1959-04-29

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I believe affects all members of this house. It has to do with the report of the speech made the night before last, appearing in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen, by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Browne) from Newfoundland. My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think really involves two questions, but I would like to deal with both of them while I am on my feet. This article reads in part as follows:
Tall, soft-spoken Hon. William Browne said last night Premier Smallwood's action in decertifying the international woodworkers of America in Newfoundland. and establishing a government union seems to be working out well for the loggers.
Representative of the island province, and one of two cabinet ministers without portfolio, he says the union formed by Mr. Smallwood to replace the
I.W.A. isn't the first government-formed union in the province.
The fishermen's union, set up similarly, has been successful-
"Other government-formed unions have performed well, and it's possible this will work satisfactorily' '-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member indicate what sort of privilege he is referring to before he goes too far in reading this report?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, my privilege has to do with the statement of the minister that the union in Newfoundland is working well, as compared with the answer given in this house by the Prime Minister when he was asked whether the government is considering the disallowance of the controversial legislation in Newfoundland. I think you will agree if you will allow me to proceed, Mr. Speaker, that I am presenting a very definite question of privilege. The Prime Minister told this house when we asked him if this matter of disallowance was under consideration that the cabinet was giving consideration to the whole question. On March 10, in reply to a further question which I asked him, the Prime Minister replied:
Of course, the hon. gentleman knows that that Is a matter of government decision, and I am not going to anticipate the date of that decision.
My question of privilege is this. The Prime Minister has said the cabinet is considering the disallowance of this act, whereas the Minister without Portfolio says the act is working well. Cabinet solidarity requires that that be the position of the government-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is apparently making the point that if he detects any lack of solidarity in the cabinet, that is a matter of privilege affecting the house. I do not think that is so.


Hazen Robert Argue: My question of privilege is this. The Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland has in fact made the statement, if this report is correct, that the government felt this legislation as passed in Newfoundland is good legislation, and therefore-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. Since the hon. gentleman has said as much as he has I will give the floor to the Prime Minister in order that he may comment, if he wishes, on the alleged matter of privilege. I see nothing which affects the privileges of the house.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: My comment is this. The hon. gentleman appears to believe that the soundness of a question of privilege is measured by the loudness of the voice. There is, I submit, no question of privilege here. The answer that was given on the occasion to which he referred was the answer of the government with respect to the legislation. Any observation which may have been made-and I do not know anything about such an observation-has nothing to do with the question of allowance or disallowance.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the question of privilege which the hon. member has raised does not seem to me to reflect in any way on the privileges of the house or of any member of the house, and I would therefore ask him not to pursue it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise, now, on my second question of privilege. It has to do with a statement of the same hon. gentleman and a quotation in the newspaper saying that a letter was written by him to the Newfoundland minister of municipal affairs, B. J. Abbott, asking whether the Conservative government could nominate two candidates to the seven-member St. John's housing authority.
My question of privilege is based on the discussion we had in this chamber on April

Starred Questions
22 and Your Honour's ruling that a cabinet minister in this hon. member's position was not able, or would not be able, to take responsibility for official communications. I submit that within the terms of the newspaper report it would appear that the hon. gentleman in question was writing a letter which came into the hands, if not directly, then indirectly-I take it would be directly-of the minister of municipal affairs in Newfoundland, Mr. B. J. Abbott, asking whether the federal government could nominate two Conservative members of the seven-member St. John's housing authority. I believe this type of letter is not the kind of private correspondence to which Your Honour alluded the other day in making your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can, of course, take what view he likes about that, but what he is asserting is that the conduct of the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland is in some way an infringement of the privileges of the house or of the members of the house. In my view what the minister has done does not reflect in any way on any person in this house or on anything this house has done. He is free as other hon. members are to conduct himself as he sees fit outside the house, subject to being called to account as a member of the government in accordance with our usual practice.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order you have raised I would refer Your Honour to the words you used as recorded at page 2927 of Hansard of April 22, on which occasion you said:
I take the view that the word "official" as it is used in the citation quoted by the hon. member for Laurier means official in the sense of being responsible for a department.
My point of privilege is this. I feel that if a cabinet minister with the full authority of the government can write to a province on behalf of the government, as I take it he was doing, it should be the prerogative of this house to have produced this correspondence which was written in an official capacity.


Mr. Speaker:: That is something I am not called upon to decide now. If the hon. member moves to have the correspondence produced the house will deal with the motion in the ordinary way. It is not a matter of privilege.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. McMillan: What was the total cost of the preparation of Professor Clark's report on old age security, including Professor Clark's fees, printing, etc.?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in
response to this question may I advise that as of April 29, 1959-and we know of no additional accounts to come in-the payments to Dr. R. M. Clark were as follows. There was a payment of $20,025 as fees, and $5,962.91 for disbursements. The cost of the printing of the report was $1,259.60, making a total of $27,247.51. In addition to the above there were certain travelling expenses incurred by members of the research and statistics division of my department in assisting Dr. Clark in certain aspects of his work.


CANADA-U.S. JOINT DEFENCE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	How many meetings of the Canada-United States committee on joint defence have been held since September 1, 1957?
2.	Where have any such meetings been held, and on what dates?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Canada-United States committee on joint defence was not established until September 2, 1958. Since then one meeting has been held. That meeting was held in Paris, France on December 15, 1958. As the hon. gentleman no doubt recalls, we were advised in a press release issued at the conclusion of that meeting in Paris that a decision was reached to hold the next meeting of the committee in Washington in mid 1959.


OIL AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT ACREAGE, NORTHERN CANADA
Mr. Mcllraith: 1.	Were 75 million acres recently taken up in Northern Canada for oil and mineral development?
2.	If so, by whom?
3.	What percentage has been assigned to (a) Canadian corporations; (b) United States corporations and Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies; (c) British corporations; (d) others?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this question is in three parts. At the conclusion of my oral answer I should like to ask permission of the house to have the answer to the second part of the question printed in Hansard, because it consists of a list of names of companies that could just as well be printed as part of my answer.
The answer to the first part of the question concerning whether 75 million acres were recently taken up in northern Canada for oil and mineral development is as follows. It is not altogether clear what the hon. member means by the word "recently". For example, at July 1, 1957, the number of permits issued

in all previous years totalled 652 and the acreage covered by these and the two oil reservations, Eagle Plain and Peel Plateau, totalled 34,559,570 acres. By March 31, 1959, the number of permits had grown to 1,780 and total acreage to 85,980,529. This activity has all been on the mainland, that is in the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon.
Very recently, however, interest has been shown in the Arctic islands and in the sea bed and subsoil of the continental shelf off Canada's northern coast. If the hon. member refers to this more recent activity the strict answer to his first question is no, since up to the present no permits have been granted in the Arctic islands or the continental shelf. However, applications for permits are being received and recorded according to priority of submission and exploratory licences, valid for one year, are being issued. These applications which a few weeks ago passed the 75,000,000 acre mark now cover a total of 86,517,364 acres.
The answer to part 2 is: The individuals and companies who have applied for permits in respect of these 86,517,364 acres are as follows:
J. D. Bateman,
607-80 Richmond Street West,
Toronto, Ontario.
Round Valley Oil Company Limited,
940-8th Avenue, South West,
Calgary, Alberta.
W. R. Newman,
11 Adelaide Street West,
Toronto, Ontario.
David Rosen and Associates,
211 East 18th Street,
New York 3, New York.
Texaco Exploration Company,
237-7th Avenue West,
Calgary, Alberta.
The California Standard Company,
Medical Arts Building,
Calgary, Alberta.
Talent Oil and Gas Limited,
P.O. Box 617,
Calgary, Alberta.
Dome Petroleum Limited,
528-9th Avenue West,
Calgary, Alberta.
C. M. McAvoy,
401a Petroleum Building,
Edmonton, Alberta.
G. Radisics,
347 Bay Street,
Toronto, Ontario.
Charter Oil Company,
Petroleum Building,
Calgary, Alberta.
Starred Question,
Cree Oil of Canada Limited,
708-7th Avenue West,
Calgary, Alberta.
P. C. Nedham,
201 Bay Street,
Toronto, Ontario.
G. A. Clarke,
201 Bay Street,
Toronto, Ontario.
J. W. Powelson,
301-11 Adelaide Street West,
Toronto, Ontario.
Terratest Company Limited,
11 Adelaide Street West,
Toronto, Ontario.
Chican Petroleum Limited,
11 Adelaide Street West,
Toronto, Ontario.
Pampas Petroleum Corporation,
85 Richmond Street West,
Toronto, Ontario.
James Ross,
77 Metcalfe Street,
Ottawa, Ontario.
M. J. Haley,
19 Perkins Street,
Ottawa, Ontario.
W. Phipps,
Bradley Air Services,
Carp, Ontario.
F. W. Chubb,
Room 301,
67 Younge Street,
Toronto, Ontario.
Thomas J. Rubec,
900 So. Columbas Avenue,
Mount Vernon, New York.
Trans-Western Oils Limited,
307-5th Avenue, S.W.,
Calgary, Alberta
M. C. McLeod and Company Limited,
Mobil Oil Building,
Calgary, Alberta.
Richard C. Cowell,
850 Park Avenue,
New York, New York.
Murray T. Koven,
69-10 108 Street,
Forest Hills 75, New York.
The answer to part 3 is as follows. The applicants for these 86,517,364 acres, classified as requested, are as follows:
(a)	Canadian individuals and corporations, 68.74 per cent (59,467,174 acres);
(b)	U. S. corporations, 14.72 per cent (12,738,186 acres);
Canadian subsidiaries of U. S. corporations, 13.33 per cent (11,534,552 acres);
(c)	British corporations (or Canadian subsidiaries of British corporations) 3.21 per cent (2,777,452 acres);
(d)	Others, nil.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, this answer will get the same attention in the news that the erroneous statements made recently by an hon. member on this matter received.

Orders for Returns


AVERAGE YIELD TO GOVERNMENT ON BORROWINGS
Mr. McMillan: What is the present average yield at price to the government, including all costs, on all borrowings made since July 1, 1957, and including the conversion loan of 1958?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I suggest that this question stand, and I also suggest that the hon. member who asked it rephrase his question in the interests of clarity. It is very hard to understand from this question precisely what it is he seeks.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Question stands.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Tucker: 1.	How much has Newfoundland received from the federal government since April 1, 1949, including the amounts for the current year?
2.	How much of this amount was in unconditional grants and what is the official description of such grants?
3.	How much of this amount was in conditional grants, what is the official description of each such grant and how much is included in each such grant?
4.	How much of the total amount was for other purposes, what were those purposes and how much was provided for each?
5.	What are the comparable amounts and purposes of similar payments in each of the above mentioned categories in (a) Nova Scotia:	(b)
New Brunswick; (c) Prince Edward Island: (d) Manitoba; (e) Saskatchewan?


NEWFOUNDLAND-PAYMENTS TO AND REVENUE FROM
Mr. Van Horne: In the last twelve months for which complete figures are available, how much money was received from Newfoundland from all sources, and how much money was received by Newfoundland from the federal government from all sources?


C.M.H.C. AND VETERANS AFFAIRS  LEGAL SERVICES, OXFORD COUNTY, ONT.
Mr. Badanai: 1.	Has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Department of Veterans Affairs (Veterans Land Act) utilized the services of any solicitors in Oxford county, Ontario during the last three months?
2.	If so, what are the names of such solicitors and of which law firms are they members?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
IMPENDING firemen's STRIKE-STATEMENT ON SETTLEMENT
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Before putting the question may I commend the minister on the part he has taken in averting a strike against the Canadian National Railways by the brotherhood of firemen. Can the minister tell the house upon what terms the strike was averted? If this is too broad, perhaps he can tell the house upon what principles the strike was averted.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The best way I could answer it would be to read the memorandum of agreement to the house, which covers it entirely:
Summary of discussions with representatives of the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and engine-men on the recommendations contained in the Montpetit conciliation board report:
1.	The brotherhood is prepared to accept the unanimous recommendations of the board.
2.	The brotherhood is prepared to accept in principle the recommendations of the board with respect to "arbitraries".
Clauses with respect to the amendment of the agreements to provide for the payment on a minute basis by the company for the time required for the performance of actual services shall be included in the agreements on the understanding that the schedule of increases in basic rates of pay in all classes of service, excluding locomotive engineers in Newfoundland, as given in clause 13 of letter dated April 14, 1959, addressed to Mr. W. E. Gamble, vice president, brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen, and signed by Mr. S. F. Dingle, vice president, Canadian National Railways, shall be amended as follows: 2 per cent effective April 1, 1958, 5 per cent effective May 1, 1959, 11 per cent effective August 1, 1959, 1 per cent effective April 1, 1960, except that in the case of firemen in yard service in the western region the scale of the increases shall be as follows: 2 per cent effective April 1, 1958, 71 per cent effective May 1, 1959.
It is understood that the recommendations will not apply with respect to the employment of engineers in Newfoundland. The application of arbitraries to these engineers will be negotiated without reference to the recommendation of the board as it applies to firemen.
The brotherhood is not prepared to accept the recommendation of the board on the proposal covering terminal delay. The company agrees to waive this recommendation on the understanding that the present rule respecting booking rest shall remain at 12 hours.
The brotherhood is prepared to accept the recommendations of the board on the subject of mileage regulations.
The company shall be under no obligation to hire new employees for service as firemen or helpers on diesel locomotives in freight or yard service in accordance with the recommendations of the board. When in the sole discretion of the management the requirements of the service are such that a helper is required in the operation of a diesel locomotive

in freight or yard service such helper shall be taken from the existing seniority ranks of firemen-helpers.
Firemen presently employed as shown on existing seniority lists of firemen in diesel operations in freight or yard service will be retained as firemen-helpers until death, retirement or promotion, subject to all customary rules and regulations covering the running trades and in particular those rules relating to physical fitness and discipline.
This was signed by Mr. Gamble, Mr. Donald Gordon and myself.


