1960-05-18

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Vincent Brassard (Chicoutimi):: Mr
Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) raised a point of privilege regarding a letter published in La Presse of Montreal for April 9, 1960. I could attempt to seek refuge in the fact that his intervention came rather late, but I want to say I had never intended to question the impartiality of the deputy chairman of the house, or that of his assistant.
The sole burden of my complaint in the letter in question was that it is sometimes difficult for a new member, who is not in the habit of rising very often and does not know too much about parliamentary usage to catch the eye of the person chairing the committees.
Let me add that, if what I wrote could be construed as even an implicit reflection on the deputy speaker or his assistant, I consider it a pleasure and a duty to withdraw what may have been interpreted as a charge or even an insinuation of partiality.
I appreciate that the task of the person presiding over a committee of the whole house is not at all an easy one, and if, unintentionally, I have caused him any pain or embarrassment, I sincerely regret it, and I hope that both he and the house will accept my most sincere apologies.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Chicoutimi has made a statement which the house has heard. The matter was raised yesterday, as hon. members will recall, as a question of privilege and a motion was tendered which was reserved until the hon. member was in his place. The statement he has made which, if I may express an opinion, seems to be a complete retraction of anything that was offensive and a disclaimer of an intent to be offensive to the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of course will be considered by the house, by the mover of the motion and by
those who were affected, and I hope will be considered as satisfactory.
For myself, there was a reference in the extract which was read yesterday relating to the practice of recognizing hon. members in the course of debate which was somewhat erroneous. The practice has been clear, I think, throughout the years that in debate hon. members are recognized alternatively from each side of the house.
The other point raised was about a list of speakers. It is true that lists are submitted to the Chair to advise him of those who have the intention of speaking but of course the list has no binding force as has often been stated by Speakers.
Having said that I leave it up to the hon. members concerned and the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, whose motion stands for disposition.


Mr. C. E. Rea (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, though the hon. member for Chicoutimi referred to both the Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairman I, of course, can only speak for myself. However, after hearing his remarks I will be very happy to accept his apology.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not think any apology is owing to me arising out of the remarks by the hon. member for Chicoutimi, and I am not looking for that. I do think, however, that implicit in his speech was a reflection not only on the deputy chairman but also upon my position as a member of this group and of the house. I think it is worth while pointing out that in that debate from the resolution stage right through, this group had four speakers. I checked the possible time by the length of the speeches, and I think it would come to less than one-twentieth of the debate. The effect of this letter would indicate, of course, that we had taken an inordinate amount of time as some matter of right recognized by you. I believe it should be made clear that on this occasion and on all others our group has no inordinate privilege and does not claim any.
I merely wanted to say I have always had the greatest respect for the deputy chairman, but I can underline the fact that we have had no personal contact of any kind for many months, which would indicate that he was not in any secret agreement with my view.

Termination of Summit Conference (Translation):


Mr. J. P. Deschaleleis (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the explanations and apologies offered by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Brassard), which, in the circumstances, are satisfactory. Therefore, by leave of the house, I wish to withdraw the motion I introduced yesterday.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. Since the motion had not been placed before the house, it is not necessary to obtain the consent of the house for its withdrawal.



MR. PEARSON    PRESS AND RADIO REPORTS OF REMARKS ON SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I rise on a question of privilege arising out of a report which appeared in this morning's press, and was carried by the C.B.C. news service, dealing with observations which the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and I are reported to have made yesterday on the situation in Paris. One paragraph of this report reads:
At the same time, they-
That refers to the two members.
-described as "unnecessary" and "unforgivable" the pre-summit mistakes of the United States inherent in the U-2 spy plane incident.
In the interests of accuracy in such a very important matter I should like to put on record that neither inside nor outside the house have I used that word "unforgivable" in this connection.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should say a word at this time regarding the abrupt termination of the summit meeting in Paris. There was an opportunity for progress and improvement at this meeting which had awakened the hopes of millions of people throughout the world. For reasons of his own, reasons which I think all members of this house regard as totally unjustifiable, Chairman Khrushchev has refused to meet with the other participants. By so doing he ended, before the sessions had properly begun, all hopes of achievement at this conference.
Any cause for complaint which the Soviet leader may have felt had been removed by President Eisenhower's assurances on May 16 that over-flights had been stopped and would not be resumed. The president did this even though there was no indication that


the Soviet union was willing to give equal assurances that objectionable activities for which it was responsible would also end.
There have been periods in the past when east-west relations were characterized by sustained acrimony, but recently it had been the expectation of people everywhere in the world that we were moving into a better era where we would solve our problems by reasonable negotiation. I think I express the views of all hon. members of tips house when I say that despite the tragic international drama of yesterday and the developments of the last few days, mankind has not been thrown all the way back into the frightening gloom of the cold war.
The NATO council will meet tomorrow. The NATO powers have been working and will continue to work toward the establishment of good relations between east and west as a basis for negotiation and settlement. It remains essential that despite the admitted setbacks of the last few days, efforts to make progress toward peace and security must not be abandoned, for the return to cold war will be as detrimental to east and west, as a relaxation of tensions will be beneficial to both.
There are only two ways in which our differences can be settled. We in the west believe in negotiation. With the collapse of the summit meeting I believe it more imperative than ever that negotiations be continued in Geneva on disarmament and on the suspension of nuclear weapons tests.
These events of the last 48 hours have confirmed the need for the western nations to remain on guard. We are now entering a period of reassessment and re-examination. The roseate hopes of the last few months have certainly been clouded in the last few hours. This is a time, however, for review and reflection, not for provocation or incitement. We should shortly learn the attitude that the Russians will adopt on disarmament, on the nuclear test talks, on Berlin and on the expansion of trade and cultural contacts. When we learn this we will know whether or not future relations will be determined in the same abrupt manner that was displayed by Chairman Khrushchev in Paris.
The restraint and dignity and high sense of purpose with which the western leaders attempted to overcome the difficulties which Mr. Khrushchev had put in the way deserve recognition and support. I want to associate the Canadian government with the views of the three western leaders as expressed in the communique just issued. The words they used were these:
They regret that these discussions, so important for world peace, could not take place. For their part they remain unshaken in their conviction that

