1960-03-23

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Have any lay-offs taken place at H.M.C.S. Cornwallis since November 1, 1959?
2.	H so, what classification of employees was affected and how many in each class?
3.	Have any representations been made in connection with these lay-offs? If so, from whom and what reply was given?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 of this question is yes. The answer to part 2 is as follows:
2. Classification	Number
Fireman-labourer		 23
Fireman-labourer	(seasonal) ..	17Stationary engineer	(1)	
4Carpenter	
6Painter	
1Electrician	
1Labourer	
5
The answer to part 3 is yes. Representations have been made by Mr. Edward Murphy, president, branch 20, Canadian Legion, Digby, Nova Scotia; Mr. Victor G. Cardoza, mayor, town of Digby, Nova Scotia; Clementsport branch, Canadian Legion, Cle-mentsport, Nova Scotia.
The following information has been used as the basis for reply in each case. The reduction of civilian staff at Cornwallis stems from a number of causes including revision of unit organization, reassignment of duties among continuing staff, and modernization of equipment. Each of these factors has resulted in civilian positions being declared surplus to requirements.
The new central heating plant with its modern fuel handling equipment is the major reason for staff reduction at Cornwallis at the present time. In addition, a civil service complement review revealed that the civilian cleaning staff was larger than necessary to maintain a proper standard of cleanliness at the base.
Every effort is being made to provide alternate employment for individuals being displaced.


JEANNE MANCE DEVELOPMENT RECEPTION, MONTREAL  C.M.H.C. PARTICIPATION
Mr. Roberge: 1.	Did Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation participate financially to a reception held at the inauguration of the Jeanne Mance development in Montreal?
2.	If so, for what amount?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is that a ceremony was held on October 15, 1959, on the site of the Jeanne Mance low rental housing project in Montreal to mark the allocation of the first units. Afterwards a reception was held at the city hall. This was arranged by the Montreal sanitary housing bureau, and the corporation agreed to bear half the cost.
The answer to part 2 is that the corporation's share of the cost of the ceremony and reception was $1,143.86.


POWER DEVELOPMENT ACT, N.B.  SAVINGS
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Have any immediate savings in power costs resulted to users of electricity in the province of New Brunswick through the operation of the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act?
2.	H so, what is the amount of such savings?
3.	What procedure is used to arrive at a figure for any such savings?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: This question has to do with savings in power costs in New Brunswick. The answers are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) By coal subventions from December 31 to March 31, 1959, a sum of $645,596.56 was made available to the utilities.
(b) In addition, up to March 3, 1960, the federal government contributed under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act $3.39 million toward the construction of transmission facilities, and this has thereby reduced the burden of capital investment which would have had to be borne ultimately by the users.
3.	The rate of subventions is fixed by agreement for a five year period commencing December 1, 1957, at 7.43 cents per million British thermal units contained in coal produced in the Atlantic provinces and used for the generation of electricity.

Starred Questions


POWER DEVELOPMENT ACT, N.S.  SAVINGS
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Have any immediate savings in power costs resulted to users of electricity in the province of Nova Scotia through the operation of the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act?
2.	If so, what is the amount of such savings?
3.	What procedure is used to arrive at a figure for any such savings?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is the same sort of question for Nova Scotia. The answers are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) By coal subventions from December 31 to March 31, 1959, a sum of $1,239,992.23 was made available to the utilities.
(b) In addition, up to January 21, 1960, the federal government contributed under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act $4.32 million for the construction of a thermal plant and transmission facilities, and this has thereby reduced the burden of capital investment which would have to be borne ultimately by the users.
3.	The rate of subventions is fixed by agreement for a five year period commencing December 1, 1957, at 7.43 cents per million British thermal units contained in coal produced in the Atlantic provinces and used for the generation of electricity.


PROVINCIAL LEASES OF FEDERAL TEMPORARY BUILDINGS, ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.
Mr. McGralh: 1. How many wartime temporary buildings, owned by the federal government in St. John's,
Newfoundland, are leased to the provincial government of Newfoundland and what is the total square feet of these buildings?
2.	What are the terms of lease?
3.	When will these buildings be vacated by the various provincial government departments?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: This question should stand as an order for return, as the answer will have to be secured from more than one department.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.


ORGANIZATION AND METHODS SURVEYS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Mr. McGee: 1.	Have any departments of government requested surveys from the organization and methods division of the civil service commission during 1959?
2.	If so, which departments?
3.	How many surveys were made for each department?
4.	What were the dates on which the results of the surveys were forwarded to the department concerned?
5.	What were the estimated measurable annual savings which resulted from each survey?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, as the answer to this question is rather lengthy and is comprised mostly of figures and dates, I think it would be preferable to have the answers printed in Hansard, if that is agreeable to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the suggestion of the
minister that his answer be printed instead of being read acceptable to the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer follows:]
SURVEYS	REQUESTED BY DEPARTMENTS	DURING 1959	Number of surveys	Date results	Estimated- forwarded to	measurableDepartment	Requested Completed	department	annual savingsDefence Production	
2External Affairs	
1Finance	
3Fisheries	
1House of Commons	
1Justice	
1Mines and Technical Surveys	
1National Defence	
7National Energy Board	
1si (One in progress)	July 20	40,000(One in progress)	1 (Two in progress)	November 10	Not measurable1	October 28	2,4901	June 8	Not measurable1	May 29	Not measurable(One in progress)	3 March 25 (Four in progress) June 15 October 19	26,400 13,470 Not measurablei	December 2	Not measurable

MARCH 23, 1960 Starred Questions SURVEYS REQUESTED BY DEPARTMENTS DURING 1959-Cone.			2347
Number of surveys	Date results	Estimated measurable annual savingsDepartment	Requested Completed	department	National Revenue Customs and Excise	3	2 (One in progress)	September 28 December 3	1,200,000 267,440Northern Affairs and National Resources	3	(Three in progress)	Post Office	1	(One in progress)	Public Works	1	1	October 26	Not measurableTrade and Commerce	2	1 (One in progress)	September 28	Not measurableUnemployment Insurance Commission	2	1 (One in progress)	September 14	Not measurableInterdepartmental	2	1 (One in progress)	April 29	10,500Total	32	15


IMPORT QUOTA NEGOTIATIONS, JAPAN
Mr. Boulanger: 1.	Have negotiations with Japan regarding 1960 import quotas been completed?
2.	If so, what are the new quotas for (a) cotton goods: (b) rayon goods; (c) plywood; (d) stainless steel, and how do they differ in each case from the quotas for 1959?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: The answer to this question is no.


CUSTOMS OFFICE, STEPHENVILLE CROSSING, NFLD.
Mr. Batten: 1.	Has the Department of National Revenue closed the customs and excise office at Stephenville Crossing, Newfoundland?
2.	If not, have any steps been taken to reduce or change the full time operation of the office?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: The answer to No. 1 is no.
The answer to No. 2 is yes. As soon as living accommodation can be arranged at Stephenville, it is proposed to transfer the customs officer there and he will then give partial service to Stephenville Crossing.


ROBERT ARTHUR BUSH
Mr. Carter: 1.	Was Robert Arthur Bush employed during 1958-59 as lightkeeper at Sandy Point, Shelburne county, Nova Scotia? If so, was his appointment made through the civil service commission and was he qualified for veterans preference?
2.	Did the above person resign from his position or was he discharged? If discharged, what was the date, on whose recommendation and for what reasons?
3.	Previous to his resignation or discharge, had this person been informed by the Department of Transport that his services were satisfactory? If so, on what date?
4.	Who is the lightkeeper at Sandy Point, Nova Scotia at the present time?
5.	Is he qualified for veterans preference, and on whose recommendation was he appointed?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: The answer to part 1 is that Mr. Robert Arthur Bush occupied in 1958-59 a part time exempt position of lightkeeper at Sandy Point, Nova Scotia. This position is not under the Civil Service Act and hence the veterans preference under the act does not apply.
With regard to part 2, Mr. Bush was released from his position on February 13, 1959, because it was found he had taken on other employment which conflicted with his duties of operating the light and fog alarm.
As to part 3, there is no record on file of such information having been conveyed to Mr. Bush.
Dealing with parts 4 and 5, the present lightkeeper is Lawrence Holmes. As mentioned before, it is an exempt position and the statutory veterans preference does not apply. An application for the position was received directly from Mr. Holmes, and a recommendation on his behalf was also made by Mr. F. F. Legere, M.P.


ESTIMATED AIR SERVICE COSTS, NORTHERN OPERATIONS
Mr. Chevrier: What was the estimated cost of the service to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys for which Spartan Air Services Limited, Renting Helicopters Limited, Okanagan Helicopters Limited, Pacific Helicopters Limited and Autair Helicopter Services Limited were seeking a contract from the department for operations in northern Canada?

Orders for Returns


Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Here is the answer to the question. The estimated cost for the service of three helicopters to be used on 1960 operations for the polar continental shelf project in northern Canada was set at $183,500. Weather conditions and operational requirements may cause a considerable increase or decrease in this estimate.



AUTAIR HELICOPTER SERVICES


Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Did Autair Helicopter Services Limited operate a non-schedule helicopter service before July 18, 1958?
2.	If so, did the air transport board take any official cognizance of such action, and of what nature?
3.	Were all licences held by Autair Helicopter Services Limited recommended by the air transport board?
4.	If not, which ones were not recommended, and for what reasons?


George Harris Hees: The answer to parts 1 and 2 is,
not to the knowledge of the air transport board. However, complaints received from two carriers were investigated, and the investigation did not disclose any offence. The board ascertained that the flights complained of were demonstration flights carried out at the expense of Autair Helicopter Services Limited.
With regard to parts 3 and 4, the air transport board does not recommend licences but grants licences subject to the approval of the minister, or alternatively denies the application. I think I might add that the three licences issued to Autair by the air transport board contained a restriction limiting Autair to the use of small helicopters in the class "C" category. Autair subsequently applied to the air transport board for the removal of these restrictions in its licences, and this application was denied by the air transport board.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McGrath: 1.	How many war-time temporary buildings, owned by the federal government in St. John's, Newfoundland, are leased to the provincial government of Newfoundland and what is the total square feet of these buildings?
2.	What are the terms of lease?
3.	When will these buildings be vacated by the various provincial government departments?



LABOUR SURPLUS AREAS


Mr. Howard: 1.	For each fiscal year since April 1, 1955, has any money been spent for the purpose of transferring of labour, families and household effects from labour surplus areas?
2.	If so, for each fiscal year, what was (a) the amount expended; (b) the places from which and to which labour was transferred and the number of persons involved in each such transfer?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 73-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of all communications addressed by the air transport board or any official thereof to Autair Helicopter Services Limited between June 21, 1957 and July 18, 1958, and all replies thereto.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 74-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of the report of the investigation made by the air transport board of Autair Helicopter Services Limited before a licence was granted.
George Harris Hees: In connection with this motion, I might say that no report as such was made. The investigation made by the board followed the normal procedure, which in this case included a public hearing. If the hon. member wishes, I shall be glad to table a transcript of the evidence taken at the hearing.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the answer to the question which was given several days ago indicated there was an investigation and this, strictly speaking, is not a return to the order. However, I am happy to say that I will accept the transcript of the evidence and will be glad to look at it.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the motion could be amended accordingly, by leave of the house, so it would call for a transcript of the evidence instead of a report. With that amendment, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion as amended agreed to.



AIR TARIFF RATE ANALYSIS, NORTHERN OPERATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 75-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of the analysis of the tariff rates filed with the air transport board by Spartan Air Services Limited, Renting Helicopters Limited, Okanagan Helicopters Limited, Pacific Helicopters Limited, and Autair Helicopter Services Limited, which were seeking a contract from the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys for operations in northern Canada.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 76-Mr. Herridge:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents, exchanged from January 1, 1958 to date, between the government of Canada or any department or officer thereof, and any officer, agent or representative of any company or labour organization, with respect to representations in connection with principles and rules governing pension plans for the purposes of the Income Tax Act.
George Clyde Nowlan: Subject to the usual reservations.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
AIPiPORT DEVELOPMENT, FORT FRANCES AND ATIKOKAN, ONT.
Motion No. 77-Mr. Benidickson:
For a copy of all correspondence since January 1, 1959, between the Department of Transport and anyone, relating to the proposition that the federal government should assist with public funds for airport development to serve the communities of Fort Frances, Ontario, and Atikokan, Ontario.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, having now had an opportunity to examine the reports, he can express the distress and dismay of this parliament at the violence in South Africa used in measures taken in connection with coloured demonstrations against the racial policies of the South African government, which violence resulted in such tragic loss of life.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Yesterday I expressed the viewpoint, I think, of the government and the people of Canada on the general subject of discrimination. Following the first press reports of the occurrences in South Africa, the high commissioner there was asked for a report on the occurrences. As yet we have not received a reply. Until we do so, as I think the hon. gentleman would agree on the basis of his experience, it would be inappropriate to make any statement, except to reiterate the fact that we deplore the development of a situation which has given rise to such tragic violence and loss of life. Later on, when the report is received, consideration can then be given to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should
like to ask a supplementary question. In addition to giving consideration to a public statement, would the government then give consideration to making a strong diplomatic protest to the government of South Africa on this vicious and disturbing loss of life?


John George Diefenbaker: I would commend to the hon. gentleman the sense of restraint and responsibility which characterized the question just asked by the Leader of the Opposition.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the Prime Minister not think that when loss of life has taken place from discrimination and violence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -consideration should be given to making a protest-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Assiniboia is not aware that I am on my feet, he certainly should be aware of that fact. '
(Translation):



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is it true that certain officials of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources are impeding the work of Catholic and Protestant missionaries in the far north and exerting a harmful influence against those missionaries?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to thank the hon. member for approaching me before the house opened and indicating that he was going to ask this question.
In reply to the hon. member I should point out that for over a century the welfare of the Eskimos in the far north was looked after almost entirely by missionaries, by the R.C.M.P. and by the members of the Hudson's Bay Company. Only when it became clear to the government some years ago, with the fall-off of the cariboo and the other forms of wild life, that it was necessary for the government to go in and assist in education, health and welfare, did the government begin to move.
With regard to the question of education, about which this article is concerned, I should

Inquiries of the Ministry point out that some years ago the government of the day made a mutually satisfactory cooperative arrangement for residences for school children and for the operation of the schools in the north. This arrangement, worked out by my predecessor, Mr. Lesage, was for a school system without any racial lines whatsoever. This arrangement was arrived at after full discussions with the religious authorities of the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican church. It was taken up with the territorial council. They considered it, and they accepted this arrangement.
I want to make it perfectly clear as minister at the present time that there has been no change in that arrangement. Last year I raised the status of the Eskimo affairs committee to that of a full advisory board reporting to the minister. As minister I thought it was fitting to invite Eskimos to sit on this board and give their direct advice to the minister. Also on the board, deliberately, are representatives of both the Anglican church and the Roman Catholic church, which have missionaries in this area. The board also has members from the mounted police, the Hudson's Bay Company and the health and welfare services of the government.
This board does not meet until next week; therefore until it meets it has tendered nothing to me. Until it does tender something to me I have nothing to consider. Thus it can be recognized, Mr. Speaker, that this shockingly irresponsible article in the paper is, to say the least, premature.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: A supplementary question. According to Le Devoir and Le Droit of yesterday, it is claimed that officials of the department have banned religious teaching in schools for Eskimos against the protests of the religious authorities, both Protestant and Roman Catholic. Has that order been issued by the minister's department?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is no such order, and everything in that statement which has been made by the hon. member is completely false.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of the release today by the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the figures on unemployment in Canada for February 1960, which release indicates that
51,000	more persons were unemployed in the month of February than in January.
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle).1
Can the minister say whether he has at his disposal figures more recent than those appearing on the last page of this release with regard to the number of unplaced applicants? Can the minister also give us the latest figures that he has available for the month of February with regard to the number of people referred to as live claimants; that is to say, people in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I gave a more recent figure in response to a question asked by one of the hon. members opposite. I have not got it with me at the moment, but the hon. member can ascertain that figure from Hansard. I have not with me the figures respecting live claimants.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could the minister undertake to give us, in view of the very serious increase in unemployment revealed in this release today, the two figures for which I asked by tomorrow?


