1960-03-07

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word concerning the representations made last week by a delegation from Elliot Lake, and the course the government intends to take in regard thereto.
The government is most desirous of continuing to work with the government of Ontario to find a solution to the problem. The Minister of Labour has advised the government of Ontario that the federal government desires to co-operate and participate in the cost of any useful training program for those of the miners who will be laid off in consequence of the decision of the United States not to undertake to take any more uranium than is provided for in the agreements which were entered into several years ago.
As the house knows, Elliot Lake was last week declared a labour surplus area, and the efforts of the national employment service to find alternative job openings have intensified. Furthermore, a fact-finding group will immediately be sent by the government to Elliot Lake, consisting of representatives of the national employment service, the unemployment insurance commission and the industrial development branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce. These officials will assemble information on the range and variety of labour supply, the resources of the area and alternative development possibilities. They will consider the problem of alternative employment, the retraining of workers, industrial development prospects, and will consult with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation concerning the problems of home owners.
On their return to Ottawa they will report their findings. The group which will be leaving this evening for the area in question consists of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour; Mr. A. F. Mac Arthur, commissioner of the unemployment insurance commission; Mr. W. M. Hall and Mr. G. A. Cooper, industrial development branch, Department of Trade and Commerce. After the report has been considered the Minister of 79951-0-113
Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Labour will then visit Elliot Lake, but that will not take place before the expiration of a week or so.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I am sure all the inhabitants of the area in question will welcome this evidence of concern on the part of the government over the difficulties that are facing them. I am sure they would have welcomed even more a visit by the Prime Minister, especially after the very warm welcome he gave their delegation last week. We can only hope that this visit, followed as it will be by a visit of the ministers, will result in positive action which will help this community out of the difficulties it is now facing.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may be allowed, because of the personal reference to myself, I should like to say this. Naturally these women representatives of Elliot Lake were received in a spirit of deep regard and sympathy. They presented their case reasonably and fairly. They asked me whether I would myself visit the area. I pointed out to them the fact that my immediate reaction was that were I to do so it might have the result of raising unjustified hopes on the part of the residents and workers. Having reconsidered my remarks at that time I am reinforced in that viewpoint, and feel that the most effective action would be along the line indicated by me a moment ago.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: We in this party welcome the statement by the Prime Minister as to an investigation and report that is to be made. We in this party tried to make it clear that investigation and study should have been made before this thing ever happened. According to the statement by the Prime Minister they are now sending in an investigation committee.
I do not know how many times we have asked this government to consider what was going to happen before it took place. I refer particularly to Elliot Lake because it was known at the time-not under the Prime Minister's aegis but under that of the Liberal government-that only a certain period was set forth under direct contract. What has happened since then? Because of the mistake- and I use that word advisedly-of the previous government a town has been built up, one of the most magnificent in the record of our country, because of a certain requirement.

Proposed Legislation
I am not blaming the Prime Minister for what has happened. As a matter of fact I am going to say that more than anybody else I am blaming the previous government for what has happened.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is departing a bit from the customary type of comment at this stage. This is not a debate. He is free to comment on the statement that has been made.


Harold Edward Winch: That is what I am trying to do, Mr. Speaker, namely, to comment on the statement by the Prime Minister as to what the present government is planning to do now because of the situation at Elliot Lake. I am convinced that this procedure is in order. We have there the finest example as to the meaning of planning which only this party has asked this government to do; I refer to real planning.
May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of what is now being done in planning five or seven years too late, he will consider and have passed by his government legislation giving recognition to the need for planning all across Canada in what is developing under his system of private enterprise? Will he look into that matter now?



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-52, to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of straw polls result).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling correspondence?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Minister of Justice leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on March 3, 1960 the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) requested the production of supplementary correspondence between the attorney general of the province of Quebec and myself regarding amendments to the British North America Act with respect to the retirement age of judges.
[Mr. Winch.1
I have received this morning the agreement of Quebec to the production of this correspondence, which includes copies of resolutions passed by the Quebec legislative assembly and legislative council. May I request the authorization of the house to have this correspondence printed as an appendix to the Votes and Proceedings of the house for today, as was done with the previous correspondence?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house to permit the printing of this correspondence as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings of today?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say again that I think it would be preferable to have it in Hansard; but if this is all the government is willing to ask for, then I accept.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has received any objections at all to the bill of rights, and if so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to defer his question to orders of the day.



FISHERIES


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-3 (from the Senate), to repeal certain fisheries laws of Newfoundland.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	government notices of
motion:
March 14-The Minister of Finance-The following proposed motion:-That the public accounts volumes I and II and the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1959, and the financial statements of the Canada council and the report of the Auditor General thereon for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1959, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 61-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of the exchange of letters accompanying the new Canadian-Australian treaty dealing with quotas and other import restrictions on Australian products.
Gordon Minto Churchill: This is agreeable, Mr. Speaker, and the Australian government has agreed that the correspondence be made public.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 62-Mr. Hanbidge:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other relevant papers and documents exchanged between the Regina branch of the Canadian farm loan board and the head office of the Canadian farm loan board at Ottawa between January 1, 1936 and April 30, 1937, pertaining to the dismissals of the following employees of the Regina branch of the Canadian farm loan board, namely: Messrs. E. P. Woodman, J. T. Roper, Gerald Fitzgerald, Harry R. Stillwell, A. B. Wenaus, W. J. Scott, J. V. Dodds.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I understand this motion would mean digging into the archives to some extent, so with the consent of the house I am quite willing to have it dropped.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



RICHELIEU WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 63-Mr. Cardin:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged from 1957 to date, between the federal government and the authorities of the state of New York and/or Washington concerning the Richelieu waterway which would link the St. Lawrence to the Hudson river by way of lake Champlain.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the order be made subject to the usual reservation.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
79951-0-113i
Inquiries of the Ministry

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 64-Mr. Dupuis:
For a copy of agreement No. 58407 entered into on March 24, 1958, by the Department of Transport and the city of Campbellford, Ontario, with respect to a contribution of $1,000 for the development of a park on the grounds of the canal leased to the city of Campbellford under agreement No. 58408; also for a copy of agreement No. 58408.
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport):: In the absence of the minister I ask the hon. member's consent to having this motion stand until Wednesday.
Motion stands.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that over the week end the seventh successive test failure of the Bomarc B weapon took place, the government will not now suspend expenditures on facilities for this weapon?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to add, as I see it. to what has already been said in this connection on previous occasions. It is true that there have been a number of tests which have proved unsuccessful, but the question of whether or not these failures are representative of the course to be expected on the part of the Bomarc is not yet sufficiently determined to permit of an answer to the second part of the question.
Mr. Harold E. V/inch (Vancouver East): A
supplementary question. In view of the fact that so much money has already been spent, or is included in next year's estimates, in connection with Bomarc missile bases, would the Prime Minister explain why Canada is going ahead with the establishment of these bases when out of 28 shots with this missile so far not one has been successful in tests in the United States. Would the Prime Minister explain why-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has already brought out one or two questions, but I am inclined to think they go beyond the question to which they are supposed to be supplementary. However, if the Prime Minister does not think they go beyond what is required-


Mr. Argue:: May I ask a supplementary question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a supplementary question to my original question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is the turn of the Leader of the Opposition, since one question has been asked from this corner.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My question is whether the acquisition of this particular weapon is a matter which it is proposed should be discussed in the defence committee which is about to be set up.


John George Diefenbaker: The question as to what is to be discussed in the defence committee is, of course, for the determination of the defence committee, except for the limitation that questions of policy, as the hon. gentleman will agree, having regard to the stand always taken by his colleagues in the last government, are not subjects for consideration by any committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the Prime Minister be prepared to have the defence committee discuss current expenditures and, therefore, the Bomarc missile, and not expenditures which have taken place years ago?


John George Diefenbaker: That matter will, of course, be decided when the motion is before the house. I have found, as I am sure hon. gentlemen in all parts of the house have found, that regardless of limitations which are placed upon committees there are occasions when members go beyond the limitations on the authority of the committee, and until such time as the chairman checks them-


Hazen Robert Argue: A further supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister not feel that the terms of reference of the committee should be broadened in order that this discussion could take place legally instead of illegally, as he has suggested?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the order been made for reference to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the hon. member is anticipating what might properly be discussed at the time the house is giving its authority for reference to the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot allow the hon. member's statement, that I in any way suggested illegality, to pass unchallenged. I simply referred to common procedure.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. gentleman rising to ask a supplementary question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman a supplementary question. Before this motion goes before the house, would the government give consideration to amending its present terms so as to permit the committee to examine the question of present expenditures and as well go into this whole subject of the Bomarc missile?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the questions the hon. members are asking would be more properly dealt with when the motion does come before the house. We are anticipating a debate or discussion which could properly take place at that time.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister inform the house on what basis he is recommending the expenditure of money for the establishment of Bomarc bases, in view of the failure of seven Bomarc tests?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is back where we started in this sequence of questions. The Prime Minister has already answered that question, and unless the Minister of National Defence wishes to rise I would say the question has been dealt with.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs which is really simple and easy to answer; and arising out of the Prime Minister's statement that I would undoubtedly agree that policy questions should not be discussed in the defence committee. My question is, is the minister not aware that policy matters are now actually being discussed in the committee on external affairs?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to accommodate the Leader of the Opposition in that committee.


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister inform the house whether a contract has now been awarded for the installation of the Bomarc launching site in the Mont Laurier district?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the contract has not yet been awarded. I reported to the house on this question about two weeks ago. I believe the contracts were being called in the middle of last month.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister inform the house as to what progress has been made in

the purchase of land for the site since the minister answered a similar question on February 3?


George Randolph Pearkes: I believe options have been taken on land, for about 412 acres.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, arising out of an answer he gave a few minutes ago. Can the minister inform the house as to whether it is normal practice for the government to call for tenders for government construction on a site which the government does not yet own?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is getting rather far into the realm of fancy, and his question is hypothetical concerning government practice in general.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: If Your Honour will recall, we were told by the Minister of National Defence that tenders for the construction of a Bomarc site had been called for about March 15, I think it was; yet when we ask questions about the purchase of the land we find that apparently the land has not yet been purchased. It is only a question of options at the present time. I feel that my question is relevant.


Mr. Speaker:: The way the hon. member phrased his question, "is it government practice to do so-and-so", is perhaps not hypothetical, as was suggested; but certainly the urgency of determining government practice on the orders of the day does not strike me. If the hon. member has a particular question of fact relating to the Bomarc site, I have no wish to discourage him from asking it.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a question to ask on the Bomarc sites. Has the Minister of National Defence read a report in the newspapers that the seventh test has failed, and has the minister noted his remarks in the press that irrespective of the failure we in Canada are going ahead with the installation of Bomarc sites? Will the minister explain why, in the face of seven failures, we should go ahead with the installation of Bomarc sites in Canada?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think we are losing all sense of proportion in this matter. I might say that so far as the Bomarc A was concerned, which was the previous type of missile, there were 80 tests made before it became operational. There have been seven tests made of this Bomarc B. While there have been some failures in the component parts of the apparatus, those who are responsible for the development believe these can be overcome.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I might mention that the United States, in this fiscal year, is spending $421.5 million for the development of Bomarc sites across this continent, of which there are 18 interlocking sites. Two of these will be constructed in Canada. The United States is providing an amount of over $70 million for the provision of the missiles and launching equipment for these two sites. Canada is contributing $15 million, of which somewhere around $300,000 has already been spent on preliminary work and the acquisition of land.
Now, I have had assurances as recently as this morning, when I was talking on the telephone to the secretary for defence of the United States, that if there is any change to be made at all in the defence program for the North American continent under NORAD, Canada will be consulted before any decisions are made.


Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: have a supplementary question to ask the Minister of National Defence with regard to the Bomarc missile. In view of the seven failures, and in view of the speculation that congress will be throwing out the whole of the Bomarc program, I wonder whether the minister could give consideration to using the two launching pads built in Canada as bandstands for the R.C.A.F. band?


Harold Edward Winch: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of expenditures by Canada on national defence, especially on the arrangements for the Bomarc and so on, will the Minister of National Defence agree that in the examination to be made by a committee, policy can be considered along with expenditures?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister has no power to agree as to what any committee will consider. I suggest that the hon. member reserve his question until the instructions to the committee come before the house.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister and as usual mine is a simple and easy one to answer.
In view of representations to cabinet ministers and members of parliament of all parties by the national officers of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers; in view of a personal appeal to the

Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister by Mr. Don Gillis, president of local 598 of the union for the restoration of pension vesting provisions in the Income Tax Act, and in view of the great importance of and consequent interest in this question by the working people of Canada, would the Prime Minister inform the house of the government's decision in response to these representations?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this matter was brought to my attention by Mr. Gillis and was followed by lengthy representations on his part. Consideration is being given to those representations by the several ministers affected, and as soon as a decision is made on the matter it will be communicated to the house.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Before I ask my question I should like to take this opportunity to thank members on both sides of the house and members of the press gallery who, while I was in hospital, cheered me up with their cards and notes.
I should now like to direct a question to the Prime Minister supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West. My question is based on a report that appeared in the Sudbury Star of January 27 with respect to an interview with Mr. Gillis who dealt with a conference he had had with the Prime Minister with regard to pension vesting. The report states in part:
The Prime Minister told Gillis he would inquire as to why the clause had been deleted and would talk over with national revenue minister Nowlan and other members of the cabinet the advisability of reinstating it.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister could explain to the house how this order in council was passed without the knowledge of the head of the government? Second, can he tell the house why this clause was deleted from the Income Tax Act?


John George Diefenbaker: There was no order in council to that effect that I know anything about. I think the hon. member is misinformed. The situation was simply this; that in June, 1950, the former minister of national revenue, Hon. Dr. McCann, caused to be published a blue book respecting pension plans for purposes of the Income Tax Act. Paragraph 10B of this book contains a statement respecting vesting to which attention is called by Mr. Gillis.
[Mr. Herridge.)

Now, I do not want to go into the history of this. This was simply a statement in a booklet issued by the minister and under the authority of the department which, according to my information, was not regarded by the department as in any way binding. In 1959 it was deleted, and Mr. Gillis raised with me the question as to reinstituting this particular section, not because of its legal authority but simply because, having been in the former blue book, it should be continued.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Is it not correct that this clause was deleted as the result of an order in council or other order published in the Canada Gazette on July 18 of last year?


John George Diefenbaker: I have pointed out the facts as they are given to me respecting this particular section. I pointed out that there was no order in council that rendered ineffective the efficacy of section 10B, and that whatever the effect of 10B may have been there was no deletion of the legal effect under an order in council.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the Prime Minister another supplementary question. In view of the Prime Minister's answer, why would he listen to appeals from Mr. Gillis and the officers of this union for the restoration of this right, which in their brief to the government they said had been affected by an order published on July 18 of last year?


John George Diefenbaker: I did so because they
placed before me their representations, which I viewed as being based upon a reasonable request, and I stated that consideration would have to be given by the various departments affected. As I pointed out earlier, these various departments are today giving consideration to the matter of reinstituting the particular section.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the Prime Minister
make a further examination into this matter; and if in fact he finds there is such an order in council, could it be tabled?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister consider doing away with the compulsory insurance feature on Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation mortgages, which amounts to as

much as $300 on present mortgages, in order to give encouragement to the construction industry?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as
notice.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the speech made last week by the attorney general of British Columbia, has the British Columbia government asked for a long-range study of criminal justice in Canada? If so, will the minister indicate the reply of the Canadian government and when we may expect the study to begin?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, no such request has been received from the government of British Columbia. I might add, however, that I have read the report of the speech given by the attorney general of British Columbia, referred to by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and that it seems to bear mainly on the administration of the Criminal Code, on probation services, and on correctional reform.
With respect to correctional reform, as my hon. friend knows a correctional planning committee has been set up by this government and is currently preparing its final recommendations for the government's consideration. With respect to the administration of the Criminal Code and with respect to probation services, the responsibility in British Columbia for both these matters is entirely that of the provincial government.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES UNIVERSITY GRANTS    INQUIRY AS TO ARRANGEMENT WITH QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Lauriei):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the federal government to pay the $25 million which is being held in trust by the national conference of Canadian universities to the six Quebec universities, as suggested by Premier Barrette in Quebec on March 4 last?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems that the hon. member is anticipating a motion which, while it may not yet be on the order paper, has at least been referred to by the Minister of Finance.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: That is a fact, sir. There is a motion on the order paper, but notwithstanding the motion on the order paper statements are being made outside of the house concerning matters that normally would be discussed under the motion, and I think I have the right to ask the minister whether the statements made by the premier of the province, in anticipation of what is now mentioned on the order paper, are accurate. That was the purpose of my question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member could make out a case for statements of the gentleman in question being an administrative responsibility of the Minister of Finance he might succeed.


Lionel Chevrier: Then I have a supplementary question that does not deal with the matter on the order paper, and it is this. Is it the intention of the federal government to discontinue the practice of offering federal grants to Quebec universities, as announced by Premier Barrette in Quebec on March 4 last?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is an experienced member of the house and he may have some justification for such a question which I do not understand, but it seems to me it is exactly the same sort of inquiry in anticipation of something with which the house must deal, and the urgency does not arise until the house has taken its decision.


