1960-02-03

Mr. John Pallett (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report on the list of members to compose standing committees of the house under standing order 65. With unanimous consent, I intend later this day to move concurrence in this report.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to move concurrence in this report later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Winch:: What is it?


Mr. Speaker:: Report of the standing committee appointed to prepare and report on the list of members to compose the standing committees of the house under standing order 65.
And during the reading of the report:


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the Clerk be allowed to dispense with the reading, and remind hon. members that this is purely a pro forma motion. The membership now struck may be changed, as is the custom, at any time, on a subsequent motion made in the house.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I feel that perhaps it is not a pro forma motion in this respect.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It always has been.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it has been in so far as all the committees are concerned, but I think this is the first time that one committee has been selected from among the others and a resolution moved. For that reason I would ask the leader of the house whether he would not allow concurrence to stand until tomorrow so we might take a look at the list.


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Speaker, for the record this is not the first time that one standing committee has been appointed in advance of others.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Several since I have been here.


Lionel Chevrier: It is certainly the first time this committee has been appointed.
79951-0-43-J


Mr. Speaker:: There was some suggestion that the reading be dispensed with but I felt, as the house was disposed to give leave to the moving of concurrence, that the report ought to be read in full so the house would know what it was concurring in. Does the hon. member wish to withdraw leave to move concurrence this day?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. If it could stand over until tomorrow we would appreciate it a great deal. I do not want to insist any further upon it being read if that is the view of the house. I think I would withdraw my objection with respect to not reading the report, but I should like to obtain the permission of the leader of the house, if possible, to the moving of concurrence in the resolution tomorrow.


Mr. Churchill:: That will be satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: Then is it the wish of the house that the reading of this report be dispensed with?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1959-60

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1960, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform members of the house that the government has approved, subject to further financial arrangements being satisfactorily negotiated, the participation by Canada in the construction of a multipurpose coaxial cable in the Pacific ocean between Vancouver, British Columbia, and New Zealand and Australia. Completion date will be some time in 1964, and the cable will form the second leg of the round the world commonwealth cable system. This trans-Pacific section will cost around $75 million, of which Canada's share will be approximately $25 million. Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, the crown company under the Department

Proposed Legislation
of Transport, will, on behalf of Canada, own the portion of the trans-Pacific cable from Vancouver to a point approximately 2,700 miles distant from Canada. The section beyond that point to Sydney, Australia, will be owned jointly by Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: May I ask the minister whether this has any reference to a sharing of television programs that might be available throughout the commonwealth?


George Harris Hees: Not that I am aware of.



PARLIAMENT HILL


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-42, for the control of traffic on the precincts of parliament.
Some hen. Members: Explain.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the control of traffic on parliament hill by the protective staffs of both houses under the authority of the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons respectively, rather than by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as at present. Some hon. members of this house have had bad experiences lately-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Guy Rouleau: -with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police when their cars were towed away. It is suggested in my bill, Mr. Speaker, that the protective staffs of the Senate and the House of Commons be substituted for the R.C.M.P., who can still continue parading around the grounds and being photographed with pretty girls, which at times seems to be their main occupation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker; since the hon. member has made a controversial statement in the course of asking for leave to introduce a bill, perhaps I might be allowed to comment. I might say that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have had some rather unfortunate experiences with some of the members of this house in their attempts to enforce the traffic regulations, and the hon. member knows well of what I am speaking.


Lionel Chevrier: On a question of privilege, I do not think the Minister of Justice has a right to reflect on the character of any hon. member in this house. If the Minister of Justice has a question of privilege to raise on his responsibility he may

do so under the rules. On the other hand, under the rules a member of parliament has a right to introduce any bill, providing it is not contrary to regulations, and this one is not. I protest against the infraction of the rule in the suggestion that a member of this house has been guilty of misconduct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the point of order or question of privilege, may I-


Mr. Speaker:: I am now considering the question of privilege which, I take it, was just raised by the hon. member for Laurier. May I hear the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: On the question of privilege, may I say that I believe the Minister of Justice has no right to make a general, sweeping statement that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have had some unfortunate experiences in enforcing the law so far as some members of the House of Commons are concerned. This statement may or may not be true, but I challenge the right of the Minister of Justice to make this statement. However, if he persists in making it, then I believe it is his duty to say what members of parliament, the individual members of parliament, have been guilty of getting into unfortunate experiences with the mounted police, in order that he not be guilty of putting all the members of parliament under a cloud.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rose originally for the purpose of objecting to the fact that the hon. member for Dollard had been guilty of an infraction of the rules when he asked for leave to introduce this bill. In the course of introducing the bill he departed from the practice of making an explanatory statement and made accusations against members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, whose duty it is, by the will of this house and by the agreement of all parties in this house, to enforce the traffic regulations on parliament hill.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the minister rising on a point of order because it is a point that can be raised, but in speaking to it I would ask him not to do the thing about which he is objecting in so far as the member who introduced the bill is concerned. We must not debate issues that may be raised on the bill. The hon. member did go beyond the explanation of the contents of the bill, and I take it the point of order was properly made by the minister. On the other hand the minister fell into the same error, in my opinion, when he made the statement which he did and which has now raised a question of privilege. If there is nothing more to be said on the point of order I should be glad to hear anything further on the question of privilege, but I hope not.

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister should be asked to withdraw his remarks reflecting on the members of this house. The hon. member who introduced the bill may have been reflecting on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which perhaps he should or should not have done in introducing his bill, but the minister, who should know better, said something that reflects on all the members of the house and particularly on the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure just what the words were, but as I recall them the minister said that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had had some unfortunate experiences with members of the house. Well, that is not a very strong accusation, and it is not directed against any individual. I would be disposed not to regard it as a matter of privilege.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Mariin (Essex East): 1.	Has there been any increase in the levels of strontium 90 in Canadian milk since June, 1959?
2.	What is the present level of strontium 90 in Canadian milk, and how does it compare with the level a year ago?
3.	What progress has been made towards implementing the proposed new facilities to measure the level of caesium 137 directly in the human body?
4.	Is any such facility actually in operation at the present time in Canada?
5.	Has the international commission on radiological protection supplied the Canadian government with new figures indicating maximum permissible levels of strontium 90 and caesium 137?
6.	If so, what are these maximum permissible levels?


Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answers are as follows:
1.	No; rather there has been a steady decrease.
2.	Most recent results available are for September, 1959, for which the national average level was 11.8 micromicrocuries strontium 90 per gram of calcium. This compares with the national average level for September, 1958 of 11.9 micromicrocuries strontium 90 per gram of calcium. The results for the fourth quarter of 1959 should be available shortly.
3.	Final design of the major components of the proposed new facilities within the Department of National Health and Welfare for measuring caesium 137 in the human
Starred Questions
body has now been completed and the necessary purchase orders issued. Owing to building requirements it will be some time yet, however, before these facilities are operating.
4.	Two other such facilities are in operation in Canada, one at the University of Toronto in the physics department, assistance for which was provided through the national health grants, and the other at the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited laboratory, Deep River.
5.	The latest report of the international commission on radiological protection committee II containing recommended maximum permissible concentration in air, water and maximum permissible body burden for strontium 90 and caesium 137 has not yet been released, but is understood to be in the hands of the publishers. The report containing recommendations of the main commission has been published but this gives a general summary of maximum permissible exposures rather than specific values for nuclides such as strontium 90 and caesium 137.
6.	See answer to No. 5.



CAMBODIA


Mr. Mariin (Essex East): 1.	Did the Canadian government receive a request for instructions from Mr. A. E. Blanchette, Canadian delegate on the three-man international supervisory commission for Cambodia, before he joined the team travelling to Cambodia in the year 1958?
2.	If so, did the government give Mr. Blanchette immediate instructions?
3.	If not, what action did Mr. Blanchette take in the absence of specific instructions from the Canadian government?
4.	On what date did Mr. Blanchette request instructions from the Canadian government?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: The answers are as follows:
1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	None.
4.	No such request was made.



COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES


Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the committee on technological changes, or any other committee or body appointed by the government, completed a report on automation in the automotive industry?
2.	Were automotive plants in Windsor, Ontario visited during the preparation of the report mentioned?
3.	Has the committee on technological changes, or any other committee or body appointed by the government, completed a report on the electrical industry and the machine industry?
4.	If such reports have not yet been completed, when does the government expect to receive them?

Starred Questions


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: The answers are as follows:
1.	A report is nearing completion on technological changes and skilled manpower in the automotive industry as part of the research program on the training of skilled manpower. This report is being prepared in consultation with the advisory committee on technological change.
2.	Yes.
3.	A report has already been completed entitled "Technological Changes and Skilled Manpower in the Electric and Electronics Industry and in the Heavy Machinery Industry", as part of the above program.
4.	See answer to question No. 3.



CARILLON POWER PROJECT

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	What is the estimate of cost of the Carillon power development, how much of this is attributable to power, how much to navigation, and how much to works common to both power and navigation?
2.	When will the work be started and when completed?
3.	To what extent will the water levels be raised by this project?
4.	What is the present water level at Ottawa-Hull, Hawkesbury-Grenville, the entrance to La Riviere des Mille-Iles, the entrance to La Prairie river and at Cascades, the junction of the Ottawa river with the St. Lawrence river, and what will the water level be at these same places once the project is completed?
5.	What amount of property will be inundated by the project, what is the estimate of cost of the land to be expropriated, and the description and location thereof?
6.	Will any of the bridges over the Ottawa river be affected, and to what extent and at what cost?
7.	What is the estimate of the cost of building the lock at the power dam?
8.	Will navigation be provided for 9 or 14 foot channels?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisier of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this answer is detailed and lengthy, and with the approval of the hon. member for Laurier I should like to have this question made an order for return. Otherwise I will read the detailed answer.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it could be put in Hansard instead of making it an order for return.


David James Walker: I thank the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house concur in the suggestion that the answer be put in Hansard as an answer to the question rather than be made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editors note: The answer referred to above is as follows]
1.	This is a hydro-Quebec project and, apart from newspaper reports, no exact information on costs is available.

2.	Consent, under section 5(2)(a) of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, to start construction on the cofferdam work was given on October 27, 1959, and this is now under way. No exact information is available on the completion date.
3.	The design forebay elevation at Carillon is elevation 135.00, referring to Canadian geodetic datum.
4.	Present water level at Ottawa-Hull is about elevation 133.00. However, the variation in water levels due to flow changes is between 129.00, corresponding to a low flow of 30,000 cubic feet per second, to 148.50, corresponding to a high flood flow of 280,000 cubic feet per second. Present water level at Hawkesbury is about 130.00. However, this varies between 127.00 at low flow, to 138.00 at flood flows. Present water levels of Lake of Two Mountains at the outlets to La Riviere des Milles-Iles, la Prairie river, and the Vaudreuil and Ste. Anne de Bellevue outlets is about 72.00. However, this varies with the flow between elevation 68.00 at low flows, to elevation 81.00 at flood flows. (It is presumed that the reference to "Cascades" is the "Vaudreuil outlet", as Cascades is actually in the St. Lawrence river.) It is expected that the future water level at Ottawa-Hull will be normally about 136.50, although this will depend on the plan of operation of the plant to some extent. The plan of operation is still under discussion. Similarly, the future water level at Hawkesbury will normally be about 135.40, subject to whatever plan is adopted for the plant operation. The future water levels at the outlets of Lake of Two Mountains will be dependent upon the method of operation, and no set elevation can be given now.
5.	This is a matter which is arranged between the two provinces concerned, and no exact information is available.
6.	Bridges to be affected are:	The
Hawkesbury-Grenville highway bridge and the C.N.R. bridge at Hawkesbury.
No information is yet available on the estimates of cost for the bridge alterations.
7.	The type of lock has not been settled yet, and therefore the cost is not known.
8.	Nine foot channels.