Lionel Chevrier: I am prompted to ask the minister another question, if the house will allow me. Does the minister not think that if he had been allowed to intervene in another dispute involving a crown corporation, the C.B.C., it could have been settled as quickly as this and a great deal of hardship could have been avoided?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Harkness:: A hypothetical question.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Laurier will appreciate that the question is argumentative and also hypothetical. It might be better if it were reserved for the estimates or some other more appropriate time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, if I may say so it is certainly not hypothetical. It refers to something that has taken place already.



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour if he can tell us what progress has been made in the negotiations with regard to the labour-management dispute at the Polymer Corporation in Sarnia?


Michael Starr: There is fairly good progress being made now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question, if I may put it in a supplementary way, was "what progress".


Michael Starr: I said "fairly good progress." POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT



ISSUE OF STAMP COMMEMORATING ASSOCIATED COUNTRY WOMEN OF THE WORLD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to dip into the pool of wisdom of the Postmaster General to ask this question. In view of the Canadian government's intention to honour the Associated Country Women of the World with the issue of a new 5 cent commemorative stamp on May 13 next,
Inquiries of the Ministry and in view of the unusual and widespread interest in this issue-a good number of ladies have expressed their appreciation to me, and I am a person who is always interested when the ladies are interested-will the minister inform the house of the arrangements made for the distribution of this stamp and, in particular, its distribution from Stoney Creek, Ontario, the location of the first women's institute in Canada?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of this question, which, however, did not include some of the remarks he just made. Arrangements for the distribution of this stamp are exactly the same as those for all stamps at the present time. This means that a quantity is sent to each post office in Canada and placed on sale on the first day of issue, which in this case is May 13. However, there are collectors who like to have these stamps on a special cover mailed on the first day on which the stamp is available. This service, which normally is handled through the headquarters of the post office in Ottawa, is also going to be carried on voluntarily and independently by the Federated Women's Institutes of Canada at Stoney Creek, Ontario. It is a plan they have worked out in connection with their members and which has nothing whatsoever to do with the government.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. McLennan (New Westminster):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister clarify the position of his department regarding the possible availability of all or some part of the R.C.A.F. airport at Boundary Bay, B.C., for use by light aircraft?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. This matter has also been the subject of inquiries by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale) and other members. The Department of National Defence is co-operating with the Department of Transport in consideration of the provision of alternative facilities for light aircraft in the lower mainland of British Columbia. One of the locations under consideration is Boundary Bay, but before any move of the military establishment there could be made an alternative location would have to be found. Various sites are now being examined and the necessary tests are being made. Some of these

Inquiries of the Ministry technical tests must be carried out over an extended period. For this reason it is impossible at this time to say when the Department of National Defence could move.
(Translation):



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielfe-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. Has he been informed that, according to some farmers' unions, manufacturers of farm implements have agreed to establish fixed prices on their goods?
If so, will the Minister of Justice order an investigation into this matter?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I know that, from time to time, it has been suggested to the combines investigation branch and others to look into all kinds of matters with regard to the sale of farm machinery, but I must inform the hon. member that the combines investigation branch has received no complaint indicating breach of the Combines Investigation Act. Consequently, no investigation in this matter is being considered.
If the hon. member or anyone else has reason to believe that there has been some collusion with regard to prices, I would suggest that he forward this information to the combines investigation branch.
(Text):



OIL-REPORTED LIFTING OF U.S. RESTRICTIONS ON CANADIAN IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I should like to ask the minister whether he has seen the press reports this morning to the effect that the restrictions against Canadian oil will be lifted effective July 1. Can the minister tell the house whether this report is accurate?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this subject was raised in the house on March 18, when the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question in somewhat the same terms, based also on a press report which had appeared on that date.
I have seen the reports which appeared in the Globe and Mail and the Gazette this morning. Again I think these are speculative

reports based on consideration of the situation as we have presented it from time to time to the authorities of the United States with regard to these mandatory controls on oils. I hope these reports indicate that some action will be forthcoming. However, at the moment I have no confirmation with regard to the accuracy of these reports that appeared this morning.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister not think he might supplement his hopes by further action on his part and on the part of his colleagues directed toward that objective?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is well aware that action can be expected very quickly on the part of this government, as we have shown on so many occasions.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I have sent him notice, but I have reworded it in order to bring it into line with what I imagine would be your ruling. It stems from a story by Pierre Berton appearing in the Toronto Star on the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as the Berton story indicates, tried to place an undercover agent in the Finnish organization in Canada, in the person of the lady referred to in the story? The second part of the question is this. Does the Royal Canadian Mounted Police recommend to the citizenship officials that membership in the Finnish organization of Canada should be a negative factor in any application for citizenship?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to send me notice of his intention to ask me these questions. I can only answer the first part of the question by saying that the government has consistently followed the policy of complete reticence concerning security work, which in such a case means that it must refuse either to acknowledge or deny allegations about the employment of secret sources for intelligence work.
The answer to the second part of the question is that the government has also consistently followed the policy of refraining from any comment, except in time of emergency, that would in any way identify an

organization as either desirable or undesirable from a point of view implied in the hon. member's question.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has yet completed the studies of the proposals made by the Manitoba government for financial assistance in the proposed flood control program for the city of Winnipeg?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, knowing the interest of the hon. gentleman in this question I am sorry that I am unable to go further than I went on a previous occasion.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. May I ask the minister whether he is aware of the collision which took place last night between the steamer Prescott, I believe, and the bridge over the Beauharnois canal, which has tied up traffic? I am particularly interested because this is one of the first ships to go east on its way down to Montreal and other St. Lawrence ports. Can the minister tell the house what was the cause of the collision.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for advising me of his intention to ask this question. I am advised that the vessel Prescott, which got into difficulty last evening in the Beauharnois canal, was cleared at 11.23 a.m. today and that no damage was suffered by the vessel or the bridge.
The failure of the lift span to rise was apparently due to the blowing of a fuse. When the captain of the vessel, having arrived at the limit of the approach, did not receive the green light he dropped anchor and the vessel came to rest across the channel in front of the bridge abutment. Officers of the St. Lawrence authority have been directed to make a complete report.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Northern Affairs Estimates
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Triniiy):: Now that the minister's estimates have been called, can he inform the house when the white paper will be distributed?


George Randolph Pearkes: All going well, I expect that it will be tabled tomorrow.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That items numbered 261 to 293, inclusive, and items numbered 476 and 477, as listed in the main estimates of 1959-1960, relating to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and be referred to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


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


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, while I realize that this motion is not debatable, I hope the house will allow me to make just this short statement which really is a reiteration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not want the hon. member to proceed under a misapprehension. This motion, being properly on the order paper by notice, is a debatable motion within reasonable limits.


Lionel Chevrier: In that case I thank Mr. Speaker for reminding me of a rule of the house with which I should have been more familiar. I did not want to speak at any length on this motion; I simply wanted to reiterate the position which has already been taken by the opposition on previous occasions.
My only purpose in rising was to say, first, that we on this side think the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources should remain in the house for discussion in the usual manner, and should not be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to a standing committee. We think it is a loss of time to refer these estimates to a committee, because after the departmental officers have been heard in committee there will be another opportunity in the house for the same kind of consideration of the estimates that has taken place in the committee.
In addition, I repeat to the government what has already been said, that unfortunately for us on this side of the house we feel there are too many such committees, and we also feel it is impossible for us to fulfill our duties in this house as they should be ful-
3154	HOUSE OF
Northern Affairs Estimates filled and attend the meetings of these committees at the same time. Now, I know the house leader has some very strong views on this, and I am not making this statement in order to secure from him the kind of reply we sometimes get. I am making this statement because it is a source of hardship to some of our members who are on two and even three committees to run from one to the other and in addition do the work in the house, and then sometimes be accused, perhaps not in this house but outside of this house, of being members of committees but not regularly attending those committees. Certainly that accusation, were it directed at me, at times would have some foundation.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up the time of the house unduly. I simply wanted to reiterate this position, and I am sorry the government has seen fit to withdraw these estimates and refer them to the committee on mines and forests.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to support the motion to refer the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to a standing committee of this house. We feel that such a committee will be able to do very useful work. We do not think that it is taking away from the House of Commons any privileges which we have. It is a well established rule, and I might say a well established custom, that when the estimates come back from the committee, where they have been discussed, further consideration is given to the estimates when they are put through parliament in the regular way.
Our objection to the government's procedure as far as committees are concerned is that very often we find it impossible to attend sittings of the house and of the various committees when they meet while the house itself is in session. In so far as this can be avoided we think it is preferable that members of parliament shall be able to attend the sittings of the House of Commons and not at times feel that they must forego attending the business in this house in order to attend one of the committees.
These departmental estimates which will be considered are very important. This is the department that relates, to a very large extent, to the great vision of which we have heard so much, and it is mainly to this department that Canadians look for action by the government to develop the Canadian north, to make certain our sovereignty over our territories is retained and strengthened and made abundantly clear to all the world. We feel that a thorough study by a committee of this house can lead to a strengthen-[Mr. Chevrier.l

ing of Canadian sovereignty over this very important part of our nation and our last remaining frontier.
This government has set itself up before the Canadian people as one which will see that Canadian sovereignty will be strengthened. That is a commendable position to take, and we are very pleased to support the minister and his department in that respect. However, there are many reports which indicate that knowledge of Canada's northland today is greatly wanting. As a matter of fact we are told by eminent scientists that Canada is not only not doing its share in developing our north, but that the knowledge which this department obtains about our north is derived in many respects from information that can be obtained in publications of the U.S.S.R.
This is a disturbing situation. I am certain that the government of Canada would get full support from the Canadian nation in taking bold steps to provide further research and exploration of our northland to make certain it is abundantly clear to all the world that we are protecting our sovereignty.
Mr. Speaker, we think under this department the government should consider implementing the recommendations of the Massey report. We think the government should act on the recommendations concerning amendments that would provide a new arrangement for the administration of our national museum. We think the whole administration of our museum is something to which this committee should give very exact and detailed attention. We feel that recent events surrounding the administration of the museum suggest that the present legal basis on which the administration of the museum rests is not satisfactory. The legal basis upon which the administration of the museum rests, as hon. members know, is merely one section in the act providing for the establishment and administration of this department itself. The section dealing with the museum reads as follows; it is to be found in chapter 4 of the statutes of Canada, 1953-54:
The minister has the control, management and administration of the national museum of Canada, and shall collect, classify and arrange for exhibition in the museum of such specimens as are necessary to afford complete and exact knowledge of the geology, mineralogy, palaeontology, archaeology, ethnology and fauna and flora of Canada.
We do not think, Mr. Speaker, that is a satisfactory legal basis for our museum. We feel that the former administration took some action, at least, that was desirable, in introducing legislation into this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether before he proceeds further the hon. member would indicate whether he has in mind dealing

with the affairs of the department in general, because the motion does not seem to me to open up a general debate on the workings of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The motion seeks to refer certain items to a sessional committee rather than deal with them in another way, and I think reference to the working of the department ought to be limited to consideration of the reasons for and against dealing with this matter in the way suggested.
I know that on occasion the house has permitted fairly extensive debate on some of these motions, but to my mind the motion is one to arrange the business of the house and should not open up a general debate. That is why I inquire what the hon. member has in mind.


