a widespread outbreak of grasshoppers there will be farmers who will need to apply this chemical to the crops two or

Supp ly-A griculture
three times. This is an operation that will cost-depending upon the method of application, whether the farmer has his own equipment or whether he has to hire it, whether or not he has to hire aeroplane service for air spraying-somewhere between 50 cents and $1 per acre. If a farmer has to do this two or three times it is a very heavy cost at a time when he has very limited financial resources.
This is the cost in connection with destroying grasshoppers. If the farmer has to spray for cutworms and uses dieldrin or other chemicals he has to increase the concentration four or five times, because cutworms have a heavy protection and it takes more poison to kill the cutworm than it does to kill the grasshopper. Therefore it will be a very expensive proposition to deal with the widespread cutworm infestation that is being forecast.
I know that last year the federal government, at the request of the government of Saskatchewan, provided some emergency aircraft, I believe through the Department of National Defence, to transport the chemicals from Toronto to Regina. But I think the federal government should do more.. I think the federal government should take a lead and should be prepared to pay 50 per cent of the cost of these chemicals so this heavy burden does not have to be borne by the farmers who have suffered one crop failure, who have very limited financial resources and who, if they have to pay these costs entirely themselves, will either have to go on relief to obtain aid through the municipalities or, worse still, will have to say "We cannot afford it; we will just have to let the crop go". This is a practical proposition, whether a farmer should try to salvage a crop, when he does not know whether there will be anything left of the crop a month or so hence, at a cost of quite a large sum of money, money that he very badly needs, whether he should gamble his last few dollars, or whether he should say "Well, I cannot afford to salvage this crop".
There are other costs that farmers have to face at that time of year. They have to go out and spray for weeds. I know from my own experience last year that a great many farmers decided they could not afford to spray for weeds because they were so short of money, with the end result that where they did not spray for weeds there was no crop at all, and farmers who did spray for weeds got a small crop of probably three or four bushels per acre and found that the spraying of weeds was a good investment.
I am not putting these remarks forward, Mr. Chairman, in any way to condemn the
[Mr. Argue.J
government. As a matter of fact, if there is any condemnation called for I wonder whether the three provincial governments in western Canada are asleep. I do not know. I wonder whether they are asleep-


Edwin William Brunsden: Saskatchewan is.


Hazen Robert Argue: Apparently they are all sleeping, each as soundly as the other, because my information is that they have not made this kind of request. However, whether or not they have made it I would like to see the federal government take the lead and make the offer, because the farmers find that this heavy cost for these kinds of sprays is serious. Last year a great many of them had difficulty in finding the money necessary to deal with the grasshopper and cutworm outbreak, and it will be even more difficult this year.
I am making a plea to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance to use his good offices to convey what I have been saying this afternoon to his colleagues, in the hope that the federal government will take the lead now, will remove some of this burden from the producers and help deal with what is being forecast as a very, very serious outbreak of grasshoppers and cutworms in western Canada.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: We have heard two interesting speeches outlining some aspects of the policies of two parties. I resist with some difficulty commenting on the policy of the third and more important party, and will deal only with two specific matters which have been raised.
The hon. member for Assiniboia has mentioned the problem of drought on the prairies. I can assure him that all aspects of the lack of moisture are under the closest study by the government, and will continue to be. One would hope that his ominous forecast of an outbreak of grasshopper and cutworm infestation will not prove to be true, but the situation will be carefully studied by the government and I shall draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the comments the hon. gentleman has made.
Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Welland asked me for some information in connection with the amount of surplus butter which comes from surplus milk shipped by fluid milk producers. Because the hon. member has always been so genial I have endeavoured to obtain statistics which would be helpful to him. However, I regret that statistics concerning butter production are not broken down so as to indicate the origin of the milk from which butter is made, and I am therefore not able to give him the details which he sought.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the item carries I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he could explain to us the reasons for this extraordinary increase in travel and removal expenses, amounting to $42,000. Even before they began increasing them in the further supplementary estimates the travelling expenses of this government were, heaven knows, astronomical compared with those of any government since confederation, yet here is another $42,000 for one department alone. How much of this, may I ask, represents the trotting around of all these publicity men attached to the Department of Agriculture?


Richard Albert Bell: As to the latter, very little. The increase arises out of the implementation of the agricultural program by the minister and his staff as well as by the grain commission of the Department of Trade and Commerce, now on loan to the ministry of agriculture. There are also expenses in connection with the A.R.D.A. program, provision for which was not made in the main estimates. In addition there were attendances at international conferences exceeding the estimated provision by some $17,800. These expenses arose mainly from the FAO conference, from the OECD meetings and from GATT.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Have the figures been kept separately so that we may know how much that totally unnecessary trip to Hong Kong cost?


Richard Albert Bell: I confess that I am not aware of any unnecessary trip which was taken to Hong Kong. If the hon. member is referring to the journey undertaken by the Minister of Agriculture, I can only say that the results speak for themselves.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They certainly do, because the agreement was signed two days before the minister got there. If anything was a sheer waste of money, that was. There is one further question I should like to put to the minister relating to this item and the next one. Can he say whether any part of this additional money is required to meet salaries or wages at the end of this month and, if so, how much?


Richard Albert Bell: No, Mr. Chairman.


Hazen Robert Argue: Could we know what amount of these travelling expenses was entailed in connection with the A.R.D.A. program?


Richard Albert Bell: I am sorry, but I do not have the breakdown. It is not a large sum of money. However, I do not have the figures segregated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Agriculture Production and marketing branch-
677.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act-further amount required, $78,588.
Frank Howard: Since this government took office a problem has developed with regard to these subsidies, arising from the fact that a limit of some $50,000 was placed on the subsidy in respect of cold storage facilities, compared with a total subsidy equal to one third of the total cost, which was the case before the government made the change. I have been given to understand that the reason the limit was placed on this subsidy was that an overabundance of cold storage warehouse space existed in the country, and it was therefore felt necessary to place some limit on the public funds being spent in this particular area.
I have no cause to complain in this regard, because I am not familiar with the agricultural production situation. However, I do say that this argument certainly does not apply in the case of fisheries products. I think it is most incorrect to lump together the paying of subsidies to cold storage warehouses intended for such different purposes as the preservation of agricultural products and of fisheries products. The circumstances are entirely different, and the fishing industry generally suffers as a result of this approach.
I know that for some months, in fact, ever since this change in policy was made, the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative has been attempting to get the government to reconsider its aproach and to look upon the construction of cold storage warehouses for fisheries products in a different light. We have asked about this in the house on a number of occasions. We have asked the Minister of Agriculture about it and we have also made representations to the Minister of Fisheries. We have spoken about it and written letters, but invariably we have received the same negative reply. As a result, as I say, the fishing industry suffers and people like those in the fishermen's co-operative are disappointed. This particular organization had made plans for the expansion of its cold storage warehouse, but when the members finally got around to taking practical steps they found themselves cut off because the government had changed the rules in the middle of the game.
I do not expect the parliamentary secretary will be able to tell us that the situation is to be changed right now. Perhaps if he could confer with some of the members of the cabinet he might get them to make an announcement. But I place this question before the government again. I point out the seriousness of this problem and I reiterate-because this seems the only way to get things done-

Supply-Agriculture
that it is the fishing industry which suffers because of the restriction which has been placed on this subsidy, restriction based entirely on the situation which existed with regard to agricultural products.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it is necessary for me to add very much to what the hon. member for Skeena has said. There are many subjects on which we do not agree, but on this one on which we certainly do. When we made representations to the Minister of Fisheries on this subject last year we hoped that even this slow moving government would correct this situation and place the administration of the cold storage subsidy as far as fishermen are concerned under the Minister of Fisheries, where it might receive sympathetic attention. I urge the parliamentary secretary to use all the influence he has with the Minister of Finance and with the Prime Minister to see whether even at this late date-and perhaps because of this late date-the government might wake up to the fact that there is a fishing industry in this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of animals division-
678.	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, $8,417.
(Translation):
Mr. Clermont:: About this item, I should like to ask the authorities of the agriculture department whether it would be possible to speed the work provided for under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
On January 18, 1962, the constituency of Labelle in the province of Quebec, was declared a brucellosis eradication area.
Could the authorities of the department proceed with that work as soon as possible?
(Text):


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: I shall draw the hon. gentleman's comments to the attention of the proper authorities in the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
679.	Supervision of race track betting-further amount required, $28,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the
parliamentary secretary to explain to us, in any capacity he wishes, either as the porte-parole of the Minister of Agriculture, as the hon. member for Carleton or as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, the relationship between this vote and an item which appeared in the Ottawa Journal last night about a new race track here in Ottawa. Can he explain to us whether this track has been licensed by the federal

government and how much extra it is going to cost the taxpayers to supervise this new race track?


Richard Albert Bell: Under this particular item there is involved only the supervision of race track betting in the province of Quebec which was not foreseen at the time the main estimates were prepared. This is a self-liquidating item. As I think the hon. member knows, it is recovered from the take at the time of the betting. What my hon. friend is referring to is quite a different matter. My understanding is that the licensing of that particular project would be a provincial matter. Beyond that, it is a matter on which I confess I am not able to speak with any authority.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the hon. gentleman say whether, even though its licensing is a provincial matter, it is not still supervised by the federal government?


Thomas Miller Bell: Oh, yes; it would be necessary to apply for the parimutuel licence and there will be supervision of the parimutuel racetrack betting. There are no funds in this particular item for that purpose.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that, but since the law is the same whether it is for this item or for any other item, perhaps the parliamentary secretary could say whether, before a parimutuel licence is given to one of these race tracks, the federal government ascertains that the original licence has been properly and validly granted. Or do they just assume that such is the case?


The Deputy Chairman:: I recognize the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the parliamentary secretary would like to reply to my question.


Richard Albert Bell: This particular item applies only to the province of Quebec. A statutory levy of half of one per cent on all moneys wagered at tracks covers the cost of supervision. I regret that I am not able to answer specifically and directly the question asked by the hon. gentleman as to the extent of the supervision that is exercised over parimutuel race track betting licences which are issued. As I understand it, the position with respect to the particular one to which he has made reference is that there have been outstanding for a number of years appropriate authorities. If the hon. gentleman has anything specifically that he wishes me to get, I shall be glad to send him the information as soon as possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not wish to hold up the item. However, there is a certain amount of natural curiosity about this matter, and perhaps it is enhanced a little by the names

which were published in that highly reputable journal-I refer to the Ottawa Journal-last night as the directors of this enterprise.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is not the way in which the hon. gentleman last described it. He accused them of libel.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I said that a particular editorial was libellous, and it was libellous, but that does not alter the fact that even the best newspapers err once in a while. I was using the term "libel" on that occasion in a strictly technical sense in the hope of drawing the editor's attention to my remarks. Apparently I was successful. However, it seems rather odd-and perhaps the learned parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture could throw some light on the matter- that people can pick up old charters floating around and get into this business in that way without any current examination of their credentials. If the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand can throw any light on this matter I am sure the committee would be most interested.


Richard Albert Bell: I think the situation to which the hon. gentleman refers is primarily a provincial matter. There is perhaps the unusual situation, namely that the Criminal Code places the federal supervision under the Minister of Agriculture. That has been the case for many years. Perhaps that is because of the type of tests that are made at the courses in order to ensure honesty in the parimutuel betting. I shall be glad to get any additional information for my hon. friend and send it to him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Thank you.


Mr. Webb:: I have been told that with the setting up of this race track the estimated revenue of the province of Ontario will be in the neighbourhood of $3 million to $4 million per year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That seems very relevant.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Plant products division-
681. Contribution to Prince Edward Island, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, of one half of amounts paid by that province to potato growers in respect of their 1960 crop as compensation for losses due to fusarium rot to a maximum contribution by Canada of $300 in respect of any one farm-further amount required, $70,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: May we have an explanation of vote 681?


Richard Albert Bell: This vote provides for the dominion contribution in a shared cost program with the province of Prince Edward Island for the payment of compensation to potato growers for losses due to fusarium rot in respect of the 1960 crop. The supplementary
Supply-Agriculture
estimate is required to provide for the balance of the federal share of the program. The amount of $125,000 was provided in the further supplementary estimates No. 1. However, on the basis of actual claims paid by the province, which total $389,937, the federal share is $194,946. Therefore a further amount of $70,000 is required and is sought from the committee in this estimate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I remember this matter because it is something about which I was obliged to prod the government a great deal before they got on with it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
682. Agricultural lime assistance-further amount required, $1,362,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the parliamentary
secretary say why such a very large additional sum seems to be required? It looks like bad estimating.


Richard Albert Bell: There has been an unexpectedly large increase in the purchase of agricultural lime and marl. That is what necessitates this supplementary estimate. As my hon. friend knows, the earlier estimates the preparation of which started in September and October 1960 were of necessity based on the tonnage of lime which was then expected to be moved to the farmers. However, the lime purchases-and I think we should consider it a good thing-greatly exceeded earlier purchases, and that is why it has become necessary to have this supplementary estimate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How does the total compare with that of the previous year?


Thomas Miller Bell: This is a very considerable increase. The total for this year is $2,662,000. In 1960-61 it was $1,400,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
684.	Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural products board account to cover the net operating loss recorded in the account as at March 31, 1962, $4,861,998.
John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a very considerable item. Can the parliamentary secretary say something about it?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes. This item really arises out of the report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons. As the committee knows, the agricultural products board was established under the authority of the Emergency Powers Act by order in council 3415 of July 31, 1951, to administer food contracts and other commodity operations which may arise from time to time. The board was reestablished under the Agricultural Products

Supply-Trade and Commerce Board Act of 1952. The purchase of agricultural products by the board resulted in a net loss of $4,861,998 as of March 31, 1961, mainly due to purchases of whole milk powder as a means of reducing butter production. The milk powder was transferred to the Department of External Affairs for donation to international relief agencies. The report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961 comments on this deficit and indicates that a parliamentary appropriation should be sought. The department and the government agree on a policy basis with the view which was expressed by the Auditor General. This vote is to regularize what he has suggested.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is just a bookkeeping item.


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, it is really a technical point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
685.	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, 1962, $23,139,333.
John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a very big item, and perhaps the parliamentary secretary could give us a comparison with the last two fiscal years.


Thomas Miller Bell: The figure involved here is a total of $23,139,333. In the previous fiscal year the amount was $69| million and in the fiscal year before that $57.6 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take it this is an item that does not occur in the main estimates at all, that this is only in the last lot of supple-mentaries each year.


Thomas Miller Bell: It is traditional that this item be in the final set of supplemental estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is really analogous to the deficit of the C.N.R., in other words.


Thomas Miller Bell: My hon. friend is quite right. That is the position.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Atomic energy control board-
686.	Administration expenses of the atomic energy control board-further amount required, $1,400.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before this vote carries, I would point out that it is now almost April 1 and I am sure the parliamentary secretary would not have come into the house without ascertaining from the genial, accurate and well informed Minister of Trade and Commerce the latest estimate of the date on which the British will actually come to terms with us about a contract. I see that the

eager member for Halifax, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is in the house, and as he showed he was so much readier to give us information than his minister I am sure he could confirm that April will not run out without this contract being made. Perhaps he can tell us it has already been made.


Richard Albert Bell: I am very glad there is one thing on which the member for Bonavista-Twillingate and I can agree, and that is his description of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There is nothing I can add on this particular item to the information which has been made available to the house, and I hope the expectations expressed to the house will be fulfilled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say one
more word. Though the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce was really pretty specific the other evening, when a subsequent question was put to the minister he got the matter back into the ethereal realm of utter vagueness again. Can the parliamentary secretary assure us that when he said April he was speaking for the minister, and that April it will be?


Richard Albert Bell: I am sure that the turn of events will establish exactly what the situation will be, and I am sure the hon. member will have his curiosity satisfied in due course.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really think I would rather have it satisfied by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. When the parliamentary secretary is here it seems unnecessary for another parliamentary secretary, who obviously cannot be as well informed about the subject, to have to speak in rather vague language for him. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce can give us any indication of any further progress. Has any progress been made since he last made a statement to the house?


