1959-02-11

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the house I should like to make a statement concerning the ceremonies arranged for the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway. You will recall that some days ago a question was asked concerning these ceremonies. At that time I stated that as soon as arrangements had been made between the Canadian and United States governments an announcement would be made. Today an announcement similar to the one I am about to make will emanate from the White House in Washington.
President Eisenhower has accepted an invitation to come to Canada to join Her Majesty the Queen in these ceremonies. He will arrive on June 26. The ceremonies will take place at the St. Lambert lock near Montreal. The President of the United States and Mrs. Eisenhower will fly from Washington to Montreal on the morning of June 26 and will join Her Majesty and Prince Philip on the royal yacht Britannia for the purpose of jointly contributing to the opening ceremonies. The details of the program are being worked out by officials of the Canadian and United States governments. After the opening ceiemonies at Montreal the royal yacht will proceed through the lock and thence to the great lakes.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I tell the Prime Minister that this is very welcome news indeed. I hasten to extend to him and to the government our congratulations upon the success which has been experienced in getting the President of the United States to join Her Majesty the Queen in recognizing the national as well as the international aspect of the St. Lawrence seaway, namely in its opening in the city of Montreal, where it enters into the province of Quebec, and then its continuation in the international section both in the state of New York and in the province of Ontario.
I think all of us will welcome the announcement. I am delighted at it personally, as I am sure will be the citizens of Montreal as well as those who live in the international
section. I cannot tell the Prime Minister how happy I am at this decision.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: The announcement made today demonstrates that it is possible for Canada and the United States to work together for the good of both countries on a major economic project. It is indeed a happy occasion for Canada that Her Majesty, along with President Eisenhower of the United States, should be coming to officiate at the opening of this very important undertaking.
I think this must also be a particularly happy occasion for the hon. member for Laurier who himself played such an important role in initiating this major undertaking and supervising the work for a number of years. I express the hope that the plans for a joint parliamentary delegation to meet about that time will have the same successful results as the announcement indicates today in another way.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Assiniboia for their words. On this occasion, when the House of Commons is so much in agreement, I should like, if I may, to bring one further matter to the attention of hon. members and the country. That is that Her Majesty, having regard to the tremendous nature of this project and the desirability of honouring those who made a contribution thereto, those often remaining anonymous, has graciously suggested that as a mark of recognition a book be compiled containing the names of all workmen and others who were employed on the construction of this project or who contributed to the building of the seaway, extending honour to them individually and at the same time recognizing the dignity and the responsibility of those who in their daily toil make such a contribution to our country and the preservation of our way of life.



FINANCE


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and in French of a report I have received from the chairman of the tariff board relating to reference No. 125 on textiles. I am also tabling a transcript of

Tabling of Report
the evidence presented to the board at its public hearings. I think I should interject here that I commend the reading of this transcript to my hon. friends opposite.
This report deals with cotton and cotton products. It is the tariff board's third report pursuant to reference No. 125. Earlier reports dealt with wool fabrics and with certain wool yarns and textile wastes. Subsequent reports will cover synthetic textile fabrics and manufactures, woollen apparel, knitted goods and other textile products.
The board's hearings on cotton and cotton products were lengthy, 48 days in all, and the evidence was voluminous. However, the report is quite compact. It comprises two small volumes, of which the second is a statistical appendix. The conclusions and recommendations are summarized in volume 1 of the report on pages 111 to 121.
The tariff board found that the two great divisions of the Canadian textile industry which process natural fibres-wool and cotton-have much in common. Both use imported raw material; both rely to a considerable extent upon female labour; both are long established in Canada; both are keenly affected by import competition and by competition from man-made fibres, and both are vulnerable to the whims of fashion.
It was also found, however, that there are important differences between these two important branches of the textile industry. By and large, woollens constitute a town or village industry; cottons, for the most part, are produced in metropolitan areas. Taken as a whole, the Canadian cotton industry was found to be in a much healthier state financially than its counterpart producing woollens and worsteds.
The Canadian primary cotton industry's most serious problems stem in large part, it was found, from the ever-changing variety in pattern, colour and finish of fabrics demanded by its customers; and from the presence on its very threshold of the most modern, the most diversified and the most aggressive cotton cloth industry in the world, that of the United States. The board concludes, however, that by and large our industry is standing up to the competition. That the Canadian cotton industry has been able to hold the domestic market to the extent it has done is, in the board's words, "a tribute to its initiative, its efficiency and its adaptability in the face of circumstances which it dare not ignore and which, for the most part, it is powerless to alter".
The board states that in undertaking the formulation of a draft tariff schedule, as it was directed to do by my letter of reference,

it kept in mind the desirability of revising a schedule which has been little changed in 30 years; of deleting from the tariff such items as have lost their significance; of simplifying and modernizing the terminology; of reducing as far as possible the number of classifications; and of giving due consideration to the effect that changes in rates might have upon consumers and upon secondary industries using cotton yarns or fabrics.
Under the proposed new cotton schedule recommended by the board some 50 existing tariff classifications would be reduced to 20. This consolidation would involve increases in some rates and reductions in others. The remaining items would be regrouped and the terminology simplified. All of the duties would be on an ad valorem basis.
The board states that the proposed schedule provides for a small increase in protection for Canadian cotton yarn spinners; very little change as regards the thread industry, and moderate increases in most favoured nation rates in respect of bleached fabrics and coloured fabrics. With regard to item 523b, the important item which covers most coloured fabrics, a simple ad valorem most favoured nation rate of 224 per cent would be introduced according to the board's recommendations. The present most favoured nation rates range from 17J Per cent plus 3 cents per pound to 25 per cent plus 34 cents per pound, depending on the value of the fabric. The British preferential rate would remain unchanged at 174 per cent. I should like to add that the British preferential rates show little change throughout the revised schedule as proposed by the board, and that such changes as do occur are incidental to the revision of classifications and descriptions of goods.
From what I have said it will be clear that to implement the recommendations would involve numerous changes, some upward and some downward. Many of the rates of duty which would be affected are now bound under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Hon. members will appreciate, accordingly, that GATT negotiations would be involved if the board's recommendations were to be implemented, and such negotiations normally occupy a matter of months. I should also point out that if such negotiations were undertaken they might involve the further reports on textiles which I hope to receive later this year from the tariff board.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members will welcome the tabling of this report because of the thorough work which has been done by the tariff board. It is quite impossible to

make any comment about the statement in a substantive way at this stage because we have not yet had an opportunity to study the report. But I wonder whether the minister could indicate at this time if he proposes any legislative action at this session arising out of the report in relation to those items which are not bound by GATT?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is asking me a question with regard to changes in the tariff. I think on reflection my hon. friend will realize that that is not a proper question for him to ask, nor would it be a proper question for me to answer.


George James McIlraith: It is proper to ask it, though.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	How many copies of The Canadian Economic Outlook, 1957, were produced by the Department of Trade and Commerce or any other agency of government?
2.	How many were circulated and to whom?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is as follows: 175 copies of The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1957 were mimeographed.
The answer to the second part of the question is that 15 copies were sent to the office of the privy council and 149 were made available to senior civil servants and to various govermental agencies such as the Bank of Canada and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Two copies were tabled, and four more were later supplied to the Clerk of the house on request.
After the tabling of the report on January 20 a further 100 copies were mimeographed and 75 copies were handed to the press gallery.


George James McIlraith: None for members of parliament.


&quot;CANADIAN ECONOMIC OUTLOOK, 1958&quot;
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	How many copies of The Canadian Economic Outlook, 1958, were produced by the Department of Trade and Commerce or any other agency of government?
2.	How many were circulated and to whom?
3.	Where are the remaining copies, if any?


Gordon Minto Churchill: As to the first part of the question, the answer is that 175 copies of The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958 were mimeographed.
The answer to the second part of the question is that 31 copies were sent to the
Starred Questions
office of the privy council, 136 copies were made available to senior civil servants and to various governmental agencies such as the Bank of Canada and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Two copies were tabled in the House of Commons and one copy in the Senate.
The answer to No. 3 is as follows. Five copies of The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958 are being held in the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I wonder if the minister would permit a supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member would reserve the supplementary question until the orders of the day are called.


C.B.C. BOARD OF DIRECTORS  RADIO INTERESTS
Mr. Caron: Is any member of the executive committee of the board of directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at present engaged in the business of broadcasting or has any pecuniary or proprietary interest, as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner or otherwise, in a broadcasting station or in the manufacture or distribution of radio apparatus?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue may I ask that this question be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stands.
Question stands.


SURPLUS WAR PLANES
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	May surplus war planes be bought in Canada and shipped to any other country without an export permit?
2.	Has an application been made by any individual or corporation for an export permit for Canadian jet or any other fighter planes with or without armament mounting and radio equipment for shipment to any country from Canada?
3.	If so, who is the individual or who are the individuals or the corporation who have made such an application?
4.	For how many and what surplus war planes has such an application been made and on what date?
5.	Is it the policy of the government to insist on a guarantee that such planes will not be used for military purposes by any country other than the United Kingdom or the United States?
6.	Is it the practice of the government in the case of aircraft bought for shipment to the United States or the United Kingdom to insist on the assurance from the purchaser that such aircraft will not be transshipped to any other country or used for any military purpose whatsoever?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the answer to question No. 1 is that surplus military aircraft are under export control to all destinations.

Starred Questions
except the United States in cases where that country is the ultimate destination of the export.
To question No. 2 the answer is yes.
To question No. 3 the answer is as follows:
It is established practice to treat all details of applications for export permits as confidential and an assurance to this effect is given to applicants for permits. However, it is public knowledge from press and radio reports that a United States company acquired a number of Vampire jet aircraft in Canada and has been interested in selling twelve of these aircraft to the Dominican Republic. Export to the Dominican Republic would require either a permit from the Canadian government or, if the aircraft were first imported into the United States, a licence from the United States government.
Question No. 4 has been answered by the answer given to question No. 3.
To question No. 5 the answer is as follows: No. It is assumed that military aircraft are bought for military purposes.
To question No. 6 the answer is as follows: The exporter is required to disclose the ultimate destination, and failure to do so is an offence. Any details regarding an intended re-export from the United Kingdom or the United States are taken into consideration before an export permit is granted by Canada. The United Kingdom and the United States also control exports of military aircraft.


POSTAL SURVEY, ELLIOT LAKE, ONT.
Mr. Peters: 1.	Has a survey of the postal requirements of the new town of Elliot Lake been undertaken by the government?
2.	If so, has this survey been completed?
3.	Have plans for a new post office been completed?
4.	Is the implementation of letter carrier service contemplated in the near future?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to these questions are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Study is being given to the possibility of establishing door to door mail delivery service.


NORWEGIAN SHIP &quot;KOLLFIN&quot;
Mr. Fisher: I. Has the Department of Transport a report or any other information on an incident which took place in lake Erie last fall relating to a Norwegian ship, the Kollfin, and possible survivors from an oil drilling rig acident?

2.	If so, was there any indication that the captain of the ship and/or the pilot had failed to follow standard marine procedure?
3.	Who was the pilot, what were his qualifications, and who was his employer?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part is yes. The answer to part 2 is no.
With regard to part 3, the pilot on board was Mr. Joseph Richard Groulx. He holds a Canadian certificate of competency as master of a steamship in the home trade, and he was employed by the shipping federation of Canada.



M. S. &quot;MICHIGAN&quot; AND NORWEGIAN SHIP

[Stage Direction]
"polyriver"
Question No. IS-Mr. Fisher:
1.	Has the Department of Transport a report on the accident which took place in the Welland canal on Saturday, September 20, 1958, involving the M.S. Michigan and the Norwegian ship Polyriver?
2.	If so, did the report indicate any responsibility as to the cause of the accident?
3.	Did the Norwegian ship Polyriver have a pilot on board?
4.	If so, what was his name, his qualifications, and his employer?
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes.
With regard to part 2, the report did not indicate that the casualty was caused by incompetence or lack of skill on the part of any person.
The answer to part 3 is yes.
As to part 4, the pilot's name was Donald MacDonald Livingstone. He holds a certificate of competency as master, foreign-going, issued in the United Kingdom, and he was employed by the shipping federation of Canada.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Murphy: 1.	What paintings have been purchased by the government in the years 1950-1958 inclusive?
2.	What are the titles of the pictures and names of the artists?
3.	What was the price paid for each painting?
4.	Was any commission paid in the purchase of these paintings?
5.	H so, what was the amount of the commission and to whom was it paid?
6.	On whose recommendation was each painting purchased?
7.	Did the government purchase a painting entitled "The Road"?
8.	If so, when, and what was the amount paid?
9.	On whose recommendation was such painting purchased?
10.	Has this painting ever been displayed to the public?
11.	If not, for what reason?

12.	How many paintings have been purchased by the government since 1935, which have never been displayed to the public?
13.	What was the total purchase price of these paintings?


CORPORATION DIRECTORATES HELD BY MINISTRY
Mr. Howard: 1.	Are there any ministers of the crown who, since becoming a minister, have held directorates in any corporation?
2.	If so, which ministers, in what corporations, and for what periods of time?