CARILLON POWER DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Did the government of the province of Quebec and/or l'hydro-Quebec make an agreement with the federal government or the Department of Public Works or any other department of government to develop power at Carillon on the Ottawa river?
2.	If so, what are the terms of the agreement and will it be submitted to parliament for approval?
3.	What plan will be adopted by l'hydro-Quebec to develop power in this area, and what effect will

the plan have upon the water levels of the Ottawa river and on the water levels and ice conditions in the port of Montreal?
4.	What effect will the plan have upon navigation, and what precautions are being taken to protect navigation on the Ottawa river and riparian rights?
5.	Will a canal be built to circumnavigate the power dam?
6.	What amount of power will be developed at this site?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, this is not as long an answer. It is as follows:
1.	No. However, following an agreement between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec regarding the division of power development sites on the Ottawa river, the federal government, by order in council P.C. 651 dated January 26, 1943, made, under the War Measures Act, provision for the transfer of lands for the construction of the developments, provided such developments first received approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This order in council was confirmed by an act of parliament on July 24, 1943.
2.	Terms of the act are given in the statutes of Canada, chapter 30, 1943-44. Details of the development are still under discussion.
3.	The plan or method of operation to be adopted is still under discussion. Therefore the final effect on water levels and ice conditions has not been completely established.
4.	See No. 3 above. Navigation after development will be as good or better. The protection of riparian rights is the concern of hydro-Quebec.
5.	No. A lock for navigational purposes will be provided on the Quebec side of the dam structure.
6.	Hydro-Quebec reports that the installed horsepower will be 840,000.



PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT AND SALARY STATISTICS

Mr. Caron: 1.	How many civil servants were employed in Canada by the federal government on December 31, 1959?
2.	How many of them were paid an annual salary of (a) $2,000 or less; (b) $2,001 to $3,000; (c) $3,001 to $4,000; (d) $4,001 to $5,000?
lion. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is lengthy and full of statistics. If the house is agreeable I would like to hand the answer to the Hansard reporter for insertion in Hansard at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member who asked the question agrees, has the house any objection to the answer being printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Starred Questions
[Editor's note:	The answer referred to
above is as follows]
1.	Data for December 31, 1959 are not available. The latest figures available are for July 31, 1959 and show:
(a)	Departmental branches, services and
corporations:	salaried, 157,545; prevailing
rate, 27,532; ships' officers and crews, 2,875; total, 187,952; casuals and others, 16,774; grand total, 204,726.
(b)	Agency and proprietary corporations and other agencies: 146,268.
2.	The latest annual tabulation available by annual salary level groups is for March 31, 1959 and shows: (a) 6,719 employees paid an annual salary of $1,999 or less,* (b) 37,439 employees paid an annual salary of $2,000 to $2,999, (c) 53,640 employees paid an annual salary of $3,000 to $3,999, (d) 23,789 employees paid an annual salary of $4,000 to $4,999.
*Data are not available showing annual salary groupings on the basis of (a) $2,000 or less; (b) $2,001 to $3,000; (c) $3,001 to $4,000; (d) $4,001 to $5,000.



HULL, QUE.  MAIL CONVEYANCE CONTRACT

Mr. Caron: 1.	Did Mr. Jeremie Poirier have a contract for the conveyance of mail in the city of Hull?
2.	If so, during what period of time?
3.	What remuneration did he receive?
4.	Have public tenders been recently called for this mail contract?
5.	If so, what are the names and addresses of those who submitted tenders and the amount of each tender?
6.	Who has the present contract and what is his remuneration?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answers are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	From October 7, 1937 to April 10, 1959. Contract was transferred to Mr. Arthur Per-rault at Mr. Poirier's request.
3.	The sum of $3,670 per annum.
4.	Yes.
5.	Not available. The closing date for submission of tenders is February 19, 1960.
6.	Rod Service Limited at $2.80 per hour on a temporary basis.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE FINANCING


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the government have an agreement with the province of Ontario regarding the financing of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation?
2.	If so, was there any clause or portion of this agreement which gave Ontario the opportunity to dissociate itself from the agreement, in so far as financial interest was concerned?

Starred Questions
3.	If so, was this option exercised, in what form was the decision given to the government, and what were the explanations, if any, for the failure to take part?
4.	Subsequent to any reception of Ontario's decision to withdraw or not to take part, was any action taken by the government, in any form, to get a reconsideration of that decision on the part of the province of Ontario?
5.	If so, what points were made to Ontario?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the answers are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	No. The Minister of Finance covered this in his statement of February 3, 1959.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION-PURCHASE OF PHARMACEUTICAL NILEVAR

Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1958, has the Department of Defence Production purchased a pharmaceutical known as Nilevar?
2.	If so, what was (a) the date of each purchase; (b) the unit or units by which the pharmaceutical was purchased; (c) the purchase price for such unit or units; (d) the name and address of the supplier?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to No. 1 is no. Therefore No. 2 is not applicable.
For corrected answer see Hansard, page 3998.



U.S. JOINT PRODUCTION SHARING IN CANADA

Mr. Pickersgill: In what official publication do the statistics cited by the Prime Minister on November 3, 1959, of "United States joint production sharing in Canada" appear?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the statistics concerning United States joint production sharing in Canada do not appear in the form in which they were used in any official publication, but represent a summary of available information.



HORNET RIFLES


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 11
Guy Rouleau: 1.	Have any hornet rifles been distributed by crown assets corporation for sale to the general public? If so, how many?
2.	Did the crown assets corporation receive any advice or seek any advice from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Royal Canadian Air Force as to the suitability of these weapons for public use? If not, why was such advice not sought?
3.	What price was received per unit by the crown assets corporation?
4.	Is the government taking steps to repurchase these rifles? If so, at what price per unit?
5.	When will arrangements be announced by the Department of Defence Production for the repurchase of the hornet rifles in circulation?


Donat Raymond: Mr. Speaker, the
answers are as follows:
1.	Yes. 2,801 hornet rifles were sold to licensed firearm dealers, who are subject to laws governing their sale to the public.
2.	Advice was sought from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as to the status of the weapons under the Criminal Code and the corporation was informed that possession of the rifles would be legal and that they would not be subject to registration if the barrel had not been cut since manufacture. Furthermore, some dealers also cleared with provincial police forces on their own initiative before purchasing the rifles.
3.	Various prices averaging $10.40 per rifle.
4.	Yes. Crown assets disposal corporation will repurchase all rifles in accordance with the announcement of government policy on the subject by the Minister of Justice on December 23, 1959.
5.	Within the next week.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD, ST. LAURENT, QUE.   SNOW REMOVAL

Mr. Rouleau: 1.	Have tenders been asked for the removal of snow at the national film board, at St. Laurent, Quebec?
2.	If so, when were the tenders opened, what were the names of the bidders, for what amount, which firm was awarded the contract and for what amount?
3.	If the contract has not been awarded, what was the reason for not awarding it?
4.	Which firm is doing the work for the time being, on what basis and will new tenders be asked? If so, when?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, in reply to this question of the hon. member for Dollard, I would like to have this question made an order for return or, in the alternative, that a reply be filed with Hansard and included as part of the record. It is quite a lengthy reply with some detailed statistics.


Mr. Speaker:: With the concurrence of the hon. member to the printing of the answer in Hansard, does the house give permission that the answer be printed as part of Hansard?


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, on this point I believe we are establishing rather a precedent here in allowing a reply which has not been orally rendered in the house to be printed as part of Hansard. I believe our custom has always been that under such conditions it must be added as an appendix to Hansard rather than included as part of Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the matter is proceeded with may I refer the house to subsection 5 of standing order 39, which reads as follows:
If a question is of such a nature that, in the opinion of the minister who is to furnish the reply, such reply should be in the form of a return, and, during the question period on Wednesday, the minister states that he has no objection to laying such return upon the table of the house, his statement shall, unless otherwise ordered by the house, be deemed an order of the house to that effect and the same shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings as such.
Apparently the rules have provided for just such a contingency, and it would appear to be the better practice to follow the rules rather than by unanimous consent to incorporate the answer in Hansard. Unless the house otherwise orders the request of the minister will be accepted, and the question made an order for return, with the answer filed herewith.



BRIDGE COLLAPSES, ST. LAWRENCE RIVER AREA, CORNWALL

Mr. Argue: 1.	Has any bridge collapsed in the vicinity of the new south channel high level bridge on the St. Lawrence river at Cornwall, since 1890?
2.	If so, what was the date of erection and the date of collapse?
3.	Was an investigation held in regard to the said bridge collapse?
4.	If so, (a) what was the date of the investigation; (b) who conducted it; (c) what were the findings as to the cause of collapse?



VOLUNTARY EXPORT CONTROLS

Mr. Benidickson: When Canadian ministers met Prime Minister Kishi of Japan in Ottawa, did any of them urge the Japanese prime minister to institute voluntary export controls with the objective of reducing (a) total export to Canada, or (b) exports to Canada of a particular product, below the level for 1959?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this question does not lend itself fairly to a short answer. I have prepared a statement giving information on this subject. This is not a situation in which one would ask that it be put on Votes and Proceedings but if it met with the wish of the house, as the statement is a little longer than could be conveniently given orally as an answer, I would ask to have the statement printed in Hansard at this place.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member who asked this question in agreement?