Mr. Morris:: Mr. Chairman, the statement I made in the house when supplementary estimates No. 3 were before us was sufficiently specific. It was a valid statement. I am not in the habit of justifying remarks made on the basis of my responsibility, and the statement was intended to be made in the form in which it was made. The minister's subsequent remarks in no way denied the remarks which I made. The statement I made on supplementary estimates No. 3 was a responsible, accurate statement, and it is still a valid statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very relieved to hear that. The difficulty is that they sometimes

forget to tell the Minister of Trade and Commerce what he is supposed to say in the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Indian affairs branch-
Reserves and trusts-
687.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $59,500.
Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, on supplementary estimates No. 3 we discussed a particular matter I brought to the attention of the hon. lady with respect to the Indians of the Tsimpsean reserve in Skeena, British Columbia. At that time we went into the matter rather fully and the hon. lady indicated that she was going to recall the tenders as a result of the confusion which then existed. I am informed that the minister has received a number of communications, including a band council resolution and a letter and perhaps a telegram from the band itself, since a copy of a letter dated March 24 has been sent to me. I wonder whether the minister can advise the house as to the present situation, in view of the fact that it appears that the band council, with the en-dorsation of the band, unanimously passed a resolution on March 23 indicating that they are opposed to the calling of new tenders.
The committee may recall that it was suggested by myself and other hon. members, which suggestion was acceded to by the minister and certainly with our approval, that new tenders should be called. However, apparently the Indians whose property it is are not pleased with such a decision. In the Prince Rupert daily News of March 23 there is a headlined story of an interview with Chief Sampson of the band, in which he indicates that he desires that the unsuccessful bid of the two received should be accepted. From all correspondence and statements it appears that the chief bases this first of all on the band's understanding of this particular offer, the Beaufort bid, and on some of the items which I brought to the minister's attention, particularly reforestation and the road. Furthermore, the band council is also concerned that if new tenders are called almost a year may elapse, and as there was no work for these Indians last year they are concerned that there be immediate work and immediate development of their resources. I am further informed, and I have no support for this statement but perhaps the minister can verify it, that the short term export market at least for such timber is unsteady, and there may be some amount of pressure with respect to letting the contract immediately.
While I am on my feet I also wish to inquire of the minister whether certain remarks made
29, 1962	2295
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate have been followed up by her branch in any way. They had to do with consultation between her branch and the Department of Trade and Commerce with a view to obtaining some idea whether this and similar timber may be exportable and will receive an export permit, particularly in view of the fact that on June 26, 1960 the Prime Minister, when dealing with legislation providing for the creation of the Department of Forestry, quoted with great approval a recommendation of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters in the following words:
Your committee feels that Canada cannot afford to ignore a potential so great for lumber and pulp sales as is offered in the Orient and, therefore, it recommends that these markets be approached on an open minded basis.
Because the Prime Minister himself seemed to be aware of the necessity for expanding our markets in that regard, I wonder whether the minister can advise the committee whether there have been exploratory talks between the two departments with a view to ascertaining that such timber, no matter who cuts it, whether it be the Indians or someone else, will be exportable; because this will have a considerable effect on the price of the timber and the amount of any bid.
I should like it to be firmly understood that my view still is that because of the great confusion which developed over the awarding of this contract it would be preferable, as it always is in such cases, to call for new tenders, but I must confess that I am concerned about the Indians' concern and about their very clearly expressed resolution and desire to have a deal of which they know the specifics.
The minister told the committee a matter of a couple of weeks ago that she was sending a commissioner out there. The commissioner appears now to be speaking to the public press, according to reports. He was to go to the Indian band and explain both bids to them. He appears to have done this; at least there has been a sufficient lapse of time to do so. Nevertheless, under date of March 24 there is a letter, which I believe the minister has, from the band council in which these people are most explicit about desiring one particular bid to be accepted.
Now, I cannot suggest other than that this must cause the minister great concern. Certainly it causes concern to anyone who is interested in the two problems, the one of calling for new tenders and the other of satisfying the Indians. I wonder if on these points the minister would advise the committee what she plans to do and, in addition, whether she could advise us if anything has been

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration done by her department in consultation with the Department of Trade and Commerce about export permits.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, the particular supplementary vote which is before us relates only to forest fire protection. As the hon. lady knows, the past year was a disastrous fire year throughout Canada, and this amount of $59,500 is required for unpaid accounts in five of the provinces.
In so far as the matter which the hon. lady raises is concerned, I might say to her that as of the present time new tenders have not been called. The representations which she has made will, of course, be considered in due course by the minister.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not want the parliamentary secretary to be under any misapprehension that I am making representations on behalf of any group except the Indians, according to their clearly expressed wishes in the resolution. Of course the minister is their trustee in this regard. I do not suggest in any way, that any decision that has to be made is easy, but I should hope the minister would be able to advise the committee just what she plans to do in view of the fact it is getting rather late in the season and apparently if there is any delay in the further calling of tenders, the Indians will suffer. The last time tenders were called it took almost a year from the time of the original negotiations until the time the tenders were received. If such a delay occurs now, then the Indians will be deprived of income, work and training. It is on their behalf that I am making these inquiries, and on behalf of no other person.


Richard Albert Bell: I am sure the hon. lady can be confident that the minister will take a decision based solely upon the good of the Indians who are involved.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I take it, then, she has made no decision.


Frank Howard: I do not wish to be unkind about it, but I should hope that the situation would be as represented by the parliamentary secretary. I should like to make a few brief comments on this problem because, unfortunately, I was absent when it arose earlier. However, I do not wish to get involved in the intricacies of the negotiations. Unfortunately the natives themselves, as I know from speaking with the Indian people, do not trust Commissioner Boys. I have had this view expressed to me by many of the Indian people at Fort Simpson, the Queen Charlotte islands and over on the Babine agency. They do not have that degree of trust in Commissioner Boys which is necessary for the proper conduct of negotiations between the

Indian affairs branch and the natives themselves. They do not feel particularly confident, either, about Mr. Brett. I do not know whether this results from a misunderstanding as between Mr. Brett and the band council itself or from the inability or failure of Mr. Brett to fully explain all that was taking place. It could be for some other reason entirely, but they do not have that degree of confidence in Mr. Brett which is necessary.
The lack of trust in these individuals is understandable, because the natives have been exploited by the so-called white people for many years. This has developed almost an inherent feeling of distrust for any of our dealings. I am very much afraid of what might happen in this particular instance if there is anything in the future which smacks of dishonesty or which leads to misunderstanding. If the situation should arise the band might well say "All right, we will just keep the timber" and the Indians will remain in economic stagnation for another 10 or 15 years. This is the greatest fear I have as to what could result from the situation which exists there.
Incidentally, this feeling is not confined to Fort Simpson. There are other villages involved in the sale of timber, and they have had relationships with Mr. Boys and Mr. Brett. These people are also now a bit reluctant and concerned about how far they should go in these particular negotiations. It would be my thought that the recent attitude expressed by the band council in the letter to which reference was made should be the point of view that should carry the most weight with the department. This was a unanimous decision of the band itself, but Mr. Boys expressed some disagreement and said it was not unanimous. Evidently the band expressed some preference for one of the two bidders in connection with the sale of this timber.
Perhaps it may be necessary to engage outside legal counsel-I know the band has consulted lawyers-to ensure that the interest of the people there are protected to the fullest possible extent. I am not sure whether this step may be necessary now. I am afraid that unless this is done the results may be injurious to the band itself, and could very easily contribute to the destruction of that mutual trust we are trying to develop between ourselves and the native people of this nation. This mutual trust is difficult to establish because the history of our dealings with these people is not particularly clean.
In my opinion our sole concern should be to protect the interests of the Indians to the fullest possible extent and to move toward the development of this mutual feeling of

trust. Unfortunately, as' I say, whether it was deliberate, by reason of inefficiency or just misunderstanding, the native people in Tsimpsean and elsewhere do not have that degree of trust in Commissioner Boys or Mr. Brett which is so necessary. Neither do they have a very high regard for Mr. Ewen, the officer in charge of the Skeena river agency which covers the particular area.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I should like to direct some questions to the minister in respect of this matter. I have been informed that there was a company created on the west coast called Nishka Pacific Forest Products, a company which was composed entirely of Indians and which chose to apply to cut timber on the Nass reserve. I understand they were told by Paul Brett, the forester for the branch in British Columbia, that if they were ever entitled to cut the timber they would have to replant the areas which they cut.
I have no supporting evidence with respect to this. I have only been told it and I would ask the minister to inquire into the truth or otherwise of such a statement because, if true, it appears most peculiar in the light of the fact that the minister had advised that it was the same Mr. Brett, among other people, who had given advice that this particular land should not be replanted.
I am further informed that at the same time the application was made some indication was given that no private company would ever be allowed to cut timber on the Nass reserve, but I am informed that at the same period there was correspondence being carried on between the department and at least one private interest seeking to cut timber there. If some of these allegations are true they would appear to be almost diametrically opposed to the remarks allegedly made and supported by affidavits and photostats, which we discussed in this house a couple of weeks ago, emanating from the same source, Mr. Brett. I would ask the minister if she has any knowledge of these matters to advise the committee, and if not I would ask her to ascertain the truth or otherwise of such charges and advise the committee.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is not usual for a
minister to intervene during discussion of these final supplementary estimates but, with the kind permission of the house, I would like to make a few remarks. I shall of course inquire into the matters which have been raised but I think I should have a little more information. If the hon. member for Niagara Falls will tell me the source of the information or the rumour she has heard with reference to the Nishka lumber company, I shall have it investigated. The other
29,	1962	2297
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration matters are presently under consideration, as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance has indicated.
I would just like to say one word about the relationship of Indians with members of the Indian affairs branch. As the hon. member for Skeena has so rightly said, a great deal depends on the trust which is imposed by the Indians themselves in the officials of the branch. From time to time complaints reach me with respect to one civil servant or another who is allegedly not acting in the best interests of the Indians, but quite frankly I can only think offhand of one instance where there appeared to be any real evidence that such was the case. In that particular instance the matter could be traced directly to what might be regarded as a slightly high-handed attitude on the part of the individual involved, and was not due to any intention on his part to do anything that would in any way injure the Indians.
Because of this situation I deplore more seriously than I can express in words any references in this house to the actions or the intentions of members of the branch who may be serving the Indians in the field because these things will undoubtedly get publicity. What I fear then is that the trust of the Indians in these officials charged with the responsibility of administering their affairs will be destroyed.
That does not mean I am not anxious to explore any real difficulties which there may be, and if any hon. members have reason to believe that any member of the department is not doing his best for the Indians, and if they let me know, then I pledge my whole support to a complete investigation into the circumstances of which they have been made aware. I am reasonably sure that any hon. members of the house who have had close association with the Indians will understand my concern in this regard.
We have even had instances where half a band was actively supporting a superintendent while the other half was making charges against him. These are very difficult things to unscramble if the situation deteriorates. The obvious solution is to remove the individual involved and put someone else in his place who can effect harmonious results in the administration of his duties. Sometimes an administrator who is not completely acceptable to one band will be much beloved by another band with which he later has association.
Therefore I plead with hon. members not to destroy the faith of the Indians in the members of the branch who are charged with the administration of their affairs, but I shall certainly take every means at my disposal to
2298	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration investigate any real charges which are made against any members of the branch.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to say a word about the last point made by the minister. I am sorry I have not got the newspaper clipping with me, but I read a story in one of the newspapers the other day about a statement which was attributed to the commissioner in British Columbia about the incident to which my hon. friend from Niagara Falls referred the other day. I am sure the hon. minister has seen the statement to which I refer.
Now the minister knows I am not one who criticizes civil servants in this house. I was once a civil servant myself and was criticized by some of the hon. lady's friends in this house, but I did not make any reply at any time to those criticisms. However I was really very shocked to read this report. It may be that this gentleman said something privately that was published without his knowledge. He should not even have done that; but if he said in public, for publication, what he was supposed to have said about the hon. lady then he should be very severely reprimanded because civil servants should remember that they are not elected to this house and it is not their business to make any kind of comments whatsoever about the conduct of hon. members in this house.
The report to which I refer was published several days ago and I am sure the hon. lady's attention has been directed to it, because I know how efficient her department is.
I mean that genuinely. I am sure she has already investigated it and will be able to give some explanation for it. If she cannot I would ask that it be investigated and a report made to the house. This is the kind of thing that really is an attack on the privileges of the house.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is of course one of the peculiarities of the civil servant that he is defenceless unless someone rises in this house to defend him and that his activities can be attacked, whether fairly or unfairly, by any member of the house who then is protected by the immunities which are attendant upon the position of an hon. member in this chamber.
I have seen the article referred to by the hon. member. I do not think it attacked any individual. I think it attacked statements which were made, and I agree it is deplorable that it should have reached the press. However, as the hon. member suspected, I made inquiries about its origin. I also suspect he was right when he thought that possibly it was an offhand remark made in private which has found its way into the newspapers,


but I agree with him that it should not have been made in any event. The matter is being investigated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have just got the report now. I am not going to put the gentleman's name on the record. I shall, however, read the words that are in quotation marks in the newspaper article because for my own reputation I want hon. members to know that I am not raising this matter lightly. What this civil servant is supposed to have said is that Miss LaMarsh's charge was:
Utterly false and not deserving of any other comment.
No civil servant should be making remarks like that about us in this house, however irresponsible, silly or false he may think we are. If the minister wants to say that the hon. lady's comments are irresponsible, false or not deserving of any other comment, if she can get by the Chair by using the word "false", that is what we do in this house. But I felt this was a matter of sufficient importance in the circumstances to have it made clear. I am sure the hon. lady from Niagara Falls would be the last person who would want any other kind of discipline taken, but one worries a little about the attitude that would prompt a civil servant even to make that kind of observation in private, because we have a duty in this house to try to see that the public affairs are properly carried out.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I will not go as far as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in his references to members of the public service. It seems to me that if one of them is mentioned by name in the house-and I do not know whether or not this is the case with the individual involved-and attached to that reference is an accusation of some sort, the minister certainly and the individual concerned should have the right to make comments contrary to what was said and put forward their point of view as to the true state of affairs. I do not think a member of parliament should be in the position of being able to level accusations against members of the public service and expect them to remain absolutely silent. That is one thing.
The next point I wish to refer to-and I think perhaps the minister misunderstood the point I was making-is in connection with Indian commissioners Mr. Boys and Mr. Brett. I took down two or three of the minister's words to get across what I am getting at. She made reference to any evidence that these people are not working in the best interests of the natives, or if their actions or intentions are detrimental to the natives, and so on. The minister asked us-I am not saying that she

asked me directly-not to destroy the faith that the Indians have in the officials of the branch.
This is not the point. It is not whether there is evidence of malfunction on the part of the individual, whether any official in the Indian affairs branch has done something wrong, or whether his intentions or actions are as the minister said they should be before she will take action. I am complaining about a feeling which exists among native Indians and their attitude generally to the Indian affairs branch. I mentioned Mr. Boys because he was involved. This occurred in British Columbia and Mr. Boys and Mr. Brett were up at Port Simpson and were involved in this matter. I mentioned these gentlemen only because they were two officials of the department who had dealings with the Port Simpson band, and the fact is that the Port Simpson band does not have a great degree of trust in the Indian affairs branch or in these individuals. That is what I was saying; not that Mr. Boys had done anything wrong or that his actions or intentions were not in the best interests of the native Indians, but I was referring to the feeling on the part of the Indians toward the officials of the branch. I can understand this because our history of the exploitation of these people is very black indeed.
This attitude exists and that is why I say it is even more important in dealings with native peoples for the Indian affairs branch to bend over backwards to ensure that every "t" is crossed and every "i" is dotted in any contracts or relationships with the Indians. We have to do this. It may be necessary to go outside of the branch in order to have some neutral person involved in some of these negotiations or contract discussions to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to build up the faith of native peoples in the non-Indian peoples. This is all I am concerned about and all I am getting at. I have no desire to say anything wrong against Mr. Boys or Mr. Brett or anybody else within the branch, regardless of what feelings I may have about them. These have nothing to do with the feelings of the Indian people toward them. This is the sole key to the matter I am concerned about, and unfortunately I do not think this attitude is being promoted in the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare of Indians-
688.	Operation and maintenance-to increase to $65,000 the grant to the province of Manitoba of one-half of the cost of a program of community development and to provide a further amount of, $765,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise another matter that was brought to my
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration attention this morning by a telephone call from Mr. Robert Angus, the editor of the Fort Nelson News in British Columbia. He was speaking on behalf of the chamber of commerce in that place about the state of the Indians at the Prophet river reserve, where it appears that there is an acute epidemic of hepatitis. I am not giving this information on my own responsibility but as information given to me. I say at once it is not information that I have personally and I am not making any charges; I merely want to bring this matter to the minister's attention so that it can be investigated immediately. Apparently the whole settlement of Fort Nelson is aroused over the situation of these Indians, and the reason they are apparently unable to resist this disease is acute malnutrition of a very serious kind.
As I say, not knowing any other facts about it I cannot give any more information than I have now given to the minister. Mr. Angus told me he sent last night by air mail a copy of the newspaper containing his article and setting out the facts in this matter. If the facts are such as he sketched to me there does seem to have been a very serious neglect of the welfare of these Indians. As I say, I have no means of knowing by whom. I intend to send the newspaper to the hon. lady as soon as I get it, but I felt that even one day should not be lost and that the matter should be brought to her attention immediately so that an immediate investigation can be made of the situation. Apparently almost the whole of this group of people are suffering from malnutrition, and now from a very serious malady as well, according to the information that has been given to me.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the responsibility and jurisdiction would rest with the Department of National Health and Welfare. I am sure the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will take note of what has been said, and I assure my hon. friend that the moment the committee rises I will communicate the information he has just given to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask him to take appropriate action.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman for reminding me of the constitutional responsibility, which I was not exactly unaware of before being reminded. But the Department of National Health and Welfare does not in fact have a doctor or health facilities on every Indian reserve. In connection with every Indian reserve there is an Indian superintendent and the primary responsibility is with the
2300	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Indian superintendent to bring these conditions to the attention of the medical authorities. I know the hon. lady herself recognizes that thoroughly.
I had not intended to say this, but the parliamentary secretary, in order to exonerate the Department of National Health and Welfare, has obliged me to say that there is the most acute criticism of the superintendent in this particular case in connection with this matter. As I say, I have no personal knowledge of the facts but this is one of those situations that appears to have aroused a whole community and I cannot think that responsible people such as the chamber of commerce and the editor of a newspaper would have been aroused about something that is not serious. I cannot think that responsible people like the members of this chamber of commerce and the editor of the newspaper should have been aroused about something which is not so. I hope the hon. lady will give us an assurance that something will be done about this right away.