Lionel Chevrier: May I respectfully draw to your attention the fact that the resolution on the order paper provides for amendment of the Federal-Provincial Tax Sharing Arrangements Act, and the question I have asked the minister does not deal with this at all. It deals with federal grants to universities, which is an entirely different matter. I think I have a right to a reply.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: On the point of order that has been raised, the notice of motion standing on the order paper in my name is item No. 17; and when that matter is reached, if we ever do make progress in the house with the business waiting to be transacted, all these questions are bound to be gone into. With respect, I do not think it is of any assistance to the house to pick out some particular point and in anticipation of the broader discussion ask for some statement on it. Frankly, no minister answering a question of that kind can do justice to the matter in a sentence or two or by just picking out one aspect of a very broad question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may say a word on the point of order, I have read item No. 17 very carefully, and there does not appear to be anything retrospective about it. It appears to relate only to the future. I submit that the question asked by the hon. member for Laurier with regard to the moneys voted by previous parliaments, which moneys are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance, is in no way in conflict with or embraced by the language of this resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Minister of
Finance can say whether the resolution involves the question which was last asked. If it does not, then the question may be answered; but if, as it seems to me, it does, then I think the Minister of Finance is perfectly right.


Lionel Chevrier: But it does not say so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. gentlemen are under a misapprehension. They keep referring to moneys under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance. They are not such at all. Pursuant to the principal appropriation act of the 1959 session and similar appropriation acts of previous sessions, certain moneys were paid over by the Minister of Finance first to the national council of Canadian universities and now to the universities foundation, and the moneys are in their hands. This subject is bound to be discussed in an ample and broad manner when the resolution on the order paper is reached, as I hope it will be soon. I have not any of these moneys under my control.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree with the last view expressed on the point of order, and I rule that the questions are out of order up to this point.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask another question. Does the minister intend to introduce legislation which will upset the trust referred to concerning the $25 million?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance hopes some time to introduce the measure that is described in the resolution I have referred to already as No. 17 on the order paper.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Did the Minister of Finance hold conversations with the rectors and principals of the Quebec universities and the premier of the province of Quebec, as announced by the premier of the province?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not seen the announcement to which the hon. member refers. I have had discussions with the premier of the province of Quebec, and I think
tMr. Fleming (Eglinton).]
they were useful discussions. I have had no discussions with the rectors of the universities.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of Finance if he can tell the house whether it is now to be his intention to have all future policies in so far as the province of Quebec is concerned announced by the premier of that province?


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Lionel Chevrier: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact there has been a question of privilege, whether the minister, who has been good enough to comment on that part of the statement made by Premier Barrette, would comment on the other two statements which I put in the previous two questions to the minister, one dealing with the $25 million and the other dealing with the university grants.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member is not asking the Minister of Finance to disregard the ruling of the Chair. That is, in effect, what he is doing. I indicated that this last question was out of order as being in anticipation of the discussion which will take place very shortly on the motion now on the order paper dealing with this question.


Lionel Chevrier: That is exactly what the Minister of Finance did; he commented on a question which you ruled out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On that point, sir, you ruled two questions out of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I am not accepting the argument, and it is unnecessary for the minister to comment.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, but in his absence may I direct it to the parliamentary secretary. In view of the very inadequate hotel accommodation in St. John's, Newfoundland, will the minister please advise whether Canadian National Railways have given consideration to enlarging the Newfoundland hotel at St. John's, about which he undertook to speak to the railway management on July 2 last year?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I will have to take the question as notice until the minister returns.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and ask him when I can expect a return in connection with the correspondence between himself and other members of the government and the provincial premiers relating to aid to universities. As the Minister of Finance intends to have this matter discussed, I presume, in the near future, it will be necessary to have this correspondence in order to deal with the subject matter satisfactorily.


John George Diefenbaker: I agree with the hon. member that it will be necessary to have that correspondence, and I will see that it is tabled. I think we have communicated with all the provinces that had in fact replied to the letter in question written by the government. There was some question as to whether the fact that three of the provinces did not reply caused us to consider asking for their consent to table the letter which had been written by myself. It was concluded that it was not necessary. I think the hon. member will have these papers tomorrow.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In doing so I should like to give him the opportunity of availing himself of the simultaneous translation system.
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):
I should like to know what progress has been made in the Department of National Health and Welfare with respect to the document submitted to the minister by Dr. Clark on the matter of economic assistance to the aged?
(Text):


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: If the hon. member will attend the estimates committee tomorrow morning I will give him a very full answer on this question.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should
like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. In view of the fact that the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission was to meet on March 4 last, according to the assurance given by the minister on February 16 last, is the minister in a position now to say what action will be taken to rescind regulations 172 and 173 under the Unemployment Insurance Act so that the $400 severance pay to each employee involved in lay-offs at Elliot Lake might be paid to the employee and not be considered as income?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: The meeting of the unemployment insurance advisory committee was held on Friday, March 4 and we are waiting for the report of that committee.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether a deficiency payment has been declared on wool. If so, when do they expect the payment will be distributed?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Some two months ago the announcement was made of a deficiency payment on wool of 21 cents a pound. Payments have practically all gone out by this time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the somewhat indefinite order of the house which was

Civil Aviation
made at the close of the sitting on Friday could be clarified before we embark on this motion?


Lionel Chevrier: I understand there has been at least a tacit agreement between the government house leader and myself that it be taken up at eight o'clock this evening.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That would be satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: Then that is the agreement supplementing the order of the house made on Friday, namely that proceedings will be interrupted at eight o'clock today and the measure in question will be proceeded with.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of supply.



GOVERNMENT POLICY IN RESPECT TO CIVIL AVIATION

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the object of an amendment to the motion to go into supply is twofold. In the first place it is to express a point of view different from that which is contained in the motion. Next, it is because the public has a grievance which the opposition desires to bring to the attention of the house and of the country.
In the present case the opposition says that the government by its policies has done three things which are not in the public interest. First, it is giving away Canadian sovereignty in the air. Next, it is discriminating against small air lines in favour of the larger and more powerful ones, and in turn discriminating against the outlying areas of the country. Third, the opposition say the government cannot seem to make up its mind on the kind of air terminals that it wants to build in this country.
Even if everything done by the former administration was wrong-and that is something which I am not prepared to admit- surely after the government has been in office for a period of three years, it should know by this time what it wants. It should know what to do. It should be able to stand on its own feet. It ought to be able to put right all those things which it said were wrong heretofore.
Instead of that the government is going in all directions in the three fields I have mentioned, namely in the field of international air service, the field of domestic air service and the field of the construction of terminals. It has no clear goal before it. There is confusion and uncertainty in these three fields

of civil aviation. Since this government has been in office I ask where there has been a clear-cut declaration of government policy in these fields. Where has there been an over-all attempt to deal with these matters?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I think he will find it more comfortable if he has a little more attention from the house. There seems to be an undue amount of conversation today, and I am afraid it is interrupting the speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was saying, where has there been an overall attempt to deal with these matters in a statement of government policy? Instead we have ad hoc decisions. We have decisions that deal with cases which come up from time to time, and it is impossible either for the public or the air industry to know what the position of the government is.
Since this government has been in office it has placed in jeopardy the once favourable position held by Canada in the field of international aviation. Prior to 1957 Canada had a well defined policy in the negotiation of bilateral air agreements. It held generally to the position of exchanging third and fourth freedoms only with other countries, because to go beyond that would be against the national interest.
Since this government has been in office several concessions have been granted to European countries, and a number of additional services have been permitted to come into being between Canada and Europe which have been detrimental to our own country. In some cases the concessions have involved fifth freedom rights to the air carriers of other countries without Canada receiving reciprocal rights or reciprocal privileges in return. Specifically, the rights which have been given away are as follows:
1.	The granting of fifth freedom rights between Montreal and Chicago to the air carriers of France and West Germany.
2.	The naming of Toronto as an additional point of call for the British air carrier.
3.	The granting of additional rights to the air carriers of the United States, and;
4.	The granting of fifth freedom rights to an Italian carrier between Montreal and Mexico, Montreal and Chicago and Montreal and Los Angeles.
In short, the international air negotiations which have taken place during the last two years have branded Canada as an easy mark, and as a result other European nations are indicating that they would like to reopen air discussions with our country, obviously looking to the improvement of their position and the deterioration of ours.



I960

[Stage Direction]
I would like now, sir, to put on the record and examine each of the bilateral air agreements or the amendments thereto negotiated since this government has been in office, and I would like to consider what the position is today and what damage has been done to our own country in the field of international air navigation.
First I would deal with France. For some time prior to 1957 the Liberal administration had been under constant pressure from the French government for a revision of the existing air agreement between Canada and France so as to provide for the carriage of local traffic-that is fifth freedom traffic

by the French carrier between Montreal and Chicago in both directions, with France being willing to concede, on the other hand, the granting of rights to a Canadian carrier for the carriage of local traffic between Paris and a point in Europe to be designated by Canada, Rome or Vienna being specifically mentioned.
The pressure which was exercised against the former administration was resisted because of two reasons; first, because the former administration did not think there was a sufficient quid pro quo in what was being offered by the government of France; and next, because no Canadian carrier possessed non-stop rights between Montreal and Chicago and it was thought at the time that if the government was not successful in itself obtaining from the United States non-stop rights between Montreal and Chicago, it should not concede those onward rights to another country.
It should be mentioned at this stage that Canada has a route under its bilateral agreement with the United States which provides for a flight to Chicago, but on condition that that flight come down at Toronto, and in consequence any Canadian flights which originate at Montreal for Chicago must make a Toronto stop.
Following the two elections of 1957 and 1958, the present government yielded to the pressure of the French government and granted fifth freedom rights to the French carrier between Montreal and Chicago, which became effective in November, 1958. In return Canada has received from the French government fifth freedom rights between Paris and Rome or Vienna, which rights have not been implemented by Canada because of failure to obtain similar rights from other countries concerned. It should also be emphasized here that during this period the Canadian government has been entirely unsuccessful in obtaining rights from the United States for a Montreal-Chicago route.
Thus, sir, Air France has been able to enjoy traffic rights between Montreal and
Civil Aviation
Chicago without direct competition from a Canadian carrier, and this is truly a sad commentary on the ability of a Canadian delegation to negotiate bilateral air agreements or amendments thereto. Furthermore, this amendment to the bilateral agreement with the country now under discussion has had a considerable and serious detrimental effect upon the revenues of Canadian carriers.
I should like next to deal with the air agreement with West Germany. In 1958 a meeting was held between representatives of Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany having for its object the negotiation of a formal bilateral air agreement to supersede the temporary arrangement for air services between the two countries then in effect. The negotiations culminated in an agreement being reached on a mutually equitable basis for air service between the two countries, but in addition granting to Germany fifth freedom rights between Montreal and Chicago in return for Canadian fifth freedom rights between Dusseldorf and Vienna. It was also agreed that future fifth freedom rights would be granted to Germany between Montreal and Boston or New York, coincidental with the granting to Canada of fifth freedom rights between Dusseldorf and a point in Europe to be determined by Canada.
This, sir, was a reasonable agreement with the exception of the exchange of Montreal-Chicago for Dusseldorf-Vienna, where the balance is highly in favour of the German carrier because of the difference in the volume of traffic over the two routes. There is no comparison between the onward rights from Montreal to Chicago and those from Dusseldorf to Vienna. It is again emphasized here that Canada granted privileges to a foreign carrier to operate over a route not already granted to its own air carrier and for which it has not since been successful in obtaining such rights. Again in this instance there has been a considerable loss of revenue to Canada as in the agreement with the French government.
I come now to the bilateral agreement, or its revision, with the United States. The bilateral air agreement signed between Canada and the United States dates back, I believe, to 1949. It was amended in 1955 and further amended in April of 1959. Under that agreement provision was made for the addition of a number of short haul trans-border routes highly favourable to the United States and equally unfavourable to Canada, thus placing in imbalance what had theretofore been mutually acceptable treatment. None of the hopes and desires of the Canadian companies were given serious consideration, and the entire negotiations were
[Stage Direction]
Civil Aviation
carried out along lines dictated by the United States delegation, with the issues being confined to those favourable to the United States companies. Subsequently additional routes were incorporated, and for the information of the house I would ask permission to place this table on record in Hansard. It shows the additional routes incorporated in the Canada-United States air agreement as amended in 1959.
Mr. Bell (Carleton):: By whom was it prepared?


Lionel Chevrier: It was prepared by myself from the bilateral air agreement with the United States and the amendments made by the present government in 1959.


Richard Albert Bell: Does the hon. gentleman take full responsibility for its accuracy?


Lionel Chevrier: I presume the minister will be in the house later, if he is not here now; or he will be here tomorrow, and he can, once this table is on record, either challenge it or have another table inserted to contradict it if he should deem it necessary. But I have no doubt that this table is accurate.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman leave to have this table inserted in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to above is as follows:]
Additional routes incorporated in the U.S.-Canada air agreement as amended in 1959
Ketchikan-Prince Rupert	
Spokane-Calgary	
Great Falls-Calgary	
Minot or Williston-Regina	
Winnipeg and/or Kenora-International Falls ..
Lakehead-International Falls	
Duluth-Lakehead	
Hancock-Lakehead	
Buffalo-Toronto	
Halifax-New York	
To be operated by U.S. or Canada or both.
U.S. or Canada or both.
U.S. as part of the route Great Falls-Edmonton already in existence.

Canada
Canada



U.S. U.S.

[Stage Direction]
U.S. or Canada or both.
Canada as an extension of the route Halifax-Boston already in existence.
Lionel Chevrier: In order to save the time of the house I shall not give consideration to those rights which are given to the United States as opposed to Canada. I shall simply make this comment, though; that if one examines this table it will readily be seen that the list of additions does little or nothing to further the cause of Canadian aviation, but that it does a great deal to further the cause of United States aviation, providing as it does for a number of additional gateway points from which traffic can be distributed to larger centres of population, and hampering the development of direct services between Canada and these larger centres. In addition to this, the new routes fit in much better with the United States pattern than with the Canadian pattern.
To bring the matter into proper focus, every pressure must now be brought to bear to induce the United States to agree to a complete renegotiation of the air agreement so as to open up additional centres of dense population for direct air services from Canada. It should be noted in passing that the United States has been far more generous to its European friends than it has been to Canada. The United States seems to have had no difficulty whatsoever about granting onward rights in its own country to European

carriers such as Alitalia, Sabena, Air France, Lufthansa and the like, although not granting those onward rights to Canadian carriers.
I submit that this situation must be corrected, but that can only be done if there is a more realistic and forceful approach to the problem by the present government. Lack of correction can only mean the sale of Canada's birthright for the proverbial mess of pottage, at least as far as aviation is concerned. We do not, in this country, go to the bargaining table with empty hands. On the contrary, it has been stated repeatedly, and it is a fact, that no air line that wants to travel the world routes can do so without crossing Canadian territory at some point or other. Moreover, a goodly portion of air travel between Canada and the United States originates in Canadian centres and our people, I submit, deserve the right to be carried to their destinations in aircraft owned and operated by Canadian air lines rather than be transferred to United States carriers at the first gateway point within that country, with all the inconvenience and difficulty which that is likely to bring about. Obviously Canada must bring pressure to bear. The United States is, of course, quite satisfied and complacent about the whole

situation as it exists today. That is natural, because the position is one which is satisfactory to the United States.
I turn now to the agreement with the United Kingdom. At the invitation of the British government, talks relating to a revision of the bilateral air agreement were held in Ottawa in May, 1959, and culminated in the British being granted the use of Toronto as a terminal airport in Canada in addition to Montreal. This gives the United Kingdom direct access to both of Canada's largest traffic generating centres. There was no gift within the power of the British to compensate for this tremendous right which Canada gave up, and as a result Canada came out second best at the negotiating table with the United Kingdom; because that concession is having, as it was bound to have, a serious effect on the revenue position of Canadian carriers. That is a sad situation, because there is no doubt in my mind that this is what has brought about the pooling of resources between one of the Canadian carriers and its British counterpart. A sad situation, this, and one which I am sure would not have become worthy of consideration a few short years ago.
What price did the British pay for obtaining this prize concession allowing them to enter the Toronto market, which is by far the most lucrative air market in this country? They agreed to the inclusion of the additional point, Toronto, on the existing Vancouver-Hong Kong route, and the granting of fifth freedom privileges between the United Kingdom and certain European points, all of doubtful value at the time they were given and of even less value today with the advent of the jet era and large aircraft requiring long-range flights before they are economic in operation. What good, for instance, is the London-Brussels fifth freedom concession in these circumstances, more particularly when Canada would be required to grant a further concession to the Belgians in order to implement it? This was but another case of Canada failing to meet fire with fire and being outmanoeuvered at the bargaining table because of lack of tenacity of purpose and, apparently, an inherent fear of failure to reach agreement. Sir, it is better that there should be no agreement, than one without honour or equity.
Last, but not least, is this air agreement with Italy, which it seems to me cannot be explained by any stretch of the imagination. If ever a country gave away rights Canada did in the case of its bilateral air agreement with Italy. The recent negotiation of the agreement between Canada and Italy offers, I say, a prize example of a give-away program
Civil Aviation
so far as this country is concerned, and one which has justly earned Canada the name of being an easy mark as far as international bargaining is concerned.
The primary function of any bilateral air agreement is to provide for air services between the two countries involved. In this case the main object appears to have been completely lost sight of if one judges by the many and various other rights and privileges which have been written into the agreement. An outline of this and a comment thereon would appear to be in order at the present time.
Canada did, of course, obtain third and fourth freedom rights between Montreal and Rome. In addition it obtained fifth freedom rights between Lisbon and Rome and between Rome and Bangkok, as well as the possibility of Paris to Rome. Italy, on the other hand, obtained third and fourth freedom rights between Rome and Montreal, and in addition it was granted fifth freedom rights between Montreal and Chicago, Montreal and Los Angeles and Montreal and Mexico.
Let us look at the comparison between these exchanges. On the one hand we have Lisbon-Rome versus Montreal-Chicago. What comparison is there? Montreal-Chicago is a lucrative route and unquestionably highly desired by any air carrier. Montreal-Lisbon is not nearly as attractive, I would say. The comparison here, sir, is that of a horse for a rabbit or, perhaps better, an elephant for a mouse, which latter term might well be descriptive of the timidity of Canada at the bargaining table.
Then we come to a comparison of Rome-Bangkok versus Montreal-Los Angeles and here words literally fail me, because there is nothing in my vocabulary which can actually describe the situation. There may be a lot of people who want to travel Montreal to Los Angeles, but who wants to travel Montreal to Bangkok? Who on earth by way of a fifth freedom privilege wants to go to Bangkok? There may be some people, but the exchange of those two routes is, I say, simply ridiculous.
Adding to the state of imbalance, what did Canada do? It did not think that was enough. It threw in, over and above the bargain, Montreal-Mexico City versus Paris-Rome out of pure sympathy for the Italian position. Surely it can be said with effective and absolute conviction that never has so much been given for so little to the obvious detriment of Canadian industry.
I ask what are the effects on Canada of these new bilaterals, additional amendments and revisions to older bilaterals, because of government action? What sense of urgency, I ask, has caused the government of Canada to

