1960-04-13

AGRICULTURE


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the government has
authorized the agricultural stabilization board to continue the present levels of price support for the dairy industry during the period May 1, 1960 to April 30, 1961.
The price support for butter during the dairy year May 1, 1960 to April 30, 1961 will be 64 cents per pound for Canada first grade creamery butter scoring 40-93, basis delivery Montreal, with appropriate price differentials for other grades and qualities.
The price support for Ontario cheese, Canada first grade waxed, f.o.b. warehouse, will be 32 cents per pound; and for Quebec cheese, Canada first grade waxed, basis delivery Montreal, 31J cents per pound. In addition, 25 cents per 100 pounds will continue to be paid for whole milk delivered for manufacturing purposes, exclusive of milk from producers who sell a portion of their milk in the fluid, bottled milk market.
During 1959 butter production totalled 324 million pounds, 20 million pounds in excess of the consumption of 304 million pounds, and total stocks of butter as of May 1 will approach 75 million pounds. In view of the potential surplus of butter the agricultural stabilization board is also being authorized to purchase some quantities of whole milk powder as a means of reducing butter production and thereby bring production into a more realistic relationship with consumption. Production of whole milk powder will divert milk from the manufacture of butter and skim milk powder. The total quantity of whole milk powder that will be purchased will depend on the trend of butter production during the year.
The agricultural stabilization board will not purchase any skim milk powder, but the purchase of whole milk powder will not only reduce the potential supply of butter, but will at the same time reduce the amount of skim milk powder manufactured. Ten pounds of whole milk powder is equivalent to approximately 3 pounds of butter and 7.5 pounds of skim milk powder.
During the past two years there has been a progressive decline in butter consumption in
70951-0-201J
Canada, both in total quantity and per capita The Department of Agriculture will therefore undertake a publicity and advertising campaign with a view to stimulating the consumption of butter.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Minister of Agriculture follows, as the house will recall, what now proves to be the wise interrogation the other day of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, who in effect, has already made the announcement which the minister made today to the thundering applause of his supporters. It is regrettable that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska is away from the house at this time and not able to hear this confirmation of his own wisdom.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Eyewash.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance interjects and says this is eyewash. All I can say, after the long speech of the Minister of Finance last night, is that he established himself as the best authority of what is eyewash.
The Minister of Agriculture, in the announcement he has made, has given encouragement to those of us who now hope the government will not go further in repudiating its policy of price support by adopting, as it did in the case of hogs and eggs, the principle of deficiency payments.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no repudiation there.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: It is regrettable that the Minister of Agriculture has not taken advantage of the opportunity, before the recess, not only of announcing that present levels on dairy products are to be maintained under the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act but has not announced the floor prices on some other products. I for one would like to know what the floor price will be on sugar beets, and it is regrettable that corn is not included. In any event, this announcement by the minister will be carefully scrutinized, and we in the Liberal party are very happy over the contribution made by one of our members toward this announcement today.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think I should correct what appears to be a complete misapprehension on the part of the hon. member for Essex East as a result of this announcement. The announcement is not

Starred Questions
what the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska stated the other day. The statement he made was exactly the statement which I made a year ago in connection with this matter. This is quite a different statement and has totally different implications, as the hon. member will discover when he studies it.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker on behalf of this group I wish to say that judging from the sustained applause this is the first welcome announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture this session. This group will study the proposal and make certain the applause was justified.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Michaud: 1.	Are the basic costs of hospital treatment in a province participating in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act deductible from income for federal income tax purposes?
2.	If so, to what extent?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to these two questions are rather involved and technical and contain legal terms. I could read them, but with the consent of the house I would ask that they be printed in Hansard rather than attempt to read them at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house unanimously agree that the answers should be printed without being read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: the answers referred to above are as follows:]
1.	Where, pursuant to section 3 of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, any agreement entered into by and between a province of Canada and the Minister of National Health and Welfare provides for the payment by Canada to that province of contributions in respect of the basic costs of insured hospital services or treatment incurred by the province, the said basic costs of hospital treatment are not ordinarily deductible for purposes of federal income tax. In the majority of instances the participant is not liable to pay for treatment received or, if he is, he is entitled to reimbursement under the provincial plan. In neither case would the expense incurred be deductible for purposes of federal income tax.
2.	Where, however, in any such province as above indicated, additional costs for hospital treatment to cover the difference between the basic costs as prescribed by provincial law (e.g. standard ward care) and,

for instance, the cost of semi-private or private ward care, have been incurred and paid by the taxpayer or reimbursed to him pursuant to the provisions of any other hospital treatment plan, the additional costs so incurred are, subject to the provisions of section 27(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, deductible for the purposes of federal income tax.
Moreover, hospital expenses incurred in the province by a taxpayer who is not a participant in the plan would also be deductible, subject to the provisions of section 27(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act.


UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS TO PROVINCES
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	What is the total amount paid annually to eaeh of the provinces in unconditional payments, apart from payments made under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act?
2.	At what date was each such payment originally made in each province and what is the statutory authority for each such payment?
3.	Is a terminal date prescribed for any such payment or payments and, if so, what is the terminal date in each case?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the answer to these involved questions occupies four long pages of single-spaced typing. I do not think it would be practicable to read it particularly as it involves the citations of some dozens of statutes. May I suggest that it be printed in Hansard without being read?
I simply offer the observation that I think this raises a serious question as to whether this a suitable question to be made a starred question.


Mr. Speaker:: It should have been made an order for return perhaps. Does the house agree to having the answer printed in Hansard without being read?


Some hon. Members:: 
I960 AUTAIR HELICOPTER SERVICES LIMITED
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Did the licences issued by the air transport board to Autair Helicopter Services Limited restrict this firm to the use of small helicopters?
2.	If so, did Autair Helicopter Services Limited apply for a removal of the restrictions and was the application denied by the air transport board?
3.	Did Autair Helicopter Services Limited appeal from this decision to the Minister of Transport?
4.	If so, what decision was made by the minister and for what reason?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes.
With regard to part 2, Autair Helicopter Services Limited applied to the air transport board for removal of this restriction from its licence No. A.T.B. 887/58 (H) which authorized the licensee to operate a class 4 charter commercial air service from a base at St. Eugene, Ontario. This application was denied by the board by decision serial No. 1275 dated June 1, 1959.
The answer to part 3 is yes.
As to part 4, the appeal was granted as I was satisfied, after giving due consideration to the submissions of the appellant and the interveners in the appeal, and after reviewing air transport board decisions serial Nos. 1111 of July 18, 1958, and 1198 of November 17, 1958, and after further considering the general problem, that the public interest would not be served by subjecting the operation of the type of service proposed by the appellant to the restriction contained in its licence and that the additional competition which the appellant company would be able to provide if the restriction were to be removed would not only be of benefit to the using public, but in the long run would be in the best interests of the industry itself.


VISIT OF NATIONAL REVENUE EMPLOYEE TO RUSSIA
Mr. Mcllrailh: 1.	Has Mr. M. T. Keam an employee of the Department of National Revenue, been sent to the U.S.S.R. by the federal government?
2.	If so, what is the purpose of his trip?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes. The answer to part 2 is, as a member of the Canadian government delegation headed by Mr. J. H. Warren and referred to in this house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on April 5.


BOMARC BASE TENDER, MONT LAURIER, QUE.
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Has a tender been let for the initial construction work at the Bomarc base near Mont Laurier?
2.	If so, what is the reason for the delay?
Starred Questions


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is no. The answer to part 2 is that tenders have been received and are being reviewed by Defence Construction (1951) Limited. They have not yet been submitted to treasury board.


RECRUITMENT INSTRUCTIONS, LIGHTHOUSE TENDERS, B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since April 1, 1959, have any instructions been issued to the marine agents in either Prince Rupert or Victoria, British Columbia, with respect to the recruitment of personnel for lighthouse tenders?
2.	If so, what are the contents and purpose of each such instruction?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes. Instructions were issued to the district marine agents at Victoria and Prince Rupert on the procedures to be followed with respect to recruitment of personnel for lighthouse supply and buoy vessels.
As to part 2, these instructions fall in the following three categories:
(a)	Instructions to the district marine agents concerning promotion competitions for officer positions on new departmental vessels. The purpose of these instructions was to give departmental employees an opportunity for promotion in accordance with established departmental policy.
(b)	Instructions regarding procedures to be followed by the district marine agents in reviewing the qualifications of existing staff and in effecting transfers of qualified staff from older vessels to the new vessels. The purpose of these instructions was to provide as far as possible continuity of employment for qualified existing staff and at the same time provide experienced personnel for the new vessels.
(c)	Instructions to district marine agents on the procedures to be followed in interviewing applicants for employment on departmental vessels. The purpose of these instructions was to provide for the filling of any vacancies remaining after promotional competitions and transfers of existing staff had been determined.



CHIGNECTO CANAL


Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Did the premier of New Brunswick make a formal request to the federal government for a full scale engineering study by the federal government to determine the engineering feasibility of the Chignecto canal?
2.	If so. what action was taken?

Starred Questions



CHIGNECTO CANAL-ECONOMIC STUDY

Mr. Me William: 1.	Did the premier of New Brunswick make a formal request to the federal government for a full scale economic study by the federal government to determine the economic feasibility of the Chignecto canal?
2.	If so, what action has been taken?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would permit I would like to answer questions 121 and 122 together.
While no formal request was made by the premier of New Brunswick along the lines indicated in the two questions, informal discussions have taken place from time to time and strong representations have been made by Premier Flemming for action in connection with the Chignecto canal. Recently he advised me that the province of New Brunswick had set up a body to make an economic investigation of the feasibility of the canal. That report is expected very shortly, and following that report a formal request will be made along the lines indicated in the two questions.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND

Mr. Robichaud: What was the amount to the credit of the unemployment insurance commission fund as of March 31, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960?


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows. March 31, 1957, $874,574,651; March 31, 1958, $744,200,124; March 31, 1959, $499,811,157; March 31, 1960, not available.



MAIL CONTRACT, PORT REXTON-ENGLISH HARBOUR, NFLD.

Mr. Tucker: 1.	To whom was the latest contract awarded to carry mail from Port Hexton to English Harbour, Trinity Bay, Newfoundland?
2.	Was contract awarded as a result of tenders being called?
3.	What was the amount of contract?
4.	Who carried mail previously and what was the amount paid?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answers are as follows. 1. Stephen Penney, English Harbour, Trinity Bay. 2. No. 3. The amount of $420 per year. 4. Robert Barnes, English Harbour, under temporary arrangement at $420 per year.



MARY ISABEL WILFORD, GUELPH, ONT.   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Since June 1, 1959, has a Miss Mary Isabel Wilford been disqualified by the Guelph office of the unemployment insurance commission for unemployment insurance benefits?
2.	If so: (a) was her case heard by a board of referees and what decision was reached? (b) was

an appeal allowed to the umpire and what was his decision? (c) what was the date of his ruling and has a settlement been made by the commission? (d) what was the amount involved and on what date was payment of benefits made to the applicant?


Michael Starr: 1. Yes. 2. (a) Yes. Claimant's appeal dismissed, (b) Yes. Union's appeal dismissed. Effective date of disqualification moved from June 7, 1959 to October 23, 1959. (c) February 17, 1960. Yes. (d) The sum of $205. The sum of $88 paid on April 4, 1960; the remainder on April 6, 1960.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 83-Mr. Dumas:
For a copy of all payrolls showing the names of those employed, the period of employment and the amount paid to each person, in connection with the reconstruction, during 1959, of a wharf located on the west bank of the Malartic river, range 4, in the township of Malartic, Quebec.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression the last time this motion came up that it was to stand till after the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had completed its investigation.


Mr. Dumas:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this investigation is not concluded, I wish my motion to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion to stand until the matter mentioned by the Minister of Public Works has concluded?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



RECRUITMENT INSTRUCTIONS, LIGHTHOUSE TENDERS, B.C.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 90-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all instructions issued since April 1, 1959, to marine agents in British Columbia, and dealing with the recruitment of personnel for lighthouse tenders.
George Harris Hees: The subject matter of this motion has already been dealt with in the answer made today to starred question No. 120 in the name of the hon. member for Skeena, and full information given.
With regard to the motion itself, I would point out that such instructions are in the form of intradepartmental memoranda from head office to the district marine agents, and consequently fall clearly under the heading of privileged papers. It is the recognized and long established practice that intradepartmental memoranda should not be produced, and I hope the hon. member will therefore

be agreeable to withdrawing his motion, particularly as his starred question has been answered in detail.


Mr. Howard:: I will withdraw it, not on the basis of the starred question having been answered but in the light of the minister's statement that these so-called memoranda are privileged.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house consent to this motion being withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn and order discharged.



DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR LEGISLATION, NFLD.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 93-Mr. Winch:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged, during the past twelve months, between the federal government, or any agency or branch thereof, and the province of Newfoundland; and any interdepartmental correspondence and documents, dealing with disallowance or otherwise of labour legislation passed by the legislature of Newfoundland.
Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice):: This motion really consists of two parts, one asking for a copy of correspondence which passed between this government and the government of the province of Newfoundland, and the other for the production of interdepartmental correspondence and documents.
With respect to the second part, these documents, I submit, fall clearly within the class of documents the production of which is not in the public interest. They are inter' departmental and have always been regarded therefore as privileged. I suggest to the hon. member that if he is prepared to drop that part of his motion, we should be prepared to accept the first part covering intergovernmental correspondence subject to the usual reservation with respect to ascertaining the attitude of the provincial government. If the hon. member is not prepared to follow this course, then I regret I will have to oppose the motion.


Mr. Winch:: I appreciate the remarks made by the Minister of Justice with regard to the position he has taken, but in view of the fact that there are indications that in the past such documents have been produced I would ask the minister if he would allow this motion to stand for the present.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion stands.
Motion stands.
79951-0-202
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



BOMARC MISSILE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister been advised of the latest developments in the United States in respect to the Bomarc missile and, if so, has he any report to give the house?
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National
Defence): I have no further report to make since the one I gave on March 28.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. Has the minister seen the statement by Senator Chavez, chairman of the United States Senate appropriations subcommittee on defence, which implies that Canadians are getting an inferior weapon "which is not good enough for us"?