all outstanding international questions should be settled not by the use or threat of force but by peaceful means through negotiation. They themselves remain ready to take part in such negotiations at any suitable time in the future.
Speaking again for the Canadian government I wish to say that we are ready to do anything we can appropriately do to further this policy as enunciated by the western leaders.
Finally, however deplorable Mr. Khrushchev's action in Paris, he is mistaken if he thinks he can divide the west by such tactics. On the contrary, his tactics have already served to strengthen the resolve of the western countries to remain united.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Prime Minister's statement gives a very realistic view of the situation that confronts the world at this time. On behalf of the official opposition I should like to assure him of our wholehearted support for anything that can be done by our government in the furtherance of this viewpoint. I am sure there is no difference of opinion in the house on that.
There is no point in trying to disguise the fact that the news from Paris has been bad and perhaps is now worse in the light of the nature and content of the press conference given this morning by the leader of the Soviet union. However, this is no time for panic, any more than it is a time for yielding to the temptation to give up in the search for peace. It is also no time to weaken the unity of all peace-loving nations in that search, as the Prime Minister has so well pointed out.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that it was important to make every effort to save the conference in Paris, and also to make it quite clear where the responsibility for the failure of that conference lies. I believe the western leaders have done that. But it is equally important, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, for the west to make sure, in so far as the western countries can make sure, that the break-up of the conference does not mean the break-down of this effort to solve international problems and secure the peace.
Perhaps we of the western countries can draw some necessary conclusions from the failure of this conference. One must be as to the dangers and the disabilities of diplomacy at the summit in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today, and the desirability of conducting diplomatic negotiations, whenever and wherever possible, under the auspices of the United Nations. So it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, at this time more than
18,	1960
Termination of Summit Conference ever, that firmness and patience; wise, and carefully considered actions and words are required.
The Prime Minister has mentioned a meeting of the NATO council, I think he said tomorrow, and I think that is a good development. Perhaps the government has already given consideration to the desirability of a minister being in Paris, if that is possible, in view of the fact that the foreign ministers of three western countries presumably will be attending that meeting.
In any event, whatever the government does on this, they can be assured of the wholehearted support of the opposition in any move they may make to ease the situation and strengthen our chances for peace.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we in the C.C.F. group were impressed by the restraint, constructive tone and content of the Prime Minister's statement. We agree with the general tenor of his remarks, and he can be assured, as Prime Minister of this country, that he will have the full support of the C.C.F. party in any efforts made by Canada in the important work toward peace that lies ahead.
It was exceedingly regrettable to see the summit conference disintegrate. We have expressed, on previous occasions, our criticism of the U-2 spy plane incident. We feel that was a mistake. But even with that mistake having been made, this was no excuse for Premier Khrushchev to torpedo the peaceful hopes of tens of millions of people in the world. We are impressed by and appreciative of the continuing good work which has been done by Prime Minister Macmillan in attempting to bring the heads of governments together, and by his attempt to salvage something before the conference disintegrated.
I noticed the Prime Minister's statement that the NATO powers will be meeting tomorrow to discuss this situation. I would hope the NATO powers would resist any temptation to mimic the bluster and threat of the Soviet leader. This is no time, in our opinion, for the rattling of swords or for the taking of a threatening posture. This is the time for the NATO powers to show unity, yes, and a fervent desire for peace and an amicable settlement. We hope the Geneva conference discussions will continue, and that from this conference may be salvaged some type of agreement.
No matter what the antics of the various leaders of the world, we are convinced that the peoples of the world want peace, whether those peoples live in the Soviet union, in the United States or in any other nation of

Communications
the world. And mankind will judge the leaders of all nations on the basis of their integrity, their sincerity and their willingness to compromise in the interests of peace. We hope that even with these disastrous climaxes to the summit conference steps will be taken in the near future to improve trade relations, to go forward with cultural exchanges and to continue-yes, if possible on an increasing scale-the interchange of visits between peoples of all the nations of the world.
At this time we are hopeful that the United Nations may be able to take action that will strengthen the cause of peace, whether this action be through a meeting of the United Nations security council or a meeting of the general assembly. No matter with which party one sits in the Canadian House of Commons, I think all of us are determined to do our best as we see it in the interests of peace, coexistence, mutual understanding and the preservation of the ideals that we hold so dear.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that the Canadian government in every effort it puts forward, whether it be by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker)., the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) or any other representative, will have the complete and wholehearted support of the C.C.F. while we are convinced that these efforts are being directed toward the firmer establishment of peace in the world.


COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the government has had under consideration for some time the problem of arranging for effectual governmental control of the national telecommunications systems under nuclear war conditions. The conclusion has now been reached that if the government as a whole, its various agencies and private users with essential wartime functions, are to make the best use of the telecommunications services available after a nuclear attack, it is necessary to develop an emergency organization which would exist in nucleus form in peacetime as a planning agency, and in emergency would function as the executive agency of government in controlling and administering the national communications systems including radio and television broadcasting.
The organization is to be known as the emergency national telecommunications organization, or ENTO. It will be developed within the Department of Transport and be under the control of the Minister of Transport in whom, by virtue of the Radio Act,

the Telegraph Act, the Railway Act and the Canada Shipping Act, extensive authority over telecommunications in Canada is already vested.
In the discharge of its responsibility ENTO will be advised by a committee of senior representatives of other government departments having a major interest in telecommunications. Advice from commercial telecommunication agencies will also be sought.



STARRED QUESTIONS


POTATO TRANSPORTATION SUBSIDY


Mr. Batten: What was the total subsidy paid by the government of Canada through the maritimes transportation commission for the transportation of potatoes from Prince Edward Island to Newfoundland for each of the years 1957, 1958, 1959?
He said: Mr. Speaker, from discussions dealing with this question it appears that the information requested is not easily obtainable. I would therefore respectfully request Your Honour's permission to withdraw this question and present it later in a form in which it can be more readily answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw question No. 144?


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



ADMITTANCE OF IMMIGRANTS BY ORDER IN COUNCIL

Mr. Howard: 1.	How many persons. If any, falling within the prohibited classes referred to in regulation 20 made pursuant to section 61 of the Immigration Act have been admitted into Canada by special order-in-council during 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 respectively?
2.	How many persons, if any, shown as of Russian ethnic origin but born in Asia have been admitted to Canada since 1945, and by virtue of what statute or authority was each so admitted?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is: By the authority of the governor in council exceptions may be made to any of the immigration relations. Separate statistics are not maintained for the number of exceptions to any one regulation.
The answer to part 2 is: Statistics of immigrants by country of birth in relation to ethnic origin are not available.



IRENE REBRIN


Mr. Howard: 1.	Was any person in the (a) Department of Citizenship and Immigration; (b) the Department of Justice, in possession of a file on Irene Rebrin between March 18, 1960 and March 21, 1960 inclusive?

2.	If so, what is the name of each such person, and the date upon which he had such a file in his possession?
3.	Has any such person since resigned from his employment? If so, who and for what reason?


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am answering this question on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) as well as myself.
The answer to part 1 is: Between the above mentioned dates there were several flies on Miss Irene Rebrin in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration; there was no file on this person in the Department of Justice. However, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had a file on Miss Rebrin.
It is considered that it would be contrary to established principles to give the names of departmental personnel who have handled particular cases on particular dates. I know of no instance in the past where such information has been made available. Even if it were possible to trace precisely the routings of a particular active file, I do not consider it would be in the public interest to contravene this principle.
Part 2 of the question is therefore answered by the answer to part 1.
With respect to part 3, while the answer to this part of the question is made subject to the answer given to part 1, it may be stated categorically for the information of the hon. member and the house, that whatever resignations may have occurred have taken place for reasons unconnected with the Irene Rebrin case.



SECURITY RISK INFORMATION

Mr. Howard: 1.	When a person is classified as a "security risk" by (a) the Department of Citizenship and Immigration; (b) the Department of Justice, is such a classification established on the basis of information specifying the nature and substance of the allegation?
2.	Does the information upon which a person is classified as a "security risk" come from sources outside the (a) Department of Citizenship and Immigration (b) Department of Justice? If so, from where?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am answering this question also on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and myself.
The answer to part 1 is: Where a problem arises in which security considerations are relevant, all available information is obtained from the appropriate security advisers and a decision as to the action to be taken in the particular case is made by the departments concerned on the basis of that information.
The answer to part 2 is: Information on security questions is obtained from sources
Starred Questions
outside the departments of citizenship and immigration and justice. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the body responsible for gathering and providing such information.



DUTY FREE SHOPS, BORDER CITIES

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received representations from any chamber of commerce or businessmen's association objecting to the establishment of duty free shops in border cities?
2.	If so, from whom have representations been received?
3.	What were the nature of the representations, and what was the nature of any reply?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would let this question stand, as all the information needed to answer this question has not been received.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Question stands.



YVES VIEN, C.B.C.

Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Is Mr. Yves Vien employed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	If so, for how many years has he been so employed?
3.	By whom was he recommended?
4.	What position does he hold?