Civil Aviation
enter into such one-sided arrangements as those which have been negotiated recently? Why have not the exorbitant demands of other countries been rejected? What does the government intend to do now in order to restore the reputation of Canada so far as its ability to conduct fair and equitable air negotiations is concerned? By virtue of its own actions Canada has become the laughingstock of the world with respect to air negotiations. This deplorable situation must not be allowed to continue.
The first obvious step for correction is an abandonment of this ad hoc policy pursued by the government with respect to international aviation since its inception and the development and implementation of a long term program based on sound reasoning, economic feasibility and development of this country's air transportation industry rather than the granting of rights indiscriminately to air carriers of other countries.
The cumulative effect of this give-away program of the past two years has been the loss of millions of dollars in gross and net revenues to Canadian air carriers, with a consequent reduction in their rate of expansion and a consequent reduction in employment to Canadians. I state here that because of these arrangements the air industry has become apprehensive of the loss of employment, as I intend to show later on.
Then there is also the fact that every inequitable concession which has been granted to foreign air carriers brings with it a reduction in potential so far as revenue is concerned, not only in the air lines themselves but also in the related services, in the supply industries and in those industries which are responsible for keeping the civil aviation industry on its feet, to say the least. In the natural course of events Canada suffers to some degree also in the field of international aviation in comparison with European countries because of the higher wage rates that obtain in this country. Let us not add to our own problems by granting undue concession to these carriers to further weaken our position.
There is also the establishment in Europe of the air union. The air union, as the house knows, is a sort of common market in the air made up of four carriers including Alitalia Air France, Lufthansa and Sabena, the object of which is to travel the north Atlantic run and other runs in co-ordination with each other and unquestionably at the expense of our own carriers. Picture for a moment the result of the co-ordination of scheduling by the three carriers, Air France, Lufthansa and Alitalia, which have already possession of onward rights from Montreal

to Chicago. Picture again what complete co-ordination on the north Atlantic can do to Canada. It is the responsibility of the government to be alert to these situations and ensure that nothing is done by the air union carriers, either individually or collectively, which is incompatible with the letter and intent of the various bilateral air agreements which Canada has entered into from time to time with the countries concerned.
Vigilance must be exercised continually to ensure that the interests of our own carriers are protected to the utmost degree, and that their rights and privileges are not abrogated. The conclusion which follows in this field, from what I have said and from the series of events I have outlined which have taken place during the last two years, or will undoubtedly occur as a result of things to come, is serious, particularly as it would affect the revenue field. To place an accurate dollar value on such items is a difficult task, and I am not going to attempt to say what it means by way of loss of revenue; but I would put it in the realm of $5 million in gross revenues in 1959 for the Canadian carriers and in the realm of $7,500,000 in gross revenues in 1960, with that amount becoming progressively greater in the years to come.
All of this leads to the conclusion that what the government has done is a serious matter. I am confirmed in that conclusion by an order in council which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) tabled in the house the other day, P.C. 1960/92, which was filed under section 80 of the Financial Administration Act covering the capital budget of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year 1960. Here the minister tells us that T.C.A. will require for 1960 the sum of $97,500,000 made up of approximately $83 million for property and equipment, $4 million for refinancing of loans and $10 million for increased material and supplies. There follows this significant statement: "Source of funds: Net income, nil."
Therefore, while this is not a conclusive deduction, nevertheless it appears from this statement filed by the minister that T.C.A. will not have a net income for the year 1959 compared with previous years when it always did. We will not know this definitely, of course, until the minister tables the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines but if it follows what is indicated in this budget it will show a deficit for the year 1959. My contention is that if there is a deficit it is due to the policy of the government in opening up to competition in the international field air routes and air privileges to which this country normally would be entitled.
This is the third time that I have had the opportunity of discussing this matter, once

outside the house and the second time in the house. The minister has not seen fit to reply on any occasion. On a previous occasion when I discussed the matter in the house he dismissed it by the comment "nonsense" to a reporter who spoke to him outside the house. I am not offended by the fact that he would dismiss this rather serious allegation on the part of the opposition as nonsense but I think that allegations of such a serious character are at least deserving of a reply from the minister other than the word "nonsense".
But the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome), in an attempt to right what had been said, asked the minister on the orders of the day how many more Canadians would be able to travel by air directly from Canada this year than would have been able to do so under the bilateral agreements in operation previously. The minister, with great satisfaction, rose and replied that under the agreements negotiated by the present government it was estimated that 40,000 more Canadians would be able to travel directly from Canada to other countries than would have been able to do so under the arrangements worked out by the late lamented Liberal government. I say, sir, that that is not an answer to the charges which we are making.
I say it is not an answer because, first of all, I ask how this figure of 40,000 is arrived at and, second, if it should be accurate then I point out that it could have been obtained just as easily through the negotiations with the French government because under the former bilateral negotiated by the Liberal administration Canada already had the right to obtain fifth freedom rights from Paris to Rome. Therefore the Canadian government was under no obligation to negotiate another air agreement with Italy. It could have completed the negotiations with the French government and obtained for the Canadian carrier the same rights as were obtained in the Italian agreement for another Canadian carrier. Therefore if the point made by the hon. member for Vancouver South holds, it certainly holds also in connection with the other agreement with the French government whereby it would not have been necessary to grant all these additional rights to the government of Italy. But I add this.


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


Lionel Chevrier: I will answer in a moment.
What difference does it make if a new air agreement makes it possible for 100,000 more Canadians to travel rather than 40,000 or 10,000 if because of that additional travel there is going to be a loss of revenue in the budgets and the profit and loss statements of the various Canadian carriers? That is a figure
Civil Aviation
that I have already put on Hansard, namely a loss of some $5 million to $7.5 million in gross revenues.


Ernest James Broome: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Ernest James Broome: With reference to landing rights at Bangkok, which seemed to lead to a great deal of merriment, is it quite fair for the hon. member not to indicate that this is but one step to enable around the world flights by Canadian Pacific Air Lines? That is not the end of it. It is a filling-in step.


Lionel Chevrier: My friend is quite right but here is the point. In going around the world you have to negotiate with other governments. The moment you go on to Bangkok you have to negotiate with the government of that country and you have to negotiate with other governments. When you negotiate with other governments you have to give up rights in your own country. That is what I am trying to establish and I believe I have succeeded in establishing that we have given far too much to other governments in exchange for the rights we have received.


Ernest James Broome: Would the hon. member permit another question? How long did it take the former administration to get landing rights in New York for T.C.A. on the Montreal-New York run? Eastern Air Lines had a monopoly of that traffic and held on to it by embargos, injunctions and so on. How long did it take you to do something there?


Lionel Chevrier: My friend is now following the tactics of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) by asking a question and succeeding in making a speech. I dealt with the air agreement with the United States and I said that it was the practice of the former administration to exchange third and fourth freedom rights for similar rights in other countries. There are some exceptions to that but not very many. But in the amendments to the United States agreement made by the present government the government went much further than we did and it made a bad bargain in so far as Canada is concerned as will be seen if you will look at the chart which I have already put on Hansard.
I say that this is not the way, by answering questions on the orders of the day by press releases from the minister's office, to deal with matters of this importance. I repeat that if it is only a question of ignoring the person who is now speaking it makes no

Civil Aviation
difference but where it does make a difference is that it is ignoring the representatives of the aviation industry. If the minister wants to ignore the air industries and transport association, who at their annual meeting and in a brief presented to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) complained very bitterly about the minister and the attitude of the government, that is another thing. It is a far more serious matter which the minister must, of course, take cognizance of.
The difficulty about this whole matter, I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, is that the government has not placed on Hansard or anywhere else a clear-cut definition of its policy in the international air transportation field. We are entitled to know what that policy is. The government has been in office now for three years and they should tell the Canadian people what that policy is. I say that it has failed, completely and dismally, in so far as the field of international aviation is concerned.
I come now to the policy of the government in the field of domestic air services. This policy was announced by the minister, again in answer to a question by the same member, the hon. member for Vancouver South. On July 14, 1958, the Minister of Transport stated that the government, after studying this matter which was the regulation of non-scheduled services in the field of light aircraft, had come to the conclusion that there should be an easing in the terms of applications for licences for non-scheduled commercial air services which involve only the use of small, light aircraft and helicopters. He stated at page 2207 of Hansard of that date:
-the government has accordingly decided that it would be in the public interest that licences for air services using only this small type of aircraft be granted freely on request.
What, in effect, the government was doing by that statement was decontrolling what is known in the service as group C type aircraft. This policy caused untold harm in the air transport industry, and the air industries transport association, at its annual meeting in Montreal, protested vigorously. I hold in my hand a resolution which was passed on October 26, 1959. Since it is short, I should like to put it on Hansard. It reads:
Whereas a series of events have occurred over the past eighteen months which are cause for concern on the part of the air transport industry, chief among those being the actions of the Minister of Transport in declaring a wide-open licensing policy so far as class C operations are concerned, and a recent judgment reversing a decision of the air transport board relating to helicopter operations and extending such policy to large helicopters;
Whereas the air industries transport association of Canada endorses the principle that there should
[Mr. Chevrier.l
be competition within the air transport industry, where such competition is economically feasible;
And whereas it is the opinion of the association that each potential operator seeking a licence should be required-[DOT]
And I underline this.
-to prove both public interest and economic justification to the air transport board, and the weight of this evidence should be the governing factor in the granting or denying of a licence;
And whereas it is the opinion of the association that there is lacking a well defined Canadian air transportation policy, and that such policy is of vital necessity and in the public interest;
And therefore, be it resolved:
1.	That the federal government be urged to promulgate without undue delay, a sound and well defined air transport policy for Canada.
2.	That this policy should be of a long term nature and not be subject to fluctuation based on the exigencies of individual situations.
3.	That with the promulgation of such a policy full responsibility for its administration be placed in the hands of the air transport board.
The minister apparently paid no attention to this protest or this resolution which was approved at the annual convention of the air industries transport association because he further decontrolled the field, according to press release No. 1093, dated December 18, 1959. This action was designed to provide for the still more liberal granting of licences, a more extensive degree of competition in the field of non-scheduled commercial air services. The minister stated in this press release, and I quote:
A continuing review of this situation has led to the conclusion that the same policy should now be extended to apply to any non-scheduled charter service performed by helicopters and also to any non-scheduled charter service performed by mediumsized aircraft of the type defined by the air transport board as group B which, generally speaking, includes aircraft up to but not including the DC-3 size.
So the minister, according to this press release, went a step further and proceeded to decontrol the group B class type of aircraft. The air industries transport association, when they saw that their protest was of no avail, decided to go to the Prime Minister, and this they did on January 22. They proceeded to explain their position to the Prime Minister. They presented a brief, a copy of which I hold in my hand, and which could be summed up under these several heads: The brief stated, first, that the decontrol of non-scheduled air services was having very serious implications upon the industry; next, the lack of control was having a devastating effect upon the growth of the industry; commencing in 1958, with the decontrol of class C, the air industry met its first serious reversal; the real effect of the decontrol policy could not be evaluated until 1959 when a full year could be analysed, and this analysis, which had now been made, showed that

many, especially operators of long years' standing, will not be able to break even. It is alarming to note the number of carriers who have, in recent months, gone into bankruptcy. Unlimited competition in this field, the brief stated, is not necessary.
Then it went on to list its fears in connection with this decontrolling policy of the government which was opening up these groups B and C to full competition. It is stated that it is the considered opinion of the association that the continuance and/or extension of this policy can only create the following:
1.	A serious unemployment situation for skilled and dedicated personnel.
2.	Seasonal transportation, especially in specific areas.
3.	The possibility of discriminatory monopolies for certain outlying areas.
4.	A situation which will not only stifle but submerge a young, growing industry that has been one of the major factors in opening up the Canadian north and, lastly, a situation that could have a vital bearing on the safety of travel, more specifically to the Canadian north, with the obvious result of increased expenditures on search and rescue.
There is no doubt but that in the mind of the air industries transport association, in conference assembled, there was a great fear in the field of domestic aviation because of this decontrol policy. I will not go into that any further because there are a number of hon. members on this side of the house who will deal with it more appropriately than I can because they come from the outlying areas and they know how important it is that there should always be kept in mind by the governing and regulating bodies in this field the importance of safety in air travel.
The association, in its brief to the Prime Minister, concluded with these statements:
The association is fully satisfied that unrestricted licensing as a substitute for regulated competition will cause at least a deterioration in the service to the public and a serious setback to the industry with consequent delay in the development of the country.
It is our further opinion that unrestricted issue of licences cannot be construed as being in the best interest of the public, either from a convenience or a necessity point of view. Nor can it be construed as being in the best interests of the immediate or long term development of Canada as a whole.
3. We do not believe that there should be a restriction of free enterprise as it affects air transportation, but rather that competition should be regulated as provided for under the Aeronautics Act.
Of course in that last part of the brief they call upon the government for the formulation of a policy in this field as well as in other fields.
Civil Aviation
In recapitulation, Mr. Speaker, I state that the air industry is alarmed at the growing tendency to override the decisions of the air transport board. The board has a definite function to fulfil. The board is both an advisory and a judicial body. As such it has the right and, I say, the responsibility under the Aeronautics Act to hear applications that are made to it and to decide upon them upon the principle of public convenience and necessity. I say that the board has not been following that principle because it is being interfered with.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house a case in which there has been such interference. In doing so, I report it from an article which appeared in the Financial Post of November 7, 1959. I have reference, of course, to Autair Helicopter Services Limited of Montreal.
Autair Helicopter Limited. Montreal, was the first company to receive a class C helicopter licence after the minister's announcement.
That is the announcement which I have read made by the Minister of Transport in answer to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver South.
The licence was granted in July, 1958, after a hearing.
That was a very short time apparently after the statement made by the minister.
During the winter of 1958-59, Autair bought a fleet of 12 B-47J2 helicopters from Bell Helicopter Corporation, Fort Worth, Texas, bringing its whirly-bird total to 22.
Through most of 1959, Autair pushed other air transport operators out of the Quebec sky. The owner told Financial Post that his fleet was booked solid through October, 50 per cent by the Quebec government, 30 per cent by private industry and 20 per cent by the federal government.
But during the spring and summer, Autair ran into rough weather.
The company applied for permission to operate big helicopters.
In its application it said that its original licence was granted "as the result of revised government policy" rather than because it had shown "evidence of public convenience and necessity".
Autair asked that a restriction in its licence limiting the size of its helicopters be removed.
As it is required to do by the Aeronautics Act. A.T.B. fired back requests to Autair for financial and other information "in order to assist the board in forming an opinion as to whether it would be in the public interest to remove the restriction."
The company stood pat, provided no information. In June, A.T.B. considered the application on the evidence submitted at the original hearing, turned down the application. Autair promptly appealed to the minister.
At the end of August, the minister overruled A.T.B. on the application for removal of the restriction against big helicopters.
The company is now free to use them and it has never made any attempt to prove to A.T.B. that its big helicopter services are required "by public convenience and necessity".


Mr. Chambers:: Will the hon. member tell us what he is reading from?

Civil Aviation


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; I said so at the beginning. If my hon. friend had' been listening to me he would have noted that I said earlier I proposed to give the facts as found in a press clipping of the Financial Post dated November 7, 1959.


David James Walker: Will my hon. friend, who is speaking in the absence of my colleague the Minister of Transport, be good enough to tell us what he was reading from for the first 30 minutes of his speech? He had a long manuscript from which he read word for word. I should like to be able to pass on this information to the minister when he returns from his speaking engagement.


Lionel Chevrier: When I get a little bit
further along in my remarks the minister will be able to pass on to the Minister of Transport other information because I intend to deal with certain statements made by the Minister of Public Works and I think perhaps then he can pass those statements on.


David James Walker: Does the hon. member for Laurier make a point of waiting until the minister is away in order to make the statement he is making?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Where is the minister?


Lionel Chevrier: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say this? This is a day on which a motion to go into supply is moved and the opposition have the right to bring in an amendment. It is the responsibility of each minister to be in his place. If the minister is not in his place, it is not my fault. I will go a step further and say that out of courtesy I attempted to give the minister some indication that this matter was coming up although I had no obligation to do so, but I was unable to contact him.


David James Walker: Then the hon. member did not contact him and the minister did not know until a few moments ago.


George James McIlraith: Why not?


Lionel Chevrier: Does my hon. friend wish to make a speech or does my hon. friend wish to allow me to carry on with my condemnation of the government of which he is a member?


David James Walker: In answer to that, Mr. Speaker, may I say that all my hon. friend has been doing so far is reading a statement.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Make your own speech.