RIDEAU CLUB, OTTAWA    FEDERAL USE OF FACILITIES
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the government in 1958 lease, buy, borrow, or otherwise engage the services and facilities of the Rideau club, 84 Wellington street, Ottawa, Ontario?
2.	If so, for what occasions, by what departments, at what price?
3.	Before these services were so engaged, was any inquiry made regarding the constitution, regulations, and practices of this club in order to determine whether there are any provisions and practices which discriminate against or exclude any or certain ethnic or racial groups?


TEXTILE INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Dupuis: 1.	How many persons were employed in the textile industry in Canada in (a) 1956; (b) 1957; (c) 1958?
2.	In what cities, towns and other places were these persons employed in each of the years 1956, 1957 and 1958?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all representations and correspondence received by the government, and the government's replies thereto, concerning section 5, subsection 2, of the Income Tax Act, since 20th December, 1957.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue may I ask that this motion stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stands.
Motion stands.



WINTER WORK PROMOTION PROJECTS, QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Rouleau:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged since October 28, 1958, (1) between the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec; (2) between the federal government and the cities of Montreal and St. Laurent, relating to the work that could be performed in the cities of Montreal and St. Laurent pursuant to a winter work promotion project undertaken by the municipalities, as stipulated by the Prime Minister in his letter of October 29,	1958 addressed to the provincial
premiers.
Motions for Papers
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the motion is agreed to subject to the province agreeing to the production of this correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the reservation mentioned by the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 37-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the federal government or any department or agency thereof, and the railway companies or other companies or individuals, since January 21, 1957, regarding an increase in the Crowsnest pass rates on grain.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or if not the Secretary of State for External Affairs then some other minister, could report on the discussions which have taken place with the United States regarding the co-ordination of defence production and the sharing of contracts between the two countries in this field.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Minister of Defence Production):: Perhaps I could answer this question, Mr. Speaker, as Acting Minister of Defence Production. A meeting was held this week in Ottawa which was one of a continuing series being held to work out arrangements to provide Canadian industry with a continuing and vital role in the development and production of modern defence weapons for the armed forces of Canada and the United States. As announced previously by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Defence Production will shortly make a statement to this house on the machinery which has been established with the United States government for production sharing, and the progress to date.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: In the absence of the Minister of National Revenue I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of the report that there is a possibility of the television

Inquiries of the Ministry strike being extended to the nation-wide English network. Is the Minister of Labour able to report on the progress of negotiations toward a settlement, and are meetings under way?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker, no such reports have been brought to my attention.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that he has already stated that he will not intervene in this strike, may I ask him whether now, because the discussions as I understand them are dealing with unions other than the producers, the minister will decide to intervene in the dispute.


Michael Starr: I am not aware at what stage the discussions are at the moment, and my position is still the same.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I direct my question, then, as a supplemetary question to the Acting Minister of National Revenue; that is, whether there is any progress toward the settlement of this strike. I take it there is an Acting Minister of National Revenue?


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Acting Minister of National Revenue):: I shall take that as notice.
(Translation):
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Raymond Eudes (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General? Could the minister inform the house whether he has any information about the progress of negotiations in the C.B.C. producers' strike against the C.B.C.?


Hon. Leon Balcer:: Mr. Speaker, this
question should be directed to the minister who reports to the house on this matter, i.e. the Minister of National Revenue. A similar question was asked a few minutes ago, and the reply came from the one who, for the time being, represents the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Macdonnell).


Mr. Denis:: May I ask a supplementary question? The Solicitor General stated on January 23 that he was closely following developments of the strike. Could he explain to the house-


Some hon. Members:: Order!
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has heard the Solicitor General say today that it is not


his responsibility but that of another hon. minister, and I think he is obliged to accept the answer.
(Translation):
On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. Pif Lessard (Sf. Henry):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). Could the Minister of Labour tell us why the government does not intervene in the settlement of the strike of the C.B.C. French network producers?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I did not hear all of the question, but what I heard had a great similarity to a question that has already been asked.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grant Campbell (Stormont):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to inform the house of Her Majesty's itinerary subsequent to the opening, and specifically will she come to Cornwall and the area immediately to the west, that has suffered the most dislocation in connection with this whole project?


John George Diefenbaker: This has been a matter on which the hon. member has expressed understandable concern for a considerable period of time. According to the general terms of the itinerary Her Majesty the Queen will have to divide the opening ceremonies between two dates, June 26 and 27. The President of the United States will return to Washington, according to present plans, on the evening of the 26th. In so far as the 27th is concerned, the details of the program have not yet been worked out but I think it is most probable that she will visit Cornwall and nearby Canadian communities along the seaway on that date.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce why, when it was possible to produce 100 extra mimeographed copies of The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1957 at very short notice, it proved impossible to produce a similar number of copies of a similar report

in 1958 when they were requested by hon. members on this side of the house and by the press gallery?


Mr. Fulton:: Is that an urgent question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. The rights of parliament are always urgent.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, when I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition if additional copies were available on the day the report was tabled, I said no, that it was impossible to supply them on that occasion. Obviously there was no demand from any member of the House of Commons other than the Leader of the Opposition for additional copies.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order and accuracy, Mr. Speaker, the minister in reply to my question did not say that. He said it was impossible to produce them, and did not add the words "on that occasion".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, following the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I am not able to determine whether the hon. member is rising to ask a question or is rising on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was rising on a point of order. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce was mistaken when he said this matter was not brought up subsequently, because I myself brought it up in the house and asked that extra copies be made available.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietle-L'Assomption-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is there any foundation for the rumour that the support price on butter will be lowered in 1959?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard any of these rumours. There are, of course, always rumours in connection with all these matters and I do not doubt that the hon. member may have heard some. However, as I think most hon. members know, the dairy year begins on May 1. The present support prices were set as at that date in 1958, and the prices which will be in effect for 1959 will be set at some time prior to May 1 of this year and announced at that time.
66968-9-58J
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



USE OF UNLICENSED PERSONNEL IN BRUCELLOSIS TESTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Latour (Argenieuil-Deux-Monla-gnes):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I apologize to him for my failure to give him notice of my question.
Is the minister aware that the school of veterinary medicine of the province of Quebec has been informed by Dr. K. F. Wells that authorities of the federal Department of Agriculture will allow veterinarians to secure the services of unqualified persons to take blood samples for the detection of brucellosis?
Is the minister aware that such authorization would be against the law which governs the practice of veterinary medicine in the province of Quebec?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of what I
believe the hon. member was speaking about. Due to the great urgency in getting the brucellosis testing program completed as rapidly as possible, we have had representations from a number of agricultural organizations and from individuals urging that we should allow trained technicians to take blood samples and thus expedite the testing program. We put into effect a program of that sort and gave notice to the veterinarians across Canada that it would be in effect. I was not aware of the fact that this was contrary to any Quebec law or regulation, and of course if it is, the program will not be put into effect in that province.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question relating to the use of military airfields. I wonder if the minister would advise whether any steps have been taken to turn over military airfields which have become surplus to the requirements of his department to any of the municipal authorities where they are located. In particular, can he advise whether his department would consider releasing the R.C.A.F. field located in Calgary to the municipal authorities of that city?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for giving me notice of this question. In answer to the first part I would say that airfields considered surplus to requirement by my department are offered to the Department of Transport for disposal. In the past

Inquiries of the Ministry in certain cases that department has handed over the control and administration of such airfields to municipal authorities.
With specific regard to the R.C.A.F. field located in Calgary, and forming part of R.C.A.F. Lincoln park, I am informed that while there is a continued requirement for the station accommodation now in use, the R.C.A.F. no longer has an exclusive need for the airfield itself. We are therefore prepared to consider handing over control of the airfield to the Department of Transport, which would permit that department to develop an arrangement that would meet the local civil aviation needs as well as the reduced needs of the R.C.A.F. I should point out, however, that the Department of National Defence would not be responsible for any additional costs of airfield operation resulting from the use of the field by civilian aircraft.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I apologize for not having given him notice, but if this is not sufficient perhaps he could take it as notice. I wonder if he would tell the house whether he recently saw a delegation of Montreal and Quebec pilots who came to make representations to him in connection with certain legislation now before the other place, and whether or not in view of those representations the rights of the pilots as contained in the present legislation will remain unaltered.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in that I saw a delegation the other afternoon and discussed the matter very thoroughly with them, and I believe that the pilots concerned are satisfied that the department has their welfare very much in mind. I think they understand much better our position in this important matter, and I feel that a good understanding between the pilots and the department was reached at that meeting.


Lionel Chevrier: Could the minister say
whether or not, following those representations, the provisions of the statute will remain unaltered in so far as those two districts are concerned?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think the pilots understand the reasons for the proposed change in the act, and I think they understand very well that their rights and livelihood will be protected by the department.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: May I
direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport relating to pilotage. Can the minister confirm whether or not state pilotage bills as far as the seaway is concerned are before the legislatures of New York and Michigan at the present time? If so, what representations are the government making with regard to such bills?


George Harris Hees: I am not aware of any bills which may be before those legislatures, but the United States pilotage authorities and ourselves have been in close association in discussing these matters during the past year and a half. I believe they are conversant with our views, and we are conversant with their views.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister has referred to United States authorities. Does he mean the state authorities or the national authority, or has he been in touch with both?


George Harris Hees: We have been in touch with both.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he proposes to make a statement on the matter of civil defence before the very heavy responsibility for that organization is turned over to the Minister of National Defence.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I think, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is assuming quite a lot when he asks that question. I said earlier that I would be making a statement in the house on some future occasion, and as soon as possible.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of the great interest taken by the Canadian people in obtaining a cure for cancer.
Has the statement by Dr. Gordon Murray, who has developed a serum for use in the treatment of cancer, in which he requests federal and provincial public health departments to do research work toward the development of a cancer vaccine, been brought to the attention of the minister; and can the minister say whether action is being taken by the federal government to expand cancer research?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. I have followed closely and with great interest the reports which have been issued on the serum developed by Dr. Gordon Murray of Toronto in his research aimed at the production of an anti-cancer vaccine, and my attention has been directed to his most recent statement on his further experience with this serum.
Regarding the second part of the question, whether action is being taken by the federal government to expand cancer research, I can say quite definitely that action has already been taken both by the federal and provincial governments and the national agency directly concerned, the national cancer institute, to expand progressively research in this field. At the time of its organization it was felt desirable in the interests of encouraging the highest level of research performance that the national cancer institute should be the agency, on a country-wide basis, to coordinate this specific research effort, and for its experts to appraise and assess the requests for assistance in cancer studies.
To stimulate in a tangible way the development of this program the federal government, under the national health grants, together with a number of provincial governments, provide annual contributions to the national cancer institute's research resources. Since the beginning of the national health grants program the federal government has provided from the cancer grant a total of about $1,100,000 to supplement funds directly available to the institute. This amount has been matched by contributions from the provinces.
An indication of the growth of the program of the national cancer institute is the fact that their total appropriation for the year 1948 was $87,400, whereas their most recent budget, that is for 1958-59, totalled $1,024,000.
When in the opinion of the experts associated with the institute and other prominent research leaders in Canada this serum has been developed to a state of assuring positive benefit to those afflicted with cancer, as in the case of any discovery which offers reasonable promise of improving health and controlling disease-for example, as the poliomyelitis vaccine immunization program-the federal government will spare no effort to bring the benefit of such discoveries to the Canadian people.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Justice, and ask him whether he is in a position to comment on news reports that near Grand Falls, Newfoundland, the R.C.M.P. broke through picket lines in police cars and knocked down three women picketers; and on the further report that the R.C.M.P. were used to escort cars through the picket lines carrying strikebreakers who had been recruited by the company.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of this question after I came into the house. I am therefore not in a position to comment on the news reports to which the hon. member has referred. I can say, however, that the only news report I have seen gives a somewhat contrary impression, and suggests that the windows of automobiles being escorted by the police were broken by the picketers.
Perhaps I should point out again, as I said yesterday at page 855 of Hansard, that the R.C.M.P. in matters of this kind are acting entirely as a provincial force in accord with the contract with the province to enforce specific provincial laws or to enforce law and order generally within the province. In their activities in this connection they come under the direction of, and are responsible to, the provincial attorney general, from whom alone detailed reports on matters of this kind should be expected.


William Arnold Peters: A supplementary question.
Would the minister say whether the R.C.M.P. acting under this type of contract are permitted to do things which the R.C.M.P. would not normally be permitted to do?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member should make his question more specific. As it is it is too hypothetical.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer, of course, is no; and there is no evidence to support the suggestion implicit in the question asked by the hon. member.



STATEMENT ON POSITION OF MARITIME CONSUMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on February 9 the hon. member for Halifax, in a question with reference to the increase in the price of wheat at the lakehead, asked if an assurance could be given that maritime domestic consumers would not have to pay a higher price for western grain, particularly for feeds.
The answer is that the recently announced increase in price will apply to all wheat purchased at the lakehead, whether for export

Inquiries of the Ministry or domestic use. This procedure is in accordance with the authority granted under the Canadian wheat board regulations 195859 crop year, part II, paragraph 6, subparagraph (1), approved by order in council P.C. 1958-725.
In so far as domestic wheat and coarse grains are concerned, some of the price increase will be offset by reduced transportation charges, but I can give the hon. member no assurance that the full price increase will be offset in this way. The board's pricing policy will be a flexible one which will take into consideration changing conditions related to grain movement costs on the great lakes-St. Lawrence waterway.



DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister now received a request from the leaders of the farm organizations in western Canada for an appointment with the cabinet in order to present a brief with regard to deficiency payments? If so, has a date for this presentation been set?


John George Diefenbaker: I had a discussion the other day with Mr. Stevens, the secretary treasurer of the pool organization, and it was agreed that the cabinet would be very happy to receive the members of the delegation. The date set was March 10 next, at the city of Ottawa, in the Chateau Laurier hotel.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister able to advise the house whether he has yet received any information from the government of British Columbia or from the Canadian Pacific Railway relative to the maintenance of the steamship service between Vancouver and Victoria?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 9, in response to a similar question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I advised the house that the C.P.R. had informed me that between now and the tourist season, when different boats will continue the service, they are providing bus service 'between Victoria and Nanaimo and ferry service from Nanaimo

to Vancouver, and that the transit time of the bus service plus the ferry service would be less than the time previously required by the ferry going from Victoria to Vancouver and from Vancouver to Victoria.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid the minister misunderstood me. I asked him if since last Monday he heard from the government of British Columbia or from the C.P.R. relative to a continuation of the service.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.

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



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
701. Grant towards the anticipated operating deficit of the radio and television services-further amount required, $2,193,552.
The Chairman:: The details of this vote may be found at page 5 of the supplementary estimates.
(Translation) :


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention at all to add unduly to the length of the debate that took place last Friday when this item came up for consideration.
I was here in the house last Friday, and the C.B.C. strike had then reached its 40th day. I heard the speeches made by members from both sides of the house, and particularly by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier) and by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan). Mr. Chairman, early in the afternoon of last Friday, the Minister of National Revenue made the following statement to the house, as reported on page 775 of Hansard:
I was waiting, Mr. Chairman, to see whether hon. members had anything else to say on this estimate before it was carried.
And the Minister of National Revenue went on to say:
It is an extremely difficult situation in which I find myself this afternoon. As hon. members well know, negotiations are going on at this very moment, or at least I hope so. They started at 12 o'clock and I trust that if they have concluded it will be in a satisfactory way.
Well, Mr. Chairman, on Friday the Minister of National Revenue stated that he was expecting to hear at any moment of the settlement of the C.B.C. strike. Shortly afterwards I saw the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Chambers) enter the

house, and send a page over to the Minister of National Revenue with a message. I thought, as did all my colleagues, that the C.B.C. strike was ended or was on the verge of settlement. Now, like all members of the federal government and particularly those whose constituencies are affected by the C.B.C. strike, I have received many letters from my constituents asking me to raise the matter in the house and to ask the government-


Mr. Graffley:: How many letters?


Mr. Bruchesi:: Let us see them.


William Heward Grafftey: How many letters?


Yvon Dupuis: -asking me to raise the matter in the house and to ask the government to face its responsibility. However, Mr. Chairman, I refrained from doing so until today.


William Heward Grafftey: How many letters?


Yvon Dupuis: Last Friday, in view of the hon. minister's statement, we were under the impression that the strike was near settlement. And today, Mr. Chairman, on this 44th day of the strike, we hear that not only the C.B.C. strike is not settled, but that it is not likely to be settled because it seems that there is more and more beating about the bush on an extremely difficult problem.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today, on this 44th day of the strike, to ask again to the government to face its responsibilities about the C.B.C. strike, because the longer the strike lasts the more we shall hear of unjustified and unjustifiable criticism from all sources about the C.B.C. board of directors or about the C.B.C. producers.
At the beginning of this strike, the government could have seen to it that both parties met immediately and discuss between themselves the necessary steps to settle the strike. Each day we read in the papers, whether in the form of open letters to the editors or signed articles, of criticism against the C.B.C. or the producers, and the longer the strike lasts, the more significant those criticisms will become, and the more they will harm the C.B.C.'s operations and reputation.
Mr. Chairman, 74 television producers are on strike. They are supported by 1,200 employees. All they asked was not at all a salary increase, as some hon. members to the right would want us to believe, but the right to negotiate with the C.B.C. authorities.
The Minister of National Revenue stated that he was not anxious to intervene in the C.B.C. strike, that it was not part of his function and at the same time, Mr. Chairman, he declared that the strike was illegal. There-
Supply-C.B.C.
fore, I submit with great respect that in declaring the strike illegal, the Minister of National Revenue was intervening in the C.B.C. strike, but not in the way he should have.
Since then, Mr. Chairman, public opinion has been split in two camps; even the cabinet has been split in two camps. The Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) said that the strike was legal, and the Minister of National Revenue said it was not. The Minister of Labour has followed the policy of the ostrich, which buries its head in the sand so as not to see what is going on around it.
Well, Mr. Chairman, public opinion is split in two groups and so is the government. The strike is now in its 44th day and we are no farther ahead than on the first day; indeed we are perhaps farther than we think from an equitable solution.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, who is in the house at this moment, has done his best to settle the strike; he has tried to bring both parties together so that the strike might be settled. Mr. Chairman, I have much regard and admiration for the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George who tried-although the Minister of National Revenue would not see it that way

to find a solution to the C.B.C. producers' strike. And I find he deserves much sympathy in that he was not more openly supported by our hon. friends opposite.
Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George can act as a mediator or referee between both parties, is it not the duty of the Minister of National Revenue himself, who answers for the expenditures and management of the C.B.C., to intervene so as to find a referee? If the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George lacks his government's support and if, as the Minister of National Revenue said, he is taking those steps on his own, of his own free will, I am of the opinion that the Canadian people are entitled to expect a different stand on the part of the government under which the C.B.C. is controlled and administered.
Attempts have been made in articles or short pieces a la Rumilly-what we call back home "Rumilliades"-in articles published in certain newspapers like the one I have here, for instance, to discredit the C.B.C. producers and the government itself.
Mr. Chairman, the longer the strike lasts, the longer you will have the opportunity of reading such vicious, biased and nefarious articles, whole pages of them, from the pens of friends of the Union Nationale, like Mr. Robert Rumilly, who misses no opportunity to indulge in shallow politicizing to the detriment of our national endeavours.

Supply-C.B.C.
As a matter of fact, while the C.B.C. is labouring under an untenable situation, Mr. Robert Rumilly is jumping at the chance to shower compliments on the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), who deserves them, of course, since he thinks like Mr. Rumilly; in fact, he dreams of him, he "rumillizes" all day long, so to speak.
And then, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rumilly went so far as to write the following:
Is it not the right moment for the provincial government to set up the Quebec broadcasting corporation which has been desired and announced for so long?
Well, Mr. Chairman, that Quebec radio corporation, that Quebec TV corporation will never exist, but the C.B.C. does exist. The Minister of National Revenue therefore has a duty to intervene, and he is responsible for anything that develops by way of national disunity and blots the C.B.C.'s record. The full responsibility rests on the Minister of National Revenue and on the Minister of Labour, who is now looking at me, and who also has his share of responsibility, though he seems unaware of it.
Like the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), I should like to refer to section 56, subsection 1 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which, in my view, can never be mentioned often enough. In fact, the more this section is referred to, the less the Minister of Labour is willing to explain his attitude.
Here is what is provided in section 56, subsection 1 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act:
The Minister may either upon application or of his own initiative, where he deems it expedient, make or cause to be made any inquiries he thinks fit regarding industrial matters, and may do such things as seem calculated to maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to settlement of disputes.
In spite of the authority vested in him by that section, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour buries his head in the sand and sees nothing. Moreover, while the act clearly states that the Minister of National Revenue must concern himself with the administration of the C.B.C., he says he has nothing to do with this strike.
Mr. Chairman, nearly five million listeners of the French network of the C.B.C. are deploring this situation, are pained by it, and are clamouring for the government to intervene; yet the government refuses to accept its responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, television is no luxury, it is not an instrument to be trusted to the hands of Mr. Rumilly or of the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. Television is an important organization way above the people we heard mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, television today is a training school for the general public, for our people of all ages and all classes who are constant spectators of this modern invention. Television is no longer a luxury, and this medium which has become the day to day companion of five to six million listeners of the French network, is offering us just now certain shows which are not interesting, because they were not meant for us.
C.B.C. producers are entitled to expect something else than insults from certain newspapermen of the "Rumilly" type and we ourselves should expect something else than to see producers' names used at every turn, to hear discussions on their account in and out of season, and to read biased, libellous, slanderous and dishonest articles about them, such as we have seen in open letters published by certain official newspapers.
The C.B.C. producers are a group of distinguished, cultured, able and sincere men who have a right to press their demands. They have the right to negotiate with their employer, as have all other classes of society. We find now that these valuable men are being disparaged.
As the Minister of National Revenue said last Friday, the French network of the C.B.C. has become in a few years the largest of its kind in the world.
Recently, I have had the opportunity to discuss this matter with some French people from Paris who praised the manner in which C.B.C. programs are prepared, and they even added that the French radio of Paris could learn a great deal from the French network of the C.B.C.
Mr. Chairman, if I rise in my place today, it is not to side with the C.B.C. board of governors, or with the C.B.C. producers; but I am sick and tired like the whole population of the province of Quebec, of hearing so-called rightist people or newspapermen slander C.B.C. authorities or C.B.C. producers. Both the management and the producers of the C.B.C. deserve congratulations for having managed, thanks to their close co-operation over the years, to direct and develop from scratch the finest French T.V. network in the world. If the C.B.C. board of governors deserves congratulations, so do the producers, for all those years during which they worked together in the best spirit of understanding. This cleavage between employers and producers does no good to either group and certainly does no good to the government, especially if we consider its attitude toward that problem.
Mr. Chairman, the C.B.C. must absolutely work out a settlement of that strike; and unless the board of governors co-operates, settlement is impossible. What is unthinkable

is that the C.B.C. board of governors should be deprived of its producers any longer.
What we see reminds us of a body without a soul. Mr. Chairman, once again, after the hon. members for Laurier, St. Denis, Dollard (Messrs. Chevrier, Denis, Rouleau) and all those who have expressed their opinion freely and frankly in the house, I urge the government and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) to intervene immediately. Let them stop passing the buck and shoulder their responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, this is all I want to say but I can never too emphatically tell the government and the minister that they cannot evade the responsibility they have of intervening in the C.B.C. strike. On behalf of millions of people who are paying taxes for the privilege of hearing and seeing first-class programs on the dominion radio and television networks, we have a right to ask for the immediate settlement of the strike and the intervention of the government in this dispute.
(Text):


Mr. Chambers:: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to catch your eye before the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, and I might have been able to save him the necessity of making his heated appeal or the necessity, at any rate, of making all of it.
I think it might be useful to the house if I should state at this time what the situation is in the negotiations that are going on between the C.B.C. and certain sections of their employees in Montreal. In the first place, as most hon. members know, there have been prolonged negotiations because we were faced with a difficult situation in which both sides had taken positions which they believed in strongly and it was difficult to reconcile them. However, we have made some progress. I can tell the committee that while nothing has been signed, a solution has been found to the problem that existed between the producers and the C.B.C.


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


Egan Chambers: Yes.


Leon David Crestohl: Is the hon. member now making a statement on behalf of the government?


Egan Chambers: No; I am not making a
statement on behalf of the government. I am making a statement on my own behalf as
Supply-C.B.C.
the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George on a situation with which I happen to be acquainted and in which I think the committee will be interested. I have had no instructions-and I should like to make that point clear-from any member of the government in this matter whatsoever. In fact, I do not think that hon. members would suggest that it would be proper for the government to give me instructions in this matter. I do not feel at liberty to outline the actual agreements that have been reached at this time because, as I say, they have not been signed and they are not necessarily binding on anyone.
The situation that exists is this. I believe that a formula has been found to settle this difference but the producers in Montreal do not feel that they can sign a settlement until the people who respected their picket lines are satisfied that they can return to work under conditions that will keep their members happy. Hence we have a situation where five other groups which have been respecting these picket lines are approaching the C.B.C. to find out whether they can receive certain guarantees. The C.B.C. at the same time has contracts negotiated in the past with these groups and all on the national level.
One of the complicating factors is that some of the groups in Montreal have had differences of opinion with their national officers. The national officers in some cases have not supported the strike and the Montreal locals have respected the picket lines. You have the difficulty here in that the C.B.C. feels obliged to deal with people with whom they have contracts and the people in Montreal feel that perhaps they would not be properly represented if they dealt along that line. A solution to that problem has not been found. There is also the matter of the actual terms under which these people will return to work; I refer to the people who have been respecting the picket lines. Hence the problems have become bound up with each other.
I believe that a solution will be found. Exactly when that will happen is hard to say, but meetings are going on between the various people in an effort to find a solution to this secondary problem. As I say, I believe that a solution has been found to the first problem. But the signing of that solution or the document representing that solution is delayed until the other groups which have been involved in this matter reach an agreement, you might say, with the C.B.C. I do

Supply-C.B.C.
not believe that too much help will be given to these continuing negotiations by newspaper stories or speeches in the house that strongly take one side or the other. We have an amicable feeling existing. I should like to pay tribute to the people on both sides for their patience, their good faith and their real willingness to find a solution. That situation still exists. With that feeling existing, I am sure that the parties will get together.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the Leader of the Opposition is rising to speak in the debate, Mr. Chairman, may I say that, in all fairness, I think the floor should be given to a member of the C.C.F. group at this time in keeping with the practice.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the Leader of the Opposition insists, I will yield. I think it is a long established practice to follow the procedure I have suggested.
I listened to the statement made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George with a great deal of interest. I think that anything that any hon. member of this house can do to bring about an amicable settlement at the earliest possible moment is something to be commended.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before the applause gets too loud, may I say this. The question that I should like to have answered is this: where does the government fit in with respect to this whole important dispute? We have had this strike going on now for some six weeks, I believe. I do not believe that in recent years there has been debated in this house any subject about which members of parliament felt more strongly than they do about this particular situation that now exists. They feel strongly about the lack of French language programs of the quality and type of those that the producers have been putting forward for many years. This strike has denied to five million French speaking Canadians these programs which are dear to them.
I listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Laurier last Friday. To me it was a moving speech, and I think he was perfectly justified in coming back again and again to the point that this government should 
do everything possible to bring about a just settlement in this dispute at an early date. We have had by this government an exhibition that I can scarcely remember ever having been equalled in this chamber. The government has spoken on this question-as I have already said on a previous occasion- in at least three different ways. The Minister of National Revenue has stated in strong language that, in his opinion, the strike was illegal. He was not satisfied with that statement. On another occasion, according to reports, he went on to say that the strike was silly and to use other adjectives of that type. Then we have had the statement of the Solicitor General who, I would think is a man well versed in the law, occupying that important position in the cabinet and no doubt tendering advice of a legal nature to his colleagues from time to time. He has been most consistent in saying that the strike is legal. You have there, Mr. Chairman, two opposite opinions.