Mr. Pearkes:: Yes, I have seen that statement. It is a personal opinion expressed by a Democratic senator, an opinion not dissimilar to those which have been expressed from time to time by the hon. member for Trinity.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I agree with Senator Chavez. Would the minister assure the house at this time that he is still confident that the Bomarc alone is the best defence for Canada?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have never at any time claimed that the Bomarc alone was the best defence for Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Have we anything else?



POLICY RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOOLS ON SERVICE BASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arihur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I put it because of the number of inquiries I have had by mail. Is the minister in a position to inform us what consideration is being given to the policy of his department with respect to the setting up of religious or non-secular schools on defence bases or establishments for the children of service personnel?


George Randolph Pearkes: The policy of the Department of National Defence with respect to schools at service bases is that those establishments must conform to provincial laws. There are separate Catholic and Protestant schools established at bases in the province of Quebec. In all other provinces there are joint schools.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Mason Fisher: What is the situation with respect to schools that are beyond provincial jurisdiction? There are a number of such cases, as the minister is aware.


George Randolph Pearkes: As far as Europe is concerned, the schools there are public schools and conform to the educational standards of the province of Ontario. In no case outside of the province of Quebec is there established in any camp what are generally known as separate schools.


George Randolph Pearkes: In case I left a wrong impression in my answer to the hon. member for Port Arthur, may I say that these schools were established some 10 years ago and that there has been no change in policy since then. This applies to the schools in the province of Quebec, the schools in the other parts of Canada and in Europe.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to ask the Prime Minister a question. The question is also in the nature of an unspoken appeal on behalf of a thousand university people who are concerned with this case.
In view of representations made to the right hon. gentleman by the faculty association of the University of British Columbia on behalf of Miss Irene Rebrin, respectfully asking him to personally review the documents and evidence in her case and to give Miss Rebrin an opportunity to provide answers to any specific evidence against her, will the Prime Minister give favourable consideration to the representations of this faculty association and other groups lest, as they suggest, an injustice be done?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I need hardly assure the house that the government is most concerned to see that no injustice is done. Such actions as we take in this field are scrupulously examined, to the end that in administering and complying with the laws, as is our responsibility, not only is justice done, but justice is tempered with mercy wherever possible.
As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) emphasized when making her statement in the house on April 7, as reported at page 2993 of Hansard, Miss Rebrin's case was most carefully examined from this point of view. This examination was directed first toward seeing whether the


order was properly made on valid and substantial grounds, and whether the dismissal of her appeal was made on valid and proper grounds. Having been satisfied on this point, the government then considered whether any discretion vested in the minister under the act should be exercised to vary or rescind the order. For the reasons given by the minister in the statement to which I have referred, the government is satisfied that this is not a case where the order should be interfered with.
This is a case where our responsibility to the national interest is paramount. I should like to add this. I did receive the message in question from the faculty association. In February last, when this matter was under consideration, a representative of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration called on the president of the University of British Columbia, Dr. N. A. M. MacKenzie, to discuss the matter with him. At that time Dr. MacKenzie said, "I will go along with the decision without any question or protest".


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He is a jellyfish.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Harold Edward Winch: should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. As the champion of a bill of rights will he tell us whether an opportunity will be given to one found guilty to know the basis on which she has been found guilty, and also an opportunity to present her case?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member is asking a rather hypothetical question. He is referring to the bill of rights..


Harold Edward Winch: I am asking whether a person, having been found guilty, will be allowed to present her case and know the charges that have been made against her?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I suggest, sir, that if this is not a hypothetical question certainly it is very close to it, because the hon. member is phrasing his question in words which suggest something which is not the fact. On that basis I suggest that it would amount to a hypothetical question.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry; I am not asking a hypothetical question. I am asking whether an opportunity will be given to the person involved to know the charge against her and to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's question does make a statement that is not in accordance with what has taken place as I understand it from what I have heard in the house. The question has been fully answered on two occasions now. I am afraid

I cannot accept the supplementary question in the form in which the hon. member asks it.


Harold Edward Winch: Then may I ask the Prime Minister this question. Has the person involved been informed as to the substance of the charges against her which make her ineligible to remain in Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when a question of security arises, and when a review has been made of the evidence, or the basis for the conclusion in that regard, I cannot go further, in the public interest.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: Has the government satisfied itself that it is practicable to carry out the deportation in this case? Has the government also satisfied itself that there is some country that is willing and able to receive the proposed deportee?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is in the affirmative. I would not want to go into further details, but what I know of the question indicates that there is such a country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might be permitted to ask a further supplementary question. In view of the very grave considerations involved, can the Prime Minister assure the house that this person will not be deported to any communist country?


Mr. Henderson:: That is where she belongs.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the country I have in mind is not a communist country.



AIR TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
(Translation):

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? The last issue of the magazine In Flight has an article about Trans-Canada Air Lines hostesses and their qualifications. The fifth basic requirement, as set out therein, has to do with language. It reads as follows:
(Text):
Applicant must be able to read, write and converse fluently in English. French is an additional requirement on T.C.A.'s overseas services.
(Translation):
Would the Minister of Transport see to it that the section restricting French to overseas services be amended so as to place French on the same footing as English, in the matter of language requirements? (Text):


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for 79951-0-2024
Inquiries of the Ministry Sherbrooke brought this matter to my attention I immediately got in touch with Trans-Canada Air Lines, and I have been assured by them that in future advertisements appearing in the publication In Flight the fifth basic requirement for hostesses for overseas service will read:
Applicants must be able to read and converse fluently in English and French.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether the government are yet prepared to announce their new Northwest Territories regulations for oil and gas. In replying, perhaps the minister might comment on the number of leases or reservations which currently have been issued for the territories or the Arctic islands.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the new Canada oil and gas regulations have been passed. Promulgation will occur some time today, but in view of the importance and significance of the new terms in the regulations concerning participation in the financing and ownership of those resources by Canadians, there will have to be a full statement made by myself as soon as I can possibly arrange to do so.
In regard to the second question, I can only speak from memory. The permits out on the mainland at the present time cover in excess of 96 million acres; the permits out on the Arctic islands and on the continental shelf approximate now, I think, about 146 million acres. There is a total of some 243 million acres now out under permits or application for permits in the north.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs may I ask his parliamentary secretary if he is in a position to report to the house on his visit last week to the United Nations, pursuant to the criticism made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs as to the follow-up by the United Nations of the procedures for measuring world radioactivity levels, under the Canadian resolution and initiative at the last assembly of the United Nations?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, last week, as the hon. member knows, I was in New York looking into this matter at the request of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The United Nations scientific committee on radiation has been authorized to send a letter to member nations requesting those nations to forward samples of food, air, soil and water to various nations which have offered facilities to analyse these samples with a view to ascertaining their radioactive content. A number of countries have volunteered to the United Nations scientific committee on radiation to analyse these samples, Canada, of course, being one of the first.
There have been some slight delays in the United Nations scientific committee sending the letter, but these delays were largely unavoidable as the contents of the letter proposed to be circularized had to be submitted to the specialized agencies of the United Nations such as the world health organization, the international atomic energy agency and the like. As a result the letter was circularized to all member nations last Friday, and there should be no additional delay. I would point out that most of the delays were unavoidable, and I should like to add at this time that the co-operation of Dr. Ralph Bunche, who is in charge of the operation at the United Nations, is certainly much appreciated by the Canadian government.



REPRESENTATIONS BY CANADIAN WELFARE COUNCIL RESPECTING REFUGEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this is the last day we will be sitting until quite late in the month, and particularly in the light of the statement made yesterday by the premier of Ontario on this subject, can the Prime Minister say whether the government has reached a decision with respect to the submission of the welfare council regarding medical and welfare care of potential refugees who would be privately sponsored?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the statement made by the premier of Ontario in the legislature yesterday is concerned, no representations have been received by the government of Canada in this regard. All we know is what we have read in the morning newspapers. So far as the wider context of the problem of the refugees in question is concerned, that is still receiving the consideration of the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I pose a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Has the suggestion I made, which he will recall, been brought to the attention of his colleagues, and is it also receiving consideration?


Donald Methuen Fleming: All matters that arose in the course of discussion of the final supplementary estimates which I said I would bring to the attention of my colleagues have been brought to the attention of my respective colleagues in accordance with the undertaking I gave to the committee of supply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister be
prepared to answer the second part of my question, as to whether the suggestion is receiving consideration?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think that question could properly be directed to the minister of the department concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could ask the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether that suggestion has received consideration. The suggestion was that after a period of say a year, any residual medical or welfare care should be a charge on the federal exchequer.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I think perhaps the hon. member might direct his question more properly to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very happy to do so.


Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Obviously this is a matter
which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister, and I apologize for the very short notice I was able to give him. In view of the western delegates' rejection of a Soviet proposal on Monday last in Geneva that the nuclear powers should pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, and in view of the expressed opposition of the Pentagon in the United States to the Soviet proposal, would the Prime Minister

inform the house whether the Canadian decision was influenced by the United States point of view?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said in his opening words, no notice was given of this question except after the opening of the house. However, I have been able to secure an answer.
The hon. gentleman has prefaced his question with a misleading suggestion. There has been no separate Soviet proposal in the current negotiations along the lines suggested by him. What happened was that in response to western probing the Soviet representative offered to rearrange the original Khrushchev plan so as to give earlier priority to a proposed pledge respecting the use of nuclear weapons. This proposed rearrangement has not altered the western five-power judgment that the Khrushchev plan as a whole is unacceptable as the sole basis for negotiation.
The stand taken is an agreed western position which does not detract in any way from the unchanged Canadian desire for agreement on early measures of nuclear disarmament under appropriate safeguards. What has happened is in accordance with an agreed western plan to the end that measures leading to disarmament may be secured.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should' like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise when tenders will be called for the new terminal building at North Bay airport?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Plans for a new terminal building at North Bay were completed, but it was then found necessary for technical reasons to change the location of the control tower. This entailed alterations of plans, and as soon as these are completed tenders will be called.


ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position to comment on a Vancouver dispatch to the effect that the Royal Canadian Air Force is advertising for recruits over radio station KVOS, Bellingham, a United States radio station?
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Randolph Pearkes: Station KVOS is located at Bellingham, Washington and has coverage over the southern part of British Columbia. Fifty per cent of its programs are Canadian sponsored. Some commercials having reference to the R.C.A.F. have been broadcast without cost or obligation to the Department of National Defence. On its own initiative and without the knowledge of the R.C.A.F. the station management has undertaken this activity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister really think it is consonant with the independence and the dignity of this country to be advertising for recruits for the armed forces over a radio station of another country?


George Randolph Pearkes: The R.C.A.F. is not advertising over a station in another country. As I explained, the station did it on its own initiative, without any obligation to the Department of National Defence or the R.C.A.F.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And without knowledge?
(Translation):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State (Mr. Balcer). Has it come to his knowledge that, of late, notices issued to employees of the printing bureau are printed in English only, the last one being the holiday regulations?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the fact mentioned by the hon. member.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Acting Secretary of State promise to see that this situation is remedied?


Léon Balcer: I shall see it.
(Text):



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister tell us the number of housing starts that have been made in the first quarter of 1960?

The Budget-Mr. Chevrier


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the returns have not yet been compiled. We expect they will be ready later this week, and I will be glad to send my hon. friend a copy.


John Richard Garland: I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister care to comment on the statement made by the executive vice president of the national house builders association to the effect that housing starts this year may be down 30 per cent from the government estimate of 125,000, and if so it will mean 70,000 jobs?


David James Walker: No comment, Mr. Speaker.



POSSIBLE REDUCTION IN AMOUNT OF WHEAT PURCHASED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but before doing so I should like to express to him my best wishes for a safe journey to Moscow.


Mr. Churchill:: What about the return?


Paul Joseph James Martin: And, I hope, a safe return. May I ask the minister whether it is a fact, as reported in today's press, that the treaty which he is going to Moscow to sign represents a major reduction in Soviet union wheat purchases from Canada as compared with the 1956 agreement?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It will depend on the development of trade between the two countries. The last Soviet purchases of wheat from Canada, in the last crop year, were only in the neighbourhood of seven million bushels. In the two previous crop years they were higher than that. There is an opportunity for that amount of purchase on the part of Russia, and an even greater amount, depending on the development of the trade.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will excuse me if I do not discuss the budget speech he made the other evening, or if I do not comment


on the very flamboyant and inaccurate speech which he made yesterday. I desire to speak about another subject which is of paramount importance. I shall try to deal with this subject calmly and quietly, leaving aside all considerations of a political nature.