Thomas Miller Bell: It will be treated on a basis of urgency.


Mr. Cardiff:: If this is so important, why did they not contact the government instead of the hon. gentleman?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman might write a letter to Mr. Angus and ask him that, or he might write to the chamber of commerce. I did not see any particular reason why I should be rude to someone who had taken the trouble to telephone me about a matter of public importance. For all I know he might have communicated with the minister as well. He might have communicated with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. How do we know? The Minister of National Health and Welfare is not here. It may be that attempts have been made to communicate with the local officials.
I am sure that if he had communicated with the hon. lady she would have done something about it. Maybe he communicated with the local officials and got no satisfaction.
I might add that this seems to be in the same region as that matter which my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo brought to the attention of the house the other day. Maybe more needs to be looked into in this particular area.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Since it is almost five o'clock, I cannot reply at any length to what the hon. member for Huron has said. He comes from my own section of the country, and his question would be noted. I think the logical reply to his question is that a request was made to my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate in the same way as


requests are continually being made to members of the opposition, simply because this government with regard to many things is not doing its job.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Anything that is brought to
the attention of my minister is looked after. It does not take him 22 years to look after a request.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had temporarily forgotten the fact that the hon. member for Huron is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Perhaps he could explain this whole situation to us right now.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I have no intention of replying right now. The matter will be brought to the attention of the minister; I can assure the hon. member of that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the hon. gentleman know anything about this situation before it was mentioned in the committee?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Not before the hon. member mentioned it, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
parliamentary secretary whether there are any health services in that particular area?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Civil Service Commission-
689.	Salaries and contingencies of the commission including compensation in accordance with the suggestion award plan of the public service of Canada-further amount required, $5,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: This item has to do with salaries and contingencies. Is someone not going to be paid if this $5,000 is not voted?


Thomas Miller Bell: This vote represents the cost of an increase in the numbers and amount of awards granted under the suggestion award plan.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the parliamentary
secretary give us an estimate of the amount which has been saved to the treasury in respect of which we are recompensating these people to the extent of $5,000?


Thomas Miller Bell: No, I do not have an
exact figure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
690.	Care, maintenance and custody of stand-by defence plant, buildings, machine tools and production tooling-further amount required, $100,000.
Lionel Chevrier: I regret the Minister of Defence Production is not in his seat. I think he should be on this occasion because this is a substantial amount of money having to

do with the care, maintenance and custody of stand-by defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling. I should like the minister to have been in his place because he might have given us an explanation of his presence at a certain meeting in Quebec held not so long ago and having to do with a sulphur plant. I should like to know from the minister whether or not this is one of the projects which could be described under this vote, namely, a defence plant. After all, several ministers were at this meeting, and the Minister of Defence Production has given little or no explanation for his presence. Perhaps if the minister cannot explain the nature of that project, the parliamentary secretary can.


Richard Albert Bell: This vote is one which will be of great advantage to the maritime provinces. It deals with repair and stand-by facilities and covers the cost of inhibiting, packing and shipping the CS2F tracker aircraft tooling presently in the plants of two contractors in Ontario, the De Havilland Aircraft Company and the Canadian Car division of the A. V. Roe Company, to the plant of Enamel and Heating Products Limited at Sackville, New Brunswick. The aircraft are being transferred from central Canada to the maritimes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the parliamentary
secretary say whether this is a true supplementary estimate or whether it is a new project which was not foreseen at the time supplementary estimates No. 3 were brought before us?


Richard Albert Bell: It is a true supplementary. The cost of the tooling was not foreseen at the time the main estimates or the earlier supplementary estimates were drawn up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Even No. 3?


Richard Albert Bell: Those estimates, of course, as the hon. gentleman is aware, were really prepared at the same time as estimates No. 2, back some time in January. The actual preparation of the estimates, as the hon. member knows, takes place some time before they are tabled in the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is there any production actually going on, or does this represent an effort to have this plant in readiness in the event work is available?


Richard Albert Bell: The vote is for repair and overhaul.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is there any production under way? How many men are employed, for instance, in production, if there is any production?
26207-1-147
Supply-Defence Production


Richard Albert Bell: My understanding of the vote is that it is for repair and overhaul. The general purpose of the main estimate, to which this is supplementary, is to provide for the cost of care, maintenance and custody of defence plants in a stand-by condition, and for the care and maintenance of buildings, machine tools, equipment and production tooling including cost of dismantling, packaging, crating, transportation, repairing, inhibiting, storage and other expenses incidental to the preservation of such facilities which may be required again. This is a transfer of those facilities, as I have indicated to the committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question has not been answered. Are these plants in production or is this something being built up in anticipation of anything in the future? Perhaps there is nothing ahead and this merely represents maintenance work. What is the situation?


Richard Albert Bell: I am advised that this is in respect of continuing repair and overhaul. This is to continue the work.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Continued overhaul of what? Surely you do not continue to overhaul a plant from which no production is carried on. Is there any production of any kind going on? If there is not, what is the purpose of keeping these plants in a state of preparedness? There may be a good reason. Is this part of the government's policy of meeting the problem of unemployment in chronically distressed areas? Is the government at long last listening to the pleas of the Liberal opposition that it should do something about unemployment? Is that what this means? We want to know. This is a good example of a situation which would be more easily dealt with if the minister himself were present to tell us the answers.


Richard Albert Bell: I shall be glad to tell the hon. gentleman now. This is for the annual repair and overhaul of the CS2F tracker aircraft. These are stationed at various points in the maritime provinces and are brought into this plant belonging to Enamel and Heating Products Limited for repair and overhaul.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a stand-by plant? It does not relate to plants already in production? The wording of the vote itself would seem to be misleading. If this plant is in actual operation-and I sincerely hope it is -it should be placed under some other vote. It should not be under a vote for a stand-by plant. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could make some inquiries and let us know more at eight o'clock.

National Energy Board Act


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps he could have the minister here, too.


Gordon Campbell Chown: It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the Chair so that the house may proceed with the consideration of private and public bills under standing order No. 15.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-5, to incorporate Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference-Mr. Muir (Lisgar)-Mr. MacEwan in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: For the benefit of the committee I should like to assure hon. members that the bill has been given a proper consideration in the other place and also in the miscellaneous private bills committee of this house. The bill incorporates the same procedure as that which is used in the establishment of the central administrative bodies of churches of all faiths. I might say that, with the Easter season approaching, it would seem appropriate that we consider this measure in committee at this time and subsequently give it third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-33, to amend the National Energy Board Act (drainage works).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill was brought before the house previously on December 13, 1960. By reference to the debate on that date the arguments presented at that time are available to the members of the house. The bill presented this year is similar in all respects to that presented in 1960. It provides as follows:
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
1.	Subsection (1) of section 75 of the National Energy Board Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"75.	(1) Sections 207 to 246, section 248 and
section 273 of the Railway Act, in so far as they are reasonably applicable and not inconsistent with this act, apply mutatis mutandis to companies and their works and undertakings."
Then section 2 of the proposed amendment would repeal section 77 of the National Energy Board Act and substitute the following therefor:
"77. (1) Except a drain used to drain land that for the purpose of municipal assessment is classed as a farm, market garden, or nursery, no highway, private road, railway, irrigation ditch, drain, drainage ditch, sewer, telegraph, telephone line or line for the transmission of hydrocarbons, power or any other substance shall, except by leave of the board, be carried across, along, upon or under any pipe line.
The history of section 273 of the Railway Act, which the amendment aims to have included in the National Energy Board Act, would make pipe lines operating under federal charter subject to provincial drainage laws as are pipe lines operating under provincial charter.
Back in 1903 this house spent many days debating an amendment to the Railway Act as it existed at that time in order that farmers might be adequately protected against large railway corporations when it came to settling drainage crossings on railway properties. Our Canadian sense of fair play provides that those in a contest should have equal ability; that is to say, we do not pit a large corporation against a small private individual. That procedure is not fair. In 1903 the debates surrounding the advisability of introducing or creating section 273 of the Railway Act centred around that principle. It was felt that individual farmers and drainage authorities had neither the resources nor the wealth to contest successfully the points of law and points of advantage with the great railway corporations of those days. The net result was that section 273 was incorporated into the Railway Act in order to compel the railways to carry across railway property, at the expense of the railway, farm drains and drains provided for by drainage authorities. When the Pipe Lines Act was set up, although 40 some sections of the Railway Act which involved provisions for the expropriation of land and settlement for the same were incorporated into the Pipe Lines Act, section 273 of the Railway Act was left out. Therefore the individual farmer and drainage authorities in the various parts of Canada were left to fight an unequal battle against the great pipe line corporations.
When the National Energy Board Act was introduced in 1959 and passed by the house, again section 273 of the Railway Act was

omitted, although 40 some sections of the Railway Act were incorporated in the National Energy Board Act. Having regard to the way in which the act is being administered, it is now felt that section 273 should be incorporated into the National Energy Board Act. It is felt that the provisions of section 273 of the Railway Act are just as necessary today in the National Energy Board Act to protect individual farmers and drainage authorities against the great pipe line corporations as the provisions of that section of the Railway Act were necessary back in 1903 to protect the farmers and drainage authorities of those days.
As an indication of the attitude of the pipe line companies, I might say that there are now four pipe lines crossing Middlesex West. Three of them operate under provincial charter and therefore are subject to the provisions contained in section 273 of the Railway Act. In other words, they are subject to provincial drainage regulations. One of the four pipe lines which crosses Middlesex West, Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, operates under a federal charter and does not come under the provisions of the provincial drainage legislation of Ontario. The result is that when a farm drain or a municipal drain has to be run across the right of way of any one of the three pipe lines of Sun oil, Imperial oil and Union gas, those three lines must pay the extra cost which is occasioned by their presence or operation there. There is no question that they pay these costs and as far as I know everyone seems quite happy with the situation.
However, Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, operating under a federal charter, does not come under these provincial drainage regulations as contained in section 273 of the Railway Act, with the result that they do not pay the costs of such crossings. They assess these costs against the individual farmer or against the municipal drainage authority.
It is true that up to the present time, with one exception as far as I know, individual farmers and drainage authorities who have constructed drains across the right of way of Interprovincial Pipe Line Company have agreed to the conditions laid down by that company which assess the whole cost against the farmer or the drainage authority.
I should like to outline the conditions laid down by Interprovincial Pipe Line Company with respect to such crossings and to do so I should like to place on the record a letter from Interprovincial Pipe Line Company to Archibald, Gray and McKay, Ontario land surveyors, London, Ontario, dated January 21, 1960. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether I could have permission to have this letter 26207-1-1474
National Energy Board Act included in Hansard rather than reading it. It is composed of three sheets.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not customary to read at great length from documents in the course of a debate. Can the hon. member not select enough to make his point?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: It is rather difficult to make the point inasmuch as the conditions that are laid down cover approximately two pages. I think they are important to the case we are trying to make because the conditions laid down by the pipe line company are strongly biased in favour of the company. As a matter of fact, they load on the back of the individual farmer or drainage authority all the responsibility for carrying the drain across the pipe line and for maintaining it in the future. If there is objection to including this in Hansard without my reading it, I shall read those parts which I think should be included. They say in part in their letter:
As there are, as yet, no regulations covering such crossing, this company will request the national energy board to include in their order the following conditions:
1.	Except as hereunder provided, all work in connection with the construction, maintenance, renewal and repair of the proposed crossing of the company's pipe line by the drain of the applicant and the continued supervision of the same shall be performed by the authority having control over such drain, or the owner thereof, as the case may be, at its own cost and expense, unless the renewal or repair is made necessary by the negligence of others. No work shall at any time be done in such a manner as to unduly obstruct, delay or interfere with the operation of the company's pipe line. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all work which might disturb the pipe, which necessitates re-aligning, raising or lowering the pipe or excavating material from over or round it, or the addition of casing or other appurtenances thereto, shall be performed by the company, and all costs and expenses of such work shall be borne and paid by the authority having control over such drain, or the owner thereof, as the case may be.
2.	The authority having control over the drain, or the owner thereof, shall at all times maintain its crossing of the company's pipe line in good working order and condition, so that at no time shall any damage be caused to the company's pipe line or its usefulness or safety be impaired, or the full use and enjoyment thereof be in any way interfered with.
3.	Subject to the proviso hereinafter set out, before any work of constructing, renewing or repairing its crossing of the company's pipe line is begun, the authority having control over such crossing or the party making, owning or operating such crossing, as the case may be, shall give to the company at least 48 hours notice thereof in writing, to enable the company to appoint an inspector to see that the work is performed in such a manner as shall, in all respects, comply with this order; except that in cases of emergency, the appropriate official of the company shall be notified immediately. The amount of wages and expenses of such inspector shall be paid by the authority having control over such drain, or the owner thereof, as the case may be, upon receipt
2304	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board Act
from the company of a statement showing in reasonable detail the particulars of such wages and expenses.
4.	The applicant shall at all times wholly indemnify the company from and against all loss, costs, damage, injury and expense to which the company may be put by reason of any damage or injury to persons or property caused by the drain construction, maintenance or operation of the drain, as well as against any damage or injury resulting from the imprudence, neglect or want of skill of the employees or agents of the applicant in connection with the construction, operation, maintenance, renewal or repair of said drain, or any other works herein provided for, unless the cause of such loss, cost, damage, injury or expense can be traced elsewhere.
Those are the conditions requested by Interprovincial Pipe Line Company in connection with any order which the board shall issue for a private individual or drainage authority to carry a drain across their pipe. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that these conditions are heavily weighted in favour of the pipe line company and offer little or no protection to the farmer or drainage authority concerned.
Any crossings which have been made to date have been made under these conditions. So far as I am aware, all the costs of drains carried across interprovincial pipe lines have been paid for by the farmer or drainage authority concerned. However, three pipe lines have expended as much as $7,000 or $8,000 per crossing in expenses in order to carry drains across their line, and there has been no question about who should pay those costs. All pipe lines operating under provincial charter pay all the extra costs when any farm drain of an individual farmer or drainage authority crosses their line. It is suggested that, in all fairness and justice, this anomaly should be removed and that all pipe lines should be treated alike. This amendment, therefore, is proposed to the National Energy Board Act in an effort to see that any discrimination is removed and that the pipe line companies have to give the same deal to all farmers and drainage authorities concerned.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few short and personal comments following the statement of the hon. member. I examined Bill No. C-33, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act (drainage works), and I must say that I want to express some rather significant reservations on the matter.
I have no doubt that in submitting this bill, the hon. member has a very praiseworthy aim, and that its effects might, in some cases, be of great benefit to farmers.
I believe that this is, primarily a local is-


sue, for which it would seem possible to find a solution without resorting to such drastic amendments.
But I do not object so much to that as to the way of going about it, which, to my mind, is prejudicial to provincial rights in that regard.
We are dealing here with drainage works, and I think that the hon. member who preceded me will admit that there is nothing more local and provincial than drainage works. The explanatory notes to the bill, and more particularly the last two paragraphs, speak for themselves in that respect, and I quote:
The result of the present laws is that the railway utilities, interprovincial and provincial, and the provincial pipe lines utilities are subject to provincial drainage authorities while the interprovincial and international pipe line utilities are subject to the national energy board.
This bill proposes to incorporate in the National Energy Board Act the provincial drainage laws so as to apply these laws to interprovincial and international pipe lines with respect to farms, market gardens and nurseries so classed under the applicable provincial assessment law.
In other words, and to summarize the scope of this bill, what is intended here is the incorporation in a federal act, by way of an amendment, of all provincial drainage laws.
In my opinion, it will be necessary to redefine farms, market gardens and nurseries. It can readily be seen how these definitions, for the purposes of municipal assessments, can vary from one province to another.
I fail to see how such a bill could be approved without the province having been consulted on the matter. I want to point out that we seem to forget too often that the provinces hold annual sessions, through interprovincial conferences. Thanks to the leadership of the premier of the province of Quebec, discussion with the provinces is much more easy now.
Too often, in passing measures of this kind which we considered by ourselves, we confront the provinces with a fait accompli.
It may be that we are faced with technical problems-this might well be so in this case- and that the co-operation of the provinces is not only desirable but necessary.
I submit that in any field of joint federal-provincial jurisdiction, and especially in any field of purely local and provincial jurisdiction, we should have here, in the House of Commons, some machinery which would prevent the repeated introduction of certain bills

which I feel exceed our jurisdiction and which, even if they were adopted, would be ultra vires and could not be carried out.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is a rather easy way of overcoming such a difficulty.
We all know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) is authorized since the Canadian Bill of Rights has been passed to examine bills introduced in this house to satisfy himself that they are not contrary to any provision of the bill of rights. Therefore, I feel that the bill now before us would not have been introduced if such a check had been made.
In any field involving federal and provincial jurisdictions, I wonder why the Minister of Justice as well as the officials of his department would not be authorized to examine the bills before their introduction to see if they are not encroaching upon the exclusive privileges of the provinces.
I think that if that was done, many a difficulty could be prevented.
I do not want to take too much of the time of the house, because I wish to give other members the opportunity to comment on this bill.
May I simply be allowed to sum up. The intention here is to incorporate provincial drainage laws in a federal statute, and from the explanatory notes I read a moment ago, I am inclined to question the constitutionality of the bill.
However, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) for having introduced this bill. I believe that his purpose is very commendable, and that it would be in the interest of a very large number of our fellow citizens that something be done along those lines, so that drainage projects may be carried out in the most practical way for all farmers and landowners through whose lands those pipe lines pass.
In my opinion, it would be possible to find a more practical and easier solution, a solution which would certainly be more constitutional than this bill introduced by the hon. member.
(Text):


Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: On rising to speak briefly about this bill I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) who has brought this matter to our attention again. Contrary to the views expressed by the previous speaker, I believe it is a matter which we should seriously consider passing.
With vast resources of gas and oil in western Canada and with major markets for it in the east, it will mean that in the
National Energy Board Act future we will have many more pipe lines bringing gas and oil to eastern Canada. I should like to give my interpretation of the bill. Its intention is to amend the National Energy Board Act so that the construction of pipe lines will come within the provisions of the provincial statutes and be subject to provincial drainage laws and to the judicial interpretation of these laws by the courts, regardless of whether the pipe lines are constructed under a provincial or federal charter.
In past years we have not had too much of a problem in connection with oil and gas pipe lines constructed under federal charter because there were not too many of them. However this is now becoming a factor which we must consider. At the present time there are several bills coming before the house in connection with the construction of gas and oil pipe lines through different parts of Canada and for that reason I think it is most important we should consider this bill and give it some measure of approval. With the advance of time there are other problems to be considered, probably not particularly connected with this bill, but there is also the building of underground power transmission lines and telephone lines under federal charter, that cross more than one province.
Surely it is only reasonable that the national energy board drainage regulations should be amended to comply with provincial drainage regulations? I do not intend to deal with the mechanics of the bill. I believe the hon. member for Middlesex West has done that in a very able manner, but I would like to outline some of the problems which appear to me in connection with the building of pipe lines. For instance there is the disruption of a land tile drainage system, which is a most important matter in the province of Ontario, more especially where we have fruit and vegetable growers.
I understand that a 30-inch pipe line, which is a common size for the bigger projects, has to be placed about six to eight feet deep in the ground, and the trench must be quite wide to provide working space while the pipe line is being built. One can readily understand the problem there. But even in the case of a pipe line of much less capacity the flow of a field tile drainage system could be completely disrupted and could only be made to operate satisfactorily by the construction of an interceptor tile drainage system on either side of the pipe line. I have some experience in connection with this and I know it is a problem which could lead to a lot of expense.
Unless the construction of pipe lines is brought under the regulations of provincial
2306	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board Act drainage laws this expense could very easily fall to the responsibility and cost of the farmers and wheat growers whose land is crossed by a pipe line. I also contend that pipe lines for the transmission of gas and oil should come under the regulations of provincial drainage laws for the purpose of being made subject to special assessments for clearing and repairing natural water courses, just the same as other structures and assessable prop-perties above ground. Occasionally water courses have to be cleared and repaired, and when that is done an assessment is made under the authority of provincial drainage law and it is assessed against the adjacent properties concerned. Should federal pipe lines be excluded from provincial drainage regulations it is quite possible they might not have to share part of this cost.
There is also damage caused by interference with natural water courses and spring flooding conditions, which often cannot be calculated until wash-outs and flooding take place. Provision can best be made to provide for these hazards under provincial drainage laws.
There is another matter I wish to raise and it is one which is not entirely relevant to this bill. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, if I get out of order you will correct me. I have made some study of this matter and I recommend to the national energy board that they take into consideration ways and means to recover to Canada-where facilities are available and where there is a requirement-a proportion of the huge quantities of Canadian gas and oil that may be piped into the United States from points west of Port Arthur. This gas and oil is transshipped by a great network of pipe lines across the United States, and I understand some of it arrives back in Canada, and I suppose at substantially increased costs.
I have checked with the national energy board and have been advised that no recovery provisions have yet been made in export permits for gas and oil. However, they agree it is a matter well worth considering.
Mr. Speaker, I could say more on this matter but I know other hon. members wish to speak on it. I think that as far as the province of Ontario is concerned this bill is a matter that should be given very favourable consideration. As the mover of the bill has mentioned it is connected with the old Railway Act which was brought in many, many years ago. We have to review these matters from time to time and, as I have already said, because of the large number of gas and oil pipe lines that are coming to eastern Canada we should take steps now to see that those with federal charters come within the provincial drainage schemes.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join previous speakers in this debate in congratulating the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) for the work he has done in the preparation of this bill and for the discussion that has ensued from it.
I believe we are all very worried when we hear or read of the terms and requirements that are made by pipe line companies. We have heard read this afternoon correspondence from an interprovincial pipe line and we heard the terms they made when they had the opportunity of evading some of the responsibilities that other pipe lines have to face. These are legal terminologies, it is true; but they remind me of reading the original contracts which farmers signed in many cases, and the heavy legal verbiage which allowed absolutely no loophole whatever to anyone connected with the contract. I think a farmer is terrified by the language itself and therefore when he makes any request he is, and rightly should be, always very cautious when approaching any problem in connection with pipe lines.
It is perfectly true that in Ontario there is going to be a continuing and growing demand for drainage and that where drainage crosses a pipe line it is going to be highly essential that this drainage be carried out at the lowest possible cost to the municipality, the authority or the farmer who may be involved in the drainage program. For the success and progress of our agricultural industry it is necessary that drainage shall take place on a much larger scale than has been necessary in the past. For this reason we must be concerned with the advent of gas pipe lines passing through the agricultural lands of Ontario. I have been concerned with the trend that has been indicated by at least one speaker today. He indicated that we should use as the basis of our argument the fact that the province of Ontario or other provinces have passed drainage laws in a provincial sense, and because the federal act has not been sufficient to take care of this problem in the past we should make all pipe lines into provincial lines so that they would be under provincial jurisdiction and the provincial governments, having jurisdiction over both fields, would find less difficulty in equalizing the problem as between the drainage act and the Pipe Lines Act. I suggest that this is a dangerous thing to do because, as the last speaker pointed out, there is an increasing growth in Canada, not only of lines carrying oil and other commodities in the province, but there is also a very large and growing field of international and interprovincial pipe lines.

Our laws must be brought into line. I think this is really what would happen if the amendments contained in this bill were put into effect.
I agree with those who say that this may be a very cumbersome way of doing it. It may be true that we would have to go back to the Railway Act and pick out some of the sections that should not necessarily have been applied, but I think this has been made necessary by the very inflexibility of the pipe lines with which we deal. The Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, and particularly Trans Canada Pipe Line Limited have shown their inflexibility in any type of dealing not covered by the contract they originally signed. In my opinion these original contracts had the best legal brains in the country behind them and the pipe line companies had at their beck and call the best kind of legal advice in drawing them up.
I am always amused to remember that the only thing that was not put into the bill concerning the trans-Canada pipe line was a complete and workable expropriation clause. How they could have missed the most important one, I do not know, because I am sure from reading many of these contracts that the pipe line companies employed the best legal brains they could afford. I think it is a condemnation of the legal advice that pipe lines receive when it is necessary for the hon. member for Middlesex West to ask parliament today to enact laws that will provide for the very simple matter of allowing water to flow from one area to another and surmount the difficulties created by pipe lines. It is perfectly true that the pipe line companies have expropriated, bought or own the particular strip of land under which they have put their pipe line. But this does not give them the almighty right to say, "We will not allow any other type of development in the area". They were able to look far enough ahead and see that there would not be a loophole which would mean they would have to give some assistance to the farmers and they have relied upon their contracts when this question has arisen.
I think the farmer has a right, if he is draining the back 40 acres of his farm to another area of the farm, to say to the pipe line company, "You are obstructing this drainage". He should be able to say this, as he can when a highway is involved. I think the farmer should have the right to say, "You must put in the connecting link in my drainage system. This is your responsibility. You are now a member of the community. You are part of this area. This should be done".
I think it is a condemnation of this whole industry that we should have to come to parliament and ask, in what I consider to be
National Energy Board Act a very roundabout way, for a very simple and basic need to be provided, namely the need for drainage in rural areas. I believe that the pipe line companies would find a great many more friends in parliament and across the country if they did not try to beat the little farmer but instead co-operated with him in connection with the rights they obtained when buying these narrow strips of land under which they buried their pipe lines.
I suggest they should always be responsible for the particular area and putting in the connecting link, because I think it would be unfair to ask the farmer to dig up the pipe line and put in the connecting link himself. I think this would be dangerous. I think it would not be in the interests of safety if he had to do this, particularly if there happened to be some rock there and he decided to use force to remove the obstruction. I think everyone will agree that this is going to have to be done by the company itself, and the company should carry the expense of maintaining their interest and participation in the community in co-operation with the other members of the community, who in most cases happen to be farmers whose land they are crossing, and in some cases dividing, by their pipe line. I hope we will not give any consideration to this idea of dividing into provincial jurisdictions the pipe lines that are interprovincial in nature. I believe the federal government has a responsibility for maintaining liaison with the provincial governments and for giving whatever direction may be necessary by way of regulations or other means, such as the bill now before us, to assure farmers and other members of the community, including drainage authorities, that they will have free access to this type of land so that drainage can be completed. It is well known that the presence of a pipe line does not mean that the whole topography of an area is changed and that water will begin to flow in another direction.
The house has an opportunity of passing this measure this afternoon so that its provisions may be put speedily into effect. It is unfortunate that it should be necessary to proceed in this way by adding a section to the act which would allow the drainage authorities the same rights as they would have enjoyed if we had been dealing with a highway, a railroad or some other obstruction. Years ago it was necessary to deal with this problem while the railways were being laid. I should have thought that the improvement in public relations since then would have allowed us to deal with the present difficulties in a much more friendly manner. However, if that is not the case I shall certainly support the proposed amendment and I hope other members of the committee will do likewise.
2308	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board Act


Mr. Granl Campbell (Stormont):: As has
been indicated, this bill deals with amendments to the National Energy Board Act to make pipe lines operating under federal charter, that is, interprovincial and even international pipe lines, subject to the drainage laws of the provinces through which the pipe lines pass. It is suggested that for this purpose section 273 of the Railway Act be added to the 49 sections of the Railway Act already incorporated in section 75 (1) of the National Energy Board Act.
I have had very little experience indeed, I must confess, with this type of problem but when I heard there was this strange difference between the procedure required to get compensation from interprovincial pipe line companies as compared with the relatively simple and expeditious procedure involved in provincial pipe lines, I was amazed. I think this anomaly, this omission, must obviously have been due to inadvertence rather than design. I can see all sorts of problems involved with which municipalities and farms will have to contend increasingly even in eastern Ontario, questions which are fertile of litigation; whether, for instance, a pipe line under construction should go under or over existing trunk sewer or even a farm tiled drainage system. Every three or five years these drains have to be cleaned out and maintained. Surely, if one of these ditches intersects an oil pipe line, the company should be responsible for contributing a portion of the cost of this maintenance. There are many other instances where these difficulties arise. Many, as I say, are fertile of litigation. Nevertheless, that is an expensive course to take both in time and in the cost involved and as has been suggested people tend to be, if you will, almost terrified by the prospects of having to contend with highly paid legal counsel, the best available advice, such as the pipe line companies can afford.
In wet regions and especially in certain parts of Ontario, surplus water gathers in low spots in the fields and this interferes with cultivation and ruins standing crops. Proper drainage is the answer to this condition. Even in our own area of Cornwall tile drainage will become increasingly common. This drainage is provided by placing stone tiles end to end in a trench approximately two feet below the surface of the land. Surface water seeps into the drain and is carried away into suitable outlets, usually into larger drains and ultimately into open ditches. This permits the aeration of the soil and allows a healthy crop to grow. It also helps the cultivation of the soil.
I see that time is passing fast. I just want to emphasize, since I shall not be able to


finish the remarks I wish to make, that these proposed amendments to the National Energy Board Act were endorsed by the Ontario association of land surveyors at their annual meeting which was held in Hamilton in February, 1960. I think it is interesting that one of the gentlemen who took part in those discussions at that time is a friend and former classmate of mine from Cornwall, Mr. Leonard Stidwell. I think it is important that we should anticipate these difficulties before they become acute and therefore I think it is highly desirable that this legislation should be incorporated into the National Energy Board Act so as to provide an expeditious, quick, efficient, cheap and familiar method of dealing with this problem.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

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



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
690.	Care, maintenance and custody of stand-by defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling-further amount required, $100,000.
["I really regret to have to interrupt this debate at this time, but the clock indicates that it is ten o'clock and it is therefore my duty to ask the committee if I may rise, report certain resolutions and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.\nItem stands.\nResolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in."]
The Chairman:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
["It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.\nAt six o'clock the committee took recess."]
Richard Albert Bell: When the committee rose at five o'clock there were some members of the committee who were having difficulty in understanding the explanation I had given of this particular item. The fault quite obviously was mine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit me to correct him? I am sure he will do that.


Richard Albert Bell: Yes, I will do that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it not the
situation that my hon. friend did not have the facts?


Richard Albert Bell: No, not at all. My
hon. friend's hon. friend had the facts in full, but the circumstances were perhaps not expressed with that precise clarity which

is required in order to make the hon. member for Essex East appreciate in full the details of the facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is another way of saying the parliamentary secretary had not done his homework.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think the parliamentary secretary had done his homework in full. Since we are starting off the evening in this pleasant way, I trust that we shall end it with equal pleasantries.
The position is this. The production in Canada of the CS2F tracker anti-submarine aircraft for the navy was completed in 1960. As these carrier-borne aircraft normally operate off the east coast and have an operational life of from eight years to 10 years it was decided by the government to select a repair and overhaul facility in the maritimes. In order that the necessary parts and components would be available for this facility it was also considered advisable to transfer to the same area the tooling that was used in the production of the aircraft. The only particular in which I was perhaps slightly inaccurate this afternoon is that I spoke of only one contractor in the maritime provinces, that of Enamel and Heating Products Limited, at Sackville. There is a further firm, namely Fairey Aviation Company Limited, Dartmouth. The latter contractor in Nova Scotia was selected for the repair and overhaul work and the second contractor, namely Enamel and Heating Products of Sackville was chosen for the production of the necessary aircraft parts and components. This production tooling will be kept in a stand-by condition to be withdrawn for the production of spares as required. This is the most economical approach to the situation.
The relocation in the maritimes of the CS2F tooling which originally cost around $9 million and which is presently at several locations in Ontario involves expenditures for packing, inhibiting and shipping. This is estimated to cost in excess of $140,000 of which it is anticipated that $100,000 will be spent in the current year. That is why a supplementary estimate in the amount of $100,000 is being submitted.
My hon. friend from Essex East was interested in what the future was. He will appreciate that this vote deals with the transfer of tooling to the plants in the maritimes and that once it is there, then the repair and the overhaul will come normally from the ordinary vote of the Department of National Defence, navy.
26207-1-148
Supply-Defence Production


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall vote 690 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: All I can say is
that the parliamentary secretary who has obviously done without his evening meal-


Thomas Miller Bell: Not at all. He has done very well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and has obtained some facts, has presented the committee with a picture that seems to be out of proportion having regard to the amount actually being asked. It is difficult to conceive that the situation warrants the exaggerated account we have received from the parliamentary secretary of what is proposed by this expenditure. However, we have learned, as a result of this intervention, that we have afforded the hon. gentleman an opportunity of at least being able to provide what reasonably, without examination, might seem to be an adequate reply to a simple question. However, on analysis of what the hon. gentleman has said, it is apparent that he has not really answered the question.