Mr. Spencer:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Norman Leonard Spencer: Is the hon. member aware that the musicians union have declared the strike to be illegal and have instructed their members to continue to work?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: What an inference there is in that question, Mr. Chairman, namely that the responsibility of this government for a legal opinion lies somewhere outside this chamber. This is an additional position that is being taken by members of the Conservative party.


Norman Leonard Spencer: Answer the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: One position is that the strike is legal. The other is that it is illegal. The Minister of Labour says, "I do not know and I am not talking". The hon. member says that some other organization outside of this house has expressed a view.


Norman Leonard Spencer: The union.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have my own view and I am quite prepared on my responsibility to state my view. But it has nothing to do with the views that have been expressed outside this house.
We have had these three separate views from the government. We have had the state-

ment of the Minister of National Revenue that he did not wish to interfere in the strike. How could he interfere in a more direct way than to stand up in this chamber and say the strike is illegal; that is interference in the strongest possible fashion. In order to ascertain what the government is doing in this regard members of the opposition parties have addressed what I would consider to be very proper questions to the administration today concerning the progress being made. What are the answers? What has been the response of the ministers? We do not know; we have no information; or we will take it as notice. A member of the cabinet, one of Her Majesty's privy councillors, says he will take it as notice. Then, we have a private member on the government side of the house, an illustrious backbencher who has been doing his best to do the work of the government, getting up in this committee and giving us a progress report in connection with these negotiations.
I am sorry that the Minister of National Revenue cannot be here this afternoon. Of course, the same situation applies to all of us from time to time, and I have no criticism to make of him for not being here. However, I would think that when the Minister of National Revenue is away and an hon. member puts a question to the Acting Minister of National Revenue there should be no hesitation on the government side of the house as to who is Acting as Minister of National Revenue. When I addressed that question to the government there was a strange silence; there was a strange immobility. Finally, after a long silence, the hon. member for Greenwood caught the ball and said he would take it as notice. Here we are waiting for the government to say what progress is being made in the settlement of this strike, and I think parliament is entitled at this time to a report from a responsible minister. According to the Ottawa Citizen of Friday, January 30, the Minister of National Revenue has made a very strong statement in connection with this regrettable affair. He said, according to the report on page five of the Citizen of that date, under the heading "Nowlan Seeks Union For Cabinet":
Revenue Minister Nowlan was guest speaker at the annual banquet of the customs and excise officers association held at the Eastview recreation centre.
In an address frequently punctuated with humour, Mr. Nowlan declared that the C.B.C. producers strike was "unfortunate and frankly very silly. Someone should organize a union of cabinet ministers".
Supply-C.B.C.
The minister says in the house that he is not interfering in the strike. The minister says that someone should try to organize a union for the cabinet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There may be difficulty in that case in getting certification for that particular group.


Hazen Robert Argue: I might say it would be very difficult to get the cabinet members themselves to agree on the terms of any contract or any union they might wish to form. The Minister of National Revenue would say that a union for the cabinet is illegal. The Solicitor General would say it is legal, and when they went to the man who is the authority on labour matters, the Minister of Labour, he would say, I don't know. Then, of course, we would refer it to some of the backbenchers who would take action to solicit the cabinet ministers one by one to see if they were interested in forming such a union. Then, of course, they would take statements from people outside the house to see what their program should be.
This cabinet has been here for only 17 months, and look at the many directions in which they are now going. In so far as the Minister of Labour is concerned, he has played a very constructive role in many of the labour disputes in the past. He should use his good offices today to help these parties arrive at a satisfactory conclusion to this dispute. However, I can understand why he is so careful not to make a comment when there is such a division in the cabinet on this very important and very aggravating question.
I have read the remarks of the Minister of National Revenue in this house last Friday. In that statement he said many things with which I can agree. Perhaps I should quote his exact words from page 777 of Hansard for February 6, 1959:
This was a government which was going to wreck the C.B.C. This was a government which would interfere with the C.B.C. It is rather ironic, Mr. Chairman, that the minister who was so diligent in making sure there was no interference with the C.B.C. in any way, shape or form, is now being criticized because he has refused to intervene in this matter.
How can he make that statement-I am quite willing to say that this could be an error-when it is so much in conflict with other statements in this house concerning this dispute. Then he went on to say, farther on, that interference with the C.B.C. was different from interference with the Canadian National Railways because:
-if it once became a political football or a subject of political interference could be wrecked.
Those are exactly the sentiments of members of the C.C.F. We feel that there should

Supply-C.B.C.
be no political interference with the C.B.C. in any way, but we suggest it is political interference for the Minister of National Revenue to comment that the strike is illegal and to have used words to the effect that the strike was unfortunate and frankly very silly.
I am hopeful that the government will, even at this late hour, use the good offices of the Minister of Labour to see if a settlement cannot be obtained. I have read the reference to the matter in the Toronto Star of February 10 and referred to the fact a strike ballot is being taken among 1,400 technicians in the nationwide English network. I am hopeful that there will be no spreading of this strike. I am hopeful that it will be settled today, but I ask the government to reconsider its whole position and to take action to use the good offices of the Minister of Labour to bring about a fair settlement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to detain the committee very long; especially do I not desire to stand in the way of the observations that my hon. friend seated behind me wishes to make. We on this side, Mr. Chairman, have argued that a major characteristic of the policy and attitude of this government has been confusion and contradiction, and it seems to me that it has in no way been better illustrated or displayed than in this particular situation which we are discussing at this moment.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George by his intervention I think in a sense also illustrated that confusion. I do not, of course, criticize him in any way, shape or form for the effort which he had been making, as a private member of the house on the government side, to bring this dispute to a satisfactory conclusion. I commend him for what he has tried to do, as, indeed, I would commend any hon. member in this house who intervened constructively in this dispute. The hon. member has made a report to the committee on his activities in this regard, and it was a report which I suggest, Mr. Chairman, might have come with even greater effect from someone who was authorized to speak for the government. The hon. member has indicated in his report that a draft agreement has been drawn up between the two parties most concerned, and that in his opinion the solution might well be reached very soon. We all hope, of course, that that will be the case. But if 1 took down the words of the hon. member correctly, he added that this draft agreement of which he talked was not necessarily binding, and he went on to explain that the difficulty now in reaching a final and satisfactory solution is in the relationship of this draft agreement to certain

unions who have been concerned with the issue in an important capacity. That, Mr. Chairman, surely underlines what we have been arguing on this side, namely that the government should have intervened. Because there can surely be no doubt about the propriety of government intervention and interest in a dispute which is now, as the hon. member himself indicated, one of major concern to certain unions as well as to the C.B.C.
The contradictions of government policy, or the lack of policy in this matter, have been so clearly outlined by previous speakers, including my hon. friend the member for Assiniboia, that I do not need to spend any time on that topic. We are not suggesting that the government should interfere in any maimer whatsoever with the operation of the C.B.C. That would be quite improper, and is something, of course, to be guarded against. But we are suggesting, and we have been suggesting for some days now, that the government should have intervened in a labour dispute which may have far-reaching consequences beyond the limits of a strictly labour dispute. Of course, in that intervention the government does not need to take any position, and should not take any position, in regard to the substance of the dispute. But I do suggest what the hon. member for Assiniboia, and other members before him, have already suggested, and that is that the government has already by its attitude taken a position in this matter. There comes a time when non-intervention can be intervention, and that position, I suggest, has been reached in this matter. It is easy to explain the reason for refusing to intervene formally in this matter, as some members of the government have done, in terms which condemn one side to the dispute and not the other. That is a form of non-intervention which is intervening in the wrong way.
The hon. Minister of Labour, who is, or should be, the minister most concerned in this matter as a labour minister, cannot be getting any satisfaction whatever from the continuance of this dispute which has now, I think, gone on for 44 days. He is, as we all know, a sincere, indeed a very generous-minded minister, and I am sure that he regrets, as we all regret, the damage that has been done already by this dispute. I am sure that he is just as worried as we are about the implication of the failure to settle this issue shortly. Surely even now at this late date, which is the 44th day of the dispute, the Minister of Labour will reconsider his position and initiate those conciliation procedures which are at his disposal in an effort to bring this dispute to a speedy and successful conclusion and I suggest that all the resources of his department should now be

brought to bear upon this issue to supplement the constructive activity of a private member of this house so that we, in all parties, may very shortly be able to congratulate ourselves that at last this dispute has been brought to an end.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, since the opening of the session, I have followed with great interest the zeal with which the Liberals, on the one hand, and the C.C.F.'s, on the other, have tried to spread the confusion that exists within their own ranks, and to make of this C.B.C. strike a problem which, in itself, leaves the great majority of the French speaking population of Quebec cold.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Rémi Paul: I should like, this afternoon, without committing in any way the responsibility of my colleagues, express the opinion of my electors in the constituency of Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere most of whom-as I said a moment ago-feel indifferent about that strike.
I now refer to an article which Mr. Gerard Filion, managing director of Le Devoir, is said to have written on January 31, 1959, and which may be summarized as follows:
"This strike will teach us, we hope, a lesson in modesty". Many people who thought themselves indispensable are now on their way to oblivion. The public is not very much nostalgic about television. A survey made by the students ot the College Sainte-Marie among 200 families shows that 60 per cent of those families are not suffering at all from the strike. Thirty-four per cent are suffering a little, and 6 per cent are really suffering. The same survey shows that "60 per cent have replied that the strike had made them realize that they could do without T.V. much easier than they thought".
"This is excellent news," concluded Mr. Filion.
The strike, Mr. Chairman, has given the people of Quebec the impression of being rid of certain hot-headed and leftist individuals, including the leader of the Quebec Social Democratic Party (a party without a doctrine), Michel Chartrand. We have a chance to enjoy relief from the Jeremiads of Jean Marchand, Rene Levesque, Andre Laurendeau and Gerard Filion.


An hon. Member:: And of Jean Lesage.


Rémi Paul: The people of Quebec can now see films of real educational value which largely make up for the platitudinous programs we are given on many occasions.


Mr. Habel:: So, you like going to Paris?
Supply-C.B.C.


Rémi Paul: No. I do not live in Paris, I live in the province of Quebec-and you, Liberal gentlemen, you have laid the groundwork for and supported that strike. Why? Because the key posts are held by your proteges.
And when the producers and artists staged a march on Ottawa, what did we see? We saw the member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and the head of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Argue) going out to meet them.


Azellus Denis: What about the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion)?


An hon. Member:: Are you jealous?


Rémi Paul: No, I am not jealous. A moment ago the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) said he has received sheaves of letters. Well, so have I received letters, and I have been asked not to take up the matter with the government and to let the problem settle itself.
Mr. Chairman, it is about time that the people of Quebec had the opportunity-and there is now an opportunity-to rid themselves of Andre Laurendeau, editor-in-chief of Le Devoir, who in an article which appeared on February 22, enquired whether there were any Conservative members in this House of Commons. It is time that the people be rid of Andre Laurendeau, whose daughter delighted in strike duty in front of the Quebec legislature, and also of Rene Levesque, Mr. Chairman, the one who went to Russia and upon his return-


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We are now being asked to vote funds for the C.B.C. This is no time to put the various C.B.C. producers on trial one by one.


Rémi Paul: That is precisely what I was dealing with.


Yvon Dupuis: I would ask the hon. member to show some respect for the producers.