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that most of the decrease in employment and most of the increase in unemployment in February occurred in the province of Quebec, and in view of the fact that the dominion bureau of statistics figures indicate that the rise in unemployment in that province is not only temporary but of a permanent nature, does the minister intend to take special action to deal with this alarming situation?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I disagree at once with the hon. member that this is a permanent situation. The dominion bureau of statistics reports that by and large the increase in the figure in four of the regions follows the seasonal pattern in those regions. However, in the Quebec region there was an increase of 42,000 over the month, and this increase was distributed, according to the survey figures, amongst 21,000 loggers, 10,000 workers in the manufacturing field, 6,000 construction workers, trades, 3,000, and others, 2,000. I most certainly do not subscribe to the belief that this is permanent unemployment.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister did not answer the question. The question was, does the minister intend to take any special measures to deal with this situation?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wanted to know whether the minister was prepared to take special measures in view of the permanent nature of the unemployment. I have just clarified the situation by saying that it is not of a permanent nature.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the minister if he has given any consideration to the 25 proposals to deal with this unemployment situation which were made by the opposition members of the house?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, any reasonable proposals are being given careful consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Public Works?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, who has a supplementary question.


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Labour give one good reason why the question of unemployment should not be studied by the standing committee on industrial relations?


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose the hon. member is asking the minister whether he would consider referring the matter to the committee?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I am just asking for one good reason.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure it is the responsibility of the administration to give one good reason in answer to a question of that kind. If a question refers to something within the administrative responsibility of the administration, naturally it could be asked, if it were urgent.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If the Minister of Labour has no good reason, he might say so. It will not take very long.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, surely if there was ever an argumentative question, that was one.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may proceed.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, what I said was that surely if there was ever an argumentative question presented, that was it.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Public Works arising out of the figures which my colleague has brought to the attention of the house. In view of the serious unemployment situation in the province of Quebec which is more than of a temporary nature- so that I will not get into difficulty with the Minister of Labour-does the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Public Works intend to provide additional funds for housing purposes in that province?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend had been here last week during the long and protracted debate on this subject, he would have heard my answers to all these questions. Let me say in reply at the present time that we have these matters, including those relating to the province of Quebec, under constant consideration.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he was aware last evening of the contents of the report issued this morning by the dominion bureau of statistics, which is under his jurisdiction. This report, as the minister knows, shows that there has been a decline in employment in Canada. Was he aware of this when he stated on television last night that employment was at an all-time peak?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The report which was issued this morning was not in my hands yesterday, Mr. Speaker.



ELLIOT LAKE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on March 15 the
Prime Minister told the house that when he was in a position to do so he would report on the mission that was sent to Elliot Lake ten days ago to look into the situation there. Is the Prime Minister in a position to make a report on that matter now?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will be in a position in a day or two to do so. Investigations have continued since, and the fact-finding committee gave full consideration to the representations that were made by the people of Elliot Lake. When these representations have been considered and a decision arrived at the house will be informed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary
question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce who indicated on the same day that he would report when possible on the discussions with respect to this matter that he had at Queen's park with the provincial authorities. May I ask him if he is in a position to make any report on that matter now?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not today, Mr. Speaker.
2352	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



SNAILS-REPORTED REFUSAL TO PERMIT IMPORTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the house why a person intending to establish a snail farm in British Columbia was denied permission to import the necessary foundation breeding stock from Europe, on the advice of the assistant curator of invertebrates of the national museum of Canada?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, knowing the epicurean
tastes of the hon. member I can appreciate his interest in snails. Permission to import snails from Europe for the establishment of a snail farm in British Columbia was denied under the authority of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act, to prevent the introduction into Canada of any insect, pest or disease destructive to vegetation. This act is administered by the Department of Agriculture, and the decision was made by the department. Advice was sought on the matter from the greatest authority on snails whom we know of in Canada, who happens to be an official of the national museum.
Certain hardy species of snails which have not yet been found in Canada but which are commonly raised for food in western Europe are an important potential menace to agriculture. One of these was introduced into California in the last century and is now spread over the state from Oakland to San Diego, where it inflicts serious damage to such plants as tomatoes, lettuce, radish, cabbage and strawberries.
Snails have been imported into Canada by restaurateurs for use as food, but it was not considered advisable to permit their importation for propagation purposes on a snail farm, from which they might spread and become a serious menace to agriculture.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I regret not having been able to send him notice, but this matter is of such urgency and importance that I am sure he will not be taken by surprise.
Can the minister advise the house whether the national energy board has yet reached


a decision and made a report to him with regard to the applications for the export of gas?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this is a
repetition of a question asked in the house and to which I gave a reply earlier this month, to the effect that the report would be presented and a decision reached before the end of March.



NATIONAL HOCKEY PLAY-OFFS    REQUEST FOR COMPLETE TELEVISION COVERAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Baskin (Renfrew Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue and appeal to his sporting blood on behalf of thousands of supporters of Canada's national game, and particularly those in the area I represent, which has produced some of the finest players in the history of hockey.
Could the minister inquire into the possibility of having the complete hockey play-off games televised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, rather than only the last two periods as now contemplated?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the modesty of the hon. member in his boast about the contribution to hockey made by his area, and I am sure most of us to a greater or lesser degree could advance similar claims with respect to our own constituencies.
Naturally I am very much interested in this matter. It is a question of programming, and I am not in a position to make a full statement at this time. The question will depend on the contractual .arrangements that the C.B.C. has made. I will check on it and report later. I hope the hon. member's aspirations and those of his constituents will not be frustrated.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the hon. lady aware that when the Canadian amateur athletic association made its selection of the first among Nova Scotia's outstanding Indian athletes for its Tom Longboat memorial medal it chose Alex Denny, a member of the Eskasoni reservation and an object of constituents' pride in Cape Breton North and Victoria?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact the Canadian amateur athletic association made several awards. I believe there were six awards; five were medals such as the hon. member has mentioned, and the sixth one was a trophy to the outstanding athlete. We are very proud of the athletic prowess of our Indians, and I am sure they deserve the congratulations of all of us.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Cresiohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in this chamber the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm made an attack on the governor of the Bank of Canada, and because the governor cannot personally answer that attack on the floor of the house I would ask the minister when he proposes to rise in defence of a faithful, dedicated and courageous servant of the people of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I question the propriety of the hon. member raising this matter, which arises out of the debate of yesterday. Surely a matter of that kind should not be raised as a question on orders of the day.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, I was careful to avoid stating whether the attack was justifiable or unjustifiable. I took pains not to make a statement of that nature. I feel that usually a minister does rise in defence of the people under his jurisdiction or in his department, when they are attacked on the floor of the house and they themselves cannot offer a defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is not a matter of the administrative duty of the minister, but is a matter of discretion as to whether he will or will not speak in defence and as to when he does or does not do so. It seems to me that is not the sort of question that should be raised.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I submit with great respect that there are many precedents in this house where ministers of the crown have been asked to defend public servants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wants to speak to the point of order, as to whether or not the question should be raised, he may do so; but to say what has been done and what has not been done is not helping me with the point of order.
79951-0-148
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: If Your Honour will just bear with me, I seek to help. The hon. member was simply asking the Minister of Finance whether he proposes to defend a public servant with whom he has ministerial contact of a very close kind.
The Minister of Finance was not in his place when this unwarranted attack was made by a private hon. member. Surely the hon. member is entitled to ask the minister whether he proposes to offer a defence of this official. If the minister decides not to do so, that is his privilege; but he could explain why he has not already done so. One of the reasons possibly would be that he was not in the house and was therefore unable to answer at once.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister wants to deal with the question he is at liberty to do so, but it strikes me that it is not the sort of question that should be asked on the orders of the day. The practice has been to permit questions relating to the administrative responsibility of the minister. It may be argued, I suppose, and I expect that is the point of view of the hon. member for Essex East, that it is the administrative responsibility of a minister to defend members of his department. I just express my view about the impropriety of the question, but I will allow the minister to speak if he so wishes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if it were a fact, as suggested by the hon. member for Cartier, that the gentleman in question is, to use his phrase, "under my jurisdiction", there might be some basis for the question being put on the orders of the day. But I must remind the hon. gentleman that the Minister of Finance has no control over the governor of the Bank of Canada. His duties are fixed by statute law of this parliament. He is not a civil servant; he is in no sense an official of the Department of Finance. The report that was referred to in the discussion is a report provided for by statute, which the Minister of Finance receives from the governor and tables in the house in accordance with the requirements of the law enacted by parliament.
I think I may fairly say that on any occasion where it has come to my knowledge since I became minister that an unfair attack has been made upon an official in the Department of Finance, I have spoken in the house and endeavoured to deal with the matter fairly; but that is not a situation that applies to the governor of the Bank of Canada. I have had occasion to point out before that the governor of the bank is not in any sense a civil servant, nor is any deputy governor

Inquiries of the Ministry of the Bank of Canada. Their duties and their authorities are fixed by law and determined by parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, surely it is the practice of this house to ask questions about the C.B.C. through the responsible minister. Is the Minister of Finance suggesting we cannot ask questions about the officers of the Bank of Canada through a minister, that that is improper procedure in the house?


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order is scarcely that suggested now by the Leader of the Opposition. The question was whether the minister would rise and counter what was alleged to be an attack made in debate here yesterday, and at this point it strikes me that any member of the house could rise and reply to anything said in debate at the time of the debate, but that does not mean that the minister had a responsibility to do so.


Leon David Crestohl: I understood the minister's explanation-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has spoken on the point of order. I have decided that the question is not a proper one to ask.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask another question on this subject. Does the Minister of Finance share the view, as stated, that the governor of the Bank of Canada has been playing politics and that he has lost the confidence of the Canadian people? Surely the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member had completed his question before he went on to embellish it. He should leave it at the proper point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that no hon. member in this house is more aware than is the hon. member for Essex East that his question is highly improper. If any people have lost the confidence of the people of Canada it is those hon. gentlemen opposite.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he is willing to let those charges go uncontroverted in this house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there was a debate on this subject yesterday, and I remind the Leader of the Opposition that it was he who introduced this whole subject in debate on an amendment to the supply motion. When he does that presumably he leaves the whole question open for debate in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Dumas:: Trying to evade responsibility.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the exchange has gone beyond what is permissible at this time. Unless the Minister of Finance has a point of order or a question of privilege to raise, I think we might conclude it at this place.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. I do not know whether your ear caught the remark, but mine did, coming from a member in this house for whom I have always had a very high respect. The hon. member for Ville-neuve made the remark, obviously directed toward myself, that the minister is afraid to take his responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister is not afraid to take his responsibility. He will always take his responsibility. He does not consider, Mr. Speaker, that he has anything to learn in that regard from hon. members opposite. I think it can be said of the minister in question that he has tried to make it quite clear at all times that in matters that lie within his responsibility he is prepared to take that responsibility, but he does not propose to take unto himself responsibility for matters where parliament has placed responsibility in other hands, and this happens to be one of those situations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is willing to allow those charges against the governor of the Bank of Canada to stand?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question is an improper one, and it will receive the answer which improper questions should receive.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, the Prime Minister is not the Speaker of this house, but he has said that the question put by the Leader of the Opposition was an improper one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I submit the only one who has the right to indicate whether or not-


Some hon. Members:: Is you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -it is a proper one is the Speaker of the house. In view of the importance of this matter, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the question put by the Leader of the Opposition is a proper

one and, in that event, I would ask the Prime Minister to assert his responsibilty in connection with the matter that shakes the very foundation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -of our financial and governmental system.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Demagogic rot.


Mr. Speaker:: The question which was initiated by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) I declared to be out of order. Similar questions in various forms have been asked by the hon. member for Essex East, one of which I accepted, and since then by the Leader of the Opposition. What is the point of the hon. member for Essex East at the moment? Which question is it that he wishes consideration directed to?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister a question; the Prime Minister said it was not a proper question. The question I now put is this. Is it not for the Speaker to decide whether a question is proper? If it is, then I call upon the Prime Minister as a member of this house to make a reply, as he should.


John George Diefenbaker: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, you had already declared it was not a proper question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Rouleau:: Another Duplessis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Dollard cannot expect the proceedings of the house to be conducted with decorum or propriety if he insists on interrupting from his seat in that way.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it was not desirable-


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is desirable that we start afresh and have the Leader of the Opposition repeat his question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The question I asked the Prime Minister was whether he as Prime Minister thought it was desirable that those charges against the governor of the Bank of Canada should be allowed to stand.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order may I draw Your Honour's attention-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Postmaster General rising on a point of order relating to the last question?
79951-0-148J
Inquiries of the Ministry


William McLean Hamilton: May
I draw Your Honour's attention to a reference in Beauchesne's "Parliamentary Rules and Forms", fourth edition, at page 147, citation 171, which reads:
A question oral or written must not:
(r) refer to debate or answers to questions of the current session.
It is obvious, of course, that this question refers to yesterday's debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the question of the Leader of the Opposition is the same question relating to the charges made by an hon. member of this house, or whether it relates to some other charges against the governor of the Bank of Canada.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: There have been no charges.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The charges to which I refer are charges made in this house yesterday, and reported in the press of this country this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: I expressed my view on that, that a question of that kind arising in debate should properly be dealt with in debate, and not by way of a question on the orders of the day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Finance a question. Has the Minister of Finance altered his view of the responsibility of the minister of finance from that which he expressed in the budget debate in 1957, when he accused Mr. Harris of evading responsibility for the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this discussion is purely an argumentative one. I see no attempt to secure information legitimately from the ministry with respect to its responsibilities, and I suggest that hon. members take up the matter on an occasion when they can speak freely, in committee or in an appropriate debate in the house.


Leon David Crestohl: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister state whether it is true that the people's money is being squandered, as stated in the house yesterday? That does affect him directly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is opening up a very broad subject. I think perhaps every member of the house could answer for the money he himself spends, but I do not know that anyone is prepared to answer for everybody at this stage, or should be asked to do so.

Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY FOR RETURN



DEPORTATION ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena asked me when he could expect a reply to a question that was made an order for return some time ago. I am informed by my department that the information required will mean that a review must be made of over 2,500 case files. The work is going forward now, but it is not possible to have the information before the first of April.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, while I was away from the house, the hon. member for Fort William asked a question with respect to the impact of an organization called International Resort Facilities, which proposes to operate a mercantile enterprise, and also the possible avoidance of the payment of customs duties and taxation by this organization. He asked me whether any evaluation of the effect of this business upon other retail businesses had been made.
Obviously since the business has not yet started operation it is very difficult, in fact impossible, to make any evaluation of the impact of that business, if any, upon other businesses in the area. It is a problem which is engaging the attention of the department at all times, and one to which we are giving special study. In a supplementary question he asked whether the organization was incorporated under a federal or a provincial charter. I am advised that it is incorporated in the regular way under the Canadian Companies Act.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister confirm that the government is buying transport planes for the R.C.A.F. from the United States? If so, can he inform the house what consideration was given to trying to buy aircraft to fill these needs in Canada, where we have plants such as Canada Car in Fort William doing very little?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Air Force has an urgent requirement for some medium range heavy cargo moving aircraft to be able to move the equipment of any force which is required to support the endeavour of the United Nations to prevent the spread of war. The Department of Defence Production would be making the detailed arrangements in connection with the acquiring of such planes.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I regret that I was unable to give him notice until just prior to the house meeting at 2.30. Can the minister say what progress has been made to date with respect to the construction early this year of 200 housing units in an urban military housing project in the North Bay area?


George Randolph Pearkes: Investigations are being carried out in co-operation with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in order to find the most suitable site which can be made available. No construction work has started yet.



TEXTILES-REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING INCREASED IMPORTS FROM JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he has received a communication from the president of the greater Cornwall textile joint board asking for consideration with reference to the proposal to allow a 10 per cent increase in the volume of Japanese textile imports?


John George Diefenbaker: What date?