David James Walker: I will do that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laurier
has the floor.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope the Minister of Public Works will reply to some of these matters. He thinks he is a smart minister and I am sure he knows everything about air. Perhaps he is going to reply to them. I had completed my statement on the Autair case-


David James Walker: You had completed reading it.


Lionel Chevrier: -which apparently did not please the Minister of Public Works and I was going on to state that the air industries and transportation association complained about the manner in which that applications of this nature were granted. They did so, not only in their brief to the Prime Minister but also in a resolution which they passed at their annual meeting.
I should now like to say a word about the Aeronautics Act or the purpose of the Aeronautics Act and the functions of the air transport board which is established under the Aeronautics Act. First of all, I should like to put on Hansard the pertinent sections of the act which deal with applications of this nature. Section 15 of the Aeronautics Act, subsection 1 reads as follows:
Subject to the approval of the minister, the board may issue to any person applying therefor a licence to operate a commercial air service.
Subsection 3 of section 15 reads as follows:
The board shall not issue any such licence unless it is satisfied that the proposed commercial air service is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity.
I say that the air transport board, in its determination of this case, decided against the application because of public convenience and necessity. I go a step further and say that the board, in exercising judicial functions, should not be overruled by the minister; in exercising advisory functions it can be overruled by the minister. My authority for that statement is a discussion which took place in this house when the former minister of munitions and supply, right hon. Mr. Howe, on June 6, 1944 introduced an amendment to the Aeronautics Act establishing the air transport board. I would like to put on Hansard the discussion, which was short, which took place between himself and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Green) at that time, as reported on page 3604 of Hansard:


Mr. Howe:: ... This is a board which is both judicial and advisory.


Howard Charles Green: In other words, the board of transport commissioners had to decide whether an applicant for a licence should get the licence, on certain well-defined principles, which might be summed up as public convenience and necessity, and it had also to follow certain judicial principles in deciding what tolls would be charged.


William Marvin Howe: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: As I understand it, this new transport board will no longer be subject to those

stipulations; it will no longer have to decide on the basis of public convenience and necessity whether or not a licence should be granted?


William Marvin Howe: The jurisdiction is set out in the bill. I think if my hon. friend will delay this discussion until he sees the bill he will find that his fears in that regard are unnecessary.


Howard Charles Green: But in effect now the minister is over and above that air transport board?


William Marvin Howe: Not in judicial matters.


Howard Charles Green: While he was not over and above the board of transport commissioners? Is that not so?


William Marvin Howe: I might point out that the board has two sets of functions. One is purely judicial; that is, when deciding matters of fact the board will be governed by the act; in that case the minister has no right to overrule them, except in the event of an appeal.


Mr.   Homuth@: If I may interrupt, that is what I wanted to ask the minister. After the board has ruled on a judicial matter, is there a right of appeal to the minister or to some other body?


William Marvin Howe: There is the right of appeal to the minister on certain matters, not all matters, but certain matters where there is an element of judgment as well as an element of judicial decision in interpreting the law. In certain limited matters there is provision for an appeal to the minister. Ordinarily, in judicial matters the board is bound by the act and its decision is final-
That is what was said on the occasion of the amendment to the Aeronautics Act establishing and setting up the air transport board, that it was a judicial body not subject to appeal in judicial matters.
So I come now to the conclusion of this part of my remarks. What is the policy of the government in respect to non-scheduled commercial air services? Is the board functioning as it should under the act? Are the board's functions going to be altered? Because if they are altered, in effect, by what the minister is doing, then the minister should come forward in this house and amend the Aeronautics Act, and not do it by a backdoor method by either a press release or an overruling of the air transport board.
The policy on civil air transport for Canada was carefully laid down in 1943 by the then prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King. It will be found at page 1776 et seq. of Hansard of April 2, 1943. I heard someone grunt as I mentioned the name of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King. I invite the grunter and those associated with him to read that policy, which is a clear-cut policy of the government of Canada in all fields of aviation. There has never been anything like it since then, and those of you who have been in office for the last three years who think that the time has now come because of technological or other changes to amend the policy, well, go ahead. We will listen to any changes you would like to make; but we on this side of the house ask you in all sincerity at least to make known what is your policy. Here is a clear-cut policy which I ask you
Civil Aviation
to read; it is summarized at the end. It deals with the international phase, the domestic phase and other phases of civil aviation. If my hon. friends would put their policy in a similar statement, then I think the country would be the better for it.
So I ask, what is the policy of the government in this field of aviation? We get it in an answer to a question which the hon. member for Vancouver South asked on two occasions. We get it in a press release. Surely that is not the way to enunciate policy. There must be a sound, sane, economically feasible air transport policy. This is desirable for all carriers. It is clear that the government has no such policy in these fields; it is making ad hoc decisions as and when the cases come up. There has been no policy laid down, as I said earlier, since that laid down by Mr. King in 1943.
What we do have though, in effect, is that the government is going too hard and too fast along the way of competition, and this notwithstanding the expert who was brought in by the government and whose recommendations appear in the Wheatcroft report, an expert from the United Kingdom who was asked to consider the whole field and who gave a clear definition of competition, namely that there should probably be in certain fields gradual competition. But at no place is it set out in this document that there should be all-out competition.
I say that in the fields I have mentioned so far there seems to be a tendency on the part of the government to favour all-out competition in-


An hon. Member:: Where?


Lionel Chevrier: In the international field and in the domestic field, as I have mentioned, by the minister decontrolling group C and group B.
Then I could go on and put on the record an editorial which is not very complimentary to the Minister of Transport. I will not do it in his absence; I simply draw it to the attention of the house. It is to be found in the magazine "Aircraft", Canada's aero trade magazine, in the issue of January 1960. The first sentence of this editorial reads:
To such traditional flying bogeys as ice and fog now must be added the name of a new hazard to aviation. Minister of Transport George Hees.


Mr. Bigg:: Very sporting.


Lionel Chevrier: I could go on and read the whole of it but I will let the hon. members send for it from the reading room and they can read it for themselves.

Civil Aviation
I now come to the third point in my remarks, namely the lack of policy in the field of air terminal construction. Here there has been-


Egan Chambers: You have a lot of experience in that one.


Lionel Chevrier: I will let my hon. friend judge from now till the end of my remarks as to who has the more experience in this field. I say that there has been a complete breakdown of activities in so far as the construction of air terminals is concerned. From one end of the country to the other there is strong criticism directed at the government for its failure to make good its promises. The conditions in some air terminals are a disgrace. One has only to visit some of the airports in this country in order to see that the government should be ashamed of the present premises and of conditions such as exist at Dorval. It is not only a disgrace as an international airport, but it is a disgrace to Canada, and it is doing this country a good deal of harm.


Mr. Pallell:: Is the hon. gentleman quoting the then member for Notre Dame de Grace when he was in opposition?


Lionel Chevrier: I am quoting my own version of what exists, and if the hon. member for Peel desires to contribute to this debate, he is quite free, after this intervention, to reply to what I have said. I hope he will rise and take issue with some of the statements that I am about to make.


David James Walker: The hon. member is a very brave man. He makes all these statements for the headlines in the absence of the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: As I said, I will come to the hon. member for Rosedale a little later on.


David James Walker: Can you not do it now? I am here, and the Minister of Transport is not.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Public
Works will not interrupt the speaker who has the floor unless, by leave, he asks a question.


Lionel Chevrier: Then I should like to take a look at Canada's airports from one end of the country to the other. Apparently this is not being digested very easily by the Minister of Public Works who has a very important construction department, but who does not like this. Nor do some of his colleagues like it, because they have, in the same manner as we who sit on this side of the house, received very serious complaints about what is happening with regard to some of these terminals. For instance, I refer very briefly to the terminal at Patricia Bay where, according to an editorial which appeared in the

Victoria Times of December 8, 1959, the terminal building is "little more than a glorified chicken house."


An hon. Member:: Built by the Liberals.


Lionel Chevrier: Then a little later on, it says:
In the circumstances, Victorians cannot escape the unhappy feeling that the present federal government's disorderly financing is an impediment, perhaps insurmountable, to the creation of facilities pledged two years ago by the administration.
It looks to me as if there is more truth than poetry in that statement contained in this editorial of the Victoria Times. It looks to me as if the financial policy of the government is responsible for holding up work on a large number of these terminals in connection with which slow-down orders have been given.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Could I ask the hon. gentleman whether these particular terminals were not built under his own jurisdiction?


Lionel Chevrier: No, these are terminals which were promised by the present administration, as the statement I have just read points out. The last paragraph reads:
Let us have the facts, good or bad. Let's hear details from our representatives in Ottawa. Their performance to date has not been encouraging.
That is a clear-cut statement of how that newspaper feels. Turning now to Winnipeg I note that the Winnipeg Tribune of December 3, 1959, contains this statement:
Announcement of a minimum five-year wait for a new airport terminal brought expressions of annoyance and disappointment today from Winnipeg and St. James representatives on the airport commission.
' It looks to me as if we will have to wait for the next election before we get any action", said St. James Mayor Thomas Findlay.
An article in the same paper on the same day, concludes with this paragraph:
If Prime Minister Diefenbaker cannot persuade Mr. Hees and the Department of Transport to give Winnipeg a modern airport building within two year:, he should fire the lot of them.
That is quite clear in its implications. Then:
There is no good reason why Winnipegers should not have a modern terminal within two years. The only real obstacle is the red tape, the indifference, and the do-it-next-year attitude in Ottawa.
There is also the question of Uplands. I ask the government: what is happening to the terminal at Uplands? Why is it necessary to wait such a long period of time in order to see this building completed and ready for operation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Americans knocked it down.


Lionel Chevrier: My leader states that the Americans knocked it down. They shattered

the glass, but surely that would not take a whole year to replace. In addition, as the house knows, one has to taxi almost two miles before one gets from the air strip to the present terminal. Why is this project being held up for so long? Is the reason not the fact that it is being held up at treasury board because of a number of directives which have been given there?
I come now to one air terminal which is somewhat closer to me, and that is the Dorval air terminal. This is really a doozer, because if one examines it carefully there is nothing which can explain how over a period of three years little or nothing has been done by the present government to implement the completion of that air terminal. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, even if some of the delay were attributable to the previous administration-which I am not prepared to admit-here is the government which was going to set all these things right; here is the government which was going to straighten these things out and see to it that the buildings would be completed in no time. The Dorval airport is certainly a strange case, because the minister and his officials have made several contradictory statements about the terminal on more than one occasion. The minister, in an effort to stem the criticism directed against himself and the department decided to go to Montreal and invited the press to visit the airport. This was in November of 1959, and I have in my hand a clipping from the Montreal Gazette dealing with that affair. It begins:
Transport Minister Hees led a troupe of M.P.'s-*


An hon. Member:: Spelled with an "e".


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, spelled with an "e". It says:
Transport Minister Hees led a troupe of M.P.'s and department officials to the partially-completed terminal at Montreal airport yesterday and said the new building would be ready next year-"as 1 always claimed it would be."
The present situation speaks for itself. Here is a press release No. 818, from the minister's office dated August 26, 1957. In fairness to the minister I must say that this statement was issued not by him but by his officers but I am sure he would not have allowed his officers to make this statement without clearing it himself. Here is what was said:
It is estimated that the building will near completion late in 1958 but it will take some months after that before installation of the complex operational equipment can be finished. Tentative opening date for the terminal is spring 1959.
The minister said it would be done in 1960 as "I have always claimed". In case the minister should disclaim this press release and
Civil Aviation
say he was not responsible for it-although I cannot see how he can do that in the face of the fact that it emanated from his own officers-I have another statement from the minister. This one was made at the dinner held in conjunction with the Canadian international air show at Toronto, Ontario, on Saturday, September 7, at 7.30 p.m.


An hon. Member:: What year?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no year marked on it. No date is given.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They just put it out every year.


Lionel Chevrier: I had to busy myself and find out the date which gave me a lot of work and trouble. I eventually discovered that the year was 1957 as I can establish if anyone wants me to prove it.
On Saturday, September 7, 1957, the minister made this statement:
In two more years the demand for greatly increased airport facilities will be upon us. In these two years we must complete the construction of the six terminals now under way, namely, Ottawa, Montreal, Gander, St. John's, Windsor and Quebec city, and start construction on six to eight new terminals.
According to this statement the minister in 1957 was claiming that Dorval airport would be completed in two years, which would bring it to September 6, 1959. Here we are in the spring of 1960 and we are still waiting as I will show in a moment or two.


Egan Chambers: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Egan Chambers: On what date did the hon. member first announce the construction of Dorval airport?


Lionel Chevrier: I will discuss that in a moment or two. I have a statement dealing with that which I will make in due course. I come to another statement which is contained in press release No. 818 concerning the final cost of the building. It reads:
Final cost of the building has been estimated at between $10 and $12 million.
The minister in his trip with the troupe of members of parliament on November 19, 1959, stated this:
Mr. Hees said the cost of the new facilities now would reach $30 million. As late as last year Mr. Hees said in the House of Commons that the cost of the project would be $15 million.
The question that occurs to my mind, naturally, in this. I am sorry that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) is out of the house at this moment. Mind you, I am not complaining about the statement in so far as Dorval airport is concerned, but I

Civil Aviation
am complaining about the conduct and attitude of the Minister of Public Works on another occasion when he sought to sully the reputation of a predecessor of his, the Hon. Alphonse Fournier, in another place when he stated that the only statements before the committee were two items, one for $5 or $6 million for the construction of the printing bureau in Hull and another of $16 million representing the cost of the finished product. Where is the difference between what is being done now with respect to an airport which, according to the minister's own figures, has grown in cost from $10 million to $30 million as compared with a printing bureau growing in cost from $6 million to $16 million?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, may I answer that question, sir?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


David James Walker: The hon. gentleman asked a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Make your own speech.


David James Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor and I intend to keep it.


David James Walker: Is the hon. member ashamed of himself?


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member wants to reply-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member does not yield the floor the minister may not intervene.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the minister asked if I were ashamed of myself. I believe he should be ashamed of himself for trying to sully the reputation of one of his predecessors.
In connection with this airport, we do not have an over-all contract dealing with the whole business. The Minister of Public Works attempted in another place to say that this was contrary to good construction practice and contrary to the construction practice that exists in his department. Why does he not attempt to convince his colleague, the Minister of Transport, that this practice is not a proper one? If the practice was not the proper one to be followed in the other case, surely it is not the proper one here. Since this government has been in office it has continued in the last three years the practice of granting piecemeal contracts for the various parts of the building as they were given out from time to time.
With all respect, I say that what applied in a former case certainly applies in this case. I go further and say that if it is possible and easy in this case to see how we go from the original estimate in 1953 to the

present estimate in 1959, surely it would have been possible to do the same thing in the other case. But, oh no, there was just one tendency, one attitude, and one object in those days and that was to destroy those who happened to sit on the other side of the house.
A moment ago the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers) asked me when I had announced the building of the airport at Dorval. I have no hesitation in saying that it was in 1953. I stated at that time that the cost of the construction of the Dorval airport terminal would be $4 million. The next year my successor, Mr. Marler, announced amended plans for the building and work commenced in that year.
I am not complaining that what is being done at Dorval concerning additions is not being properly done. What I am complaining about is that a similar circumstance existed elsewhere and there were serious complaints made by hon. gentlemen opposite but no complaint has been made by the present government in connection with this circumstance and certainly no complaint has been made by the Minister of Public Works to his colleague the Minister of Transport so far as I know. Here we are in early 1960 and the building at Dorval airport is not only far from completion but, from the information I have, there are still some contracts to be awarded.
In an attempt to stem the criticism the minister made the visit which I mentioned earlier in my remarks. I should like here to quote a paragraph from an article in the Montreal Gazette of November 19, 1959, which I am sure will strike the house as being somewhat peculiar:
Those who accompanied the official party-the minister, the deputy minister, the chief architect, the chief engineer-and the M.P.'s on the tour were struck by the few workmen visible on any of the floors.
In fact, I am informed that there were not more than 25 workers at the airport at that time. I am told that the position is exactly the same today.
As reported in La Presse on March 1, 1960, at a meeting of the administrators of the unemployment insurance commission in Montreal in the presence of the regional director, the president of the Montreal labour council made the following statement:
(Translation):
Mr. Louis Laberge, chairman of the Montreal labour council, who introduced the resolution, stated that the government, which verbally supports the winter works campaign, should set the example. He stated, however, that the works carried out by the government at Dorval airport and at central station are practically at a standstill this winter.

(Text):
There we have the statement made by a Montreal labour official on March 1, 1960 that there are few workmen on the job. In the light of that situation, how is it possible to hasten the completion of the terminal? I go further and say that engineers who are familiar with the project state that it cannot possibly be completed before 1961. If that is the case, it will be eight years after the first announcement was made in the house. Meanwhile the present premises are left far behind the constant growth in traffic. The press, the Montreal tourist bureau and many others have drawn attention to the delays in the construction of the air terminal as well as to the very grave harm being done Montreal as an international airport. The Minister of Transport says there is no delay and he stated in the house that the work was going full speed ahead.
Next month T.C.A. will launch its new 125 passenger jets. If and when several flights of this character arrive at the same time the overcrowding will be intolerable. What are the reasons for the delay? Some are due to technical developments which brought about changes in plans. Others may be laid squarely at the door of treasury board. During consideration of the minister's estimates last year we were told in the house that treasury board now requires to be given detailed economic studies at the time any additional expenditures are recommended so that the board will get a comprehensive idea of the whole picture. But surely these studies should not take a matter of years.
Additional expenditures required the approval of treasury board after the Conservatives took office. They have been in office for three years. Is treasury board still studying these expenditures after that time? Are we in Montreal to wait until 1961 before the building is open to the public? Are enough men employed on the job to ensure that the work will go ahead satisfactorily? Is the governments financial position such that contracts are being held up for financial reasons? Has a slow-down order been issued with respect to all terminal buildings in the same manner as seems to have been done on other projects? Is the development of the aeroquay a further cause of delay? These are questions which I think should be answered before the debate is over.