Rémi Paul: I shall have something to say about them in a moment-


Mr. Fortin:: Did you show respect for Ru-milly a moment ago?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I would ask hon. members to please take their seats when the Chairman of committees rises.
I shall make my remarks both in English and in French.
In fact, we are wandering quite a bit from the motion under consideration. We have

Supply-C.B.C.
wandered too far. I must warn hon. members of the house that their speeches should relate to the motion under consideration and that any attempt to get away from the motion will be ruled out of order.
I would also ask hon. members on both sides to refrain, where possible, from discussing personalities. The debate is on the matter of a $2,193,000, vote in favour of the C.B.C. and this has little to do with the people referred to by members on both sides. (Text):
I should like to remind members of the committee that the point of relevancy applies to resolution 701. For the sake of avoiding endless repetition, such as we have had in this current debate, speeches which do not deal with the resolution from now on will be considered out of order.
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I see that today we are called upon to vote $2,193,552, I feel I am justified in arousing public opinion about the favouritism being shown towards certain C.B.C. performers.
We have heard our Liberal colleagues tell us, in a broken voice, about this strike, because they can see their pet stars facing a public reaction other than the one they had expected.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this amount of $2,193,552 should not be used to pay certain producers that I mentioned a moment ago, who unfortunately are the leaders of the C.B.C. producers while the producers themselves are the true victims of this strike and to whom I offer my heartfelt sympathy. I know that they cannot freely express their opinions because of the threats proferred by some leaders and organizers of this strike, but I hope that one day the producers who are sincere and who want to return to work, will finally be able to bring to their families what they need to lead a peaceful family life at home.
Mr. Chairman, this strike is a deplorable affair, but let us hope that common sense will finally prevail, and that once we get rid of Andre Laurendeau, Michel Chartrand, Rene Levesque, Jean Marchand and all these people, the C.B.C. strike will be settled to the satisfaction of one and all.


Azellus Denis: May I say just one word in this regard, Mr. Chairman? In the way of contradiction, this takes the cake! We have heard ministers contradict themselves, we have heard their supporters contradict themselves, we have heard one minister contradict
[The Chairman.]
himself and Conservative members contradict one another. We have heard the member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) contradict himself. He claims, all in the same breath, that we have aroused the population.


Mr. Asselin:: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) is straying a little too much from the matter under review. May I therefore suggest that you call him to order?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, in reply to this interruption, I submit that I am not straying from the subject. In any case, I am closer to the settlement of the strike than the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) is himself. I am talking about the contradictions that have been heard-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I would remind the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) that we are now discussing item 701, involving an amount of $2,193,552. I therefore ask him, as well as other members, to remain within the subject under discussion.


Azellus Denis: I believe I was in order in making this statement, as I had to prove my assertions in connection with this vote. In fact, this strike has been going on for nearly two months now, and it has meant a considerable loss to the C.B.C., due to the fact that sponsors and advertisers cannot use the medium of television.
I now come back to the settlement of this strike. In my view, a settlement of this strike is a matter of public interest, even though the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) wants to have nothing to do with it and claims it is illegal. The Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) stated this afternoon that he does not want to get involved, as the matter comes under the purview of the Minister of National Revenue.


Léon Balcer: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I did not say that. I have been asked to report on the negotiations and I have refused to answer that question because it is the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I refer again to the statement of the Solicitor General. As you realize, he does not say that he did not make that statement. Therefore, I quote the words he said in this house as reported in Hansard, page 242, of the English text:
You may be assured that we are following developments very closely-

Could the Solicitor General explain to the house and to the people of Canada what he meant by "we are following developments very closely."


Léon Balcer: In answer to my hon. friend will I tell him what I mean by "we", that is, all those who are on this side of the house, and we are following the developments at this time, because we realize that the strike is a source of many difficulties for a great number of people. We are following the developments of this strike, but we are not trying to play cheap politics as our friends opposite are doing.


Azellus Denis: Does the Solicitor General feel that it is not cheap politics to deliver a speech as the one made by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere?


Léon Balcer: The policy of our friends on the other side is to criticize the C.B.C. and C.B.C. employees who owe their jobs to them.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I would ask the hon. member for St. Denis when referring to a speech made by an hon. member, not to accuse him of playing cheap politics. One may qualify a speech under the political aspect, but one must not impute motives to the one who is delivering it.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with you, and I believe your remark is directed to the Solicitor General rather than to myself. In fact, he was the one who stated that I was indulging in cheap politics. Mr. Chairman, in reply to a question put to him about the settlement of that strike, the Solicitor General said:
Unfortunately, in the circumstances, I would not know what the future holds, and I cannot inform the house of what will happen, because the point raised is hypothetical, and I do not know what we shall be able to do in the circumstances.
This is a lot of words meaning very little. At all events, he said "I do not know", which means he is not following the matter closely. If he did, he would be aware of the situation. And if he were aware of the situation, he would know that the Minister of National Revenue does not want to deal with it. If the Solicitor General followed the matter closely, he would know that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) does not want to intervene any more than the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) wants to. Furthermore, he would also know that not a single French-speaking minister, apart from himself, has dared express an opinion.


Lionel Chevrier: And he did not say very much.
Supply-C.B.C.


Azellus Denis: How is it that in a strike involving employees of the French network, it is an English-speaking member who defends their interests?


Léon Balcer: I rise on a point of order, I would ask the hon. member for St. Denis to withdraw what he just said.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Léon Balcer: A remark like that about a member of the house cannot be tolerated.


Azellus Denis: I said nothing insulting or
scornful about anyone.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I consider all this is out of order. Once again, I would ask the hon. members to stick to item 701, and stop this discussion which is altogether irrelevant.
(Text):
I declare out of order all present remarks and I demand all hon. members in this house to direct their discussion to item No. 701. Shall this resolution carry?
(Translation):


Mr. Loiselle:: Mr. Chairman, I understand that we are called upon to vote an amount of $2,193,000 under this item. When you interrupted the member who spoke before me on a point of order, I was just reading the remarks made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) last Friday, in which he stated:
It is an extremely difficult situation in which I find myself this afternoon. As hon. members well know, negotiations are going on at this very moment, or at least I hope so.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. Minister of National Revenue was entitled to discuss the matter last Friday, I feel I would not be out of order in discussing it in general terms.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I repeat to the hon. member for St. Ann that his remarks must pertain to the vote under consideration. Otherwise, I shall have to rule him out of order, and he will have to give the floor to another hon. member.


Gérard Loiselle: In that case, Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be all the shorter.
It is utterly illogical to ask us to vote money for the C.B.C. at a time when most of its employees are on strike. I understand that a few employees are still at work, although certain newspapers say there are none, while others state there are some. For this reason, I wish to recall the question I directed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) on 29 January last, as reported on page 459 of Hansard:

Supply-C.B.C.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the discussions which have taken place in the last few days, is the minister now willing to intervene in the dispute between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its producers in Montreal-
The minister's reply to my question was negative.
Then, I tried again to put the question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) and again, the answer was negative since, I was told, the question concerned the Minister of National Revenue.
Since we are dealing now with a matter under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue, I find it odd that he should not be in the house this afternoon. In fact, he was not here at the opening of the sitting. It is unthinkable that we should be discussing a matter which concerns the Minister of National Revenue, in the absence of the minister concerned, or of the Minister of Labour. In my opinion, the strike which has already lasted 45 days is important enough to warrant the attendance here of the ministers concerned.
I wonder if it is not because only the French network is affected that the strike is lasting so long? I wonder if the government would take a similar stand if the English network were affected by a strike-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Loi-selle), but I must say that his remarks are out of order. The estimates now under consideration have nothing to do with the English or the French networks, but only with the approval of a $2,193,000 grant. So, I ask the hon. member to deal only with the estimates now before us.


Gérard Loiselle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will simply repeat what I said a moment ago, that it is unthinkable that we should be called to vote $2,193,000 for an agency whose employees are on strike, and this in the absence of the minister responsible for its administration. This situation is rather odd and I believe that this government is wrong in avoiding its responsibilities with regard to the present situation at the C.B.C.
(Text):


Mr. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with this subject this afternoon many matters of considerable importance were
(Mr. Loiselle.]
raised but at this time I wish to refer specifically to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere. It is true that I perhaps do not interpret the French language correctly but I gather from his remarks that he was in fact suggesting a very great saving to the C.B.C. and to the taxpayers of Canada. He suggested this be done through the abolition of live television on the French network. It is quite possible that the hon. gentleman may not like some of the performers who appear on the C.B.C., either French or English, and it is also quite possible that there are some that I do not like but I certainly do not wish to abolish from television people I do not like because I want to know what I am up against and to watch them in action.
I should like to say, that I was really amazed that such a suggestion should come forward in this committee and particularly from a member who speaks the French language. As to the matter of saving that would accrue to the C.B.C., I do not think the people of Canada, either French or English, would appreciate very much the abolition of live broadcasting on the French network and the substitution therefor of films either from this country or any other country. If that subject matter ever comes up in this house certainly I will be one who will vote against it.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make in connection with this matter which are prompted by what has already been said in the debate and by what has been said on a previous occasion by the Minister of National Revenue. I would, however, feel much better, and I am sure the committee would as well, if the two ministers were in the house. I would now ask the Minister of Finance, who is leading the committee, whether it would not be advisable to have the Minister of Labour and the Minister of National Revenue, both of whom are responsible for this matter, in the chamber at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance is responsible for endeavouring to pilot these supplementary estimates through the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: I noticed the other evening when I made the same request the minister at once advised me that the Minister of National Revenue was on his way down and that he would see to it that the Minister of Labour would be in his seat. In no time

at all both of them were in the house and I thanked the minister for having acceded to my request as he did. I hoped-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say anything about the Minister of Labour.


Lionel Chevrier: I had hoped the same thing would happen again. I do not want to say anything derogatory about either of the ministers, but I do want to make some objective and I hope helpful suggestions. They are prompted first by what the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George said in reporting on the present position as he did. He made a report on which we had already obtained some intimation from the press. From what he said and from the press reports we on this side of the house believe that a definite understanding has been agreed upon between the C.B.C. and the producers, and that the only issue which now remains to be settled is the return to work of the other unions and individuals who refuse to cross the picket lines or otherwise are not in a position to go to work.
While this issue on the face of it may appear simple, it is not as simple as it does appear because a great number of artists have only individual contracts with the C.B.C. During the dispute they were not in any way able to make up their programs and to appear on television because there was no technical staff available to produce the programs. It is generally recognized now that the present dispute between the C.B.C. and the producers related to a matter of principle and that principle is the recognition of the producers association. We understand that after 48 days of the dispute the C.B.C. has now agreed that the initial claim of the producers was fully justified. As far as we on this side of the house are concerned, we agree with that part of the statement made by the Minister of National Revenue that this dispute could have been settled in 30 minutes if the C.B.C. had recognized that principle from the beginning. We, therefore, cannot blame those unions which refused, or were unable, to cross the picket lines to support the producers in their claims.
But the point that I rose to make has to do with the untenable position in which the Minister of Labour finds himself. It is said by one hon. member, namely the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, that he believes there is an understanding as between the producers and the C.B.C., and that is all to the good, but that there are other unions representing some 1,300 persons in number who are still negotiating and on behalf of whom the producers feel they should negotiate until such time as a final arrangement has been arrived at.
Supply-C.B.C.
The point I want to make is this. The Minister of Labour has refused to intervene, I say incorrectly and unjustly, but now, if an understanding has been arrived at between the producers and the C.B.C., this is an entirely different dispute which has arisen, namely that of conciliation proceedings between the 1,300 represented by those other unions and the C.B.C. He must, therefore, of necessity intervene if he wants to deal with it effectively. Therefore, if he thinks he had a reason not to interfere before, which I deny, certainly there is no reason now because the same conditions and the same circumstances do not obtain. Before, the reason for non-intervention was that the C.B.C. was an agency of the crown, following the statement originally made by the Prime Minister who felt that he should not intervene in disputes such as this. To that we answered that intervention in programming, intervention in the administration of the affairs of the C.B.C., was one thing which should be avoided but that intervention to offer the good offices of the Department of Labour to settle a dispute was an entirely different thing, and that should have been done.
Now that these circumstances and these facts no longer obtain and the matter is one outside the purview, shall I say, of management, but one dealing with 1,300 other persons who are not producers, then surely it is now an obligation of the minister to offer his good offices in order to conciliate this difficulty. The whole background of the dispute, as I have tried to describe it, now makes the return to work of those unions a very important and, may I say, in some respects perhaps a complex issue. It has been discussed now, as I understand from the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, for several days without any kind of settlement having been reached. Hence we think the only solution which would put an end to this long dispute would be to refer this issue to an outside arbitrator. I again appeal to the Minister of Labour, by virtue of section 56 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, to come along and appoint an arbitrator who could settle this matter. I am confident that if the government at last decides to do that, when the arbitrator makes his recommendations all persons concerned in the dispute-and I am sure hon. members would welcome such an appointment-the matter could be resolved.
Let me say this final word to the minister. I do not want to hold up the estimates any longer. This matter has been allowed to drag too long. I am not going to lay the blame on anybody today. I want to avoid that. I say that in order to have it continue no longer-

Supply-C.B.C.
because if it is a complicated matter as to salaries and other things it might drag on for a matter of days, weeks or more-the government should appoint an arbitrator by virtue of section 56 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and the arbitrator could conciliate such matters. All those men could then go back to work and we could get on with the nation's business.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the Minister of Finance not going to deal with the question put by the hon. member for Laurier? He asked that in a matter of this sort the Minister of Labour and if possible the Minister of National Revenue be in their seats. The Minister of Labour was here earlier today. He undoubtedly has heavy preoccupations at the moment but those could be suspended in view of the importance of this matter. The hon. member for Laurier is entitled to receive an answer from the minister to the question he put. The Minister of Finance is a knowledgeable man. We all admit that fact. There is perhaps no one else sitting on the ministerial benches who has as wide an understanding of the problems of government. But he would be the first to admit that in the matter of labour-management relations and particularly in the matter of conciliation possibly he is less adept. On that account I think he owes it to the committee to tell us whether or not the whip will be given instructions to ask the Minister of Labour to come here in order to see whether we cannot make some progress toward the authorization of the mediation or conciliation facilities of the Department of Labour for the purpose of resolving the matter that now has been going on for over 45 days.