An hon. Member:: That will be something new.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall try to deal exclusively with the judicial, technical and other aspects of the problem. The facts which I shall give I believe to be true. They were obtained in part from official documents tabled in this house, in part from answers to questions, in part from personal checks which I have made, and in part from reliable information, information so reliable that I could not, as a member of parliament, refrain from bringing it to the attention of the house. If I am inaccurate or incorrect or unfair in my assessment of the situation I am sure the ministers involved will put me right. If I am correct, I hope immediate action will be taken. I hope the ministers will do me the courtesy of hearing me out and making their comments after mine, since both the ministers have been advised of my intention to raise this matter.
I want to discuss Autair Helicopter Services Limited, a corporation which has been in existence in Canada since June, 1957 only. It has little or no experience in the field of heavier helicopter equipment. It was given a licence to operate the S-55 Sikorsky type helicopter contrary to the ruling of the air transport board and against its decision, after having defied its authority. It now holds an important contract to do helicopter work in northern Canada on the polar continental shelf, where men and equipment will have to be moved under difficult and trying circumstances.
What are the facts? On January 25, 1958 an application was made by Autair Helicopter Services Limited to operate (a) a class 4 charter commercial air service, and (b) a class 7 specialty commercial air service restricted to the operation of single helicopters of the Bell-47 and Sikorsky-51 types from a base at St. Eugene in the province of Ontario. The air transport board held a public hearing on this application in Montreal on May 16, 1958. Although it is the practice of the board to move quickly on these applications, it withheld its decision during the latter part of May, all of June and a large part of July, presumably because a change of policy was under consideration by the government.
It is well known, however, what the views of the board were. It was felt that there were enough helicopters in Canada to satisfy the demand. There was no additional helicopter

service needed in Canada, according to the evidence; and upon the evidence adduced at the hearing it is reasonable to believe and conclude that the board would have turned down the application.
On July 14, 1958, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver South, the Minister of Transport announced the decontrol of group C, or the opening up to competition of non-scheduled commercial air services involving the use of small, light aircraft and helicopters. He stated, as reported on page 2207 of Hansard for that date, as follows:
-the government has accordingly decided that it would be in the public interest that licences for air services using only this small type of aircraft be granted freely on request.
On July 18, 1958, exactly four days after the minister announced this change of policy in the house and pursuant to this policy the air transport board by decision serial No. 1111 gave approval to Autair to operate a class 4 charter commercial air service and a class 7 specialty commercial air service from a base at St. Eugene, Ontario, restricted to the operation of single helicopters of the Bell-47 and Sikorsky-51 types.
On November 17, 1958, by air transport board decision serial No. 1198, approval was given to (1) amend licence No. A.T.B. 887/58 (H) to authorize the operation of the additional class 7 recreational flying specialty and (2) for a licence to operate at Quebec city and Montreal a class 4 charter commercial air service and a class 7 specialty commercial air service, restricted to the operation of single engine helicopters of the Bell-47 and Sikorsky-51 types.
On November 26, 1958 an application was made by Autair for the removal of the restrictions to operate single engine helicopters and for permission to operate the heavier and larger type equipment known as the Sikorsky S-55. On June 1, 1959 this application was denied by the air transport board under decision serial No. 1275 on the following grounds:
(a)	That Autair was directed to advertise its request in accordance with board procedure but had failed to do so.
(b)	That Autair file with the board proof of financial responsibility which it refused to do.
(c)	That Autair give to the board certain information requested in letter from the board dated February 4, 1959 which it also refused to do.
(d)	That Autair has consistently refused to provide the board with the information requested and continues so to do.
(e)	In these circumstances the board must judge the request for the removal of the
The Budget-Mr. Chevrier restrictions in the light of the evidence adduced in Montreal on May 16, 1958.
(f)	The board is not satisfied that it would be in the public interest to authorize the applicant to operate with larger aircraft than those permitted under licence A.T.B. 887/58 (H) and the licensee's request is denied.
This decision was appealed to the minister and the minister allowed the appeal on August 20, 1959, as he indicated in his answer to my starred question this morning. The minister stated that in his opinion decision serial No. 1275 should be set aside and the board should issue a licence to the applicant to operate the services requested with no restrictions as to the size of the aircraft in such service. On September 1, 1959 the board complied with the request.
My contention is that the minister ought not to have interfered with the decision of the board, for the following reasons. First, the board in denying the application was exercising a judicial function, and the minister ought not to have interfered with the board in what was regarded by them, I am sure, as a judicial matter based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing in Montreal. That is borne out, too, by the fact that when the Aeronautics Act was introduced in this house it was clearly stated that so far as judicial matters were concerned there should be no interference in the decisions of the board. The minister ought not to have interfered with the decision of the board, in my opinion, because Autair had categorically refused to advertise its application in accordance with board procedure and refused to furnish proof of financial responsibility as required by the board. Autair still continues to ignore the judgment of the board in that respect. That is my second reason for thinking the minister ought not to have interfered.
My third contention is that Autair had been operating helicopters commercially without a licence, according to information in my possession, in contravention of the Aeronautics Act prior to July 18, 1958. With respect to the specific period from April to July 18, here are the facts. Three helicopters operated on a contract for the Quebec government, which contract began in June, 1958. One helicopter operated for a private company under a contract which began on June 4, 1958. Still another helicopter operated for another department of the Quebec government under a contract beginning April 9, 1958, all in contravention and in violation of the Aeronautics Act.
The president of Autair in his evidence before the air transport board stated that these helicopter services were operating on a demonstration basis only, and that no
3196	KOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Chevrier remuneration was being received for these flights. However, these flights were expensive. The monthly tariff for work of this kind is I am informed $4,500, but he flew for nothing. A compilation of the cost of these flights indicates that three helicopters operated from June, 1958 to July 18, 1958, equalling one and one quarter months or three and three quarter aircraft months. One helicopter operated between June 4 and July 18, 1958, equalling one and one half months or one and one half aircraft months. One helicopter operated between April 9 and July 18, 1958, equalling three and one quarter months or three and one quarter aircraft months. This equals eight and one half aircraft months at $4,500, a total of $38,225. Autair therefore flew five aircraft without charge for which he would be entitled to receive the sum of $38,225 prior to obtaining his licence in July of 1958. Thereafter, I am informed, he increased his tariff from $4,500 to $6,000 per month so as to recapture the loss encountered prior to obtaining the licence.
A fourth reason why the minister ought not to have granted the appeal is because of the safety factor. Autair is not an experienced helicopter operator. At pages 14 and 15 of the evidence given before the board the president of the company stated that he had 35 hours of helicopter time. That has since been increased to 50 or 60 hours, I am advised. Also, as found at page 79 of the evidence, it was proved at the time of the hearing that at least one of the S-51 helicopters had outstanding liens against it, which information had been filed with the Department of Transport by the United States owner of the equipment.
The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys has granted a contract to Autair for helicopter services in northern Canada, namely on the continental polar shelf. The date of commencement of this contract is imminent, if it has not already started. It is a most important contract, located as it is on the northwest side of the Queen Elizabeth islands. Furthermore, this is extremely dangerous work. It is to move supplies and persons, including surgeons and geologists, to that area. Great care should be taken to see that lives are protected. Helicopter operations are delicate and experience means a lot. Few operators in this country have the experience required to fulfil a job of this nature.
I believe the air transport board, the body charged with the responsibility of determining these technical matters under the Aeronautics Act, thought that in the public interest they should not grant these people a licence. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys apparently thought otherwise, and has given them a contract.


The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys in my opinion ought not to have recommended the contract to Autair for work on the polar shelf for the following reasons. A careful analysis of the sessional paper which the minister tabled in the house, No. 235 tabled on March 25, 1960, indicates that the tariff filed by Autair was not the lowest. In December, 1959 the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys informed five companies, Autair, Kenting, Okanagan, Pacific and Spartan that the department would require one Sikorsky S-55 helicopter and two Bell 47-G helicopters for their polar shelf program during the summer of 1960. The requirements were set out and the companies were requested to advise the department if they were interested and to enclose with their replies copies of their relevant tariffs as filed with the air transport board. All five companies did so signify and sent copies of their tariffs. Pacific was eliminated because it did not operate the S-55 type of helicopter. Strangely enough Autair was not so eliminated, although it had not operated S-55 helicopters and did not own any such equipment.
On February 9, 1960 Autair, I am informed on reliable information, was told by the departmental officers of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys that Okanagan had the lowest tariff and that a decision had been made the day before February 8, to give the contract to Okanagan because of their greater experience and stable record. As a matter of fact, Okanagan were given a letter of intent from the department covering the operation.
The next day, February 10, Autair filed a new tariff with the air transport board which brought their rates down from the highest of the four companies to the following, as set out in the return tabled by the minister, and which upon examination indicates, first, that on the minimum rates they were tied with Okanagan and Spartan; second, that on the 50 hours of operation per month they were a little higher than Okanagan and Spartan but lower than Kenting; and third, that on the 100 hours of operation per month they were slightly lower than Okanagan and Spartan.
A submission was then prepared at the request of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys recommending the contract to be given to Autair as the company with the lowest rates. This was done in spite of the fact that Autair possessed no S-55 helicopters; had never operated them; had never operated in the Arctic at all; had rates, even under its new tariff, that were the same as or higher than its competitors except when flying over

100 hours per month per machine, a rather unlikely figure under extreme Arctic weather conditions. This was done under the minister's direction, and Autair was given the contract on the basis of a tariff filed the day after all four companies had been told the decision was made.
Autair thus knew exactly the rates they had to beat, and since none of the other companies could know that the minister had changed the award these other competitors had no opportunity to file competitive tariffs. Thus the contract was handed by the minister to Autair without any chance of interference by the other companies.
The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys ought to have been more careful in granting a contract to be carried out in that strategic area of Canada for another reason. At this stage I would like to put on record information which has already been made public by the United States magazine Newsweek, which information to my knowledge has not been contradicted. Here is what is said in the issue of January 30, 1950 at page 33, in an article entitled "How Pan Am plane parts were smuggled behind the Iron Curtain":
Newsweek has uncovered a striking example of how desperately the satellite states still are trying to open a chink in this American economic iron curtain. The state department suspected that Czechoslovakia had been obtaining essential American airplane engines and parts for its fleet of DC-3s. And last week the state department discovered to its astonishment that some illegal shipments had originally been purchased from Pan American World Airways-apparently the victim of an extraordinary case of international doubledealing. Edward Weintal, Newsweek diplomatic correspondent here gives the full story.
Mr. Speaker, because of time I can only quote a part of this story. I continue:
For some time the operations of the Czechoslovak air lines have been under constant scrutiny of various agencies of the United States government. The line is believed to be operating under Moscow's orders and used for transporting Cominform agents ...
Virtually all planes of the Czech line are American DC-3s. All western European governments have been warned by the state department to be on the lookout for Czech-bound DC-3 engines and parts. But despite these warnings the Czech line did not show any signs of shortages.
Evidence from various sources pointed to Belgium as the origin of American engines and spare parts for the Czechoslovak air lines. Howard Railey, the state department's aviation expert normally stationed in Paris, was ordered to Brussels. Railey's preliminary survey confirmed the state department's suspicions. The Belgium government was asked to investigate and urged to tighten up its own export controls. But before the Belgium government had a chance to comply, Railey found that some supplies for the Czechs were being purchased from Pan American World Airways by an unknown concern going by the name of Global Aviation of New York.
The Budget-Mr. Chevrier
I now pass over a number of paragraphs because it is not possible to read all this, article; I read only the pertinent parts.
Little is known about the Global Aviation Co. It is believed to be a partnership made up of D. W. Connor-
Who incidentally is the president of Autair, which has received this contract to work on the polar continental shelf.
-a former Canadian air force pilot, and E. F. O'Mara, a United States-born naturalized Canadian, citizen.
(Translation):


Mr. Fortin:: In what year was that published?


Lionel Chevrier: I already mentioned the date of publication-


Louis Fortin: I did not get it.


Lionel Chevrier: -but let me repeat it- January 23, 1950.
(Text):
Having said that, I would add that these statements are of a most serious nature. They are made in a reputable magazine. I have nomeans of knowing whether they are true or not, but the public is entitled to know before this company is given a government contract and a licence to operate. Did the air transport board know about this? If it did, this may be one of the reasons why it turned down the application. The government should not have given a contract until it had fully investigated the story.
Now let me quote from the evidence which the Minister of Transport was good enough to table in this house in answer to my request. This man D. W. Connor, president of Autair Helicopter Services Limited, was examined before the air transport board in Montreal on May 16, 1958 on application for a licence. At page 14 of the evidence he was asked:
Q. How many hours have you?
A. About 35 . ..
Q. You have never operated a helicopter company prior to this?
A. Prior to last year, no.
Q. You say you are a resident of Westmount. When did you return to Canada?
A. In December of last year.
That would be 1957.
Q. Prior to that time you had been living in England?
A. Yes.
Q. Since 1948?
A. No. I lived in Switzerland until 1952.
Q. From the time of your discharge from the R.C.A.F. you have lived in Switzerland and then in England?
A. England, Switzerland and England, in that order, if you want to be exact.
Q. The air engine service group commenced operations in 1952?
A. Yes.
Q. Prior to that you said "We operated a delivery service for aircraft''. Who do you mean by "we"?
A. The Connair Corporation.

The Budget-Mr. Comtois
Q. Were you associated with any other companies?
A. Yes. I was at that time also president of Global Aviation.
Q. What did Global Aviation do?
A. It ferried and delivered airplanes around the world.
Q. Did it buy and sell airplanes at all?
A. It did.
Q. All over the world?
A. In certain countries.
Q. To what countries did Global Aviation deliver airplanes and equipment?
A. You tax my memory after ten years, and it seems quite irrelevant, but South America, South Africa, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Egypt, certainly Pakistan and Yugoslavia; generally anywhere you .could find a market for the airplanes.
Q. That is commercial business?
A. Yes.
Can anyone believe that the president of this company would have mentioned Pakistan, Egypt, South America, Yugoslavia, and not have remembered the story in Newsweek about Czechoslovakia? This is a most serious matter. I cannot believe that either of the ministers concerned had read this story in Newsweek or the evidence before the board. That is why I consider it my duty to bring the matter before the house. Much of it, if not all, is already known in the aviation industry, and much of it has already been referred to in the press. If these statements which I have brought before the house are accurate, immediate action should be taken by the government, and in any case this company should not be allowed to proceed with this work until a thorough investigation has been made.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I have permission to revert to motions?