Lionel Chevrier: It is dated March 18. I understand that the letter has gone not only to the Prime Minister but also to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If he has received this communication and it has come to his knowledge, what action does the government intend to take with reference to it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier this afternoon in reply to a starred question, these discussions with the representatives of the

Japanese government concerning shipments of textiles and textile finished products to Canada this year are still continuing.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister remember a statement he made in Cornwall during one of the election campaigns to the effect that he would see to it that the textile industry would be protected against dumping in the same way that the agricultural industry had been protected?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. gentleman was in Cornwall at the time, and I cannot depend on his interpretation of What my remarks were then.


Lionel Chevrier: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, as a rule the right hon. gentleman comes into the house properly armed, and I have the statement which the Prime Minister made. It is reported-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I question whether this is the appropriate time to bring up election programs and propaganda. Surely that is a matter for debate, and if the hon. member wants to make use of it-


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was rising on a question of privilege because the Prime Minister had challenged the accuracy of the statement I made in connection with the question I put to him. I have now the statement made by the Prime Minister and surely, on a question of privilege, I ought to be entitled to put it on the record and ask the Prime Minister whether he did say that the textile industry would be protected in the same manner as the agricultural industry.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might ask about the government's intentions at the present time, but to verify what was said during an election campaign does not strike me as being a question of the extreme urgency necessitating the interruption of our proceedings to have it dealt with here.


Lionel Chevrier: Then may I ask a simple question of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the government to protect the textile industry in the same manner as it was alleged the agricultural industry was protected.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman associated this matter with protection against dumping. May I remind him, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago this government introduced a measure designed to give the government the power that was necessary to deal with dumping, and that legislation was fought up hill and down dale by the opposition.
23, 1960	2357
Non-payment of Income Tax by Hutterites


Lionel Chevrier: I put a question to the Minister of Finance or to the Prime Minister which has not been answered. It has been avoided. I think I should be allowed, sir, to say that the statement made by the Minister of Finance is inaccurate because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate that the hon. member would like to continue this friendly exchange, which takes on exactly the nature of a debate, and that is why I questioned the advisability of putting his query in the first place. It seems to me it is an argumentative matter that might better be settled at the appropriate time for debating questions of customs and trade.

The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for committee of supply.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, last evening after the vote the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) rose on a grievance. He said, and I read only a few words of his opening remarks:
Mr. Speaker, my grievance is that the Hutterite farms in western Canada are not subject to income tax in the same manner as are all other farmers in western Canada.
At the conclusion of the hon. member's speech, I had only a few words to say, which were as follows:
I regret very deeply this most unwarranted attack on one of the most harmless minorities, if not the most harmless one that exists in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would hon. members please observe silence so that we can hear the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Erhart Regier: I want to make it clear at the outset that I am not a Hutterite. I have no connection in any way, shape or form with them. They have not asked me to speak on their behalf and it would be against their basic principles to ask anyone to speak on their behalf. Ever since the year 1525 they have refused to defend their position, and they have been subjected to a lot of persecution in the meantime.
I do not wish to argue for or against the hon. member for Acadia's contention.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Are you speaking for the C.C.F. party?


Hazen Robert Argue: Were you speaking for the Conservative party?


Erhart Regier: I am speaking as a member of this House of Commons. I have been very pleased to learn that last night the hon.

Non-payment of Income Tax hy Hutterites member for Acadia did not speak for the Conservative party. It made me feel very proud to be a Canadian. I was reliably informed that as a result of a Conservative party caucus decision the hon. member for Acadia was granted the right to express himself but he was not-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a point of privilege. I rose and spoke, not as a result of a caucus decision to let me speak or any other inference the hon. member might want to draw, but because I had a grievance on which I desired to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think there is any point of privilege arising as a result of asking the hon. member if he speaks for the C.C.F. or from saying another hon. member spoke for the government party. I think both points are irrelevant in this debate. I hope hon. members will stick to the point which is whether income tax should be applied to the Hutterites.


Erhart Regier: In so far as this particular clause of the Income Tax Act is concerned, it is my contention that the House of Commons is not the wisest place in which to carefully weigh all the problems that are posed by section 62 of the Income Tax Act. We could very easily do the cause of Canadian unity and Canadian development a great deal of harm if we used the floor of the House of Commons for this particular purpose.


Mr. Speakman:: Would the hon. member permit a question? He said he was speaking as a Canadian on behalf of the Canadian people. Does the hon. member not realize that these people are not Canadian citizens?


Erhart Regier: I do not know anything about the technicalities-


An hon. Member:: You had better find out.


Erhart Regier: I do, however, know that these people are human beings; that they came into this part of Canada from the United States, but whether or not they have ever availed themselves of Canadian citizenship, I do not know. However, because they are human beings who have a record of living amongst us in all peace and harmony, I believe that when they are attacked on the floor of this House of Commons they deserve a certain measure of defence.
Canada is comprised of a vast multitude of racial, religious and ethnic minorities. I understand there is even a clan in Ottawa known as the Hornerites, and I believe my house leader has some association with it. We will not resolve our misunderstandings by attempting to excite religious, racial or ethnical prejudices of the Canadian people. We have to learn to understand-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is going beyond the scope of the grievance. I listened to the debate last night, to the hon. member who introduced this, and I believe he was very careful to cast no personal aspersions upon the people involved but limited his grievance to the question of the application of income tax by reason of the classification of this kind of community as a charitable community. This is the question, as I understand it, and I think the hon. member would do well to limit himself to that particular issue.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, with which you have dealt, I would suggest that the hon. gentleman in speaking on this question last night ranged very far afield. He even went on to say-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is on the point of order; he went on to say at one point that they had the maximum number of colonies within 40 miles of one another, as allowed under the law of Alberta at that time from a point around Edmonton, south to the international boundary. He went on to say what this was doing to the agricultural industry. I suggest that this cannot be confined to the mere question of the application of the income tax to these people but rather that one must consider all of the aspects that have been raised by the hon. member as well as the basic question of equality of treatment. I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam is very much in order in the remarks he is making.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot accept the argument with respect to this matter being dependent on race. If the hon. member wishes to argue from that point of view, I am afraid I must check him.


Erhart Regier: The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) last night made a large number of references to aspects of the Hutterite communities that had nothing whatsoever to do with their being included or excluded from the privileges of section 62 of the Income Tax Act. I could reply in kind and deal with his arguments in detail. However, in view of your wishes, Mr. Speaker, I will do my utmost to limit my reply to the many aspersions that were cast by a member who himself was raised in a minority community in Canada. I was amazed at the attack being made on the Hutterites by a member of parliament who has been raised in one of the communities commonly known as the Doukhobor communities of Canada. Even our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) spent most of his younger days in and among people

who are religious minority groups. I am convinced that what we heard last night did not have the blessing of the Prime Minister of our nation. However, I feel that any discrimination against any one of these religious minorities, as obviously was being advocated last night-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erhart Regier: -does a disservice to the cause of Canadian unity and helps to defeat the very thing the hon. member wants to accomplish, namely a harmonious Canadian community. Our history ought to have taught us one lesson, namely that whenever we impose restrictive legislation against any minority, we do not advance the cause of unity. All we do is to cause this minority to entrench itself, to raise its own defences and to isolate itself more and more from the-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is continually referring to me as one who is attempting to raise restrictions on a minority. This is absolutely untrue. I at no time suggested any restrictions for a minority group in my speech last night. I wanted no favours to a minority group; but certainly I tried to point out that I did not want to place any restrictions upon a minority group. I want that point made abundantly clear. I was not trying to bring about restrictions on a minority group in any way, shape or manner.


Erhart Regier: Speaking on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, may I call to your attention the fact that at page 2335 of Hansard the hon. member referred to the restrictive legislation passed by the Alberta legislature and he complained at length when he said this:
I definitely feel that this is a retroactive step on the part of the Alberta government. I definitely feel that they are going soft on the Hutterites-
That is what he said when he made reference to this legislation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This was not my
grievance. I just brought this in in reply to what was going on in the three provinces on this question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member feels that he is being misquoted or misinterpreted he will have an opportunity at the termination of the speech to make such correction as he feels it necessary to make.


Erhart Regier: To come back to my main argument when I asserted that the hon. member is advocating restrictive legislation, may I say this? The hon. member is asking that
Non-payment of Income Tax by Hutterites section 62 of the Income Tax Act be so interpreted as to make the Hutterite colonies subject to income tax. I did not hear the hon. member advocate that any other religious communities should also be liable to the income tax laws of the dominion of Canada. I am not saying that the complaint of the hon. member for Acadia should not have attention paid to it. However, I know full well that the hon. member for Acadia did not at all realize the issue that he raised in this House of Commons. Otherwise, being the fair minded westerner that he usually is, I am sure he would have decided against using the chamber of this House of Commons for that purpose.
I hope that he was asking that all religious organizations in Canada be made subject to income tax payments on all their commercial undertakings. If that is what the hon. member was asking for, there is a great deal of merit in it. However, if he was asking that only the Hutterites be made subject to income tax, then I must rise in my place to raise strenuous objection. These people do not exercise the franchise. There are only 6,518 in Canada. This is according to information I have from a survey made in 1950 census of the Hutterites in North America and which indicate Canada as having 6,518 of them. These population figures in this table were made available by Dr. Robert Friedmann, department of history, western Michigan college of education. This is taken from a report called "The Hutterites and Saskatchewan", conducted by the Saskatchewan division of the Canadian Mental Health Association. I regard this as a very reputable organization.
I therefore feel that the loss involved to the treasury by the Hutterite colonies not paying income tax is not a great loss indeed. However, I would remind the hon. member that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), on behalf of Canada, is being denied potential tens of millions of dollars of income tax when much larger religious organizations are exempt on commercial enterprises that they operate. This consideration involves almost every religious community in Canada. I feel that it is most unfair and most uncharitable to look in Canada for a little minority that has never harmed anyone in Canada, on whom we spend practically no public money whatsoever, who do not break the laws of Canada, who have a higher mental health rate than the rest of Canada-and this is all in the report-people who want to exercise their religious views not merely by worshipping as they please but by living as they believe. To ask us to discriminate against a group of this kind and ask that they should have to pay income tax while other much
2360	HOUSE OF
Non-payment of Income Tax by Hutterites larger and much more influential religious organizations be allowed to carry on and be exempt from the payment of income tax.
I would like to challenge the hon. member to explain why he complains of the operation of section 62 of the Income Tax Act, and why does he pick on the harmless Hutterites of Canada? Why does he not refer to some of the religious organizations who are avoiding, rightly or wrongly, legally or otherwise, payment of tens of millions of dollars of income tax in Canada?
On reading over what the hon. member had to say, his whole argument seemed to be that he was not so much concerned with a loss of revenue to the government. His main desire appeared to be to force these colonies to pay income tax, thereby limiting their ability to expand. I do not think I am doing the hon. member any wrong when I imply a motive of that kind. The whole tenor of his speech was to the effect that if these people have to pay income tax they will not have as much money as they otherwise would have for the purposes of expansion.
In that connection I should like to read from the report which has already been referred to, "The Hutterites and Saskatchewan", a quotation from an article written by George Yacqulic called "The Hutterite Problem", contained in the Toronto Saturday Night for September 6, 1952. It is as follows:
Some of them have 150 people living off the same acreage of land as operated by one or two large-scale neighbouring farmers who are non-Hutteries. One colony east of Lethbridge has 146 souls deriving their livelihood from 5,200 acres of farming and ranching land. Adjoining this colony is a farming empire operated by two brothers who annually raise wheat on more than 10,000 acres.
These people have an economic problem. As their population grows, so they have to obtain more land. The hon. member did not offer any answer as to how they might obtain more land without violating their religious beliefs.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the problem is more one of plain envy on the part of a lot of Canadians. Here are people who do not own any personal property, who operate their farms as one community and who are tremendously successful from the point of view of making money. This is a case where practical democratic socialism is yielding far higher returns than the outworn capitalist method and their capitalist neighbours are green with envy at the success of the Hutterites in the economic field. Then they elect themselves a member to the House of Commons who appeals to the government of the day to levy income tax on this religious community while ignoring the


fact that all religious communities in Canada are receiving the blessings of section 62 of the Income Tax Act.
If the hon. member's concern does not involve the fact that this is a religious community, then we have some further reservations. Because if it is not to be regarded as a religious community, then certainly it has to be regarded as a co-operative. I would like to ask the hon. member whether he is advocating that the co-operatives of Canada be called upon to pay income tax the same as any individual? I would like to ask him why he has picked this one small religious community and ignored the larger ones? If it is not because of the fact that it is a religious community which is making money, if it is because they are an economic unit and therefore ought to be taxed, then will he say whether he is in favour of co-operatives in Canada paying income tax as do privately owned corporations?
I regret very much that the popular method in past Canadian history has been to use minorities, racial, religious or ethnical, as whipping boys; and I also submit that the House of Commons is not the proper place to deal with this matter. We can all make representations to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan); and he has had many representations from my area concerning this very section of the Income Tax Act. There are many religious organizations in Ontario and British Columbia who are very concerned at the operation of section 62 of the Income Tax Act, but the place to obtain equity in this regard is not on the floor of this House of Commons.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pursue
this question a little further. I have a similar grievance to the grievance raised last night by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Homer) with regard to Hutterites. Last night he dealt more with the legal aspects in the cause of his grievance.
I would like at this time to give the house a short resume of the background of this group called Hutterites. Before I do so I would also like to refer the house to three statements that the hon. member for Acadia made last night, and I would like to preface my talk by reading these statements. He was referring to the Hutterites when he said, as reported on page 2335 of Hansard:
My main objection is that they are receiving a definite advantage over all other farmers in western Canada.
On the next page he is reported as saying, and I would ask the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) to listen to this:
Certainly I have no objection whatsoever to their religious beliefs. I feel strongly that anybody

should be able to worship according to his beliefs, but certainly their farming should not be considered as part of their religion.
Then on page 2338 he is reported as making this statement:
-I might point out to those who are afraid that I might be going out to tax every religious corporation. I have no such thought in mind-
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said something about discrimination and equal treatment. My interpretation of what the hon. member for Acadia said last night is that that is just what he wanted, so both hon. members must be in agreement. The hon. member also asked the hon. member for Acadia if he was in favour of taxing cooperatives. As I understand the act, cooperatives are taxed when they pay dividends. Is that not right?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I gathered from what the
hon. member for Acadia said last night he only wanted the Department of National Revenue to treat this group of Hutterites in the same manner as all other Canadians are being treated. That is all we are asking.
Some of the questions that some hon. members might ask are these. Who are the Hutterites in the first place? Why are they different from other residents of Canada? Are they really a social problem, and should they be given what appears to be preferred treatment in regard to taxation? Last night, as reported at page 2339 of yesterday's Hansard, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, said:
I regret very deeply this most unwarranted attack on one of the most harmless minorities, if not the most harmless one that exists in Canada.
I believe it was not an attack on the Hutterites but rather an attack on the interpretation the Department of National Revenue makes of the act. I believe that was the sole purpose in the hon. member raising this grievance.
With respect to the group the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam represents, it is always very difficult for some of us to understand what they mean. They claim to be socialists, but does socialism mean special treatment or privileges for a selected few who have their blessing-because that is what the hon. member seemed to be supporting a few moments ago-or does it mean equality for all? It is the latter that the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) wants, and that is what most Canadians want. It is extremely difficult to understand the philosophy of the group of eight in the far corner of the house.