Hazen Robert Argue: My understanding was that this was a debatable motion. I do not wish to proceed to a detailed discussion of these items. I was merely raising some matters which I thought were of general importance, and which might be considered by the committee. I feel that since these matters are of such grave importance to the Canadian nation it is quite appropriate to support this motion by suggesting some points to which the committee might give consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is perhaps the limit of the debate which is open on this motion. It seems to me that the motion before us is whether these particular items should go to a standing committee rather than be dealt with by the whole house in committee of supply, and that is really a procedural question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not wish to transgress the rules of the house, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish, either, to delay unduly the passage of this motion, and I think I can say to Your Honour-though this is no comment on the procedure we shall be following-that it is not the intention of this group to carry on a protracted discussion of all these items. However, in our study of this resolution we felt that there were certain matters which should be brought to the attention of the house as subjects to which this committee should give consideration.
I may say in that regard that, as we all know, committees of this house are able to call witnesses, and that members of committees are able to direct questions to those witnesses. I think this is a procedure which is necessary in regard to the affairs of this department and in regard to the examination of the various matters which will be taken into account. I said a few moments ago that certain questions as far as the museum and its operation are concerned should be considered by the committee. The oppor-
Northern Affairs Estimates tunity should be taken to have witnesses from the national museum appear before the committee so the general administration of this institution might be considered.
The strength of any nation depends to a very large extent on the development of a distinctive culture and a distinctive cultural background, and I believe that to a large extent the very entity of Canada as a nation is determined by various branches over which this department has responsibility. I feel that this committee, by calling appropriate witnesses, should attempt to determine whether Canadian sovereignty has in fact been undermined by the lack of effective development of the Canadian north. If the answer is in the affirmative, an attempt should be made to find out to what extent our national sovereignty has been affected.
I do not wish to deal with this subject in detail, but I can tell the minister

indeed, this is something he well knows-that there have been many questions regarding the operation of the national museum. There is a fear among many people who are qualified to speak on its administration and its work that it is to some extent, to a substantial extent-to a much greater extent than is desirable-influenced by citizens of the United States.
The minister, in reply to a question in this house, told us of the very long delay which took place in obtaining permission from United States authorities for a Canadian citizen to proceed to the north in order to undertake certain work. That situation was something we all regretted, something about which parliament was ashamed. We are pleased to have been given an assurance that such long delays brought about by this kind of procedure will not be our experience in the future. I am not a member of this committee, Mr. Speaker, though when this matter is under consideration I hope I will be able to sit in on the proceedings.
There is one question which I feel should be raised, and that is the question of Canada's representation at certain international conferences. I have in mind the circum-polar conference at Copenhagan last year, when Canada had one representative, an employee of the Canadian government, a man who has worked in Canada, attached to the department of northern affairs, since June 24, 1949, and who is a citizen of the United States. I think it is to our discredit that at an important international conference attended by representatives of all nations the person who spoke for Canada should be a citizen of another country.
I believe the department the minister is administering is one of the most important departments of the government. I believe

Northern Affairs Estimates the minister is very hard working. From the statements he has made both in parliament and to the press since he took office I believe he is conscientious. I know he is taking a very detailed interest in the administration of his department, and I am hopeful that this committee, as a result of its inquiries, may be able to make to the minister recommendations and representations which will lead to the strengthening of the cultural life of this nation and to the strengthening of Canadian sovereignty over all our territories in order that Canada, after this session has ended and after we have dealt with all these subjects, may be in a much stronger position than it is now as far as our national sovereignty is concerned. I hope it will be made clear that while we are happy to co-operate with other nations at all times in joint projects which are of value to us, Canada in her representations and in her actions will always use those safeguards which are necessary to make sure that the national welfare is a matter of first consideration.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my opinion briefly on the subject of the reference of these estimates to a committee. Like my leader and in contrast to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) I believe the growing importance of this department and the branches connected with it almost makes it imperative that the estimates be sent to a committee for study. There is also the fact that more and more Canadians recognize the importance of this department and are concerned with the development of Canada and the maintenance of Canadian control in that development.


Mr. Graffley:: You are repeating the same things your leader said. You are being pleonastic.


Hazen Robert Argue: Take a trip to New York.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Are the people in the
barnyard at the other end of the chamber quite finished?


William Heward Grafftey: You are being redundant. You are repeating the same things said by your leader.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He will probably say them better, though.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member is guilty of all-consuming redundancy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer briefly to a speech made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources at the annual dinner of the Canadian institute of mining and metallurgy held at the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal on April 14,
1959.	I have no hesitation in saying that I have read this speech and think it is a jolly


good one. I was very pleased to become acquainted with the minister's point of view in respect to a number of things about which I am concerned. In that connection I wish very briefly to quote one paragraph of the speech.


Mr. D. J. Walker (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. All hon. members of this house are hoping to get away from Ottawa before the end of the summer. Could I ask what possible relevancy the remarks of my hon. friend have at the present time on a motion to refer? His remarks are completely irrelevant and no one knows that better than my hon. friend who is an authority on this subject.


Hazen Robert Argue: Closure again.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the house for approximately four minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to say this. On these motions to transfer items to a committee there have been fairly extensive debates from time to time in the past but there is nothing in the motion itself to warrant an extensive debate. In my view the matter is a procedural one. It is a decision of the house to deal with certain items of the estimates in a special committee rather than in committee of supply and to make the necessary order. That raises the question of whether certain items might more properly be discussed in committee of the whole house or before the special committee but I would think debate should be limited very strictly to the discussion of the relative convenience of dealing with these matters. I do not think it is improper to suggest the kind of matter with which the committee would have to deal but to debate these matters, to my mind, is to duplicate debate.
The committee is set up for hearing representations on these matters which the hon. member is discussing. It will be its duty to do so. It will then report back, and the committee of supply will have the privilege of dealing with them again. Unless we are to multiply debate and unless the house otherwise decides, we should restrict ourselves at this time. I believe these debates have taken place in the past with the general acquiescence of the house. In my view, however, the debate should be closely confined to the essentials of the matter before the house which is whether or not these items shall be transferred.


David James Walker: 
Mr. Speaker:: I did not stop the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) again although that matter is now closed. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) assures me that he wants only two or three minutes to discuss this matter and if he will confine himself in that respect I do not think I can rule him out of order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would have been finished long ago if the hon. member had not unfairly accused me of unnecessary repetition and unusual verbosity. My only object in rising is to point out the necessity of sending these estimates to the committee for two reasons, the importance of the question of the development and control of national resources-


William Heward Grafftey: Your leader already said that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and also to demonstrate the importance of the reference of one branch of this department in which I am particularly interested, the forest branch. There is a tremendous need to give to the committee a full opportunity to have appear before it representatives of the forest industry so they may present their views. Now, with the indulgence of the hon. member I shall continue for about three minutes and then I shall conclude.
Before I was rather abruptly and somewhat rudely interrupted by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) I was going to quote from what I consider an excellent speech made by the minister on the date to which I made reference. At page 15 of the transcript of his remarks we find these words:
Yes, I could continue almost indefinitely with expressions of pride in our achievements: but I prefer a more sobering note. In many segments of the mining industry-indeed throughout most of our national economy-we have become excessively dependent upon American business and the American market. Let us face this fact.
No other nation in the free world is as exposed as Canada to the all-pervasive influence of another nation: and it is slight consolation that becoming an extension of the American way of life is preferable to certain other alternatives. We want to maintain our Canadian identity.
I happen to know with respect to the forest industry that they would welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee and give their views in relation to their problems. I hope the officials of the forest branch will also have an opportunity to appear because the questions of forest economics, forest research, fire protection, forest management and education concerning these fields are of vital importance. The committee should have an opportunity to hear from officials of the department but I rise particularly to emphasize the need to obtain witnesses on these questions, men
Northern Affairs Estimates with experience, operators who have had much experience in the forest industry of Canada. We should obtain these people from the various provinces so hon. members of the committee will get as much information as possible before they form their views as to the things that are best needed to correct the situation that faces them with respect to the hazards of the destruction of forests by fire, pests, insects and things of that sort.
I believe I have been quite modest in my remarks but I did want to emphasize those two definite reasons for having these estimates go before the committee. I trust the committee will not hasten its work but will take plenty of time to hear from the important people who have something vital to say to the hon. members of this committee.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order may I just follow the example given by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) in trying to curtail this debate. If Your Honour will look at rule 37 (1) of the standing orders you will observe that it provides that no hon. member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new matter and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation. The second part of the standing order also covers this. Having made the motion, I think that ought to suffice.


Howard Charles Green: I think it is covered by the second part which provides that a reply shall be allowed to an hon. member who moves a subsequent motion but not to the mover of an amendment, the previous question or an instruction to a committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a word on the point raised by the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Chevrier). Citation 166, subparagraph 3, at page 139 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms reads as follows:
166. (3) By a substantive motion-
That is the only kind of motion for which reply is allowed except, of course, on the second reading of the bill. I continue:
By a substantive motion is meant a motion not incidental to a proceeding before the house and which can be dealt with by amendment or by the distinct vote of the house.
It seems to me, sir, that if this motion is not incidental to a proceeding in the house it is nothing at all and therefore the right of reply does not exist in this case.

Northern AH airs Estimates


Mr. Speaker:: There are two points involved in whether or not this is a substantive motion. It has been regarded as a substantive motion in our practice here, because this type of motion has been used to introduce a debate on external affairs, for example, and the minister introducing the motion has been allowed the right of reply, so that to that degree there is a precedent for what the minister is doing. I admit that the wording of the comment in citation 166 of Beauchesne would indicate that this is not a substantive motion.
The other point is that where in moving a motion a member has not spoken, the house by courtesy, if not legally, has permitted him the right to speak at the end of the proceedings. I may be mistaken in this. In any event, as I am in some doubt, if the house will allow me to reserve the matter I will give thought to it and perhaps the house will allow the minister to make his remarks now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: By unanimous consent.


Howard Charles Green: I really have very little to say and I intend to take very little time this afternoon, but I would like to point out to hon. members that in asking that these estimates be referred to a standing committee we are merely trying to improve the efficiency of the work undertaken by the House of Commons.
It should be clearly remembered that these estimates will come back to the house where they will be dealt with in the ordinary way just as though they had never been referred to a committee. But there is this great advantage in sending them to a committee. There officials can be called and can be cross-examined, which cannot be done in the house. Also, as the hon. member for Kootenay West, (Mr. Herridge) has suggested it might be found wise by the members of the committee to call outside witnesses, and that could not be done in the house. These are only two of the reasons why we believe that it is in the best interests of the business of the house that these estimates should go to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters.
There is one other reason why we have tried this plan. As you will realize, Your Honour, it was first adopted a year or so ago. This course had not been followed by the former government with regard to the estimates of this particular department although it had been followed with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, and followed with great success. One reason why


we are sending the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to this standing committee is that the work of these two departments should come particularly under the scrutiny of this standing committee of the house. For some reason or another the former government at no time made any use of this standing committee. The committee was set up at each session and I presume a chairman was appointed, and then the committee did nothing at all, never met.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It was a living corpse for 15 years.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know about it being a living corpse; it was a corpse, anyway.
The work actually done by this standing committee on the estimates of these two departments has been very much worth while. I need only refer hon. members to the work this committee has done during this present session on the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy). With the co-operation of members of all parties, the estimates of that department have been given a very thorough examination. I am certain that there will be beneficial results to the department as well as to the members who have been taking part in the work of this committee.
The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has much the same type of jurisdiction as the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Here again there are many questions to be considered, some of which have been outlined today by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and the hon. member for Kootenay West. We believe it is a department the estimates of which lend themselves particularly well to a careful scrutiny in a standing committee and it is with these thoughts in mind that the government is asking support for this motion to refer the estimates to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



RAILWAYS, AIR LINES AND SHIPPING ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS, AIRLINES AND SHIPPING OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT

George Harris Hees: That a sessional committee on railways, airlines, and shipping owned and controlled by the government, be appointed to consider the accounts,

estimates and bills relating to the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time, and that notwithstanding standing order 67 in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee shall consist of 26 members.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister make a statement?