William Moore Benidickson: I agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is agreeing to the proposition that it be printed in Hansard?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sure it will have the usual evasions in the answer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, especially in 79951-0-44
Starred Questions
view of the comments made by the hon. member who asked the question, that we follow the practice laid down by the rules and have this made an order for return. That is the practice under the rules, and it seems to me we would be much better advised to follow the rules of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that prior to your ruling at least three of these questions now on the order paper were answered by having the answers placed in Hansard and not made orders for returns. If there is to be any change in that course we on this side would like to know it, because we propose to do something about it. If my understanding of the position is correct then I think we should proceed in the manner in which we have been proceeding.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, as the
proposer of the motion may I say this. I thought the motion was concise and I thought the answer, despite the fact that it would come from the Minister of Finance, might this time be concise. I think it would be better to have the answer appear as an appendix to Hansard than as an order for return, because we never know when we will get an answer to an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but it would
take unanimous consent to have this answer printed in Hansard. As I understand it there is objection to that course; therefore I cannot proceed with the course suggested by the hon. members. Am I correct in understanding that there is a request that this answer be made an order for return?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking that the answer be made an order for return within the meaning of the rule. The information requested is here in a statement I had prepared. I was not prepared to read the statement by reason of its length, and in order to save the time of the house I would suggest that in accordance with the practice followed on a number of occasions the statement be printed in today's Hansard at this point, not as an appendix, but in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: If the house agrees unanimously, very well; but if there is any objection I shall have to ask the minister to read his statement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous order of the
house this answer will be printed in Hansard. May I just say on that point that by unanimous consent the house always has control over its proceedings and can direct this course if it sees fit. One consideration is the cost of printing, which does run up, and I am

Starred Questions
sure the house will exercise its discretion wisely.
[Editor's note:	The statement referred to
above is as follows;]
It will be recalled that on June 19 last I informed the house that the Japanese government had suspended the issuing of new licences for the export to Canada of a broad range of textile products. This suspension followed an extraordinary increase in Japanese exports to Canada of these products heavily concentrated in a narrow range of items. Following that announcement, discussions took place between the Canadian and Japanese authorities concerning the basis upon which the trade in these items would be resumed. On August 16 I announced the conclusion of those discussions and described in detail the quotas which would be applied for the rest of 1959. I also indicated that the Japanese authorities had undertaken to consult the Canadian government before making their decisions on the 1960 quotas. In addition to certain textile products, Japan also maintains export restraints on shipments to Canada of plywood and stainless steel flatware. The current discussions relate to the products now under control together with several others.
Consultations between Japan and Canada on the quotas for 1960 have been in progress for a number of weeks. It had been our hope that these discussions would be completed before the end of December in order that the industries in both countries would be able to plan their lines of production for 1960. A great deal of detailed and technical work is, however, involved and it has not been possible to complete the consultations as quickly as we had hoped. The government regards these consultations as urgent and important and it is intended that they should be concluded as quickly as possible. As the Prime Minister indicated to the house on January 22, my colleagues and I had an opportunity to discuss these problems with the Japanese Prime Minister and the Japanese foreign minister during their visit to Ottawa. They readily recognized the need to complete these consultations quickly.
Japanese exports to Canada are concentrated very heavily in the textile field and several other manufactured products such as plywood and stainless steel flatware. In 1959, for example, approximately 40 per cent of Japan's exports to Canada were textiles. Moreover, within the general category of textiles the impact is concentrated on a rather limited number of products, particularly garments. This concentration adds greatly to the difficulties Canadian producers of these products would in any case experience as a result of the rapid expansion of Japanese exports.

From the time we entered into a trade agreement, the Japanese have recognized that the growth of their exports to Canada must proceed on an orderly basis and that they must avoid disruption of Canadian markets which would result from excessive concentration and too rapid and extensive penetration. This is the reason why in their own interest they have introduced restraints on exports of particularly sensitive products to Canada.
When we speak of orderly growth, both countries have agreed that they have in mind for individual products which are competitive with Canadian production increases of about 5 to 10 per cent in a good year, that is a year in which the Canadian economy is buoyant and demand for the products in question is rising. This does not mean that imports should increase by this amount in products where our market has already been flooded; nor does it mean that larger increases can never be accepted for products where the Canadian industry is not experiencing difficulties in meeting competition. In 1959, however, imports into Canada from Japan increased by almost 50 per cent over 1958. Within this over-all increase, textile imports taken together almost doubled. Imports of some items-indeed of some quite sensitive items-rose by 100 per cent or even 150 per cent, from a base that was already large. These increases are far beyond any reasonable definition of orderly growth. I emphasize this in order to make it clear why these present consultations are so necessary if we are to work out with the Japanese government export levels which will be consistent with our agreed objective of orderly growth. It is evident that there has been some misunderstanding in some quarters in Canada as to what we are seeking in these discussions.
As hon. members know, there has been a steady expansion of trade in both directions since our trade agreement came into force. Japanese sales in Canada have increased from $14 million in 1953 to approximately $105 million in 1959. Canadian exports to Japan have increased in the same period from $119 million to approximately $135 million.
Since 1955 sales of Canadian wheat and flour to Japan have gone up from $54 million to over $70 million and there are good prospects that sales of grain as well as other Canadian exports will continue to grow. The current discussions with Japan for the purpose of ensuring that Japanese exports to Canada proceed on an orderly basis will not prejudice the expansion of our sales to Japan including wheat. On the contrary, it is only by avoiding disruption of Canadian markets and damage to sensitive Canadian industries that we can look to a mutually advantageous expansion of trade with Japan on a basis

which can be sustained over the years. The Japanese government is fully aware of this position.



C.N.R.-THORNHILL BY-PASS, TORONTO

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the government received briefs and letters on the Canadian National Railways Thornhill bypass from any groups or associations or from members of parliament?
2.	If so, what groups, at what time?
3.	Which of these representations were favourable to the projected by-pass route now determined as most suitable by the Canadian National Railways?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as this question was only recently put on the order paper and as a considerable amount of work is necessary to get a complete answer, I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to stand this question, and it will be answered next week.
Question stands.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Does the federal government, the civil service commission, or any crown company or government agency specify an age limit in employing staff in any classification or category?
2.	If so, what is the age limit in each classification or category?
3.	What are the reasons for imposing an age limit, if any such age limit is specified?


NATIONAL FILM BOARD, ST. LAURENT, QUE.   SNOW REMOVAL
Mr. Rouleau: 1.	Have tenders been asked for the removal of snow at the national film board, at St. Laurent, Quebec?
2.	If so, when were the tenders opened, what were the names of the bidders, for what amount, which firm was awarded the contract and for what amount?
3.	If the contract has not been awarded, what was the reason for not awarding it?
4.	Which firm is doing the work for the time being, on what basis and will new tenders be asked? If so, when?


DEPORTATION ORDERS
Mr. Howard: 1.	Have any orders for the deportation of persons from Canada been issued since January 1, 1958 and, if so, how many in each month since that time?
2.	For each such order: (a) What was the name and address of the affected person or persons? (b) Did the affected person or persons have any dependents and, if so, how many and what was their relationship to the affected person or persons? (c) By what means and upon what dates did each such affected person gain entry to Canada? (d) What was the reason for its issuance? (e) What was the date of its execution? (f) Was its date of execution postponed and, if so, to what date and for what reasons? (g) Was any cancelled, and if so, what date and for what reason?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, may question No. 39 be made an order for
79951-0-44-|
Orders for Returns
return subject to the following limitations: The addresses of persons whose deportation has been effected are not available to the department, and it is considered that embarrassment and inconvenience would be caused-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if it would be possible for the hon. member to give that information in the return.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I shall be glad to,
Mr. Speaker. May I say the reason for giving the information at this time is that I thought concurrence of the mover of the motion was required.


Mr. Speaker:: No, I think not.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what item on the order paper we have reached now?


Mr. Speaker:: We have just completed the questions designated by an asterisk. I have asked if there are any other questions to be made orders for return. We are at the bottom of page 6. If there are no more questions the next matter is notices of motions for the production of papers.


LABOUR FORCE ENUMERATORS
Mr. Howard: As of December 31, 1959 what are the (a) names; (b) addresses; (c) dates of appointment; (d) electoral districts covered by; (e) method and scale of payment to each of the labour force enumerators?



BRITISH FOOTBALL POOLS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the post office taken any action to block Canadians from partaking in British football pools?
2.	If so, what statutes and regulations were the authority for such action?
3.	How many correspondents had mail opened?
4.	How many received warnings, and what was the verbal form of this warning?
5.	How many Canadians have lost mailing privileges as a result of such departmental action?
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-CONTRACTORS* CLAIMS FOR EXTRAS

Question No. 80-Mr. Argue:
1.	Have any contractors submitted claims for extras to the St. Lawrence seaway authority since construction work started?
2.	If so, what is the name of each such contractor, the date of submission, and the amount of each claim?
3.	Has settlement been reached in regard to any of these claims for extras?
4.	If so, what is the name of each such contractor, the date of settlement, the amount, and date of payment?

Motions for Papers
5.	Has the St. Lawrence seaway authority received a release in full from any contractors regarding extra claims?
6.	If so, what is the name of each such contractor, and the date of release?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):
For a copy of all correspondence and any other relevant papers and documents exchanged between the government, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the civil service commission on the one hand, and Major General George Hatton on the other hand, including General Hatton's actual letter of resignation, relative to the resignation of the said General Hatton as acting co-ordinator of civil defence.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I have already made public General Hatton's letter to me giving the reasons for his resignation and my reply. I shall be glad to furnish copies of these letters to the hon. member, or to any other hon. member.
Apart from this I shall be glad to accept the motion, subject to the usual rule of privilege affecting letters, memoranda or other documents exchanged between a civil servant while still employed and the minister or other officers of a department or agency of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. McIIraiih:
For a copy of the report made to the Minister of Finance in the year 1959 by the civil service commission concerning pay increases for civil servants.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, reports of this nature are of a confidential quality. They are made in pursuance of the provisions of the Civil Service Act by the commission to the government through the Minister of Finance. They are confidential documents, are privileged, and have always been so treated. Their contents have never been made public except when the government has acted on recommendations; then they have been made public only when the government in announcement of such action on its part has indicated that it has been taken in accordance with the recommendations of the commission.
I have had a careful survey made of all the records. I am informed that never has any such report been made public or tabled in the house.


Mr.   Mc@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point [DOT]of order arising out of the answer given by the minister. As I understand the procedure, a motion for the production of papers is not

debatable. It could be argued that the minister went beyond that rule in his statement of the reasons for not tabling the document, but in any event that is not the point I wish to raise. The point is that it undoubtedly is the right of a minister of the crown to refuse to produce a document on the grounds that it is not in the public interest to do so, and I presume this is what the minister was seeking to give as his reason for not tabling the document asked for in the notice of motion.
The point I wish to raise is that the discretion of a minister of the crown to refuse to table a document is applicable to those documents that come to the ministry or to a minister in the field or area of jurisdiction for which he has responsibility; that is, if it were a departmental document coming to the minister, admittedly that would be a perfectly valid answer to the notice of motion, but the situation here is a little different.
This is the point I wish to make. The report asked for is a report of the civil service commission, and the first legislation having to do with the civil service commission was set up a little more than half a century ago for the express purpose of taking away from the administration of the day the responsibility in certain civil service matters enumerated in the legislation and giving it to an independent body answerable to parliament. The civil service commission is answerable to parliament; it is not answerable to the government of the day.
I can reinforce my argument in that regard 

I do not wish to extend it unduly-by recalling to Your Honour's attention the Civil Service Act amendment which came before the House of Commons in 1918. There was a resolution preceding the amending bill; and that amending bill, I might say, was a bill bringing what was called the outside service under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission. It really meant the bringing of the civil service under the jurisdiction of the commission. I will not read the first part of the resolution. It states that it is expedient to consolidate and revise the Civil Service Act, and so on, and to provide for the salary of the chairman, and so on. This is the part to which I wish to draw Your Honour's attention:
And to make appointments to the public service upon competitive examination and otherwise eliminate political patronage in the control and management of the said service.
This is the motion which was presented to the house by Hon. A. K. M'acLean, later Mr. Justice MacLean. It will be seen that the express purpose was to make this body independent and take the control in these matters away from the government and give it to this body.