Thomas Miller Bell: Oh, oh.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Crown companies-Canadian Arsenals Limited-
691.	Administration and operation-to extend the purposes of vote 74, main estimates, 1961-62, to reimburse Canadian Arsenals Limited in respect of outstanding balances of previous years' operating deficits, $1.
['Oh, oh.']
Lionel Chevrier: Will the parliamentary secretary explain the nature of this vote? It is for $1?


John Whitney Pickersgill: More than that. In the margin appears the sum of $100,001.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: This is really a technical matter.
On their balance sheet of December 30, 1961, Canadian Arsenals show an item "Uncleared Funds" due by the receiver general and amounting to $129,339.92.
This sum represents the total of two balances of expenditures by the company in the fiscal years ended March 31, 1960 and March 31, 1961, which were in excess of the total funds provided in the estimates in those years.
If hon. gentlemen will examine the reports of the Auditor General they will find the full particulars. Particulars taken from the reports of the Auditor General are as follows:
2310	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs 1959-60 Provided in main estimates (vote 74) _________ $ 2,000,000
Net loss from operations during year	2,059,719
Balance due from
Receiver General	$	59,719
1960-61 Provided in main and supplementary estimates (votes 73 and
509)		$ 2,849,120
Net loss from operations during year .. 2,918,741
Balance due from
Receiver General	69,621
Total of uncleared funds at December 30, 1961	$	129,340
Based on present forecasts by the company, the 1961-62 estimates provision of $3,880,230 in vote 74 for the administration and operation of Canadian Arsenals Limited will be more than sufficient to meet the company's 1961-62 actual requirements. Funds in this vote will therefore be available from which to reimburse the company for the actual balance of $129,339.92 due in respect of the years 1959-60 and 1960-61. Authority is accordingly sought through the above supplementary entry to transfer $129,339.92 to Canadian Arsenals Limited from the 1961-62 funds provided under vote 74.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know whether I followed the parliamentary secretary too well, however, apparently there has been a deficit in previous years in connection with the operation of this crown corporation.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is correct.


Lionel Chevrier: In what we are voting here is not the amount of the deficit because the whole item appears as the sum of $1. How is the money obtained? Is it from the consolidated revenue fund in payment of these deficits to which the parliamentary secretary has referred?


Thomas Miller Bell: We are getting authority in this for the amount of the deficit for the two years less the amount of the surplus for this year. This is purely an item of authority.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
692.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $225,000.
Paul Joseph James Martin: This item introduces a series of votes in the Department of External Affairs totalling some $4,144,998 which the Secretary of State for External Affairs is asking parliament to approve. I am going to ask the parliamentary secretary who is charged with this matter in the House of


Commons at the present time, if he will agree to postponing this item until tomorrow. I am informed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be arriving from Geneva some time between 10 p.m. and midnight tonight. He has been at an extremely important conference in Geneva, as we all know, involving matters of the greatest importance. While under normal circumstances he would be expected to make a report on motions tomorrow it seems to me, as I am sure it will to the committee, that it would be desirable to have him do this in committee so that he might not only make a statement but as well that we might be given an opportunity to question him in a constructive way, I am sure, about the matters which have engaged his attention.
So I hope that at this stage, whatever may be the view of the government with regard to the way in which it proposes to conduct the estimates, it would be agreed that in the light of the fact that there has not been much discussion of foreign affairs this session and as this will be the last opportunity to do so before dissolution, the Secretary of State for External Affairs should be afforded the opportunity to deal with these various estimates and particularly for the reason I mentioned at the outset, that it will afford him an opportunity to give a report on what took place in Geneva and give members of the house an opportunity to elicit further information from him.
There is another reason for putting this request at this time. Unlike former sessions, there has been no sitting of the external affairs committee, an arrangement that has enabled us to pursue interrogations in past years, and which therefore eliminated unnecessary duplication of discussion in the house. Apart altogether from the desirability of having ministers conduct the discussion of these various estimates themselves, to which course the government has registered a very strong and totalitarian objection-I say that with no offence because we are in a very happy and constructive mood tonight-I think that the parliamentary secretary should accede readily to the suggestion that we postpone until tomorrow item 692 and the following items under external affairs up to 706. If there is any difference of opinion then as to the procedure to be followed we could have that argument at that time. I simply request at this time that the parliamentary secretary forgo dealing with these matters until the return to the house of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to support wholeheartedly the most reasonable plea of the hon. member for Essex East that

the estimates of the Department of External Affairs be postponed until the minister returns, which I understand he will do tomorrow.


Mr. Mariin (Essex Easi):: Tonight.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But it will be possible for him to be present tomorrow. In view of the fact that the committee on external affairs has not sat this session and in view of the excellent work the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been doing at Geneva, I think it would be most unfortunate if this house were to pass these estimates without having a report from him. I am sure we are all looking forward to hearing of his activities at Geneva, and we on this side again look forward to extending our co-operation to the government through constructive suggestions for the improvement of our foreign policy. I do urge the parliamentary secretary to give consideration to our pleas.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East knows how very difficult it is for me ever to resist his blandishments, and when they are supported by the hon. member for Kootenay West it is all the more difficult. But this is an occasion when I must indicate that what they have suggested would be in fact a departure from what has been the practice of the committee of supply.
We had some discussion yesterday as to what has been the practice in dealing with final supplementary estimates. In all instances they have been dealt with not by the individual ministers concerned, with one or perhaps two exceptions, I think, but by the Minister of Finance whose poor substitute I am on this particular occasion. The custom and tradition of the committee have never been to use the final supplementary estimates for statements of policy of the type to which the hon. member for Essex East refers.
The final supplementary estimates generally, and in this case in particular, as my friend will see, deal with the provision of further amounts. The policy has been determined earlier by the committee. The issue which is before the committee in these instances is the wisdom or otherwise of supplementing amounts, and that is why these estimates are called supplementary estimates. If we were to concede the point of view of the hon. member for Essex East, then in each instance the minister of the crown whose estimates they were would be in the house for these final supplementary estimates.
I think perhaps the best statement that has been made in respect of the procedure in this regard was made by that very distinguished minister of finance, Mr. Justice Abbott. Over 26207-1-1481
Supply-External Affairs the dinner hour I sought to find the statement he made on one occasion when he was minister of finance. I believe that during all the time he was minister he conducted the final supplementaries himself. I know that in the election year of 1953 the final supplementaries, with almost as many items as there are at the present time, went through in less than one afternoon.
To concede what my hon. friends suggest would be a departure from the tradition, custom and practice of this committee, and difficult as it is for me to resist the hon. member for Essex East when he is in one of his rare reasonable moods, I regret that I have to do so tonight.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the decision just made by the parliamentary secretary involved great concern and discernment on his part. He has given certain reasons for his position, but I want to bring to his attention one or two points that I think differentiate the position in which we find ourselves tonight from that to which my hon. friend has made reference. He says it is the custom and tradition of this house in dealing with supplementary estimates not to have the ministers in their seats to answer questions. That statement-*


Thomas Miller Bell: Is true.


Lionel Chevrier: -is not wholly accurate because I can remember full well further supplementary estimates when I had to come into the house at the request of the then minister of finance to explain certain matters concerning items under the heading of the Department of Transport. I can think of two particular instances right now where there would have been a terrific row if I had not been here and I will bring them to the attention of the parliamentary secretary if need be.
The other point I wish to bring to his attention is that the circumstances today are entirely different from those to which my hon. friend has reference. First, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as the hon. member for Essex East has said, has been at an important conference in Geneva and I think he would be one of the first to want to be in the house to discuss these items. The minister has been away for some time on important government business and it seems to me that the house would welcome his presence here. Knowing him as I do, I am sure that he too would want to be here to give an explanation of these items. I am also satisfied in my own mind that if he were here they would go through much faster.
However, leaving that aside and without assenting for the moment to what my hon. friend has said, let me say to him that the

Supply-External Affairs circumstances today are entirely different from those to which he refers because, as has been succinctly put by the hon. member for Essex East, we do not know how long we are going to be here. Having regard to these circumstances, if it is a fact that this is the last opportunity we will have to discuss estimates then it is our duty and responsibility to ascertain what these expenditures are for. It is also our duty and responsibility-


Thomas Miller Bell: I shall be glad to tell the hon. member.


Murdo William Martin: Does my hon. friend really seriously contend-


Lionel Chevrier: I have not finished yet. I want to say, if that is the case, as I have every reason to believe it is, then I think we should know, a fortiori, what these things refer to.
There is another reason, a far more important reason, which was raised by my hon. friend yesterday. It has to do with the manner in which these supplementary estimates No. 4 have been compiled. If you look at them and compare them with No. 3, you will find there is no reason for having a discussion of these estimates at this time. If they had been prepared with due order and without the confusion to which I referred the other day in a question addressed to the Minister of Finance, all except perhaps a few of them could have been included in supplementary estimates No. 3. If you look at No. 3, and compare it with No. 4, you will find the titles are practically the same and the items are practically the same. There is little or no difference.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is not true.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to take up an undue amount of the time of the house, but I have marked here in red ink the duplicate items. If my hon. friend insists, I will give him the items that are contained in supplementary estimates 3 and 4.


Richard Albert Bell: There are five.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend says there are five. I refer to supplementary estimates No. 4, items 677 to 682, which are under the production and marketing branch; then there is land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage projects, and these are the same as in estimates No. 3. The items in external affairs are in large part a duplication. They are not the same items; that is not what I intended to say, but they are a duplication. The point I am trying to make is that these estimates should have been ready and prepared and included in supplementary estimates No. 3 rather than in No. 4 because there is a period of barely three weeks

between the time No. 3 was tabled in this house and the time No. 4 was tabled.
There is an added reason why it seems to me that there has not been the order in the preparation of these estimates that normally there is under conditions of this kind. For these reasons, I again ask the parliamentary secretary if he will not give consideration to the point which was raised by the hon. member for Essex East.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the parliamentary secretary replies and so that he will not repeat a statement that he could not support, I turned up the only volume of Hansard I happened to have on my desk. I looked at page 2402 of Hansard for 1957, volume III, and I read:
Supply: The house in committee of supply. Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair. Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Immigration Branch-553.
Field and inspectional service, Canada-further amount required, $194,177.


Thomas Miller Bell: What date was that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: March 18, 1957, the last further supplementaries brought into this house by my friend Mr. Harris. There was a question by Mr. Knowles, a reply by me and then pages and pages thereafter of discussion in which Mr. Harris took no part but in which I took a part. This was only characteristic of what happened whenever hon. members in the opposition in those days wanted information from a minister. The difference, as my hon. friend from Laurier has pointed out, between the situation in the days when hon. gentlemen were over here and we were over there and the hon. member for Carleton and I most of the time were out of the house, was that our supplementaries were supplementaries. They were not a complete new budget. This is a new feature of this government this year. As I pointed out yesterday, in all, the further supplementaries added together from the year ending March 31, 1953 to March 31, 1957, all the further supplementaries added together in those five years were $357 million and the further supplementaries for 1961-62 are $341 million for this one year, nearly as much as the last five years before 1957.
Well, this means you are bringing in a new budget. You are upsetting the ways and means. It means the Minister of Finance had no notion, as we know he did not last year, of what he was doing at all. Never before that I have been able to discover have four sets of further supplementaries been introduced. Perhaps this happened in Mr. Bennett's day, but never again as far as I have been able to ascertain. The whole point is that we no longer have any ways and means at all in this house. We no longer have any balance.

This government, in order to create phoney impressions of balance of ways and means at budget time deliberately vastly underestimated; then the Prime Minister has some vision and we get a whole lot of entirely new expenditures introduced into this house as further supplementary estimates.
These are huge sums of money, almost as much as the budgets were in the days before the second world war. We say that we would like one department in these estimates held up for a perfectly good reason. After all, sir, it is not every day or even every year, although unfortunately it happens all too often because they do not seem to be very successful, that we have a disarmament conference under the terms and conditions of this one and in the state the world is in at this time. It seems to me, sir, a very unwise denial of a reasonable request. I realize how awkward it is for the parliamentary secretary when the premier of British Columbia snaps his fingers and the Minister of Finance has to go trotting out to British Columbia to bow and scrape before that great potentate. I realize how embarrassing it is for the parliamentary secretary, who may be ticked off, who may even be fired like Mr. Coyne-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Richard Albert Bell: Would it not be well for the hon. gentleman to get back to discussing these estimates?


Gordon Campbell Chown: I wonder if I could have the floor just for a moment? I was not in the chair when this discussion got under way, and I did not realize that the basis for it, as has been explained to me by the Clerk of the house, was that hon. members wanted this series of items on external affairs deferred. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate came back to that point just a moment ago. I feel that debate on this subject has been fairly well exhausted and unless the parliamentary secretary accedes I think it would be well if we got back to the item under consideration, which is departmental administration and which allows fairly wide scope for debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You interrupted me, Mr. Chairman, just as I was going to do what I think you will not deny I have a perfect right to do. I was going to appeal to the senior minister who is now leading the house. It is the ministers of the crown and not the parliamentary secretary who must make a decision on this matter. The senior minister, I take it, is the distinguished Postmaster General, whose well known sense of justice and whose breadth of view will appeal to all of us. We regret that the parliamentary secretary, whom we all hold in high regard, has not
Supply-External Affairs authority in this matter. The Postmaster General, the distinguished leader of the house for the time being, will see the force of this argument and having the authority will I am sure accede at once to the request of the hon. member for Essex East.


Richard Albert Bell: The mood and temper of the house has been so pleasant tonight that I shall do nothing to upset it in any way. However there have been a number of statements made which are rather difficult for me to allow to remain uncontroverted. I shall correct them with perhaps calmer deliberation than my inclinations would lead me to venture.
I have to say to my hon. friend from Laurier that he is quite wrong in his suggestion that these final supplementaries ought to have been incorporated in earlier supplementaries. They could not have been and they should not have been, and if it were proper under our rules I could elaborate in detail to the hon. gentleman on the reasons why that is the case. May I say to him and the hon. gentleman from Bonavista-Twillingate that the only unusual item in these supplementaries, when compared with those of the last few years, is the item dealing with T.C.A.
The bulk of these final supplementary estimates are in three items, the agricultural prices support program $23.1 million, the C.N.R. deficit $67.3 million, and the T.C.A. deficit, $6.5 million, making a total of $96.9 million. The remainder of the budgetary items in these final supplementaries of $25.9 million compare most favourably with the usual governmental costs provided for in previous final supplementary estimates.
Because of what my hon. friend said I would point out that if you eliminate from the last 10 years in the final supplementary estimates those matters you ought to eliminate, the T.C.A. deficit, the C.N.R. deficit, the old age security fund deficit and the agricultural prices support costs, you will find these statistics: 1952-53, $41.8; 1953-54, $58.6; 1954-55, $47.6; 1955-56, $16.5; 1956-57, $84.8, for a total in those five years of $249.3 million. Let us take the next five years: 1957-58, $48.0; 1958-59, $32.2; 1959-60, $15.6; 1960-61, $41.2; 1961-62, $25.9, or a total of $162.9 million. In other words during the last five years of the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite the total of the final supplementaries was $249 million, and in the last five years under this government the final supplementaries totalled $162 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You eliminate what it suits you to eliminate.


Richard Albert Bell: What you eliminate, and properly eliminate, are those things which I have enumerated.

Supply-External Affairs


John Whitney Pickersgill: I eliminate nothing.