George Harris Hees: A very short one. This is the motion to appoint a sessional committee on railways, airlines and shipping. As the house knows, it has been the practice for many years to have a committee sit to consider the accounts of the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines. Following approval of this motion, it is my intention to ask leave of the house to submit a motion which will name the members and refer to the committee the reports dealing with the Canadian National and Trans-Canada Air Lines which have already been tabled, together with the items of estimates that are to be reviewed by the committee.
I might add that it is planned to have the committee start its sittings on Tuesday, May 5, for the consideration of the reports concerning the Canadian National as the first business.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, this is the annual motion which seeks the establishment of the committee on railways, airlines and shipping, and it does give the house an opportunity to consider in a general way, although not perhaps in a particular manner, some of the subjects which the committee will be dealing with in due course. It has been the practice in the house from time to time, on a motion such as this, to allow hon. members to speak in a general way upon the subjects which are of particular interest to the Canadian National Railways and to Trans-Canada Air Lines, and on other matters which come within the purview of either the one or the other crown corporation.
I have no intention of dealing today with other railway matters but with the permission of the house I should like to refer as briefly as I can to a number of matters which in my opinion deserve the attention of the house. I should like to begin my remarks by saying that in the motion which seeks the establishment of the committee again we see the name, "Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships." The unhappy story of the liquidation of this fleet by the government is still fresh in our minds and I must say that the amount of information we have received
29, 1959
Railways and Shipping Committee from the minister on this subject is unfortunately too little. We have received very little information about the activities of this crown corporation since it was in fact liquidated during the course of last year, other than through newspaper items. It would strike me that that is not the manner in which information of that nature should be imparted to the house. However, as the minister has stated, we shall have an opportunity in due course to examine the position of this crown corporation when the committee is established.
It is my intention today to talk about those subjects which come within the actual purview of Canadian National Railways because it seems to me that before the establishment of the committee there is a great deal to be gained by a discussion and a public examination of the facts as well as a brief scrutiny of the government's record in this connection. The first thing I should like to do is to go back to the budget speech of the Hon. Walter Harris delivered on March 14, 1957, and to remind the house of what was said by him on that occasion. His words will be found at page 2219 of Hansard of that date, and I quote:
One of the matters discussed in the Gordon report is the handicap which the Atlantic provinces have to contend with due to difficulties of transportation, and to post-war increases in railway freight rates. A good deal has been done in recent years in an effort to offset the higher costs of marketing the products of the Atlantic region caused by the long distances between the region and its markets in other parts of Canada, and to improve the means of communication within the region itself. For example, we have paid more in freight subventions so as to facilitate a greater movement of maritime coal to central Canada, and to enable maritime agriculture to obtain cheaper supplies of western feed grains. We have also spent substantial amounts for the improvement of shipping services and to meet the deficits incurred in coastal shipping.
In the view of the government we should now undertake a fresh and comprehensive examination of the entire transportation situation of the Atlantic provinces in order to determine what changes could conribute toward the economic welfare of the region. Among other questions, we should consider how best to supplement or improve some of the present means of transport in order to improve the transportation system generally. In this way it might be possible for the Atlantic region to get more value from the present level of federal expenditures in this field and from any increased funds that might become available.
I draw particular attention to the conclusion which Mr. Harris drew on that occasion.
It is therefore the government's intention to launch an immediate review of the maritime transportation problem in general, and thereafter to put forward proposals as soon as feasible.
The point I wish to make at this time is that an immediate review of the maritimes' transportation problem was initiated by the government of which I at one time was a
3160	HOUSE OF
Railways and Shipping Committee member and steps were taken forthwith after this statement in Mr. Harris' budget speech to get under way a comprehensive inquiry into the subject of transportation in the Atlantic provinces. Part of the work was to be undertaken by the management of the Canadian National Railways and part was to be done by the officials of the Department of Transport and if outside assistance should be required my understanding was that it was made quite clear that that would be obtained. It was anticipated that of necessity resort would be had to such assistance as was requisite in carrying out the study and inquiry mentioned in the budget speech in order that the examination of this subject would be carried on as efficiently and as quickly as possible.
Two years have now elapsed since the announcement was made in the house that such an inquiry was to be undertaken and despite the importance of the inquiry the investigation seems no further advanced now than when Mr. Harris made his statement in the house in 1957. Knowing the officials of the Department of Transport and the management of Canadian National Railways, I am sure that progress in this direction has been made and I can only express regret that the minister has not seen fit to take the house into his confidence and inform the house what has been done with reference to that investigation. What progress has been made? What inquiry has been undertaken? What difficulties, if any, have been encountered with respect to this matter? What solutions have been arrived at and what proposals have been submitted? Instead of doing so, the minister has passed over this important subject in silence.
I should like to give the house some general idea of what was in the mind of Mr. Harris when this proposal was advanced. In the first place, we know that Canadian National Railways provides extensive services by sea to the many outports of Newfoundland. A passing glance at any timetable of that railway is sufficient to give an idea of the extent of these services though no timetable could give any idea of their magnitude, the complexity of operation or the difficulties which must be overcome in providing this kind of service. Transportation, I need hardly tell the house, is of vital concern to Newfoundlanders and their interest in this subject as well as their hopes were raised in large measure by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself. I would remind the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) of the statement of the Prime Minister in St. John's, Newfoundland, on April 15, 1957, as contained in the Globe and Mail of April 16, 1957. I quote:


Newfoundland's narrow gauge railway should be converted to the standard gauge because the present line retards development, adds to the cost of transportation and therefore makes it more difficult for Newfoundland industries to compete in domestic mainland markets on the same basis as other provinces.
As the minister knows, that is a problem of extreme importance to the province of Newfoundand. I know that the minister has been there. I know he has been at Gander and has perhaps made an examination of the railway. He will understand how important this problem is to the people of Newfoundland. Has any investigation been made of the cost of transforming the narrow gauge railway to a standard gauge railway? What will the cost of that transformation be? Is it possible, either here or elsewhere, to get from the minister a statement of the progress which has been made with respect to that problem as well as in respect of the statement which was made earlier by the Prime Minister during the election campaign of 1957.
I turn now to another problem which is of extreme importance to the province of Newfoundland, namely the car ferry service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques in Newfoundland. That question is of equal importance to the province. I have no doubt that this vessel will fully live up to the expectations we had when we planned her construction. Her entry into service was frustrated by conditions which were not anticipated when the decision to build the ferry was taken. However, it is now a fact that the vessel is in operation. The vessel is in service and is operating between the two ports. For a time it operated between North Sydney and Argentia because of certain difficulties which existed at Port aux Basques. However, I have been led to believe that for the most part those difficulties have disappeared.
Nevertheless, a number of questions still arise. Is the service which the William Carson is providing now adequate? Does the accommodation which it provides fully meet all the needs of the traffic or, as many people affirm, does the traffic exceed the volume which was anticipated when the plans for her construction were made and when the William Carson was designed? Does the position of this ferry vessel meet the present needs of the island? We must remember that the construction of a vessel takes a long period of time. Plans and specifications must be prepared. These things cannot be done in a hurry, particularly for a ship such as this one which must operate during all seasons and under difficult climatic and weather conditions. I feel that these are questions which should be asked of the minister. Is the question of the

adequacy of the facilities under serious consideration at this time? Has the Canadian National Railways estimated the traffic that will be available within the next few years, let us say within the next two, three or four years, for instance; and will the William Carson be adequate to meet all the needs, actual and prospective?
I turn now to another transportation problem which affects particularly the Canadian National Railways and has to do with the services between the mainland and Prince Edward Island, in particular between Cape Tormentine and Prince Edward Island. Under the terms of the constitution it is clearly set out that transportation services must be provided by the central government. Over the years that responsibility has been fulfilled by the Department of Transport. As hon. members know, there are two ferries which operate between the mainland and Prince Edward Island. There is the Abegweit which was built some years ago-it was an up-to-date ferry at the time

and there is also an additional ferry service that has been provided by means of the Prince Nova. However, I am informed that in recent years, because of the growth of traffic, this ferry service has been outgrown and the most optimistic estimates indicate that these two services are not sufficient at the present time. Hence, one of the questions that comes immediately to mind is this. What has the government in mind having regard to the future requirements of transportation between the mainland and Prince Edward Island.
A causeway between Borden, Prince Edward Island and Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick, has been under consideration for some time. I do not want to add to the length of this discussion by putting on Hansard what was said on this subject at one time by the former minister of public works, Hon. Mr. Winters. Those who want to see it can find it at page 1020 of Hansard of February 6, 1957. Apropos of that question, let me simply say that I know the Department of Public Works has taken steps to assess the possibility of obtaining suitable rock for the building of the causeway although the results of its inquiry has not led to any final conclusion.
The subject of the causeway was mentioned at great length during two election campaigns. It was mentioned not only by those of us who support the Liberal party but by those who support the Conservative party. At a time when the present Prime Minister had no responsibility for a subject of this nature, at
29, 1959
Railways and Shipping Committee Saskatoon on May 27, 1957, referring to certain promises which the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, had made, particularly when he said that he would make no promises, he stated:
Each day in every part of Canada the magnitude of the promises is increasing . . . increases for civil servants and the armed services, a causeway across the Atlantic to Prince Edward Island . . . railroads into northern Quebec . . . improvements to Montreal harbour.
These words will be found in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of May 28, 1957.
I find that the words of the Prime Minister do not seem to indicate that he favoured the construction of the causeway, because he describes it as being "across the Atlantic to Prince Edward Island". But we well know that the position of the Prime Minister is flexible and that his attitude at Saskatoon can be flexed somewhat from the position he would take if he were speaking in Prince Edward Island. At all events, more flexibility developed in the mind of the Prime Minister because before the 1958 election campaign began he announced in Ottawa, on February 5, 1958, that the government had ordered an engineering study of the proposed causeway between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. In fact, this project was rather touted as being a positive step by the government to reduce unemployment. At all events, the announcement said that the preliminary engineering study for the causeway would cost an estimated $200,000 and that it would determine the effects of the causeway on tidal conditions and fisheries in the area. Then, in the announcement to the press, the Prime Minister described the prospective works as:
*-a great national program which will swing into action immediately and will be part of his party's national development policy promised in the general election campaign in 1957.
This statement can be found in the Montreal Star of February 5, 1958. The point I wish to make here, Mr. Speaker, is that in this budget for 1959-60 there is nothing for the causeway. It is that fact which makes it necessary that consideration be given forthwith to the whole question of providing adequate facilities for efficient means of communication between the mainland and Prince Edward Island.
If the government is really sincere in the promises which it has made about the engineering study of the causeway, surely there would have been something in the main estimates to deal with this matter so that a start can be made on the causeway without any undue delay; but nothing is to be found in the estimates for that purpose.

Railways and Shipping Committee Therefore it comes to me as a natural question, I think, to ask the minister what consideration is being given to the existing ferry services and the provision of one or more vessels to share the operation of transportation facilities with the Abegweitl
Surely the Department of Transport has this matter under study and consideration. If the position is the same as it was some years ago when I was on the other side of the house, then I have no doubt that the minister and the Canadian National Railways are receiving all kinds of representations from those who live in those provinces. Therefore it would strike me that if there is nothing in the estimates for this fiscal year to carry out the undertaking made by the government, then at least we should get some statement on the part of the minister.
I pass on now to another subject in that area, and that is the Yarmouth-Bar Harbour ferry. That was a ferry which was established some years ago and which has been put into operation. I think the minister should tell the house what success that service is obtaining. I do not speak now from the financial aspect so much as I do from the aspect of transportation. What I would like to know is what amount of traffic is developing? Has the traffic reached the estimate which was anticipated at the time the service was put into effect? Is the amount of passenger, freight and other services which were had in mind at that time developing? Are the rates conducive to the fullest use of the service? Is it really achieving the purpose which was had in mind at the time, namely that of getting for Nova Scotia a greater number of tourists? Is it bringing in new sources of revenue to Nova Scotia? And what is even more important, is the growth of the traffic which has taken place since the inauguration of this service sufficiently imposing to warrant an expansion of the service? In other words, do we need another vessel? Is it desirable to inaugurate a new service which will better meet these particular needs of transportation in Nova Scotia? I hope the minister will either now or when the special committee is formed and meets bring the house up to date on this matter.
There is another important subject, about which we have heard very little in recent months, and that is the question of the extension of existing railway facilities into Great Slave lake. Both in the 1957 and the 1958 session the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) showed what seemed to be an encouraging interest in the subject. However, the two ministers were not always


in complete harmony when they advised hon. members of the progress which was being made, and I think it is no exaggeration to say that we were left in some doubt as to the seriousness of the consideration that was being given to the planning of this project. Nearly 12 months have elapsed now since this subject was discussed, and I would hope the matter had now progressed sufficiently that we could get an informative and complete statement from the Minister of Transport who after all has something to do with this important subject and who is in charge of the provision of transportation facilities in this country.
It seems to me that the Minister of Transport should tell the house what actual progress has been made toward the development of a railway to Great Slave lake. Have the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, who operate the Northern Alberta railways, made a report to the government or to the minister in connection with this project? Do they find that the traffic in prospect justifies the investment of the substantial sums of money which are involved, or do they expect the government to provide a large subsidy in order to make the project self-sustaining, in accordance with the usual practice which railroads follow in order to determine the wisdom of investing in such a project? It seems to me that the construction of a railroad at this time, if it can be justified economically, is the kind of project which would be supported by the Canadian people at a time like the present, and that the minister should take the first opportunity and the first advantage to acquaint hon. members with the government's plan.
This is not a matter simply of rising in the house and saying that the policy of the government will be made known in due course. I think it has reached the stage now where it is a matter of privilege to the hon. members of this house to know where the matter stands. No information whatever has been given, although it was mentioned in the speech from the throne in the session of 1958 and it was mentioned also from time to time in discussions in this house. It is a matter of national concern. It is a matter which falls to be determined not only by the government but by one of its crown agencies, the Canadian National Railways and the least the government can do is to give to the house a frank and straightforward statement in advising the house of the progress which is being made, if any, in respect to this proposed railway, which as the house knows has attracted a great deal of public attention.
Now I come to another matter of interest more particularly to the province which I