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: This is a four part question and the answers are as follows.
1.	Yes.
2.	Seven years, since April 10, 1953.
3.	He applied for employment as a program administrative officer through normal channels, supplying names of three character references, namely Rev. Pere Emile Legault, Westmount, Montreal; Brigadier W. J. Lawson, national defence headquarters, Ottawa; Major General J. P. E. Bernatchez, Montreal.
4.	Director of television operations, Montreal, after a term as assistant director of television operations, Montreal.



GEORGIAN BAY AIRCRAFT LTD.

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Since Georgian Bay Aircraft Limited has been licensed to operate a class 4 charter commercial air service (with group C aircraft) on May 21, 1959 and to operate a class 4 charter commercial air service (with group B aircraft) on December 21, 1959, in all its bases, have there been any complaints of illegal operation?
2.	If so, by whom?
3.	Has an investigation been made of these complaints?
4.	With what result?
5.	What action has been taken?

Starred Questions


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in reply to parts 1 and 2, there have been a number of complaints of illegal operations filed with the air transport board by Austin Airways Limited.
In reply to parts 3, 4 and 5, the board conducted an investigation in each case, and finding infractions had been committed sent letters of warning to Georgian Bay Airways Limited.
Question No. 15 7-Mr. Chevrier:
1.	Have any complaints been lodged against Georgian Bay Aircraft Limited?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the complaints?
3.	Was an investigation made into these complaints and by whom?
4.	What was the result of the investigation?
5.	Has any action been taken on the complaints?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in reply to parts 1 and 2, Austin Airways Limited in June, 1959, protested against certain charges provided for in the filed tariff of Georgian Bay Airways Limited as being unfair and unjust.
With respect to parts 3, 4 and 5, the matter was investigated by the air transport board, the rates per mile and per hour and the minimum charges per flight were considered to be out of line with those of other carriers in the area, and as a result Georgian Bay Airways Limited revised its charter tariff by making adjustments.



AVIATION COMPANY BANKRUPTCIES, SERVICE SUSPENSIONS, ETC.

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Since the new policy was announced by the Minister of Transport to decontrol group C on July 18, 1958, and later to decontrol group B on December 21, 1958. have any such aviation companies gone into bankruptcy? If so, how many?
2.	How many have applied for a suspension of services?
3.	Why were such companies not in a position to operate such services?
4.	How many companies have applied for cancellation of permit?
5.	How many permits have been cancelled by the air transport board?


George Harris Hees: With respect to part 1, it is known that six aviation companies have gone into bankruptcy since July 18, 1958. Of these, all but one were licensed prior to the coming into effect of the government's new policy.
In regard to part 2, 38 have applied for suspension of services.
In reply to part 3, 26 of these were unable to carry out their proposals; four were not in a position to operate such services because of reorganization; four because of technical problems; two due to bankruptcy; and two others gave no detailed reasons.
With respect to part 4 the answer is 15.
With respect to part 5 the answer is 15.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
Starred 
question No. 9-Correction of answer given on February 3.
Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, on a
question of privilege, I would like to make a correction to an answer I made to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) on February 3, 1960. At that time I answered that we had not purchased any drug known as nilevar.
Having gone through the very extensive list of drugs and contracts, I now wish to correct the statement I made on that date. The hon. member's question read as follows:
1.	Since January 1, 1958, has the Department of Defence Production purchased a pharmaceutical known as nilevar?
2.	If so, what was (a) the date of each purchase; (b) the unit or units by which the pharmaceutical was purchased; (c) the purchase price for such unit or units; (d) the name and address of the supplier?
The answer to the first question should be yes.
The answer to the second part of the question reads as follows:
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d) Name and AddressDate of Purchase	Unit	of Purchase	Unit Price	SupplierApril 10, 1958	bottles	of 50	$15.70 per	G. D. Searle & Co.tablets,	10 mgm.	bottle	of Canada Limited, Brampton, Ont.December 15, 1959	bottles	of 50	$12.20 per	G. D. Searle & Co.tablets,	10 mgm.	bottle	of Canada Limited,
Brampton, Ont.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Argue: 1.	Does Harber Manufacturing Limited, Fort Erie, Ontario, hold any government contracts for the manufacture of aluminium articles?
2.	If so: (a) what are the terms of this (these) contract(s)? (b) have these terms been met?
3.	If not, for what reason?
4.	If the contract exists did the company recently secure a delay in shipping of articles manufactured under the contract?
5.	If so, (a) when; (b) why was this delay granted?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 100-Mr. Martin (Essex East):
For a copy of the regulations of treasury board governing prevailing rates employees.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: The regulations of the treasury board in this respect were consolidated and are already a matter of public record. They appeared in the Canada Gazette of January 13, 1960. However, there was a recent amendment which may not yet have been published in the Gazette, and I will be pleased to table it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 107-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of the current feasibility study of the proposed causeway between Prince Edward Island and the New Brunswick mainland.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member content that this motion stand?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillingafe):: No, sir. The minister is no doubt aware that in the Charlottetown Guardian of a day or two ago it was announced-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The motion is not debatable. If the hon. member is not willing that it should stand-


John Whitney Pickersgill: In that case I feel I must press my motion, because this information is being given in another place.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Prime Minister what the government's intentions are in regard to Canadian representation on the NATO council meeting tomorrow in Paris.


John George Diefenbaker: Tomorrow the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, the United States and France give a report of the proceedings to the NATO council. I think there will be two other foreign ministers present as well. Canada will be represented by Mr. Leger. If it is found that it might be beneficial to have a representative of the cabinet there, in the event of discussion continuing beyond tomorrow, then consideration will be given to appointing someone to represent the government because of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) has other appointments which he cannot break at this time.
The probability is that within three weeks there will be a meeting in Paris of the foreign ministers of the NATO countries. In that event, of course, Canada will be represented.
In any event, as I have already said, if in consequence of developments tomorrow or the day after it becomes of importance that there should be additional representation to that provided by Mr. Leger, consideration will be given thereto.


INQUIRY AS TO VISIT BY U.K. DEFENCE MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of National Defence a question arising out of a report in a New York paper this morning under a London dateline to the effect that

the minister of defence of the United Kingdom would be visiting Ottawa in a few days? Will the minister confirm this report?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of Naiional Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Right Hon. Harold Watkinson has been invited to visit Canada on his way to the United States, and he will be in Ottawa on the 28th of this month, I believe.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister received a telegram from the united steel workers of America, Algoma uranium area, stating that Rio Tinto is endeavouring to eliminate all other producers of uranium, and thus control the Canadian output, by the	purchase of unexpired
uranium contracts?
Will the minister comment on the request that the jobs of employees of the Stanrock company be protected by prohibiting the sale of Stanrock's uranium contract?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have received the telegram, Mr. Speaker. No decision has been reached yet with regard to the Stanrock mine. I am awaiting a report from the board of directors of Eldorado.



ARCTIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. According to a New York publication, United States capital is pulling out of Canada's Arctic oil development program because of new tax regulations imposed by the Canadian government. Is the minister in a position to say whether or not United States companies are withdrawing their financial support of Arctic oil exploration?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker, the minister is not in a position to say. The deadline for the taking up of applications for permits in the north does not expire until next month.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. H. Phillips (Prince):: I have a
question I should like to direct to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister in a position to give a progress report on the proposed Prince Edward Island causeway situation?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for directing this question to me, along with preceding questions. While I regret exceedingly that it was not possible to give a reply to the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate as to the feasibility or otherwise of the causeway, because it is impossible to do that-we have no such report-nevertheless I am very happy to accept the question of the hon. member for Prince as notice and to give at least, as I have done before in this house, a progress report as to the steps being taken up to the present time and what we anticipate taking in the future in regard to consideration of this whole possible causeway project.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Can he say whether his attention has been drawn to a dispatch in the Charlottetown Guardian for May 12, 1960, in which there is a report that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) announced that Major General Young, who I presume is the minister's deputy, will give a report-and I quote these words-
-on the current feasibility study of the proposed causeway between Prince Edward Island and the New Brunswick mainland.
That was the precise subject of my motion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not feasible in this house.