David James Walker: Can my friend answer who suggested the architects for the enterprise?


Lionel Chevrier: What has that got to do with it? Many architects were suggested by the
Civil Aviation
former government and there have been the same delays, not only here but at other airports. I say that the cause of the delay is that the government in its anxiety and desire to balance its budget at any cost is holding up these terminals from one end of the country to the other.


Egan Chambers: What held them up before?


Lionel Chevrier: There was no hold-up before. You and your followers have been in office for three years. What have you done? Surely you should have shown some progress during the time you have been in office. In an attempt to be helpful I have made a suggestion to the minister and I make it here in the house.


David James Walker: When he is not here.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why isn't he?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why isn't he here?


Lionel Chevrier: That is the second time the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker! has brought that up and I repeat that it is the responsibility of every minister to be in his place in the house during the debate on an amendment to go into supply because on such an occasion any matter may be discussed which affects any department. If the minister is not here certainly it is not the fault of the one who is moving the amendment. The suggestion I made on that occasion was the following, that a committee should be established at once, being responsible to the minister and composed of representatives of the Department of Transport, the air lines, contractors, architects and treasury board, whose duties would be to inquire into (1) the reasons for the delay in the completion of the terminal building and the fact that the building may not be completed before 1961; (2) recommendation of ways and means of co-ordinating the actions of these five interested groups so that the building will be completed and ready for operation without further delay; and (3) the implementation of these recommendations.
I did receive a letter from the minister in answer to my suggestion in which he gave reasons why my recommendation could not be accepted. I am still of the view that if that recommendation had been accepted we would be further advanced today than we are. Such a procedure has been followed on other occasions and it proved satisfactory and successful. To back up what I have said earlier, I look at the estimates of the Department of Transport and I find that so far as the airport program is concerned, they have been cut by $11 million. Again I ask, is the government cutting down on airports, air

Civil Aviation
terminals and airport construction in a feverish desire to balance the budget at any cost?
I think the time has arrived to give consideration to the amount of criticism in the city of Montreal in connection with this matter. There is not one newspaper that has not been highly critical of the officials of the government. It is not so much the officials of the Department of Transport who should be criticized as those of treasury board who have been cutting down these estimates, who have been holding them up, who have been making investigations to ascertain whether these expenditures were required. The most stinging rebuke to the government was that contained in an editorial in La Presse in which the question was posed whether or not this was not discrimination on the part of the government against the international airport of Montreal, against the construction of the air terminal and with respect to the position so far as the disgraceful terminal now in use is concerned.
So I say without hesitation that the government by its lack of policies has (1) given away our sovereignty in the air by granting foreign air lines onward privileges which Canada itself does not possess; (2) done untold harm to small operators in the field of non-scheduled air services by its policy of all-out competition; and, (3) created complete chaos in the construction of main airport terminals. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
This house regrets the shortsighted and irresponsible policy of the government in the field of civil aviation which has been characterized by:
1.	The giving up of Canadian sovereign rights in the air without obtaining similar rights in return;
2.	Discrimination against small air lines providing services especially in the outlying areas of Canada;
3.	Uncertainty and delay in the construction of air terminal facilities.


Ernest James Broome: Would the hon. member
permit a question before he resumes his seat?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Ernest James Broome: I think the hon. member said that the amount of money available for the construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment had gone down, but according to the book of estimates I have here, in 1958-59 it was $61 million, and it is now up to $63 million in the current estimates.


An hon. Member:: This is a statement, not a question.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman did not ask a question, he made a statement.


Ernest James Broome: I say, how do you get a reduction?


Lionel Chevrier: The reduction in estimates for airport construction is $11 million.


Ernest James Broome: It is still $63 million.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, my party can support almost everything said in the tour de force we have just heard from the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). We certainly support the amendment wholeheartedly. A question that has bothered me for two or three years now has been the very peculiar myth that has grown up about the Department of Transport to the effect that, at last, the department is in the hands of an able, hard-hitting person who is getting things done. My own personal opinion is that this is one department that is in as poor shape as the poorest. I think the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Laurier have gone a considerable way toward highlighting this.
It seems to me that the minister in charge of this department entered his job with some unique idea about free enterprise; what he was going to do was to bring the breath of free enterprise into his particular scope of operation in this department. Three years later we find that the free enterprise may be there, but it seems to me we are reaping the results of a completely inadequate policy.
One of the difficulties in following someone who has had the amount of time that the hon. member for Laurier had is that you discover that item after item which you were prepared to use has already been put forward. I thought perhaps the most striking of all the evidence that was used by the hon. member for Laurier was the brief from the air industries and transport association of Canada. This brief, which was sent around to all members in January, is one of the most stinging rebukes that could be given by a public association. When I say "public association", I mean an association that draws its membership from many, many organizations in the field. This brief contains one of the most bitter attacks upon this government that I have seen. I think the point that I should like to emphasize most is point 3 which is set forth on page 3 of the brief. It reads:
We do not believe that there should be a restriction of free enterprise as it affects air transportion, but rather that competition should be regulated as provided for under the Aeronautics Act.
In other words, the minister, through his policy has been ignoring the Aeronautics Act. I thought the hon. member for Laurier brought that out very well. The peculiar thing about air transportation, as it has been in all transport services in Canada, has been

this continuous demand for the cutting back of public operations or public corporations in this field to make way for free enterprise. At the same time it seems to me there is a failure to realize the enormous cost to the taxpayers of the nation as a whole in the provision of the basic services that enable these private enterprises to operate. We can see this trend in the railway industry because, at this particular year, there is still a controversy over the Crowsnest pass rates which resulted from the legacy or bounty of some of the gifts that were given in the past to the Canadian Pacific railway.
We have this same or similar phase introduced by this particular government with the opening up of the transcontinental air privileges, in a limited form, to Canadian Pacific Air Lines. I wonder whether hon. members, and the people as a whole, realize just how much the provision of the basic services that enable air lines to operate cost the taxpayers of this country. We have to have these kinds of services because, aside from moving people and goods, they fit in with our defence picture, our weather picture and other services the people need. Surely the very enormity of the expenditures indicates that this whole question of free competition, free enterprise, is a silly one in this field, and that the provisions of the Aeronautics Act, with its rather strict regulations, are rather good. These provisions have been denied by the policies of this particular government, with regard to its failure to bring in any changes in the act and, as the hon. member for Laurier pointed out very well, there has been a complete failure to tell us what their policy may be.
In my opinion, one of the ironies about this particular minister-I regret he is not here-is that one of his favourite themes when he was in opposition-I do not like bringing up what people said when they were in opposition because I know their habits and their manners change when they get into government-was that the civil service was too large. He thought the civil service was growing too big, there was too much fat in it and it could be cut down. The irony is that he has the fastest growing department in the government. I notice that in the department's annual report, which came out within the last two days, for the first time in many years they have discontinued giving the number of employees in this department. The last annual report contained a chart showing the number of employees and how rapidly the number was growing. However, that chart has disappeared from this year's annual report.
One of the main branches in which this growth is taking place in the Department of 79951-0-114
Civil Aviation
Transport is that branch concerned with the provision of these services for air lines.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: If we had socialism we would all be in a department of some sort.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is the very point with which I wanted to deal. Socialists are always accused of wanting to increase the size of government departments. All I can say is that this free enterpriser we have at the head of the ministry of transport is doing a very good job of it. I am sure the Minister of Labour must be grateful for the efforts of the Department of Transport in trying to take up the unemployment slack, because here is a department that is growing at a fantastic rate in terms of employees and in terms of the amount of money that is being spent. If you check the last annual report and look at the summary of expenditures and revenue you will find this striking point, that expenditures for air services in the fiscal year 1958-59 have reached the fantastic total of $115 million, whereas the revenues we got were only $11 million. There is over $100 million difference between revenues and expenditures.
When a government department or a branch of a government department reaches this size, we need to take a very close look at it. When their revenues are so far below their expenditures, I wonder why we find even this government is bringing in free enterprise in so far as these continental routes are concerned. It is threatening to put a great corporation that was and has been on a paying basis into a deficit position. I certainly agree that the evidence of the order in council submitted by the hon. member for Laurier indicates that the future of Trans-Canada Air Lines is rather bleak indeed. He made the point that it is bleak because of the give-away program of the minister in relation to international air routes. I think we could perhaps say a bigger reason has been the domestic giveaway to Canadian Pacific Air Lines.
One of the reasons why these fantastic expenditures are going to skyrocket is, of course, the introduction of the very large jets. I have not enough technical understanding to appreciate just what has to be provided but from people who are involved in the transport business I know that we are not ready in Canada either in terms of runways, terminals, navigational facilities or even our meteorological system, for highspeed jet travel. This means that this particular minister is going to keep coming into the house, as long as this government is in power, asking for increased expenditures in order to provide these facilities. It is also obvious, just from a statement of revenue- it is a pittance, being one eleventh of the total expenditures-that we are not going to

Civil Aviation
get a decent return from any revenues that we can charge for the use of these facilities.
My point-and I want to reiterate it-is that in the provision of air transport, commercial transport in particular, there is on the part of the taxpayer a subsidization that is tremendous. Our point in this particular party is that in a field where you have such a basic subsidization, this free enterprise or competitive concept is a nonsensical one and that what you need is a regulatory body'- which we have-and a plan that will allow competition where it is at all possible or feasible but at least the kind of competition that does not dynamite the stability that the particular commercial services were building up. That is the gist of the criticism made by the air industries and transport association of Canada. I am delighted to find that this group of free enterprisers is prepared to stand up and be counted on the silliness of the free enterprise idea running wild.
One of the facts that faces Trans-Canada Air Lines is, of course, the tremendous amount of money it has had to put out in order to enter the jet field. We can see an end to a certain extent of the jet race in so far as commercial airliners are concerned. An expert in this field told me the other day he expects there will be only one more shift from the jets that are presently coming into service to another form of jet before we shall have reached the ceiling of that particular kind of transportation. He expected this ceiling would be reached about the end of this decade.


Mr. Drysdale:: What is the expert's name?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Civil Aviation
kind of union and pooling advocated by Mr. Davoud. In the light of the kind of services we want and need I think we must look toward co-operation and pooling, not more competition.
I was interested to note that in the report of the air transport board to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) on trans-continental air services the board went very thoroughly into this whole competition aspect. I would like to read what I think is the key paragraph so far as this is the kind of opinion which seems to have influenced the minister and the government. I refer to page 8 of this particular report:
The board has considered the various views expressed and has reached the following conclusions :
1.	On the part of many members of the public there are no strong views for or against transcontinental air competition;
I think that is very true.
2.	On the part of those members of the public who have interested themselves in these proceedings, the majority opinion favours transcontinental competition for reasons of personal or business convenience, some expressing this view irrespective of the cost thereof either to the taxpayers or to any private carrier, while some felt such competition should only be permitted if shown to be economically feasible.
Mr. Speaker, we will soon know whether the competition was economically feasible when we see the Trans-Canada Air Lines annual report. It seems to me that this government-I think this has influenced a number of government supporters, and I think especially of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) and the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) who is a bit of an expert in air management-has been inordinately influenced by the opinion that Canadians want transcontinental competition to suit their business convenience and, if I might just paraphrase, hang the cost either to the taxpayer or the public corporation which we have in existence. There are stages and areas of transportation where competition is an expensive luxury.
The third point that the hon. member for Laurier Stressed, using particularly the example of Dorval, was the uncertainty and delay in the construction of air terminal facilities. He pointed out, very properly, that this particular year, despite the forecast made a couple of years ago that there were six airports to be completed and six new ones to be launched, the government has slashed its estimates. I see that the Department of Transport estimates have been slashed by a total of $17 million for air services for the fiscal year ahead of us. In light of the steady growth of the air services so far as personnel and administration is concerned, it is very

apparent that much of this slash must lie in the expansion of the existing facilities.
This particular slash, it seems to me, is most unfortunate in the light of the kind of criticism that we are hearing from the present air lines. I would like to refer to an article in the Financial Post of December 12, 1959 headed, "Air lines boil over out-dated air terminals". It is an article by Mr. Baxter, and he goes on to say:
Airlines serving Canada are coming to a boil over our air terminal situation.
On the eve of the jet age in Canada, they feel our terminals are still in the biplane era.
They blame the Department of Transport and its planners. D.O.T. replies that its policy (slow and careful) is the right one.
I do not know whether that slow and careful policy happens to have been the right one, but there is no question that this department is now slowing down on terminal development if we look at the estimates.
One of the things that occurs to me in connection with air line terminals and their cost is, of course, the shifts that are taking place in international traffic. The hon. member for Laurier mentioned the airport at Gander. I think any of us who have seen the magnificent terminal facilities there will recognize that they are, excellent-that they are up to world standards. I have gathered, though, that there has been a continuing drop in the amount of use that is being made of Gander and that in future, with the wider use of jet aircraft, traffic through Gander will continue to fall both in terms of landings and in terms of revenue. We know that this government is putting a considerable amount of money into Frobisher airport and I hear, also, that the use made of Frobisher is likely to decline. I mention these particular cases to suggest that far more emphasis should perhaps be given to the airports which are properly in Canada and within the areas of large population or serving middle-sized cities. I am thinking especially of Dorval, Malton and the facilities at Winnipeg.
This party feels that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Laurier is somewhat inadequate in that it does not cover several points which we think should be brought up in criticism of the present government as far as its air policy is concerned. We think the hon. gentleman has done a striking job in outlining the complete lack of policy of the Minister of Transport in this particular field, but we think there are several other points which should be mentioned. I have referred to one of them, and that is the unnecessary duplication of domestic transcontinental services introduced a year ago, which

gives every indication of severely undermining the profit position, efficiency and wellbeing of Trans-Canada Air Lines. We think the government has given no indication that it is really aware of the kind of planning which is going to be necessary with regard to international arrangements of all kinds.
I notice that in the most recent annual report of the minister there is a note on page 7 which says that a new directorate was planned in order to co-ordinate the programming of all future major air service projects. This indicates that the department at least has some ideas, but it was my contention last year, and it will be in the future, that this department is now too big for one minister. It is too big for one deputy minister, and I think the topic upon which we are engaged today has reached the stage, especially in terms of expenditure, when a minister should be in charge of this increasingly important branch of transportation. I do not see how we can in all conscience continue the situation which exists at present, where the Secretary of State, whose functions really amount to nothing at all- pardon me, the Solicitor General-


An hon. Member:: You were close.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The Secretary of State does have a few more functions. The Solicitor General has a cabinet post and a cabinet salary, and does very little. Yet here we have this huge branch which is sprawling across the country, growing at a fantastic rate, and costing well over $100 million a year. Yet it shares the attention of one minister who is struggling with this task and not doing a very good job of it, as the criticisms made today have indicated. I think this is a field for which a cabinet minister should certainly be made responsible.
In that event, the whole question of air services might receive the kind of attention and long range planning that this country needs because, despite the strictures I have made concerning the cost to the taxpayer of these projects, they are projects which are necessary and worth while if the expansion to which we look forward in this field is to take place. This expansion has to take place, however, within a rational framework. If the air industry can bring to the attention of the government criticism such as it makes in the brief which is now available to us, it is surely time for the government to admit that it has not a policy of any kind.
I should like to re-emphasize that we feel that as part of its policy the government should support the domestic air industry. This particular document is a brief from the Canadian aircraft industry submitted to the
Civil Aviation
government of Canada by the united automobile workers of America in co-operation with the Canadian Labour Congress. I must say that there are parts of this pamphlet with which I cannot agree. The intention of this brief is, or was, of course, to keep the Arrow in production. It was produced shortly before the present government decided to discontinue the Arrow program. Now that this decision has been made there will be no going back to Canadian production in that field. Neither can I see how we can plan to provide from within our own aircraft industry the supersonic air liners, or the big jet air liners which are now going into service. It seems to me that the kinds of aircraft upon which we should concentrate are the planes and helicopters that we shall be using in Canada for most of our feeder lines and the development of the north, for example, the Beaver and the Cariboo, whose success has already been sufficient to indicate that concentration in this field, with government leadership and encouragement, could provide us not only with a home market but also with a world market for aircraft of this type. The production of these aircraft by Canadian industry might need as much subsidization as has been necessary in the past.
For all these reasons, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), that the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following:
(4)	Unnecessary duplication of domestic transcontinental airlines services which has denied Trans-Canada Air Lines the opportunity to implement further reduction in fares;
(5)	Lack of planning necessary to assure Canadians the international and domestic air services required to meet the needs of the future;
(6)	Failure to maintain and promote a stable domestic aircraft industry.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I followed with great interest the speech made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) which, I believe, could be summed up in the two words "sour grapes". I should like to take issue with the hon. member, particularly with regard to the subject of airport construction and allied facilities. The figures, which were repeated by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) do not appear to me to be correct. I have here the estimates for the year 1959 and the year 1960.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if the hon. member knows that I was using the estimates for the next year, 1960-61?