represent. It concerns a railway which has been discussed before in this house. I raised this matter on one occasion and I believe it was raised by other members too. Mr. Jean-Claude Lessard, a former deputy minister of transport, in a brief which was presented to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects in November of 1956, and which is contained in one of the interim reports of the royal commission, deals with the subject of transportation at some length and with great efficiency.
He divides his brief to the royal commission into many parts, but I want to deal with only a small part, that concerning railway transportation, which can be found at page 128 of the submission. On that page there are suggested to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects five possible future railway projects in the north. While I have no intention of burdening the house with all of these, there is one I would like to draw attention to, particularly the attention of the Minister of Transport, and that is the last recommendation made by Mr. Lessard concerning the construction of a line east from lac St. Jean or Murray Bay in Quebec and the possible extension of such a line to Labrador.
I have before me a map of that part of the north shore of the province of Quebec and the lac St. Jean area, and while I know that there are very often, among railway officers, two views with reference to the route which a railway should follow-perhaps that appertains here; I am not in a position to know-I think this recommendation was to the effect that the railway should follow the north shore in order to link Murray Bay with Seven Islands and then on to Labrador, so as to serve this area and the other settlements which are growing with tremendous rapidity on the north shore because of the development of natural resources.
The other alternative, and one which many railway officers seem to think is more appropriate, is that the railway should run some miles north of the gulf so that there would be two lines of settlement, one along the shore and the other inland, some miles from the shore. If the latter alternative were adopted there would then be a line going east from lac St. Jean, connecting with Seven Islands and then on to Labrador.
The point I wish to make is that I do not believe any study has yet been carried out and I refrain from putting forward any suggestions other than to bring to the attention of the house the submission which was made by Mr. Lessard at that time. I think the minister and the government would be doing Canada a service if they would conduct a
29, 1959	3163
Railways and Shipping Committee survey into the possibility of constructing a railway to assist the development of this fast-growing area.
Of course, as the minister knows, he has received many representations from people residing in the Gaspe area for the development and the extension of that railway. I remember that when I sat on the other side of the house three alternatives were under consideration. Two of them, if I remember well, were extremely costly, but one was of such nature that it could be considered by both the Canadian National Railways and the government. Whether there has been some change in that situation or not I am unable to say, but I do think that the minister should, at an appropriate time, if not in the course of this debate, be good enough to bring the house up to date as to what has transpired with reference to the railway in the Gaspe peninsula.
I should not like to conclude my remarks at this time without saying a few words in connection with the general problem of the Canadian National Railways. I doubt if ever before railways have been faced with problems of such magnitude or with such far-reaching consequences as seem to be the daily lot of Canadian and United States railroads. On the one hand they are faced with competition-extremely stiff and difficult competition on an ever-widening scale-from the trucking industry which has the advantage of being able to pick up goods quickly and to ship them to their destination with equal rapidity. This is a particularly difficult form of competition for the railways to meet, and the development of more and more first rate highways in Canada has naturally meant that competition from trucks has become increasingly sharp and more devastating in its effects on railway revenues.
At the same time, the railroads have had to meet the demands for higher wages, which, not unnaturally, have been put forward by the labour forces of the railroads in Canada, and the increases in average wages which have taken place in other fields, particularly in the durable goods industry, have made it necessary for the railroads to follow the same general pattern and to agree, unwillingly perhaps because of their own problems, to increasing what is probably the largest element in their costs of operation.
At the same time, and although the railways have modernized their equipment, the economies in operation which have resulted have to some extent been offset by increases in their fixed charges because of higher capital investment required to operate modern equipment. And all the while this process of attrition has been going on involving on the one hand the carriage of fewer
3164	HOUSE OF
Railways and Shipping Committee goods and on the other the loss of passengers to business and private automobiles.
I assume the statement I have just made has had a lot to do with the position in which the Canadian National Railways finds itself, and which is exhibited in the report for the calendar year 1958 tabled some weeks ago. The situation has unquestionably been difficult for the railways, and the situation of the Canadian National Railways is no exception; it is no exception to what railways in the United States have encountered. We have already had an opportunity to discuss the interim assistance which the house, through a subsidy measure of $20 million is going to give to the railways, but nonetheless I hope the government will lose no time in trying to get to the root of the problem which faces the industry at this time.
The Prime Minister and the minister himself has announced that we can expect soon the appointment of a royal commission to deal with this problem. This was announced, too, by the acting leader of the house some months ago. I hope the scope of this inquiry will be broad enough to cover some of these difficult problems which face the managements of the Canadian National and other railways in Canada.
I would conclude, now, by saying just one word in connection with Trans-Canada Air Lines. I know that all hon. members will take satisfaction from the fact that Trans-Canada Air Lines has again this year reported a small profit, and we shall welcome the opportunity of reviewing its activities when the committee sits. However, I would be derelict in my duty as a member of the opposition if I did not point out that the competition in transcontinental air service to be provided resulting from the decision of the air transport board allowing Canadian Pacific Air Lines to operate one transcontinental flight in each direction per day, is a long, long way from the rather rosy prospects which the minister portrayed before the last election. When in opposition he favoured outright competition and the putting to death of the sacred cow called Trans-Canada Air Lines. After he attained the position of minister of transport and a sense of responsibility was thrust upon him his words became more ambiguous but he did leave with the people of Canada the positive impression that there was to be all-out competition in air services. What has taken place is an entirely different thing. The decision to allow one flight in each direction per day certainly falls a long way short of what Canadians were led to believe.
I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not in any way criticize the decision 

of the air transport board. What I am criticizing is the positive attitude adopted by the minister in former times and the virtual complete reversal of that attitude in recent months. I suppose this is another example of the flexibility which I mentioned earlier. It certainly makes for a convenient way of dealing with problems to be so flexible in one's approach to those problems that the statements of yesterday can be forgotten as early as tomorrow.
We on this side of the house welcome the opportunity to discuss the operation of two of these crown agencies which have contributed so much to the transportation services of our country. In supporting the motion I am sure that the house will be anxious to hear the evidence which will be submitted in due course before the committee.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the point of flexibility in so far as the minister is concerned, as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) described it, has been very noticeable to us all. The only thing I would wonder about is that the hon. member for Laurier should criticize that because it just seems to indicate that perhaps the policies of the government with which he was associated were not really so bad if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) is going down the line with them.
As far as Canadian Pacific Air Lines and Trans-Canada Air Lines are concerned, I wonder if in giving this franchise to Canadian Pacific Air Lines we are not opening up the same kind of invidious comparison that has gone on through the years between the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian National Railways. Here is a case where Canadian Pacific Air Lines has been given a run on which it should be able to do very well; at least, it is a transcontinental run between major cities, which is fine. I am sure, however, that very shortly in our committee meetings when we are reviewing the operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines we will be hearing about how well Canadian Pacific Air Lines are able to do. As one reads through old committee reports one discovers those words were often used by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in opposition.
They said that if you could only compare the cost of United States Airlines with T.C.A. you would see what a white elephant or sacred cow this was. The minister himself used to make a point of that.
In recent months evidence has been coming more and more to the fore that United States Airlines are being more heavily subsidized than almost any other airlines in the

world and the number of small airlines that have been in difficulty in that country illustrates that in this form of transportation you cannot go far without some form of subsidization if the airlines are going to operate general purpose services into many communities where there is no high income available such as Canadian Pacific Air Lines is getting.
One point we need to remember is that unless Canadian Pacific Air Lines is willing to accept or is given routes that are as questionable from an economic point of view as some that Trans-Canada Air Lines has to carry it will in future appear to have a much more satisfactory economic basis than T.C.A. and we will have perpetuated in the air the very bad comparisons we have had made between the C.P.R. and C.N.R. To a certain degree the C.P.R. is hamstrung as is the C.N.R. in so far as redundant lines are concerned but not nearly so much and it has not had to accept the capital debt structure that the C.N.R. has nor has it had to accept lines such as the C.N.R. had foisted upon it when Newfoundland came into confederation. This has led to much criticism especially on the part of those people who love to prate about economic efficiency and the virtues of the free enterprise system.
The main problem so far as the railway industry is concerned is still one of the other means of transportation cutting in upon its long-held business and forcing it more and more into the position where it handles long-haul low value commodity traffic and loses out on the high value short-haul traffic. It is almost entirely losing out in the passenger service field. In fact, all the indications are that the future is extremely pessimistic and that more and more we are going to have passenger service provided on the basis of that rather damnable phrase, the public interest, rather than on the basis of economic reasoning. This is one more argument that when we set up a royal commission the terms of reference should be very broad so that inquiry will be possible into passenger service provided by other facilities that are available.
The key problem as far as employees on the Canadian National Railways are concerned is well known to me. I feel that I can speak on this subject with as much authority as anyone in the house since there are four Canadian National Railways divisional points in my constituency and two more within twenty miles. The problem is that the morale of the employees is very low at the present time. I know that the settlement of the dispute involving the firemen will be a contribution toward raising their
29, 1959
Railways and Shipping Committee morale but the whole future of railway employees is extremely indefinite.
I might remark in passing that there is one group that has never had the publicity or recognition enjoyed by other groups concerning the tremendous impact upon their phase of railroading and that is the maintenance of way employees. The running trades and the changes that are involved thereto have tended to attract much more interest. The fact is, however, that on section after section across the country these people have been pulled out of their jobs and no longer have employment. Their whole means of livelihood has been removed. They have lost their homes and the investment they had in the communities where they lived and worked. This is due to the introduction of revolutionary mechanical equipment and a whole new concept of looking after the rails. With the introduction of steel wheels in the next few years in place of what we now have there will be very few carmen across the whole system. We will have a great reduction in what are referred to as "bad order cars" that at one time gave a considerable amount of employment in divisional points across the country.
Just out of Toronto we have an indication of the effect of perhaps the most revolutionary change. That is the fact that now the brakemen and conductors on freight run through for two divisions from the Mimico yards to Capreol. This is a precursor of what is going to happen at the end of 1961 when we will have central traffic control all the way from Winnipeg to Toronto. It means there will be a tendency to run all freight crews for two divisions; in other words, for 240 or 260 miles instead of the present 125 miles.
There is also going to be a tremendous drive-and I think it will be much more embittered than the one in relation to firemen-to do away with the rearend brakemen. This will be feasible in practical terms when central traffic control is in effect and when radio communications of a standard that can be relied upon have been established between the caboose and the engine. All these factors are having a serious effect on the morale of employees of the Canadian National Railways.
Let me give one specific example. The railway divisional point at Hornepayne in my constituency is losing most of its dispatchers and quite a few of its operators. There is a whole new kind of management being introduced called area management, which is going to sit, in this case, at Capreol. These are all advances in the tremendous drive of the Canadian National Railways in the last decade to improve the efficiency of its service. For

Railways and Shipping Committee example, it is quite possible that within a couple of years the Canadian National Railways will be able to give freight service from Toronto to Winnipeg in 36 hours, which was unthinkable a short time ago.
If these moves are necessary they are all to the good; but concomitant with that you have this tremendous unrest because the employees have no conception of what their individual futures are and what the futures are of their communities. It is all very well to say that this is progress and that lots of people have been affected by the industrial revolution, and that the blacksmith has disappeared. But this is not very satisfactory to people who are committed to a line of work and have their roots down in so many communities that the railroaders have. One of the crying needs is for both railways-but especially the Canadian National Railways-to spell out their future program in terms of its effects upon personnel and upon communities and for this parliament to determine and decide what responsibility the railways have as employers in so far as those communities are concerned. Many of them, in effect, are going to fall away completely. Is there a responsibility in this particular regard?
In connection with the firemen's strike or threatened strike, one of the things that amused me was the feeling that the public right across the country has been against the firemen. This is true as a generality but it is not true in the local divisional points. I have a petition from Hornepayne which indicates that nearly every adult signed it, insisting that the firemen should be kept because those people in those communities are very conscious of what is going to happen to the communities as a result of those shifts. First, there is the shift of the firemen. Then there is the wiping out of divisional points and a drastic reduction in section forces, and future reductions in operating crews as a result of central traffic control.
It is easy enough to say that these people are being purely selfish, but this happens to be the nature of human beings. Human beings stand up and protest against something that is going to rob them of their livelihood and what they have invested in communities. We have had all kinds of examples in the federal field where the government has come to the rescue or to the partial aid of such communities and it seems to me it is about time, with the kinds of revolutions which are taking place in the railway transportation picture, that this should become an issue and of concern to the government. I am not saying that it has to be necessarily the responsibility of the government, but there needs to be some analysis of these points.