Mr. Regnier:: They do not understand their
own philosophy.
79951-0-149
23. 1960	2361
Non-payment of Income Tax by Hutterites


John (Jack) McIntosh: They are certainly making it very difficult for a lot of others to understand it, too.
The Hutterite group to which we have been referring was founded in 1526 in Switzerland. They were a group of Swiss pacifists. The Hutterite communities are the oldest communistic societies in the world. They actually practice communal living, a life of non-conformity to the rest of the world. They say they are not citizens of any country and those we are talking about claim not to be citizens of Canada.
In the late 1700's they migrated to Russia and to other eastern German states. In that same year Catherine the Great of Russia granted them, as immigrants, military exemption, freedom to control their own schools and exemption from taxation for only three years. They remained in Russia at that period for about one hundred years and became immensely wealthy. In 1870 Alexander II withdrew the privilege of military exemption from them. This caused uneasiness amongst them and in 1873 a delegation was sent to the United States to investigate the prospects of their moving to a new home in that country.
President Grant, who was president of the United States at that time, assured them they would be most welcome but that they would not be considered as a privileged group. There would be no exemption from military service and no tax concessions as far as President Grant was concerned. In spite of this they decided to move and came to North America in 1875. In 1898 the Spanish-American war loomed as a threat to their pacifist ideas and in addition public feeling started to rise against them in the United States at that time. It became very acute.
They sent a delegation to Canada to investigate the prospects of moving the colonies to this country and particularly to western Canada. The Canadian government encouraged that move. An agreement was reached under which the Hutterites by order in council were granted special privileges. In the spring of 1899 one colony only moved from the United States to southern Manitoba.
The Spanish-American war came to an end in that year and so the other colonies decided to remain in the United States. In 1905 the colony that had moved to Manitoba returned to the United States and thus there were no Hutterites in Canada from 1905 until about 1917.
World war I showed how unpopular their pacifist ideas were in the United States at that time. In 1917 the selective service act of the United States and the draft acts were enacted. The Hutterites with the pacifist
2362	HOUSE OF
Non-payment of Income Tax by Hutterites concepts refused military service. As a consequence the leaders of the Hutterites again contacted the Canadian authorities. The Hon.
J.	A. Calder, minister of colonization and immigration at that time, gave them the assurance that if the Hutterites came to Canada they would be exempt from military service and would be granted special rights which would allow them freedom to continue their communal way of life. They were granted the right for holding property in common. Although this was under provincial jurisdiction the arrangements were made through federal agencies.
In 1918 the colonies emigrated from South Dakota to Montana and Alberta. At that time large protest meetings were held in Winnipeg, one of which was attended by 35,000 people. The people protested against the granting of preferred treatment to certain groups. As a result of those meetings the order in council to which I referred was rescinded.
There were 12 original groups which settled in Alberta in 1918. There are now established in Alberta 55 colonies and 10 additional colonies in Saskatchewan. The first colony entered Saskatchewan in 1952, only eight years ago. Since that time, 8 colonies have been established in my own constituency, some of these touching boundary to boundary. Four of them are located within an area of 30 miles.
As the hon. member for Acadia said last evening, the Hutterites live frugally and avoid everything that is in the nature of luxury. All of the profits from farming or ranching operations belong to the colony or the head of the colony. All surplus funds are used for one purpose only and that is to buy more land. When the population of any settlement increases beyond 100, or a unit as they call it, they consider dividing the establishment into a new colony. This process of swarming, as we describe it, and the process of buying up more land are processes of increasing concern to many young farmers in western Canada, and particularly those that neighbour the colony. The predominant factor in all land deals, as the hon. member for Acadia said last evening, is their ability to pay cash for large tracts of land which, as everyone knows, eliminates most other competitors.
I believe that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock) will tell us from past experience that the tracts of land they buy up are usually located in the vicinity of lakes and rivers. In other words, it is usually the best land in our constituencies. The per capita wealth of the residents of the colonies in my constituency alone averages over $3,000 in real estate, to say nothing of other assets.


The colonies are completely lacking in what are considered to be in the outside world intellectual or cultural developments. No books are allowed in the colonies other than those dealing with their own ideas. No musical instruments, radio or television sets are allowed in the colonies. The elders do not even allow trees, flowers or shrubs to be planted around the communal huts in which they live.
In the early 1940's the pacifist Hutterites were buying up land which many residents in the area felt should be reserved for returned veterans. The protest in this respect was led by the Canadian Legion. I hope the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I question whether the hon. member is on the point of the grievance which was taken by the hon. member for Acadia. It seems to me he is dealing with the question of Hutterites generally. Actually it is not an extensive grievance but relates only to the application of the Income Tax Act to these farming communities.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, the grievance raised by the hon. member for Acadia was the same one I had intended to raise except that my intention was to deal with it on a somewhat broader basis. Am I out of order in pursuing that line?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must keep within the grievance as raised.


John (Jack) McIntosh: From what I have already said, it can be seen that there are many problems in relation to Hutterite communities and their habits. I will admit most of these problems are provincial ones but I do suggest that if the federal government is interested in making these people good citizens of our country-a consideration which seemed to win the approval of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam-it is time they were treated as are all other citizens. In our opinion they are not entitled to exemption from taxation under the Income Tax Act. They can in no way be considered as members of a charitable institution. They are conducting a business or industry in direct competition to the citizens of our country but are exempt from contributing their share to the federal treasury. On the other hand, they are never reluctant to receive any of the benefits from the federal treasury. As the hon. member for Acadia told us, they accept the family allowance. We believe they should be subject to income tax laws the same as any other farmer or corporation.
We do not ask that any special privileges be granted them. We want them to be treated the same way as other Canadians are treated and we want them to be made good citizens.


Mr. Peiers:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he suggesting that this type of tax be applied to other religious organizations which have the same type of exemptions for similar reasons?


John (Jack) McIntosh: By other religious organizations, I take it the hon. member is referring to the churches, which have a division of property. There are certain buildings-and this deals mostly with municipal taxation- and certain portions of church holdings which are taxed, and other parts of the churches, and so on, are not taxed. We would be quite agreeable to the government looking on the Hutterites in the same manner. They do not. They say they are farming under the guise of charitable institutions and that is wrong, because there is no charity, as far as they are concerned, with the outside world.


William Arnold Peters: May I refer to one specific instance? Would this not come in the same category as the monastery at Oka?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Arnold Peters: Why not?


Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to identify myself with the problem that exists in Alberta and to support the grievance raised by my hon. friend from Acadia. This is indeed a great and serious problem in southern Alberta, and I feel quite qualified to speak on this subject because the first colony that came to Alberta came and settled in my home town, as a matter of fact, at my birthplace, and I have lived with them ever since.
I may say for the benefit of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) that we have only the friendliest relationship with our neighbours, the Hutterites.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring before this house not a repetition of what has been said but rather to point out the effect on the small communities in southern Alberta of this problem. When I say "small communities in southern Alberta" I mean just exactly that, small communities such as my home town, of 500 people, roughly, in an area of 14 or 15 square miles.
Let me take you back to the map of southern Alberta of 15 years ago and point out the number of colonies in that part of the province. You can see the concentration of colonies which existed on five or six thousand acres of the very finest land in Alberta, if not in Canada. I emphasize that this group of colonies is concentrated on these five or six thousand acres of the best land in Canada. It is certainly a rich piece of property.
Around my particular part of the province there were 27 such colonies prior to the 79951-0-1494
Non-payment of Income Tax by Hutterites legislation being passed by the Alberta government. If you look at the map today you will see the rest of the province dotted with these same colonies at 40-mile intervals. This is what some people call a restriction. I do not like to refer to it as a restriction; I think rather it is a zoning. We are all subject to a certain amount of zoning whenever we start a business or even want to build a house. We must get permission to build it to certain specifications and in certain areas.
Hon. members can well imagine-and I refer particularly to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam-who would be prejudiced or who would be damaged if we go back for a moment and look at that map of 15 years ago and just imagine what would have happened in the very best corner of Alberta had the zoning not been there. I ask the hon. member what his idea would be as to who was being stepped on and who was being prejudiced or who was having trouble over this thing?
In support of the grievance of the hon. member for Acadia I have tried to point out there is no prejudice against those people. I have pointed out that I lived my whole life in southern Alberta beside those people and actually consider them good neighbours. The fact that they do not have to pay income tax is naturally a benefit to them. I do not envy them, not at all; I do not think any of us envies those people, or the fact they do not have to pay income tax.
While I am on my feet I should like to answer the question raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. He said they do not want anyone to defend them. I would ask the hon. member to find out how much money they have spent by way of fees to lawyers to defend them on this very thing?
It is not my wish to take up any more time of the house on this matter but I should like to put on record the feelings of those of us who have lived with those people all of those years and the feelings of our communities. We feel that actually our communities must be protected. In my part of Alberta it has come to the point where our small communities must be protected. I think the grievance which has been raised is possibly one way in which they can be protected, because it does limit to some extent the chance of those colonies to purchase new land. I can give an instance. Right beside me I have a colony and a neighbour who has three quarters of a million dollars waiting to buy new land if something happens to those zoning laws or restrictions, as some people like to call them.

Non-payment of Income Tax by Hutterites
Hon. members will recall that last year I raised this subject but I was not permitted to finish my speech owing to the fact that we had come to the end of the time for the debate on the budget and a vote had to be taken. I had a letter handed to me by a representative of the Ottawa Citizen here in Ottawa from Mike Hofer, one of the leaders of the colony close to me at home, my neighbour in other words. This letter was handed to me, as I say, and I answered Mike. I will quote the letter, Mr. Speaker. I want the hon. member for Burnaby-Co-quitlam fully to understand that we get along very nicely, and we certainly are not prejudiced toward them. This is the letter that I sent to the leader of the colony:
Dear Mike:-
Please note.
Dear Mike:
The representative of the Ottawa Citizen has handed me your letter of April 24 in which you request a copy of my speech in the House of Commons. The reason it was not published is that it was interrupted for a vote on the budget debate and for the same reason it cannot be publicized at home as you will note by the "personal and confidential" heading.
You will note the part of the speech pertaining to the Hutterian brethren is essentially the same as the representation I made on behalf of the people in the south at the hearing in Lethbridge, and also as we have been associated through the years and have discussed this matter at various times, I think you understand fully that I have no complaint with your people or beliefs and do not advocate any special integration, education or any other restraint on your civil liberties. The only thing I am concerned with is the competition that the Hutterian brethren present to the small communities in the way of acquisition of land, and I sincerely believe that some regulation or zoning if you like such as we have at present, establishing new colonies a certain distance from old ones, is perhaps not ideal for you people, but it does allow the small communities in southern Alberta to survive as communities, and preserve their heritage.
Please give my best regards to the others, and I will be looking forward to seeing you on my return.
The representation that I referred to, that I made in Lethbridge, was made on behalf of the people in my community, not as a member of parliament. I would also like to put on the record at this time-


Mr. Speaker:: I raise the question of relevancy, that any representation the hon. member may have made with respect to holding of land is not in issue. We are dealing here only with matters of federal jurisdiction which, in this case, is income tax, and not the laws of the province which relate to the holding of land.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I claim that it does relate to a certain extent to the grievance I raised. I looked up the definition of "charity" in two places, as I said, and one

of the four main principles of a charity is its ultimate effect upon the community. I quoted Mr. Justice Rand's statement which he concluded with the words, "directly or indirectly, their reflex on public welfare". That is one of the main principles of the definition of the word "charity". In addition, as found in the English law dictionary in the library the fourth principle in the definition is "other purposes beneficial to the community". On these grounds I think that the hon. member's reference to the effects upon his local community definitely should be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member is not referring to his own speech but is speaking to the point of order I have raised. We have no jurisdiction here to debate matters within provincial powers, particularly the holding of land. I think it would not be right to pursue in this debate the question of the holding of land by Hutterites under provincial law except in so far as it has been done incidentally in dealing with the effect of the absence of income tax.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, I think there is probably a point of relevancy indirectly at least, and what I have to say is very short.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but I cannot agree with the hon. member. I do not want to restrict him from any proper discussion of the grievance which has been raised but during this period there are a number of hon. members who wish to raise grievances and it is not fair to them to extend the discussion beyond what the rules of the house permit.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I-


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


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling but I still think there is a point here that is financial and certainly anything that is financial must refer directly to the subject under discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will say that what he wishes to say is related to income tax he should say it. Perhaps I am not doing him justice at the moment.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, I was only trying to point out that it is related to this problem in that the people in the Hutterite colonies build up these cash reserves and undoubtedly that has to do with the grievance that the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) has raised. I think this is directly concerned with the financial aspect from the point of view of the communities in which they live. I will go through this very quickly.



I960

[Stage Direction]
You only have to imagine for a moment to picture what the map would look like today if our legislature had not acted when they did.
I go on to point out the following:
Gentlemen, I need not point out the differences of the contribution to community life. You have heard this. Do you find a Charlie Hayes, an Otto Cronk-hite, Leonard Halmrast, a Ted Hinman originating from a colony?
No.
A school superintendent, a mayor, a civil defence leader or participant, a neighbour unselfishly minding his neighbour's family, seeding or cutting his crop in times of stress, people spending, often donating what amounts to years of a lifetime toward community and public welfare? Minding our own affairs as a prominent clergyman here in the city pointed out from the pulpit, the affairs of God and man, minding the affairs of our neighbours, our community, our province and our nation. If we all stayed at home giving no time to our various communities, hoarding our money, contributing none of our children to the welfare of our country, sacrificing to educate doctors, teachers, merchants, etc., we could also amass fortunes and great tracts of land, having room for all our sons and daughters-
I should like to emphasize the word "all" because a good many of us in this chamber know far too well that many never returned or came back to us broken in body and spirit.
Will you ask us to resort to that kind of life to preserve the heritage of this land or will you-
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have allowed the hon. member to proceed but only on the understanding that he would come to something relevant to the income tax issue. Unless he has something to contribute to that point, I suggest that he terminate his remarks.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wonder whether I might have a moment to answer some of the questions.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has already spoken in this debate.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to add a few footnotes to what has already been said on the Hutterite question. I think that this entire problem as raised in the grievance hinges on the question of the Hutterites paying income tax.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the hon. member will not get very far with his contribution to this debate. The time is now 4.28 which is the time for the termination of this debate under the rules. It is my duty to interrupt the debate and put forthwith the question on the motion.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:
Canada Elections Act



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
66. Departmental administration, $8,323,356.
department of national defence
217. Departmental administration, $3,212,477.

[Stage Direction]
304. Departmental administration including Canada's share of the upkeep of the international bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $1,926,670.
Proceedings reported.


Léon Balcer: That the standing committee on privileges and elections be empowered to study the Canada Elections Act and the report and evidence of the standing committee on privileges and elections 1959, and to report to the house such proposals as the committee may deem it to be advisable.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one or two comments before the motion is put. As is indicated in the motion, similar action was taken during last session but unfortunately because of time limitations the committee was not able to complete its work or even to enter into it to any degree. Consequently I hope that the committee will be able to make a more complete and thorough review of the act at this session. The Canada Elections Act deals with the election of members to the House of Commons and also deals with one of the fundamental and basic rights that have developed over the years, namely the right of every citizen to cast a ballot in an election and to vote for someone to represent him in the House of Commons.
There are a number of factors, unfortunately, which do prevent a great number of citizens in this nation from exercising their franchise on election day. Geographic and economic factors enter into this situation. Certain parts of Canada are affected to a greater degree than are others. People, because of the geography and because of the economy of the country, from time to time find it necessary to move temporarily from their place of residence to some other part of the country in order to work. This is true notably of loggers, fishermen, salesmen and lawyers, who often find it necessary, from time to time, to be away from home. This is true, also, of construction workers, miners and so on.
Unfortunately, because of the geography of the places in which these people work and the type of work that they do they often find that they are not residing on election

Canada Elections Act
day in the particular polling division or constituency within which they are registered and, consequently, do not have an opportunity to vote. I believe that the way in which this can be overcome to a great degree is lor the committee-I certainly hope it will give a fair amount of consideration and study to this particular question-to thoroughly study the question of the absentee ballot which allows the individual-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is now dealing more with what the committee will have before it than with the question of whether or not it is desirable to set up this committee and refer these items to it.


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I might deal with that point you have mentioned. It was my understanding that we could mention things which might properly be brought before the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: In general, it would be out of order to attempt to discuss the issues that would be before the committee.


Frank Howard: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I may say that this is one issue which might not be before the committee. Some of us hope it will be, but I submit this is something the house does not know because there is no provision in the election act for such a system now. It is my thought that since there is no provision in the act at present for absentee balloting it might properly be a subject for discussion here.