There is just one more citation I wish to give to Your Honour, if I may, to show how far they have gone in making this body independent of government control. It is provided' that the commission can only be removed from office at any time during its term of office by the Governor General on an address of the Senate and the House of Commons. This is the same method used for the judiciary and, I believe, for the Auditor General of Canada. In other words the whole scheme of the act is to take away from the ministry any right to interfere in the matters over which the commission has jurisdiction by this act, and one of these matters is a recommendation as to the pay of civil servants.
The report therefore, following the argument I have been seeking to make, belongs to parliament; it does not belong to the government. It is not a report to the government of the day; it is a report that belongs to and is the property of parliament. The minister's function, in so far as a report of this nature is concerned, is merely that of a vehicle for parliament. Since the civil service commission obviously cannot come itself to present and table the report, the minister has to do it.
There are other areas where the Minister of Finance and the government have jurisdiction under the act, but this is not one of them. That is the force of my argument.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Speaking just
briefly, I may say that the hon. gentleman, I think, is quite astray of the mark in what he has been saying about the act. It is true that the act in certain respects confers functions and authority upon the civil service commission to be discharged on their own behalf and without reference to government or to parliament; but in the matter of salaries of the civil service they are in a different situation entirely. There the act, Mr. Speaker, provides that the civil service commission may make recommendations to government. It is under a different section of the act, section 11, and the observations of the hon. gentleman are completely irrelevant to the matter here involved. It is perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, that these reports to the government, involving as they do financial matters, have always been treated as privileged documents. They have never been tabled in the house or made public. This has been the practice of all governments that have been in office in this country since the act was first enacted in 1918.


William Moore Benidickson: You never took that stand in opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member who raised the point of order was not objecting to the
Motions for Papers
exercise by the minister of his right to refuse the production of a document because it would not be in the public interest to do so, but rather he took the view that this was not a document which the minister had the power to deal with because the civil service commission reports directly to parliament. This is a rather novel point, and I think it might be worth my while, if the house will permit me, to look at it. It may be worth while looking into. As I see it at the moment -and I am quite frank to say this-I do not know how the house could very well make an order to the civil service commission to bring this document in directly and by-pass the minister. Perhaps that is the answer to the question of the procedure by which it might be done. Undoubtedly parliament has control of the civil service commission.
The motion we have before us is for an order of the house to issue a copy of the report made to the minister. It seems to me that if the report was made to the minister, legally it must be a matter of administrative responsibility. Under those circumstances perhaps the hon. member's case would not stand up. I shall be glad to look at it. I take it there are no specific rulings on this point.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: I am quite happy with your suggestion that you would take the matter under advisement and give a ruling later. I can find no specific rulings on this point. I am not aware of it ever having been raised before. The position, of course, is that the house has jurisdiction over what it orders the minister to do. It will be noted that the minister has not said that he did not receive the report. In other words, the minister has the document in his possession, and the house has the right to order the minister to do as it sees fit with any document of which he has possession. This is where the point made by Your Honour comes in. It comes in that category, so that it is the minister we are ordering. He did not deny having physical possession of the document.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I understand it, this matter is to be considered before action is taken. In order to be perfectly clear at this time as to what we are considering, and in the light of the explanation given by the minister is it the government case that when a report of this kind made to the minister includes a recommendation which the government accepts, the report will be made available to parliament, but if the government does not accept the recommendations parliament is not permitted to see them?


Edmund Davie Fulton: When you are considering the matter, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct

Motions for Papers
Your Honour's attention to standing order 47, which reads as follows:
Notices of motions for the production of papers which the member asking for the same intends to move without discussion, shall be marked by him with an asterisk and shall be placed by the clerk on the order paper under the heading "Notices of motions for the production of papers". All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the clerk to the order of "Notices of motions".
I suggest to Your Honour that the discussion we have heard so far comes pretty close to being an expression of a desire on the part of the hon. member to have a debate on this matter. If he wants to debate it, then I suggest that it should be transferred to the order "Notices of motion".


George James McIlraith: No; I was very careful not to engage in a debate.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: Would Your Honour hear a word on another aspect of the question. It seems to me, sir, that when Your Honour is giving consideration to this matter you should consider whether, since the civil service commission is a creature of parliament and not of the government, it is competent under the act for the civil service commission to give confidential advice to the executive which is going to be denied to parliament. That is not precisely the point, I think, that the hon. member for Ottawa West made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a matter for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there is an important principle involved. With the leave of the house I will stand this motion until the next time, and give some consideration to the points which have been raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West.
Motion stands.



SNOWFALL DAMAGE, SASK. AND MAN.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Martin (Essex East):
For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other relevant documents exchanged between the federal government and the governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, or any other bodies or individuals, relative to the investigation ordered by the Prime Minister into the seriousness and extent of the damage which resulted from early snowfalls which buried unharvested grain in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
John George Diefenbaker: Subject to the usual qualification, Mr. Speaker.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mr. Martin (Essex East):
For a copy of all correspondence, petitions and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the city councils of Windsor, Oshawa, Oakville, and St. Catharines, Ontario, requesting a royal commission to inquire into the conditions of the Canadian automotive industry and the effect of the importation of parts and finished cars upon the Canadian industry.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of the application, together with all plans, specifications and supporting data, of the government of the province of Quebec and/or L'Hydro-Quebec, to develop power at Carillon on the Ottawa river, together with all correspondence passing between the government of Quebec, L'Hydro-Quebec and the government of Canada or any minister or official of a department of the federal government concerning such development.
John George Diefenbaker: Subject to the usual qualification, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the usual qualification as indicated by the Prime Minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Martin (Essex East):
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the United States, regarding the diversion of great lakes waters, since July 1, 1959.
Howard Charles Green: Subject to obtaining the usual consent.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all correspondence, papers, Investigation reports, and other documents, In connection with threats or reports of threats against officials relating to the operation of the Jacques Cartier bridge.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the national harbours board has advised me that the reports and correspondence requested in this motion are in the form of exchanges between officials of the board and their superior officers. It is a long established principle of the house that such documents are privileged, and in the circumstances perhaps the hon. member will be agreeable to withdrawing his motion.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arlhur):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question. Will this information be available to the committee that he has guaranteed will be looking into this matter?


George Harris Hees: Not these specific documents because, as I have said, they are privileged. But when this matter comes before a committee, which I hope will be very soon, the hon. member and all hon. members on the committee will be able to ask any questions they desire, and all information which does not concern privileged documents will certainly be given at that time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the hon. member wishes the motion to be put?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: It is suggested that the motion stand. Is the minister agreeable to that course?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I suggested that in view of what I had said the hon. member might be willing to withdraw his motion, and I believe the hon. member has agreed to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has suggested that the motion should stand. As it has already been put before the house I do not think I could allow it to stand without the consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member now indicates his willingness to withdraw the motion.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EAST SAINT JOHN THERMAL PLANT, N.B.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government or any official thereof, and the provincial government of New Brunswick or the New Brunswick electric power commission, with respect to the signing of a specific agreement for the construction of the East Saint John thermal plant, for the period June 1, 1959 to date.
John George Diefenbaker: Subject to the usual qualification.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 10-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the federal government and the government of the province of New Brunswick, in connection with the road to resources program, from January 1, 1959 to date.
Motions for Papers
John George Diefenbaker: Subject to the usual qualification.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the usual limitation, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Benidickson:
For a copy of all resolutions urging deficiency payments on grain which have been received from western farm organizations and other public bodies by the Prime Minister and any of the ministers of the government, or officials of the government since March 10, 1959.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Benidickson:
For a copy of the plans and specifications for the new air terminal building at Winnipeg.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 13-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of the province of Quebec or any minister thereof, or any official of any department of the province, and the federal government or any minister or officer of any federal department, arising out of the construction of a highway between Longueuil and Caughnawaga on the south shore of the river St. Lawrence, part of which is to be on reclaimed land of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, since and including the year 1957.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to this motion with the reservation that the production of whatever correspondence there is will be subject to the consent of the province.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 14-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of the report made by the Department of Public Works or any officer thereof or by the Department of Transport or any officer thereof or by a committee of both departments, concerning improvements to navigation and port and harbour facilities partly along the river St. Lawrence between Dorion, Quebec, and Prescott, Ontario.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, this report is not available because it is a document exclusively for the use of the department. Knowing that, perhaps the hon. member will withdraw the question.
[Stage Direction]
Division
Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, I could not hear.


David James Walker: I will repeat it for the hon. member. The information sought is the production of a report which is for the exclusive use of the department; therefore it is privileged. I would ask the hon. member for Laurier if he would be good enough to withdraw the motion.


Lionel Chevrier: Before I consider that I would ask the minister if it is not a fact that this report was discussed with the local communities along the waterfront in connection with the matter that is before the house. As my friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River says, it was disclosed to them.


David James Walker: I am just giving the answer that we do not propose to table the report because it is privileged.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has not answered the question as to whether or not this report has already been disclosed to outside sources. Surely we are entitled to know that before we decide what action to take.


Mr. Speaker:: In so far as the request made by the minister to the mover of this motion is concerned that he should withdraw it, that should be answered. If it is not answered, the motion will be disposed of as the mover indicates.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not disposed to withdraw this motion in view of the fact that others have seen the report.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the motion of the hon. member for Laurier. Is the house ready for the question?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the management of the Canadian National Railways advise me that they consider the report mentioned in the motion as an internal management document. As a matter of prudent administration of the company the management from time to time may find it desirable and advisable to seek advice from consultants of one kind or another, and their view is that they should not be required to produce information relating to such actions which are taken in the course of the transaction of the business of the railway, and which any other business organization, such as their competitors, would not be required to make public. It is not the practice to produce documents of this kind, and this position has always been supported by previous parliaments and by the special committee set up each year to study the Canadian National Railways estimates. In the circumstances I would hope the hon. member would agree to withdraw his motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.



NUCLEAR RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Pearson:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams reports and other relevant documents exchanged during the last 18 months between members of the federal government or any official thereof and provincial governments, or any other bodies or individuals regarding the establishment of a new nuclear research development centre and the choice of the site.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Agreed, subject to the usual reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this motion agreed to, subject to the reservations mentioned by the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would care to comment on the statement made by the President of the United States at his press conference this morning, just drawn to my attention, that he would like to see the United States share more of its military and atomic secrets with Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the statement. All I have before me is a press

bulletin story by the Canadian Press staff writer in Washington, in which the following is reported:
His statement at a press conference came amid reports that the U. S. administration may propose changes in the American law allowing such allies as Canada, Britain and France a greater degree of custody and control of TJ. S. atomic weapons stockpiled in these countries.
While not desiring to make any intensive examination of the purport of these remarks, may I say that any action in that connection would ensure the implementation of the words I used when speaking in the house on January 18, when I said, as reported at page 73 of Hansard:
Canada retains its full freedom of choice and decision.
I want to make it abundantly clear that nuclear weapons will not be used by the Canadian forces except as the Canadian government decides and in the manner approved by the Canadian government.
If changes in the existing legislation are necessary, naturally it is a matter which will be welcomed, I think, not only by Canada but also by other nations united with the United States.