One of the frustrating things that is going to happen when we get into this committee and get talking to Mr. Gordon and Mr. Dingle and asking them questions is that they are going to say, "It does not do any good to explain to the employees what the future is. All it does is to get their backs up prematurely." Furthermore, Mr. Gordon is going to go on and say that you cannot spell out these things too completely, and certainly he is going to steer completely away from accepting any responsibility for the dislocation in so far as the railway as a corporation is concerned.
One of the things that I am most dissatisfied with in connection with the operation of the Canadian National Railways is the inability of anyone to discover what their retraining program means in terms of dislocation or of dislocated workers.
I get most scarifying reports from railway personnel. I had one yesterday about a section of track along the north line of the C.N.R. where I understand there are hundreds of rails under which there are 4-inch shims, as a result of the very hard winter we had. Every time there is a wreck, such as the one we had recently west of Sudbury, in which I understand a number of western members of parliament were marooned for many hours, the cry goes out right away, here was a broken rail. The story I have is that it was a broken rail that was not discovered. There was not proper inspection because there were not enough inspection crews going along to spot this. Most of these stories are probably untrue, but it is all a reflection of this tremendous loss of confidence on the part of the personnel of the Canadian National Railways.
On the management side, I know their feeling is that one of the things that hamstrings them in making a proper, perhaps the best kind, of arrangement in the light of changing circumstances is the very rigidity of union agreements. I know an instance where one machinist with 29 years seniority was laid off; his job is through. There are other places on the system where there are much younger men working, but he cannot take advantage of those places because the union contracts set out very definite limits where he can move, and the boundaries of the agreement under which he is employed. This sort of thing is something that calls for a tremendous amount of give and take on the part of both management and the union.
I feel that here is a place where the Canadian National Railways has to take much more initiative in the working out of better relations. In my conversation with railroaders the outstanding thing I find is that

there is a very deep suspicion of management. I think myself that much of it is unfounded and could be wiped completely away if there were franker and better relations on a continuing basis between the railways, the workers and the public as a whole who are involved in those railway communities. This is why I would hope that when this committee is working on the annual report of the Canadian National Railways we shall be able to get Mr. Gordon to say something on this point, or at least to acknowledge that this bad morale situation exists at the present time.
One cannot really see the picture of the Canadian National Railways without looking at the picture of the Canadian Pacific railway. I am sure the contrast between the two roads this year will be brought out by members of the government on the committee. It will be pointed out that last year the Canadian Pacific railway was able to pay dividends that represent roughly somewhere between 3 per cent and 5 per cent on the capital involved; whereas our government railways went $51 million in the hole.
One of the things that we really need presented much more clearly-I almost feel it is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport to do it-is some sort of separation of the Canadian Pacific railway income so that we can see more clearly at least a comparison with the Canadian National Railways. I know there are historical tables; I know the statistics put out by the dominion bureau of statistics are very thorough, but there are a number of factors in the Canadian Pacific railway setup that do not apply to the Canadian National Railways setup, and yet the accusation or the common belief is that the Canadian Pacific railway is able to do a so much better job. There is little recognition of the extra burdens and difficulties that the Canadian National Railways have.
The review given by the hon. member for Laurier on the railway problems was, I think, an excellent one. I think he could have added something which has been said here before, namely that our basic difficulty in the transportation field in Canada is that we have never been able to make up our minds as to whether we want a private enterprise kind of transportation or a public enterprise kind of transportation. We have something that is neither and yet in some people's minds it is one thing and in other people's minds it is another thing.
I only hope that by the time this kind of resolution appears in the house again we 66968-9-201
Railways and Shipping Committee shall have a royal commission report which will have looked into this whole matter of transportation and the relationship of the railways to water, road and air shipping interests and that they will have enunciated a national policy on transportation which will make much more sense than what we are doing in this particular field today.


Mr. R. H. Small (Danforih):: Mr. Speaker, when I have spoken about Canadian National Railways in the past I have made some critical comments, particularly with regard to the service between Toronto and Ottawa. I dealt with the matter a couple of years ago and more or less regaled the house for a while with a description of the service. Everybody seemed to enjoy it because it struck them as being absolutely correct and true. I elaborated on the matter and I got an answer from the divisional superintendent in the Ottawa papers in which he admitted that everything I said was true but went on to say that not very much could be done about it. I thought that was a very poor answer for an organization in the business of rendering a service.
However, it must also be remembered that the service I am talking about is a joint effort on the part of the C.N.R. and C.P.R. but inasmuch as C.N.R. tracks are used most of the criticism can be directed to the administration responsible for the operation of that line. I outlined the service, the type of cars and the condition of the stations, as I saw it. In fact, I called it more or less a glorified freight service. Freight service seemed to be the most important and passenger service seemed to be the least important. I also mentioned that the morale of C.N.R. employees was not as good as it might be and that there was general dissatisfaction with the administration.
Some hon. members took exception because I singled out the president of the C.N.R. for attack. I criticized the service and I related his value or worth to the company to the service that was being given. Last year I made similar comments elaborating on what I have just mentioned. I made some comments about his value to the company and what I thought he was worth. What I had to say did not go over very well with members of the opposition. May I say here that I think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) is doing an exceptionally fine job but the president of the C.N.R. is more or less running things and the minister cannot do very much about it. I would naturally expect that the minister would have to defend his officials. The minister is giving good administration and no doubt follows the dictates of his own judgment and conscience.

Railways and Shipping Committee
I was rather surprised and amused at the reaction of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) to my remarks. The hon. member for Cartier more or less implied that I was looking for the president's job but that was the farthest thought from my mind as I have no affinity for railroading, but neither has the president. All I was trying to do was to improve the service, and since my criticism there has been a slight improvement but there is room for a lot more. More consideration should be given to the passengers and in my view if you want to make the service more profitable the first step is to give more consideration to the passengers accommodation at the terminals.
To get back to the observations made by the hon. members I mentioned, they said that I had been unfair to the president's past performance. In fact, they mentioned the very valuable services that the gentleman in question had given. They said that during the war years he did such a tremendous job that he became one of the outstanding officials in Canada and that he could never be replaced or equalled. This was a revelation to me because I always thought that the man who won the war was C. D. Howe but now I understand that the president of the C.N.R. is the man who won the war. Nonetheless, I found out that when you gouge one of the opposition's sacred cows they become quite concerned about it, but other than that they all recognized but would not admit that what I said was true.
I have not given up my determination to strive for better service between Ottawa and Toronto or any other points where the service is not up to standard. Therefore I take this opportunity to draw to the attention of members of the house again the views of these people who feel themselves aggrieved. In that regard may I say that many people commented that what I said was true and that there could not be any objection taken to it. If offering criticism from year to year will improve the service you can count on yours truly to keep on doing so until we get the service from the railways the country is entitled to.
When I referred to the salary of the president of the C.N.R. it was said that he had had another job in the United States offered to him at a tremendous increase in salary. If that was the case then it is my opinion that he was very foolish not to take it because no one in this country is indispensable and he can be replaced even from within the system itself. Having made this comment on 
the situation with regard to the service, I will let the house and the people know next year if there is any further improvement.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two very brief comments to make with respect to the operation of the Canadian National Railways in so far as that railway and its potential expansion affect the constituency from which I come and the northern part of British Columbia. The C.N.R. north line runs from Jasper to its terminus at Prince Rupert through the constituencies of Skeena and Cariboo. In recent years there has been quite a bit of discussion about the extension of the railway system, not in an east-west direction, but in a north-south direction. The suggestion is that there should be an extension of railway service northwest from the present line of the C.N.R. through the northern part of British Columbia to connect with Yukon and Alaska.
The Pacific Great Eastern railway fits into this picture because there has been some discussion about the extension of this provincially owned railway into that particular region. It has been suggested that the P.G.E. itself could be extended or that service could be provided by installation of the so-called monorail system of the Wenner-Gren foundation although the latter proposal has been pretty well washed out of the picture. If it is not washed out in one sense it is at least potentially washed out because the power development on the Peace river will flood certain portions of the P.G.E. roadbed which was going to be used for the monorail system.
But if any consideration is being given, and I think it should be, to the possibility of extending railway facilities north to Alaska and the Yukon I suggest that the most logical place for the extension to start from is near the community of Hazelton which is the most northerly point on the present C.N.R. north line. A natural valley extends north from there right through to the Yukon and the whole area has been topographically surveyed. The mineral wealth is practically unknown. Forest wealth, hydroelectric power, oil and other natural resources are in abundance in the northern part of British Columbia and are practically untouched. Apart from the necessity of extending rail lines to assist in opening up the country, apart from having a north and south rail line for purposes of defence, there is the question of developing the potential mineral and industrial wealth.
The fact is that one of the largest coal deposits in Canada lies up in that part of the country. I refer to the Groundhog coal field which is estimated to have over 1 billion tons in an area of some 1,200 square miles.

This field has been untouched and would be of tremendous value not only to a railroad but to anything else in that area requiring fuel coal. It would be a tremendous impetus to the whole question of the vision that our friends opposite have in developing the north in the roads to resources program. There could easily be fitted into it a railroad to resources scheme if the C.N.R. would just get off its fanny, do some survey work and take some concrete steps towards this objective.
Before I sit down I should like to make one comment with regard to the feeling which exists among the employees of the C.N.R. towards the president of that railway. Many others in the house have made comments about this matter but I would say one thing. If there is not confidence, generally speaking, among the majority of employees in any corporation, whether it be publicly owned or privately owned, or in any organization, then there is not harmony. The majority of railway employees with whom I have spoken have relatively little confidence or faith in the present president of the Canadian National Railways. Unless that faith and that confidence are capable of being generated by or on behalf of the person who is the president of the Canadian National Railways I suggest that we are going to continue to have difficulties plaguing the internal harmony of the employees and the internal harmonious relationships between the employees and the management of the railway. I am not suggesting that, out of a clear blue sky, we should replace the person who is at present president of the Canadian National Railways, or at least do so in an out of hand way. But in so far as the employees of the railway themselves are concerned, I suggest that if you had as president of that railway someone who knew railroading, something which is necessary for efficient operation, you would have much more harmonious relationships between employees and management and among the employees themselves, something which would lead to more efficient operation of the railway.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a study of the estimates relating to the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships and Trans-Canada Air Lines. This committee will have an opportunity to study some of the services provided by the C.N.R. in Canada. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) gave some extremely interesting and, as I thought, some factual comments on the attitude of the employees of the C.N.R. toward certain modernization procedures and so on. I should like to give my impression 66968-9-201J
Railways and Shipping Committee of the reaction of consumers or of the general public to some of the things that are being requested by the C.N.R.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this motion would be greatly improved if it were possible to have brought before this committee not only officials of the C.N.R. and T.C.A. but officials of the C.P.R. and C.P.A. There is another standing committee of this house which has the opportunity to consider a certain provision introduced by the government which will relieve some of the burden of freight rates in the country. There is no provision by which members of parliament can inquire into the operations of the Canadian Pacific railway or Canadian Pacific Air Lines. I feel that this resolution would be improved if it were expanded so that members of this committee would have an opportunity to review the general operations of transportation facilities in this country.
The railway companies of this country, the C.N.R. and C.P.R.-and my remarks now must be related to the C.N.R.-are endeavouring to remove as many station agents as possible in order, of course, to make savings for the railway companies. It may soon come about, as far as our ordinary smaller villages are concerned, that a railway agent will be as prehistoric as a dinosaur. One of the aggravating things for a member of parliament, Mr. Speaker, is to have brought to his attention a great number of requests relating to the removal of station agents about which, in ordinary circumstances, in the majority of cases he is able to do little. These applications to remove a railway station agent are taken to the board of transport commissioners and there is no opportunity for members of parliament to make any representations to the C.P.R. There is, of course, some opportunity to make certain representations to the C.N.R.
In addition to the removal of station agents in a wholesale manner-and this is particularly true in the prairie provinces-it is now reported that the railways are about to embark on a policy of the removal of certain railway trackage and the abandonment of certain railway lines. This policy has caused great concern in the communities that may be affected. If we were able, under this motion, to have brought before this committee not only the president of the C.N.R. who has been roundly criticized in the house this afternoon, but the president of the C.P.R., in order to find out why the C.P.R. is not giving essential services which I feel it is failing to give and should provide, I think it would be an advantage. I think the publicly owned system is put in a disadvantageous position by being brought into the