Thomas Miller Bell: My hon. friend eliminates nothing and that is perhaps the reason why he is in the condition he is at the present time. The hon. gentleman spoke yesterday of an $8 million duplication, but may I say to him that there are only five items, numbers 688, 694, 701, 723 and 732, which total $1,840,561, that are in any way duplicated by the supplementaries, and it would have been impossible for those who were preparing the estimates to have put these items in the earlier supplementaries.
Now I understand it has been the practice of the house on all occasions of which I am aware-I think with one or two exceptions-that the final supplementaries have been carried with very little discussion because the policy has already been determined and it is only a matter of deciding whether there is expediency and wisdom in adding to or subtracting from the amount which had been earlier determined. With the facilities available to me and with the great skilled assistants I have here, I shall endeavour to answer any questions that may be put, but I venture to suggest that the committee would be wiser to proceed in a businesslike way with its proceedings tonight and we shall see if we cannot completely satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Maybe I may be allowed to say a word since I raised this matter first at eight o'clock. I must say to the parliamentary secretary that I have watched him during the past day. I have admired his skill in having a minimum of intervention from the government side, resulting in a more ready dispatch of our business than is usually the case, particularly when the Minister of Finance himself conducts the deliberations.
But the hon. gentleman has made an exception since eight o'clock. We have now been engaged in a procedural discussion for some 40 minutes. If the request had been granted at the outset we would have made some progress on the items following those in external affairs, rather than become engaged, as we have, for almost half of tonight's sitting in a procedural wrangle.
The parliamentary secretary has spoken of previous practice. I do not agree that my hon. friend has stated this correctly. It may be that the figures which he has produced, when put in proper context, allow another interpretation altogether. However my argument does not rest on that. This surely is a unique situation. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, charged with the responsibility of speaking for Canada on vital matters involving our relationship with other


states at this critical time, will be in the house tomorrow morning. He will have returned from one of the most important international conferences held since the end of the second world war and only he, on behalf of this government, is in a position to give an authoritative account of the important dispositions made at Geneva.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have no doubt he will.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend admits this. Only in committee will we be afforded the opportunity before dissolution of exchanging views with regard to these vital matters.
If this proposal is not accepted, then what is the situation which the parliamentary secretary puts parliament in tonight? He puts parliament in this position that we will be denied having a report-


An hon. Member:: What a laugh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -from the Department of External Affairs and the opportunity to examine that report, as it should be examined in regard to matters of fundamental importance to this nation and to the peoples of the western world. We shall be denied the opportunity to discuss such things as whether we are going to have a cessation of nuclear tests, what progress has been made in disarmament, and the relationship of Canada with neutralist states vis-a-vis the United Kingdom and the United States. These are matters of the greatest moment.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen say "order". They may not be interested in the importance of this matter, but the country is.


Mr. Nesbiil:: You will get the report tomorrow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say that on a matter of such vital importance parliament is being made look ridiculous tonight as a result of the decision, which is being forced on the parliamentary secretary as the spokesman of the government on this occasion. Here we have two ministers of the crown, two members of the government, who sit with the cabinet in discussing these matters.


An hon. Member:: There are five now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That makes my argument all the stronger. Yes, the Minister of National Defence is here. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is here. He has some knowledge of these questions. I am sure he will appreciate the significance of

what I am saying. The refusal of the parliamentary secretary-undoubtedly not because of his own judgment but because of a decision imposed on him by the government- means that this parliament will not be given the procedural opportunity-


Arthur Smith: That is a lot or nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -to get from the Secretary of State for External Affairs a report on one of the most vital conferences-


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, when I have finished-which has been held since the end of world war II. This puts into proper perspective the boast of the Prime Minister and the boast of others in the government of their efforts on behalf of peace. I have no doubt that this government is anxious to do something constructive in this field, but this is being denied-


Thomas Miller Bell: Then why make that insinuation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am making the insinuation because we are now being refused the opportunity of a discussion with regard to foreign affairs at this critical time. In view of the return tonight of the Secretary of State for External Affairs it should not be denied to a free people in a free parliament.
What is the alternative if the parliamentary secretary refuses this request, and apparently he is going to? I would point out how ridiculous this situation is, because here we have the parliamentary secretary, not to the Prime Minister but to the Minister of Finance, an amiable gentleman, an able gentleman admittedly, competent in the particular department to which he is assigned, telling us, "Do not worry; I will get up and I will give you all of the answers to these various questions" in a department that requires, if any department does, the quality of the specialist. Yet the parliamentary secretary says, "I will tell you all about Laos. I will tell you all about the discussions between Mr. Harriman and the royal Laotian government. I will tell you why Bulgaria, a communist country, supported Canada in its position against the United Kingdom and the United States in Geneva".


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Who is being silly now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend from Oxford, the ex-parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, intervenes. I am sure he knows that what I am saying is right. If he were the
Supply-External Affairs parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs-and he is not;
I do not know why he is not-and he were in that role tonight, I would not object to his beginning a discussion, because after all he has had four years experience at the United Nations while my hon. friend the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance has been engaged in matters having to do with financial policy. If this request is not granted in spite of the repeated and earnest requests put forward by my two colleagues and myself, what will be the result?


John Whitney Pickersgill: And by the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And by the leader of the socialist party. If this request is not granted, what will be the consequence? The consequence will be, as I am sure the leader of that party will agree-


An hon. Member:: Who is your leader today?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that under departmental administration we will engage in a discussion of foreign policy; that is obvious. I know that my hon. friend has on his desk three packages of speeches on foreign policy which he proposes to deliver. I have three too, and I propose to engage in such a discussion. But we are not going to make any advance this way. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs were here, these observations-


An hon. Member:: This is nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope that the hon. gentleman will not apply the rule of closure, because the Prime Minister has decided that we are going to eliminate closure and I am to be allowed to express myself.


Mr. Parizeau:: This is not 1956.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am having some difficulty in hearing the hon. member for Essex East because of the interjections. I think it would be in the interest of progressing these items if the committee gave the hon. member a fair hearing, and I would ask his co-operation also in holding closely to the point of relevancy, with regard to which I am having some difficulty in reaching a decision; therefore I would ask his co-operation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, you will have that co-operation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have nothing very much more to say. I have been sincere in the suggestion I have made-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, you are not sincere.
2316	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs


Paul Joseph James Martin: -in asking that this request for postponement be granted. Let us briefly recall the context of the request, Mr. Chairman. Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs is arriving from Geneva tonight some time between the hours of ten o'clock and midnight.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know because I made a point of asking his office when he was arriving, and that is what I was told. He will be in his seat tomorrow. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been at a conference that can be described as a momentous one, one involving our relations with the east, our relations with the Soviet union and our relations with countries behind the iron curtain in matters which we all admit are the most important on our agenda. All I am asking is that in view of this, the first item of departmental administration and the other items in the Department of External Affairs be postponed until tomorrow so we can have the advantage of having, in addition to the parliamentary secretary, the special knowledge and the special authority of the minister charged with these important matters.
Surely this is not an unreasonable request. To deny this request will place this government in the position, on the eve of a dissolution of parliament, of having denied this house the opportunity of discussing matters which we all regard as foremost in our considerations.


Mr. McGee:: Since when?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That very junior hon. member for York-Scarborough asks, "Since when?". Obviously he has not lived long enough to realize that these problems have concerned the people of Canada for a long time and their concern is increasing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The situation, notwithstanding these interventions and regrettable catcalls in a discussion of this kind, is that if we are denied this request let it be known that this government, which regards itself as loyal to the traditions of a free parliament-


Richard Albert Bell: And is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -has taken a step to deny us, on the eve of dissolution-


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -the opportunity of examining the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the vital matter of our foreign relations. That is the situation.


Richard Albert Bell: That is utterly ridiculous.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The parliamentary secretary has replied. I ask the ministers who are sitting behind him to speak for the government. I suppose the senior minister is the Postmaster General, and I ask him to rise in his place and tell us, is it the policy of the government of Canada in the present circumstances to deny parliament the right of hearing from the Secretary of State for External Affairs under conditions that will enable us to interrogate him?


An hon. Member:: We will hear from him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says. "We will hear from him"; but what will happen tomorrow is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will come into this house and on motions he will make a statement. The Speaker, of course, will allow spokesmen for the two opposition parties to reply, but those replies will obviously be, as always, pro forma. There will be no opportunity for a serious discussion.
The consequence of this refusal is that we are going to be denied asking questions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I now appeal to the senior minister in this house, if he has the authority, to allow us to postpone this matter so that we can go on with the next item, which is the Department of Finance, a department for which the parliamentary secretary is particularly qualified to speak, and to leave the discussion of external affairs to the man who is pre-eminent in that field because of his post, and because of his experience in Geneva. The Canadian people do want a report from him and do wish to give to opposition groups the opportunity of stating their position and to elicit from the minister further information. If this request is denied, this government will stand condemned, as it deserves to be.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: It
has never been the case that a loud voice, a red face and a pompous manner will make a sound argument out of something which has no substance whatsoever. That remains as true tonight, after what we have heard, as it has been after so many other arguments put up by the hon. member over the months.
He himself, speaking at great length, has listed a number of things he would like to drag by the tail into this debate and discuss in the presence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He himself knows perfectly well, as has been ably pointed out by the parliamentary secretary, that this is not customary, that this is not in accordance with the traditions of this chamber and that it

offends all the rules, practices and traditions of this committee. Second, he has asked whether it is the policy of the government -these were the ringing terms he used-to deny freedom of discussion. It is not. We have remained here for an hour and heard the hon. member wander all over the map. He is free to remain here and waste that much time. He certainly is doing that extremely well-wasting the time of the committee and wasting the time of the entire country with his specious arguments. He is able to do that.
Tomorrow, or at some appropriate time, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will do that which is customary. He will come to this house and give on the order for motions a report at length on matters which have concerned him while he has been away. The hon. member, or more probably his leader, will have the opportunity to comment on that, as will the representative of the other group in the house. This will give an adequate opportunity to air fully all those matters which cannot be aired tonight because the secretary of state is not here.
The hon. member makes a great case out of the suggestion that there will be no further discussion possible because this parliament is going to be dissolved, apparently in a matter of hours, according to him. I do not know where he gets his information-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Maybe I am closer to the Prime Minister than is the hon. gentleman.


William McLean Hamilton: But
it so happens it is not the hon. member's privilege to decide when parliament will be dissolved, and if he continues in his present vein it will never be his privilege no matter how long he lives.
I say merely in closing-and I have tried to be brief because to me the time of this committee is valuable, and the matters which we discuss here are important-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


William McLean Hamilton: We
are most anxious as a government to proceed expeditiously with the business before us. There are other matters to be brought forward. There are measures to be discussed. It has been pointed out in great detail the amount of time which has already been spent on these estimates and on those which have preceded them. We have seen another example tonight of delay, obstructionism, of grasping at any straw which can be found in order to continue a pointless waste of time-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. So far we have had a
Supply-External Affairs fairly objective discussion and it is unfortunate that the Postmaster General should have introduced terms which have not characterized this debate so far.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is not within our rules for an hon. member of this committee to say that another hon. member is engaged in a process of obstruction. Surely no one can be charged with obstruction if he is seeking to obtain an opportunity for the discussion of questions which are of vital interest to us all. I would ask you to request the Postmaster General to recover the calm and serenity which, on occasions, he possesses, and recognize that in making the remarks he has, he was making remarks which are unparliamentary.


Gordon Campbell Chown: As I heard the comments of the Postmaster General it appeared to me he was using the expressions he did in broad terms without particular application to any hon. member and without even particular reference to a party in the house. I cannot find that his use of language was unparliamentary, if one might apply that term.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: shall conclude, Mr. Chairman. We will not pursue this discussion of obstructionism. The point has been made, and those who read Hansard and watch this house in operation can judge for themselves the amount of time which has been wasted.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear. This is a sad night.


An hon. Member:: Stand up when you talk.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: They can judge the amount of time which has been wasted by unnecessary repetition, by dragging in unrelated arguments-


Paul Joseph James Martin: A sad night.


William McLean Hamilton: The
parliamentary secretary, in piloting these estimates through the committee in the name of the Minister of Finance does so with the complete support of the government. The position which he has taken on this matter is a sound one. It is one which is completely in keeping with the traditions and practices of this committee, and it is the position which is taken by the government itself.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Campbell Chown: If I may intervene briefly for a moment, may I say that I am concerned about the fact that we are not dealing with the item which is before the

Supply-External Affairs committee for consideration. I am worried about the fact that we are not getting on with this discussion. I hope the hon. member for Kootenay West, to whom I shall give the floor since he rose before the hon. member for Laurier, has this in view.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very sorry that the parliamentary secretary, and, later, the minister, did not respond favourably to the eloquent, logical and moving appeal of the hon. member for Essex East. I think that hon. member was fully justified in saying this committee should have the opportunity to hear a full report from the Secretary of State for External Affairs before proceeding with these estimates.
I listened carefully to the arguments of the parliamentary secretary and of the minister, but it seems to me that those arguments would apply if these were just tidbits of incidentally supplementary estimates brought forward in the normal way. But we are not operating in normal circumstances or times. These are abnormal times. This house has been in session since early in January and it has not had an opportunity to discuss foreign affairs during one of the most serious periods in the world's history.
Since the plea of the hon. member for Essex East has been denied, and in the knowledge that the opposition is determined to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I think we could very profitably spend the next hour discussing a matter of great importance to the Canadian people, to the people of British Columbia and to all the people of my constituency, namely, the question of the Columbia river treaty. This is a story that should be told to the Canadian people and I am going to take advantage of the situation this evening.


Jacques Flynn: I rise on a point of order. You have indicated before, Mr. Chairman, that you had doubts about the relevancy of the discussion which has been going on for an hour. I draw to your attention that there is nothing in this item which would allow a discussion such as has been going on up to now. The rule applicable, as you know, is the rule of strict relevancy. Furthermore, this is a matter of a further supplementary estimate. I have referred Your Honour in previous debates to May's comments at page 738 of the latest edition.
I am sure the hon. member for St. Henri will have something to contribute to this discussion because he is so knowledgeable on the rules of the house. If he cares to contribute I would be most happy to hear him, but in the meantime I suppose I have the floor and the hon. member will permit me to continue.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jacques Flynn: I know that hon. members on the other side have previously endeavoured to prevent me from rising on points of order because of my having occupied the position which you, Mr. Chairman, now occupy. But may I remind hon. members that it is the duty of all hon. members to help the Chair to apply the rules of the House of Commons notwithstanding the fact that one may have had some experience in the chair. What the hon. members have been discussing here is entirely out of order. If they wish to do so, they may move that the item be allowed to stand. That is their business. But discussing whether we could hear the report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the conference at Geneva would be completely outside the scope of debate which would be allowed under this estimate.
Because the hon. member for Essex East or the hon. member for Kootenay West suspects that there might be dissolution is no reason for altering the rules of the House of Commons. The house could not work on any such assumption. I therefore think that until the committee agrees to changing the rules, whatever may be the argument of hon. members with regard to dissolution, I think it is the duty of this committee to adhere to the rules.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on the point of order which the minister has been discussing. I am sure Your Honour has been greatly assisted by the remarks of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys who relatively recently left the position you now hold. I am sure he is wise and well versed in the rules of the house. However, in his reference to the rule on the item under discussion with which hon. members are quite familiar, there is one thing which the minister seems to forget. That is why I chose to rise on the point of order. When there has been a discussion such as the one which has been going on today, and a statement such as the one which has been allowed on the part of the Postmaster General who I regret is absent from the house, as I have something to tell him particularly-
Mr. Pallet!: On the point of order?


Lionel Chevrier: -I think it is the duty of the Chair-and I say this respectfully-to allow those who wish to say something in answer to what has been said by the Postmaster General, an opportunity to do so.


Jacques Flynn: This is not on the same point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I am speaking on the same point of order.


Jacques Flynn: No.


Lionel Chevrier: I am speaking on exactly the same point of order as was the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister gave us a lecture.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; the minister who seems to have become so well versed-


Jacques Flynn: I have had enough from your side.


Lionel Chevrier: He deserves to have some.


Jacques Flynn: I have said that we have had enough lectures from your side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: If one is to judge by the conduct of the minister the other evening in his interruptions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: -from that side of the house then I think-


Jacques Flynn: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has referred to my conduct in other circumstances. If he wishes to deal with it I have no objection. However I hope Your Honour will allow me in turn to deal with it. Otherwise, I think the hon. member should revert to the point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not a question of privilege.


Jacques Flynn: That is a question of privilege. The hon. member has referred to my conduct, and this is not relevant to the point of order which at present is being discussed.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. gentleman will keep his mind in peace and resume his seat I will discuss the point of order.


Jacques Flynn: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister is very sensitive about points of order and questions of privilege. When he is subject to attack, he feels that he must rise. Sometimes I think he has a persecution complex.


Jacques Flynn: Oh, no.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member is the one who has that. He changed ridings.