BOMARC MISSILE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister comment on the report in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that General Maxwell Taylor, United States army chief of staff from 1955 to 1959, says the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile is too late to be an effective weapon, and too doubtful as to technical and fiscal possibilities?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I do not propose to comment on statements made by foreign officers outside of this country.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister inform the house whether comment by a former chief of staff of the United States is something that should receive consideration of himself and his department?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker. These comments were made concerning the department of defense of the United States.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I should like to ask a supplementary question arising out of the minister's first answer. As I understood it, he said this statement was made outside of the country. Is the minister aware

that the same statement was made by this gentleman over C.B.C. television last night on the eleven o'clock news?


George Randolph Pearkes: These statements were not made in Canada. They were made by a foreign officer who was not giving advice to Canada and is not authorized to give advice to Canada or to the Minister of National Defence of Canada.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Rouleau: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform the house whether any land has actually been purchased for the launching site of the Bomarc missile in the Mont Laurier district?


George Randolph Pearkes: I will take that question as notice, because I am not certain whether or not any land has actually been purchased. (Translation):


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, following the answer given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes), may I ask the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) a question?
If no money has been spent on a launching site for the Bomarc, why did a minister, who today, is a senator, announce two years ago, that is in 1958, that work was to begin shortly?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: In my view the hon. member is not so much seeking to get information as to give some information about the conduct of some hon. gentleman from the other place. I doubt the propriety of asking a question of one minister and pursuing a supplementary question with an associate minister. It seems to me that the question should be pursued with one or the other.


An hon. Member:: I thought they were equal.


Azellus Denis: I am seeking information.
How is it that it was decided two years ago and then nothing is decided? Is there a changed attitude?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand exactly what the hon. member was saying, but really he is making an argument.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
ask a supplementary question to that of the
Inquiries of the Ministry hon. member for Dollard, which the minister said he would take as notice. Has any construction work been started in connection with the launching site in the Mont Laurier district?


George Randolph Pearkes: That question was answered a couple of days ago. The answer is that there has been no construction work started on that site although survey work has been done on various sites in that area.


Lionel Chevrier: Then, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know, as a representative from the province of Quebec along with other members, why it is that construction has been started at North Bay prior to being started at Mont Laurier?


George Randolph Pearkes: The construction work is being carried out so that its timing will coincide with the arrival of the weapons themselves. The weapons destined for North Bay are scheduled to arrive before those assigned to the other site.


George Randolph Pearkes: I may say that I am able now to supply to the hon. member for Dollard the information he requested earlier this afternoon. There has been no financial settlement made to date.


Guy Rouleau: I am afraid the minister did not correctly understand my question. He did not give me a satisfactory answer. I asked the minister if land had been purchased in the Mont Laurier district for the Bomarc launching site.


George Randolph Pearkes: My answer was that no financial settlement has yet been made.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister any further information to add to the dispatch printed in the Journal yesterday that four persons were reported shot to death on the Peigan Indian reserve?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As soon as I heard the report I asked for details. It appears that Mrs. Creighton and two children were living on the Peigan reserve with Mrs. Creighton's mother although they belonged to the Blood band. Her husband, from whom she had been separated and who had a long record of instability, apparently visited her and her mother's home and not only killed the mother,

692	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry his wife and the two children but seriously wounded himself. He is in hospital and is not expected to recover. Under the circumstances no date for an inquest has yet been set and, of course, no charges laid.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexander Best (Halion):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government reached any decision as yet concerning support of any candidate for the next term of presidency of the United Nations?


Howard Charles Green: I understand that Dr. Boland the permanent representative of Ireland to the United Nations, will be a candidate for the presidency and, if so, it would be Canada's intention to support him.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Postmaster General. Will the minister tell the house if Canadians are still enjoying the right and privilege of free postage when they address letters to the federal government departments at Ottawa?


William McLean Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, those who wish to take advantage of it and do not affix stamps of their own desire and volition.


Azellus Denis: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the answer just given by the Postmaster General, will he explain to the house the reason why his department provides the Canadian people with self-addressed envelopes to the department bearing the unfair notation, "Affix postage"? I have a sample of these envelopes and if he wishes to look at it it is at his disposal.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I will have to take that question as notice. I presume that the department as usual is only trying to collect money and at the same time provide income for the Post Office Department.


George James McIlraith: That is taxation without authority.


Azellus Denis: In view of the fact that money is being unnecessarily spent by the public-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question has been taken as notice. He cannot very well ask a supplementary question now.


Azellus Denis: I will ask the minister if he will consider the advisability of withdrawing envelopes of this type from circulation and distribution.


George Clyde Nowlan: No, I will not. I have not seen the envelope the hon. member has, but as I recall now these are letters addressed to the district office or what passes for the district office, and my recollection is that all such envelopes have always carried stamps.


Azellus Denis: In view of what the minister has just said-


William McLean Hamilton: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member has a right to proceed to debate the matter. The minister has taken the question as notice and if there is any further discussion it can come up when the answer is given.



QUOTA POSITION IN ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What are the maximum wheat quotas at the present time for delivery points in Alberta, and can the department give any estimate as to what the quotas will be for this crop season?


Gordon Minto Churchill: When my hon. friend told me he was going to ask this question he said southern Alberta, and I have an answer


An hon. Member:: That is the best part of Alberta.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that there is any urgency in this question. It seems to be a question that involves quite a bit of statistical information and therefore I suggest that the minister concur with me in asking that it be put on the order paper.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I agree.



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I ask of
the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question of which I sent notice to his office earlier today? Is the minister able to give the house a report on the shipment of grain through the

Inquiries of the Ministry
port of Vancouver with an indication of the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-number of ships presently tied up in the lingale): May 1 ask the minister a sup-harbour and an estimate as to how long it plementary question. Had he any other will be before the harbour is cleared of such purpose in visiting Winnipeg than to make ships?	that announcement?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have no objection to answering the question but it is the third one of its kind. I was asked a similar question on January 18 and another one on January 22, to both of which I gave a reply. I am not sure whether I am expected to give a weekly answer as to the shipping leaving and entering the port of Vancouver.


Frank Howard: It is an extremely urgent matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I appreciate the urgency of it and I dealt with it in the answers to the other two questions. There are nine vessels in port loading grain and nine waiting to load. It is impossible to forecast when the present temporary congestion in Vancouver harbour will be completely overcome but every effort is being made with the drying operations at the elevators there and with the loading of grain. A total of 11.1 million bushels have moved out of the west coast ports during the month of January.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport, who has recently been in Winnipeg. I should like to ask him whether or not he indicated while there that the new terminal for the airport could be constructed within two years as otherwise, the Winnipeg Tribune has suggested, the minister and the rest of his officials should be fired?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will read both the Winnipeg Tribune and the Winnipeg Free Press of Monday he will see a very full report of exactly what is going to take place regarding the building of the new Winnipeg air terminal and when we expect these events will take place. He will also learn that at no time did I say that the Winnipeg terminal would be completed within two years. I said it would be completed by 1964 and sooner if at all possible, and that is what we are striving to do.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What a way to spend the taxpayers' money.



REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO DELAYS IN CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Did the minister take note of the reference to the Dorval airport in the brief of the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, in which the attention of the government is drawn to the unsatisfactory delays tolerated by the Department of Transport in its construction, and the consequent harm being done to Montreal as an international airport? My question is, what action does the government intend to take to rectify this situation?


George Harris Hees: Wheh we fortunately rescued this country from the late lamented Liberal government I found a situation that had been created at the Dorval airport by the late government's lack of decision, not by the department but by the minister and the members of the government. It took quite a while to get the matter straightehed out, but we did get it straightened out. The construction of the airport terminal is well under way and will be, we are confident, finished this year to the great sorrow, I feel sure, of the hon. member and others from Montreal because they will not have anything left about which to complain.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister's reply, if I may draw it to his attention, was far from being only factual.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not mind the insinuations to myself, but I have a supplementary question which I should like to ask the minister after that political answer which he gave.


George Harris Hees: An answer to a political question.


Lionel Chevrier: Let us see whether or not this one is political. Does the minister intend to institute an inquiry into the delays as recommended in the brief of the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I went down to Montreal last fall and invited all the Montreal members of parliament, if they desired
694	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to accompany me, to make an inspection of the work going on at the Montreal airport. The hon. member, unfortunately, could not find the time to be there. However, during what I believe was a very interesting inspection of the airport we explained what was going on, what had been going on and that there had been no unwarranted delay at all, as had been the case when the construction of the airport was under the jurisdiction of the government of which my hon. friend was a member.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister answer my question, and tell me whether he is giving consideration to the recommendation for an inquiry into the delays as requested in the brief?


George Harris Hees: We do not consider there is any need at all for such an inquiry. We consider that the production going on at the airport is very satisfactory and is in keeping with our plan. We are very satisfied with the present progress.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Why, then, are there only 35 or 40 workers on the job?


George Harris Hees: I have no day to day check of how many workers are on any particular part of the job at any particular time. All I say is that we are confident the job will be completed on schedule this year, as I said all along since I became minister.


Lionel Chevrier: You said it would be opened last year.


Mr. Hellyer:: You had better keep the F-104's away.


Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? In view of the speed with which decisions are now being taken in connection with Dorval airport, will the minister tell the house what the decision is going to be or what decision has been taken with reference to the installation of a beverage room in the airport for international travellers?


George Harris Hees: No decision has been taken on that question at the present time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a perfectly correct question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is based on a press dispatch in this morning's Globe and Mail headed, "Russ


Pen Pals Are Allowed For Canadians". The article states that the minister's office has indicated that the minister has no objections to Canadians having Soviet pen pals. As the minister's office is a rather vague personality, I should like to hear from him directly. Would he inform the house what the attitude is toward this question?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the government has no objection to arrangements private citizens wish to make for personal correspondence with Soviet citizens.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Information has reached me that not a single pebble of gravel fill has yet been moved on the stage 4 contract of the lakehead harbour terminal which was let to Speckert-Morris Limited in the early part of December. Has the minister any explanation for the delay on the stage 4 contract on the lakehead seaway dock project?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Perhaps my hon. friend was not in the house the other day when I answered a similar question. The answer will be found at page 433 of Hansard for January 28, 1960, and I have nothing more to add to it.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I sent him notice this morning and may I add that it affects a great number of my own constituents.
Has the minister's attention been drawn to the statements made at the convention of the international longshoremen and warehousemen's union in Vancouver that a dangerous situation exists because safety conditions on British Columbia docks are far behind the regulations required under the Canada Shipping Act, and because the Department of Transport inspection section is understaffed? Has the minister any comment to make on this matter and can he inform the house if the situation is being investigated at the present time?


George Harris Hees: I should like to thank the hon. member for his thoughtfulness in sending me

notice of his intention to ask this question. This matter has been under active consideration for the past two years. An understaffing situation did exist in Vancouver and New Westminster, but before the end of last year two additional inspectors were appointed increasing the tackle inspection staff in this area from two to four. Part-time inspectors cover the ports of Prince Rupert, Port Alberni, Victoria, Chemainus, Cowichan, Nanaimo, Crofton and Harmac. Visits when required are made to Kitimat, Tahsis and Howe Sound ports.
The department has had no indication that further additional staff is required in the British Columbia area at the present time, or that safety conditions are below requirements of the tackle regulations. The officer in charge of the west coast region has been asked for a full report of the situation as it stands at present.