Railways and Shipping Committee spotlight of public scrutiny when its competitor, the C.P.R., is not obliged to appear in the same spotlight. With regard to other questions such as that of freight rates, the president of the C.N.R. is prone to follow the example set by the C.P.R. I should like to see the authority of this committee extended so that we could have brought before the committee the president of the C.P.R., the person who is giving, much more than the C.N.R., leadership in the railway associations in this country, in many instances in directions that I feel should not be followed.
There has been some discussion already this afternoon of things that should be taken into consideration by way of improvement. I have had some critical things to say about the premier of the province of Newfoundland. I want to agree with those who have said that consideration should be given by the C.N.R. to providing a standard gauge railway in the province of Newfoundland. I had the privilege of visiting that province last fall and I found a great deal of criticism being voiced with regard to the inadequate service provided by this railway. The people of that province are most anxious that the C.N.R. give to them the same kind of service as that which is provided to other provinces in our nation.
I had the opportunity also to visit Prince Edward Island. There is a unanimous complaint in that province about the type of ferry that is provided between the island and the mainland. As the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) pointed out, there are two old ferries now in service. Very often they are out of service because they are in need of repair. The people of the island were led to believe by the Conservative party that they had a program which would result in the building of a causeway. I think it is high time that the necessary inquiry be made to see whether or not a causeway is a feasible undertaking. I think that in addition to the improvement of services which would be provided for Prince Edward Island it would satisfy the very natural desire to have facilities to reach the mainland in a quick and efficient manner. The people of the island feel that to some extent they are isolated because of this inadequate service. They certainly request the government to take action in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian National Railways is forced to provide certain services that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company does not have to provide. To some extent it is unable to compete in an equitable manner with the C.P.R. The same can be said of Trans-Canada Air Lines. Although Trans-Canada has in many instances a monopoly,

nevertheless it is requested to provide services on lines which do not provide a net revenue. I would suggest that if we are to have an adequate over-all transportation policy in this country, and if members of parliament are to be given the kind of jurisdiction that should be theirs, namely that of discussing and inquiring into all railway matters, the government would be well advised to bring in an amendment to this resolution which would provide for wider scope and would give the committee authority to inquire into the whole railway system of our country as well as our airlines system.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister not going to reply to some of these questions?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question as to whether I am in a position to reply, the hon. member covered a very wide field and posed a tremendous number of questions which would probably take over an hour to even try to answer. I think the proper place to answer those questions is in the committee which will start sitting next Tuesday morning. In attendance will be the president of the railway and various officials, and all questions can be answered then.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the hon. minister could answer them in a much shorter time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Harris Hees: That the sessional committee on railways, airlines and shipping consist of Messrs. Badanai, Bourbon-nais, Brassard (Lapointe), Broome, Carter, Chevrier, Chown, Creaghan, Drysdale, Fisher, Fraser, Granger, Grills, Horner (Jasper-Edson), Kennedy, McPhillips, McWilliam, Martini, Mitchell, Monteith (Verdun), Pascoe, Robinson, Rowe, Smallwood, Smith (Simcoe North) and Tasse; and that the annual reports for 1958 of the Canadian National Railways, Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, Canadian National Railways securities trust, auditors' report to parliament in respect of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, tabled on April 14; the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1958, the auditors' report to parliament on Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1958, tabled on April 10; and the budgets for 1959 of the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines, tabled on April 20, be referred to the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping; and that items numbered 410- Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals; 411-

Newfoundland ferry and terminals; and 419-Maritime Freight Rates Act, as listed in the main estimates of 1959-60, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the said committee, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. minister leave to introduce this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, just one question. Has the hon. minister forgotten to include the budget of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if I did then certainly the hon. member is right in correcting me. I did not know that I had missed it, but if I did it should be included.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion deals with the budgets for 1959 of the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines, tabled on April 20. Has the hon. minister leave to insert in the motion the budget of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I may be permitted to ask one other question. Is there any such budget?


Lionel Chevrier: If the minister is agreeable I think the motion should be amended to include the budget of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited.


George Harris Hees: Yes, I believe it should be included, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion as amended?
Motion as amended agreed to.



INDIAN ACT


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved:: That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to examine and consider the Indian Act, chapter 149, R.S.C., 1952, and amendments thereto, and to suggest such amendments as they may deem advisable, with authority to investigate and report upon Indian administration in general and, in particular, on the social and economic status of the Indians;
That twenty-four members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the house as members of the said committee, and that Standing Order 67(1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses under oath; to sit while the house is sitting, and to report from time to time; and to print such papers
Indian Aci
and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and that Standing Order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems advisable some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose at this time to make any extended remarks in the introduction of this motion, because I think most members of the house are anxious to see this committee established and proceed with the work which will be given to it. However, I might just briefly trace some history which is probably well known to the members of the house, but for the purposes of the record I think it should be repeated. I might recall that in
1946	parliament appointed a joint committee of both houses to examine and consider the Indian Act and report upon Indian administration. This committee studied the various aspects of Indian affairs during the 1946,
1947	and 1948 sessions of parliament, and it completed its work with its final report in June, 1948.
Over 400 briefs were filled, and 122 witnesses, both Indian and non-Indian, were heard. It was the most exhaustive review of Indian affairs undertaken by a parliamentary committee up to that time. As a result of the recommendations of the joint committee, a complete revision of the Indian Act was carried out and a new act was passed in 1951. I think it would be true to say that the deliberations of the committee and subsequent revision of the Indian Act stimulated a great deal of interest in the affairs of Indians among people in all walks of life. Since then there has continued to be a marked awareness of, and increased interest in, the position and future of the Indians. This is a most welcome development.
Ten years have now passed since the joint committee submitted its report, and it would seem appropriate to again have a committee of both houses review the Indian Act to find out how it is working out in practice and to suggest such changes as may be deemed advisable. It would also seem desirable to have a review of Indian administration in general, and in particular the social and economic status of the Indians. The problems facing Indians in changing times are many and varied, and, I believe require periodic review and study such as can be given by a parliamentary committee. We hope we will then be in a better position to consider such measures as may be necessary to improve the welfare of the Indians and facilitate the administration of their affairs.

Indian Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: On this occasion I agree completely with what the hon. lady has said, and, having said that, I think we ought to pass her motion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the amiability just expressed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) will certainly not be disturbed as far as those of us in the C.C.F. are concerned. I do not mean the feeling between the minister and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, but the feeling of amicability which we in this group share toward this proposal to set up a committee to consider Indian affairs, a proposal which, we believe, will receive the support of everybody in this house.
Ever since notice of the intention to establish such a committee was placed on the order paper on February 9 we, together with others interested, have been anxiously awaiting the time when the matter would be proceeded with. Of course, the native Indian people have been more anxious than anyone to see the committee finally set up, in the hope that solutions might be forthcoming to the many problems affecting the Indian population. I have had numerous letters from members of Indian bands in my own constituency and others in British Columbia with respect to some of the questions which they hope may be dealt with by the committee.
The minister made reference to the joint committee which was established in 1946, the committee which met in that year and in subsequent years and whose work culminated in the 1951 amendments to the Indian Act. I hope the committee which is now contemplated, or one similar to it, will have the opportunity to meet during future sessions of this parliament, because I do not think it would be possible, within what we expect will be the few short months left of this session, to complete the exhaustive study of Indian affairs which must necessarily be made, and deal with all the problems in detail. This committee could, in my opinion, make a far greater contribution toward the welfare of Indians than any other agency or group if it approaches the whole question with some imagination, as I am sure it will, and with a keen desire to find solutions to the problems presented to it.
It may be, of course, that eventually there will be no need to have an Indian Act or an Indian affairs branch. It may be a time will come when our native Indian people will be on an equal footing with non-Indians throughout the country, a time when there will be no differentiation between peoples of Indian extraction and people from any other group. In the meantime I think it would be well to indicate some specific fields of interest with

which the committee might concern itself. I should like to suggest some of these fields of interest; not in a critical way, but merely as a guide, as was done in 1946 when a similar committee was established. I should like to mention a number of topics which might well be considered in order that the committee, when it meets, may have some specific ideas concerning the people it might most profitably meet and the fields into which its inquiries can be directed.
In this regard I have an amendment to suggest to the motion. As I said earlier, I do not move it in any critical spirit or with the intention of detracting in any way from the contents of the motion which the hon. lady has put forward. The motion merely suggests that certain specific fields of interest should be included in the deliberations of the committee when it comes to examine Indian affairs. I, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin):
That the motion be amended as follows: At the end of paragraph one add the following: "including,
1.	The liability of Indians to pay taxes,
2.	The eligibility of Indians to vote at dominion elections,
3.	The operation of Indian day and residential schools and the relationship between the Indian affairs branch and other educational groups, agencies and organizations regarding the education of Indians.
4.	The relationship between the Indian affairs branch and the various provinces and municipalities,
5.	The responsibilities of, and remuneration to band councils,
6.	The relationship between the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and Indians resident in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and
7.	Any other matter or thing pertaining to the advancement of Indians which will lead to a more complete participation in all phases of society which, in the opinion of the Committee, should be dealt with.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I may now proceed; and relate some of my remarks to the amendment. The key to success in the future so far as Indians and Indian affairs are concerned is to be found in enlightenment and understanding and a mutual desire to work together for the advancement of our native population. But it is also to be found, and to an equally great extent, in the manner of our co-operation. When I use the word "cooperation" I mean it to be all-inclusive. There is little doubt that there will be cooperation between all the members of the committee which the government contemplates setting up. But you will notice, Mr. Speaker, that one of the paragraphs in the amendment I have moved, namely paragraph 4, concerns the relationship between the Indian affairs branch and the various provinces and municipalities.

The provinces and municipalities are slowly being required to play a much larger role in Indian affairs than was the case ten or 12 years ago. What I have in mind is their jurisdictional responsibility and co-operation between municipalities who experience Indian problems day to day more so than does the federal parliament or more so, let us say, than does the Indian affairs branch, and that the co-operation of these groups and elements is most necessary with the various Indian organizations-naturally provincial ones-and other agencies which are interested in and concerned with Indian affairs. The amendment which I suggest, I would reiterate, is not made in the sense that most amendments are made in, that is in the sense of being critical of something or detracting from something or being advanced in a negative way.
This amendment is designed to set out what I think should be suggestions about some of the major and important questions in relation to Indian people and to give some guidance not only to the committee but more particularly to the many Indian bands and Indian councils and the provinces and municipalities which are affected by Indian affairs and are certainly interested in them.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been considering the relevancy of the amendment which is proposed and before putting it I should be glad to hear if any hon. member has any assistance to give me as to the relevancy of the proposed parts of the motion by way of amendment.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, without inquiring into the various clauses of the proposed amendment, a copy of which has been given to me, may I say it seems to me that the whole scope of this amendment is covered in the words of the original motion:
-investigate and report upon Indian administration in general and, in particular, on the social and economic status of the Indians.
I think what the hon. member is trying to achieve is already contained in the very broad phraseology that is used in the original motion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if I may comment on that phase of it, I do not think there is any doubt that the terms of the original resolution with respect to Indian administration and the social and economic status of the Indians are broad enough, as the minister said, but I wonder if that precludes specific suggestions concerning some of the things that could be contained within those broad aspects or considerations. It is in that light that I suggest this is an attempt to particularize some of the phases that are probably
Indian Act
of greater importance than some of the other phases of Indian affairs.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the remarks of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) which are entirely relevant. This amendment attempts to particularize in some paragraphs the general terms of the main motion. We all realize the dangers of particularizing in these matters. By trying to particularize you sometimes restrict the operations of the committee through using specific terms because then the committee is limited to those specific terms. Therefore I think as a matter of policy and for the good of the committee the amendment is not one which should be accepted by the house.
On a point of order I would refer Your Honour to a citation in Beauchesne's 4th edition which no doubt Your Honour already has before him. I allude to citation No. 291 where Beauchesne says:
291. When the house is considering a motion, of which notice has been given, for the appointment of a select committee,-
Which is the case here. I continue:
a member cannot move in amendment that the committee be given wider powers than those which were set down in the notice.
As I said some of these paragraphs simply particularize the general terms of the resolution. Then too, we have reference to the relationship between Indian affairs and the department and the Indian affairs branch and various provinces and municipalities which I think is going rather farther than the terms of the resolution. We then find reference to the eligibility of Indians in relation to voting in federal elections. There is on the order paper, although I do not know where it stands, a motion to set up the elections committee of this house. I am under the impression that it is soon to be called. Certainly this is a matter pertaining to that committee. Without further elaboration I suggest that because of citation 291, and possibly because of other citations as well, the proposed amendment is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: My concern with the proposed amendment was rather along the line that the minister has just mentioned in that it was already included in the main motion. If it is fully covered it is, of course, redundant and not needed but it does specify certain things that are perhaps additional. My concern with this amendment is that it seems to go broadly into other fields. For instance, it raises the question of the liability of Indians to pay taxes. That seems to me to be a matter of taxation policy and quite removed from the Indian Act. Then there is

Indian Act
also the question of voting. I am not sure how far that is dealt with by the Indian Act. Those items are so broadly different from the general inquiry into the Indian Act that it seems to me in the light of citation 291 which indicates that a new matter can be introduced only by notice I cannot really be disposed to accept the amendment. If the hon. member has anything to say in reply to that I shall hear him briefly.