Mr. Speaker:: I raise the question of
whether or not it would be proper for two reasons: One is that by discussing something that cannot go before the committee under these terms of reference the hon. member is. in effect, discussing something which could not be the subject of an amendment to this motion and is therefore not relevant to this debate. An amendment cannot enlarge the scope of the reference in principle or to any degree. If an amendment to refer the matter which the hon. member is discussing could not be moved at this time, then it is not in order for him to suggest that the committee should have this matter referred to it.
I do not want to be unduly restrictive because I think it is in order to say that the scope of this inquiry might be broader and to mention other subjects. However, to discuss the merits of these subjects seems to be going beyond what is permissible.
The other point is, if I am not mistaken, that there is on the order paper an amendment to the act relating to this subject?


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Speaker; that particular public bill, which I incidentally introduced in past sessions, was withheld during this session, so it is not on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may just finish this interruption, then, which I regret having to make, I may say that I think the scope of the motion would permit the hon. member to say that there are other matters which might properly be referred to the committee, but not to discuss the merits or the methods of achieving these other results.


Frank Howard: I certainly do not want to run afoul of your rulings in any way. However, I think I might say in passing that we had a rather extensive debate a few days ago with respect to the establishment of a joint committee on Indian affairs. During this debate we went extensively into a number of questions confronting Indians, and we went into detail about things with which we hoped the committee might deal when it met. This is the line I was trying to follow when I was suggesting that, inasmuch as we do not know whether or not the committee will deal with the question of absentee balloting or the institution of a system which would allow people to vote who are now denied that right for geographic or economic reasons, it might be proper to express the hope that the committee would deal with it. However, I will not go into any of the details except to say that I hope the committee will deal with this all-important question of absentee balloting.
At the risk of giving you a bit more exercise in rising to make a comment, may I also express my sincere regret that there was not included in the motion some reference to the extremely important question of redistribution. I believe this matter should be dealt with as early as possible, again because of the time element with respect to the census which will probably be completed in the first few months of 1962. If this is the case, then it is safe to assume that that will prevent parliament from dealing with the situations which arise as a result of that census in time for the expected 1962 election, if we follow the four-year period. This matter should be dealt with in order that the 1962 election could be conducted on the basis of up to date redistribution rather than a redistribution that is 10 years old.
I do not believe this is within the scope of the motion, so I had better not run the risk of being told I am out of order. I hope I can express the thought that this subject should have been referred to this committee. I feel it is something we should face up to

as soon as possible, otherwise we will be conducting the 1962 election upon the basis of 1951 statistics which will be completely distorted. Then it will take four or five years more before we can get back to the true situation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Harris Hees: That a sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government, be appointed to consider the accounts, estimates and bills relating to the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys; and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time; and that, notwithstanding standing order 67 in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee shall consist of Messrs. Badanai, Bourbonnais, Brassard (Lapointe), Broome, Campeau, Carter, Chevrier, Chown, Creaghan, Drysdale, Fisher, Fraser, Granger, Grills, Horner (Jasper-Edson), Kennedy, Martini, McPhillips, Mc-William, Mitchell, Monteith (Verdun), Pascoe, Robinson, Rowe, Smallwood, Smith (Simcoe North).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the usual motion to appoint a sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government. As the house knows, the committee is for the purpose of considering the affairs of the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines. If the motion meets with the approval of the house, the annual reports dealing with the two companies will be referred to the committee, together with the items of estimates that are to be reviewed by the committee.
The reports will be ready for tabling tomorrow, and it is planned to have the committee start its sittings on Tuesday, March 29, with the consideration of the reports concerning the Canadian National Railways as the first business.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think those of us who are familiar with the resolution which comes up annually for consideration and with the manner in which it is dealt with from time to time may perhaps be disappointed in the minister's statement wh'ch was short. In view of the present position of the three government-owned entities it seems to me that the minister might well have taken this opportunity to make a more elaborate statement of the situation, at least in so far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned, to say nothing of Trans-Canada
Railways and Shipping Committee Air Lines. However, beyond making the reflection I have made, I say no more about the matter. I suppose the minister himself is the one who determines what, if any, statement he desires to make.
However, the presentation of this motion enables those of us who sit on this side of the house to give consideration for a moment to the three groups of facilities that are owned and operated by the government and to make certain comments thereon. Obviously it will be at the committee stage when members will have an opportunity of interviewing the various officers of these crown-owned corporations, and to comment and to ask for explanations on the reports as they will be considered from time to time. I do not intend to speak at any length but I want to make some remarks- on the three groups mentioned in the motion for the establishment of this committee, namely the Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships.
I want first to say something about the Canadian National Railways and to draw the attention of this house to a rather amazing speech made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) dealing with railway facilities, and more particularly with an aspect which falls under the jurisdiction of this motion. The speech was made on "The Nation's Business" on February 19, 1960 and I hold a copy of it in my hand. At page 2 of the transcript which I have the minister stated the following:
Generally speaking. In the last fifty years, there has not been any new railroad building by government, with the exception of the railway to Churchill and the P.G.E. The provincial governments were busy building roads to meet the needs of the people who lived in their provinces. Therefore, the forward motion of our economic expansion had ceased, and the country was settling down to a consolidating in areas where people lived.
Coming from a minister of the crown this statement, in my opinion, is not only an amazing one but one which is not according to the fact. I will not force the rules of the house by using other expressions. But certainly any member who has sat in this house over a period of years knows full well that there has been substantial building of railway lines or in other words a substantial amount of railroad building over a period of years; and I intend to place on the record what was done in that respect. The Canadian National Railways within a period of 10 years, I believe, built close to some 700 miles of railway lines.
It seems to me that those who make statements of this kind should know what the facts are or, if they do not know, they

Railways and Shipping Committee should not be making statements of this character. What I say now is that I believe it is timely to put on the record the construction initiated by the Canadian National Railways while the Liberal government was in office. I am going to mention eight projects which show clearly that the Canadian National Railways, while we were in office, were not inactive in so far as government railroad building is concerned.
There was first the branch line from Barraute to Kiask Falls or Beattyville, 55 miles of road authorized by parliament in 1946. Next, there was the Sherridon-Lynn Lake branch line in Manitoba, 155 miles in length, authorized by parliament in 1951. Third, there was the line between Terrace and Kitimat, British Columbia, 46 miles in length, authorized by parliament in 1952. Fourth, there were two more lines authorized by parliament in 1954, namely the line between Hillsport and Manitouwadge lake in northern Ontario, 27 miles in length; and the line joining Beattyville, Chibougamau and St. Felicien, 294 miles in length. Fifth, there was a line from Bartibog to Tomogonops river in New Brunswick, 22 miles in length, and authorized by parliament in 1956. Then there were two other projects initiated under the Liberal government in 1957, although approved only at the 1957-58 session of parliament. These were, first, the line from Optic lake to Chisel lake, 52 miles in length and from Sipiwesk to the Burntwood river, 30 miles in length.
I want to point out that this railway building amounted to exactly 681 miles of branch line undertaken by the Canadian National Railways; and in every instance I have mentioned-the eight projects to which I have referred-these lines were built in order to develop national resources in this country, about which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources should have known, and also built for further development in our country and expansion of the economy. Those were lines built by the Canadian National Railways only. I can, of course, deal only with those in this motion now before the house. As the house knows, other lines were built by companies other than the Canadian National Railways but it would not be proper for me to refer to them at this time. However, 1 hope that when the committee meets there will be an opportunity to inquire from the president of the Canadian National Railways and to obtain from him a statement as to the economic position of these lines and as well of the contribution which these lines are making to the economy of the country as well as to its development.


I have not had time, of course, to examine sufficiently the operations of the Canadian National Railways because, as the minister stated a moment ago, the report has not yet been tabled but will be tabled tomorrow or in the course of a day or two. Nevertheless, it has been possible for me, from other sources, to look at the operations of the Canadian National Railways and unfortunately they are not as good as one might expect them to be. The reports that have been published from month to month indicate that it is evident that the operating revenues for the year will be from $30 million to $40 million less than they were in the peak year of 1956. On the other hand, the operating expenses are going to be a good deal more. As a consequence the net operating income again this year will be insufficient to meet the full amount of the fixed charges.
I draw attention to this fact not for the purpose of being critical of the officers of the Canadian National Railways, for whom, as the house knows, I have the highest regard, but to draw attention to the difficulties and the problems, complex and complicated, that the railways of this country, let alone of the world, have to deal with. This is a problem which must be solved by the government. It is a problem which was brought to our attention when we were on the other side of the house by members of the then opposition. Because it is quite clear to us who have looked at all at this problem that the railways themselves are unable to deal with it; they must be assisted in some form or manner by the government.
Therefore, I do want to urge upon the government the need for early action, and I hope it is already giving consideration to the problem of what is likely to happen when the royal commission report is handed down. While I know that the government cannot anticipate what that report will be, still the government can be thinking now of what some of the problems and some of the solutions are likely to be when the report is handed down. The future of our railways is so closely bound up with the future of Canada that the government must explore every avenue in order to bring remedies and effective means to bear to solve some of the difficult problems facing the railways today.
I said a moment ago that the railways all over the world are in difficult circumstances. That applies perhaps more particularly to those in the United States and in the United Kingdom. We know what a terrific problem the United Kingdom railways face today, but in those two countries there is at least a

greater density of population which we in this country have not got, and that, of course, adds to our difficulties.
Perhaps the most difficult problem, to sum up the matter here at home, is, or appears at least on the face of it to be, insoluble, namely that the costs of operation are continually on the increase while revenues, on the other hand, are more and more limited and restricted. The railways, as the house knows, cannot raise their prices or, to be more exact, their rates, because they are subject to the board of transport commissioners, and because of that they are placed at some disadvantage.
Then again there is always the important problem of co-ordinating the rate with the traffic. It is not a good thing to charge a rate which is as high or higher than the traffic will bear. The increases in freight rates which have been granted from time to time by the board of transport commissioners on the face of them appear unquestionably to be enormous, and they are in fact unquestionably tremendous. But in many cases, as we know, particularly in the central parts of Canada, the whole of these increases cannot be put into effect because of other forms of transportation, other forms of competition, more particularly because of what are known as competitive rates which enter the picture and make it possible for the railways to compete with these other forms of transportation, which thereby deprives them of the full effect of the increases in the rates.
There are, of course, other problems facing the railways with which the minister is as familiar, if not more familiar, as I. There is the question of passenger lines operated at a loss, branch lines operated at a loss, and also the statutory grain rates now before the royal commission and about which I am precluded from speaking.
It may be that the total amount of freight on the railways has increased over the years. I believe the figures will indicate that. But there has not been an increase in the ton-miles of traffic, in other words, in the revenue ton-miles as expressed in rail terms, since the year 1944. This therefore means a loss, because you cannot remain static or at a standstill in an industry such as the railway industry. I agree at once that it is much easier to talk about these problems than to offer solutions to them. I know that because of the experience I had when I sat on the other side of the house.
However, there is now before the royal commission on transportation a number of important problems to which I trust the commission will find a solution. There has already been another royal commission on
Railways and Shipping Committee transportation some years ago, the Turgeon commission. An excellent report was brought in by the commissioner, Mr. Justice Turgeon, and most of the recommendations made in the field of transportation, not to speak of the particular field of railway matters, were implemented by the government of the day. It may well be that those recommendations, even though they were implemented, were not sufficient to meet the problem which is becoming more and more acute and more and more complicated, as I said earlier.
So that I hope, as I am sure most of us on this side of the house do, that it will be possible for the present royal commission to come up with solutions which will be of assistance to the railways. If they do I can assure the minister that they will receive the wholehearted support of those of us who sit on this side of the house.
I want also to take advantage of this motion to bring to the attention of the minister, the government, and more particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), certain statements which were made in 1957 during the election campaign. At that time very positive promises were given by the Prime Minister that the pension regulations for retired employees would be revised so as to remove existent inequities and anomalies in order to provide a fair and reasonable basic pension. The government has increased pensions to retired civil servants, and I suggest that if it was proper to give them increased pensions, it would be equally proper for the government to carry out the Prime Minister's promises to retired Canadian National Railways' employees.
In case the house has forgotten what some of those promises were, I would like to bring them to the attention of the minister. The Prime Minister spoke on May 4, 1957 at Moncton and Campbellton, and the following is a report in the Toronto Globe and Mail of May 6, 1957:
At both railway centres, the 62-year-old Conservative leader demanded that the C.N.R. should be a model employer. Pensions of $25 a month and less are being received by more than 3,000 retired C.N.R. employees, and many more are not getting enough to live on, he charged.
"How can the government ask other employers to give their men and women benefits when the crown corporations, for which the government is responsible, rewards its faithful employees with pensions like this?" he asked.
Later on at Campbellton on the same day, as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of May 6, 1957, the Prime Minister said:
Dealing with labour at his Campbellton meeting, he pledged a Conservative government to:-Revise pension regulations for retired railway employees to remove existent inequities and anomalies and to provide a fair and reasonable basic pension.

Railways and Shipping Committee
I ask the minister when he replies-or perhaps he may ask his parliamentary secretary to reply-to give us some indication as to what consideration the government is giving to these statements made by the Prime Minister. I am sure that when they were made they were made with sincerity but three years have gone by and I think the house is entitled to know what has been done during that time.
I should also like to bring to the attention of the minister a statement made by his colleague who is now the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) as reported at page 2126 of Hansard of March 12, 1957:
I should like to suggest that the Minister of Transport examine the present inequity of the pensions of employees who were laid off and subsequently rehired, this layoff and subsequent rehiring taking place within the last five or ten years of their service.
That is how one of the colleagues of the present Minister of Transport felt when he sat on this side of the house. How does the Minister of Transport feel with reference to this matter? Does he intend to give

I was almost going to say instructions but I think that would be going too far-does he intend to discuss the matter with his colleagues in the government and also with the officers of the Canadian National Railways with a view to increasing these pensions?
I should like to say a word about lay-offs on the C.N.R. and I am sure the minister will not take me to task in the same manner as he attempted to the other day when I posed a question to him about this. There have been, of course, a substantial number of layoffs in the C.N.R. within the last few months. It has not been possible to get much information on this subject from the minister. He has been evasive. He has avoided the question by asking me a question and of course that has not succeeded in solving very much.
I hold in my hand a press release dated February 10, 1960, which is issued by the Canadian brotherhood of railway transport and general workers and I will read just two paragraphs of it. The first reads:
Recent C.N.R. lay-offs were criticized as "arbitrary" and "possibly wasteful" here today by S. H. Eighteen, chief railway negotiator for the Canadian brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers. Mr. Eighteen made his remarks at a meeting of Brotherhood staff members from across Canada.
He referred particularly to the recent lay-off of upwards of 200 railway employees at Moncton, New Brunswick. "According to the information we have, this action was the result of arbitrary instructions from top management that budget allotments throughout the C.N.R. system be cut by 5 per cent. The lay-offs were not caused by any shortage of work", he said.