DINGWALL, N.S.  REPORTED DANGER TO SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. The urgency of this question emanates from a number of communications from the area concerned, recent press releases from federal Department of Transport officials and also from their counterparts in the Department of Fisheries. The information contained in these news items is to the effect that as a result of shallow depths in the Dingwall harbour caused by recent silting the harbour is considered dangerous to shipping. Can the minister advise what plans his department has to remedy this problem which has been under study by the department for a number of months?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): I believe the news releases were intended as a warning to other than local shipping requiring more than five feet of water. My information is that there is five feet of water at low tide available to shipping, and I am told that this is adequate for the local fishing boats.
However, my department is investigating the possibility of immediately improving the depth of the entrance channel by land-based equipment. When weather conditions permit consideration will be given to using a floating dredge to deepen the approach where it is silted up beyond the reach of a land-based plant.
The national research council is carrying out a model study of Dingwall harbour on behalf of the department. The department is also studying the feasibility of wintering
Inquiries of the Ministry a departmental dredge at Dingwall with a view to having it available to reopen the channel quickly when required.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister give the house any information to augment this morning's news dispatch reporting an explosion in the boiler room of H.M.C.S. Ottawa?


George Randolph Pearkes: A minor explosion occurred in the auxiliary boiler room of H.M.C.S. Ottawa, which is stationed on the west coast, last night. The damage was confined to the casing of the auxiliary boiler and some brick work. There were no injuries to any personnel and further investigation is being carried out.



REQUEST FOR ACTION TO PREVENT LOSS OF SASKATCHEWAN SEATS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to direct a question1 to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and ask what consideration, if any, the government has given to any changes in the Representation Act or the British North America Act which may be necessary to prevent an inordinate loss of seats to Saskatchewan at the next redistribution.


Mr. Speaker:: As I recall it, there are on the order paper two items under which it would be appropriate to discuss the question of representation. It does not seem to me to be an urgent matter which should be dealt with in advance or in anticipation of events which will occur later.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Will he inquire with respect to Grassy Narrows, Ontario, as to whether the service that would be provided by a post office there, already authorized, has been delayed in this crucial wintertime by reason of some correspondence between the Postmaster General and the defeated candidate in the constituency?
6S6

Railway Act


William McLean Hamilton: I shall be glad to make such an inquiry. (Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of National Revenue a question.
In this morning's Le Devoir, the parliamentary reporter, Mr. Clement Brown, announces simultaneous translation on the C.B.C., saying that it would be tried out in a panel discussion where at least one of the panelists is English-speaking exclusively.
Could the minister inform the house if this report is accurate?
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: I shall direct that question to the corporation and give a reply in due course.



RAILWAY ACT


George Harris Hees: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend an act to amend the Railway Act, chapter 40 of the statutes of 1958, to permit certain grants to be made from the railway grade crossing fund for a further period of three years beyond January 31, 1961.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Cardin:: Will the Minister of Transport not make a statement?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
In the 1958 session provision was made to increase during the period of three years from January 31, 1958 the maximum contributions that may be made from the railway grade crossing fund. The provision was enacted in chapter 40 of the statutes of 1958. Prior to the passing of that act the maximum contribution from the fund toward work in respect of a level crossing, such as installation of warning devices or construction of a grade separation to eliminate the level crossing, was 60 per cent of the cost of the work, or $300,000, whichever was the lesser, and in the case of reconstruction of a grade separation already in existence it was 30 per cent, or $150,000, whichever was the lesser. The 1958 statute increased these maxima to 80 per cent and $500,000 in the case of level crossings and 50 per cent and $250,000 in the

case of reconstruction of existing grade separations, for work ordered or authorized in the three years commencing January 31, 1958. It also made provision for corresponding percentages for relocation of public utility plant is part of such work and for contributions up to 80 per cent of the cost of placing reflective markings on the sides of railway cars during that period.
Unless that three-year period is extended it will expire next January, so it is appropriate to pass legislation at this session to extend it. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to extend the period for a further three years.
In 1958 an extra $10 million was put in the fund. This was in addition to the statutory appropriation of $5 million. Another extra $10 million was voted in 1959.
This combination of increasing the fund and the maximum of the grants has encouraged and assisted projects to eliminate and reduce dangers at crossings, as I felt sure it would. I will mention just a few facts and comparisons that will indicate the increased assistance provided from the fund in the last two years and the increase in the work for the protection of the public at crossings in those years.
Of the $30 million put in the fund in the past two years, over $28 million was committed up to the end of January of this year toward projects authorized in those years, with two months of the fiscal year still left.
Another significant fact that the total amount paid out of the fund from 1909 to the end of 1957 was $19,814,110, whereas since the start of 1958 over $28 million was committed, as I said, toward projects authorized in the last two years.
Another comparison: in the ten years prior to 1958 the average number of protective devices installed per year at level crossings was about 88, compared with 253 in 1958 and 352 in 1959. The number of new grade separations and reconstructions of inadequate subways and overhead bridges, authorized in the past two years with grants from the fund, has also shown a marked increase, for the number of such projects in the last two years was 99, practically as many as the total of 102 authorized in the previous eight years.
I could go on with more details, but I do not think it is necessary, for I am confident that the bill to continue the increased maxima for another three years will be welcomed by everyone.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I hope I will be in order if I say how happy I am to see

you back in your usual place, and I think I speak on behalf of all hon. members of the house.
I should like to say that we on this side of the house welcome the announcement which has been made by the Minister of Transport. While he was speaking, although I may be accused of having a suspicious mind, I could not help but wonder why first priority should be given to this particular resolution, important as it is, because, as the hon. minister said, this resolution really extends the provisions of the 1958 amendment for a period of three years beyond January 31, 1961. Surely there are on the order paper a considerable number of resolutions and legislation which would have effect sooner than that. The only explanation I can find, of course, is that this is another indication of the unfathomable logic which the government has used in introducing legislation in the house, particularly this year.
But this is not to say that I do not consider the legislation important. It is important legislation and good legislation. I do not believe there is any hon. member in any corner of the house who would object seriously to what is provided in this resolution. As a matter of fact, I believe there is not one member of parliament who has not had direct knowledge of unfortunate accidents at railway crossings.
It might be interesting, in order to point out the importance of the problem, to state how many accidents there were over a period of, let us say, ten years. In the report of the board of transport commissioners of December, 1958 there is a table giving the number of highway crossing accidents and motor vehicle registrations. In 1949 there were 441 accidents; 138 people were killed and 589 were injured. In 1958 there were 518 accidents; 188 people were killed and some 660 were injured. Although the figures do not show this, there is a definite improvement in the decline of accidents and mortalities, because in 1949 there were 2,290,000-odd vehicles registered, whereas in 1957, the last date for which figures are given, there were
4,459,000.	Even though there is a definite decrease in the number of accidents on railway crossings, I think all hon. members will agree it is still a problem which we should try to solve as best we can.
I think it would be of interest to note that the basis for the legislation we are discussing this afternoon is a report of the board of transport commissioners which followed a serious investigation from coast to coast of the difficulties, both financial and technical, that the municipalities and provinces were encountering at railway crossings. After having
Railway Act
travelled throughout the country obtaining as much information as possible, the board of transport commissioners made seven or eight recommendations which were embodied into an amendment to the Railway Act in 1955. At this time they boosted the grade crossing fund from $1 million to $5 million, and they boosted the percentage from 40 to 60 per cent of the cost to be paid out of this fund for the work on level crossings. They also raised to 30 per cent the reconstruction of grade separations, et cetera.
Of course, these 1955 amendments, I think, were a step in the right direction, but certainly not sufficient to cover the tremendous cost involved in providing sufficient and adequate protection at these railway crossings. In 1958 another amendment to the Railway Act was passed, and the amount of money that could be spent on this type of work was increased. As a matter of fact, $10 million additional for a period of three years was also provided. Also at this time the contributions to be made from this fund for level crossings was raised from 60 per cent to 80 per cent, and the work on grade separations was increased from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. There was also an interesting section in the legislation which provided that the fund would contribute to the marking of railway cars.
I feel that this particular legislation is good, but should be studied perhaps a little more closely. I think it is quite economic, but I have not seen too much of it in use. Last autumn I was travelling along the highway, of course within the speed limit, and the first thing I knew was that I came face to face with a freight car which was rattling across the highway. I did not see any markings, either on any of the cars or on any of the signs, which should have been made in reflective paint. I am not so sure whether it would not be a profitable suggestion that engines, passenger cars, and freight cars should be painted with some phosphorescent or reflective paint over a large portion of them so that they may be seen at night by a driver going along the highway. This is certainly not a solution to the whole problem, but I think there is a definite danger of running into freight cars which are crossing highways when there is not sufficient means of warning in the form of protective signals, and so on.
Has the minister pointed out that the purpose of this resolution is to extend for another period of three years the legislation which was passed in 1958, the additional period to commence after January 31, 1961. We in the opposition, of course, not only do not oppose this legislation but welcome it. However, we cannot help but feel that the government

Railway Act
might just as well have made this legislation permanent instead of legislating for another period of three years because, as a matter of fact, this is one of those steps forward from which there is very little likelihood of returning.
The reason for this, of course, is that the provinces, municipalities and even the public utilities companies have in the past claimed that the payment of their share of the construction of adequate protection against railway crossings imposed too heavy a burden on their finances and, as a matter of fact, did not apply for aid in providing adequate protection at such crossings even though it was definitely required.
I believe this is particularly true with respect to the municipalities. Because of their serious financial handicaps and vast financial obligations and responsibilities, the municipalities have not been able to pay their share of the cost of providing adequate safety measures and I am sure that the extension for a three-year period of the amendments of 1958 will not put them in a position in which they will be able to provide what is in my opinion this absolutely necessary protection.
If I may say so, the weaknesses of this legislation as well as of legislation such as that governing the winter employment program lie in the fact that it is beyond the reach of the municipalities to utilize the benefits attached thereto. I believe that many municipalities cannot afford to pay their share of the cost of this protection whether that share be 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 15 per cent. Unless some solution is found to the problem of the financial responsibilities of municipalities I believe the government should consider this legislation as a permanent thing. Indeed, unless the financial problems of municipalities can be solved the only changes that can possible be foreseen will be continually increasing amounts until all the municipalities would be in a position to provide for their citizens adequate protection against these very tragic accidents.
We on this side of the chamber do not oppose this legislation, as I said, nor do we oppose the extension of the 1958 provisions. I personally cannot help but feel that special consideration or perhaps some special concession should be made to the municipalities which are, I believe, a special case, in order that they may be in a position to take advantage of the legislation.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to extend our welcome to you at seeing you in the position in which we have seen you on many occasions in the past. I am sure we will get along as well in the future as we did in the months gone by.