An hon. Member:: Rights of parliament.


David James Walker: I can assure you there will be no statement of government policy made in Prince Edward Island by Major General Young which is not first made in this house. Apparently my friend is under some misapprehension. He asked for a report as to the feasibility of this project. There is no such thing as a report. When the project is found to be feasible or not feasible a report will be made to the house.


Mr. Benidickson:: By you or by Major General Young?


David James Walker: In the meantime-if my friend will content himself, which I know it is difficult for him to do-*
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is difficult for you to get out of this one.


David James Walker: -we will be very happy to give a progress report just as soon as possible. I believe we have already given two, because I know that this matter is of great interest to anyone from the maritimes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A further supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether it is true that the deputy minister is giving a report in Charlottetown tomorrow on the current feasibility study of the proposed causeway between Prince Edward Island and the New Brunswick mainland, as announced in the press?


David James Walker: It is true that the deputy minister of public works is giving in Charlottetown tomorrow, to the assembled chambers of commerce of the island, a study report as to what has been done in connection with the causeway and as to the further work that will be done in the future in the matter of research.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Public Works. If, as he has said, there was no report, why did he not say so instead of having a vote of the house?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the distinguished member for Welland cannot have been following the debate between the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and myself. When the house was considering his order for return with respect to the feasibility report-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Motion, not starred question.


David James Walker: -I could do nothing but ask that it stand, and the matter was not open for debate.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance has recently had the opportunity to enjoy the invigorating and salubrious climate of British Columbia, I wish to ask him a question. As the minister is one of the commissioners of internal economy, has he any further information to give the house with respect to increases in salary for stenographic and other staff of the House of Commons?
4002	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, with your permission perhaps I might say that question is under examination by the commissioners of internal economy.



REQUEST THAT RECENT INCREASES BE MADE RETROACTIVE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of a statement in the Ottawa Citizen of Monday, May 16, in which Fred W. Whitehouse of the civil service federation of Canada is reported as stating that the setting of May 1 as the date for the latest salary increases was a completely arbitrary action, and that government policy on salaries has created-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is proceeding to present a point of view rather than ask a question. If he wishes to ask a question about the matter, which is one of current interest, he may do so.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I may say I did not wish to discriminate between the presidents of the two civil service organizations, and I had a quotation from Mr. Cal Best which I will not use.
My question of the Minister of Finance is, has the government given any consideration to making the latest civil service salary increases retroactive to April 1, and thus removing this anomaly?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The increases to which the hon. gentleman has referred were made effective from April 1. This was the announcement, and it was done with the approval of the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Assiniboia's question was not put to me in the same form as the notice which he gave me. I have not seen the newspaper articles to which he has referred, having been absent the past several days. If his reference is not to the group that was announced earlier but to the cleaners, elevator operators and persons in that category, the latter increase was made effective May 1.


Hazen Robert Argue: That was my question. I was floored by the minister's reply, but I took it he knew the facts so I had no comment to make. Then I ask the question again. Will the government give consideration to making those increases which were effective May 1 retroactive to April 1, as I take it has been requested by the civil service organizations?
[Mr. Herridge.l


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was a matter of decision that the increases for that particular group should be made effective May 1. As I indicated in the earlier statement on this subject, as the civil service commission and treasury board have an opportunity to complete their studies of the various categories and classifications, those increases will be brought into effect at what is considered, in each case, the appropriate time.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think you are making a mistake.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he has had an opportunity to get a legal interpretation of P.C. 4365, dealing with the Canadian forces, from the point of view of whether, with reference to the restoration of peace in the Republic of Korea, the order in council is still in effect or has been repealed.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Order in council P.C. 4365 of September 9, 1950, placed on active service all components of the Canadian navy, army and air force described in the National Defence Act as being regular forces. That order in council has not been repealed, and the regular forces of this country are still on active service. I have obtained a legal opinion on this matter, and it is confirmed that by virtue of this order in council the regular forces are still on active service.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: A supplementary question. I believe this order in council was passed at the time of the Korean conflict. Would it not be appropriate now to supersede it with a new order in council so that members of the armed forces in Quebec would not be disenfranchised?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is not considered necessary to have it replaced by another order in council. It is still in effect; and as there are large numbers of Canadian forces in different parts of the world it is considered advisable for that and other reasons to keep them on active service.



TIMMINS, ONT.  REQUEST FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime

Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether a request has been received from the Ontario provincial government for financial assistance in the rehabilitation of the victims of the Mount Joy flood? If so, will the Prime Minister advise the house whether any government decision has been reached in this regard?


John George Diefenbaker: I will have to take the question as notice.



FOLEYET, ONT.    SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGES BY ARMY ENGINEERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murdo William Martin: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the town of Foleyet has been completely isolated, and in view of the serious danger to health in that community, can the minister say whether it will be possible to get assistance from army engineers to instal Bailey bridges in order to repair the road link between Timmins and Foleyet as quickly as possible?


George Randolph Pearkes: Before any assistance can be given it is necessary for application to be made through the provincial government. No such application has yet been made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the Prime Minister in a position now to deal with the question I asked the other day with respect to assistance for the people of Foleyet and vicinity?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think there is anything I can add to what I said on that occasion.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister inform the house whether instructions have been issued to the unemployment insurance commission not to divulge to members of parliament unemployment figures available from local or regional offices in their respective areas?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such directive having been issued by the national employment service, but I will be glad to check into the matter to see whether there is any substance to what the hon. member says.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. Has the Minister of Labour given any instructions to the unemployment insurance commission or to any government servant that members of parliament are not to be supplied with information that it has always been regarded as a right of the representatives of the people to have?


Michael Starr: On the contrary, I have relaxed the practice that had been in force under the previous government.
(Translation):



TRADE AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). Is the minister aware that, in the small business branch, not a single employee can speak or understand French? If such is the case, is the minister considering any action to improve this situation?
(Text):


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will look into the matter immediately, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister inform the house as to the number of housing starts made during April in areas of 5,000 population and over?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Did the hon. member give notice of his question?


John Richard Garland: Yes, I did.


Mr. Speaker:: It should properly go on
the order paper, being a question asking for statistical information, but if the minister has the information I do not wish to prevent him giving it.


William Moore Benidickson: He is here today.


David James Walker: I would be glad to answer the hon. member for Nipissing. In municipalities of 5,000 population and over starts up to the end of April, 1960 numbered 13,942, and starts up to the end of April, 1959 numbered

Inquiries of the Ministry 22,764. Members of the house will be glad to learn that completions for the same period, from January 1 to the end of April, 1960, amounted to 29,101 this year and 27,434 in the same period last year.


John Richard Garland: I thank the minister for
the information. If I heard him correctly, this represents a drop in housing starts of about 41 per cent. I wonder whether the minister would care to comment on an item that appeared in the Montreal Gazette of May 16, indicating that the federal government is said to be scouting the possibility of raising new funds for housing without approaching the market directly.


David James Walker: I have not read the Montreal Gazette, although I hope to some time.


John Richard Garland: I will be glad to supply it.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Agriculture whether, now that the Prime Minister is back, he has found it possible to answer the representations made to him by western farmers for a conference with the government with regard to an alternative proposal to meet their particular situation?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: I think the hon. member should address his question to the Prime Minister rather than to me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the Minister of Agriculture not consider looking over toward the Prime Minister to see that I get some kind of reply from someone?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the importance of this matter I wonder whether, since the Prime Minister's return, he has had an opportunity of conferring with his colleagues to fix a date for the delegation from western Canada that wishes to discuss with the government a proposal in the alternative, m view of the fact that the request for deficiency payments was turned down by the government. I am sure the Prime Minister will recognize that this question has to be settled very soon.