Mr. Pallell:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the record should be allowed to remain showing that the Minister of Labour has not been in the house. He has been in the house for most of the time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry, but I did not say that. My hon. friend is quite wrong. I was not charging the Minister of Labour with dereliction of duty. I said that he had been in the house earlier, that he was not now in the house and that undoubtedly he was out of the house for good reasons. That is what I said. I am sure that when the whip reads Hansard he will find that is what I said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with supplementary estimates and have been doing so. This is the third day. It is the custom of the house on such matters for the Minister of Finance to conduct the supplementary estimates through the committee except on occasions when they are considered along with the main estimates. The item immediately under consideration

is one respecting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The Minister of Labour has nothing to do with this item. If the Minister of Labour were in the house the situation would be the same for this is not an item in which the Minister of Labour would be involved.
We are dealing here with an item affecting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Last Friday, a day and a half of debate ago now, I gave an explanation of this item and of how it comes about. It comes about simply because when the change was made by legislation last November in the organization of the corporation that conducts the national system the statutory provision under which the proceeds of the excise tax on receiving sets and tubes went to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was repealed and it is necessary to make an alternative provision. The amount which the committee is asked to approve is simply the equivalent amount in order that the corporation may not be deprived of its revenues. It does not mean any increase in taxation. It does not mean any increase in expenditures. It is simply a means of providing that which the corporation would have received but for the change made in the legislation last fall.
I have been asked by the hon. member for Essex East now to become involved in a debate that has been going on for two days. Mr. Chairman, if ever a subject had been discussed until it was threadbare, surely it must be this question. We have heard it discussed by every hon. member of the house who seems to have any interest, close or remote, in the subject; and it has been discussed by some members time and time again. With great respect, Mr. Chairman, may I say that we have had repetitious speeches.
I now ask this committee whether the time has not come when we can proceed with our business. We have a good many items yet to pass. Some days ago we were asked to expedite the introduction in the house for discussion of items of business relating to measures to meet the problem of unemployment. Mr. Chairman, here we have item 709 which deals with the winter works program. We are now in the position of having spent three days in discussion of an earlier item and we have not yet reached the item dealing with the winter works program. At the rate we are going I do not know how many more days will pass before we reach it. I make this appeal to hon. members. Surely this present subject has been discussed until it is threadbare. I have no intention whatever of being drawn into the kind of discussion that has been going on here this afternoon. I ask members of this

committee whether they do not think the time has come when, this subject having been so thoroughly discussed, we can pass on and make progress-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of
Labour is here in the chamber now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and transact the business that remains before us in these other items, some of which are of great importance.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to say just
one word with respect to what the Minister of Finance has said and it is this. We are dealing here with an item which has to do with the operating deficit of the radio and television services. It has to do with the vote of the house for money purposes in the amount of some $2 million. While we are discussing these matters I would remind the Minister of Finance that we have the right to inquire into any phase whatever of any of these matters, notwithstanding what the minister has said.
I am glad that the Minister of Labour has come into the chamber. I should like to ask him whether he would not be good enough to reply to the suggestion which I have made. If he will allow me to do so, I will make it just as briefly as I can without being repetitious. While the minister was absent from the chamber the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George reported upon the position of the negotiations in the matter now under dispute. He stated in effect that an arrangement or at least an understanding had been arrived at between the producers and the C.B.C. but that no arrangement has been made in so far as the other unions and the C.B.C. were concerned. He went on to state that was a matter which might well take time.
The point that I made in the absence of the minister was this. If the minister had the right of non-intervention earlier-something which I deny-if he was right in saying that he should not intervene in a dispute between the C.B.C. and the producers-something which I deny-now that the dispute embraces a larger field and goes into the field of unions outside the scope of the producers and outside of management, as it were, my suggestion was that, in my opinion, it would become more difficult for the Minister of Labour to refuse to intervene in order to bring about a settlement.
I therefore made this suggestion in all sincerity, Mr. Chairman. I made this suggestion because I fear that the negotiations are going to take some time, according to the report which we have received from the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George as well as press reports. I may be wrong; I
Supply-C.B.C.
hope I am wrong. But suppose the negotiations take longer than is anticipated. Is it not better to try to get these people back to work as soon as possible? The suggestion I made was that the minister give consideration to intervention in this respect, namely by the appointment of an investigator who would negotiate the present difficulties as between the 1300 people represented by the unions and the C.B.C., in the hope that the members of the unions involved could go back to work at once and then we could carry on with the nation's business. I therefore ask in all sincerity if he will not give consideration to this suggestion and, if he will do so, what is his reaction to it.


Michael Starr: The people about whom the hon. member for Laurier is talking-I must say I am not going to point my finger at him after what he said because it would be a little dangerous-have a collective agreement, and in that collective agreement there is a provision for the airing of grievances. Whatever grievances they have in respect of this matter can be ironed out under that provision.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister give the terms of that provision so the house would know it?


Michael Starr: I have not a copy of the collective agreement here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister not enlighten the house by explaining why he feels as Minister of Labour that he cannot take any position other than the one he has taken here. How does this situation differ, for instance, from a strike involving the Canadian National Railways? In such a case the Department of Labour, after the cooling off period had ended, would use its good offices, its conciliation procedures and personnel. This strike has extended over a period of 45 days. We have been told by the minister that his stand is such that mediation through that particular vehicle is not to be employed. Now, I have restrained myself in connection with this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As one who has
been interested in labour matters for a long time, and as one who has had some experience in the Department of Labour, I have restrained myself in an attempt to understand exactly what was the position of the minister. I have no doubt that if this matter were left to the Minister of Labour himself, regardless of the attitude of his colleagues, he would take precisely the steps that have been recommended by the hon. member for Laurier and that are implied in what I am

Supply-C.B.C.
now saying. He would not have intervened at the beginning. He would have allowed the process of negotiation to proceed, but having proceeded for an undue time, he would then have sought to bring the parties together, not for the purpose of imposing his view on them but for the purpose of using the facilities at his disposal and the experience of those officials to arrive at a settlement.
That is what the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George was seeking to do. Are we not now presented, as a result of the attitude of the government, with the inadequacy of the suggestions made by the government in this instance? I think that the Minister of Labour must give us an explanation of why he feels as Minister of Labour that he should not authorize his officials to act. He well remembers in the case of the railway strike how hard he worked, and how hard his officials worked, to try to bring the parties together. Finally, when they could not get together, the suggestion made by the hon. member for Laurier was adopted in that instance and an arbitrator was appointed. When the Minister of Labour sits by day after day giving an indication that he does not propose to intervene, his action I believe is open to only one interpretation. It is not because he does not want to, it is because his colleagues, for some reason or another, have taken the position that he should not.
If they have taken that position, they have put the minister in a very unenviable position and one which he does not deserve, both in terms of his record on these matters and in terms of his well-known views as to the means by which disputes of this kind are settled. I invite the minister to take advantage of the friendly attitude I have taken in this matter, and to really take unto himself a position which has been pre-empted by a private member of this house. If this situation is allowed to go on it gives a firm indication that this government does not understand what its obligations are in this matter.


Michael Starr: I presume, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Essex East in making his remarks was referring to the unsettled situation respecting the 1,200 union members who have been out. I assume that because today the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George did report to this house that agreement had been reached between the producers and the C.B.C. The only point at issue remains the 1,200 people.
If he refers to that then most certainly when he talks about conciliation procedure and so on he reveals that his education in the labour department must have been very limited because the conciliation department

only comes into the matter upon the request of both parties concerned where they are negotiating a new agreement and after the termination of an old agreement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not right.


Michael Starr: This situation does not refer to the one which the hon. member for Essex East tried to convey to this house.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I have mentioned before that the discussion must be relevant. The point which has been raised by the hon. member for Essex East and the answer made by the Minister of Labour deals directly with the administrative procedures of the Department of Labour and are not, therefore, relevant to the item under discussion. I must declare this discussion out of order, and I must ask hon. members to confine their remarks to this item 701.
Furthermore, there have been a great many repetitious speeches made for one purpose or another on this particular item. Perhaps hon. members have strayed too far afield and perhaps politics have entered into this matter. I must remind hon. members that I will immediately ask any hon. member to resume his seat if he repeats what has been said before or if he makes a speech of a repetitious nature. We must realize that we are discussing one particular item and we will never proceed with the business of this house if we do not adhere to the discussion of this item. Therefore, I ask hon. members to please be relevant. Shall item 701 carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In connection with the point you have just raised, Mr. Chairman, as you have pointed out we are discussing a supplementary estimate to provide $2,193,552 for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in respect of the operations of that service. With all respect I should like to suggest that anything that is going on now that interferes with that service would surely be very pertinent to this particular vote that we are called upon to make to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think anything that interferes with the operations of the C.B.C. is relevant and pertinent to this particular vote. I take it Your Honour would not interfere with that kind of discussion.


Lionel Chevrier: There is one thing I feel I should mention. It has come about as a result of the statement which the Minister of Labour has just made in answer to the suggestion I made concerning the appointment of an investigator to deal with this dispute. If I understood him, he said that that was already provided for-I hope the minister will follow me-


Michael Starr: I said it was reported to this house by the hon. member.


Lionel Chevrier: No, the minister in reply to my suggestion said that provision was already made in the contract for the settlement of the dispute. I asked him if he would point to the particular clause, and he said that he did not have it. The point that I desire to make now is that the proceedings which the hon. minister refers to-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I consider I have a right to make this intervention at this time, and if hon. members want to interrupt me I shall appeal to the Chair. The point I desire to make is this. While the minister is correct in saying that there are in the contract provisions for negotiation, and perhaps arbitration, I want to point out to him that that is not a grievance falling under the collective agreement. Therefore the answer which he has given does not relate to the circumstances as they are found today. I submit again with deference that the minister give consideration to the appointment of an investigator under the disputes investigation act. If he did that, then with one stroke of the pen all these people would go back to work, and that is all we are asking for.
Mr. Chairman, I have a request to make of the leader of the house at this juncture. That request is that in view of the discussion we have had, and in view of a number of questions which I would like to ask not only of the Minister of Labour but the Minister of National Revenue, this item be allowed to stand, and that while the item stands perhaps it would be possible to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, had that request been made when we reached this item last Friday, of course it would have been assented to at once. As a matter of fact, 1 even suggested to my hon. friend from Laurier then that if he wanted any variation in the order in which these items were to be called, if he would let me know we would arrange that. This item was called last Friday and was discussed here all that day. Here we are again today discussing the same matter. It has been discussed threadbare time and time again. We have had all sorts of repetitious speeches. We have gone over the same ground again and again, traversing the same subject matter. To ask the item, to stand at this stage, I think, is a most unreasonable request.
May I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, once again to the fact that as a result of the
Supply-C.B.C.
liberties which have been taken with discussion in this debate when some members have extended it beyond the proper scope of discussion even in the face of what you have said. The fact is that we have departed from the proper basis of discussion of estimates. The proper basis for discussion of estimates, as the hon. members opposite me know, is not that we have a full-ranging debate with all members on the government benches being drawn into it. The minister in charge pilots the item through. That is what we have been trying to do here, but hon. members opposite have been endeavouring to draw some ministers into this debate in connection with matters not pertaining to the administration of their departments. With respect, I ask that hon. members recall here that we are dealing with an item affecting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is not that of the Department of Labour or some other department, but it deals with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I ask the committee, it now having discussed this question so thoroughly, to proceed and let us get on with the other business which lies before us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to intervene at all in this debate, and I am prompted to do so only by the lecture which has been given to the opposition by the Minister of Finance, in his characteristic style. The minister seems to forget, as he was so fond of reminding his predecessor when the minister was on this side of the house, that the ministers in this house in committee of supply are suppliants asking for money to be granted to the crown for specific purposes. The minister is asking on this item for over $2 million, which we have to vote, and which any conscientious member of this house has a perfect right to object to voting. No hon. member should be gagged, and no attempt should be made to gag him. My submission is that at the present time the service for which we are being asked to vote this money is not being given to the Canadian people. That is the point. We are being asked to vote $2 million for a service which is not being given or provided. That is the issue, and when my hon. friend from Laurier, in a very respectful way, in order to assist the government in getting on with the business-


Michael Starr: We do not want his assistance. We can manage without him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This almighty, all-powerful government needs no help from parliament.