Mr. Speaker:: I see the Minister of National Defence is asking for leave to revert to motions. Is that agreeable to the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, in case I should have misled the house in my reply to the hon. member for Trinity with regard to the Bomarc missile, may I say that at six minutes past twelve today I received information that a Bomarc B had been fired from Eglin field and that it was completely successful. I did not have that information when I was replying to the hon. member.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In view of the fact that the house allowed the minister to make this statement, I hope I shall be permitted to say that we on this side are pleased that at least one of these Bomarc missiles has proved successful. I should like to add, however, that it does not establish our confidence


in this missile by one iota. We still feel that for Canada to continue the installation of this missile system is a complete waste of the taxpayers' money and that, further, such pressure as this country is putting on the United States is, in addition to our own money, wasting $250 million of the United States taxpayers' funds. So we urge the minister not to be too reassured by this single example of success by this Bomarc, and suggest that he should consider the immediate cancellation of the whole system on the ground that it is of no further military value.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Minister of Transport would defer for a moment I will hear the hon. member for Port Arthur commenting on the statement which has been made.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I should like to congratulate the minister on his guess -because it has been a guess-and I also wish to agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Trinity. Although this firing has been successful, we are not in agreement that Canada should pursue the installation of the Bomarc defence system even though one test has been successful-and on that we congratulate the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: May I call attention to the fact that I recognized the hon. member for Port Arthur, but it turned out to be the hon. member for Timiskaming. The rules require hon. members to rise in their own places. The same applies to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) who has been contributing to the debate from a seat not his own.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) that Mr. Speaker now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
George Harris Hees: I intend to speak very briefly, because there is nothing very much in the speech made by the hon. member for Laurier which requires a reply. I think the hon. gentleman's speech could best be termed much ado about nothing. The impression had been given that this was going to be an earth-shattering speech, but as far as I can see it brought forth nothing which had not already been made known by myself on several occasions, and in particular, when I announced the introduction of this new policy last fall.
The hon. member asked me specifically about the part played by my own department. He asked me why I, as minister, had

overridden a decision of the air transport board regarding the Autair application. The air transport board had been operating under a policy laid down by the former government, a policy which favoured monopoly, and which denied competition. This present government, as I have said on several occasions, believes that it has a responsibility, not only to the aircraft industry but also to the users of air services. This government believes that competition among charter air services leads to the provision of better and cheaper services to the public, and also serves as a healthy stimulant to the industry itself.
It was for that reason that I, on behalf of this government, introduced a freeing-up with respect to the granting of licences in the charter field. I made it very clear that I did so because it was the basic belief of the government that this would be a good thing for the industry, and no detriment; that in fact it would stimulate the provision of more of these services for the public. That, and that alone, was the reason I overrode the decision of the air transport board.
In this case, when the application was denied, it was denied in conformity with the policy imposed upon the board by the former government, a policy with which, in this regard, the present government does not agree. That is the reason the application was granted, and that is the reason we are now operating under a much freer system of granting licences, one which we believe will be of benefit to the industry itself.
I think that is all I have to deal with in connection with my own department and the air transport board. I am sure the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will deal more than adequately with matters which relate to the operations of his department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question? Would he say whether, when he overrode the decision of the air transport board, he was aware of the fact that this company had not complied, as the hon. member for Laurier said, with the request of the board to provide statements of financial responsibility and other information which the law requires any company to provide?


George Harris Hees: 1 was aware of that and the impression I had of that requirement was simply that the provision of charter air services is in no way different from the provision of so many other services provided by other industries to users in this country. Under the free democratic system, which we fought several world wars to preserve, a man has the right to enter business and lose his shirt, if he wants to, and nobody stops him doing it. If I want to go into business, in any
The Budget-Mr. Comtois line of business at all in this country, I can do so. Before going into business I do not have to prove that I have a certain financial stability. I have the right-and we jealously maintain that right in a democracy such as this-to go into business, and if I fail it is my own sorrow. For that reason the requirement referred to seemed a ridiculous requirement in these particular cases, where the service provided is not that of a scheduled air service, which is a definite service to the public. This is a charter service where those providing the service do so under no compulsion, and before contracting to provide a service they are satisfied that the terms under which they will be providing that service are satisfactory to them.
For that reason I felt that the requirement under which the board was operating in this particular regard was one which I did not agree with and, therefore, I considered it did not affect me in any way in granting this licence.


Mr. Speaker:: I am disposed to regard the matter before the house, raised by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), as a separate subject, and therefore I would recognize those who wish to speak on that subject in priority to others. The minister wishes to speak on the subject?


Mr. Comtois:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other members who wish to speak on this subject. I may be mistaken in the procedure I am following, but it is my view that when the motion before the house is that I leave the chair, with no amendment outstanding, we are really under grievance procedure as we would be on a motion for the Speaker to leave the chair to go into committee of supply. That, I think, is the reason why the rule calls for a vote before the maximum time limit of the debate is reached. If hon. members agree with me on that I will follow that course for the remainder of this debate.
(Translation):


Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, I just wrote down a few notes during the speech made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), who was kind enough, this morning, to notify me of his intention of dealing with the matter of a contract awarded to Autair Helicopter Services Limited.
The hon. member for Laurier has an axe to grind. That is obvious. And I even wonder whether his intervention today, and the grievances L voiced, are not perhaps related to the fact that one of the top officials of

The Budget-Mr. Comtois Okanagan Helicopters is the former election organizer for ex-minister Sinclair. There might be some connection between the two circumstances. However, I would not like to vouch for it, because I have no information to that effect. If I am mistaken, so much the better.
The hon. member for Laurier, it seems, wants to raise a storm in a tea cup. He imagines there has been a scandal, that there were false representations, in other words something irregular in the contract awarded to Autair Helicopter Services Limited. My department has nothing whatsoever to do with licences or prices submitted to the transport commission. That is not our job. It is the responsibility of the Department of Transport, and the minister replied to that. He said what he had to say with regard to the duties of his department.
With regard to matters that concern us, we were called upon to award a contract in the north for a survey and inspection expedition in the Arctic. We asked companies having the required qualifications to submit prices. We did not call for tenders because, as I had the opportunity to say in reply to a question asked in this house, prices are established in advance by the transport commission, and the duty of my officials is to determine the best possible price so as not to pay more than required, that is, to obtain the most economic price to the department, to the government and to the whole country. That is what we did. There was no intention, as stated by the hon. member for Laurier, of awarding the contract to the Okanagan Helicopters Company. That letter was never sent, so I am informed by my department. Therefore, when the hon. member states that the letter was sent, I think he was misinformed.
Second, I asked that the tenders sent in by the various companies be examined, and that the matter be fully considered, always in keeping with the economic aspect of the contract. It was established that for a hundred hours of flight a month by a Bell-47 G the Renting Helicopters Limited submitted a price of $97,560, whereas the Autair Helicopters Services Limited, quoted $93,600, the Spartan Air Services Limited, $91,200 and the Okanagan Helicopters Limited, also $91,200.
Therefore, as far as that part of the contract was concerned, the price quoted by Autair Helicopters for a Bell-47 G plane was of course, not the lowest. However, with

regard to the S 55 plane, the Autair Helicopters Company had asked for an amount of $109,200 whereas the Okanagan Helicopters Limited, the Spartan Air Services Limited as well as the Renting Helicopters Limited were quoting $115,200. Therefore, the Autair Helicopters Co. had submitted the most favourable price, that is, $109,200. When awarding contracts, the department has to consider the total cost of the expedition, and this was done.
We acted in a perfectly proper way. I wanted to avoid any unfairness.
Mr. Speaker, I must point out that I am totally opposed to monopolies, and I can say quite frankly that having gone over the file, I found that Okanagan Helicopters Limited had always got the contracts, on the basis that it had a monopoly on experience. Thus the government was at the mercy of a firm which claimed to be alone in having the required experience in the north-


Lionel Chevrier: There are three others.


Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, if there are three others, one of them is the Autair Helicopter Services Limited. It has as much experience as any other, because it is a matter of piloting, and if the pilots of that firm have experience in the north, they are just as qualified as those of Okanagan Helicopters Limited or of any other firm. That type of experience can be compared to driving experience; a good driver avoids the hazards of the road.


Mr. Parizeau:: Let him have it, Mr. Minister.


Paul Comtois: The pilots of Autair Helicopter Services are as qualified as those of Okanagan Helicopters Limited, of Spartan Air Services Limited or of Renting Helicopters Limited.
We took every proper precaution, and decided to grant the contraot to Autair Helicopter Services. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I might say that I do not know the president of that firm. I had no confession certificate to expect from him.


Joseph Aimé Roger Parizeau: He was not your organizer.


Paul Comtois: I have not gone into the matter that far; I am not interested in the personal life of company presidents. I do not care whether he had been in some other country, across the border or even abroad. We are dealing with the directors of the company and we are satisfied that we will get excellent service.



I960

[Stage Direction]
We followed the standard practice and the lowest tender was accepted. That is the course my departmental officials decided to follow. No other consideration than the lowest tender entered into the award of the contract to Autair Helicopter Services Limited.
I am glad that this course was followed, even if the president of that company is not one of the friends of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), nor a friend of the hon. members opposite. I did not ask the president about his political affiliations. I do not know what they are. But now the Okanagan Helicopters Limited will not be the only company with experience in the north.
The pilots of Autair Helicopter Services Limited acquired experience on the D.E.W. line, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, there is not much difference between the D.E.W. line and the areas where those aircraft will fly. I believe that to get Arctic experience you always have to start somewhere and if, each year, we keep saying that we must carry on only with people who have previously worked in the area we might just as well not call for tenders from any one and tell the Okanagan company-
Joseph Aimé Roger Parizeau: It had been a Liberal monopoly.


Mr. Comiois:: - "You have the monopoly, so go ahead." Mr. Speaker, I felt we had to be fair to everybody and that we should consider the tenders in the light of the projects we had in mind. Everything has been done on the up-and-up and there is nothing further I can say on the subject.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the subject raised by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) simply in reply to what has been said by the two ministers who have spoken. I do think that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) would have been well advised to follow the example of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) who treated this subject seriously, dealt with it on its merits and did not make unworthy insinuations about there being any political matters involved here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Does the truth hurt?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might also draw hon. members' attention to the fact that when
The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill the two ministers were speaking we listened to them with politeness and without interruption.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: As the hon. gentleman did last night?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that on a matter as grave as this, hon. gentlemen on the back benches would be well advised to speak when their turn comes.


An hon. Member:: We will.
Another hon. Member: What did you do last night?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I trust hon. members will observe the rule against interruption while the hon. member has the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no new argument, Mr. Speaker, but I want to debate what has already been raised by my hon. friend from Laurier. The Minister of Transport said that when he overruled the air transport board he thought that these conditions having to do with financial responsibility and capacity to perform, about which I asked him a question, were unimportant, and that anyone in this free country was perfectly entitled to enter freely into any kind of business. Of course, that is not true. One cannot enter into the railway business without getting a charter from parliament or from a provincial legislature. I am also reliably informed that one cannot go into the taxi business in most large municipalities without satisfying a board of one's financial competence and one's capacity, and in many cases the supply is limited so that the public will have some assurance of the capacity of the operators and also some assurance that the people who are operating the taxis are reliable members of society. One could go on to give many other examples both in the federal and provincial fields and under governments of every political complexion.


George Harris Hees: On a question of privilege, may I correct a misapprehension? I was not dealing with the ability to operate; I was simply dealing with the amount of finances behind the company. With respect to ability to operate, my department has very strict safety regulations, and any company that cannot comply at all times with these safety regulations is not allowed to fly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very glad that the minister has made that correction because I do not want to be unfair in any way about this matter. But I will draw the minister's attention to the fact that the hon, member

The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill for Laurier made certain very precise statements on this point. He said that this company, at the time the minister removed the restriction against it with respect to the use of large helicopters, did not own any large helicopters at all. He went on to say that Autair did not own any large helicopters at the time they were asked by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to bid on this business.


George Harris Hees: Would the hon. member permit a question? I should like to ask him how a company could ever operate with large helicopters before having obtained a licence? Why in the world would they ever buy these large helicopters until they had obtained a licence to operate such large helicopters? Otherwise they would simply have a lot of white elephants on their hands which they could not use.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister had listened carefully to the hon. member for Laurier I think he would have had the answer to that question. This company does seem to have had an unenviable record of operating small helicopters for some considerable time without any licence on the pretense that they were operating them for demonstration purposes, but at the same time taking good care to recoup themselves for those operations later, if my hon. friend was correctly informed, from the government of Quebec. It does not necessarily have to be the case, but I think there is something in the contention of the Minister of Transport that perhaps this company would not have acquired helicopters until it was assured that it would have a licence to operate.
That does not at all dispose of the other statement by my hon. friend, namely that in 1960, many months after the minister had quashed the decision of the board, this company still had no large helicopters when it and these other four companies were invited to bid on this survey work in the north. That is what my hon. friend alleged, and he also stated that one of these companies, Pacific, I believe, was ruled out of the bidding because it did not own any large helicopters. I think the house and the country are entitled to know why Pacific was ruled out and Autair, in exactly the same circumstances with no large helicopters, was not ruled out. They had had a licence for some time but they had no large helicopters. That is quite serious.
Moreover, it was shown in the evidence before the board, which my hon. friend read, that this company had very little experience in operating small helicopters and did not even own a large helicopter. Yet they were preferred over three experienced operators


qualified in every way to do this work. It does seem to me that in this contract there was no question of private enterprise. Maybe if some private company was going to hire Autair there perhaps would not be the same concern about the matter. I say "perhaps"; I am not sure about that. But what is the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys going to do? He is going to send these people up to the polar shelf. He is going to send public servants in these aircraft and endanger their lives. Their lives will be endangered no matter who does the work because those of us who have had some experience of travelling in helicopters know that this is not quite the safest form of travel. It does seem to me, that before the minister allows this to happen, allows the lives of these public servants to be in danger, in the light of what my hon. friend from Laurier has placed before the minister there should be the fullest investigation of every allegation put forward this morning. No one should make light of these allegations.
There may be nothing in this story in Newsweek. It may have no foundation whatever. My hon. friend from Laurier made it very clear he did not know whether or not it was true. We all know that this is a very reputable publication. We all know that the diplomatic correspondent would not just publish gossip and hearsay. This magazine is subject to the libel laws and other laws of that kind in the United States. It does seem to me that if the two ministers, or either of them, did not know about these statements beforehand they should now be very hesitant about sending this company, in the face of that story, up to the Arctic, right on the edge of the iron curtain. They would be sending someone who, according to this reputable United States publication, at one time was supposed to have been smuggling aircraft parts behind the iron curtain.
I do not believe we should prejudge this case; that is the last thing we would ask. But we think it should be investigated and cleared up. The minister should remember what happened in this house earlier today in connection with this unfortunate woman in British Columbia who is going to be deported from this country apparently merely because of a suspicion she may be a danger to the security of the country. I am not questioning that at this moment. I am saying when we take that kind of precaution in that case, surely it is not asking anything excessive when my hon. friend from Laurier, as he did in his closing words, requested the members of the government to clear this thing up and clear it up without any equivocation, before we let a company headed by a

man against whom allegations of that kind were made in a reputable United States journal undertake this kind of work on the polar shelf.
Then, there is one other statement with which the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys did not deal. I refer to the very serious statement made by my hon. friend from Laurier. The hon. member says he is informed-he did not say that he knew but that he was reliably informed-that five bids were submitted originally. One was disallowed and the other four were considered. A decision was reached by the department in favour of one of those companies and unfavourable to Autair, and then a change was made and Autair was allowed to make a second submission while the other companies apparently were not. I do not know anything about whether or not that is true. I have not the faintest idea whether or not it is true because I have made no personal investigation into this matter at all. I listened to the hon. member for Laurier as he was speaking, and I tried to listen very attentively. I think that is what he said. I believe, that is a point that should be cleared up, and cleared up seriously, not brushed off with a suggestion there are some petty politics in this matter.
It seems to me that these are the five points. First, this company has refused to demonstrate its financial worthiness to the air transport board. Is it financially competent to carry out a contract with the government of Canada? Surely the minister or the treasury board would satisfy themselves about that. When we ask a contractor to build a small post office in the maritime provinces, as my hon. friend from Levis (Mr. Bourget) knows, we satisfy ourselves he is financially competent to do it. According to the evidence before the board, this operator refused to satisfy them of his financial competence, refused to answer their questions, and to the best of our knowledge that has never been cleared up. Yet he has been given a contract which was refused to other companies with demonstrated financial competence.
Then there is the question of safety, the fact that this company has never operated one of these large helicopters. This company is preferred over other companies to carry scientists and other public servants into this area. Then there is the very grave question of national security. It seems to me before this contract proceeds these matters should be cleared up and cleared up to public satisfaction.