It is the second paragraph I should like to bring to the attention of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member who has the floor would satisfy my difficulty. I am wondering how he relates a discussion of lay-offs on the C.N.R. to the motion to set up the committee. I appreciate that on these motions to set up committees and refer broad issues to them there have in the past developed some very wide debates but according to the strict practice what is relevant in moving to set up a committee is the advisability of having the committee at all and of referring matters to it.
It has been laid down from time to time that if the rules are followed the house should not undertake to debate the matters it is referring to the committee in advance because this results in duplication. I realize that a certain amount of latitude is necessary to discuss a motion of this kind and on some occasions there have been very lengthy debates.
I raise the question not because I quarrel too much with the course the hon. member is taking but to protect myself in the event this debate seeks to broaden out into a discussion of all the affairs of the C.N.R., T.C.A. and other similar organizations.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you at once that there should not be a general debate which would be of an unending nature because the object of this motion is to discuss many of these matters in committee. I do think, however, there should be allowed enough scope so that a member might discuss a number of items dealing with the three crown corporations that are going to be scrutinized by the committee.
I had almost finished and what I proposed to do was read one other paragraph and then go on to deal with another aspect of the matter. I was going to deal in a general way with a statement that had been made relating to lay-offs on the C.N.R. It seemed to me that that was quite in order provided I did not proceed to take up the lay-offs in each district of the C.N.R. from one end of the country to the other. I should think that would be totally out of order. I was merely going to state the total number of lay-offs referred to in the press release and say I would ask questions on it in the committee, and then proceed to something else.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has recognized that this is a limited debate and I do not wish to stop him in the course he proposes to follow because I am sure he recognizes the requirement of relevance.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I speak to the point of order. I do not think there is any difference

between what I have in mind, what was said by the hon. member for Laurier and what Your Honour has said. I wanted to point out that the next item we are likely to be discussing will be the setting up of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization the motion for which reads:
That the standing committee on agriculture and colonization be empowered to examine and inquire into the delivery of grain by producers to feed mills operating in the designated area as defined by the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and to report to the house observations and proposals thereon.
I think Your Honour would agree that in discussing a motion of this nature one would have to discuss the general problems involved without going into specific details in order, as the hon. member for Laurier has now said, to determine whether or not the particular problem is worthy of the attention of the committee. With respect to the motion I have just read, I am sure the Minister of Agriculture would wish to spell out the problem and some of the rest of us would want to make remarks of a general nature avoiding specific details.


Mr. Speaker:: To conclude the matter I would ask the co-operation of the house in keeping these debates on motions to appoint committees within the appropriate limited bounds. I do not propose to be unduly restrictive but I suggest we follow the rules unless the house determines otherwise. If the house decides it wants a general debate, that is done by unanimous consent, and that is a different case. Otherwise, however, we will attempt to keep within the rules.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I take it that what you are trying to do is not to restrict the hon. member but to discourage him?


Mr. Speaker:: My apprehension is not so great about the hon. member who has the floor but I should not like to put myself in a position where I could not stop a debate that might go on for two or three days.


Lionel Chevrier: I realize your difficulties, sir, and will attempt to abide by your decision. I had almost concluded but would like to place on the record the pertinent paragraph in the press release to which I referred:
It was reported to the meeting-
That is, the brotherhood-
-that C.N.R. lay-offs in the first nine months of this year are estimated to number approximately 4,000. A report of the Moncton lay-off was given to the staff conference by Lloyd Abbott, CBRT and GW general chairman, and Ed. McAllister, brotherhood representative, both of Moncton. Mr. Abbott and Mr. McAllister stated that they had met with transport minister George Hees, and that he had promised to take the matter up with Donald Gordon, C.N.R. president.
Railways and Shipping Committee
I think my purpose in discussing this has now been achieved. I would think that the president of the Canadian National Railways should give some indication of what those lay-offs are and where they have taken place. I think the minister will also want to inform the house as to what has been the result of the representations made to Mr. Gordon, in accordance with the statement in this paragraph of the press release.
I now pass on to another matter concerning the Canadian National Railways. I have brought it up on another occasion and I think it is pertinent. I would like to remind the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) that in 1957 it was announced by the then minister of finance in his budget speech that a comprehensive inquiry was being undertaken into transportation conditions in the Atlantic provinces. We all know that a part of this inquiry was to be undertaken by the Canadian National Railways. Three years have now gone by since that time. Would it not be possible to obtain from the minister or from the Canadian National Railways a statement of what has been the result of that inquiry? I think those of us who sit on this side of the house would be entitled not only to know but would like to know what the inquiry resulted in, and I am sure the minister himself would want to take the initiative in telling the house what has transpired, and whether or not any recommendations were made by the Canadian National Railways to the government, and whether those recommendations were implemented.
One of the problems which was of concern to the Liberal government at the time, and still is to the Liberal opposition, is the coastal services of Newfoundland. What conclusions have been reached by the inquiry with regard to those services? Has the government considered all ways and means by which improved services can be given, and perhaps by which better services can be given at a lower cost? What is the government doing to provide additional facilities between Sydney and Port aux Basques? Is the government satisfied that the William Carson is sufficient not only to take care of the traffic that obtains today, but also the traffic that is likely to develop before an additional ferry can be provided? I hope when the committee meets we shall have an opportunity of going into this question.
Before I leave the matter of the operations of the Canadian National Railways I should like to commend the management of the railways for what they have done in this past year to bring about an increase in passenger traffic back to the railways. It is probably not
2372	HOUSE OF
Railways and Shipping Committee generally realized how much traffic the railways have lost. One must look at the statistics to realize the tremendous amount of competition that there is in this field not only from the air lines but from motor cars as well. The Canadian National Railways, the 22 railways that operate in this country, have been hard pressed to meet that competition.
It is interesting to recall that the number of passengers carried by the railways exceeded 50 million for the first time in 1920 and that, after dropping to 19 million in 1933, the total rose to a record level of 60 million passengers in 1944. But since that time, even during the years of prosperity which we have known, the number has dropped persistently and even discouragingly. In fact, in 1958 the number of passengers had dropped to only 21 million, the same level which existed in 1902.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see what the railways are trying to do in an attempt to recapture some of that traffic. They have introduced group fares; they have brought about reduced fares; they have carried on a campaign of advertising which I think has been responsible for restoring in large part the popularity of the railways for passenger traffic; but it is evident that much must be done if the railways are to compete successfully with the air lines, the buses and the highways. I hope it will be possible for the president of the Canadian National Railways to throw some light on this important problem during the course of the committee hearings.
I would like to say a word about the operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines. As I have pointed out on at least three occasions, two of them in this house, the present government has granted traffic rights between Montreal and Chicago to Air France and between Montreal and Chicago to Lufthansa, and therefore has enabled foreign competitors of Trans-Canada Air Lines to provide a direct service between Montreal and Chicago which Trans-Canada Air Lines is unable to offer because the Canadian government has not yet been successful in negotiating a bilateral agreement with the United States which would give Canadian air lines the right to operate a non-stop flight from Montreal to Chicago. I would hope that it would be possible during the committee sittings to obtain information in this respect, to ascertain from Trans-Canada Air Lines whether or not there has been a loss of business in consequence thereof. I should indeed be happy to find that Trans-Canada Air Lines has not lost business. I hope we shall have the opportunity of going into the matter in greater detail.


I would also hope that the committee would be able to see what has been the effect of permitting BOAC to terminate its transAtlantic flights at Malton instead of at Montreal. I think we should have the opportunity of determining what has been the effect of this concession upon the revenues of our own national air lines.
It would appear to me, from what I have already said, and I do not think I am in error, that this concession of granting additional onward rights to the British carrier in Toronto has been a concession which did not receive adequate rights from the other government in return. When we make concessions of this kind it is important that there should always be another exchange of a similar concession; otherwise, it may well be that there will be a reflection in a downward trend of revenues of our own air carriers.
We are naturally concerned with the success of Trans-Canada Air Lines; we are also concerned as taxpayers to make sure that its operations, because of government policy or for some other reason, do not result in a substantial deficit each year.
I pass on now to a discussion of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships. I should like to draw to the attention of the government-I am sorry certain hon. members are not in their seats-the attitude taken by these hon. members when they sat on this side of the house in so far as the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships are concerned. There has been, I have no hesitation in saying, a complete volte-face on the part of the present government in so far as the steamship services between the Federation of the West Indies and Canada are concerned. We know that very strong criticism was expressed in former years of the fact that the fate of the West Indies fleet was uncertain because the government of the day had not made it clear that they intended to carry on this service; and notwithstanding the fact that the government of the day was able to negotiate an extension of those services over a period of five years, it was very severely, vigorously and even bitterly denounced by certain hon. members who now sit on the other side of the house.
The government of the day was fully impressed with the need for services between Canada and the Caribbean and members of the opposition semed to share the government's view; in fact, they felt that the government was not going far enough. I should like to quote here the remarks of the

hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) made on March 12, 1957. As found at page 2124 of Hansard, he said:
When we get into the committee I hope we shall have not only the lull, complete and polite inquiry we have had in the past, but that we shall also have some strong aggressive leadership on behalf of the government with respect to the future of this very necessary fleet which is an important phase of our life on the east coast.
Is the fleet no longer an important phase of our life on the east coast? What has the member for Saint John-Albert to say now having regard to the statement he made in 1957? The fleet has been liquidated to all intents and purposes. Then there came to his rescue the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), then the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. He concurred fully in what the hon. member for Saint John-Albert had to say. I should like to quote what he said as found on page 2127 of Hansard for March 12, 1957:
Therefore I am again emphasizing the importance of strengthening and widening the Canadian National Steamships operating out of Atlantic ports. As the hon. member for Saint John-Albert said, the Caribbean and South America are great potential markets for agricultural and other products of eastern Canada.
Are the markets not there as they were before? What representations has the Minister of National Revenue made to his colleague, the Minister of Transport in respect of this liquidation? What do he and the other member intend to do?
Unfortunately the government has forgotten these brave words and now there is no longer a national service between Canada and the West Indies. All that we have left is an unpleasant recollection of the liquidation by the government of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships service. It has merely become an item in the balance sheet of a company that has little more left than corporate existence. I think perhaps I might well add here, and not with tongue in cheek, that the minister sold the Canadian National Steamships fleet to Batista and there are rumours in Montreal that the minister intends now to sell T.C.A. to Castro.
We on this side of the house will support the establishment of this committee. We think its establishment is a good thing. It will allow members of the house and the public at large to get a better idea of the operations of these three crown corporations. It will allow us also to get a reply to some of the questions that are uppermost in our minds and to others which I have put on the record unless, of course, the minister in his reply or his distinguished parliamentary
Railways and Shipping Committee secretary in his reply see fit to comment on these matters. We on this side of the house will support the motion.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arihur):: Mr. Speaker, it is only a few days ago that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees\ speaking in a debate on civic aviation that had some relevance to this motion, made a general comment that I suppose is rather close to his heart and sums up his feelings about his responsibilities as Minister of Transport. He said, as found at page 1855 of Hansard:
-I would simply say that private enterprise has built the Canadian economy and will continue to expand it. There is no place for the stultifying influence of socialist policies in this or any other industry in Canada-
The reason I mention this is partly that the minister is the head of the fastest growing department of the government. It is burgeoning all over the place. For a free enterpriser he has more civil servants lining up under him than anyone else. He also happens to be the minister responsible for these public enterprises, Canadian National, T.C.A. and so on, which can hardly be called private.
I have often wondered how in cabinet meeting the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) arrived at picking someone for this ministry who by his very statements seems so wrong for the job. He is a private enterpriser, a free enterpriser and proud of it but he is the one who is responsible for these public organizations. This is the reason why I lead off with some doubts about the career of these crown corporations when they are under the aegis of this particular minister. The fact that he also has more civil servants behind him than any other minister is an indication of the paradox in his position.
When I finally landed in the great big city of Toronto after coming from a small town in the bush and settled down in central Toronto I used to walk to school and pass a big factory called the George Hees factory. I also happened to see the minister playing football and I realized that he had a very prominent part to play in Toronto. I think that position and background explain the beliefs that he put on the record last week.
Because I am a small town boy from a C.N.R. family I have always had a great loyalty to Canadian National Railways. After all, it put the bread and butter in the mouths of the members of our family. From growing up in a C.N.R. town and now, in having four divisional points in my constituency I know there is a considerable amount of pride in the organization and a feeling that a public organization like the C.N.R. can do a good job and as good or better job than this imaginary private enterprise about which the minister talks.

Railways and Shipping Committee
Of course, when you talk to C.N.R. people you find that the railway could probably be doing a much more excellent job if it had not been created in order to bail out private enterprise. I think the minister will recognize that was the case if he goes back to the events that led to the creation of Canadian National Railways. It was the politicians' way at that time, the way of private enterprisers like the minister, to get a bunch of bond and debenture holders and shareholders out of a very difficult situation, and so the Canadian National was born. Now we have it under the responsibility, though not directly, of a minister who does not believe in this kind of enterprise at all and in a paradoxical way has already given an indication so far as T.C.A. is concerned.
At the present time Canadian National Railways also happens to be headed by a man who is supremely dedicated to free enterprise and the private enterprise approach. Last year when he was before the committee, toward the end of very long and weary proceedings-I am not ashamed of the fact that I took up a great deal of the time of the committee-I said to Mr. Gordon, as found at page 210 of the proceedings of the committee:
Several times during the two hearings the president has said that there are difficulties raised by his appearance before this committee. Have you any suggestions that you could make which would make the task easier for you and at the same time not inhibit or limit the parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Gordon came back with that blunt frankness of his and said:
That is a great temptation for me. With the greatest deference, I should be glad to express my views in regard to this committee's work.
That is the committee that is coming up. He said:
With great deference, and with no suggestion to restrict the rights of members of parliament-
I should like to interject here that sometimes I think, when I hear that phrase, "with great deference", that he has been listening to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). I have noticed that is a pel phrase of his.
-it seems to me in connection with my 10 years' experience, that more and more we are losing sight of the fact that the Canadian National Railways is a highly competitive organization, and its management should be designed along the lines of a private enterprise organization.
Here is the head of the Canadian National Railways calling for a private enterprise type of organization. Of course, the first thing that this brings into my mind, if you understand that the members of the committee represent the shareholders, is that I should like to see the directors at this meeting so

that we, the shareholders, can quiz the directors. After all, a private enterprise has its president, but it also has directors. This is one of the things I want to suggest in connection with this committee, that we not only have Mr. Gordon and all his employed experts, but we also have a look at these directors who are working in association with Mr. Gordon and with the minister to make the Canadian National Railways a going concern.
As a result of my experience in this committee I would say we certainly need to do something about getting a better look at Canadian National Railways. I should like to suggest also that in so far as members of parliament are concerned and in so far as Canadian National Railways is concerned, there is a conflict here between the C.N.R. as an enterprise and a member's responsibility to his constituency and to the employees of the Canadian National Railways. The Canadian National is not a private enterprise, even if it is in some kind of restricted and heavily regulated competition with the Canadian Pacific and other railways. It is a government corporation. I think this explains why Mr. Gordon finds the committee so frustrating and why a number of the members of the committee find Mr. Gordon so frustrating.
I want to make the point here that this year I hope the committee will do a better job, that is that it will stick more to policy and be less concerned about details such as whether a certain railway station needs a new urinal. Mr. Gordon also has to realize, and I think the minister can put it over to him, that the reason members of parliament nag about such questions as the effect of automation and the whole business of job security is that these are the bread and butter things that are brought to them.
I see the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) is in the house, I do not like to draw an example from his constituency, particularly, but perhaps he will forgive me in this particular case. On April 24 the Canadian National Railways will commence its springtime card. It has decided, in its wisdom, and I suppose in the interests of efficiency, that for the first time on western lines it is going to run its freight over two divisions. This is a revolutionary move. This is a consequence of the tremendous expenditure in central traffic control.


Mr. Benidickson:: Belleville is another place.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This has been in the cards, and will have disastrous effects, for example, in a small community by the name of Redditt in the north. In comparison these effects will be just as great as the difficulties at Elliot

Lake in connection with uranium. It may have just as drastic an effect on the community, considering the size and population, of Sioux Lookout as on Elliot Lake. It is certainly going to mean fewer train crews. I think in the long run what it is going to mean is freight moving over the line much faster, and cheaper, something we can all appreciate.
I do not want to read this particular letter I have here because I think some of the statements in it go too far. There have been quite a number of complaints from the unions in Sioux Lookout and other points. They are tremendously concerned over this shift. We have argued several times before the committee with Mr. Gordon as to why the Canadian National does not develop a policy well ahead of time and let the railroaders know where they stand in so far as job security is concerned and the future of their communities is concerned. I believe Mr. Gordon has a private enterprise approach because he argues that if you let the men know too far ahead of time it leads, first, to obstruction, encouraged or battened upon by politicians. One of the other things to which it leads is a concerted effort to block the move. The Canadian National has found it wiser, and I think this is a private enterprise way of thinking, to wait until they are ready to im-olement the change and then just push it through.
I insist that this is the wrong approach at this time in the 60's. It is wrong to go along to within a month or two months of the time and suddenly let a community know that this is it. I insist, too, that with the scope of the research organization Canadian National has there is no excuse for this kind of delay in letting communities, employees and unions know the facts on where they stand.
There are a number of items which I believe we should bring up before this committee in terms of general policy. I make no apology for the fact that they do not relate to the larger problem to which the hon. member for Laurier was referring before he got off into the 1957 election promises, who said what, and why and where. The hon. member was stressing the fact that the railway industry in Canada is in a very bad way; that we have a royal commission sitting, and that we need real leadership in order to resolve these problems. I should like to say that the points with which I should like to see the committee deal relate to the human problems of the communities, the workers, their unions, their organizations and their relationships with Canadian National Railways. We still do not know the scope of the retraining program that the Canadian National plans to carry out. I believe that
Railways and. Shipping Committee can be fairly said. We do not know what the unions and the railway are doing. I am not speaking as a union defender in this case. We do not know what changes have been negotiated in the union agreements or are being negotiated that would encourage retraining and a wider transfer of employees with long service from one union jurisdiction to another.
We have one example in my constituency of a man who has worked for 29 years as a machinist. He was laid off and no other job was available in Canadian National Railways. It seems to me that there is a failure in the whole union-management relationship when you find a situation like this.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That just cannot be justified, either.