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand the interest of the hon. gentleman, since he has become the agriculture expert and is particularly interested in western agriculture problems.

However, I would say, speaking seriously, that this matter is under consideration.


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arthabaska):: Would the Prime Minister be able to give the answer before June 8, 1960?


John George Diefenbaker: I have no idea what that date has to do with this question. As usual, political considerations are felt only on the other side of the house.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the minister of northern affairs whether he could inquire to see if it would be possible to bring down returns to order No. 11 of February 2, 1959; order No. 15 of February 2, 1959 and order No. 101 of April 15, 1959, because there are several hon. members who would like to have that information.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I shall be glad to see what I can do to hurry them along.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could direct a similar question to the Minister of Public Works. Will he see that returns are made to order No. 122 and order No. 123 of May 11 1959?


David James Walker: I shall be happy to look into that matter.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the
Minister of Public Works give any information to the house concerning the unusual disturbance which is taking place along the east side of the west block, extending from Wellington street to the parliament buildings?


David James Walker: Is it a human disturbance or are the statues being desecrated? What are the particulars?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: To be more precise, can the minister tell the house the type of work which is going on from Wellington street to the parliament buildings?


David James Walker: I understand they are digging a hole.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What is the purpose of the digging?


David James Walker: To carry gas-natural gas.


Mr. Denis:: Is it from Quebec?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is this another step in the government's new policy of displacing the use of coal in government-owned buildings?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I ask a
further supplementary question. Can the minister say whether this is for input or output?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether a decision has been taken to proceed with or withdraw the prosecutions of the former toll collectors on the Jacques Cartier bridge who have been served with warrants.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So
far as I know, Mr. Speaker, it is still the intention to prosecute. In the light of the decision of the judge in the first preliminary inquiry, however, consideration has to be given to the form of the charges that should be laid.



YUKON ACT


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the third reading of Bill No. C-59, to amend the Yukon Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



OSHAWA HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) for the second reading of Bill No. S-5, to incorporate the Oshawa harbour commissioners.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, we were entertained last night with some criticisms of the minister who is bringing in this bill from the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), the gist of which was that the minister and the government had failed properly to present surveys which would work out some kind of schedule for the expansion of ports such as Oshawa in relation to some master plan. We welcome this urge to socialistic planning which has
Oshawa Harbour Commissioners been pushed by the hon. member for Laurier, and on behalf of this group I must express our disappointment at the introductory statement made by the minister.
I thought that if the minister could not, at least the hon. member from Oshawa, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), could have given us a little more general information about the matter. It is very difficult to know what is involved when you come from another part of the country or from a community similar to Oshawa but not in a metropolitan area. If you look at the map you will see that the harbour at Oshawa is a mile and a half from two railway tracks and several miles from the centre of town. It is not a developed harbour according to any impression one gets. There does not seem to be much at the harbour at the present time, although of course this has nothing to do with the capacity for growth.
To develop harbours costs a tremendous amount of money today, as we all know. One wonders why Oshawa wishes to have this commission if it is merely to administer the rather small properties which presently exist in the harbour. Surely in the community there is some master plan or vision of what they want to achieve. We have had no explanation with regard to that, which I would have thought would have been proper at this stage of the bill. It is apparent that Toronto has had tremendous harbour developments. Is it going to need a series of satellite harbours in the area to handle, for example, terminal traffic which would be distributed by buses? Is it the desire or hope that Oshawa harbour should eventually ship products overseas from its wharves? What is involved in terms of expanding Oshawa harbour to serve ocean-going ships which might take the products of the automobile factories abroad?
It seems to me that information like this should be given and put on the record. As it is, one is led to believe from the very brief statement of the minister that there might be a great deal of substance in the charges made by the hon. member for Laurier. I come from an area where the federal government has pumped millions of dollars over a very long time into a harbour and can appreciate what a drain on resources it is. There are a whole host of harbours along the St. Lawrence seaway and up into the great lakes which have had dreams or hopes of development on the seaway. The hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Campbell) is not in the house, but I know from talking to him that Cornwall had such dreams. I know that Port Credit has thought a great deal about its future, as well as other ports up along

Oshawa Harbour Commissioners Georgian bay and lake Huron which have looked forward very much to such development.
Is this a case where Oshawa has been attracted by the bubble of the seaway, or is it just a very hard little group which has not any great prospect of drawing on large federal funds or even on provincial funds to develop a big harbour which fits into some sort of plan for servicing the metropolitan area of Toronto? I think we deserve this information and should be given it before second reading is over. I know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), as he has told us, is so busy in other places that he cannot keep a hand on the myriad of detail in his department, but perhaps we could expect some information from the hon. member for Ontario. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that before consent is given to second reading the hon. minister from Oshawa will be kind enough to enlighten us on the future prospects of this harbour, something which perhaps the Minister of Transport out of courtesy has left for him rather than invade his field as spokesman for the city of Oshawa.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I did mention quite briefly the establishment of a harbour commission when I spoke in the throne speech debate during this session of parliament. I realize I spoke quite briefly and I should probably enlarge now, for the benefit of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) in particular, on what the present situation is in respect to the area I represent, what the potentialities might be and what is actually necessary. The hon. member of course realizes that Oshawa is the home of General Motors and it is the motor city of Canada, with all due respect to Windsor. We have a population-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I am sure the hon. member recognizes the mistake involved in that last statement.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, at the approaches of the city of Oshawa there are large signs stating that Oshawa is the motor city of Canada and this has never been disputed.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Self-advertising.


Michael Starr: I am only going by the reputation which has been established in this respect by the great city of Oshawa. It has a population within its own boundaries of over 58,000 people. I do not know how big Port Arthur is as far as population is concerned, but I do not imagine it is much bigger than Oshawa. Industry has gradually saturated the areas west of Toronto and