Lionel Chevrier: If there is a point of order, and as he rose on a point of order, I think he should at least allow me to complete the point which I had in mind to make. I was coming back to the point which I intended to raise in the first instance. What I wish to say in connection with this matter is that it is not at all accurate for the Postmaster General or the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance to state in this chamber that the rules of the House of Commons have been breached by what has been done by my
Supply-External Affairs friend the hon. member for Essex East and the rest of us who have taken part in this debate. In answer to that assertion I wish to put on Hansard what took place on March 18, 1957-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a point of order. You cannot have a point of order on a point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: .-under circumstances which were not unlike these. On March 18, 1957, as found at page 2431 of Hansard there was under discussion an item-


Jacques Flynn: Stick to the point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: No point of order can be taken when one is already under discussion.


Jacques Flynn: I am not raising a point of order.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am quite prepared to hear the hon. member for Laurier out. I just wish the members of the committee to reflect on this quotation from May's 16th edition at page 737 where he states as follows:
If the sum demanded by a supplementary estimate is of the same order of magnitude as the original estimate, the chairman has allowed questions of policy to be raised upon it which would have been in order if it had been an original estimate; but if the supplementary estimate is merely to provide additional funds of a relatively moderate amount required in the normal course of working of the services for which the original vote was demanded,-
These are the words which I thought hon. members ought to note.
-only the reasons for the increase can be discussed and not the policy implied in the service which must be taken to have been settled by the original vote; nor can savings be discussed.
I am sorry that I interrupted the hon. member for Laurier. However at that point the committee was experiencing a series of interruptions in any event and I just thought I should refresh the memories of hon. members of the committee with regard to that very important authority. I will now hear what the hon. member for Laurier has to say.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the chairman for having brought to my attention the matter with which he has just dealt. I think I shall be able to conclude what I have to say rather quickly. I would draw Your Honour's attention at once to the fact that these estimates have reference to $130 million.


Jacques Flynn: Not this item.


Lionel Chevrier: These items.


Jacques Flynn: Not this item.


Lionel Chevrier: I am trying to deal with what the chairman has said. If my hon. friend had

Supply-External Affairs been listening to the remarks of the Chair, he would not have made that interruption as the Chair was indicating that when one deals with the ordinary estimates, that is the rule. The point I am trying to make is that these estimates are not ordinary estimates since they are of the magnitude of $138 million, of which $67 million have to do with the deficit of the Canadian National Railways and $6.7 million have to do with-


Jacques Flynn: We are dealing with external affairs now.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: I am now told that we are dealing with external affairs. Surely, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to be denied the opportunity of replying to the inaccurate statement made by the Postmaster General and also the parliamentary secretary. I wish to reply to that statement. The Postmaster General said that the rules of this House of Commons were not being adhered to. He said that what we were doing is not customary in a debate such as this one because it offends against all the rules of the house. That is not so. That statement is not accurate and I intend to prove that it is not accurate, I intend to do so by a reference which can be found at page 2431 of Hansard of March 18, 1957. The house was then discussing item 546, "Production service-Health of animals", the last supplementary estimate. Mr. Gardiner was in his place and was being questioned on that item. If hon. members will only take the trouble to go to Hansard they will see that for a period of two hours, from eight o'clock in the evening when the committee resumed, the committee discussed item 546 until it adjourned at ten o'clock the same night, because the hon. member for Assiniboia called it "ten o'clock" and progress was reported. There are almost 20 pages of discussion on the last supplementary estimates, so that I am surprised that the Postmaster General, who should know better because he has been in this house longer than the parliamentary secretary, should try to tell us what he did. Then there is this other statement-


Mr. Palleil:: What was the total time taken on supplementary estimates in that session?


Lionel Chevrier: What was that again?


Jacques Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Postmaster General-


Lionel Chevrier: There can be no point of order. The minister, who was chairman of committees of the house, should at least know what the rules are and should not be interrupting me on a point of order.


Jacques Flynn: Will the hon. member permit
a question?


Lionel Chevrier: When I sit down, yes, I will allow the minister to ask a question. I ask the minister to resume his seat.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I do not think the interruptions are helping us to make progress on the point of order and I think they should be modulated, if I may use that word, to permit the hon. member for Laurier to complete his point. I would remind the committee that the hon. member who had the floor before the discussion started was the member for Kootenay West and I hope we can bring this to a conclusion as quickly as possible.


Lionel Chevrier: I will do my best, but I assure you I would have been finished a long time ago if it had not been for these interruptions. There are just two other points and I will make them as quickly as I can. The minister has said that there has been obstruction and delay. I say to the minister and the parliamentary secretary that if there has been obstruction and delay with reference to these estimates it has been obstruction and delay on the other side of the house. On behalf of the opposition I made the offer to the house leader last week in connection with these estimates that if the Minister of Finance would tell the house what the urgent measures were that had to be dealt with and which were holding up cheques of civil servants and holding up cheques in regard to any other matters having to do with these estimates, we would consider those items and pass them at once if need be. I went a step further and said that if he wanted to include them in an appropriation bill we would be willing to pass that appropriation bill quickly.


Thomas Miller Bell: That was the earlier set of supplementaries.


Lionel Chevrier: There has been no response to that offer and that surely is some indication of delay. The other point is that we were told we would be dealing with these estimates beginning Wednesday of this week. Under what rule of the house, either in the rules as we know them here or any change, is it the right of the government to tell us that we must dispose of these estimates within three days? That is exactly the effect of the statement made by the house leader.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I think the hon. member for Laurier has progressed into a discussion of the business of the house, to some extent in retrospect. I feel now that no ruling is really called for and I think

we should perhaps give the floor back to the hon. member for Kootenay West if that is agreeable.


Lionel Chevrier: I always obey your rulings, Mr. Chairman.


Jacques Flynn: There should be a ruling made on the point of order I raised.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I think the Chair has forgotten what the point of order was.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think Your Honour is very wise to forget.


Jacques Flynn: If Your Honour will permit me I will remind you that it had to do with the rule of relevancy, but as the hon. member for Laurier was permitted to revive the whole debate I understand, of course, that Your Honour might have forgotten what the point of order was.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, with your permission I should like to take advantage of the time available to discuss a matter of great concern to the Canadian people, particularly the people of British Columbia and more particularly the constituents I have the honour to represent, namely, the Columbia river treaty. I think we are justified in doing so under the rules because during recent weeks and months we had read of discussions and differences between the federal government and the government of British Columbia. Members of this house are quite uncertain as to the direction in which matters are proceeding.


Mr. Browne (SI. John's West):: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely you are not going to interfere. Surely members of this house have some rights.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: The hon.
member spoke for about half an hour and he should give someone else a chance to say something.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Closure. Totalitarianism.


William Joseph Browne: Surely we are as much entitled to raise a point of order as the hon. member. The point I should like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that your predecessor in the chair a few moments ago read a citation from May, page 738, which said that if the amount of the estimate to be considered is comparatively small-I do not know what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would say about that; I think I overheard him say it was three or four million dollars-


John Whitney Pickersgill: For external affairs, $4 million.
Supply-External Affairs


John Ferguson Browne: The total amount of these estimates for 1961-62 is $93 million and the proportion is three or four million dollars to $93 million. Would the chairman think that would justify embarking upon a discussion of the Columbia river project at this stage of the supplementary estimates or should the hon. member not be confined to asking questions regarding the various items that are to be considered tonight? There is an item of $225,000 for departmental administration. Surely that does not justify hon. members embarking upon all sorts of questions having to do with policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. member not think $4 million is a lot of money?


William Joseph Browne: It is a great deal of money in my books.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You belittled it. "What's $4 million", you said.


William Joseph Browne: No, I did not
say that.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: We do not
have a Mr. Howe over here.


William Joseph Browne: I am referring to what is said in May.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word on the point of order that the distinguished Solicitor General has raised. It is true that the item for departmental administration is only $225,000 but an extra $4 million is being asked for the Department of External Affairs in these supplementary estimates-


Thomas Miller Bell: Why don't you discuss it then?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -which is a very considerable fraction of the total amount voted for this department. It seems to me that it is not an insignificant amount in the eyes of the Canadian people, however insignificant it may seem to the Solicitor General and to the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary. Moreover, even $225,000 is the cost of restoring Arizona Charlie's and that is a large amount of money.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On the point of order, I would call on the hon. member for Kootenay West and I will listen to what he has to say. If he gets too far from the realm of relevancy I will be able to remind him.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will stay strictly within a subject that comes under the administration of the Department of External Affairs. Let me say to the Solicitor General, who used his best efforts to try to stop me speaking for my constituents, that not only am I speaking for the party I have the honour to represent

Supply-External Affairs but I am also speaking for a large number of people who support his party and a large number who support the Liberal party who have asked me to take the first opportunity available in the house to place before it certain information with respect to this development from the local point of view and certain information with respect to the engineering aspects of the Columbia river treaty. If I am denied this opportunity now I will have to go home and say that I had closure applied to me by a member of the cabinet.


Richard Albert Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, no one seeks to apply closure to anyone. We only seek to have the rules of the house applied fairly and equally to all members of the committee. In the particular departmental administration item now before the committee there is nothing which relates to the Columbia river treaty. Anything that relates to the Columbia river treaty will be found in the administration item of the main estimates under international joint commission. There is not a dollar in this item, I suggest to the hon. gentleman, who is one of our most experienced and genial parliamentarians and who at least should set an example to the house as to how we in this house should conduct ourselves, for this Columbia river. The hon. member should be an example rather than treating the house to the farce to which we have been treated tonight by that distinguished hon. member for Essex East.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to deal with the outburst and loss of temper-


Richard Albert Bell: Oh no, I just enjoyed myself.


Lionel Chevrier: -which is not often displayed by the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is getting more like the Minister of Finance all the time.


Lionel Chevrier: As my hon. friend from Bona-vista-Twillingate says, he is imitating the Minister of Finance a great deal. The point my friend makes is not well taken. I submit that under the item for departmental administration it is the privilege of hon. members to deal with any part of matters having to do with the department. This is what I tried to show earlier when I put on the record, before Your Honour was in the chair, what happened under similar circumstances with the item concerning the Department of Agriculture. From eight o'clock until ten a discussion took place and the item was not passed until then. I say, therefore, with respect that the parliamentary secretary is


entirely wrong in what he says. We have an item headed, departmental administration, and even though there is nothing in it having to do with the international joint commission, the Columbia river project is not a matter that concerns exclusively the international joint commission. Surely my friend will concede that. Under those circumstances I say to you, with respect, that the hon. member for Kootenay West has the right to do what he was doing.


Jacques Flynn: Mr. Chairman, may I point out to Your Honour that I cited to the deputy chairman of committees, when this point was first raised, the rule that is laid down in May's last edition. It is on page 738 and is to the effect that a general policy debate is not allowed under an item such as this. May I suggest to Your Honour that the rules of the house do not belong only to the opposition but to the whole house. When there is obstruction every member, those on the government side and in the opposition, suffer from it. All members suffer when the rules are not adhered to by members on all sides.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word precisely on the point that has been raised. I referred earlier to what happened during the consideration of the last supplementary estimates brought before this house by a government that respected the rights of hon. members in committee of supply. During the consideration of an item for citizenship and immigration, because there had been new developments, because the Hungarian business had come up since the regular estimates had been passed, the government of that day, knowing the facts of the situation and the fact that this was a national forum, allowed discussion of the matter without points of order being raised. Another matter in which hon. gentlemen were greatly interested at that time was George Christian Hanna, who had come in at that time, and the present Prime Minister was making great humanitarian speeches about him, the same Prime Minister who later deported him. These subjects were discussed at great length without any points of order being raised, without any attempt by Mr. Harris or anyone else on the front benches to stifle debate in the way it is being stifled by these incessant points of order from these hon. gentlemen opposite.
We would have had half of these estimates through this evening if the reasonable request of the hon. member for Essex East had been met. Probably all the estimates would have been through, except external affairs, if hon. members opposite had not dug in their heels and stubbornly refused to have the minister

here when he could be here tomorrow. This is the minister whose estimates we are being asked to pass.
We have not taken any objection to the fact the Minister of Finance is not here. We remember one evening when Mr. Drew was leader of the opposition and he refused to proceed with the estimates because they were being piloted by a parliamentary secretary without the minister being in the chamber. He made a terrific scene about it. It seems to me we have shown some courtesy to the parliamentary secretary in not raising this point that the Minister of Finance is not here. When we say that the minister whose estimates are being considered ought to be here and make a reasonable request that they be held up until he gets here, this request is refused. We are accused of obstruction. It is a pretty topsy-turvy kind of attitude to the rules and to the practices of parliament being exhibited by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I do not think
it is an unreasonable request to have an opportunity to discuss this subject because it has been a fluid situation. There have been differences of opinion since we last discussed the subject between the federal and provincial governments; there have been differences of opinion between ministers of the crown and ministers in the United States. The Prime Minister and the ministers of the government have answered questions directed to them to try to elicit information. Surely, Mr. Chairman, one should have an opportunity of presenting the views of one's constituents which are broadly based and broadly held.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if I could be allowed to proceed-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I listened with great interest to the general remarks the hon. member has just made. I think I should caution him before he goes into detail on the subject that he should keep his remarks in rather general terms. As the parliamentary secretary has pointed out, there is no money being requested in this group of supplementary estimates for the subject on which the hon. member has embarked. On the other hand, we have a vote concerning administration. Even in May there are citations restricting debate and other citations which seem to enlarge it a bit. While remembering the rule of relevancy and also that the Columbia river development is not mentioned in the item, I will permit the hon. member to make a few general remarks. However, if he gets into particulars about the subject, I think then he will definitely be transgressing the leniency the Chair is supposed to allow.
Supply-External Affairs


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You impose a very particular burden on me, Mr. Chairman, to talk in general terms about the particular or, in other words, to talk in abstract terms about the concrete. I shall do the best I can. I think what I am going to say, Mr. Chairman, will be of interest to members because this is a matter of some substance. I wanted to tell members, first, of the particular local details in connection with this matter. I am quite sure that under these estimates there is some provision for entertainment related to the Columbia project. If you look at one or two of the items, I think they could be related to the Columbia river treaty. There would be certain hospitality extended when these gentlemen come up from the United States.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: You mean the Minister of Finance entertained them?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am speaking of the Department of External Affairs. I am sure they would not allow Mr. Udall to come to Canada without treating him to a nice dinner or refreshments. I think in that way I can relate the item to the Columbia river treaty.


Paul Raymond Martineau: As someone remarked on a previous occasion, that would be really taxing the imagination of the chairman to accept such a viewpoint. Unless the hon. member can state it in a more specific way than he has done, I cannot see that this estimate for $225,000 could relate by near or by far to the Columbia river. I know the difficulty of the hon. member, but still these difficulties spring not from the ruling of the Chair but from the rules as they were made, and these must be applied. I think the hon. member will have to base his discussion within the limits involved.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is another item here, representation abroad, operational expenses, travelling expenses, postage, telephones and telegrams. Could you assure me that none of that money is to be spent on telephone calls or telegrams in connection with this matter?


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member is on a different item. He has gone on to the next item. Right now we are on item No. 692.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But it comes under "departmental administration."


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could I ask the chairman if the Chair and the hon. members of the house realize the consequences of the disposition that is being made of this matter? The contention is made that because under the departmental estimate no particular expenditure is proposed, then that precludes a discussion of this particular matter. When the original item is proposed or when, as

Supply-External Affairs is now the case, we are discussing further items of proposed expenditure under departmental administration, surely that ruling in May does not mean what the minister of mines suggests? Surely under our procedures, under departmental administration it is open to us to discuss anything having to do with administration, whether it involves expenditure or not. That is the rule; and to interpret May as is suggested by the Deputy Speaker is, I believe, stretching the rule. Also, while I am speaking, I would suggest to you that there are not many precedents in this house when former presiding officers have chosen to influence the course of procedural decisions as we have had it done tonight.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The Chair would very much like to be enlightened if the hon. member had a precise citation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, it is common sense.


Paul Raymond Martineau: If the hon. member had a precise citation covering this matter I would certainly like to hear it, but in the absence of such a precise citation I can only go by rule 59, paragraph 2-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Which does not say that.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -which says the discussion must be relevant-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -and I must also bring forward the principles that are enunciated at page 738 of May. I have not stopped the hon. member yet. I have only cautioned him to remain within this scope. I appreciate his difficulty. I think he is trying to co-operate with the Chair and perhaps we should allow him to continue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order. I asked while Your Honour was talking, if I could see May's book. I suggest on reading his citation it does not lend itself to the interpretation which Your Honour has put on it. It says "relevant," but what the hon. gentleman is discussing is a matter which comes under the administration of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and to say he is precluded from discussing a matter under this item, which does not at this particular time involve a proposed expenditure, is stretching the meaning of the citation beyond reasonable terms. That is what I am saying.
I am not offering any citation. I am simply asking for a literal interpretation of what the English language says in May.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As interpreted by Martin's bureau of statistics.
IMr. Martin (Essex East).]