Douglas Mason Fisher: One of the things I think we should have so far as the future is concerned, is a clear indication from Mr. Gordon as to whether or not he believes there is featherbedding on the Canadian National Railways. I think he needs to spell that out. If there is, I should like to know in what areas of the operations of Canadian National there is this featherbedding. I should like to know why the Canadian National has not produced studies to show the cost of featherbedding, if there is any. I think it is much less than a lot of rumours would indicate. I believe it is a problem that needs a great deal of understanding and sympathy, and also a very definite attempt to resolve.
I should like to know what the position of Mr. Gordon and the Canadian National is in so far as compulsory arbitration of wage disputes is concerned, especially as recommended to the government by the Canadian railway association. If the railway is in favour, what is the yardstick the Canadian National Railways wants to use for the determination of wages? What do they want the arbitrator to look at? Is it the white goods industry? Where are we going to get our pattern for the railway workers until we know the answers to these questions?
I think we need to know what the Canadian National Railways feels about this question of job security, severance pay, expenses for moving and shifting people as a result of the dislocation that has come with the advances the railways are making. It seems to me these are the questions on the human side about which Canadian National Railways should be much more concerned. Mr. Gordon, in his statement last year in the committee, when he was challenged to make suggestions, said:
The minute details which each member has gone into is a matter of interest, but they do not touch upon the question they should be interested in

Railways and Shipping Committee
and that is: Is the management of the C.N.R. an efficient management, or otherwise; and if you come to the conclusion it is not, for God's sake tell us and fire the lot of us. Take the general approach to it and let us work as a private enterprise corporation and manage it as such. Put us on the spot. Challenge us.
Again I suggest that Mr. Gordon's conception of private enterprise, if the C.N.R. may be considered to be a private enterprise, may be all due fact. But how can he seriously ask us to look at the Canadian National Railways as an efficient organization when built right into our transportation structure in Canada we have these continuing losses.
The Canadian National Railways in the foreseeable future, under the present setup, is never going to have a surplus. That is not a wild statement. Until it can be cleared out and other railways can be cleared out of its passenger operations, out of its branch line operations that are not making good, we are not going to get to the stage where we can look at the railways as a private enterprise operation. I think we could have a president every year and fire him every year and we would not get a balanced budget for the Canadian National Railways or any attractive kind of profit structure.
I suggest that one of the things the committee should be looking for from Mr. Gordon are his views on where the Canadian National Railways should go, or in what direction we should go, in the light of the drastic situation in which the railways find themselves. I think this putting up of the idea "Let us look at it as a private enterprise" is nonsense in relation to the situation the railways are in. But if we are going to accept this suggestion, since the majority members of the committee are followers of our free enterprise minister, it might not be a bad idea for them and Mr. Gordon to consider and to recommend abolishing the board of transport commissioners. Abolish all these regulations and let us have a dog fight. Let us get down to the basic question as to whether in a true private enterprise ethos, the railways can survive or how much of them will be left.
That is the choice the minister and the Conservative members have if they are logical in their private enterprise view. Let us put it up. Let us get rid of all these regulations that are hampering this mollycoddling of employees as some people seem to think. Let us get down to a real tough operation, a free enterprise operation. Then Mr. Gordon can be consistent with his approach.
I do not think we shall come to that point. I do not think it is the right approach. But we certainly need to get away from this conception of looking at the Canadian National


Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines as an image of a private organization. We are not going to get to grips in this committee with the big issue that is involved in railroading pointed out by the hon. member for Laurier, namely where is this government going with its transportation policy.
I really wish I could believe the minister when he talks about private enterprise and says that none of this monopoly, or vested interest is for him. If he really believes in that, I think he should act in that way and so should the government. This is the challenge. This is why many people voted for him. It certainly seems to me that at least it would be consistent to do so.
But what I am afraid is going to happen is that they are going to continue to muddle along with this halfway system, with no confidence in the public corporation; that the whole thing is going to go by default; that the mess is going to get greater and that we shall probably have another royal commission in another year or two. For that reason I certainly would support the hon. member for Laurier in looking forward to hearing from the minister right now on questions such as this or from the erstwhile parliamentary secretary.
One of the things that I wanted to touch on and which I think comes in logically here, although the Speaker may take some objection, is the question relating to the fleet that was sold and the role of Mr. Hal Banks of the S.I.U. in the causes of such sale. One year, when before our parliamentary committee Mr. Gordon, the president of the Canadian National Railways, admitted that he was to some degree responsible for bringing Mr. Banks to Canada. I think it was Mr. Gordon and the Liberal government who brought in Mr. Banks. Now that we have him, we are stuck with him. One of the things I want pointed out to this committee is just where Mr. Banks stands with regard to these government operations.


An hon. Member:: So do we.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Banks is the United
States head of the S.I.U. who was brought into Canada during the Liberal regime, I believe when Hon. Walter Harris was head of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. While the Liberals were in power I think Mr. Banks tended to look upon them as his Ottawa branch.
However, the fact remains that Mr. Banks is still operating in the transportation picture today. He is operating on the west coast. He is very lively on the lakes. He is forming rapprochements and alliances with the teamsters here and with the longshoremen there

in an attempt to extend his power. One of the things I hope this committee can find out from Mr. Gordon and from the people who represent the shipping interests who may be before us, is just what role Mr. Banks has played and is playing in gumming up the transportation picture in Canada today. I think he is probably doing a fairly good job.
I should like to suggest to the minister that one of the things he could do as a new broom-although the broom has been sweeping for a couple of years-is to look into this Banks matter again and see whether we could not do something about getting this particular American

and I may say I like and admire Americans-lifted somehow and transported somewhere so that we are not obliged to contend with him and his particular tactics.
We support the motion. We will look forward to a good crisp committee. I hope we may hear from the minister before six o'clock comes around. I thing we would welcome-I know our people here would do so-from him a statement of his views on private enterprise building the Canadian economy and their relation to an organization such as the Canadian National Railways.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


George Harris Hees: -my remarks will be very short because time is short and also the reason for setting up this committee is so that all members of the house who are interested in the matters which will come before the committee, will have a full opportunity over several days to question the presidents of Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines and their officials on all details concerning the operation of those two crown corporations.
I should like to comment briefly on one or two of the remarks that were made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). First of all, the hon. member for Laurier mentioned the question of C.N.R. pensions and referred particularly to speeches which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had made several years ago. I should like to assure the hon. member for Laurier and all members of this house that immediately we formed a government and I was appointed to this portfolio the Prime Minister asked me to get in touch with Mr. Gordon and to discuss with him right away the question of C.N.R. pensions in which the Prime Minister has
Railways and Shipping Committee taken a great interest over many years of association with railway workers. I discussed this matter with Mr. Gordon and I have done so on a number of occasions.
The Canadian National Railways has gone into this question very carefully and closely, and rather than state here the conclusions they have arrived at as a result of the great and very genuine interest of the Prime Minister in this matter, a desire on his part that something better can be done for the older employees of the C.N.R. Mr. Gordon will be able on Tuesday to answer questions from hon. members in detail and tell them the position of the C.N.R. with regard to this whole matter.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) also brought up the question of C.N.R. lay-offs. I would again like to assure the house that whenever hon. members bring the question of lay-offs on the C.N.R. to my attention I take those matters up personally with the management of the Canadian National Railways. I can assure all hon. members that in each case the lay-offs in question are gone into thoroughly and that every effort is made by the management to see that the men are kept on if possible. If it is absolutely impossible for them to be kept on because work for them no longer exists owing to technological improvements, and so on, those men are offered work, if it is available, in other branches of the railway. If it is not available, then they are re-employed as soon as possible.
I can assure all hon. members of the house that both the management of the C.N.R. and this government are very disturbed any time it is necessary to lay off even one man. We realize that this has an effect, not only on him, but also on his family. When a man loses his job it is a very serious thing, and not only does he lose employment but it also has a very demoralizing effect upon him, particularly if the lay-off is of any duration. I can assure hon. members that the management of the C.N.R. and this government will do everything possible to make it unnecessary for people to be laid off, but if it is absolutely necessary, we will do everything possible to get them into another job, or back on the job as soon as we can.
I would like now to refer very briefly to the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who discussed to quite an extent the merits of the free enterprise system as opposed to the system of socialism as applied to transportation. I think I can discuss this matter best by giving him an example of an experience I had while in the United Kingdom during this last fall.

Railways and Shipping Committee
I was in Glasgow, and was fortunate enough to attend the Glasgow industrial exhibition. Whilst there, those who were showing me round the exhibition were very anxious that I should see the railway exhibit, to see what improvements the nationalized railways of England were undertaking. As I was being shown these improvements-and these improvements were very worth while- I was told by the railway official who was showing them to me that they had been made necessary by the denationalization of the motor transport industry in England. This official told me that if the motor transport industry in England had not been denationalized, it would not have been necessary for the railway industry to make any improvements at all, because when the motor transport industry in England was nationalized, there was literally no competition, or certainly no competition of a worrisome nature, for the railways. However, as soon as the motor transport industry became denationalized by the Conservative government, then the motor transport industry began to give the nationalized railway industry very serious competition. These very worth while changes which I was shown by this railway official were, according to him, 100 per cent made necessary because of the competition given the railways by a revitalized, denationalized road transportation system then in existence in the United Kingdom. I think, Mr. Speaker-


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister permit a question?


George Harris Hees: Perhaps I might just finish.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Would the minister permit a question?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: If we accept the logic of the minister's story, and it is a good one, why does he not accept it and give us "deuces wild" competition?


George Harris Hees: The hon. member does not seem to realize that the situation regarding competition faced by the government owned railway in Canada is exactly the same as the very real competition being faced now, and only now, because of the denationalized road transport industry in England. That is one of the reasons the railways in Canada are making improvements daily, and they are doing a very fine job and I am proud to be associated in the way I am with the Canadian National Railways, because that railway is taking very forward steps in keeping itself up to date and is improving itself in every way possible day by day. One of the reasons, as I say, why that is going on is because
[Mr. Hees.l
of the competition which that railway and the railways of Canada are facing from the road transportation industry of this country. It is competition that is providing the Canadian people with better and better services daily in the air, on the water, on our highways and on our railways.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, would the minister comment before six o'clock arrives upon the questioning which was put to him by the hon. member for Port Arthur about terminals at Redditt, Sioux Lookout, Belleville and these other C.N.R. terminal points which are under concern? I know it is almost six o'clock but I think the minister has made no reference to the fact that when the national legislative committee of the international railway brotherhoods made their submission to the cabinet on February 2, I think more than half of their total brief was devoted to the application of section 182 of the Railway Act and present intentions of the C.N.R. and the government. I wonder if the minister will comment on that?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, obviously there is not time to do so because it is exactly six o'clock but if the hon. member is interested in these matters I am sure he is a member of the committee-


William Moore Benidickson: No, I am not.


George Harris Hees: That is unfortunate, but I am sure the hon. member for Laurier will do his questioning for him and bring him back a very good story on it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister permit me simply to point out a very important error in geography. He said that Glasgow was in England. I think he should be reminded that it is in Scotland.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the ultra-smart ex-minister to task. I said that I went to England last year and was fortunate to attend the exhibition. It is on the same island, as the hon. member knows.
I might add a couple more sentences and say that in dealing with the matter of unemployment the hon. member for Laurier would leave us with the idea that in his day the Liberal government did everything possible for the men laid off on the C.N.R. I have discussed this matter with men from all parts of the country employed on the C.N.R. and they are amazed that the hon. member for Laurier brings this matter up, because they assured me that he and his government in all the years they were in charge of the affairs of this country paid not the slightest attention to or seemed to care in any way for the unemployed on the C.N.R.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I cannot of course allow the minister to get away with a foolish statement such as that he has just made.


George Harris Hees: It happens to be true, that is all.


Lionel Chevrier: It is false.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Lionel Chevrier: I am speaking to a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member please state his question of privilege.


Lionel Chevrier: The question of privilege is this, that the minister stated that when I occupied the seat he occupies now I paid no attention to representations made to me by members or others in connection with layoffs on the Canadian National Railways. That statement is false.


George Harris Hees: That statement is not true.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister should not have made it. He should know that all the representations made to me by members of parliament or any others, were brought to the attention of the president of the C.N.R. That can easily be ascertained by my hon. friend through his asking the president of the C.N.R., and if he took the trouble to do that he would find out.


George Harris Hees: I have talked to railway men from coast to coast and that is what they told me.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish me to call it six o'clock?
Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the business is for tomorrow and Friday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the order of
business will be as follows: (1) interim supply; (2) supplementary estimates; (3) the resolution dealing with federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangements; (4) the motion in my name referring to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization and inquiry into the delivery of grain by producers to feed mills; (5) the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with the railway grade crossing fund; and (6) the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works concerning the Trans-Canada Highway Act.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it this will be the business for Friday if it is not completed on Thursday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If we make headway, of
course, tomorrow, we may add one or two things to the business on Friday. The house has made good progress today. Monday of next week will be private members' day.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What was the total subsidy paid by the federal government to Nova Scotia utilities on coal for power generation since the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act came into force?
2.	What amount was paid to each utility?
3.	What amount of rebate was paid to each industrial concern?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National
Resources):
1.	The total subsidy paid by the federal government to the province of Nova Scotia in respect to coal used for production of electricity, under the provisions of the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, for the period of December 1, 1957 to March 31, 1959 (the latest date for which complete figures are available) was $1,239,992.23.
2.	I am informed by the Nova Scotia Power Commission (the appointed agent for the government of Nova Scotia in these matters) that payments to each utility for the same period were:
Nova Scotia Power Commission, $487,435.17; Nova Scotia Light and Power Co. Ltd., $353,975.61; Canada Electric Co. Ltd., $178,430.61; Seaboard Power Corporation, $120,815.47; Eastern Light & Power Company, $40,078.30; Dominion Utilities Ltd., $378.50; Caledonia Power Company Limited, $5,625.34; Kentville Electric Commission, $1,845.39; Edison Electric Light and Power Company, $8,116.67.
3.	I am informed by the Nova Scotia Power Commission that the amount of rebate in the form of reduction in power bills paid to each industrial concern during the same period is as shown on the attached list.
Coal Subsidy Payments, Province of Nova Scotia December 31, 1957-March 31, 1959.
List of Rebates to Industrial Consumers
of Power
Name	Total
Acadia Fisheries Ltd	 $	272.60
Amherst Creamery Limited		2,146.53
Arcadia Fisheries	 4,734.00
Archibald, Douglas	 555.75
Arsenault, F. W	 23.31
Behie, Earl	 1.30
Bickerton Co-Op Society	 195.60
Bickerton Fisheries	 166.10
Blaikie Bros	 12.40
Blue Ribbon Co-Op	 5.10
Booth Fisheries	 1,031.40
Name	Total
Cecil L. Morris (bakery)	 $	33.11
Chapman Bros. Ltd	 27.15
Cumberland Co-Op Creamery Ltd.	196.22
Christie Trunk and Bag Co. Ltd.	384.56
Canadian Assemblies Ltd		491.97
Cumberland Fuel and
Trading Ltd	 4,895.28
C. Ernest Harrison	 542.97
Cumberland Railway and Coal
Co. Ltd	 115,418.95
Campbell Mines	 342.10
Cheticamp Fish Co-Op	 12.40
Chestico Corporation	 77.00
Crowe, D. H	 45.00
DeLuxe Ice Cream	 91.21
Dominion Manufacturing Co. Ltd.	48.60
Dean Evans Coal Mine	 507.40
Doucet, S. J. and Sons	 243.05
Dominion Coal Company Ltd. .	98,709.91
Dominion Iron and Steel
Company Ltd	 44,629.33
Elmac Company Limited	 1,655.96
Enamel and Heating
Products Ltd	 11,881.09
Four Star Collieries	 4,866.18
Glenford Morris (bakery)	46
Gypsum, Lime and Alabastine
Co. Ltd	 660.82
Greencorn Fish Plant	 216.65
Halifax Power and Pulp	 15,568.30
Hanright Foundry Co	 4.96
H. P. Tenannt Limited	 54.32
Harvey, A	 5.00
Joggins Coal Company Limited ..	15,030.72
Kerr, Merlin	 5.01
K.	P. Allen	 21.19
Little Narrows Gypsum Company	468.60
Macdonald Bros	 27.30
Mallagosh Salt Co	 6,682.03
Mosher Limestone	 4,122.50
Maritime Pant Mfg. Co. Ltd. ..	412.44
Margaree Steamship Co	 1,091.75
Matthew and Scott	 279.20
Meeds, Morley	 11.75
Musquodoboit Creamery	 100.65
MacDonald, J. M	 1.35
Nelson's Bakery	 21.11
News Sentinel Limited	 599.01
Old Sydney Collieries	 17,199.65
Park, Hugh	 616.26
Russell B. Amos	 73.35
Robb Engineering Works Ltd		7,194.79
Swift Canadian Company Limited	843.15
Sifto Salt Limited	 2,198.91
Sherman MacKay	 3.93
Sceles, Edgar	 13.60
Tingley's Granite Works Ltd		87.88
Torbay Canning	 169.30
Vans poultry farm	 364.50
Wagstaff and Hatfield Ltd	 14.85