Richard Albert Bell: I should like to raise a point of order, and I do so because of the
The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill doubt which Your Honour expressed as to the correctness of the procedure which we have been adopting. I ask that this procedure should not be considered a precedent until Your Honour has had an opportunity to give mature consideration to it.
It seems to me when the house has before it a motion to resolve itself into committee of ways and means, the budget, that the procedure on supply motions in respect of grievances is not appropriate thereto. I venture to submit to Your Honour that it is incongruous on the eighth day of the budget debate that any hon. member should be able to raise a subject which is totally unrelated to the budget and should thereby preclude discussion of the budget itself. It is true that under the ordinary motion for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means, under citation 234, on Monday and Tuesday, it is possible for any member to ask for the redress of any grievance. I suggest, however, that does not apply where the situation is as set forth in standing order 58, subsection 2, which provides for the debate on the motion for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means, the budget. My submission is that this motion related as it is to the budget is different from the ordinary motion which is referred to in citation 234.
I rise only to speak at this time so that this procedure will not be considered as a precedent before Your Honour has had an opportunity to give mature consideration to the problem.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to speak to the point of order, if I may.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might call it one o'clock. Will the hon. member be here after the adjournment?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at two o'clock.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to argue this point of order at any length because I do not think I am too much in disagreement with the hon. member who raised it. The only purpose of my rising on the point of order is to make it quite clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house that I had a perfect right to discuss anything that I felt like discussing on the budget because, after all, the letting of a contract and the expenditure of public moneys comes entirely within the budget. Whether it is a specific

The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill matter or a general matter, I do not think makes any difference. That was really the only purpose of my rising.
On the other hand, if I may add this, it may well be that because of the right I feel I have and because of the point that has been raised by the hon. member for Carle-ton (Mr. Bell) Your Honour may feel that this is a point to which Your Honour should .give consideration and if Your Honour did feel that way certainly I would be quite happy to abide by that decision.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the hon. gentleman's right to raise the particular issue he did. My point of order relates only to the question of whether, when the hon. gentleman raises that issue, all debate thereafter on the eighth day shall be confined to the issue which he raised.
My submission is that in a case where it is a motion to go into committee of ways and means, the budget-and that I emphasize- there is not that confinement to the particular grievance that has been raised by a particular hon. gentleman. The hon. member may raise whatever he wishes although I may have some views as to the wisdom of a senior privy councillor doing so.


Lionel Chevrier: I have been trying to be friendly to my hon. friend in not disagreeing with him but the position a senior privy councillor takes is his own decision and should not be reflected upon by the junior hon. member for Carleton.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just one word. When this point was first raised I found it difficult not to agree with the position that had been taken on the other side with regard to the interpretation of the rule. I think there are occasions when we should seek to strengthen our procedures by not being afraid to assert positions that are taken by those who sit opposite. This may be one of those occasions.
My submission is that if there has been a violation of the rules the violation was not on this side. The violation would consist in the participation by two ministers, one after the other, without observing the traditional practice of this house of providing for alternations between the various parties.


Mr. Speaker:: I take full responsibility for the order in which hon. members spoke in this matter. Perhaps I was presuming too much on my own authority in suggesting the procedure we followed today which was not the procedure followed last year, the year before or in fact since the rule was amended in 1955.

I have given some thought to the question of what happens after the amendment has been disposed of on the motion to go into committee of ways and means, the budget. It struck me-and I think perhaps hon. members who were on the committee which revised the rules may be able to verify this -that the reason the vote was provided for on the seventh day, leaving a full day for further discussion, was to provide on the budget debate an opportunity for a discussion of this kind. A motion of this nature like a supply motion is connected with the voting of moneys for the crown and is preceded by the airing of all the grievances parliament has to air. However, as this debate has been entered upon in the expectation that it would follow the usual pattern I think it would be very imprudent for me to attempt to change horses in midstream and that we should conclude the debate in the way it has been done in the last few years.
Perhaps if and when the committee is set up to consider these matters some thought might be given to the wisdom of the course which I have suggested earlier today because it makes a connected discussion of a grievance possible. It concludes that grievance and another is then entered upon. And then, in supply motions, it gives more members an opportunity to speak than happens when hon. members are speaking at large.
Therefore I quite readily accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) that this matter be given further consideration. There is time for perhaps only two more speeches and unless some other hon. member has something to say on this subject we shall proceed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am impelled to say just a word or two on this point of order by reason of the reference to the committee which revised the rules of the house. I think I am the only hon. member in the chamber at the moment who was a member of the committee which revised the rules which became effective in 1955. That committee sat through three sessions.
I may say that the reason for providing for the votes on the subamendment, the amendment and finally on the main motion on different days was not the reason that you purported to assign to it at all. It was to avoid a situation which had become altogether too common where the debate purported to continue on the submendment and then, when the debate had run its course, there were three votes taken in quick succession on the subamendment, the amendment and finally on the main motion. It was thought in the committee it would be better to space out the votes. It was not done at all, I assure you,

on the part of the committe with any thought that by having provided that the vote on the main motion should come at the conclusion of the seventh day the debate on the eighth day should change its nature. It still continues as part of the debate on the budget. It does not change its character and become assimilable with the normal procedure on a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply or a motion to go into ways and means in which case we would have the normal provision for airing grievances.
I think on the eighth day the house and the debate are in much the same position as at the time of launching the debate originally on the part of the first speaker from the opposition side of the house. He ranges widely, usually over many matters, and then winds up his speech by offering an amendment. I think the amendment and the subamendment now having been disposed of, the debate is in the same position as it was at that time. It is still a debate on the budget and is not a new debate of a different nature, resolving itself simply into a matter of raising individual grievances and exhausting each before another is raised.


Mr. Speaker:: May I refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 229, which rather bears out the contention raised by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell):
When an amendment for the Speaker's leaving the chair has been negatived, no further amendment can be moved thereto; though general debate on the main question can be maintained by those members who have not exhausted their right to speak to that question.
The other citation which is relevant is citation 234, which rather supports the view I have taken.


Mr. Speakman:: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a question of privilege. Immediately before the luncheon adjournment the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) rose and left the implication that Conservative backbenchers particularly were guilty of discourtesy while he was speaking, this coming from a member who interjected 62 times during the address of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) last night.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I very cheerfully apologize to anyone whose feelings were hurt.
(Translation):


Mr. Roland English (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, almost two weeks ago, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), presented his budgetary estimates. All the galleries of the house were jam-packed.


Lionel Chevrier: Jam-packed?
The Budget-Mr. English


Roland Léo English: People had tuned in on the radio or were staring at their T.V. sets. The message was, indeed, important. A thunder of applause greeted the minister's arrival; then there was silence.


Lionel Chevrier: Where was the brass band?


Mr. Pigeon:: Not on the Jacques Cartier bridge, surely.


Roland Léo English: You are being the brass band right now. In a calm voice, the Minister of Finance spoke the first lines of his text in impeccable French. There was another thunderous burst of applause.
That man, Mr. Speaker, had just made a friendly gesture toward the Canadian population which welcomed that expression of understanding on his part. I am saying "Canadian" because the reaction was favourable, not only in Quebec but throughout the country.
Though, unaware of it at the time, the Minister of Finance was replying to a vicious and unfair attack by a C.C.F. member, for whom I have no animosity, but who does not seem to know the province of Quebec at all and who does not seem to wish to know it. That attack came a few days later. The conclusion to be drawn from that, Mr. Speaker, is that we must blame the one who has a sense of responsibility, but forgive the one who has none. Why attack a population which has always worked in co-operation with other provinces, for the greatness and progress of Canada as a whole and in favour of a sound national unity?
Recently, Hon. Antonio Barrette, the premier of Quebec confirmed what I am now saying by expressing the real feeling of the province of Quebec, when he met in Toronto with hon. Mr. Frost, the premier of Ontario and the hon. members of the legislature.
Hon. Mr. Barrette did something which is much more eloquent than any words can say, and I will simply quote what the Globe and Mail of Toronto reported on April 8, 1960:
(Text):
For the first time since confederation the premiers of Ontario and Quebec yesterday stood in the same legislative assembly.
And the pledge of eternal friendship and partnership that was associated with the union of 1867 was enunciated again clearly by Premier Frost and Quebec's Premier Barrette.
Symbolicly the two premiers stood near the Speaker's throne over which is inscribed the date of the first pledge of national unity made 93 years ago.

The Budget-Mr. English
Premier Frost said that it was with a deep sense of honour that the Ontario house greeted the Quebec premier, who represents "our neighbours and partners from the beginning."
"They have always been our good partners, our good friends.. . We ask you, sir, to take back to your people our affectionate regards," said Premier Frost.
Premier Barrette told the legislature that he had intended to speak from notes.
"But I put them aside and very simply speak to you from the bottom of my heart," he said.
"We are partners," he said. "We have always been partners, even when we sometimes thought that we were not. We have fought together... we will remain partners."
Premier Frost said that the challenge of 1867- to build a nation of French and English culture- has been achieved.
And opposition leader Wintermeyer said that the present Canadian challenge is the same as that faced by Macdonald and Laurier. They had fought to build a nation against all economic odds and with a union of two cultures. Today the challenge was to build an even greater nation from many different cultures besides English and French.
(Translation):
Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that such a gesture deserves to be emphasized, and is it not another proof that all provincial premiers want to show to the country that they want to unite and co-operate in carrying out a wish close to the heart of each and everyone of us? I refer to the desire for mutual understanding and love and for co-operation in working for Canada's future and for the progress of every Canadian of any origin, race or creed.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I would like sincerely to congratulate the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) for having addressed a few words in the beginning of his speech in the chamber yesterday in I might add very good French. The hon. member gave an example of what we call real national unity.
(Translation):
Coming back to the Minister of Finance, I should like to quote an article from La Presse for April 1, 1960:
Fleming starts his speech in French.
Though not wearing a blue carnation on his lapel, as he had last year, but smiling broadly, Finance Minister Fleming was greeted in the House of Commons yesterday with thunderous applause.
The applause doubled when, directly in French and without any English preliminary, he opened his speech with these words: "Mr. Speaker, for a third time it is my honour and privilege to present to the house the annual budget". By this, the minister renewed a precedent set by himself in June 1958 when he brought down his first budget. In that year, it was the first time in Canada's history that a minister of finance delivered parts of his budget speech in French. Last year, Mr. Fleming confirmed the precedent by delivering three lengthy parts of his speech in French. This year, he went further and opened his remarks in the language which, as he said, "has so gracefully

adorned the proceedings of this house and holds a secure constitutional position in the Canadian parliament."
Apparently, the opposition is not too satisfied with the budget. That is probably due to the fact that it has too many qualities.
Its first quality is balance. Mr. Fleming has an acute sense of reality, and so far, his judgement has been born out by the facts.
Here is what the Gazette for April 1, 1960 had to say on the subject, and I quote: (Text):
Mr. Fleming has decided that the trends and impulses set in motion by the tax changes for 1959-60 will be sufficient to reach the desired result in 1960-61. This result is, of course, a balanced budget.
(Translation):
This is what we read in La Presse of April 1, 1960:
Observers had unanimously forecast that Mr. Fleming would present a balanced budget. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance gave us, as we put it elsewhere, a super-balanced budget, providing a slim margin of $12 million on a budget of $5,892, million, without considering the $600 million or so which the old age security program would cost.
He did not even slightly increase taxes, trusting only in the continuance of the present economic rhythm.
In a serious effort, the minister was able to realize the miracle of foreseeing a surplus while not increasing taxes. The surplus is $12 million.
To balance a budget is one thing. Not to increase taxes and tariffs is even better. But to offer salary increases is just splendid. And that is what the Minister of Finance achieved in his last budget. The people owe him their gratitude, and deserving government employees joyfully welcome such generosity.
The Conservative party does not choose roundabout ways. It attacks in a straightforward manner problems that are sometimes very complex, and obtains results about which each and everyone can marvel and which throw the opposition into the deepest gloom. Now that is what Montreal-Matin of April 1, 1960 said:
Fifty thousand civil servants are benefiting from salary increases. When announcing the decision, Mr. Fleming however warned that the days of "across-the-board increases" were past and that such increases would from now on, be granted after thoroughly considering each category and the functions attached thereto. The increases, averaging about $300 a year, will be granted mainly to clerical and stenographic categories.
The last general salary increase granted to federal civil servants came on May 1st 1957.
The increase, which will be effective tomorrow, will cost some $15 million to the treasury.
Not only do civil servants benefit from the wise Conservative administration, but widows