There has been a fairly thorough coverage of the history of the railway grades crossing fund both by the minister and the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres including statistics of the increased number of automobiles and accidents and so on, and I do not think it is necessary for us to dwell on this point at too great length.
I believe that all hon. members in this house and many people throughout Canada are vitally concerned with the safety and well-being of the citizens of this nation. One way in which parliament can contribute toward the safety of Canadian citizens is through assistance in this form and by providing safety facilities at railway grade crossings in terms of underpasses, overpasses, signals and other things.
We welcome the indication by the minister that he wants to extend for an additional three years the amendments that were made in 1958. Without being critical of the intention of the minister and the government I think we must conclude that this represents a haphazard and piecemeal means of accomplishing this end. Because it affects so directly the welfare and safety of our population we should not handle the matter on a day-to-day basis with extensions for periods of two or three years. It would be more in keeping with our desire to provide safe railway crossings and more in keeping with progressive governmental planning if this arrangement were to be made a permanent part of the Canadian statutes.
Unless the minister is working toward the idea of having the federal authorities assume full responsibility for the safety of railway grade crossings there is little advantage in providing these extensions. If the minister is working in this direction this extension will give him some breathing space to work out the details of the assumption by the federal authorities of the entire financial responsibility with respect to these crossings but if that is not the case I must comment that we are operating in a haphazard way in extending existing provisions with no thought of permanency.
The municipalities have a partial financial responsibility in this field where the use of such funds is made within the municipalities. Over the years the municipalities have been forced to accept an increasing financial burden and have witnessed a narrowing of the tax base from which to finance that burden. We could be much more generous to the municipalities. Many of them are in financial difficulties because of the financial policies of a colleague of the Minister of Transport, namely the Minister of Finance. We could alleviate the financial burden of the municipalities by eliminating the need for their

participating financially in the cost of the construction of safety devices at these crossings.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres mentioned a point which I believe needs repeating. When the amendments were introduced in 1958 there was a lengthy discussion about the need for striping, painting or otherwise marking the sides of box cars with some type of phosphorus or luminous paint so they would be noticeable in the evening.
In looking through the debate of the minister's estimates last session I noticed that he told us that orders had already been issued to the railways to proceed with the painting or striping with some sort of phosphorous or luminous paint of the sides of their box cars. He indicated at that time it was too early to say how successful it had been, or whether the railways would co-operate with the desire expressed by the minister and by parliament. Before this resolution passes, I think the minister should indicate to the committee how successful has been the desire expressed by parliament that such luminous paint should be placed on the sides of box cars. He should tell us how they are proceeding and whether his and parliament's desires have been acceptable to the railway companies.
There is another problem which is a sort of extraterritorial one. From time to time we have in Canada quite a number of box cars which are not owned by Canadian railway companies. At times these box cars come from the United States. If Canadian railway companies are going to be required, in the interest of safety, to paint the sides of their box cars with luminous paint, then surely box cars which belong to United States companies should come under the same provision. The minister should give us some indication what the results of any discussions have been, whether those discussions have been carried on by his department or by the Department of External Affairs. How successful have we been in trying to get United States railway companies to paint the sides of their box cars with luminous paint so that they would be in the same condition as box cars of the Canadian railway companies? Perhaps these remarks are sufficient at this stage of the discussion of the resolution. I hope the minister at this stage of the discussion will undertake to deal with and answer some of the questions that we have raised and some of the questions that may be raised in the debate by other participants.


Mr. Small:: Mr. Chairman, needless to say I reiterate the remarks that have been made with respect to our pleasure at seeing you back once again to take up your duties. We
Railway Act
appreciate very much the fact that you have been able to return to your duties.
This is an old subject which has been before the house on many occasions. I have spoken on it quite often in the past because it was brought to my attention by the Scarborough section of Danforth riding where they have the very serious problem of a large number of grade level crossings. In the riding there are some 82. I have put these details on the record before. Of these 82, 52 are not in the really serious class at present. Eleven of them require grade separations and the others call for signals and short-arm gates. Toronto also has 38. I will probably cover them later. I may say that when this question was before us various ideas were submitted and some statistics were gone into. The big problem with respect to grade level crossings is the matter of getting the finances to relieve the situation.
When this matter first came before the house the hon. member for Laurier was minister of transport. Later on the then member for St. Antoine-St. George was minister of transport. During the time the hon. member for Laurier was minister of transport a report of a committee was brought in, and it was a very comprehensive one. It went into the matter very thoroughly and set out a good deal of information which was vital. It also covered the history of the grade level crossing fund from its inception in 1909. If my memory serves me aright, the problem from the start was finances. This problem kept the board pretty well occupied. In fact, it taxed their ingenuity because of the inability of the railways and municipalities to meet their share of the cost, as has been brought out by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. In fact, as the program was presented it was almost beyond the capacity of the municipalities and the railways to meet their share of the costs.
The reason the matter was brought before us was that there was a continual demand for action because the accident rate at grade level crossings was growing. Originally the sum of $500,000 was allotted to the grade level crossing fund to improve the situation. I might point out that when the fund started the mode of transportation was quite different from what it is now. It was mostly horse and buggy. Accidents were not happening at a very high rate in those days. The board moved in a lackadaisical manner. If an accident happened in a certain place they would do something about correcting it. The demand was not as pressing as it is now.
Not until the advent of the automobile did conditions at grade level crossings start to become serious. It is doubtful whether they

Railway Act
took the matter seriously into consideration because the amount that was set up to take care of the situation was $500,000. At the present time it is up to $500 million. The commission which was set up increased the amount as the situation warranted. The figure started to mount and the accident rate became more serious. The problems in the urban centres became very demanding. It was taken out of the realm of $1 million.
The report that was brought in covered the situation very thoroughly. It indicated that at that time there were somewhere around
32,000	grade level crossings in the country. To relieve the problem confronting the country the report suggested that it would take at least $5 million. At the time the opposition said that that would not begin to touch the problem before us; that $5 million would not begin to cope with the situation; that $15 million was the least amount that should be considered. Most of the arguments were along that line; nevertheless, the government passed its legislation and raised the amount that could be in the fund to $7 million. The provincial governments were invited to participate and make contributions to the fund and they were told that any condition stipulated would be observed by the transport board. They declined to accept the offer but when the responsibility of the provincial government with respect to highways was pointed out to them they did provide grants to municipalities to help with respect to grade separation.
The situation having been recognized over the years, the federal government increased the amount of its contributions. They started off by contributing 20 per cent of the cost of the project. Then the amount was raised to 40 per cent, then to 60 per cent and at the present time it is 80 per cent. By so doing the share paid by municipalities has decreased proportionately. It used to be 60 per cent, then 30 per cent, then 25 per cent and now it is 12J per cent.
As the railways were the ones that were feeling the pinch most they seldom asked for a level crossing separation to be put in because of the cost involved. They always ducked the situation. However, over the years their share has gone down from 40 per cent to 30 per cent to 15 per cent and now it is down to 7J per cent. As the minister has pointed out, the maximum contribution from the fund for any one level crossing is now $500,000 whereas at the start it used to be $5,000. Grade separations cost a considerable amount of money and therefore it was first provided that no one municipality would be able to have more than three projects in any one year. That was subsequently increased to six projects. But then costs

mounted and the result was that municipalities could not undertake any more than one project at a time unless they had further assistance and that is where the province of Ontario came in when highways crossed railroads and assisted the municipalities, particularly in the Scarborough region.
I have shown the progress that has been made by the board increasing the amount of their contribution in order to help municipalities and the railways. However, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, the fact still remains that in spite of the increased contributions by the federal government the financial burden on the municipalities and the railways is one that they are not able to meet and therefore the problem is coming back to the federal government. It has been suggested by the hon. member for Skeena that probably the federal government should eventually assume the whole burden. I do not know whether it would be advisable to do that or whether there should not be another approach to the problem which is a lot more serious than we think.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres who says that progress has been made and that accidents have decreased because that is not the fact. I think his figures are not correct. There are 75 more level crossings each year on account of the explosive expansion that has taken place in practically all urban centres in Canada. Consequently there are more accidents taking place and the figure is higher. There are approximately 33,212 grade level crossings at the present time and of that number 2,383 are protected by signals and watchmen. There are 1,762 crossings protected by grade separations. There have been many improvements but that is the situation today.
The average cost of protection for a grade crossing is $7,000 and the annual cost of maintenance is $600. Automatic short arm gates and signals cost about $15,000 with annual maintenance amounting to $900. If a municipality has a fair number of such crossings they are faced with the problem of meeting the maintenance cost. It places a very heavy burden upon the municipalities and also upon the railways. They not only have to meet their share of the initial cost but they have to meet the continuing maintenance cost when these installations are made and they are not in a financial position to carry this load.
At the time of the commission report the number of requests that had been submitted for grade level crossing protection was summarized and then the cost was set out. It was pointed out that the average urban project

involving grade level separation cost about $800,000 and the average rural project $100,000. However, in the case of urban projects the cost generally went far beyond this $800,000, in some cases as high as $2,400,000 through exproprations and property damage costs, but the government's share was only $500,000. The provinces had to take a hand and assist the municipalities in order to complete these ventures. It was a very serious problem when the city had to carry the added cost.
I know that Toronto has some 38 grade level crossings that require grade separation. I would say that in the last two years five or six have been taken care of. The city of London has 11, Edmonton has 5 and Hamilton 8. I do not have any figures for Vancouver, Victoria and larger centres like Calgary, Winnipeg and Montreal. However, it was set out by provinces exactly what was required and it involves a terrific amount of money.
I would not say that I was amazed but I was a bit surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres about the necessity for grade level crossing protection. I know that the people of Danforth riding and the metro-Toronto officials have requested me to help them in the matter of level crossings. The minister himself has quite a number in his riding that require separation. The hon. member for Greenwood was fortunate enough to have the level crossing at Woodbine avenue and Greenwood taken care of. However, this came about through necessity and not because of any pressure he brought to bear. It was on the program for Toronto and was urgent.
I pointed out that these grade separation projects have an average cost of $800,000 and that at times they cost more. I was surprised that the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres did not press the question. As long as I have been a member of the house no member on the government on the opposition side has ever stated the requirements of the province of Quebec. I know that there are far more grade separations required in Montreal than anywhere else. The city of Quebec had a railway relocation project involving a good many crossings and I can visualize that the number in the province of Quebec must be very great. I thought that the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres would have been able to inform us just how serious the problem is in the province of Quebec. I should like to have the benefit of the figures myself. I know that a lot of these grade level crossings were taken care of when they were building the St. Lawrence seaway project, it being part of its development.
Railway Act
I know that in the province of Quebec they certainly have a lot of grade level crossings. I am bringing this up to show you how serious the problem is. In New Brunswick they set out how many would be required for their major projects and likewise in Nova Scotia. They lumped them together for the Atlantic provinces and this emphasized the magnitude of the problem.
I tell you this because the commissioners reported they set up a hypothetical program that would cost over $700 million over a period of 20 years or $35 million a year. This program would eliminate about 5 per cent of the crossings which they admitted would just scratch the surface. In order to effect a remedial program that could make real progress, an appropriation of $700 million would be required, and probably at today's prices it would be $750 million. This is a program that the municipalities and railways, even at the low percentage of 12J per cent and 7J per cent as a cost-sharing basis, could not support.
The commission set out just how serious this problem was. The hypothetical program, as I have stated, was to be spread over a period of 20 years. As I have pointed out also, if we are going to even attempt to make any real progress an appropriation of $750 million would be required. When you are talking about that amount of money, you must realize that it would account for about one sixth of the total expense budget of the country just to take care of this problem.
Last year, according to the records and contrary to the statement made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, the accident toll has increased. I believe the hon. member said the accident rate had been decreasing. There were 516 accidents at railway crossings, and 188 people were killed and 662 were injured.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I think, at the same time as I gave those figures I also mentioned that the number of motor vehicle registrations had more than doubled.