Michael Starr: The hon. member-

Supply-C.B.C.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: May I ask the Minister of Labour to take his seat. I must also ask all hon. members to please take their seats while-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: -I am on my feet. All discussion which is not relevant to item No. 701 is completely out of order. If the debate now proceeding relates to item 701 or to the details which appear on page 5, the debate will be in order; otherwise the debate is completely out of order, and I cannot justify the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. With all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I must tell him that if the debate relates to the item under discussion at present such remarks will be in order. Otherwise they cannot be accepted by the chair. I must therefore ask hon. members please to take due note of the remarks I have just made, and to limit their remarks to the item under discussion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I must ask your guidance on item 701, which deals with the operation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I take it, therefore, that any subject which concerns that operation will be in order under the grant of money we are being asked to vote?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It is quite true that item 701 deals with a grant of money concerning the operations of the C.B.C. We have had in this house today debate as to whether ministers should or should not be in their seats when remarks are made to them. Speeches have been made referring to the fact that the situation would not be the same if the problem related to the English network rather than the French network. There has been debate concerning every conceivable item except the one under discussion. I repeat once again that if the remarks are confined to the item under discussion, the details of which appear on page 5, they will be in order; otherwise all speakers will be out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if I may now resume my remarks about the operation of the French television network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for which the government is asking us to vote this money, which money we feel we should not be asked to vote until the government has made a sincere effort to get those operations resumed. It seems to me that nothing could be more relevant. Here we have a service for which millions and millions and millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money are being spent, and the service for one-third of the population of this country is at the present

time not being provided. It is our submission on this side of the house that a large part of the fault for the failure to provide that service rests upon Her Majesty's ministers, and that is the position which we have taken all along.
I submit, further, that the last time this matter was before the committee the Minister of National Revenue made a very extensive and provocative speech upon this very issue. It does seem to me that this is a strange kind of parliament in which a minister can make provocative speeches and the opposition is forbidden the right to advance arguments on the point.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is the hon. member from Bonavista-Twillingate speaking on a point of order or on the estimate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking on the estimate and I am saying that for 44 days, that is to say, if my arithmetic is correct, for about one-eight of the year, this service has not-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I would remind the hon. member that the item refers to the anticipated operating deficit of the radio and television services only. I therefore declare his present remarks out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall go on to make some further remarks and I shall endeavour as far as my understanding will permit to bring them completely within the rules of order. Your Honour has said that this amount is for the operating deficit. I suggest to you that this amount may well prove entirely inadequate to meet the operating deficit which is likely to be incurred in connection with the French language television service because of this regrettable stoppage. As my hon. friend from St. Denis pointed out earlier today, the failure to provide these programs is depriving the C.B.C. of very considerable commercial revenues and it may well be that before the fiscal year is ended, or soon afterwards, the minister will have to come back and ask us to vote even more money for this service because of the failure of the government to do anything about this problem during the last 44 days. That is surely the point, and surely it is completely relevant to the question before the house. It does not matter that the minister, or one of the ministers, by recommending a change in the law last year has put the Minister of Finance in the embarrassing position of having to ask us to vote this money. The government is responsible to parliament and is answerable for this service and it is the duty of this government to answer the question raised by members who have been elected by the people.

I did not take any part in this debate earlier because the subject is of no direct concern to me, and of even less concern to my constituents but it does seem to me that a very important point of principle has arisen here this afternoon and I say again that I feel it would be in the interest of parliament, in the interest of good government and in the interest of good order if the minister would reconsider the very reasonable request made by the hon. member for Laurier and agree to have this item stand over now in the hope that within the next 24 or 48 hours this regrettable situation can be ended. I am sure that if this were to happen there would be no further discussion of this item. I join with the hon. member for Laurier in an appeal to the minister to be conciliatory for once. Let him be reasonable for once and allow this item to stand so that we may proceed with the other urgent business the minister is at least as anxious as we are to complete.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour in connection with this matter. Is the Minister of Labour in a position to confirm the statement which has been made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George concerning the present position of the negotiations?


Michael Starr: I am accepting the report of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and I heard it in the same way as the hon. gentleman did.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the hon. minister for that answer. May I pursue the matter a little further and ask him this: in view of the fact that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has stated that there seems to be an understanding between the C.B.C. and the producers, and that the other matter is under negotiation, will the Minister of Labour now give consideration to intervening with regard to the latter part of the dispute?


Some hon. Members:: What for?


Lionel Chevrier: I should like an answer to that question.


Michael Starr: As I have tried to explain, there is an existing collective agreement between those people who are affected and the C.B.C., and there is provision in such agreement for the appropriate procedure to be followed. This is one of the things which can be taken up with the management in an effort to reach a solution. At a later date, after there has been a return to work and
Supply-C.B.C.
efforts have been made to iron out an agreement, if a request is made to the Department of Labour for someone to sit in on the discussions in order to help bring about a settlement there would be no objection.


Lionel Chevrier: But I am informed by the minister's own officials that the procedure which the minister has just outlined applies to the contract which was signed heretofore but does not apply to the present dispute; in other words, there is a new dispute and therefore the suggestion which the minister has made does not apply. Is that correct or not?


Michael Starr: I still do not know whether the hon. gentleman understands which contract he is discussing. Is he talking about the collective agreement between the 1,200 members of the staff who refused to pass the picket line, or is he talking about the agreement between the producers and the C.B.C.


Lionel Chevrier: I am talking about the former and not the latter. I said that clearly in my earlier remarks. That is the matter in which the minister has already stated he would not interfere. With reference to the other matter-that concerning the 1,300 employees-I was saying that since this is a matter between the C.B.C. and its staff it is in a different position from that which he stated, and would he not now give consideration to intervention in the latter part of the dispute.


Michael Starr: I have already said that to my knowledge there is an existing collective agreement and there are provisions in this agreement for the settlement of this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: I have a number of questions I should like to put to the Minister of National Revenue, but he is not now here and I am appealing to the leader of the government now to allow this matter to stand for the purpose I have mentioned earlier.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, had the Minister of National Revenue been here I should have liked to have commented on the speech he made on this subject last Friday. At that time he made a comprehensive statement in committee on this particular estimate as reported on pages 775, 776, 777, and 778 of Hansard. In the course of this statement-and no one objected to its being made-the minister referred to the circumstances under which the strike arose and referred to certain features in connection with it. He said, as reported on page 777, that he intended to give something of the background to this strike and, indeed, he went into great detail. We

Supply-C.B.C.
thought that was quite a proper thing to do, though we might not have agreed with what the minister said.
This statement aroused a great deal of interest on this side of the house and we had looked forward to asking some questions and making some comments with regard to it. Unfortunately the minister is not here this afternoon. With regard to one of the matters about which I should have liked to have inquired perhaps the Minister of Finance could be helpful. In any case, he might be able to pass the question on to his colleague. My question is this: whether the strike has resulted in a loss of revenue to the C.B.C. and in an increase of expenditure by the C.B.C. to such a point-as was suggested by my colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate a few moments ago-that an additional supplementary estimate may be required. That surely is a very reasonable question to ask the minister in connection with an estimate of this magnitude for the operations of the C.B.C. which are so seriously affected by this situation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would be quite impossible to say now what will be the eventual effect on the revenues or expenditures of the corporation as a result of this strike. Suffice it to say that the amount the committee is asked to appropriate here is the amount it has already appropriated at the last session of parliament, has already approved both in principle and in amount. The committee is not asked to provide any money additional to what it has previously provided nor to approve any departure in principle from that which the committee has already approved on a previous occasion.


Mr. Robichaud:: Before this item is carried, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could state to the committee what portion of the sum of $2,193,552 is spent to cover salaries of the employees of the C.B.C. and also what portion is spent to cover salaries of the producers?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, it is not possible to break this item down in this fashion any more than the preceding item was broken down. As my hon. friend will have no trouble in learning by reference to the estimates introduced in the last session, this is a block item. It is applied to the entire operation of the C.B.C., its operation of the national network service, both radio and television. I have already explained that this item is one already voted by the house under the general provisions of the statute under which the revenues from the excise tax on radio receiving sets and tubes went to the corporation.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the item carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Chairman.


Donald Methuen Fleming: More obstruction.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says, "more obstruction". Does my hon. friend think that is the way he is going to encourage us to accept his suggestions? We are a small group on this side of the house but my hon. friend may be certain of one thing, that no suggestion from the ministerial benches to the effect that we are obstructing simply because we seek to assert our rights is going to further progress in this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have had two days of it already.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We on this side cannot be accused of obstructionism simply because we seek to do our duty. My hon. friend is the last man in this house who should say that.
The Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that the Minister of National Revenue made an extended statement on this matter covering all aspects of the strike and giving his interpretation of it. The Leader of the Opposition said that he would like to have had the opportunity of putting questions to the Minister of National Revenue arising out of that statement and the hon. member for Laurier took that position, too. I would urge the Minister of Finance in a moment now of deep conciliation and understanding to accept the suggestion of these two hon. gentlemen. We have questions to put on this matter. Can my hon. friend tell us when we will have an opportunity of putting further questions and receiving answers to those questions. He asks us to help him and dispose of this item. We are not unwilling to help him provided we are given an opportunity of complying with what we think in this matter is our duty. What opportunity will be afforded us to put further questions? If this item passes there will be no opportunity except on orders of the day of putting questions to the ministers and under the practices of this house they will have the right, if they want, to refuse to answer.
In the absence of a willingness to let this item stand the hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that this request to us is one that cannot possibly be accepted by any responsible opposition doing its duty. I ask the Minister of Finance again if he does not think he will further the passage of his supplementary estimates by acceding to the request of the hon. member for Laurier?
I invite the Minister of Finance to remember one occasion when passing my own estimates I was confronted with almost

exactly this situation and I persisted in refusing the request of my hon. friend to place before the house certain statements about estimated and actual expenditures. He will recall that occasion and he will also recall how finally, having made the mistake that he is now making I acceded to the request and the result was that my estimates were passed very quickly. I ask my hon. friend to remember that particular occasion and to accede to the request put by the hon. member for Laurier. If the minister fails to do so he forces us into the position of continuing this discussion as the only means by which we can hold this matter open to give us an opportunity of discussing a question which is of the greatest importance.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss the questions I have to direct to the Minister of National Revenue. Because he is not in this place and in order to establish the basis for them I shall have to refer back to the statement made by the Minister of National Revenue as reported at page 776 of Hansard of February 6, 1959, when he gave the impression that the producers walked out on the C.B.C. The minister said on that occasion:
Then on December 29, at nine o'clock in the morning, a conference started between representatives of the producers and the representatives of management and that conference went on during the day. There were breaks for discussion with the principals, breaks for luncheon, of course, and all the rest of it. Then at five o'clock in the afternoon the picket lines were marching around the C.B.C. building. The ultimate weapon, the last weapon, the last weapon that should have been used, was brought into play on the first day.
And the strike started. What I would like to ask the minister is if he has seen the brief prepared by the producers which was placed in the boxes of all hon. members of parliament and which deals with this very subject, not in the manner in which the minister dealt with it but in an entirely different manner. I shall not take the time of the committee as I very well could by reading what is contained at page 5 of the brief but I shall summarize it in this fashion.
The brief clearly states the manner in which the negotiations and the proceedings leading up to the last negotiation were brought to an end. The brief states that the first interview between the producers and the C.B.C. took place on December 11. The brief goes on to indicate that a second meeting occurred on December 19 and a third on December 20. They met again on December 23 and Mr. Andre Ouimet was informed of the result of the secret vote authorizing the producers to interrupt the work. The brief states there was no answer to that communication until December 29 when, after 66968-9-59
Supply-C.B.C.
a long meeting with no progress being made, it was then decided to walk out.
The question I ask the minister is this. In view of the statement which he made at page 776 of Hansard has he not taken cognizance of page 5 of this brief which is a complete answer to his statement and will he not make a statement to the house at the first opportunity dealing with that part of his remarks?
Later on in the course of his remarks the minister stated that if top management at Ottawa had been advised the strike would have been settled in thirty minutes. According to the information I have at my disposal, and which again is to be found in the brief, it is quite true to say that top management of the C.B.C. in Ottawa were not properly informed of the situation which had developed in Montreal during the month of December. But it would have been improper for the producers to bypass the C.B.C. officials in Montreal and make contact with top management in Ottawa.
The next question I would like to ask the minister is this:	Is it not a fact that in
view of his statement he would have considered it quite improper for those people in Montreal to refuse to talk or to give the result of their discussions with C.B.C. officials in Montreal instead of coming on to deal with top management, as he said, here in Ottawa? If top management in Ottawa was not informed of the situation, then I have only one conclusion to come to and it is that the local management in Montreal is the one which perhaps should be blamed for the producers being here.
I would like to get the reaction of the minister to my question. It would seem to me that the conduct of those who were dealing with the Montreal group was right, and it was proper for them to continue to deal with the Montreal group. On the contrary, it would have been most improper for them to somersault or jump over the Montreal group and come to Ottawa for discussions unless, of course, they had been invited so to do by the minister. Therefore, I invite the minister to comment on this second point.
There is another question which I should like to address to the minister because he said on a number of occasions that the producers knew full well what they should have done. He made it quite clear that they should have gone to the labour relations board and there get certified in the usual way. I could get the reference to that in Hansard very quickly if need be, but I want to point out to the minister that there are at least two unions in the C.B.C. which have not been

Supply-C.B.C.
certified by the labour relations board but which have been recognized by the C.B.C. through direct negotiations. Therefore, there is no point in making an exception of the producers by saying to them, "You have to go to the board". In the face of that situation, I ask the minister why he should direct the statement which he did to the C.B.C. when there are, as I say, at least two other unions in the same position.
I come back to the original submission which I made, Mr. Chairman. I ask the Minister of Finance to reconsider the answer which he has given in order that we might have an opportunity to ask further questions if we so desire and I suggest to him once again that he allow this item to stand.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall item 701 carry?