Paul Raymond Martineau: That is what the Chair is trying to do. The deputy chairman read from May a little time before I took the chair, and there are certain lines which are particularly applicable to the present case. For instance:
As a general rule, on the supplementary estimates it is in order to discuss only the particular items which constitute the supplementary estimates and the sub-heads of the original estimates can only be referred to so far as they are involved in the fair discussion of the points contained in the items asked for in the supplementary estimates. Of course, it is quite obvious that it should be improper, as a general rule, to raise on a supplementary estimate the whole question of policy involved in the original estimate-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Further down it says:
-if the supplementary estimate is merely to provide additional funds of a relatively moderate amount required in the normal course of working of the services for which the original vote was demanded, only the reasons for the increase can be discussed and not the policy implied in the service which must be taken to have been settled by the original vote.
I believe that the general gist of all of that is that under the main estimate of administration, as everyone knows here, all phases of departmental administration and all matters affecting the department can be discussed; but here we are limited by the fact that we are only asked for certain additional sums and we are further limited in our discussion by the details of that estimate. Unless the hon. member can relate his remarks to these sub-heads I cannot really see how he would be in order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can do that very easily. I notice that $33,000 of this particular additional amount-as the hon. member for Kootenay West directed our attention to it -is for telephones, telegrams and other communication services. Only three days ago the Prime Minister admitted in this house that he had received a message on this very subject from the government of the United States, and no one will make me believe- unless the minister produces all his messages and shows it is not true-that no part of this $33,000 is not being used for communications with regard to the Columbia which no longer, contrary to what the parliamentary secretary has indicated, has to do with the I.J.C. This is a treaty, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs is responsible for the decision as to whether or not that treaty will be brought before the house and whether it will be ratified. So, it is entirely within departmental administration, and there is in this item a detail which prima facie has to do with the Columbia. Probably a great part of this $33,000 had to be used because of the difficulty over the Columbia.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I thank the hon. member tor his valuable contribution and I am convinced that the hon. member for Kootenay West would be in order if he asked the parliamentary secretary whether any sums of money being asked were applied to phone calls made in regard to this matter; but he is not entitled, as far as I can see, to discuss the general matters of the Columbia river development.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Well, Mr. Chairman, this is an unusual circumstance and there have been continuing and changing developments with respect to this matter. This is an entirely new matter arising out of the circumstances of the signing of this treaty. I wanted to give this information to the house because I was asked to give it at the first opportunity. So far as the provincial government is concerned, and I say this without any hesitation, in my opinion it has acted in bad faith in this matter. I agree with what the federal government did so far as the treaty is concerned, not its effect, terms and details, but I do think that the provincial government has acted in bad faith in leading this government to believe it agreed with the terms of the treaty, whether directly or indirectly, permitting this government to sign it, and then changing its course of conduct shortly afterwards. I think that should let me off the hook. Anyway, the provincial government held hearings which were conducted by the water controller.


Thomas Miller Bell: How the provincial government comes into this is surely something the hon. gentleman has not explained to the committee in any way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is parliament being reduced to?


Richard Albert Bell: It is the hon. gentleman who is endeavouring to reduce parliament to something by his exaggerated histrionics and by the buffoonish contortionism he is conducting tonight.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All I can say to
the parliamentary secretary is that what he is trying to do is prevent us from talking, depriving us of the right to free discussion in this house.


Richard Albert Bell: That is the most utter nonsense the hon. gentleman has ever uttered in this house, and he is a past master at uttering nonsense in the house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I do not think anybody is trying to stifle anybody else. As far as the Chair is concerned-


Lionel Chevrier: I am not so sure.
Supply-External Affairs


Paul Raymond Martineau: -it is only interested in promoting free and uninhibited discussion.


Lionel Chevrier: Can we hear from the Minister of Justice?


Paul Raymond Martineau: But the Chair is fettered by the rules, which all hon. members of the committee have freely accepted. I know that the hon. member for Kootenay West, who is a great expert on the conduct of this house, will want to abide by the rules to which he was a party.
I am forced to agree with the parliamentary secretary that in introducing affairs concerning the provincial government the hon. member was getting out of order. Although he is committed to raising this matter at the first opportunity, I do not believe that this is the right opportunity to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, do you really agree with the conduct of the parliamentary secretary?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Lionel Chevrier: He almost crossed the floor.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I was not discussing any hon. member's conduct; I was only discussing the ideas expressed, and I mentioned one aspect of his remarks with which I had to agree. I am sure the hon. member who has the floor will abide by the rules.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might make an appeal to Your Honour. On Monday of this week the Prime Minister came in here and asked the house in a very conciliatory way to join him in an effort to abolish the closure rule. Could we not proceed, sir, in the spirit in which the Prime Minister began the activities of the week?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what we are asking you to do.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am sure we were all inspired by those motives, but this is not a discussion about closure.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, I don't know, sir.


Paul Raymond Martineau: As a matter of fact the rules exist as they are to prevent closure and to permit free debate. If it were open to every hon. member to introduce any subject that came into his head upon every item, obviously no business would be transacted at all. The only purpose of the rules is that the business shall be transacted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Shall the item carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, we will be here for days at this rate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I was going to mention the hearings held by the water

Supply-External Affairs controller as part of his responsibility under provincial law in connection with this treaty. He held hearings at Kaslo, Revelstoke, Na-kusp and Castlegar and over 1,000 people attended those hearings. Three hundred people made written or verbal representations before the controller. I want to bring this to the attention of the ministers concerned because it was one of the most unusual circumstances in Canadian history. Here, in connection with this treaty, is a water controller acting in a judicial capacity to make a decision as to whether a licence would be given, while at the same time the water controller was part of the British Columbia negotiating team representing British Columbia and pressing for the building of the High Arrow and other dams. He was praised by the minister of lands and forests in the province of British Columbia for his work in promoting it alongside his pal Dr. Keenleyside. Then at the same time he signs a report of the British Columbia energy board in which the same subject is discussed and the same matter is dealt with. I raised this point first of all-


Jacques Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that you have an interpreter for the hon. member for Kootenay West, because apparently he does not understand your ruling.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, such insolence.


Lionel Chevrier: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A junior member of the house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am sure that the hon. member did understand my ruling.


Mr. Monteith (Perth):: He does not abide by it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I do not think he has adhered strictly to it. In introducing matters in connection with provincial bodies I am not quite sure whether he is even on external affairs; in any event he is certainly not on item 692. I would ask the hon. member's co-operation, because after all there are quite a number of items here and there are probably many hon. members who wish to speak on this particular item and have relevant contributions to make. I hope the hon. member's contributions will likewise be relevant.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will try and make them relevant, Mr. Chairman, by saying that the people who attended these hearings have asked me to rise in this house and repeat briefly what was said at those hearings.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do it at the right time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: They wish me to mention briefly some of the things that were said at those hearings.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Irrelevancy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am speaking to the government of the day on behalf of my constituents and organizations in my constituency.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do it at the right time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I must explain, Mr. Chairman, that they protest most vigorously that here a treaty was signed without any survey being made of the land which was being flooded, or of its value, without any proper estimate of the cost of the public facilities that were to be flooded-over 20 docks and wharves, and things of that sort-and with no estimate as to the destruction of the forest industry.


John Cameron Pallett: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: For these reasons I have been asked-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The parliamentary secretary has risen on a point of order.


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Chairman, the rule has been specified a number of times this evening. I refer to the rule of relevancy in debate. With regard to this matter Your Honour has expressed very clearly that adherence to the rule provides for the expedition of the business of the house. I think the hon. member for Kootenay West is out of order in his remarks. I also think that the conduct of the official opposition this evening has indicated-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Order. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I agree that the parliamentary secretary was going beyond the point that the point of order warranted. However, the first part of his remarks were well taken, and again I must caution the hon. member to restrict his remarks to the item under consideration.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Such frivolity.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am dealing in a concrete way with a problem that is related to the administration of the Department of External Affairs. I say also that there was no assessment of the damage done to the forest industry or to the fishing industry.


Jay Waldo Monteith: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I claim that the hon. member for Kootenay West is completely defying your ruling as to relevancy.


Lionel Chevrier: Where is the point of order?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I do not believe that the hon. member is animated by a spirit of defiance, but he seems to have some difficulty in restricting his remarks to the item under consideration. Perhaps, as I tried to suggest a little earlier, this may not be the proper opportunity for the hon. member to raise the very interesting points that he wishes to raise, and perhaps he will contain his remarks until a more appropriate occasion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I did not clearly understand the point of order raised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder whether he would explain it to the committee once again.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, I would be very glad to do so. It was simply that the hon. member for Kootenay West was not following the instructions as to relevancy laid down by the chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: Is that a point of order?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would think it should be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare it does seem to me that he has insulted Your Honour and he has insulted the committee-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -by suggesting that Your Honour presumes to instruct any hon. member in a free parliament. I suggest that the person who needs instruction in free assemblies is the Minister of National Health and Welfare himself and that he should not be permitted to make these irrelevant interventions in a serious debate about the administration of the Department of External Affairs.


Jacques Flynn: You should not either.


Paul Raymond Martineau: To put the hon. member's mind at ease, I must say that I was not at all incensed by what the minister said-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Your Honour should be.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -because I feel that he said it in a spirit of co-operation to try and expedite the business of the committee. Perhaps the same spirit of co-operation will animate the hon. member for Kootenay West and he will now embark upon the item under discussion.
Supply-External Affairs


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, would I be in order in directing a number of questions to the parliamentary secretary with a view to getting answers?


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member may direct his questions to the parliamentary secretary and as they arise I will decide whether or not they are relevant.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to know from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance why a treaty was signed and an estimate given for a certain dam without any estimate of the cost of putting the logs of the Selgar Corporation over the dam. Does the Minister of Finance know that it will take $25 million to put the machinery in to take the logs over the dam and that the estimate in the original treaty was $50,000? Does the minister know that? Can he give me an answer?


Mr. Fullon:: How does the hon. member for Kootenay West arrive at that figure?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the Minister of Justice could reply, since he has been so successful in these negotiations.


Richard Albert Bell: I would be glad to answer any questions relative to the item which is now before the committee. When this committee is dealing with this particular matter raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West I am sure he will get all the information he desires. However, the inference contained in the question asked by the hon. gentleman is erroneous. I think it comes from one man, and one man only.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister tell me if any officials of the Department of External Affairs have been informed by any official of the Selgar Corporation as to the cost of the construction of this equipment?


Thomas Miller Bell: This is not a capital item, and the hon. gentleman by repeating the same question is not going to make an irrelevant question more relevant.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Surely, an official of that corporation visited the Department of External Affairs and gave the officials that information and asked for an answer.


An hon. Member:: Still not relevant.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the parliamentary secretary answer that question.


Richard Albert Bell: Supply-External Affairs


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When I hear the parliamentary secretary say that an underestimate of $25 million on one dam is an irrelevant question, I think I have the right to continue this debate until we get the facts.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am afraid the hon. member is confusing the committee in mentioning this contract for $25 million because the vote before us is only for $225,000. The hon. member is referring to items which are foreign to the subject properly under discussion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My point is that this is a matter which comes directly under the administration of the Department of External Affairs, and it is a matter upon which the department has been informed by this gentleman since we last had an opportunity to discuss these estimates.


An hon. Member:: Who gave you the information.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am referring to personal conversations with a number of people who know what they are talking about.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to pursue the inquiry which was raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West. We know where this matter stands. This treaty has not been ratified.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What treaty?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Columbia treaty. The government has not even dared to bring it before the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How does it arise under this item?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the Minister of Justice could reply when I have finished.


Jacques Flynn: On a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: More closure.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The minister of mines is rising on a point of order.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate knows very well that Your Honour has ruled the discussion of this matter of the Columbia treaty to be irrelevant. If I rise on a point of order it is because I feel that the worst kind of closure is the one which has been conducted by members of the opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order which has been raised by a gentleman who
had an opportunity to learn something of the rules, an opportunity not given to many of us, but of which he does not seem to have made very good use, let me say it has not been ruled that any discussion of the treaty is irrelevant. Your Honour has said it is not irrelevant to discuss it in a general way.
Further, I was proceeding to demonstrate that this matter was peculiarly within the item of departmental administration because it had not been resolved. There is no capital item. There is a project. A treaty has been signed but it has not been brought before the house. It lacks ratification. We want to find out why this has not been done, why there has been this delay on the part of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in getting on with the job. We should like to find that out from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Jacques Flynn: On a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely not another of those dreadful points of order.


Jacques Flynn: I had risen on a point of order but I wish to withdraw it because it is ten o'clock.


Thomas Miller Bell: If the hon. gentleman is asking for information it is the first time there has been any real request for information from across the floor tonight. The opposition has been interested in wrangling, bickering and squabbling, not in a constructive request for information.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I really regret to have to interrupt this debate at this time, but the clock indicates that it is ten o'clock and it is therefore my duty to ask the committee if I may rise, report certain resolutions and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Item stands.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the supplementary estimates tomorrow?


Mr. Churchill:: Tomorrow we shall go on with the final supplementary estimates for the fiscal year 1961-62 which ends on March 31.


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

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

[Stage Direction]
Administration branch-
675.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $77,500.
676.	Contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux-to increase by £3,553 the amount provided for in vote 3, main estimates, 1961-62; the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1962, is $10,446.
Production and marketing branch-
677.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act-further amount required, $78,588.
Health of animals division-
678.	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, $8,417.
Livestock division-
679.	Supervision of race track betting-further amount required, $28,000.
680.	Grants to agricultural fairs, exhibitions and museums in accordance with regulations of the governor in council-further amount required, $130,000.
Plant products division-
681.	Contribution to Prince Edward Island, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, of one half of amounts paid by that province to potato growers in respect of their 1960 crop as compensation for losses due to fusarium rot to a maximum contribution by Canada of $300 in respect of any one farm-further amount required, $70,000.
682.	Agricultural lime assistance-further amount required, $1,362,000.
Land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage projects-
Supply-Items Passed
683.	Reimbursement of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act revolving fund for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $1,403.
Special-
684. Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural products board account to cover the net operating loss recorded in the account as at March 31, 1962, $4,861,998.
685. 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, 1962, $23,139,333.
Atomic energy control board-
686.	Administration expenses of the atomic energy control board-further amount required, $1,400.

[Stage Direction]
Indian affairs branch-
Reserves and trusts-
687.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $59,500.
Welfare of Indians-
688.	Operation and maintenance-to increase to $65,000 the grant to the province of Manitoba of one half of the cost of a program of community development and to provide a further amount of $765,000.

[Stage Direction]
Civil service commission-
689.	Salaries and contingencies of the commission including compensation in accordance with the suggestion award plan of the public service of Canada-further amount required, $5,000.

[Stage Direction]
690.	Care, maintenance and custody of stand-by defense plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling-further amount required, $100,000. Canadian Arsenals Limited-
691.	Administration and operation-to extend the purposes of vote 74, main estimate, 1961-62, to reimburse Canadian Arsenals Limited in respect of outstanding balances of previous years' operating deficits, $1.


[Stage Direction]
for the year ended December 31, 1961
Commodity	Amount
Agricultural products (other)...$	23,039
Flour	 9,273,316
Malt	 1,734,594
Seeds	 56,101
Tire and rubber products		326,188
Alcoholic beverages	 46,831
Animal products (other)	 592,454
Fish	 1,142,645
Hides and skins	 406,158
Leather and products	 672,294
Milk and products	 213,960
Tallow	 55,748
Fibres, textiles and products ..	4,896,262
Fish nets	 629,040
Wood and wood products		566,113
Paper and products	 93,988
Unmanufactured wood	 27,888
Wood pulp	 10,166,151
Newsprint	 817,440
Iron and products (other)	 4,108,115
Auto parts	 160,426
Farm machinery	 4,316,101
Needles	 1,709,250
Steel	 10,168,055
Commodity	Amount
Non-ferrous metals (other)	....$	243,259
Aluminum and products	 24,737
Copper and products	 3,612,105
Electrical goods	 1,468,409
Meters	 236,448
Non-metallic minerals (other) ..	403,235
Asbestos products	 164,163
Refractory products	 1,046,797
Chemicals and products (other)	1,117,410
Chemicals	 2,624,123
Pharmaceuticals	 1,763,905
Miscellaneous commodities	....	691,869
Engineering services	 4,000
Total at the corporation's risk..$ 65,602,617
Section 21
Aircraft	$	219,625
Wheat	 65,387,598
Total at the government's risk.$ 65,607,223
Grand total	$ 131,209,840
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 30, 1962