Robert Hardy Small: I will come to that; that is another matter but it is relevant to this problem and, in answer to the hon. member for Skeena, is probably the reason for the policy being established by the government. They are making provision for a sum of $15 million a year for a 3-year period to take care of this problem. As I have mentioned before, even the tremendous sum of $750 million would be insufficient to take care of the real problem, so if we are to take care of the problem there has to be a different approach, that is if we are to eliminate these 516 accidents at level crossings in which 188 were killed and 662 injured.

Railway Act
The board of transport commissioners has worked out what they have called an accident frequency rate per 100 level crossings. This is very interesting data, but I do not believe people are interested in percentage figures of how the death toll is going down. They are interested in stopping accidents. I want to say that the board of transport commissioners has done a wonderful job in connection with this program. They are dedicated to reducing the number of accidents but the number is increasing although the percentage is less, because of the increase in cars using the highways. However, the problem is still serious and the government is to be commended for their approach to it.
As the Minister of Transport has pointed out, in the last 48 years, since the inception of the transport commissioners, only $19 million was spent in attacking this problem. In the two years this government has been in office they have appropriated $15 million a year. We said at the time the program was initiated this was not enough, but it would be a lot better than before. It turns out to be about 200 per cent better than before because there was only $5 million appropriated previously. This government is to be commended because $28 million has been spent in the two previous years, and before the fiscal year is over that sum will probably reach $30 million. In two years they have spent nearly twice as much as previous governments spent in 48 years. We cannot very well condemn them for that when they made a real effort to make work and provide projects urgently needed.
I recall when this matter was under discussion during the previous administration's term of office, and at that time mention was made of the fact that accidents occurred at protected level crossings. I do not refer to those at which there is grade separation, but level crossings where there are short arm gates, wigwags and other signal devices. I do not know whether or not I have the figures here, but in 1958 there were 2,383 accidents at protected crossings, and about 30 per cent of those accidents occurred at night. These accidents happened notwithstanding the protection at the crossings.
In addition to this I should like to mention the terrible toll taken by highway accidents. This is a matter that seemed to be ignored until two or three years ago when the national safety council was formed. We considered that the figures for accidents at grade level crossings were appalling, but 
when we got the figures indicating the number of accidents that happened on the highways of Canada, they were even more appalling. There were 56,733 accidents on the highways, 2,930 people were killed, as compared to 188 at grade level crossings, and 79,399 people were injured on the highway as compared with -662 at grade crossings. While we were astounded by the figures for grade crossing accidents and were criticizing the board of transport commissioners because they would not take a serious view of the problem, we find the problem of highway accidents is even more serious. The national safety council was headed by a former minister of defence, Mr. Brooke Clax-ton, and latterly by the president of the Shell Oil Company, Mr. Ash.
This safety council, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Skeena, requested the railways to standardize signals and signs because the signs were hodgepodge all over the country. They worked on that, and then they came up with a request for fluorescent markings on the box cars so they could be seen at night. These markings were ordered by the board of transport commissioners, but the railways seem to be a law unto themselves. If it suits them they will go along with you, but if they decide it is going to cost money, they ignore orders. Eventually, this will be one of the things we will find necessary to give added protection and prevent people from running into the sides of box cars at night. As I have said, it is startling to find that there were 56,733 highway accidents as compared with 516 accidents at railway crossings. The cost of complete protection is tremendous. The government itself will have to reallocate the cost but not necessarily on the federal government. Every province should be greatly concerned about this highway toll. It is a problem for them as well as for the federal government.
I note that I have just about exhausted my time, Mr. Chairman, but before sitting down I should like again to commend the government and the Minister of Transport on having given us a progressive policy. I hope they will get around to the program which was set out by the board of transport commissioners in that hypothetical scheme they had with respect to spreading a large sum of money- I will say $750 million-spread over Canada will reduce the death toll considerably. This mounting death toll cannot be countenanced for long by sane people who have any respect for the value of life and the welfare of the country. I say that this policy should be

applied generally all over the country, with no particular place being favoured above another. We will see how far $15 million will go under circumstances under which $700 million a year would be required in order to attack the problem and to make any progress at all.
(Translation):


Mr. Deschatelets:: Mr. Chairman, while
we are discussing this resolution to extend level crossing grants for another three years after January 31, 1981, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to deal with a matter which the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Eudes), and myself have frequently brought up in the last few years. Indeed, we never failed to deal with the matter on any occasion. I am thinking of the removal of old railway tracks that run across the eastern sector of Montreal, starting at Moreau street, crossing the ridings of Hochelaga, Maisonneuve-Rosemont and Mer-cier, and end up in the extreme north eastern section of the city.
If I am right, those rail tracks are about 50 years old, and, though they have been very useful in their time for the transport of passengers and freight, the position has changed long ago for, today, they are not used for passenger transport any more but only for some freight and tank cars hauling oil from the easternmost limits of Montreal.
That part of the city, once far from the downtown area, is today very densely populated. In addition, many very flourishing business firms, which are in no way behind those in the western part of the city, are located in that eastern area.
Those old tracks are now quite useless as they are not used for passenger transport and only give service to a score of industries in the east. Therefore, if we compare the little use they have today with the numerous inconveniences they cause the people of Montreal, I think that we should avail ourselves of this resolution and attempt to discover means of freeing the people who live in the extreme east of Montreal from such monstrosity which, as I say, is a source of irritation and an obstacle to progress in that sector.
Now, how can we, under our present legislation, hope to get rid of this antiquated trackage? C.N.R. officials have always refused to grant our wishes whenever we have asked them to stop using that line in
Railway Act
favour of another running along Montreal harbour.
The problem, in my opinion, may be considered from two angles. I said a moment ago that it is no longer a passenger line, while it serves only about twenty industries, apart from tank cars. It would be very easy for the Canadian National Railways to use their line along Montreal harbour, which would permit the removal of that old line and the clearance of the whole eastern part of Montreal.
Now, we must face the possibility that Canadian National Railways will obstinately refuse those improvements which have been asked for so many years. Now, if they refuse to go ahead on their own with the removal of that railway track, there is, it seems, a way of achieving our purpose, under the amendment of 1955, and of 1958, or else in basing our claims on this legislation. In fact, several associations, such as the businessmen's association of the eastern part of Montreal, for instance, could exert pressure-in resorting to the railway act- upon the city of Montreal, in order that an inquiry be made by the transport commission, because I believe that if such an inquiry were made, a favourable report would be submitted to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), and there would then be a possibility of solution, on the basis of this bill.
It is therefore simply a case of doing justice to the people of eastern Montreal.
As the hon. member who spoke before me has pointed out, there are enormous problems, and important improvements have to be made all over this country; but I do not believe we can find anywhere else in Canada another place where railway tracks cut across urban centres, as is the case at present in the constituencies of Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Hochelaga and Mercier.
(Text):
I might now say a few words in English on this matter. On August 30, 1958 when we were at the end of a session and while we were on the estimates of the Minister of Transport and dealing with this particular item of the railway crossing fund I asked the minister to try to find out from the authorities of the Canadian National Railways the answers to three questions. I said I would appreciate if he would take note of those questions so that I could expect an answer within the next two weeks. I should

Railway Act
like to know whether there is between the authorities of the C.N.R. and the authorities of the city of Montreal a contract which permits the trains of the C.N.R. actually to cross in the east end of Montreal from the old Moreau station up to the far east end of Montreal. If there is a contract, I should like to know on what date it was signed and when it is going to terminate. I should like to direct another question to him and it is this. How many industries is this old line now serving in the east end of Montreal? 1 should like to have a list of the names of those firms. I should also like to have the volume of traffic for 1959, if it is available, on this line. If it is not available, I would be satisfied with the amount for 1958. I would also like to have the volume of traffic on this line in 1950, in order to show the sharp decrease in the amount of traffic.
(Translation) :
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is also a clash of interests, as we have already pointed out many times to C.N.R. officials.
In the first place there is the human element, in that for so many years people in eastern Montreal have had to put up with the inconvenience of that railway line. On the other hand, there is the financial interest of the Canadian National.
I hope that the human element will be considered before everything else. I trust that the bill which will soon come before the house will enable us to rid eastern Montreal of this useless railway line.


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to extend to you a hearty welcome and tell you how happy we are to see that your health has improved.
I shall be brief. I merely want to point out a special problem facing part of my constituency. In fact in my constituency four municipalities, Chateau-Richer, Beau-pre, Ste. Anne de Beaupre and St. Joachim, have to put up with at least eight of those level crossings.
It is known that last year those municipalities were served by a train travelling back and forth between Quebec and St. Joachim; that train used to be called "the little train to St. Joachim".
For financial reasons, that service was discontinued with the result that today only one train-the Quebec-La Malbaie train- runs along the Beaupre coast.
[Mr. Deschatelets.I
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that those grade crossings hamper and even paralyse the economic development of the municipalities I just mentioned. I submit that those grade crossings are now useless and that in the past they proved to be very dangerous at all times for car-drivers.
In three years, three major accidents have happened at those railway crossings on the Beaupre coast, and six people were killed.
Geographically, the Beaupre coast is bound on the north by the railroad running along the municipalities of the Beaupre coast. Then, farther north there is the St. Lawrence river and, between the municipalities and the river there is the national highway leading from Quebec to the northern part of the province.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is my impression that the Minister of Transport, in co-operation with the C.N.R. could render great service to those municipalities if grade crossings were eliminated in the following way. I would ask the Minister of Transport to consider this problem.
In my view, there is ample space along the St. Lawrence river, to the south of those municipalities, to build a railway which would in no way impede their economic development. As a service to the people of Beaupre coast, and the municipalities of Chateau-Richer, Ste. Anne de Beaupre and St. Joachim, the C.N.R. might make a survey to find out the cost of building a new railway along the St. Lawrence, including the cost of necessary expropriations. In this way, I am sure the Department of Transport and the C.N.R. would render a tremendous service to the people and would contribute to the economic development of the municipalities involved, which at present are being strangled by a railway which has become completely useless, except to allow trains to go by without even making a stop.
I therefore ask the Minister of Transport to kindly submit my request to the proper authorities of the C.N.R., so that this stretch of railway may be removed as soon as possible, thus enabling the people involved to enjoy the benefits of economic development.
(Text):


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have quite a few remarks to make about this matter. May I call it six o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Dumas:: May I ask the house leader what the business will be for the rest of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: As announced last night, tomorrow is private member's day; there will
Business of the House
be no government business. On Friday we commence with supplementary estimates. If we conclude those on Friday, we will carry on with these resolutions which I mentioned last night.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
706
[Stage Direction]
Questions