Frank Howard: One comment, if I may. With respect to your reference to the liability of Indians to pay taxes I would submit there is reference in the Indian Act to the payment of taxes by native Indians and to the exemption of Indians from such payment. I submit the committee is competent to deal with this subject which falls within its jurisdiction. The subject does not wander into the other field of general taxation.
There is also reference in the Indian Act to the eligibility of Indians to vote in dominion elections. The act sets up the procedure which is connected with their liability to pay taxes. They may vote under certain circumstances but are restricted from voting under others.
I wish to make reference to citation 291. As I understood the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), he said this amendment was expanding upon the contents of the original motion and inasmuch as it did expand it would require notice. I realize I may be getting myself into another difficulty by arguing along these lines but I would submit that this amendment is not expansive of the contents of the motion itself which I say and which the minister indicated is written in the broadest possible terms and authorizes the committee to investigate into Indian administration in general and in particular into the social and economic status of the Indians.
I submit that each aspect of the contents of the amendment relates to the economic and social status of Indians in one way or another. I also submit the amendment does not expand the broad general approach set out in the motion but is rather designed to particularize some of the things which would fall within those broad general terms.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member and both ministers for their assistance on this rather novel point. Amendments usually do not take in as much territory as the proposed amendment. I think that is a difficulty which is insuperable,
I would refer also to citation 293 of Beau-chesne dealing with a motion that a select committee be appointed to examine a rise in the cost of living and an amendment that the committee be empowered to examine the

efforts of government policy in lessening agricultural production on which occasion the Speaker ruled as follows:
Though I find this amendment relevant to the main motion. I cannot yet overlook the fact that questions of policy are so complex that they should not be moved as corollaries to the appointment of such a committee as the one now proposed. It is against all parliamentary usage to refer questions of policy to a fact-finding committee.
Farther on, he says:
When an amendment is irregular in one particular, the whole of it is not admissible and must be ruled out of order.
A good part of this amendment is a repetition of the main motion, which I think would cover what the hon. member has in mind. I am concerned about the departures from the Indian Act which are involved in the question of taxation, which is not referred to this committee. I understand Indians are exempt from taxation. To ask this committee to inquire whether they should or should not be taxed while on the reserve seems to me to be outside of the scope of the motion and would require notice. Therefore, with regret I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member.


Frank Howard: May I pose a question, sir? This question is a bit irregular. Are we to take it, then, that the committee when established will not be able to deal with the questions in the amendment?


Mr. Speaker:: The committee will have before it the interest of the hon. member in all of these things, and it will cover them as they desire.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to move in connection with this motion. It stems from the situation in my own region. In order to examine some of the very large problems which are spelled out in the resolution, I feel that the committee will have to do a considerable amount of travelling, and in that particular aspect it will be necessary, for practical purposes, for the committee to break up into certain subcommittees. I think especially of one area with over 200 Indians which is about 350 miles north of Port Arthur, and another one about 500 miles from Port Arthur, which have very special problems. I am not suggesting that this committee will necessarily go into this type of work, or that any subcommittees will do so, but I am sure there are examples of this across the country where an intimate personal contact on the part of members of the committee will be useful.
Since citation 294 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, says that a committee does not have power

to appoint subcommittees except under special circumstances, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) an amendment to paragraph 3 by inserting after the word "power" in the first line, the following:
To appoint from its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable or necessary to deal with specific phases of the problem aforesaid;


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member who wishes to present this amendment considered citation 291, which has already been read, to this effect:
When the house is considering a motion, of which notice has been given, for the appointment of a select committee, a member cannot move in amendment that the committee be given wider powers than those which were set down in the notice.
It seems to me the amendment which the hon. member is proposing attempts to enlarge the powers of the committee, and it will therefore be rejected.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


George Clyde Nowlan: That a select committee be appointed on broadcasting to consider radio and television broadcasting together with the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and to review the operations, policies and aims of the corporation and its revenues, expenditures and development, with power to examine and inquire into the matters herein referred to, and to report from time * to time their observations and opinions thereon, and to send for persons, papers and records;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable or necessary;
That the committee have power to meet while the house is sitting;
That the committee shall consist of 35 members;
That standing orders 66 and 67 be suspended in relation thereto.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, there are just two brief points that I should like to put on Hansard in relation to this motion to establish a committee on broadcasting. First, I would like to recall the statement made by the minister, which appears at page 4046 of Hansard of August 25, 1958, when he said this:
On behalf of the government, Mr. Speaker, I would say that if it is requested at the next session of parliament, we will shortly after the session begins set up a special committee of the house to deal with radio and broadcasting generally. All these matters can be referred to that committee, and perhaps the committee can watch the organization take shape and form and grow during the session rather than speculate, which is all we can do now concerning the operation of the bill.
These words were uttered in August of last year to the effect that if the committee was
66968-9-202
Broadcasting Committee asked for it would be established immediately. On three occasions, namely on January 26, 1959, on January 27, 1959, and on February 6, 1959 I asked that this committee be set up, the first time by putting the question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), so that certain matters which were then of an important and pertinent nature could be discussed. Always the request for the establishment of the committee was refused or put off. I do not think the house should be treated to two kinds of promises: one undertaking that is fulfilled and another undertaking that is not, and that is deemed to be fulfilled as and when the minister, the government or the other side of the house thinks it should be. I thought this should go on record so that it would be clearly shown that, notwithstanding the request made by myself and many other hon. members for the establishment of this committee to deal with certain pertinent matters, the committee was not established.
All I need say is that we welcome the establishment of this committee, but we would have felt a great deal happier had it been established a long time ago.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, we look forward to this committee. We have shared the disappointment of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) that it was not got under way before this, especially in the light of those optimistic remarks made by the minister when the bill itself was before the house last year, which instituted a new system of broadcasting. I think one of the greatest disappointments of everyone interested in broadcasting and telecasting has been the very slow way in which the board of broadcast governors has got under way. I think of one point. They still have not prepared any regulations in so far as political telecasting is concerned. According to my analysis they have made no attempts-


George Clyde Nowlan: And have no intention of
doing so.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister says that they have no intention of doing so. Someone needs to do something about it. I know they have largely followed the old C.B.C. regulations in so far as radio political broadcasting is concerned.
One other disappointment in connection with its performance is the repetition of the C.B.C. policy, which more than one station operator has regretted, of setting out their regulations in mimeographed form, a very clumsy way. Obviously they are going to be added to on an ad hoc basis. It is a most unbusinesslike method.
I know this is not the place to make criticisms of the performance of the board

Broadcasting Committee of broadcast governors but I think that in the committee we do want to take a close look at the board, perhaps not least because of the rather equivocal position that group took with regard to calling representatives of certain radio stations before it. We had this complete flummox and misunderstanding about what the purpose of these licence hearings was and I know that in my particular region there was a great deal of misunderstanding and hard feelings consequent upon the issue of the call.
If, as was originally suggested, these stations were being summoned in a sense to account because of certain kinds of programming then it should have been stated instead of having the back-tracking in this regard that did take place because it was obvious to most observers-certainly it could be seen from the press-that these particular stations had certainly given indications as to why their programming could be condemned or reassessed in the light of the issuance of the licences.
So far as the committee is concerned, we would hope that the matter of the committee having the power to meet while the house is sitting will not be extended, as in the case of some of the other select committees, so that we will be sitting right through from nine o'clock in the morning until the report of the C.B.C., for example, has been disposed of. With the number of committees we have coming at the present time I think it would be well to limit ourselves to morning and afternoon sittings at the most.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has always been a favorite sniping target of past parliamentary committees and the amazing thing to anyone who has observed the operations of these committees is how year after year-the committee has met on the average of once every second year over a period of ten years-the conclusions reached by the committee roughly dovetailed with the report of the Massey commission and the Fowler commission that we needed this kind of institution and that there was a role for the C.B.C. in a country such as ours.
It seems to me that we will need information both from the C.B.C. and the board of broadcast governors about a most important question that has been claimed to be government policy. I refer to the matter of licences for television stations in those areas that already have C.B.C. television stations. I trust that when we get to work on the problem in the committee we will not be faced with the usual slough-off, as happens in so many committees, that this is strictly a question of government policy and that it is not for a committee of the house to become exercised about it. It seems to me that this

is the forum where we need to go into this particular question, and I certainly believe that we have to start with the position of the C.B.C. as the officers of that corporation can enunciate it from the point of view of what their position is going to be in the face of competition. Otherwise it seems to me that the government will be operating in the dark when it does come to hand out these plums, and I think that everyone agrees that in the main they are going to be plums.
I must compliment the minister with regard to his general stand on radio and television broadcasting since it has been his responsibility. One hates to draw odorous comparisons with the previous situation but it does seem to me that, compared with the previous minister, he has certainly given a little more leeway to the corporation. With regard to the board of broadcast governors, I do not know what sort of relationship he has had with them but they certainly seem to have been able to fumble and bumble along on their own which would indicate that the minister did not stick his nose into things.
Whatever relationships he may have with the committee, I hope that he will be continuously liberal in a general sense and perhaps a bit more liberal than he has been in another committee before which he has appeared where in my view he has tended to draw perhaps too sharp a line between government policy and what one may expect by way of an answer from deputy ministers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That the standing committee on privileges and elections be empowered to study the Canada Elections Act, and the several amendments thereto suggested by the chief electoral officer; and to report to the house such proposals relating to the said act as the committee may deem to be advisable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader what the business is for tomorrow and Friday as well?


Howard Charles Green: We shall carry on with the business I announced last night, commencing with the resolution dealing with federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangements.


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

Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	interservice equivalents board
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:


Mr. Herridge: 1.	How many specification writers are employed by the Department of National Defence, and at what salary in each case, for (a) navy: (b) army; (c) air force?
2.	How many consultants for construction projects have been hired, during the past five years, for the (a) navy; (b) army; (c) air force, and how many of these consultants are presently employed and at what dates do their contracts terminate?
3.	What percentage of the designs for any buildings has been prepared by private consultants, during the past five years, for the (a) navy; (b) army; (c) air force?
4.	Have any construction contractors for the Department of National Defence complained of slipshod methods in the preparation of construction specifications during the past twelve months?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minisler
of National Defence):
1.	(a) The R.C.N. does not employ personnel specifically for specification writing. All specifications are prepared by engineers and architects on the staff of the civil engineer in chief as part of their design work.
(b)	3.
1	 $6840-$7860
1	 $6480-$7200
1	 $5700-$6180
(c)	4.
1		 $7500-$8580
2		 $6420-$7200
1	 $6210-$6660
2.	Consultants		All contracts
	retained during Presently		will have
last 5 years	employed	terminated by(a)	36	12	January 1960<b)	113	37	April 1960(c)	127	35	January 19603.	(a) 36 per cent	est., (b) 95	per cent est.,
(c) 35 per cent est.
4. The Canadian construction association has complained about the number of modifications to D.N.D. standard specifications, a condition brought about by changes in construction methods and materials since the original specifications were prepared. The services' design branches are now incorporating addenda within the body of the main specifications and it is anticipated this will alleviate the condition leading to such complaints.
66968-9-202J

Question No. 349-Mr. Herridge:
1.	Who are the members of the interservice equivalents board, and what was the total expenditure for salaries of (a) members of the board; (b) staff; (c) travelling expenses, for the year 1958?
2.	What are the functions of the interservice equivalents board, and to whom is it directly
responsible?
3.	Has the board issued an equivalent certificate for a door closer named the Briton? If so, how many certificates for this product have been issued during the years 1957-58, and how many door closers does this represent?
4.	What is the cost of the Briton door closer?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minisler of
National Defence):
1.	The members of the interservice equivalents board are as follows: Air Commodore R. B. Whiting, Chairman, R.C.A.F. member; Capt. J. B. Roper, R.C.N. member; Brig. H. L. Meuser, Army member; Mr. A. M. Fordyce, D.R.B. member; Mr. W. Loynes, A.D.M. (C&P).
(a)	The members of the board receive no salaries for service as members.
(b)	Total salaries for staff, $45,805.
(c)	Total travelling expenses for staff, $133.30.
2.	The functions of the interservice equivalents board were described in detail in a paper tabled on Friday, July 25, 1958 during the proceedings of the standing committee on estimates. (See appendix H-pp. 567-69) The board is responsible to the assistant deputy minister for construction and properties, Department of National Defence.
3.	Yes, 68 certificates approving Briton door closers were issued to various firms in 1957 and 1958. It is not possible to give the exact number of Briton door closers represented by the certificates issued. To obtain this information would require an inspection of all the buildings on all the sites for which the approvals had been given.
4.	The cost of the Briton door closer varies according to size and competitive circumstances. The cost of the Briton door closers used in D.N.D. buildings range from approximately $10.50 to $13.50.



ARMOURY PURCHASE, SACKVILLE, N.B.

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence or other government agency purchase a building in the town of Sackville, New Brunswick, for use as an armoury?
2.	If so, from whom was it purchased?
3.	What was the amount paid for the building?
4.	Were there other expenses in connection with this purchase? If so, to whom, and in what amounts were moneys paid?

Questions
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):
1.	The Department of National Defence purchased the Stratton Motors building located at the corner of Main street and Allison avenue, in the town of Sackville, N.B.
2.	The building was purchased from Mrs. Ethel M. Wood, Sackville, N.B.
3.	The amount paid was $28,500.
4.	There were no additional expenses in connection with this purchase other than the legal fees payable to the agent of the Department of Justice. This account has not yet been received.



BRITON DOOR CLOSER


Mr. Herridge: 1.	Has the Briton door closer been tested by the Department of Public Works? If so, was it found unsatisfactory?
2.	Has the inter-service equivalents board issued a certificate of equivalency for German silver hinges, in lieu of stainless steel hinges manufactured in Canada?
3.	Has the use of German silver hinges received the approval of the appropriate construction officials of the army?
Answer by:	Hon. Henri Courlemanche
(Secretary of State):
1.	(a) Yes. (b) No.
2.	No.
3.	No.

Thursday, April 30, 1959