people are looking forward to locating themselves immediately east of the city of Toronto along the double lane highway, highway 401, the railway tracks and the harbour facilities which are available in this locality.
We have had a harbour for many years. It is not a large harbour compared with the ones at Port Arthur or Windsor, but it has been a very good harbour and a very useful one for the transportation of many materials which are produced nearby and for bringing in materials necessary for the livelihood of our community and the surrounding area. The industrial commissioners of the city of Oshawa have laid aside many acres of land running immediately north of the harbour for industrial development. They are planning on putting this forward. At the moment I am advised that a number of industries from outside Canada are particularly interested in locating here providing they have proper harbour facilities. This necessitates additional wharves because this area is on the opposite side of the present harbour facilities. We have had a team of people representing the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport come and assess the situation. Their reports are very favourable for the future. The location is excellent and as I say industry is inquiring about locating providing we can make these additional facilities available to them.
In order to have good, planned harbour facilities, city of Oshawa officials, the council and others interested, such as the industrial committee and the chamber of commerce, have asked that a commission be established so that they can devote their time to the orderly planning of their harbour for the future. I think it is a very wise and good housekeeping move to do this so that these things can be planned in order to bring about the maximum of good facilities which may be required in the future.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question before he sits down. What type of expenditure will be necessary in terms of dredging the harbour approaches to open the harbour to the kind of traffic that has given an indication of its interest in coming in? What is the draught of the present harbour?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, up until now that has been hard to ascertain. The present harbour has been dredged when required for something over two or three years. This would be something for the harbour commission to ascertain but the information has not been available. An established harbour commission may be able to give these facts and figures to those who are interested in the development of that immediate area.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I read this bill as supplied, and I find it follows almost word for word what is contained in Bill No. S-10 setting up a harbour commission in Nanaimo. I have been wondering what principle would be followed, should the bill now under discussion be approved, in deciding whether or not the government should give assistance to the commissioners to provide modern installations and facilities in this particular harbour.
According to this bill, the harbour commission in Oshawa will be an autonomous body. It will have the right to borrow money and, very likely, it will borrow money in order to provide facilities in that port. I recall a bill which was passed in 1957, at which time the government was empowered to lend the Hamilton harbour commission the sum of $4 million at 4J per cent in order that better dockage and port facilities might be provided in the harbour at Hamilton. In addition to that, I believe the minister of public works of that day was authorized to spend $4 million in harbour improvements at Hamilton; there was an expenditure of $8 million of which a loan of only $4 million had to be repaid by the harbour commission.
I am not complaining that Hamilton got this help from the government, but I am asking why similar help is not extended to other harbour commissions. No doubt, because of the assistance given to Hamilton, the Hamilton harbour commission is able to offer a better rate to shippers using that port. I live along the Welland canal and I know that commodities are trucked to Hamilton to be loaded on boats that went through the canal down-bound the day before because the proper loading facilities are not provided at any ports along that waterway.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may interrupt the hon. member to point out that the bill before us does not, of course, contain a principle concerning government financing of these boards. It sets up the commission, as the hon. member has properly said, in the same terms as other bills establishing harbour boards, and it would appear to me that what the hon. member is saying now would more properly be said when the estimates of the department, under which funds are made available for harbour commissions, are before us for consideration, particularly as the hon. member has ranged around other harbours besides Oshawa.
I think the hon. member is going beyond the scope of this bill and I blame myself, partly, for the situation which exists because yesterday a somewhat wide debate did take place on a similar subject.


William Hector McMillan: It occurred to me that inasmuch as this government is giving power to
18, 1960
Oshawa Harbour Commissioners the harbour commissions to borrow money we should be able to discuss expenditures of the kind I have in mind. However, I will end by saying that if the government can do it in one case, why can they not do it for Windsor, Oshawa and other ports including those along the Welland canal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should possibly have risen on the point of order before the hon. member for Welland completed his argument, but I do submit to you that your decision, if it is one already taken, or if it is one to be taken, ought to be related to the following situation. We have already had a debate on this matter on this particular bill-a debate which was not interrupted-and it would seem to me that whatever decision was taken on the bill which preceded this-a decision with which, as I said, I was not in agreement last evening -certainly in this particular instance there can be no reason, I submit with confidence, why there should be any limitation of the sort suggested. We are now being asked to approve a bill providing that a harbour commission be set up in Oshawa. We are surely not to be precluded from considering whether or not that commission would be able to do its work. If the hon. member suggests that a local harbour commission should be treated equitably with other harbour commissions, if he suggests that the harbour commission could not do its work properly in the absence of assistance from the federal government, that, surely, is a very germane argument. We listened last night to a discussion on this very point in which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) took part, and I say that though we may, of course, discuss this question on the estimates there is every reason, tactically and otherwise, why we should be able to discuss it on this particular bill. I submit with respect that the hon. member for Welland was in order, as other hon. members would be in order, in pursuing this particular line.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to accept the argument of the hon. member for Essex East that it would be in order in discussing this bill to indicate, for example, that the proposed commission would not be viable because it did not have sufficient funds. However, I felt that the hon. member for Welland was ranging beyond that.


Mr. B. C. Thompson (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is evident from this bill and the one which immediately preceded it that the government is taking an increased interest in those ports which border on the

Oshawa Harbour Commissioners great lakes and which undoubtedly will be affected by the ever-increasing traffic on the St. Lawrence seaway.
I think it is very fitting and very necessary that this should be the case, and I hope that this increasing interest will also be directed toward the harbours at Cobourg, Col-borne and Brighton in my riding which are centrally located on the north shore of lake Ontario and which, I am convinced, will one day be very important as a means of access to that particular area and also to the economy of the country as a whole.
I think that there is merit in what the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has said about making a survey of all the ports which might be affected by the seaway, but I think it might have been more appropriate and more timely for him not only to have expressed this view but to have implemented it when as minister of transport in the former administration he had the opportunity to do so. I would think that any survey of this kind should have preceded the construction of the seaway rather than succeeded it, and I am sure that the citizens of Brighton, COibome and Cobourg would take the view that such a survey should have been conducted long ago.
In view of the potential which the harbours located at these three points has to offer, I am sure that both the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) are keeping a close eye on- these harbours, as they are keeping a close eye on all matters in their respective departments, and that the interest which the government is taking as evidenced by this bill will also be directed towards these three harbours.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to take this opportunity to make a few brief observations on this measure, not only with regard to Windsor but to all harbours and commissions.
As I understand it, there are three categories of harbours-those under the national harbour commissions themselves-and this includes, I believe, some 2,300 such harbours; those such as is now being proposed in Oshawa, and that in Windsor, and the ports in Hamilton, Toronto and New Westminster. If what the hon. gentleman has just said is true, and I do not believe it is, that what the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) was arguing, and what I was saying on the Windsor bill only points out that the previous administration should have taken this very


step. I do not agree with that but assume for argument's sake that that is the case. Let us address ourselves to the particular situation. Hon. members opposite do not always need to say, "Well, the previous government did not do this or that." That may or may not be the situation. The point is, what can we do right now? The St. Lawrence seaway has been built. It is now a fact. It was formally opened while the present minister was in office. We want to take the fullest advantage of this great achievement in which the Canadian people have great pride and in order to do that, as I said last night, we ought to give to all of the ports on the great lakes equal opportunity for sharing in the achievement of the St. Lawrence seaway.
The port in Toronto, I notice, had an increase of 28 per cent in shipping last year and the port in Montreal enjoyed a 20 per cent increase. Halifax had a record year. These are achievements of which I am sure every Canadian will be proud and particularly the cities involved but what we want to see is other ports in other areas given an equal opportunity.
I can see great possibilities if the federal government will come to the assistance of local boards, giving some financial and other kinds of assistance such as some of the knowhow which only the federal department has. There are some limitations in the know-how of some local communities in this work and there are certainly limited funds.
My own city of Windsor is a good example. We have lots of unemployment there. I am sure that if an imaginative approach is taken to this problem what now seems to be a limited opportunity can expand into a great opportunity for that community and in consequence for the country. As was pointed out, the Detroit river presents more river traffic than any other area in the world and if we will apply an imaginative approach to this problem we can see to it that the harbour in Windsor and that in Oshawa become great harbours, just as the harbours in Toronto, Hamilton and New Westminster have become great harbours. This will not happen unless a progressive policy is pursued by everyone in getting business.
In the case of Toronto they have the money now because of their great expansion and were able to send a Mr. Louis W. Byrne to New York where he has established an office for the purpose of drumming up business. I admire this aggressiveness on the part of the Toronto harbour commission and I would like to see the same thing done for my own