too can count on improved benefits. It is in time of difficulty that we recognize those who are sincere. The minister wanted to give some protection to this category, and rightly so.
The budget is also an example of shrewd administration. There is no more one-way contribution to the old age pension item. Quite the contrary, it is a period of prosperity. And that is something the opposition cannot get over. You can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that they will not say a word about it. I wish to quote La Presse of April 2, 1960:
First surplus for the old age security fund.
For the first time since its establishment in 1951, the old age security fund will have a surplus in 1960-61, Mr. Fleming announced in his budget speech.
This is due to the tax increases enacted last year and which became effective in April in the case of the sales tax, and in July in the case of personal and corporation income taxes (1 per cent).
Due to this tax increase, the deficit in 1959-60 was only $24 million.
In 1960-61, after a full year of increased taxes, the old age security fund will receive $630 million while its payments will reach $590.
The surplus will therefore be about $40 million and overshadow last year's deficit.
From January 1951 to March 1960, the fund accumulated deficits totalling $630 million.
On that amount, over $500 million were paid out of general revenue and in 1954 a sum of about $100 million was charged against the reserve carried under the productive assets account.
My purpose in quoting from various newspapers, Mr. Speaker, was to present a more representative sample of public opinion. That opinion is favourable everywhere. Members of the opposition form the only dissenting group. They are unhappy in Quebec, and none the happier in Ottawa. The population has long been wise as far as Quebec is concerned, and as for Ottawa it has at last become wise to the one-time-great Liberal party, a great party, Mr. Speaker, which has lived to regret its past glory.
In the speech he made in this house on April 8, 1960, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), said that the unemployment insurance fund, which amounted to $874,574,000 in 1957 was down to $408,145,000 in 1960.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, and I am willing to admit that the number of unemployed has increased these last years, and members of the opposition also are willing to admit it, because they know quite well that in 1956 the recession was starting and promised to be worse.
They still remember quite well that they received a report from the economists and that, in order to win the election, they thought it advisable to hide that report somewhere in an office to prevent the people of Canada from knowing that things were looking bad.
The Budget-Mr. English
But on the other hand, it must not be assumed that that increase in the number of unemployed is the only cause of this difference between 800 million and 400 million. It would be more proper to give the facts as they are, without attempting to mislead the public.
I shall therefore point out other facts that have contributed to this reduction.
The period of benefits has been extended from 36 to 52 weeks. This has tended to decrease the unemployment insurance fund. Unemployment insurance for fishermen, which has been in force since the fall of 1957, has greatly contributed to this decrease.
The increase in benefits provided by the present government has also reduced the fund to a great extent.
Moreover, the maximum salary allowing entitlement to benefits has been raised from $4,800 to $5,460 which had the immediate result of increasing by more than 80,000 the number of persons qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits.
Here again, Mr. Speaker, the increase in the number of those in receipt of unemployment insurance has also materially contributed to a decrease in the unemployment insurance fund.
There are also the married women who, formerly, could not get unemployment insurance benefits on account of certain restrictions. The Conservative government has removed all restrictions, so that today all those women can get unemployment insurance benefits like anyone else. There again, Mr. Speaker, that change brought about by the Conservative party, has helped to deplete substantially the unemployment insurance fund.
Mr. Speaker, we have also heard opposition members state here that several industries had closed down. I should like to say a few words about that matter which is, in my opinion, of a very great importance. I shall refer particularly to the province of Quebec and point out to the house that if some industries have shut down, there are several others which, for several years now, have been well rooted in Quebec.
Let us glance at a report entitled:
Industrial Progress 1958
On page 13, we read the following:
Investments in primary industry and construction rose by 21.1 per cent in 1958 compared to the average for the years 1948 to 1957. In 1958, investments in these two industrial fields are estimated at $241,000,000 and represent 9.4 per cent of total investments for the year.
In 1958, governments and institutional services made new capital investments to the amount of

The Budget-Mr. English $429,800,000 or an increase of 37.9 per cent compared to the years 1948-1957 when the value of annual investments averaged $311,600,000.
In the trade and finance section, investments rose from the $133,500,000 average for the years 1948 to 1957, to $195,800,000 in 1958, an increase of 46.7 per cent.
Page 14
During the 1958 new capital invested in the manufacturing industries was distributed as follows:
Paper products	 $71,400,000
Non-ferrous metal products	 58,400,000
Chemical products	 46,300,000
Food and beverages	 43,100,000
Transportation equipment	 41,100,000
Iron and steel products	 28,200,000
Petroleum products	 24,100,000
Electrical apparatus and supplies .. 21,300,000
Non-metallic mineral products _____________ 19,000,000
Textile products	 18,000,000
Wood products	 7,800,000
Other groups	 71,000,000
New enterprises and enlarged establishments
Much is being said, with boastful joy, about industries having to shut down. Some seem to be happy about it. But I would suggest-and I am referring to the province I know quite well-that in the province of Quebec, there are new firms and several enlarged establishments. We read in that same report:
Concrete evidence of the rapid expansion our manufacturing industry is undergoing can be seen in the fact that, during 1958, more than 328 new manufacturing establishments went into operation in the province and 171 existing plants were enlarged during the same 12 months. These figures represent only new enterprises and additions to existing ones brought to the attention of the provincial industrial commission up to December 31, 1958. There can be no doubt but that a complete census would reveal much higher figures than those quoted.
During 1957, there were 262 new establishments and 159 were enlarged. Therefore, in 1957 and 1958 alone the total figures are as follows:
New manufacturing firms	 590
Establishments enlarged	 330
Numerous industrial projects
A great many industrial projects planned for the current year have already been brought to the attention of the provincial industrial commission: by the end of January 1959 the number had attained 139. Several of these are large undertakings. The few listed below represent a total investment in the neighbourhood of $300,000,000.
In proof of this, and to convince my hon. friends of the opposition, here are the names of some of those industries:
(Text):
Canada Iron Foundries Limited, Canadian Steel Foundries, Gattuso Corp., Canadian Car Co. Limited, Proctor and Gamble Co. of Canada Limited, Continental Paper Products, Avon Products Limited, British Petroleum of Canada Limited, Miron et Freres Limitee, Sogemines Consultants Limited, Montreal Cottons Limited, Steel Co. of Canada Limited, Quebec Iron and Titanium Corp., Lignosol Chemicals Limited, Quebec Cartier Mining Co., Walter M. Lowney Limited, Reynolds Aluminum Co. of Canada Limited.

(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I believe the situation is not so bad; and while much is being made of the few industries that have closed down, those are things which happen and which will always happen. It should not be said that it is due to the recession. There is one point, however, that we must take into consideration, and that is management. Some people are more experienced in management than others. And bad management may be a. reason for the shut-down of a plant.
I should like also to say a word, Mr.. Speaker, about mines. Here is what we find-in that same report:
Since the end of the war, the province of Quebec's mining industry has expanded to a remarkable degree; in fact, the total value of mineral production rose from $91.6 million in 1945 to $443,808,980 in 1957, an increase of 384.5 per cent. During: the same period, the value of metals increased from $48.1 million to $238.8 million, while that of industrial minerals rose from $29.0 million to $120.6 million, and building materials from $14.4 million to $85.0 million. Around forty thousand workers are employed in various branches of the mineral industry and their total earnings are in excess of $135 million a year. The same industry's expenditures for fuel and electricity amount to more than $50 million a year.
The total value of mineral production in Quebec during 1958 adds up to around $395.6 million, which represents a large increase over the average for the years from 1950 to 1956, which was $299.8 million. Half of this total value or 50.7 per cent represents: that output of metals which reached about $200.4 million; that of industrial minerals was $107.3 million or 27.1 per cent and building materials accounted for 22.3 per cent $87.8 million.
And, Mr. Speaker, I still quote from the same report, where it says:
The mining of iron ore is by far the most important feature in the development of our mineral resources, and although shipping only began in 1954, iron ore has ranked ahead of all other Quebec mining products, from the point of view of value, since 1957. At present, the greater part of our output of iron ore comes from the huge deposits in the area around Schefferville. The working of these deposits necessitated a capital expenditure in the neighbourhood of $250 million.
A 350-mile long railroad had to be built between Schefferville and the shipping port at Seven Islands on the north shore; the mining town of Schefferville, which now has a population of more than 3,000 was erected; two hydroelectric stations were installed to supply power to work the mines and operate the harbour facilities at Seven Islands, where the ore is loaded on board cargo vessels which carry it to the large consuming centres on the great lakes and the Atlantic coast. Between July 31, 1954, and the end of 1957, the Iron Ore Company of Canada shipped around 34 million tons of ore on some 2,228 cargo ships.
Extensive work is being carried on preparatory to the development of large iron ore deposits in the area of Mount Reed, some 160 air miles north of Shelter Bay. This undertaking calls for large scale

projects, including the building of a railway 312 miles in length to link the mines to the North Shore; a shipping harbour at Port Cartier near Shelter Bay; a central electric station on the Hart-Jaune river, as well as two new town sites. One of the most interesting aspects of this project is the establishment by the Quebec Cartier Mining Company of large mills to refine the ore before shipment. The annual output of the mills will be 8 million tons of concentrates grading more than 60 per cent iron.
And, Mr. Speaker, here is what we also find in the same report:
Asbestos produced in 1957 amounted to $93.6 million, or more than the total value of Quebec's mineral output in 1946. About 65 per cent of the asbestos produced in the free world is mined in the province of Quebec. In 1958, three new concerns went into production. At Black lake, Lake Asbestos of Quebec has almost completed the draining of the lake and begun to work the huge deposits under its bed. At the same time Carey Canadian and National Asbestos began to operate their new mills which can produce 2,000 and 3,000 a day respectively. Lake Asbestos of Quebec alone will produce enough asbestos to increase the volume of Canadian production by 10 per cent.
Well, Mr. Speaker, do the facts I quoted not prove that our country's economy is in good condition? If we leave hovering in this house an impression that our industries in Canada are on the verge of bankruptcy, is it not bad publicity, does it not tend to discourage our friends the Americans from setting up industries in Canada?
That is why I wanted to state the facts today and show the real position of our Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, I have made a summary of the budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance, to which I added a few considerations.
I also wanted to point out the economic development of the province of Quebec, a development which is occurring in the other Canadian provinces as well. We would be remiss if we did not tell the truth and give our whole country the publicity which must be given to it by those who are entrusted with its administration.
(Text):


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. English) on his profound admiration of the inconsequential.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that for you?


William Arnold Peters: I have waited long and patiently to participate in the budget debate, and I and many other Canadians, I believe, are very curious about what took place in the house yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) spoke in the budget debate and I can agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that he did not say anything particularly important.


Mr.   Hicard@: Would you understand it?
The Budget-Mr. Peters


William Arnold Peters: I have to ask myself this question. Why did the Minister of Finance rise in his place and take two and a half hours to tell the Canadian people that the Leader of the Opposition had not said anything of any importance and that his criticism was not valid? This would indicate to me that either the Minister of Finance did give some weight to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition or he became so impressed with his own importance and liked to hear himself speak so much that he spoke for two and a half hours.


Mr. Ricard:: Are you looking in a mirror?


William Arnold Peters: It was not necessary for the Minister of Finance to do this on this occasion because he has proved in the past that he can speak at great length and that he has the ability to carry on a discussion of financial matters without saying anything new. He does not have to prove that.
We have had three budget speeches this year, two by the minister and one by his parliamentary secretary. I would have thought that in these three budget speeches we would have been able to find something to justify to some extent a feeling of exhilaration among the Canadian people as to benefits they could hope to receive. This may have been true for a very few people in the civil service but it is not true for many other people.
If we want to solve many of the financial problems facing Canada today I suggest we can do no better than to call on the Minister of Finance to resign and be replaced by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge) who in speaking in the budget debate made a number of proposals that certainly were satisfactorily documented. He also did something that the minister has always failed to do. He pointed out that somebody is going to have to pay for increased benefits and that the money is going to have to come from some place. He went on to point out how the money could be raised.
It was interesting to listen to the remarks of the previous speaker. He pointed out that it was wonderful that the minister had been able to bring in a balanced budget and forecast a surplus of $12 million. He said that it was a most wonderful thing that some civil servants were going to get a raise and that the government was still going to be able to hang on to the $12 million. We all know that this is not correct. We all know that you cannot maintain the tax structure and increase benefits to the people.
We listened to the same argument last year with respect to increasing unemployment insurance benefits. Certainly we increased them

The Budget-Mr. Peters but we only increased them for about one-third of the people while at the same time greatly increasing the premiums paid by everybody coming under the scheme. This year we have a balanced budget but how is it being balanced? It is being balanced through the simple expedient of not giving to the common people in Canada the things that they need and deserve. I speak of the veterans who are in need of an increase in their pensions. Increased family allowances are necessary to maintain the standard of living for the children of this country. I speak of the old age pensioners for whom a new form of contribution must be devised so that we can continue to increase old age pensions as needed.
We also balanced this budget at the expense of the farmers and the unemployed of this country. For example, in the matter of family allowances, hon. members will recall that the rates were set in 1945, and they were raised in 1957. We also remember that at the time they were raised in 1957 almost half of the categories were changed so that, in actual fact, only about half of those receiving family allowances received any benefit from the change. It seems to me the time has arrived when we should be again supplying families the amount we originally set in 1945.
I believe that in so far as the veterans are concerned, everybody in the veterans affairs committee agrees that the pension needs to be increased. I do not believe there is anybody in the committee who disagrees with that view. We have been hearing these same people agree with this view for three years now and yet nothing has happened. Elmore Philpott, writing in the Vancouver Sun, had this to say:
When Canada set up the very first war veterans pension scheme back in 1919, the stated fundamental principle was very simple. It was that the basic rate of full pension for a single man was to be equal to the going pay of a day labourer. That is what was then commonly called a "pick-and shovel man". We took over this fair principle from the British.
Then he goes on to show how this has actually worked over the years. In 1919 the civilian wage was $900 and the pension was $900; in 1948 the civilian wage was $2,080 and the pension, $1,128; in 1952 the civilian wage, $2,810 and the pension $1,500; in 1957 the civilian wage was $3,520 and the pension remained at $1,800.
Notwithstanding the three substantial increases which were given from 1948 to 1957, the disabled war veteran is getting less than half of what all parties agreed to in 1919 as the fair and reasonable basis.