Ernest James Broome: Yes, I understood that. The estimates for 1957-58 showed an appropriation for the acquisition of land and the construction of buildings, and so on, of some $35 million. The estimates for 1958-59 showed an increase of $26 million making a total of

Civil Aviation
$61 million. The estimates for 1959-60 indicate a total of $63 million. That is a fair indication of the importance this government attaches to the question of air transportation in Canada and to the building of facilities that will handle the air traffic that is engendered.
The hon. member for Laurier spoke at great length about what he called the lack of construction of proper airport facilities and he spoke particularly about terminals. I should like to remind the hon. gentleman that the advent of the jet age has brought problems compared with which the problem of terminal facilities is minor. Of equal or more significance are the problems of landing strips, length of runways, etc. For instance, the relocation of the airport at Edmonton in terms of present day costs might well be considered to be equal to the cost of the construction of all airport facilities in Canada that were built up to about ten years ago. I know that in my native city of Vancouver the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) has been trying to come to an agreement with the city fathers for the construction there of an air terminal that will be worthy of the city and the present day and increased future air traffic which it will be required to handle.
I was interested in the hon. member for Laurier reading out a list of the airports under construction. Some of these have come to my attention in my own travels across Canada. I have seen the new airport under construction at Edmonton and the new municipal airport at Calgary. There is also the proposed new airport at Winnipeg. When the hon. member was referring to that airport I had an opportunity to check with the construction people in the Department of Transport who advised me that the tenders for the first stage of the construction of that airport are before treasury board now and should be through this week.
We appreciate that what is taking place at 1 urval is taking place rather slowly but we oi>.,erved no great speed under the regime of the Liberals when according to the hon. member's own admission the project was announced in 1953 and had not been accomplished up to the time this government took office. New airport facilities are proposed at Toronto.
All of these projects are in the estimates that appear in the blue book. Anybody can refer to them and in doing so should understand that they reflect a program of expansion and activity that certainly was not matched by the previous administration. When in one year the estimates relating to construction are practically doubled this is a good indication of the recognition of this government of the need for facilities across Canada. If one were to go back

into the estimates a few years ago I suspect one would find that the amount expended on airports was just a matter of a few million dollars.
I am particularly concerned about the remarks made concerning competition. I am familiar with the attitude taken by the former government of which the hon. member for Laurier was so distinguished a member for so long a time. The attitude of his government was one under which Canadian Pacific Air Lines which pioneered the route from Vancouver to Amsterdam and flew the polar route were not allowed landing privileges at Edmonton. If a passenger from Edmonton wanted to go to Amsterdam he was required to travel from Edmonton to Vancouver. Then the Liberal government made its wonderful concession under which it allowed C.P.A. to come down at Yellowknife. The hon. member for Laurier made quite a play on the word Bangkok but I suggest that an equal play could be made on the word Yellowknife. Passengers from Edmonton were then required to travel to Yellowknife to pick up this plane. Of course, the people of Edmonton saw the plane flying overhead every night but it was not allowed to land there. Initially they had to go to Vancouver to board the plane but under the special dispensation given by Mr. Howe they were allowed to board it at Yellowknife.
I also remember the stand the Liberal government took in regard to Eastern Air Lines a few years ago in respect of its run from Montreal to New York city. Finally the government had the courage to say, "If you do not withdraw your objection to landing rights at New York we will take away yours at Montreal."
The hon. member for Laurier had the nerve to get up and list the routes he says we have given away without receiving consideration. He mentioned B.O.A.C. and the pooling of facilities with T.C.A. and said the only people to benefit would be B.O.A.C., that the use by each company of the other's facilities would be of no benefit whatever to T.C.A. I suggest that that is the attitude which was taken by the former administration which was reflected throughout the entire speech the hon. member made. That attitude is one under which we have one favourite child and there shall be no competition for that child, and that child may do what it wants.
I am as strong a supporter and admirer of the operations of T.C.A. as is the hon. member for Laurier, but I will not go as far as he goes in that respect because I have travelled on air lines over the years and have seen

what competition has done by way of improvements and services not only in the air but on the ground. I believe competition is good for T.C.A.
In the report on air line competition in Canada which I hold in my hand it is stated that the most profitable routes are transAtlantic and southern. Where do we find the greatest competition? On the trans-Atlantic run.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.

Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-51, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March 1960.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed on looking at Hansard for Friday that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) expressed some surprise at that time that anyone should debate this bill. I have not had time to look up the exact words but I think he said that in the 15 years he had been a member of parliament he had never known one of these bills to be debated. Of course, the minister did not contend, and I am not suggesting that he did, that the motion was not debatable. It is debatable. But I agree with the minister that it is a very unusual thing to debate an interim supply bill, particularly if there has been a protracted debate, as there was, on the estimates themselves, and I make no apology for my part in it.
I would not have ventured to take up time which belongs to the opposition anyway on a supply day to say anything about this matter if it had not been for the rather extraordinary circumstances associated with the supplementary estimates that are now embodied in the supply bill. The other day one of our colleagues in the house took some exception to technicalities. I, sir, make no apology for observing technicalities because it is the technicalities in our rules, as the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Eglinton, will remember, that not very many years ago were used a good deal on this side of the house by certain hon. gentlemen who are now on the treasury benches.
But it is not in any sense because of technicalities that I want to say the few things I wish to say today. I do think that since the
Appropriation Act
present government was elected there has been no more shocking example of contempt for the most fundamental rights of parliament than was shown by the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) on the estimates in committee of supply when an emergency item for which he was responsible was debated.


Mr. McPhillips:: You talked on them for eight days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member was perhaps asleep for most of those eight days because-


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: If I was asleep it was because there was nothing worth listening to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member for Victoria has characterized his own contributions to the house very well in the last three words.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Be careful which Victoria you refer to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hodgson) is so busy preparing the speech he is going to make later this evening that he should not be interrupting me.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) is going to do that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The most fundamental of all rights of parliament is the right to determine what levies will be imposed upon the taxpayers and to determine how those moneys that are collected from the taxpayers will be spent. I do not think it would be appropriate at this stage to go into it again but we did take considerable exception to the way in which this whole matter was proceeded with. Even on the basis of the way in which it was proceeded with we were told some very extraordinary things by the Minister of Agriculture.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: You are doublecrossing the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcll-raith).


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the course of the debate on this item the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) and myself pressed the minister very strongly to tell us how this money was going to be spent. I am addressing my remarks now particularly to the Minister of Finance who, I regret to say, was not in the house at the time this exchange took place because, if he had been, I would have asked the questions of him right there and then instead of taking the time of the house now. We insisted that the committee of supply was entitled to be told the scheme

Appropriation Act
under which this money was being paid out. I am not going to give the quotations unless I am asked to give them but the minister suggested that would have been a dictatorial attitude on the part of the government, an authoritarian attitude. I say, sir, as I said then, that it is wholly improper for the Minister of Finance, who has the ultimate responsibility to the house in this matter, to be paying out money without knowing what the ultimate destination of that money is. Here is what the Minister of Agriculture finally told us after repeated pressure with respect to what he knew about how this money was being spent.


David James Walker: What date is that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: February 9, and it will be found at page 899 of Hansard. He said:
As far as the actual details of the schemes put into effect in the three provinces are concerned, the information which I received from the provinces was in the form of press releases which they put out in each case. It just so happens I have not got them with me at the moment, but I have sent for them and expect them to be here in a few minutes.
I raised the question whether the Minister of Finance, who boasted about the care and precision with which he had gone over all these estimates, and treasury board had been satisfied with press releases which the Minister of Agriculture did not even bother bringing into the committee when he was trying to get us to vote this money, if the minister was satisfied if that was all the scrutiny that treasury board was giving to the payment of public money, and I got no answer to that whatsoever. As I say, if the Minister of Finance had been present at the time I would have asked him the questions I am asking now and to which I hope he will reply before this debate concludes. As the Minister of Finance well knows, though the Minister of Agriculture did not seem to know it, in all the other schemes for sharing expenditures where the province actually pays out the money there are the most careful provisions for audit and the most careful conditions laid down as to how these payments shall be made, to whom and under what circumstances.
I have no doubt that all three provincial governments are carrying out their responsibilities properly. I do not wish to reflect upon them in any way. But our duty is to the people that we were elected to represent and it is our duty as members of the house not to vote money on the basis of press releases issued by provincial governments. We have a right to know and, indeed, we have the duty to find out precisely what these schemes are and how the money is

paid out. I feel that before the supply bill passes the Minister of Finance should give us in detail the scheme under which these payments are made.
The other thing that made this matter all the more shocking was the fact that, over and over again all through the debate the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River kept pressing the Minister of Agriculture to explain how certain procedures were being carried out in the province of Manitoba. He asked repeatedly about the use of officials of the P.F.R.A. by the provincial government for certain purposes. It was absolutely impossible to get any satisfactory explanation from the minister, who took a Pontius Pilate attitude about the whole thing, and said this was none of the business of the federal government and refused to provide the information.
During all that time, as we found out from a return which was made after repeated requests on my part, several days after the item had passed-the correspondence with Saskatchewan and Alberta, as hon. members will recall was brought down during the course of the debate but the correspondence with Manitoba was not-that on January 20, the minister of agriculture for Manitoba had written a letter to the Minister of Agriculture here in Ottawa about this very matter about which my hon. friend was asking the minister. The minister had this letter, unanswered, all the time and we were denied the information here. He had a lot more than this press release. I could read this letter now, but I do not want to take up a lot of time.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: You are doublecrossing the hon. member for Ottawa West.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no doubt the hon. member for Ottawa West is able to defend himself and will be able to do so without any help from that voice from the far west.
I draw your attention to the reply which the Minister of Agriculture made to the minister of agriculture for Manitoba. This reply is dated February 10. The item passed on February 9, and the minister replied on February 10. Here is what he said:
Ottawa, February 10, 1960 The Hon. George Hutton,
Minister of Agriculture and Conservation, Province of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Dear Mr. Hutton,
In reply to your letter of January 20, I have now had time to consider further your request-
This was a request with respect to this matter that we were debating in this house. The minister would not deign to give us



I960

[Stage Direction]
any information, but as soon as the item passed, the next morning he went into his office and wrote this letter.
In reply to your letter of January 20, I have now had time to consider further your request, and that of the other two ministers of agriculture for the prairie provinces, that the dominion government pay 50 per cent of the administrative costs, rather than making the payments previously proposed to the municipalities to cover part of the cost of administration.
We were told none of these details. The next paragraph reads:
My colleagues have agreed to meet this request, and we will be prepared to pay 50 per cent of your administration expenses, as approved by our treasury officials.
The third paragraph is the one I wish particularly to outline because this seems to me to be the epitome of this outrage to parliament.
You are probably aware that the vote to cover the dominion government's share of the assistance payments was passed in the House of Commons yesterday. I expect it will go through the Senate shortly and we will then be in a position to make payments to you.
I say that it was an absolutely outrageous thing for the minister, with that letter of January 20 before him, with the repeated requests from us who have the responsibility for voting this money for the purposes referred to in that letter, to deny this information to the committee, to deny the committee the correspondence, and then to write a letter like that in obvious contempt of this house immediately after the item had passed. It is because of that that I feel impelled to take a little time of the house today to stress the fact that we on this side of the house do believe we have a duty to uphold the rights of parliament. I know from reading the public prints, that when we seek to uphold our rights, we are attacked by no less a person than the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).
The Prime Minister is reported in the Montreal Gazette of February 8 as having said at a dinner on February 6 that the Liberals had a new policy of personal attacks on his government. I have no doubt that the suggestion the Minister of Agriculture should give this committee the information to which it is entitled will now be described as a personal attack on that gentleman. But it is nothing of the kind, any more than any attacks which were made upon the Prime Minister were personal attacks. No one on this side, I know, has attacked the Prime Minister or any other minister for anything except their failure to perform their duties in the fashion we believe they should be performed. Surely if an opposition has any duty that is a duty of the opposition.
Since I resolved to make these observations another matter has cropped up and I want 79951-0-115
Appropriation Act
to say a word about that. We had, as we were reminded, on eight different days- which is a very different thing from saying it was an eight-day debate-a debate about the winter works program, an item which we also find embodied in the bill before us. The Prime Minister did not see fit to take any part in that debate. The debate concluded at six o'clock on March 3. Within two hours, the Prime Minister went on television, and I have in my hand a transcript of what the Prime Minister said. I want to read a little bit from that transcript into the record because this is what the Prime Minister had to say on this matter of unemployment which we were debating, on the program entitled "The Nation's Business".
And as you know, there was the unemployment problem which we inherited. I don't want to see a single day of unnecessary suffering.
"Unnecessary suffering", I draw your attention to those words.
Neither do my colleagues. And the result was we had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to provide jobs through housing and public works and other projects. We have planned for a deficit. We had to borrow money. We were, of course, criticized for this, but when I thought of the families of the unemployed, I knew for me there was no other course, deficit or no deficit. In the same circumstances, I would make exactly the same decision again.
Now, sir, those words were-
David James Walker: Would my hon. friend just read the quote, because we do not want to go each time from the sublime to the ridiculous.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Public
Works (Mr. Walker), who was publicly rebuked by the Speaker this afternoon, would be well advised not to court another public rebuke this evening, because in my recollection during the 20 years I have been in Ottawa, this is the first time a Speaker has found it necessary to rebuke a member of the treasury benches. I asked myself, as I heard that rebuke, if the appointment of the minister to the cabinet was the reason-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member who has the floor is straying a bit from the theme.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I quite appreciate that, and I do not feel I should demean myself by straying any further from the field in the particular direction in which I was going. Perhaps if the Minister of Public Works could contain himself until I have concluded my speech, then I would be glad to listen politely to any contribution he has to make. I have read what the Prime Minister said about unemployment during this broadcast which was made within two hours of the debate being concluded in the committee of supply.

Appropriation Act
We know the level of unemployment in this year 1960 and in this month of March, or at least we know something about the level of February, although we have not yet the figures for March. We know that the level of unemployment is unhappily, notwithstanding the buoyancy of the economy in other respects, nearly as great as it was two years ago. We know also that all the government is doing about it at the present time is embodied in one of the items in this bill providing $15 million for the winter works program. We have parliament doing the one thing and then within two hours we have the Prime Minister of this country saying this:
We were, ol course, criticized for this, but when I thought of the families of the unemployed. I knew for me there was no other course, deficit or no deficit. In the same circumstances, I would make exactly the same decision again.
It is perfectly obvious that the government has not in the same circumstances made the same decision or any similar decision at all. But there is another very remarkable thing about what the Prime Minister said. We all remember what he said over and over again all over this country in the election campaign two years ago. I will just quote one of these references. It is from a telecast on February 18, 1958. It is in an item from the Montreal Star and it reads as follows:
On the live telecast Mr. Diefenbaker said he would take any practical step to ease unemployment in addition to his billion dollar public works plan.
That is one of the many visions that have vanished.
Unemployment reached a post-war record of 520,000 in mid-January.
What was the situation in January, 1960? The lowest figure was 504,000.
So when I said there was very little difference, despite the buoyancy of the economy, between the two situations, I was not exaggerating. Then the Prime Minister said this and this is in quotation marks:
"As long as I am Prime Minister of Canada," he said in a live telecast, "everything that can be done-everything without regard to the limit-[DOT] will be done to the end that no one will suffer."
Oh, yes; that was in 1958 before an election. What is it in 1960, two years after the election, with almost the same level of unemployment? It is this:
I don't want to see a single day of unnecessary suffering.
In 1958 he said that no one will suffer. In 1960, what does the Prime Minister say about employment? He says: not necessarily suffering, but suffering if necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the change in two years: not necessarily suffering but all the necessary suffering over and above $15 million. That is the remarkable change in two years. Yet I read in the Montreal Gazette this very self-regarding praise by the hon. gentleman who is the Associate Minister of National Defence-


David James Walker: He is not here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; it is very extraordinary how few of these ministers ever are in this house, as the Minister of Public Works is so fond of bringing to our attention.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Where is your party today?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The associate minister was quoted as saying this:
"With the present government," Mr. Sevigny said, "national unity is an accomplished fact, our leaders do not promise one thing in one area and promise the opposite somewhere else. Our leaders have made the same speeches and the same promises right across the country."
About unemployment that is quite true: the same promises right across the country, "no one will suffer". But two years later: not necessarily suffering but suffering if necessary; or let me quote the phrase as it is:
I don't want to see a single day of unnecessary suffering.
I suggest that is not good enough. I say that if they made the same promises right across the country-and I do not deny that they did so-they are breaking them in 1960.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) referred to the fact that it was rather unusual to have a debate on an appropriation bill at this particular time. However, I believe he recognized, as do many of us, that the conditions of today are rather unusual and that we are experiencing a time of boom and bust; that conditions of boom and bust are taking place at one and the same time. For an ever smaller number of Canadians we are indeed experiencing a condition of boom and for an ever growing number of Canadians we are experiencing a period of extremely difficult times indeed.
We have little way of knowing at this particular time whether the bill now before us is adequate to meet the conditions that obtain in the nation because the minister has not yet indicated what the other further supplementary estimates are going to be like. I should like to make a number of observations at this time and at the same time ask the minister a few questions which I hope he will answer either when he participates in this debate at this time or when the house is in committee.