Yvon Dupuis: I would like to ask a few questions but I would like the minister to answer the questions of the hon. member for Laurier first.


Donald Methuen Fleming: These matters have all been dealt with; they have been discussed in this debate many times. My hon. friend is just asking me to say things that have been said before and to open up this matter all over again. I must decline with thanks.


Lionel Chevrier: The three questions which were asked are three new questions arising out of the discussion which took place the other day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They may look new to my hon. friend but I doubt whether they look new to the majority of the members of this committee.


Raymond Pierre Eudes: Can the minister inform the house what portion of this grant of $2 million odd is to cover the deficit of the French television network in Montreal?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have already explained that matter very fully. I am sorry if my hon. friend was not in the house or did not follow what I said. It was made perfectly clear.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, surely they must have some records to show what the deficit was in Montreal for the month of January,
1958,	compared with the month of January,
1959,	so we can get an idea of the consequences of the strike we are discussing. After all, we are passing an item to cover a deficit. We would like to know whether the deficit will be higher this month than it was last month. Maybe we will be short of money; if the strike lasts for months and months how far will this amount of money take you?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was all discussed half an hour ago.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, we have this afternoon a minister who is refusing to answer questions asked by members on this side of the house. The fact that this item was voted at the last session does not justify the minister in refusing to give us information which we want now. Conditions have changed since the estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were discussed in this house. Conditions today are certainly different from what they were then. At the present time a certain number of French producers are on strike. It is unfortunate that the minister responsible for the C.B.C. is not here this afternoon to answer these questions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You know he is ill, don't you?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have other questions to ask. If he is ill that is one more reason why this item should be allowed to stand. It is not fair to hon. members to ask this committee to vote over $2 million without any information as to what this amount of money will cover. I repeat, the fact that we did not ask for these details at the last session is no justification for the position taken by the minister. I know that the minister said a few days ago-and he repeated it today-we are talking about everything under the sun in order to prevent reaching a discussion of the winter works program. Mr. Chairman, when such an attitude is taken by a minister of the crown, a member of a government whose Prime Minister is the advocate of a bill of rights, I say it is not right. We have a right to get information and that is what we are trying to do this afternoon, and information is being refused us.


Mr. Calhers:: You don't want any information.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A remark was made on the other side of the house that I do not want information. I have a question which I wanted to ask the Minister of National Revenue. We are voting money for the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Last July or August the minister announced in this house that steps were being taken to extend the French television network to Moncton and to certain other sections of New Brunswick. I wanted to find out at this time what progress had been made. We understand we are to be advised that nothing has been done in this regard. I think we have the right to get some information.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: I have one question to ask the Minister of Finance. I should like to know why he refuses to allow this item to

stand. I think the opposition members have a right to an answer to the questions they have put to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of National Revenue. They have put them in a constructive way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Augustin Brassard: I hear some
laughter. We are getting accustomed to hearing members on the government side laugh when we discuss some very important problems in this house. I was here in 1956 when a certain debate took place in this house and the one member who was the most critical about the rights of parliament being not treated very well by the government was precisely the one who is today the Minister of Finance in this house. I should like him to answer my question if he cares to do so. Why would he not allow this item to stand until the Minister of National Revenue comes back to the house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I suppose this discussion can go on and on in this way if my hon. friends want to keep on spinning it out. The fact is that the reasons have already been given and, in my opinion, in a reasonable manner. We have had two days' discussion on this matter. We have been over all these matters and we are just going over them again.


An hon. Member:: We have received no answers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Having regard to the important business that is waiting to be done, my hon. friend wants to keep this thing going indefinitely. He says the matter should be left over and kept going indefinitely.


Lionel Chevrier: No, he does not ask that; he asks that the item be allowed to stand.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We must get some other items passed.


Lionel Chevrier: Let it stand.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I thought I was asked a question by another hon. member.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There will be
plenty of opportunities for the discussion of C.B.C. matters during the course of the session when we come to the estimates for the next year and whatever steps are taken for the annual review of C.B.C. operations. There will be plenty of opportunity then for hon. members to go into these matters to their heart's content. But so far as this present item is concerned, we have had the explanation given time and again as to what it is for. Hon. members understand it perfectly 66968-9-59i
Supply-C.B.C.
well. But there is a desire to discuss something else and to keep this thing going. I cannot prevent hon. members from keeping it going if they want to do so, Mr. Chairman. But I appeal to the good sense of the committee and ask hon. members to have regard to the fact that nothing new is coming out of this discussion and that no good purpose is to be served by keeping a discussion like this open endlessly simply by repetition. The questions that have been asked in search of information have been answered. The committee is fully in possession of the information relevant to this item. I think hon. members are aware of this fact. I can only repeat the appeal that I made earlier, namely that we proceed with the important business which is waiting to be done and which is being held up in the meantime.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I quite understand that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), being ill, could not answer our questions today. Nevertheless, we simply claim the right-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must point out to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) that if he wishes to speak, he must do so from his place.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary to do so when the house is in committee, but since you insist, I will go back to my desk, if you will give me a minute to do so.
Mr. Chairman being back to my seat, I must say that we are sorry that the Minister of National Revenue is not in the house at this moment to answer our questions. All we ask is that the government let us wait until the hon. minister's return, before we approve this important item, before we vote millions of dollars to the C.B.C., without having the information we are asking for.
There are three questions I should like to ask-
(Text):


William Heward Grafftey: Will the hon. member permit a question? In a prior speech in this debate the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville said that he had received a number of letters concerning the desirability of the government's intervening in this matter. Will he please tell the committee how many letters he received and can he possibly make them public?
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, that question being out of order, I shall go on with my remarks.

Supply-c.b.c.
I was then saying that I had other questions to direct to the hon. Minister of National Revenue.
(Text):


William Heward Grafftey: Would you answer my question?
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: You want an answer to your question? I can say that I have received many letters from my electors but I shall not mention any of their writers, fearing my hon. friend would, as a supporter of the Union Nationale, use reprisals against them.


William Heward Grafftey: It is a very simple question, and all I am asking is that you answer it.


Yvon Dupuis: My hon. friend represents a constituency adjacent to mine, and I am inclined to believe that he would be most ill-advised, at the next election, to ask similar questions in my constituency.


William Heward Grafftey: It is a very simple question. (Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the Minister of Finance who intervened just a moment ago that I make one final appeal to him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: If the committee will allow me to continue, perhaps they will not regret my intervention at this time. I make this last appeal because, as the hon. member for Gloucester has said, the Minister of National Revenue is ill. It is only fair to ask the present leader of the government to allow the item to stand and to go to the bottom of the list so that we may discuss other items in the meantime. He may find that the progress made with the others will be satisfactory.
If the minister does not wish to accede to my request may I say this. I see the Prime Minister coming into the chamber now. I make the request to him also. If the request is not acceded to, I am saying now to the minister and to the committee that we shall have no other alternative than to allow the item to pass, making it quite clear, however, that we have done our best, in fact our utmost, to obtain answers to questions from both the Minister of Labour and, particularly, the Minister of National Revenue who is not here. I repeat in the presence of the Prime Minister the request which I have made, namely that the matter be allowed to stand until the Minister of National Revenue returns. If the answer is to be in the negative, I say what I said earlier, namely that we will not delay the item any further.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the reference to the absence of the Minister of
[Mr. Dupuis.1
National Revenue as a result of illness comes as an afterthought in this matter. It was some time ago, without any reference to that fact, that the hon. member for Laurier proposed that this item stand. We have spent two long days on this item. I do not think it is going to be any effective contribution to orderly debate or to the transaction of the business of the house just to leave this matter open so that it can be started all over again on another day. I repeat the appeal that I have made to the committee, namely that we proceed with the important business of the committee that is urgently waiting to be done and that we do not go on with this endless repetition when the committee has already been given all the information that is required and is relevant.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Minister of Finance that for two days we have been discussing this item and that for two days we have been asking for information. But it is also true that for two days we have never had any answers to satisfy the public and the hon. members. While the minister is anxious that this item be passed, may I ask what is the urgency? If the Minister of Finance is not in a position to answer questions in place of the Minister of National Revenue, why do we not get the officials here with the books and something we can rely upon? The Minister of Finance is here trying to answer questions. He has not the books. He has no notes. He has no officials with him. He has no information. He has no answers. Nevertheless he thinks we are discussing the matter to no purpose. If there is some urgent matter to be discussed after this item is disposed of, why do we not allow this item to stand and go on with the more urgent questions?


Mr. Bourque:: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. I should like to know what proportion of the amount to be voted would be spent for the French network.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Romuald Bourque: Surely the minister must have some idea of how much money would be voted for the French network. Surely he can tell us at least approximately.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, you will recall, even if the hon. member does not, that I answered that question about one hour ago.


Azellus Denis: What was the answer?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is on the record.


Azellus Denis: But he did not know it.

(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) cannot answer our questions, I suggest that we let the matter stand until the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) returns to the house, because these are matters of public interest that must be raised at this time. If we postpone consideration of the C.B.C. votes to the end of the session, that will give us no reply to the urgent questions we have to raise now. Moreover, I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot make other inquiries until the Minister of Finance has replied to the inquiries we have already made, or until the Minister of National Revenue has been able to reply to the questions put to him by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier).
I also submit that the opposition has a right, particularly at this time, when a strike is affecting the staff of the French network of the C.B.C., to ask questions of the government and to expect definite answers which will be satisfactory to the people that we represent in this house.
Consequently, I would ask the Minister of Finance to give us, in the opposition, the right to ask questions of the Minister of National Revenue when he is well again; in short, we are simply asking that he adjourn this item until the hon. Minister of National Revenue can answer the very important questions that were put to him today.
I trust that the Minister of Finance who, when he sat with the opposition often called for fair play, will allow us to put our questions, and if he cannot give the answers, he will agree to wait for the return of the Minister of National Revenue.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
703. Contribution to the Springhill disaster relief fund, 1958, $100,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the item having
to do with the contribution to the Springhill disaster fund, Mr. Chairman. In the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, 1 should like to say that we are heartily in accord with what the government is doing and give it our warmest approval. While I know the Minister of Finance might be technical and tell me that it would be out of order, may I ask him if the government, in consultation with the government of Nova Scotia, has
Supply-Finance
made any advance in its plans for the permanent rehabilitation of Springhill? If the minister has any information he could impart to the house I am sure all members on both sides would be interested in having it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think there is
no information additional to that which has already been communicated to the house.


Mr. Herridge:: I want to say, on behalf of
this group, that we, like the official opposition, approve of this action.


Some hon. Members:: What group? Is one a group?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Has the government any
plans for rehabilitation or is it working in co-operation with the municipality or any organization in that area with respect to rehabilitation of those who suffered as a result of the disaster at Springhill?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There will be an
opportunity for my hon. friend to go into that question in due course when the estimates of the proper department are before the committee. This item simply concerns a contribution the government proposes to make, and asks the house to approve, to the disaster fund. Other questions can be raised later in the session on the estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister
could just assist us by telling us what would be the proper department?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mines and technical surveys.


Mr. Coates:: I should like to say a few
words on this item since I am the representative for Springhill. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Finance, and through him the government of Canada, for this very substantial donation to this enormous fund which was built up for the wives and families of the victims of this tragic disaster in Springhill. At the same time, I should like to thank the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Kootenay West for their interest. I should like to say once again, as I said before, that I am glad at last the official opposition is showing some concern for the people of Springhill and their problems.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think we could allow that last remark by the hon. member for Cumberland to pass. It is well known that no one expressed sooner or in stronger terms his support for the people of Springhill than my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. MacEwan:: I should like to put a few words on the record concerning this grant

Supply-Finance
to the Springhill disaster relief fund. I would associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Cumberland in the throne speech debate, and also the remarks made by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough. I am well acquainted with this town of Springhill since I lived there for some time and went to high school there. My father was for 4 years the manager of No. 4 mine which suffered an explosion just two years earlier than this terrible bump which took place last year. The towns of Springhill and Westville, another mining town in the county of Pictou, are very much alike. A few years before the explosion in 1956 in Springhill we suffered an explosion in the McGregor mine in Pictou county, and at that time some 39 miners lost their lives. I lost some of own relatives at that time.
The people of the two towns are, of course, rugged. The people of Canada had their eyes upon Springhill, and I am sure that the grant will be passed by this parliament. As far as the rehabilitation of Springhill is concerned, I will not go into that. As was pointed out by the Minister of Finance, we will have an opportunity to speak on that matter when the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys are under consideration. I may say that men from my own county went as draegermen to assist in Springhill, as did the men from Cape Breton.
I am sure that in the future, as indicated by actions today, there will be co-operation between the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia and everything will be done to help Springhill. I know that there was not too much done after the explosion in the McGregor mine about four or five years ago for the county of Pictou by way of assistance from either the federal or provincial governments. However I have the utmost faith in our federal government of today, and also in our present provincial government in Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader what the business will be for tomorrow, and perhaps he could also indicate what it will be on Friday?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow is private members' day and on Friday the business will be as announced last night. Next Monday will also be private members' day.


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