Mr. Brooks:: I wonder if the hon. member knows that the same Mr. Philpott he is

quoting is the gentleman who voted against an increase in veterans' pensions which I recommended and moved in the committee in 1952?


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not know that, and I certainly accept the minister's correction. However, this does not in any way change the accuracy of what I am quoting, and I am in complete agreement with these statements.


Mr, Brooks:: I can tell the hon. member that what he is quoting is quite incorrect.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to finish this quotation:
Nobody in any government or party planned to make the disabled war veteran the victim of the process of creeping inflation, but that is how it has worked out.
I do not think this is incorrect. The minister may have quarrelled with the amount, but in days gone by I believe we agreed that a pensioner who was getting a 100 per cent pension, whether it was a war pension, old age pension or a pension granted in compensation by the various provinces, should get a pension that bore some relationship to civilian wages of the day. I am not sure whether the minister agrees that is the relationship. The value of these pensions has decreased very rapidly until today pensioners, particularly those from the first war, are not getting enough to enable them to live. I think this is the type of consideration that has been given that has allowed the Minister of Finance to balance the budget.
When the hon. member for Kootenay West was speaking in this budget debate he said it is true that the C.C.F. has always been desirous of a balanced budget. However, we do not believe in balancing the budget at the expense of the Canadian people. There are times, and there will continue to be times, when it is necessary to spend money to create work that is necessary to provide jobs. The full use of the productive assets of our country is the only way to have a balanced budget or to have a satisfactory arrangement so far as the Canadian people themselves are concerned.
I should like to go on to another matter which relates to a letter put out by a club in British Columbia, and I think it should be brought to the minister's attention. I believe conditions might develop that would not be advantageous to the Canadian people, and I do not think they will be advantageous or fair to the particular baseball club that is affected. This letter refers to the Mounties, a well known baseball club in Vancouver, and refers to the fact that you can buy tickets to the various games, the cost of

which will be deductible for income tax purposes. Here is what they say in the letter:
Here are the various 1960 plans under which you can buy tickets for business-getting distribution to:
1.	Your best customers
2.	The people you want as customers
3.	Your pro-company employees
I do not believe we can agree that you should be able to establish non-union employees, company stooges and the like, by allowing the cost of baseball tickets to be deductible for income tax purposes and allowing the tickets to be used to accomplish these purposes. This is something at which the minister must take a look. I am quite sure he would be willing to give consideration to changing this provision.
One of the special budget speeches was the one made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) this year. He commented on the civil service and made a number of statements as to what he thought would be satisfactory to a large number of these civil servants. I should like now to deal with the salary policy of the government as mentioned by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, and also by his parliamentary secretary. These increases cover only 43,500 out of roughly 170,000 classified civil servants. While these increases are certainly a step in the right direction, when they are looked at in relation to the whole civil service they must be described as a small step indeed.
There is grave doubt among many civil servants as to exactly what their position is regarding salary adjustments. I have carefully followed this issue, and in particular the demands of organized civil servants. I must say that I have been somewhat surprised at the restraint they have shown and also the reasonableness of their requests. As you know, the tendency in private industry is to seek flat, across the board increases. However, I should like to draw your attention to a submission made to the Minister of Finance on February 24 by the joint action committee of the public service organizations. This is the organization described by an hon. member opposite as one led by a group of bludgeoning, bullying leaders. This is a statement that is a little difficult to rationalize with the tempered and reasoning arguments put forward at all times by these people.
In that statement to the Minister of Finance there was no question whatsoever of a flat across the board increase. The committee made certain points which in my opinion are worthy of noting again. They are as follows:
(1)	That the civil service commission recommendations-whatever they may be-in their latest salary report should be implemented.
The Budget-Mr. Peters
(2)	Priority should be given in the budget tc providing the funds necessary to raise the level of civil service salaries to a position of comparability with the salaries of employees in private industry, a position that few classes in the service even begin to approach.
(3)	That the government undertake to maintain civil service salaries at levels comparable to those in private industry by regular adjustments to any classification, or group of classes, shown to be 3 per cent or more behind comparable industrial salary levels.
Where in these statements is there any reference to flat across the board increases? Where is there any attempt to bludgeon the government? It has always been my view as an observer and one who has had experience in industrial negotiations that the civil servants in this country generally have asked for no more than fair and equitable treatment from us their employers. Has the Minister of Finance given them this in his overcautious budgetary announcement? I think not.
Let us look at what has been done to date. I emphasize that promises will not pay the rent, that implied increases for others will not meet doctors' bills, and that many civil servants are frankly concerned as to exactly what is their position regarding adjustments of their salaries. The government in its wisdom has arbitrarily selected April 1, 1960 as the date for adjusting salaries. Yet the present salary anomaly was proved to exist as far back as October 1, 1958.
This is not a matter of my opinion or the opinion of any association, but the result of study by parliament's own agency, the civil service commission through its pay research bureau. This means that even including those who have received increases effective April 1, every civil servant in this country has sustained an average loss in salary of anywhere from $500 to $800 for the period. This, in effect, amounts to additional taxation. I suggest this is another means by which the minister achieved a balanced budget.
The super caution on the part of the Minister of Finance in making piecemeal adjustments has only tended to cause unease, trepidation and wonderment in the minds of many civil servants. There are 45,000 relatively happy civil servants today but there are another 125,000 who do not know exactly what to expect. Great anomalies have been created by this announcement. There are offices today where supervisory employees with heavy responsibilities are being paid

The Budget-Mr. Peters less than those who work under them. Technical, administrative and professional employees have seen traditional relativities destroyed by this piecemeal approach.
Hon. members who have studied the make-up of the civil service will recognize that it is a highly stratified society. Each class is divided into grades, and each grade on the scale is paid a higher salary than the one immediately under it. Such stratification means that there is considerable prestige attached to the position held. This prestige is part of the supervisory system and it is necessary if proper efficiency and discipline is to be maintained. Reduce the dollar spread and the whole structure is out of proportion.
The government must move with haste to restore the proper relationship between the various grades and classes. It is only fair that those civil servants in administrative and technical positions who have not received adjustment now feel that the government is completely unconcerned with maintaining or *restoring the proper salary and supervisory relationships and differential in the various areas of the civil service. However, this particular situation is really not the true illness of government-staff relationships, but rather a symptom of something much deeper.
First of all, I think each and every hon. member of this house must accept some share of responsibility for the situation as it exists. How many of us have taken the time and trouble to truly study the problems of employment in the government service? How many of us have tried with sympathy to [DOT]understand the position of the civil servant .and his associations? How many hon. members actually have underlying feelings of resentment toward the civil servant and his organization for reasons that to me are *vague? How many have truly studied the need for an effective system of collective bargaining within the government service? How many have taken the trouble to listen objectively to the viewpoint of the organizations? If we had, the present unsatisfactory salary situation of the moment would never have occurred. Does the government recognize the legitimate desire of government employees to have a form of negotiation that is honourable and fair to the employee, while at the same time protecting the rights of parliament in money matters.
I have taken the trouble to study the position of the associations on collective bargaining. Nowhere do I see them demanding the right to strike. In fact, none of the major organizations have suggested that the same legislation applying to the industrial situation should also apply to the civil service. With some minor exceptions, civil servants

have no desire to strike or usurp the traditional and legal functions of this parliament to vote money to carry on the country's business. Nor have I seen any desire on the part of civil servants, either individually or through their organizations, to assume cabinet or management functions. To the contrary, they have never asked for anything more than a fair and equitable system that will permit them to sit down with their employer and discuss as equals the terms and conditions of their employment.
In the near future hon. members will be asked to consider a new Civil Service Act. The organized civil servants strongly believe that within the framework of this act there must appear legal provision for collective bargaining. I have not been impressed with the provisions of appendix B of the Heeney report. It is naive in its assumptions and, to my understanding, it completely ignores the legitimate aspirations of the employees. It has all the weaknesses of a unilateral compromise in that it fails completely to appreciate the need for participating in employment matters that now exist. It is too much concerned with maintaining outmoded traditional concepts that are useless in 1960.
There are definite precedents for bargaining for civil servants. The government of Saskatchewan has negotiated with its employees for 15 years. In Great Britain the Whitley system has worked well for many years. In Australia and New Zealand a form of negotiation has been worked out that does not for one moment usurp any of the rights or privileges of the government or parliament, but has provided the employees with a fair and honourable means of collectively solving their problems. In certain so-called backward countries government employees enjoy these rights.
How much longer can we keep our heads in the sand? Collective bargaining is an accepted fact of life today. Even the most reactionary private employers have accepted collective bargaining as being here to stay. This parliament has passed legislation to ensure that citizens at large, excluding our own civil servants, may organize and bargain collectively with their employers. Legislation in practically all provinces provides the same rights. By what logic, by what right, can parliament and the government deny its own employees the proper and accepted means of settling their employment problems in an honourable and dignified way?
Time will not stand still. Collective bargaining for government employees is inevitable. It cannot be achieved by unilateral decision but through a spirit of co-operation

and honesty by the government and civil servants and their organizations. A fair method can and must be worked out. It is time that the government and hon. members recognized that organizations in the civil service are here to stay and that they cannot be treated as evils to be tolerated but not recognized. Common sense dictates such an approach. The civil service is vital to the country's welfare. It must be well paid and provided with proper bargaining procedures if its efficiency and loyalty is to be maintained.
We have been pointing out that there are a number of factors involved in the opportunity the minister took to balance his budget. We believe the budget has been balanced at the sacrifice of the Canadian people and that this type of balanced budget is not necessarily in the interests of the Canadian people. We believe that consideration must be given to all the civil servants. Consideration must be given to retroactivity in our dealings with the civil service if we are going to operate in the manner in which we have operated in the past. We believe that consideration must also be given to the increasing of old age pensions, family allowances and veterans' benefits because these people are the victims in every case, as are all those with fixed incomes, of inflation for which this government is entirely responsible. Mr. Speaker, these are factors which must be taken into consideration in balancing the budget.
In conclusion I want to stress that this budget takes no account of the needs of the recipients of old age pensions, the needs of the civil servants and the needs of others with fixed incomes. It fails to indicate any government plan to deal with the chronic unemployment situation or with our depressed areas such as Elliot Lake, and other places. It fails to offer any plan for dealing with our trade imbalance and with the potentially high, I might say dangerous, influx of foreign equity capital into Canada. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, this group will oppose this budget.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Chown in the chair.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: House in committee of ways and means on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Income Tax Act. Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the business which the house leader was
good enough to announce on Monday will keep us busy for some time after the Easter recess. If that is the case, then I should like to take this opportunity to extend to the house leader, with whom I get along very well, my best wishes for a happy trip to Moscow and return. I trust he will be successful in selling a lot of Canadian wheat. I hope he will not go to Siberia.
May I extend to the Prime Minister, to his followers and to all who sit on this side of the house my very best wishes for a happy Easter recess. To those, I should like to join the name of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker as well as the staff with all of whom we have been so happy to co-operate during the course of this part of the session.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I
thank the hon. member for Laurier for his kind wishes and, in reciprocating them, say to him and through him to the members of the party he represents and to all members of the house that the very best of Easter wishes go to each and every one of them. I express the hope that when we come back renewed by-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Rest.


John George Diefenbaker: -vacation rest the business of the house will advance with even more celerity than has been the case in the past.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to special order made Wednesday, March 30 last, this house stands adjourned until Monday, April 25 next at 2.30 o'clock in the afternoon, and may I wish hon. members much happiness during the intervening days.
It being 3.44 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put; pursuant to special order.



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What are the names of the Canadian companies holding acreage of oil and gas exploratory permits in good standing registered for mainland areas in the Northwest Territories, as at March 1, 1960?
2.	What are the names and country of origin of companies holding gas exploratory permits in good standing registered for mainland areas in Northwest Territories, excluding Canadian companies, United States companies, Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies, and United Kingdom companies?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Shell Oil Company of Canada, Limited, Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas Co. Ltd., Texaco Canada Limited, The British American Oil Company Limited, The Calgary & Edmonton Corporation Ltd., Home Oil Company Limited, Canadian Devonian Petroleums Limited, French Petroleum Company of Canada Ltd., Canadian Homestead Oils Ltd., Canadian Husky Oil Ltd., Canpet Exploration Ltd., Charter Oil Company Ltd., Clarendon Wood Ltd., Colville Lake Explorers Ltd., Consolidated Mic Mac Ltd., Dome Leaseholds Ltd., Dome Petroleum Ltd., Glacier Explorers Ltd., Granwick Mines Ltd., Great Plains Development Co. of Canada Ltd., Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada, Horn River Exploration Limited, Imperial Oil Limited, Kore Petroleums Ltd., Laburnum Enterprises Ltd., Midland Petroleum Ltd., New Superior Oils of Canada Limited, Peel Plateau Exploration (Consolidated) Limited, Ranworth Exploration Limited, Resources Territorial Mining & Development Associates Ltd., Siebens Leaseholds Ltd., Triad Oil Company, Vanguard Explorations Ltd., Western Decalta Ltd.
2.	None.