We do not know yet how much the government is intending to spend in the current fiscal year. We have almost reached the end of the current fiscal year. Today is March 7 and there are only 24 days left in the month. Last year the minister presented final supplementary estimates on March 20 in the total of $282,248,993. Therefore when in these supplementary estimates the minister is asking us for $31,960,551 plus loans, investments and advances of $400,000, making a total of $32,360,511, we have a difficult time indeed in knowing what the actions of the government actually are at this time.
I hope the minister will be able to indicate with reasonable accuracy how much more money he anticipates he will be needing after he has received the amount of money for which he is now asking. It is rather hard for us to form an opinion as to the merits of these supplementary estimates until we know the answer to the other supplementary estimates yet to appear. However, we know that over the last number of years the estimates that have been presented to the parliament of Canada have gradually risen. The estimates for the year 1957-58 totalled $4,978,822,907; the estimates for the year ended March 31, 1959 totalled $5,606,870,020; the estimates for the year ending March 31 next, as we now know them, total $5,681,915,047. However, if the last estimates of the fiscal year will equal the last estimates we received on March 20 a year ago, then the whole of the estimates for the current fiscal year would total $5,964,749,757. That would mean that there has been a 6 per cent increase in the estimates for this year as opposed to the estimates of a year ago. When one considers that the population has grown by only 3 per cent, one would hope it would have a much greater effect on the welfare of many more of our people than apparently government expenditures and policies are having.
We do know that the minister is making every effort to make his budget forecasts come true. We also know that if he can accomplish that he has hopes of being able to present a balanced budget to the nation in April or May, or whenever he brings down the budget. However, let us ask ourselves at whose expense are these efforts being made? Who is going to receive the benefits and who is going to pay for the minister being able to accomplish the aims he has set out for himself? We certainly do not agree that any of the prosperity we hear so much about is being shared by the farmers, the veterans, the civil servants, the small businessmen, the small industrialists or the unemployed of Canada.
79951-0-115J
Appropriation Act
Looking at the estimates as a whole we see that agriculture is being voted $10,630,000. I think the minister will agree that the agricultural crisis is harsh enough for those estimates to have absorbed a little higher level of government participation in the welfare of those who till the soil. The Department of Labour has an estimate of $15 million, and he Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) acknowledges that that is only intended to alleviate the plight of a limited number of those who are unemployed. Yet those two matters alone, agriculture and unemployment, I think the government knows full well are not temporary difficulties which we are experiencing, and unless some much more substantial remedies are undertaken the situation in regard both to agriculture and to unemployment is going to continue to be with us and the problem is apt to become worse rather than better.
A number of us in Canada had always expected that if we ever faced more difficult times in our country, then the northern vision would really play a most effective role. Yet in the supplementary estimates I notice that not a nickel is devoted to the northern vision. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) shares in these estimates only to the extent of $2,141,001. Only the $1 has any relationship at all to the northern vision, and we would have expected that at this crucial time in the economic welfare of the Canadian nation as a whole the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources would have found a most open ear on the part of his cabinet colleagues and he would have been pleading with them to make his vision into much more of a reality.
Then we notice a very small estimate for a department which ordinarily is responsible for the employment of much labour in Canada, and I refer to the department of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker). Only a small item is contained therein amounting to $450,000.
I have to say these things, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that we have not yet seen the final supplementary estimates, although I hope that inside of a week or so we will be able to have a look at them. I also hope that those estimates will indicate a much more determined attitude on the part of the government to relieve the hardships and the concern facing so very many Canadians at this time.
I also notice that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) is expecting to receive only $3,500,000. In the light of the debate which took place this afternoon, when the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) so

Appropriation Act
ably indicated the tremendous needs tor airport facilities all over the dominion, this supplementary estimate for the department of the Minister of Transport seems rather insignificant indeed. It does not even seem adequate to meet his assurance to the house that the Dorval airport will be completed this year.
I was particularly interested when I noticed that under loans, investments and advances there is only the sum of $400,000 representing a loan proposed to the government of the Northwest Territories. I had expected that the Minister of Public Works under this head would have had a few hundred million dollars to spend on housing under the authority of the bill he is now attempting to pilot through the House of Commons. However, I notice no such intention as yet.
I hope and I say this for the sake of those who are unemployed in Canada-that the government will desert its present policy as announced the other day apparently of using as little of this housing money as possible until the summer months are over. I hope that the government will move with all haste in this regard, and I certainly expect that in the final supplementary estimates we will see a very large amount for the Minister of Public Works so that we can progressively pursue the continuation of a high level of house building in Canada. Our municipalities would also be able to relieve the plight of many of our unemployed much more adequately if they were able to obtain the capital resources necessary to carry on municipal development, and to meet many of the social needs of our rapidly growing communities in Canada.
I asked the Minister of Labour some days ago whether the government was giving any consideration to reactivating the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, and the minister rather amazed me for the moment when he replied that no municipality had asked for such help from his department. I am sure that even the Minister of Labour must know that the government has often within recent years, especially within the last year, officially been asked by many municipalities, including the association of mayors and reeves, for assistance in order to obtain the necessary capital so that they may proceed with their urban developments.
We know that the problems of the government are great, but at the same time we feel that while the minister last year in his budget speech used the words "recovery which is now well under way", that recovery which is referred to is turning out to be recovery and unprecedented prosperity for

a declining number of Canadian corporations and individuals, and that there is no such thing, indeed, as widespread recovery which would enable the minister to balance his annual financial account. The situation as far as the masses of the people is concerned is indeed deteriorating, and I would plead with the minister to let us have a look at his final estimates as soon as possible. I would hope he can indicate now when he will be in a position to bring down the final supplementary estimates, because much of what I have already said may lose a lot of its validity-and I hope I am shown to be wrong-if and when the minister files the final supplementary estimates.
I am particularly interested to know whether government expenditures are at a level so that those estimates will be equal to last year's or whether they may even exceed last year's. The reason I am raising this subject at this time is because we have seen the intentions of the government clearly revealed in the blue book of estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961, and upon a close analysis of the estimates which have been tabled for the next fiscal year we are very much afraid that the government intends to ride out the storm and not intervene on behalf of the farmers, on behalf of the unemployed, on behalf of the federal civil servants or on behalf of the small businessmen of Canada.
The government seems to be pursuing a policy, as revealed in the estimates now before us and confirmed by the blue book we now have for the next year, of letting nature take its course and allowing the people to be damned, as long as it can boast about the sum total of the figures which are admittedly higher than they were a year ago. We have also had a look at the figures contained in the "Investment Outlook" for this year and, again, these figures underline the suspicion which is abroad in Canada that the government is intending to ride out the storm and let nature take its course. I agree that nature will take its course, but at what expense? Certainly if that is the position of the government it is not in line with its expression of the understanding of the needs of the Canadian people as voiced at election time.
We know that the Minister of Finance is often wrong in his predictions. We know that last year he estimated there would be a 7 per cent increase in the gross national output, adding the qualification that stable prices must be assumed. The minister knows that the population has grown by 3 per cent, while the money supply has been inflated by approximately 2 per cent, so the hon. gentleman is able to boast of only a 2

per cent per capita increase in the volume of goods and services produced last year. Even that small increase is welcomed, because it indicates increased productivity per manhour in Canada.
I should like to ask the minister whether he is able to tell us at this time when he expects to present his annual budget to the House of Commons. I say this because at this time, when we are asked to be happy and satisfied with a $15 million outlay in respect of almost one million unemployed in Canada; when we are asked to be happy with an outlay of only $10 million in respect of the depressed condition of Canadian agriculture; when we see nothing in the supplementary estimates for the hard-pressed municipalities, or for the small industrialists or businessmen, I think it is urgent that we should hear the minister present the budget at as early a date as it is possible for him to do so.
I should like, also, to ask the minister to indicate what is the cash position of the government. On the passing of these estimates are we going to run more heavily into debt and, if so, will that involve the risk of having to issue new currency and thereby increase inflation? The record of the last several years is that the government in respect of loans, investments and advances for the year 1958-59 asked for an increase of $73 million as compared with 1957-58. Then the government apparently decided it had resolved all the problems-I am hoping it was not that it had only managed an election victory. The following year it reduced the expenditure on loans, investments and advances, and I point out that this is one department which is responsible for so much employment in Canada that I cannot ignore it. Before the election, the government raised the amount by $73 million. After the election was over, the figure showed a reduction of $70 million less than the year before and, according to the blue book, the intention of the government for the ensuing year is to spend even less in 1960-61; $64 million less in this department than in the year 1959-60.
We regret these cutbacks in these departments of government which are responsible for supplying employment to the workers of Canada. We agree that balancing the budget is desirable. However, we do not agree that the budget has to be balanced at the expense of the common people of Canada, the farmers, the unemployed, the civil servants and the veterans of our nation, and we feel that this is what is presently taking place. I know there is no election in the offing-or, at least, I think I know- and hence he may think there may be no urgency.
Appropriation Act
However, I ask in all sincerity of the minister: are his predictions coming true, or is treasury board making them come true, regardless of the cost to so many millions of the Canadian people? If they are being made to come true by decisions of the government, regardless of the cost to human welfare in Canada, I feel that would be callous treatment indeed to most of our people and I could only put it down to lack of courage to take decisive action or to inability to formulate policy which would resolve the problems facing us in Canada today.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, I must inform the house that he will close the debate.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): In one of the earlier interventions in this extraordinary debate the word "outrageous" was used. I will say at once that what we have witnessed here tonight is an outrage. Never before in my 15 years in the house have I any recollection of ever having seen a debate opened up on any of the later stages of an appropriation bill.
The practice has been fully established over the years that all that hon. members wish to say, everything that they may feel called upon to say, is said on the items in committee of supply. While it may be a fact, as contended by the hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), that hon. members cannot be prevented under the rules of the house from opening up, and repeating and exhuming the debate that was held at some length in committee of supply, the position remains that in all previous parliaments in recent memory the opposition has had sufficient sense of responsibility not to seek, as the opposition has sought tonight, to inflict this abuse of the rules and processes of the house upon this parliament.
Not one new thing has been uttered here tonight. It has simply suited the convenience of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier)-


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I believe that under the rules of this house it is up to the Speaker to say when any hon. member is guilty of an abuse of those rules. I do not think it becomes the minister to accuse hon. members of that kind of abuse.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam following a very doubtful example

Appropriation Act
on the part of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, engaged tonight in what is the equivalent of an abuse of the rules and processes of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I submit, sir, that this motion is debatable. The motion for second reading of this bill is debatable as is the motion for second reading of any other bill, and it ill becomes any hon. member, particularly the suppliant, to be lecturing other hon. members of the house about how they should perform their duties or what their rights are, and so long as the hon. gentleman does not propose to introduce a form of closure by abolishing the debate on the second reading of this bill any hon. member has a right to exercise that privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: As the point has been raised twice perhaps I should say that what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) is saying is not strictly relevant to the matter under discussion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has just established to the satisfaction of everyone that he has not yet tired of listening to his own voice in this house.
What have we heard tonight? Have we heard one new thing? After days and days of debate on this measure in the committee of supply we have not heard a word that is new, just more repetition, just more waste of time, and it is deliberate. It has been a deliberate waste of time, endless repetition.
I have said I do not think this has happened before. It certainly has not happened in recent memory. We have had one more example tonight, if indeed we needed it, of the irresponsibility that has characterized the opposition in this house this session.
I think the house was misled last Friday. Last Friday when this bill reached the point of first reading you asked if leave was given for second reading. At that time the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate rose and said, "Later this day", and then when an opportunity did arise later that day what did we find? We found another hon. member of the opposition rising-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of personal privilege. The hon. member is deliberately trying to pervert the words I used. As every hon. member of this house knows, Your Honour had asked whether the bill should be read now. Your Honour and every hon. member of this house knows that the time honoured form in those circumstances is to say, "Later this day" if there is any chance of the bill coming up later that day. From certain conversations that had

taken place of which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was aware, we had every reason to believe that there would be an opportunity later that day for the matter to be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will permit me to intervene, it seems to me that remarks about what took place last Friday are not in order at this time. We are debating second reading of a supply bill. What was done last Friday is past and gone and is not now the proper subject of debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just used words which if allowed to stand are, I submit, an offence against the rules of this house. He has used the words "deliberately trying to pervert". I should like to show you the record, Mr. Speaker, which should answer the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: I noticed the expression. I hope the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who has a very high regard for the proprieties of parliament will not allow those words to remain on the record.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if the minister says he was not deliberately trying to do that, I accept his word at once, of course-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I withdraw any imputation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Isn't that generous of him, now, Mr. Speaker? I will not say anything further about the ruling you just made but with great respect I think it would have been proper to hear what was said on an earlier occasion when this motion for second reading was submitted to the house last Friday. I think it will appear from the record that-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Minister of Finance had no right to use the words he used a moment ago any more than I had the right to use words affecting the Chair the other evening. I was asked to withdraw those words and I think the minister by the statement he has made has cast a reflection on Your Honour and that he should be made to withdraw those words.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, you do not need to be told, I am sure, that you will never find me indulging in the kind of conduct that on the part of the member for Laurier led to his being obliged to withdraw an aspersion on the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: What about Black Friday?



Mr. Robichaud:: What about the flag?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member would not know what a flag is.


Mr. Graffley:: Perhaps he means the flag his party promised for 22 years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that we proceed with the debate on the bill. It seems to me we are getting back into last Friday's straw which has been thoroughly threshed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said something, Mr. Speaker, about repetition. Here is the record of the debate on these supplementary estimates. How many of them are there? They will be found in the schedule to this bill. They run from Nos. 611 to 630, 20 items in all, and some of them quite small items. But what has occurred in this house? Mr. Speaker, this is March 7. These items were put before the committee of supply first on February 5, one month and two days ago.
What have we seen in the meantime? There were 12 whole days spent in the committee of supply discussing 20 items. The first two of those days were spent in discussing the several items under the Department of Agriculture which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate wants to exhume tonight and repeat debate on; and then he talks about unemployment and, gracious, Mr. Speaker, the discussion on unemployment occupied nine days. Hon. members opposite want to start it all over again. They have not wasted enough time yet.
As long as I have breath in my body I will back up in this house the right of any hon. member to raise his voice in this chamber and be heard on any matter that is properly within the rules of the house and is not a time-wasting act, but after 12 days have been spent in committee of supply on 20 items, I say it ill behooves hon. members opposite now to try to repeat the same debate over and over again.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate talked about not getting information from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). The hon. member got all that information from the minister a month ago on the points he is trying to raise here tonight. If the hon. member would read page 781 and following pages of Hansard he would find the answers are all there. The hon. member talks about how this money will be spent. It will be spent strictly in accordance with the terms of the items as they will appear in the appropriation bill if hon. members opposite will ever allow this bill to be passed and sent on to the Senate. It is set down there in black and white and that
Appropriation Act
will be the star and compass of the governor in council in relation to the disbursement of this sum of money.
We have had a lot of delay and it is becoming very serious. Last Friday I pointed out some of the serious results that are threatening as a result of this protracted and deliberate delay on the part of the opposition. Here are some of the results and it is well for hon. members opposite-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I withdrew the word "deliberate" a very few moments ago when the minister was speaking and I would remind Your Honour that half the speeches made and half the time taken in committee was taken by hon. members on that side of the house. If there was any delay they were 50 per cent responsible. I ask the minister to withdraw that imputation on me and other hon. members of the opposition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member still is not satisfied. Apparently, his idea of a debate is to impose closure on the supporters of the government so that he and his friends may go on and have the debate all to themselves.
I pointed out that it is well that the country should know where the responsibility lies for the delays that are occurring and are going to occur in the payment of sums of moneys that these estimates will provide. Here are some of the things that are being delayed and have been delayed in recent weeks:


George James McIlraith: Would the minister permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -payment under the Department of Agriculture of compensation for animals slaughtered.


George James McIlraith: Would the minister permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, I suppose we might as well have more wasted time from the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). He is no worse than the others over there.


George James McIlraith: Would the minister agree that this bill has to be dealt with by the other place and that the other place adjourned from last week until Tuesday night?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had been in the house Friday afternoon when this came up he would not have shown such surprise just now because I was the one who stated that it was necessary to get this bill into the Senate tomorrow. He need not look so surprised or as though he had just laid an egg.

Appropriation Act


Douglas Scott Harkness: That should never surprise him. He lays them by the dozen.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact is that the Senate has been available for days and days within recent weeks to deal with this matter if the opposition would permit the bill to be passed and be sent to the Senate for their adoption of it. I was pointing out the kind of payments that have been delayed by the opposition. The first is payment to farmers of compensation for animals slaughtered. The delay there is attributable to hon. members opposite. Next, there is the payment of freight assistance on western feed grain. The delay in the provision of these moneys is the responsibility of hon. members opposite.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To whom is that money paid, the C.P.R.?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then there is the delay in payment of contributions to the western provinces for the payments they are making to farmers who suffered the misfortune of having their crops buried under snow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Those payments are not being delayed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The delay in recompensing the western provinces for these payments rests on hon. members opposite. Full responsibility rests with the opposition there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Surely the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has delayed the house and this measure enough without delaying matters further now. Will he ever let the farmers receive this money? Will he ever let the western provinces be recompensed for the payments they have been making to the farmers?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can answer that. They are being paid right now and the minister knows it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will he ever let the farmers receive compensation for animals slaughtered? Then, item 614 is a contribution to the three western provinces for the transportation of fodder. Will he ever let those payments be made? Is he going to go on indefinitely delaying these payments? Then there is provision for payments to the municipalities in connection with the winter works program. How long are hon. members

opposite going to prevent the house from making the $15 million available to carry out that program?