Questions
Name	Total
Acadia Farms	 $	8.40
Acadia Foods Limited	 466.48
Alcorn, Bernard	 98.70
Allbon and Company Limited,
David	 54.43
Acme Print Service	42
Akin, Charles	70
Allen, A. W. and Son Ltd	 197.40
Amherst Food Plan	 230.58
Anna. Valley Canners	 115.54
Annapolis Valley Peat Moss Co.
Ltd	 49.56
Armdale Mfg. Co. Ltd	 26.43
Avon Valley Greenhouses Ltd. ...	278.67
Acadia Dairy	 299.04
Ahern Publishing Co	 2.63
Archibald Farms Limited	 2,095.48
Avon S. Artz	 5.11
Arctic Beverage Company	 11.17
Austin, Raymond	 7.05
Aylward, Victor	 11.38
Barton, Thomas	96
Beaver Fruit Co-op Ltd	 89.04
Ben's Limited	 2,385.60
Bowes, Mr. W. D	67
Brandrain-Henderson Limited ...	363.30
Brinton, Lester J	 65.28
Brinton, Joseph E	 73.71
Berwick, Town of	 1,443.70
Bonnyman Byers Limited	 175.00
Blenkhorn and Sons	 43.30
Blunden Supplies	 18.41
Brown, Robert W	 5.92
Burns Fisheries Limited	 348.01
Canada Cement Company	 157.50
Canada Dry Bottling Co. Ltd		470.54
Canada Packers Limited	 1,998.92
Canadian Gypsum Co. Ltd	 4,319.00
Canadian Industries Limited_____	117.39
Can. Liquid Air Company Ltd. ..	1,672.86
Canard Poultry Ltd	 131.01
Capitol Hi-Grade Beverage Co. ..	6.23
Wm. Collings and Sons	 25.24
Conrad Brothers	 17.01
Coughlan, James S	 143.85
Campbell, John	 7.70
Coca Cola Limited	 228.90
Construction Equipment	 2.07
Campbell, John A	 59.22
Clarke, Harry	 32.69
Colonial Fertilizer Company ....	312.20
Corkum, B. S	 11.48
Cornwallis Fruit Company		1.56
Cossor Canada Limited	 530.53
Countway, K. A	 5,88
Craft Print	 4.59
Croft, L. A	 4.10
Crossley, Gordon B	 6.23
Casey, Joseph	 2.03
Clark, Ralph	 10.40
Crowe's Chowmix Feeds	 17.50
Crouse, Frank E	 18.70
Name	Total
Cobequid Lumber Company ________ $	1,801.80
Conlew Limited	
Danker, Charles	
Dartmouth Iron Foundry	
Dartmouth Machine Co	
Davidson Bros	
Dominion Structural Steel	
Dartmouth Free Press Co	
Dunlop, Harold A	
Dartmouth Ready Mix	
Dicks, Cyril A	
Dimock, Mrs. Victor	
Dom. Molasses Co. Ltd	
Donahoe, J. Robert	
Dauphinee, A. R	
Dauphinee, H. M	
Day-Nite Neon Signs	
Dominion Building Materials Ltd.
Davidson, Ross	
Dominion Chair Company Limited
Donkin, H. S	
Eaton, J. C	
Eaton, Warren	
Ells, Laurie	
Eastern Photo Engravers ....
Ellis, C. V	!
Ells, Cyrus and Manning	
Ernst, Ralph	
Emery, Allen B	
Fairey Aviation Co. of Canada
Farmers Limited	
Fairview Indust. Eng. Ltd	
FitzRandolph, C. J	
Fancy Pastry Shop	
Fortier, T. H. H	
French Pastry	Co. Ltd	'
Fletcher, Lionel	
Fuller, Harlan P	
Fuller, Howard B	
Foley, R. S	*
Fraser, Fred W	
Fuller, John W	
Gates, Gordon	
Gates, Sylvanis	
Gilby, Allen	'
Gates, Granville	
Grant, Edward E	
Guildford Ltd	
Gates and Rand	
Gerrits, B	
Glendale Foods Limited	
Grand Pre Fruit Company	
Gehue's Granite Works	
Gates, Albert E	
Gordon Venetian Blinds Ltd. !!. !
Gordon Kenneth	
Gordons Poultry Limited	
Grant, George W	
Great Village Creamery	
Halifax Shipyards Limited	
Hale, Mrs. C. W	
Halifax Herald	
74.86
50.69 2.35
17.64
22.30
369.60
62.13
.35
8.21
33.22
.13
10.52
27.69 .84
69.42
9.80
38.86
28.25
23.45 1.10
45.36
1.47 14.77
114.05
76.76
1,055.44
32.55
.07
3,241.00
3,694.25
50.21
66.75
70.39
.70
69.05
5.04
3.47 .56
16.94
.63
33.81
52.89
7.18
5.81 28.28
9.31
34.69 26.60
2.42
113.40
163.10
32.24
5.07
23.38
213.15
27.34
17.26
24.45 18,494.00
56.11
2,429.70
Questions

Name	Total
Hall, Frank	 $	89.07
Hardwood Specialties Ltd	 19.53
Halifax Pattern Works	 6.72
Hiltz, Clayton	42
Hogan, T. and Co	 33.71
Howard Baking Limited	 5.22
Halcraft Printing Co	 30.24
Halifax Creameries Limited ....	1,363.88
Halifax Fisheries	 862.26
Halifax Glass Works	 3.24
Hants Co-op Services Ltd	 252.42
Hatt, Earl	49
Hawboldt Gas Engine Co	 31.68
Hume Bros. Woodworkers	 6.35
Habitant Pork Exchange	 1.54
Heffler Limited, G. Royce	 393.40
Hillside Growers Company
Limited	 5.46
Higgins, Osborne	 8.80
Hill, Chas. R	 39.15
Hicks, J. H. and Sons Ltd	 357.35
Hubley Sand and Gravel	 231.77
Hunter, H. B	 1-68
Imperial Oil Limited	 125,706.00
International Cooperage Co. Ltd...	16.84
Isenor, Laurie	 159.88
Jefferson, Howard	 1.65
Johanesik, D. E	 4.52
Jennings, Earl	 39.20
Jess, Russell	 62.66
Jordan Dairy	 79.21
Josey, Albert	 94.50
Johnston, L. J	 4.03
Jones, H. W	 74.41
Karl Karlsen Company Limited. .	6.23
Keizer, Leslie	 17.27
Kent Foods Limited	 188.06
Keith and Son	 2,559.20
Kenny, William J	 22.86
Keddy, Colin monument works ..	26.02
Kent, Borden P. Ltd	 2.03
Kennedy, Clarence	70
K. and I. Lantz	39
Lanigan Lumber Co	 111.72
Liquid Carbonic Can. Corp		1,088.85
Lantz, Asaph	 1.95
LaPierre, Seymour	 3.43
Lone Pine Farm	 85.33
Loomer, H. L. Estate	 119.07
Lorensen Pottery, The	 44.94
Loomer Greenhouses Limited, H.	51.03
Lively, Irvin G	 8.19
Lowe, Edward	35
Lutz, Morton	 14.04
Macllreith, W. R	 4.59
MacLeod, R. H	   .95
Minas Woodworkers	 118.02
Monitor office	 114.10
MacBurnie Brothers	32
Magnet Cove Barium Corp		22,471.02
Moirs Limited	   2,826.64
McKenzie, J. D	 140.99
Name	Total
Mar. Canvas Converters Limited	12.64
Meek, Eric	 11.13
Morrison Sons, Henry	 7.81
Morton Farms Ltd	 104.09
McCurdy Printing Co. Ltd	 140.81
McKenzie, J. D. Creamery ....	183.30
MacNab Print	 25.38
Magnet Cove Barium Corp		2,821.00
Maple Leaf Purity Mills	 24.78
Marine Electric Ltd	47
Maritime Paper Products	 455.28
Maritime Photo Engravers	 15.19
Marriotts Cove Yacht Builders ..	.49
Millview Woodworking	 1.05
Minas Basin Pulp and Power Co. 17,395.00
Morris Beverages	 43.79
Morse, J. E. and Co	 40.95
Mullen, Lester D	68
McCurdy Enterprises	 8.19
McGuinness Maritime Distillers	972.65
McKenzie Milk Products	 64.65
MacPherson, Robert	 16.55
Maple Leaf Dairy Limited ....	1,413.00
Marden Wild Can. Ltd	 11.90
Maritime Sand and Gravel Co.
Ltd	 957.60
Middleton Outlook	 32.87
Mills, Reg	 55.97
Municipal Spraying and Contracting	 1,762.60
Murphy, J. and M. Ltd	 81.13
National Fish Co. Ltd	 1,765.40
National Sea Prod. (Fasterfat
Div.)	 1,915.90
Nat. Sea Prod. 40 Fathom Div. ..	375.20
Nelson Bros, welding	 11.25
Nova Scotia home for coloured
children	 95.76
National Gypsum Limited	 6,468.00
National Gypsum (Canada) Ltd. 3,104.50
Nova Scotia Ice Co. Ltd		6,121.50
Newcombe, Robert	 55.37
Nixon Granite Works	 63.04
N.S. Truck Body Building		2.59
Newman, Jessie	 82.88
North Mountain Fruit Co	84
Nova Print Ltd	 5.74
N.S. Armature Works	 36.40
N.S. Cold Storage Co	 135.98
Nova Scotia Textiles Ltd	 809.20
Oland, Col. S. C	 125.20
Oland and Son Limited	 2,591.40
O'Malley's Limited	 403.38
Oulton, Robert A	 38.52
Oxford Journal	 38.15
Oxner, Moyle, I. Ltd	 17.61
Parson's Limited	 306.88
Piercey Supplies Ltd	 313.60
Plastics Maritimes	 47.71
Parker, John M	 63.98
Please-U-Bakery	 7.77
Port Royal Co-op Dairy Ltd		119.07

Questions
Name	Total
Preiss, F. W. Son. Ltd	 $	10.50
Parisienne, Nanette	 26.15
Purdy Brothers Limited	 95.13
Patterson, H. J	 7.81
Peveril, Mrs. Laura	 3.99
Poole, Ernest C	 3.47
Port Williams Fruit Company ..	62.69
Pulsifer Limited, H. H	 23.00
Putman, A. A	 15.90
Raynor Construction Company ..	3,392.50
Ralston Purina Co. Ltd	 30.31
Rosedale Nurseries	 50.71
Rose, Carmon	 5.39
Ryan, D. H	 2.24
Romkey, Edgar	 2.07
Ritchie, Charles R	41
Rolph-Clarke-Stone	 49.56
Royal Print and Litho	 117.60
Sanford, L. H	 2.38
Seaboard Print Ltd	 37.59
Schwartz and Son Ltd., W. H...	369.60
Seven Up Bridgetown Ltd		53.73
Skerry and Leonard Co	84
Smith, Richard	 15.68
Starr Manufacturing Works Ltd.	313.60
Seven-Up Maritimes Limited....	194.71
Sussex Ginger Ale	 106.33
L.	E. Shaw Limited	 7,292.71
Smith, Roy	 2.03
Standard Paving Limited	 33.85
Steele, C. 0	 53.31
Sterling, A. R	 9.03
Sterling, Robert	 7.11
Stuart, Graeme	 13.30
Swinimer, Gordon F	 6.79
Sambro Fisheries Ltd	 184.73
Scotian Gold Co-op Ltd	 1,072.51
Scotney, Delbert	 20.30
Slaunwhite, Roy	53
Smith, A.M. and Co. Ltd	 1,086.54
Smith, Earl J	 24.43
Smith, Richard B. Ltd	 33.29
Spudnut Shop Ltd	 68.60
Standard Woodworkers Ltd. ..	332.15
Sun Ray Food Products Ltd		64.68
Springhill Record	 40.46
Sunrise Bakery	 1.80
Swetnam, Wm. D	 2.14
Tatamagouche Creamery Ltd		223.90
Thompson, Robert	 117.71
Valley Beverages Limited	 37.77
Name	Total
Valley Hillcrest Farms	$	117.32
Valley Frozen Foods	 172.06
Veinot, C. K	 11.94
Vincent, Claude W. Ltd	 28.21
Wallace Stone Quarries Limited ..	7.70
Wade, George	 116.00
Weagle, Hugh	56
White Eagle Bakery	 35.98
Whitman, Gordon	 1.71
Whittier, H. W	 6.47
Westerhues, John	 5.04
Woodworth, Walter A	11
Webb-Spark Engineering Co		42.84
Westmount Dairy Ltd	 92.51
Weston Poultry Ltd	 85.26
Wilkins, Roy	 10.96
Wolfville Fruit Co	 77.50
Windsor Pastry Shop	 4.03
Wolfville Holland Bakery		189.04
Wood Brothers	 37.17
Woodlawn Lumber	 39.52
Windsor Supply Company	 52.08
Woodlawn Dairy Limited	 784.56


PRIVATE DEBT
Mr. Carter: 1.	For each of the years 1929, 1939, 1949 and 1959,
either calendar or fiscal, what was the total private debt of Canadians under the following headings (a) borrowings by industrial and commercial enterprises:	(b) mortgages:	(c) consumer instalment
purchases?
2.	What was the estimated total interest paid on the above?
3.	What was the average rate of interest on business and commercial loans for each of the following years 1929, 1939, 1949, 1959?
Answer by:	Hon. Donald M. Fleming
(Minister of Finance):
1.	(a) Information not available.
(b)	Information not available.
(c)	1929, Information not available. 1939, Information not available, 1949, (December) -$582 million. 1959, (September)-$2,076 million. (These figures show total credit and loans extended to consumers by finance companies and retail dealers, but do not include bank personal loans since the latter may or may not be used to finance consumer goods.)
2.	Information not available.
3.	Information not available.

Thursday, March 24, 1960