PRIORITY APPLICATIONS, ARCTIC ISLANDS
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What are the names of the Canadian companies from whom applications have been accepted together with the acreage in each case, for priority applications registered in the Arctic islands?
2.	What are the names of priority applications registered in the Arctic islands together with the
Questions
acreage in each case excluding Canadian companies, United States companies, Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies, and United Kingdom companies?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
acres
1.	Talent Oil and Gas Ltd		3,021,590
Dome Petroleum Ltd	 1,593,359
Charter Oil Company		1,308,454
Cree Oil of Canada Ltd		7,388,129
Trans-Western Oil Ltd	 13,296,062
M. C. McLeod & Co. Ltd. ..	1,729,324
Terratest Co. Ltd	 1,377,648
Chican Petroleum Ltd		437,202
Canadian Homestead Oils,
Ltd	  2,521,167
Siebens Leaseholds Ltd		6,859,015
Total	 39,531,950
acres
2.	J. D.	Bateman	
4,066,031W. R.	Newman	
12,228,219C. M.	McAvoy	
2,846,417G. Radisics	
1,436,233P. C.	Nedham	
1,047,220G. A.	Clarke	
1,418,961Florian Yandel Jr	
1,487,747J.	W. Powelson	
892,672James Ross	
812,611Martin J. Haley	
3,404,810W. Phipps	
67,512F. W. Chub	
4,550,689Richard C. Cowell	
579,320Thomas J.	Rubeo	
3,418,898Murray T.	Koven	
1,880,996A. G. Ghent	
82,988K. G. Ellard	
4,962,955.5William R.	Sheeky	
673,233Charles E.	Ridley	
3,773,568David T. Rosen	
26,504,213Total	
76,135,293.5


COURT APPOINTMENTS SINCE 1957
Mr. Benidickson: What are the names, addresses, date of appointment and age at time of appointment, salary, date of retirement (where applicable) and eventual pension of persons appointed, to the Supreme Court of Canada, supreme courts of the provinces, appeal courts, district and county courts, since June 1, 1957?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):
79951-0-203J

Names


ALBERTA
[Stage Direction]
Supreme Court-Appellate Division Sidney Bruce Smith	
Supreme Court-Trial Division
Sidney Bruce Smith	
James Valentine Hogarth Milvain..
Marshall Edward Manning	
Hugh Cragg Farthing	
District Courts
Lawrence Yeomans Cairns	
Hugh Cragg Farthing	
Arthur Beaumont	
Henry Stuart Patterson	
BRITISH COLUMBIA Court op Appeal
Alexander Campbell DesBrisay...
Supreme Court
Franklin Kay Collins	
Thomas Granthan Norris	
David Robertson Verchere	
County Courts
Gordon Lindsay	
Stanley J. Remnant	
William Arthur Schultz

[Stage Direction]
Court of Appeal
Calvert Charlton Miller_
Samuel Freedman	
Court of Queen's Bench
Calvert Charlton Miller_
Frank Martin Bastin	
William Graham Ferguson
			Date of	
		Age at	retirement	
Date of	time of	(where	EventualAddresses*	appointment	appointment Salary	applicable)	pensionEdmonton	7, 1960	61	16,900	9,600Edmonton	Jan.	8, 1959	60	16,900	9,600Calgary	Aug.	18, 1959	55	16,900	9,600Edmonton	Aug.	18, 1959	54	16,900	9,600Calgary	Apr.	7, 1960	68	16,900	9,600Edmonton	24, 1957	65	10,500	May	19, 1967	5,333.33Calgary	Feb.	1,1958	66	10,500	July	18, 1967	5,333.33Lethbridge	Dec.	24, 1958	67	10,500	Dec.	25, 1966	5,333.33Calgary	Apr.	7, 1960	47	10,500	Oct.	31, 1958	5,333.33Vancouver	May	12, 1958	70	18,500	10,666.67Vancouver	Jan.	28, 1958	66	16,900	9,600Vancouver	July	9, 1959	66	16,900	9,600Vancouver	July	9,1959	53	16,900	9,600Vernon	Sept.	24, 1957	65	10,500	Nov. 15,1967	5,333.33Vancouver	Jan.	28,1958	63	10,500	Feb. 13, 1970	5,333.33Prince Rupert. ...	Jan.	31,1958	46	10,500	Sept. 14, 1987	5,333.33Winnipeg	21, 1959	60	16,900	9,600Winnipeg	10, 1960	52	16,900	9,600Winnipeg	Feb.	19, 1959	60	16,900	9,600Winnipeg	21, 1959	63	16,900	9,600Winnipeg	Apr.	7, 1960	64	16,900	9,6003216	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Question
County Courts
John R. Solomon	 Winnipeg...
NEW BRUNSWICK Supreme Court-Appeal Division
William John West	 Fredericton
Supreme Court-Queen's Bench Division
Albany M. Robichaud	 Bathurst...

[Stage Direction]
Supreme Court
Robert Stafford Furlong	 St.John's..
June 1,1957	47	10,500	Apr. 30,1985	5,333.33Nov. 1, 1958	66	16,900	9,600Dec. 29, 1958	55	16,900	9,600May 12, 1959	55	18,500	10,666.67

[Stage Direction]
Supreme Court
Frank Harris Patterson	
County Courts

[Stage Direction]
Supreme Court-Court or Appeal
Supreme Court-High Court of Justice
County and District Courts
Roland Ayres Carseailen	
James Duncan McCallum	
Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins	
Richard Whittaker Reville	
Maxwell William Strange	
Joseph Abraham Sweet	
Henry Joseph Michael Donley	
(Judge Donley was first appointed judge of the Rainy
Everett Lane Weaver	
Donald Forsyth MacLaren	
Harry James Reynolds	
Patrick Joseph McAndrew	
Lawrence Allan McLennan	
Arthur Roy Willmott	
Albert Ransome Hugill	
Halifax	Oct. 16, 1958	68	16,900	9,600Kentville	Jan. 13, 1958	57	10,500	Jan. 19, 1976	5,333.33Bridgewater	Aug. 1, 1959	54	10,500	Oct. 19, 1980	5,333.33Toronto	Oct. 25,1957	50	16,900	9,600Toronto	Dec. 13. 1957	57	16,900	9,600Toronto	Jan. 31,1958	57	18,500	10,666.67Toronto	June 19,1958	45	16,900	Resigned without	pensionToronto	Oct. 7, 1958	59	16,900	9,600Toronto	Oct. 7, 1958	68	16,900	9,600Toronto	Oct. 1, 1959	58	16,900	9,600Chatham	Nov. 7, 1957	53	10,500	Apr. 27, 1979	5,333.33London	June 15,1957	55	10,500	Aug. 25, 1977	5,333.33Toronto	Jan. 1, 1958	63	10,500	Apr. 14, 1970	5,333.33Brantford	Jan. 17,1958	47	10,500	Oct. 2, 1986	5,333.33Kingston	Jan. 17, 1958	52	10,500	Feb. 21, 1981	5,333.33Hamilton	Nov. 12, 1958	61	10,500	Jan. 21, 1972	5,333.33Toronto	Nov. 12, 1958	57	10,500	Nov. 26, 1976	5,333.33River district on	October 20. 1948)	Toronto	Nov. 12, 1958	57	10,500	May 3, 1976	5,333.33Barrie	Dec. 11,1958	59	10,500	June 24, 1974	5,333.33Sault Ste. Marie.	Dec. 11,1958	66	10,500	Aug. 25, 1967	5,333.33Port Arthur	Dec. 11,1958	50	10,500	Jan. 23, 1983	5,333.33Kenora	May 20, 1959	51	10,500	May 26, 1983	5,333.33Cobourg	June 22,1959	65	10,500	Oct. 18, 1969	5,331.33Fort Frances	June 30,1959	62	10,500	Aug. 3, 1972	5,333.33
' The place indicated is where court is ordinarily held or where the judge is by law obliged to reside.

Questions
Fulton.]
g
[Stage Direction]
Names
				Date of	
		Age at		retirement	
Date of	time of	(where	EventualAddresses*	appointment	appointment	Salary	applicable)	pension
Court of Queen's Bench
Pierre Amable Badeaux			 Montreal		Jan. 1, 1960	69	16,900	9,600
Superior Court					
Jean St. Germain	
Montreal	Nov. 7, 1957	53	16,900	9,600Frederic Dorion	
Quebec	Nov. 7, 1957	59	16,900	9,600Joseph Achille Joli-Coeur	
Quebec	Dec. 13, 1957	61	16,900	9,600Gaetan Sylvestre	
Montreal	Dec. 23, 1957	54	16,900	(Died March 17, 1959)Antoine Lacourciere	
Quebec	Jan. 24, 1958	54	16,900	9,600Alexandre Tache	
Hull	Oct. 7, 1958	59	16,900	9,600Maurice Cousineau	
Montreal	Aug. 14, 1959	54	16,900	9,600Jean Blais	
Quebec	Aug. 14, 1959	54	16,900	9,600Paul R. Miquelon	
Quebec	Oct. 15, 1958	57	16,900	9,600Leon Casgrain	
Mr. Justice Casgrain was first appointed	
Riviere-du-Loup.. Aug. 14,1959 a judge of the Quebec district of the superior court	67 on Sep. 9, 1948)	16,900	9,600Pierre Gobeil	
Chicoutimi	Aug. 14, 1959	43	16,900	9,600Leopold Larouche	
Rouyn	Apr. 15, 1960	49	16,900	9,600
<0
e

[Stage Direction]
Court of Queen's Bench
Emmett Matthew Hall	
Russell Lawrence Brownridge
Regina	
Oet. 1, 1957	59Moose Jaw	
July 3, 1959	45
18,500
16,900
10,666.67
9,600

[Stage Direction]
Herbert Elwood Keown
Swift Current... Sept. 24, 1957	67
10,500	Sept. 15,1965	5,333.33
[Stage Direction]
Territorial Court
John Parker	 Whitehorse

[Stage Direction]
Ronald Martland	 Ottawa	
Wilfred Judson	 Ottawa
[Stage Direction]
Roland Almon	Ritchie	
Ottawa	June	19, 1958	47	16,900	Nov. 26,1986	9,600Jan.	15, 1958	51	22,500	Feb. 10, 1982	13,333.33Feb.	5, 1958	56	22,500	July 20,1977	13,333.33May	5, 1959	49	22,500	June 19, 1985	13,333.33
The place indicated is where court is ordinarily held or where the judge is by law obliged to reside.

Mr. Carter: 1.	Have any proposals been submitted to the government of Canada for the establishment of (a) a free port and/or (b) a transshipment port at Mortier bay, Newfoundland?
2.	If so, what is the nature of those proposals and from whom were they received?
3.	If not, is the government giving any consideration to the possibility of bringing such a project into being?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	The government has received a request that it finance an investigation of the engineering, economic, and financial aspects of a project to establish a transshipment port at Mortier bay, Newfoundland.
2.	The request was made by H. D. MacKenzie and C. F. MacLellan of Toronto, on behalf of The Mortier Bay Development Company Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of Newfoundland.
3.	The government having had a careful study made of the proposal decided to take no action.


PENAL INSTITUTIONS-SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, ETC.
Mr. Regier: 1.	How many inmates are there in solitary confinement in each of the penitentiaries built by the federal government?
2.	Has any inmate now in solitary confinement been so confined for a period in excess of one year? If so, how many, and for what lengths of time has each of them already spent in solitary confinement?
3.	Does the government enforce the legislation forbidding penitentiary employees from taking additional outside employment?
4.	In how many penitentiaries are members of the medical profession permitted to operate a practice outside of their civil service duties?
5.	In how many penitentiaries is provision made for a separate and distinct office for the work of the employees of the John Howard society?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of
Justice):
1. Penitentiary inmates are not kept in solitary confinement. In each institution there is a block of cells where inmates are dissociated from the rest of the population for disciplinary or administrative reasons. As of December 31, 1959 the number of inmates so dissociated was as follows:
Dorchester penitentiary	 3
St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary .	5
Kingston penitentiary	 8
Manitoba penitentiary	 2
Saskatchewan penitentiary		2
British Columbia penitentiary ...	2
Total	 22
Questions
2.	As of December 31, 1959 three inmates had been so dissociated for more than one year as follows: 1 since June 1954, 1 since August 1956, 1 since April 1958.
3.	In common with other civil servants, penitentiary employees are not precluded from accepting part-time employment in their off-duty hours, so long as such employment does not interfere with their efficiency in the carrying out of the duties of their normal employment.
4.	Penitentiary physicians at Dorchester, federal training centre, Kingston, Collin's Bay, Joyceville, Saskatchewan and British Columbia penitentiaries are permitted to carry on a practice outside their civil service duties under the terms of their employment.
5.	At no penitentiary are separate and exclusive offices provided for the representatives of the John Howard societies. Adequate provision is made at all penitentiaries for the interviewing of inmates by the representatives of the various organizations concerned with the rehabilitation of inmates.


RURAL MAIL CONTRACT, CAPE BRETON, N.S.
Mr. Argue: 1.	Was Mr. Archie MacDougall awarded a contract for rural mail delivery on a new rural route to be known as East Bay, R.R. 2, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, when?
3.	Were tenders called for this service prior to January 4, 1960?
4.	If so, when?
5.	Did Mr, Robert Muir, M.P. for Cape Breton North and Victoria, announce on behalf of the government in the Cape Breton Post on January 4, 1960, that Mr. Archie MacDougall had been awarded the contract for the service?
6.	Was Mr. Archie MacDougall informed that his contract was revoked and that tenders would be called again?
7.	If so, for what reason?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster
General):
1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	September 1959-tenders due 16th October 1959; no offers received.
5.	No information.
6.	and 7. See answer to No. 1.


C.N.R. TELEGRAPH OFFICE RENTALS, HULL, QUE.
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Does the Canadian National Railways rent telegraph offices in the city of Hull, Quebec?
2.	If so, what are the names and addresses of the owners of the rented buildings?
3.	What are, in each case and for each year, the terms and conditions of the lease?
4.	In each case, for how many years has the Canadian National Railways been renting such offices?

Questions
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1. Yes.
2.	Mr. Alexis Caron, Hull, P.Q.
3.	It is not the practice of the management to disclose details of business transactions which relate entirely to the internal operation of the system.
4.	Since 1943.

Monday, April 25, 1960