George James McIlraith: As long as the Minister of Finance keeps on talking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He wants to go on and on reviewing these items that have been delayed and obstructed by the opposition. Let me refer again to the campground and picnic area development program. That program provides employment. Do they not want any provision made there? Must they go on delaying it? Then there are others. There is provision for forest access roads and trails. That is another program that provides employment. They are holding that one back. They are holding it up. Then there is provision made for the construction of steamships. The fact is that we have been told that unless this money is made available there are going to be lay-offs in certain of the shipyards where these vessels are being constructed. When these layoffs come the responsibility for any consequent unemployment will rest on members of the opposition.
Is it not about time that hon. members opposite gathered together some sense of responsibility with respect to the business of the house and the transaction of affairs that mean a great deal to the farmers of the country, to employed persons who will otherwise be threatened with unemployment and to many others in this country as well as in relation to the carrying on of essential government programs?
As if we had not seen enough of this delay, this obstruction, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam rises tonight, makes a budget speech and invites me to transgress all the rules of parliamentary government and start talking about the position of the government accounts at this stage of the fiscal year. It is about time that the hon. member learned something about the practices of parliamentary institutions. I have no intention of transgressing the practices and traditions of this parliament and accepting his invitation to transgress those rules and traditions.
The final supplementary estimates will be brought down in due course. They will be brought down that much sooner if this obstruction ends and the ministers who are concerned have an opportunity to attend that important business. He asked about the date of the budget. I give him this answer, that the budget will be brought down that much sooner if he and other hon. members opposite stop their obstruction. As a result of their holding up this bill last Friday and tonight 15 senior officials are sitting in my

office right now who have come there for a budget meeting. I suppose my evening will be spent in the house listening to hon. members opposite fan the air with their incessant repetition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what we are listening to now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will say one thing about the budget. If they want to delay the budget, let them go on with the obstruction in which they are engaged at the present time.
There is one more observation on the part of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on which I am going to make a brief comment. He absolved himself tonight of any responsibility for or association with an attack on the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). Let me say to him that it has been perfectly evident from the day that parliament assembled for this session that the whole tactic of hon. members like the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and others has been to level one personal attack after another at the Prime Minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman has sought to make certain aspersions about me and to read my mind and to suggest that I did certain things from certain motives. I believe that is quite unparliamentary and that the minister should not be allowed to continue in that vein. If he can cite one single case of a personal attack as opposed to an attack on public conduct, I will apologize for it at once.


An hon. Member:: Apologize now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would be here for a long time if I recited tonight all of the personal attacks-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Cite one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that the hon. member and others opposite have made on the Prime Minister in the house and outside during the course of the present session.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a question of privilege. From the remarks just made by the Minister of Finance it would appear that others are responsible for having made attacks on the Prime Minister. I am sure that I have made no personal attack on the Prime Minister or on anybody else save and except in their capacities as administrators of departments. I think the minister has gone much too far in his statements concerning those of us who sit on this side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.
Appropriation Act


Lionel Chevrier: I will not sit down except at the request of the Speaker. I ask the Minister of Finance to withdraw that remark in so far as I am concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: I seem to recall that the first speech in this debate introduced the subject of personal attacks, perhaps to deny it, but that to my mind made it possible for the minister who has the floor to mention the subject. Strictly speaking it has nothing to do with the bill and I trust the minister will leave that subject at that point.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think hon. members who suggest that a personal attack is something that never happens in this place and cannot be referred to should perhaps be elevated to a higher realm.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Laurier has not engaged in these personal attacks then I congratulate him upon being such a shining example to some of the members around him.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. gentleman is the person I think he is he should add, and I withdraw the imputation so far as the hon. member is concerned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I did not say anything about the hon. member for Laurier. Apparently he is the one who wants to wear a hat that has been fashioned by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and others.


Mr. Habel:: I rise on a question of privilege. If the minister is going to wait until every member of this party has refuted his inference he will sadly regret the remarks that he has made. I think he should withdraw his remarks because every member has the right to ask him to withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not clear just what the hon. member wishes to have withdrawn.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I think there was an inference that the opposition had directly attacked the Prime Minister, and every hon. member has a right to refute the accusation. He is opening himself to a request from every member of this party that he withdraw, and he will have a sad time-


Harold Edward Winch: Suppose we are attacking the Prime Minister, what is wrong with that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister who has the floor would revert to the bill it would save me a good deal of unnecessary trouble. I cannot ask the minister to withdraw a statement that personal attacks are being

Division
made. Personal attacks are often made in this house from both sides, and I expect will be made. If they are made I do not know that members should object if they are referred to. If an hon. member rises and states he made no personal attack, the reference is such a general one that I cannot ask for withdrawal. I suggest that a return to the debate on the bill before the house would be in order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are attacks that are proper attacks, and there are personal attacks which are not proper. The kind of attacks of which I am speaking were highly improper and very personal attacks-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Name one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that we have heard all through this session from hon. members opposite.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I challenge you to name one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What we have been seeing here tonight is all of a piece, and it has been going on since February 5. I trust the people of this country will not miss the opportunity to place the responsibility where it belongs-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think there is much doubt of that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -for the delay in the provision of moneys that are required for very urgent public purposes.


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


Donald Methuen Fleming: I ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay. In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Lionel Chevrier: Now who is wasting the time of the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Minister of Finance has satisfied his vanity and wasted about twenty-three minutes of this session quite unnecessarily. Second, I would point out that the Minister of Finance made a statement which was not in accordance with the truth when he said that this house, or this committee, or anyone here was delaying the payments to the farmers under the 50-50 scheme. Because if the Minister of Finance does not know that those payments are already being made, then he does not deserve to be Minister of Finance. He ought to know that, and there is not a word of truth in that allegation whatsoever and it should not be allowed to go out to the country. Having said that I have nothing more I want to say on clause 1.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, this bill which is now before us in committee has received the unanimous support of the house on second reading and it will undoubtedly receive our unanimous support through all its stages. But I do want to say-and I say it because of the remarks made by the Minister of Finance a few moments ago

that in my humble estimation, in view of the requirements of the people of Canada, it is a most picayune bill and I lay that responsibility directly before the Prime Minister of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Deal with clause 1.


Harold Edward Winch: I am, and clause 1 is where you make statements like this. In view of the unemployment situation in Canada, with 800,000 people unemployed, is this the best we can do on an emergency basis to take care of them? I say it is picayune and the responsibility, whether the Minister of Finance likes it or not, rests with the head of the government, the Prime Minister.
Also we have had in the past, especially at campaign time, statements declaring aid to farmers on parity prices. But this is all the government is doing, and that responsibility must rest on the shoulders of the Prime Minister of Canada. In addition there is nothing here providing increased aid to the civil servants, to the senior citizens or to the veterans, and as I say, this is a picayune bill.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. There is nothing in the bill with reference to civil servants.


Harold Edward Winch: That is exactly what I am saying.
Appropriation Act


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member must be relevant and confine his remarks to the bill.


Harold Edward Winch: I don't know why I should be irrelevant and the Minister of Finance for forty minutes be considered relevant. I say this is a picayune bill in view of the circumstances facing the people of Canada, and the responsibility must rest on the shoulders of the Prime Minister.
We will of course, as the Minister of Finance knows, pass the bill, but the responsibility is on the Prime Minister and I make that assertion as a direct statement to the Prime Minister, and I say it because I do not intend to retract it and I want to see what the Minister of Finance is going to do about it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made two statements which are both wrong as usual. The first was in ascribing to the Minister of Finance a certain reason for wanting to have that vote taken, and the hon. member is completely wrong. The reason that vote was forced was to see how he, after all his talk and bluster, and other hon. members opposite, including all his colleagues, would vote on second reading. After all their bluster and talk for twelve days they finish up supporting this measure. That is a pretty fair test, I think, of just how much their words meant day after day after day.
The other statement he made was in ascribing to me a belief, or even a remark, that the payments in connection with item 613 were going direct to the farmers. That is not what I said at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say you said it, either.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are four items here under the Department of Agriculture. One of them, as I pointed out, involves payments directly to the farmers. Several involve payments to the governments of the western provinces, as I pointed out. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made two statements, and his batting average is perfect-he is wrong 100 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is once more delaying the passage of his own bill by misquoting what I said. I said that the minister said that by holding up this bill we were delaying the payments to the farmers, and that is what the minister said; when he consults Hansard he will find that that is so. I did not say that these payments are going directly to the farmers. I know they are not, and the minister knows that perfectly well, too. From his treasury they are being

Appropriation Act
paid to the governments of the provinces, and the provinces have been paying them to the farmers for some considerable time. We all know that. It may be that the provincial treasuries would be faintly incommoded by not getting this money last week instead of this week but, of course, any delay today, as the hon. member for Ottawa West pointed out, does not make the slightest difference, because the Senate does not meet until tomorrow evening. It will be interesting to see whether there will be royal assent tomorrow night or whether we wait until Wednesday. That will be very interesting to see, after all the talk we have heard from the Minister of Finance. Still, nothing that happens today is delaying the payment of this money at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has been delayed for the last three weeks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, whether I am a better judge of the minister's vanity than he is himself, I leave to the committee. The minister knew perfectly well how we were going to vote. He was told that by our leader. We were going to vote for whatever little there is in this bill, notwithstanding the fact that it is most inadequate.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On the schedule.
The Chairman:: Shall the schedule carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh no, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Finance said I had introduced nothing new in my statement. Everything in my original statement was new. I did not go over any of the points which had been made previously. I referred to a broadcast made by the Prime Minister after we had ceased to debate the estimates, so I could not have been threshing old straw, unless the minister thinks that the Prime Minister's broadcast was old straw-in fact, most of it, perhaps, was. It was certainly a dim and dizzy vision.
The other thing I referred to was a letter which the Minister of Agriculture did not table until after his item was finished, and I had no opportunity of referring to that letter at an earlier stage because we were denied it. That is precisely what I was complaining about, and that is precisely why I made the speech in the first place. I asked the minister whether or not it was true-


David James Walker: What clause are you speaking to?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking to the schedule, as the Minister of Public Works would know if he paid attention to the Chair.

In this schedule there is this item for the fifty-fifty payment to the provinces, and I asked the minister on second reading-and the hon. gentleman could have saved some time if he had answered me then, instead of entering upon all those irrelevancies-if all the treasury board had before it when they put this item in the estimates was the press releases which the Minister of Agriculture said was all he knew about the scheme of the three western provinces.
I think that question deserved an answer. I think it deserves an answer now. Did the government have nothing more from the provinces with regard to how this money was being paid out than the press releases made by these three governments, because that is what the minister told us. I read the extract from Hansard of February 9? I think we are entitled to know. Did the government have the details, or did it have a scheme submitted by those provincial governments?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What goes on in the treasury board is carried on in confidence, and I have no intention of repeating on the floor of the house the discussions which took place in the treasury board. The members of the treasury board were well acquainted with the background of this matter, this having been well known to the cabinet in the course of these negotiations.
Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, I pointed out in my remarks that the essential point lies in the terms of the item which become part of the appropriation bill. That item is perfectly clear in its terms and in its intent. This is No. 613-
Contributions to the governments of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, of one half the amounts paid by the governments of those provinces to farmers in respect of unharvested crops to a maximum of $300 in respect of any one farm; and to authorize, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, contributions to the governments of those provinces (or their municipalities) in respect of the administrative costs incurred by them in making such payments to farmers.
The terms of that item are perfectly clear, and the enabling provision will be adhered to strictly by the governor in council in accordance with the terms of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the minister what the terms and the conditions are which are prescribed by the governor in council.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, what the minister is saying is that this is blank cheque legislation; that this parliament which has to vote the money is not entitled to know how this money is going to be spent. In other words, that once we dispose of this money, and not before, the governor in council will decide under what terms this money is to be spent. Is that what the minister is saying and, if it is not, what is he saying?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not expect the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to know or even to try very hard to understand a situation like this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why not answer the question instead of indulging in personal remarks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Items containing provisions such as this authorizing expenditure in accordance with terms and conditions to be prescribed by the governor in council are quite usual in a supply bill. As a matter of fact, I suppose that during the time the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was a minister hundreds of such items were introduced by the government of which he was a member. Suddenly, however, this practice becomes different now that somebody else follows it. It was all right when he and his colleagues were in office. It was perfectly acceptable then; there was nothing wrong with it, but when somebody else does it, it suddenly, out of a clear blue sky, becomes an offence. You know perfectly well, Mr. Chairman, that the offence which rankles in the mind of the hon. member is that he is not sitting on this side of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh yes, I am frightfully resentful; very jealous of the minister, I admit. But that really has nothing to do with the business before this committee. The business before this committee is how the public moneys are to be spent, and who is to decide the way in which they are to be spent; whether that decision is to be made by parliament or by the governor in council; whether it is to be made publicly, here in this house, or secretly in the closet afterwards. I have very clear recollections of a great many of these items in the estimates in the period when I was on the other side of the house and for many years before that-long before the hon. member for Eglinton ever came to this parliament-and I cannot remember-


David James Walker: You were the man in the closet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: For the benefit of the Minister of Public Works I might say that the word "closet" and the word "cabinet" are, as
Appropriation Act
he will find out, synonymous. He will find that out by consulting a dictionary. I thought the one word might appeal more to the Minister of Public Works than the other.
I return to the point I was making, namely that I cannot remember a single occasion when Mr. Ilsley or Mr. Abbott-


An hon. Member:: Who were they?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -or Mr. Harris ever
declined to explain fully the scheme under which moneys-


An hon. Member:: Scheme?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -would be paid out of the treasury; the scheme-and I used that word in its proper sense-the plan, or the method, by which the moneys were to be paid out. It seems to me that for hon. members who spent a good many years going about this country prating about the rights of parliament to come in here and say, "We will not tell you a thing about how this money is spent and we will not make a decision about how it is to be spent until parliament has acted,"-when parliament would have no further control-is a most extraordinary doctrine. I must say, of course, it is a very typical Tory attitude. It was the attitude taken by the government of Mr. Bennett. It is exactly what the Liberals protested against at that time and I am very glad to take a Liberal attitude at this time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and some of his colleagues have been trying desperately for the past six or seven weeks to make something out of nothing as far as this particular matter of assistance to the snowed-in crops of farmers in western Canada is concerned. The situation in this regard has been perfectly clear to everybody in the country who has taken any interest at all in the matter from the very beginning.
The dominion government told the provinces that it was willing to ask parliament to pay half the cost of payments of up to $3 an acre for a maximum of 200 acres to farmers whose crops were snowed in to the extent of 50 per cent or more. This was made plain from the very beginning. The provinces were told they could put in any type of scheme they liked and administer it in the way they wished in order to make that payment. The federal government said it would pay 50 per cent of what the provinces paid to the farmers up to $3 an acre in order to provide that assistance. Nothing could be more simple, plain or clear. As soon as parliament met and we had an opportunity to bring in the supplementary estimates we brought in this particular estimate to provide

Appropriation Act
for that payment of 50 per cent of the assistance payments that the provinces made.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has been trying to read into this a disregard for the rights of parliament. He attempts to characterize it as a sinister scheme. In doing so the hon. member is completely off the beam. Of course, he is off the beam with respect to most things but in this case he is more off the beam than usual and every farmer in western Canada will recognize that fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to hold up this item but I am just going to say that what the Minister of Agriculture has just said does not happen to be in accordance with the facts as he revealed them himself by making that return several days after the item passed because in that letter from Mr. Hutton, Mr. Hutton asked if the federal government would agree to a particular procedure and the minister waited until we had voted the item and then wrote and said he would agree thinking we would never find it out. This shows that the government did not give the provinces a blank cheque at all, that it insisted on knowing how the provinces were going to spend this money.
What hon. members opposite have refused to do is to tell us. It would have been very simple and all this fuss could have been avoided if the minister had done what he ought to have done in the first place and as anybody with any regard for parliament would have done. If he had got the regulations of the three prairie provinces-the provincial governments that are spending this money-and laid them on the table of the house so we could have read them, all would have been well. Parliament is entitled to know the scheme under which this money was paid out, but the government has consistently denied that to us, to no apparent purpose that I can see because, as the minister says, if we had gone out and asked the provincial governments we could no doubt have found out from them. But parliament has the right to have that information here in this chamber. What astonishes me is that the Prime Minister who talked so much about the rights of parliament could have permitted this course of action. I am not surprised at the Minister of Agriculture but I am surprised at the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for taking this arrogant attitude that parliament is not entitled to have this information laid on the table for hon. members to examine.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this is another straw horse of a most finely ground chaff. There was never any concealment in regard

to any of the documents in connection with this case. I placed the documents on the table as soon as I reached an agreement with the provinces. Everything that was asked for was produced. As a matter of fact, on a simple request from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, without any order being passed in the house, I produced all the correspondence he asked for at any time. What the hon. member was talking about latterly was not this payment at all. He was referring to the administration costs in connection with the payments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite true, but it is part of the scheme.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was not part of the $3 payment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is part of the money we are spending.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We had a series of conversations, the provinces and myself, with regard to the method by which the administration costs would be paid. Each province had a different method of carrying on the matter. It was somewhat difficult to arrive at a method which would be equitable to all the provinces as far as the split-up of the administrative costs were concerned. There was never at any time an attempt to conceal anything from parliament. If the hon. member wanted to know what the regulations were at any time all he had to do was to get a copy of them. Thousands of copies were put out by the western provinces outlining what their regulations were.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the order previously made, the bill will now be read a third time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister not going to make a speech?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I assume we will go on with the amendment to go into supply tomorrow? Would the house leader tell us what we will be doing on Wednesday and Thursday and any other day of the week for which the order of business can be announced?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I judge that the opposition tomorrow would want to continue with their amendment to go into supply. The proposed order of business for Wednesday will be, first, the motion in the name of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to

set up a joint committee on Indian affairs. Second, and related to that, we will take the second reading of Bill No. C-2, an act to amend the Indian Act. Third, we will take second reading of Bill No. C-3, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. Those three motions are all related to Indian affairs.
The fourth order of business will be the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister dealing with the tenure of office of judges; fifth, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works dealing with the National Housing Act; and, sixth, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with the Railway Act.
On Thursday, there will be continuation of that business. All this is subject to change, if necessary, although it is unlikely that there would be a change. On Friday, we will continue with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
Business of the House


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask two questions. First, will we be taking the agricultural estimates on Friday in any event? And next, may I again renew the suggestion I made ealier in connection with the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works relating to the National Housing Act? We are prepared to take that at any time and we give the minister our assurance that we will deal with it as quickly as we can.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In response to the first question, Mr. Speaker, I will announce on Thursday night the order of business for Friday. This is the proposed order of business for the next three days and of course there may be changes. We have considered the other suggestions but I believe the order I have outlined is preferable.


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