city as I am sure the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) would like to see done for his. It cannot be expected that the mere setting up of a harbour commission in these places can accomplish that without having some help particularly in the beginning.
Financial help has been given to New Westminster and Hamilton as the minister knows. I am sure if the minister will address himself to the great vision of making sure that the achievement of the St. Lawrence seaway is made a reality to all communities where opportunities can be taken in that particular context, the vision I have portrayed will be found to be not an impossible one. I would hope that when the minister replies he would give some indication of his intentions in this regard.
I know that all governments, and properly so, want to be careful about incurring unnecessary expenditure. They want to give as much reliance to local effort as possible. That is commendable but that is not to say there are not situations where assistance from the federal authority to the community is not justified. In this instance I believe there is a strong argument for assistance. This was the view of the committee of 1958 when they made the unanimous recommendation referred to last evening and found at page 150 of the proceedings of that committee:
The committee recommends for the consideration of the department the establishment of an economic survey to consider the effects of the St. Lawrence seaway project upon all regions of Canada.
I am not talking now about surveys of individual ports. This recommendation goes away beyond that. It calls for a survey to consider the effects of the St. Lawrence seaway project upon all regions. The fact is that has not been done. I do not think it is too strong to say that at the present time there has been no change whatever in the approach taken by the government to the various ports. There has been no thinking, no policy, no action. Nothing at all has been done. I am surprised because the minister who is not by any means without his imperfections is nevertheless a vigorous minister who addresses himself courageously to all matters that come within the compass of his activities. I would hope that the vigour and imagination which we know him to possess would be utilized in meeting this objective and in doing so it would further the purposes of the ports in Oshawa and Windsor-the latter of which interests the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Spencer) and myself in a special way-and other harbours.
I think there is a broad national interest in this problem. It is one that cannot be
18, 1960
Oshawa Harbour Commissioners satisfied merely by leaving it to situations where we have a harbour commission established by act of parliament and leaving to them the complete development of the port over which they are given jurisdiction. Communities today do not have the means with which to do this by themselves. I will certainly be among those who will insist that local effort should be demonstrated but that does not preclude more than a casual interest on the part of the minister and the Department of Transport. I know the minister will give this matter the consideration which I ask.


Mr. N. L. Spencer (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate but after listening to the words of my friend the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) I find that the division of way which I thought might not occur has arrived much sooner than I expected. I agree with the hon. member and with the report of the committee when it is stated that whether or not these commissions are set up at the instigation or request of the local municipalities it would be well to have a survey made of the potentialities of all the harbours along this greater waterway but I do not agree with the hon. member for Essex East that the present government is to be criticized in that respect. I am rather surprised that if the hon. member holds those views he did not express them during the time that he was a member of the previous government and particularly at the time when this project was under construction and the municipalities did not fully realize what would be the potentialities of harbour development as a result of the construction of that waterway.
The things the hon. member said today in so far as they apply to the present government apply equally to the government that was in office prior to 1957.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Except that there was no parliamentary recommendation at that time.


Norman Leonard Spencer: I think my hon. friend will agree with me that with respect to the city of Windsor and the Windsor harbour commission no study was ever made by the previous government concerning the potentialities of Windsor harbour. Not one cent was spent. Not only that, no money was spent upon the harbour facilities that we then had in the city of Windsor. It has been left to the present government to take on and put in the renovations that are required in order to

Oshawa Harbour Commissioners take advantage of the very facilities to which the hon. member referred.
This is the only point I wish to make. The things that are now being directed against the present government are the very things that the previous government failed to do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us think boldly about the future.


George Harris Hees: Try and forget the past.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: have one brief comment to make on the speech of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), and it is this. There is a danger in this situation that the municipalities may be led to feel that the bulk of the burden is going to fall on the federal government. I feel very strongly that in our debates here on all these cases it should be made clear there has to be a great deal of initiative shown on the part of the various places which think they are entitled to be made ports. I think if we look at those cities which have grown into substantial ports we shall find that that has been true as far as they are concerned. I hope nothing that takes place in relation to this or any other similar debate will *create the public impression that the municipalities can sit back and have an easy time while the federal government will take on the burden.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree fully with that and sought to say that.


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


George Harris Hees: As we reached ten o'clock last night the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) was speaking, and I regret he is not in the house this afternoon. He knew this debate would be continuing immediately the orders of the day were called today, because it was announced and he was in the house at the time. It must have been obvious to him that I would be answering a number of the statements he made yesterday, and therefore the fact that-


Paul Joseph James Martin: He could not be here.


George Harris Hees: -he is not in the house is a regret to me, but as the debate must go on and as the quite erroneous statements that he made yesterday must be answered, I have no choice but to refer to him as I answer what he said yesterday.
IMr. Spencer.)

When he was speaking yesterday, the hon. member for Laurier left the impression with the house that he felt that harbour commissions should not be set up until a full-scale economic study had been made of the whole St. Lawrence seaway and its effect on all parts of Canada. I shall quote what he said in that regard, as reported at page 3989 of Hansard, righthand column:
-an economic survey should be made by the officers oi the Department of Transport with reference to the impact which the St. Lawrence seaway would have upon the various regions of Canada.
We should not go ahead, he claimed, with these harbour commissions until such a survey had been made. The government has been very much aware of the desirability of proper economic planning with regard to the development and use of ports in the St. Lawrence and great lakes area, particularly in view of the changes resulting from the construction of the seaway. However, a purely theoretical study, as suggested by the hon. member for Laurier, carried out by planners having little contact with the realities of local situations and having a cosmic or over-all approach which would be so general as to offer no guide to the solution of local problems, did not appear to us to be a reasonable solution to this matter even though it is obviously the sort of thing which the hon. member for Laurier had in mind.
Rather, Mr. Speaker, we felt that the best answer lay in close contact with local organizations and officials in the towns and cities bordering the seaway and great lakes in regard to their local port problems, and a continuing series of visits as and when requested by local officials for this purpose. With this in mind we organized in 1957, after forming the government, a special team composed of marine representatives, technical, engineering and construction personnel and economic staff from the Department of Transport and Department of Public Works for the purpose of visiting those ports and making special studies and reports in each case. This team consisted of the director of marine works, or his representative, from the Department of Transport; the senior economist from the bureau of economic studies of the Department of Transport; the director of economic studies, or his representative, of the Department of Public Works; and the chief of harbours and rivers construction division, or his representative, of the Department of Public Works.
Whenever a request is received from a port town or city we make prompt arrangements

for a visit by this team and in the course of this visit they make not only a study of port conditions and requirements but they also meet with municipal officials, chamber of commerce representatives and the representatives of large local businesses interested in shipping in order to get the most complete and effective advice and information available.
Following this, the team makes a special report on the situation to myself and to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) and jointly we proceed with our planning in the light of the information contained in the reports. Moreover, because of the great number of places visited by this group, they, together with the officials of my department to whom they report, are in an excellent position to take a sound, over-all view of the whole problem of the great lakes and the St. Lawrence in the light of the comprehensive data which they have gathered on individual points.
I would point out particularly that this visiting team was not organized until October, 1957; that is, it was not organized under the previous government but was organized a few short months after we rescued this country from the late lamented Liberal government in 1957. But in the period since it was organized its work has involved special trips to and reports on the following ports, and I intend to give them because I think they are interesting, Mr. Speaker. I should just like to remind the house at this point that not only did the hon. member for Laurier indicate that the government had done absolutely nothing in this regard but I also jotted down the words of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), "The government had no policy; the government had taken no action and nothing whatsoever had been done." These words were uttered in this house about five or ten minutes ago.
These are the ports-29 in all-which have been visited by this team under the direction of the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works, under the direction of this government, something which was never even dreamed about by the previous government of which the hon. member for Essex East was a member. I intend to give the names of the ports that have been visited during the past two and a half years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure we are at cross purposes. Of what my hon. friend is going to say I am aware. The team did come 79951-0-253
Oshawa Harbour Commissioners to Windsor. I was referring-and I think the hon. member for Laurier was also-to the recommendations of the committee that an economic survey should be made applying to the whole great lakes area, as a result of the building of the St. Lawrence seaway. That is the point.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out that we do not believe that a vague, general economic survey serves any useful purpose and that the kind of practical on the spot, harbour by harbour survey is what is most beneficial to the harbours and to the country as a whole, and we will continue to carry on with these. We think it is practical and not just theoretical and good for headlines and speeches only; we think it is good for the harbours of the country.
I want to give the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Laurier a lot of information that otherwise I would not bore the house with, but I want to give them the dates when visits were made to the ports and the dates on which reports were made so that they may have the information for future reference.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All that the minister is doing now is disagreeing with the recommendation of the committee.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could the minister not simply table it?


George Harris Hees: No I will not table it after the kind of nonsense I have listened to for the past couple of days. I am going to put it on the record myself.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I raise the question whether information on Belleville has anything to do with Oshawa.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this is something that was brought up and dealt with at great length last night by the hon. member for Laurier and today by the hon. member for Essex East. I was accused of doing nothing and I wish to explain what we have done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the minister should be allowed to defend himself.


Mr. Speaker:: While the minister is covering a wider area than the bill, he is replying to a speech made last night in the debate by the hon. member for Laurier and one made today by the hon. member for Essex East and I would not undertake to stop him.


George Harris Hees: This is the list, Mr. Speaker.

Oshawa Harbour Commissioners
Place	Date of Visit
Belleville, Ont.
Brockville, Ont.
Chandler, Que.
Collingwood, Ont.
Cornwall, Ont.
Dorion, Que.
Gaspe, Que.
Goderich, Ont.
Grand Manan, N.B.
Hamilton, Ont.
Kingston, Ont.
Fort William and Port Arthur, Ont.
Magdalen islands, Que. Matane, Que.
Midland, Ont.
Minas Basin Morrisburg, Ont.
Oshawa, Ont.
Prescott, Ont.
Bimouski-Pointe au Pere, Que. Port Colborne, Ont.
Riviere du Loup, Que.
Sarnia, Ont.
Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.
St. Charles river area Sydney, N.S. and area Wallaceburg, Ont.
Whitby, Ont.
Windsor, Ont.
November 6,	1959
May 12, 1959 March 17, 1958 September 30, 1958 October 7, 1958 May 6, 1958 May 15, 1959 March 16, 1958 April 28, 1959 June 16, 1958
September 16 and 17, 1959
May 8, 1958 May 11, 1959 October 21, 1957
October 15, 1958 March 14, 1958 February 17, 1958 June 9, 1958 May 13, 1959 February 20, 1958 November 2, 1959 May 13, 1959 March 12, 1958 September 17, 1958 March 10, 1958 November 23, 1958 November 25, 1957 November 19, 1957 May 31, 1959 March 23, 1958 December 3, 1958 February 19, 1958 December, 1957 April 27, 1959 March 14 and 15, 1960
Date of Report
March 25, 1960 May 27, 1959 April 17, 1958 January, 1959 January 27, 1960 May 23, 1958 June 8, 1959 April 18, 1958 June 23, 1959 June 27, 1958 January 21, 1960 June 26, 1958 May 26, 1959 November 5, 1957
November 25, 1958 April 16, 1958 May 5, 1958 July 3, 1958 May 27, 1959 January 27, 1959 November 25, 1959 June 17, 1959 April 17, 1958 September 26, 1958 April 15, 1958 December 31, 1959 December 12, 1957 December 19, 1957 July 14, 1959 April 11, 1958 March 6, 1959 February 27, 1958 January 14, 1958 May 7, 1959 March 21, 1960
Twenty nine harbours were visited and reports were made on each visit but, as I say, the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Essex East claim that nothing has been done in this regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question?


George Harris Hees: Gladly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister assure the house that all these visits in March of 1958 were exclusively for the purpose of visiting ports and would he tell us who paid for them?


George Harris Hees: They were paid for in exactly the same way as every other visit that has been made and the visits were exclusively for the benefit of the ports concerned, as the hon. member well knows.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In March, 1958?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, any visit and any reports that were made-stop looking around and smiling like a Cheshire cat.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister has indicated that there was a minimum of 29 reports by a survey team. First, are we to assume that this is the same survey team and, second, if it is the same survey team can the minister explain how comprehensive, so far as the kind

of survey referred to by the hon. member for Laurier is concerned, these reports can be if this crew is turning out so many reports?


George Harris Hees: The officials of my department and of the Department of Public Works are very efficient. They work very fast and very well and have given very good service. If you will speak to people in any of the towns and ports visited I feel sure you will obtain excellent comment about them. I have never heard anything but excellent reports from the ports and towns visited and I think the reports that have been made are excellent. The people we have working for us are first class officials. Perhaps the hon. member cannot understand working quite that fast. These people do.
Moreover, in the lower area of the St. Lawrence, where interest overlaps with that of the national harbours board, the present administration has also made special arrangements to provide for continuing studies and planning in this connection including, for example, the group which I announced previously, and representing not only the harbours board but the Department of Public Works and the seaway authority and which is reviewing the general problems of the whole Montreal port area.
The hon. member for Essex East is particularly interested in the Windsor harbour

and I have a little information for him on that. As he knows, the Windsor harbour commission was set up under the previous government of which he was a member in April, 1957. A special economic survey was made not by the government but by the Windsor junior chamber of commerce in 1956. Thank heaven for the Windsor junior chamber of commerce. They did not have to rely on the government of that day which was doing absolutely nothing. No special government team report or economic investigation was made although the area was visited by a marine official.
The decision to introduce the bill was based primarily upon municipal representations and the chamber of commerce report, which were reviewed at headquarters. There was no mention made of anything that had been done by the member of parliament for Essex East or of help given by the former government. Thank heaven for the Windsor chamber of commerce which pushed this thing. They had to do it without any help from their members of parliament.
Let us contrast this, Mr. Speaker, with what happened when the home town of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), Oshawa, came into the picture. This is the kind of consideration that was given by the present government in dealing with this harbour situation. This consideration was on the request of the city and the excellent member of parliament for that area, our Minister of Labour, who spoke to me about it on many occasions and brought to my attention and the attention of the department the need for this course to be followed. He was working as any good member of parliament does and as all Conservative members of parliament do, with the municipal authorities and with the government, as a liaison.
He got the following action for his municipality. A special team visited Oshawa and a preliminary report on that harbour was made in February, 1958. A second visit, and a final report, was made in November, 1959. There were two visits and two reports. Discussions were held with the mayor, industrial commissioners, city council representatives, city engineers, city planning director and representatives of local business. There was perfect co-ordination between the government, the member of parliament and civic officials.
I should like to say a little bit about these team visits. In a speech which the hon. member for Laurier made on December 9, 1957 he recommended an over-all survey. The first visits by the specially organized teams which I have mentioned were made during October and November of 1957 to the lakehead, Sarnia and Sault Ste. Marie. In other words, these 79951-0-2534
18, 1960
Oshawa Harbour Commissioners visits were made several months before the hon. member made his memorable speech. As I say, during 1957 and up to the present time, 26 different ports have been visited in the St. Lawrence and great lakes area in addition to the three ports which I mentioned that were visited during 1957. This special team not only made these visits but also made reports. On June 5, 1959 the then minister of public works, who is today the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), told the hon. member for Laurier in parliament about the 23 ports which had already been visited up to that time. According to the hon. member for Laurier, nothing had been done.
Let us move on for a moment to what it is that regulates the potential of a harbour. We have heard speeches by the hon. members for Laurier and Essex East to the effect that we have given no help; we must take these harbours by the hand and tell them what they should know and do everything for them. What is it that makes a harbour a potential harbour for the future? In so far as incoming shipments are concerned, this potential depends on two things: first of all, whether the municipality is a market for manufactured goods or is suitable as a distribution centre to other markets; second, whether the municipality has industries which require bulk cargoes, and whether there are suitable transportation facilities to industries in the vicinity. In so far as outgoing shipments are concerned, the potential depends on whether the municipality or surrounding localities have two things, I believe: first of all, industries which produce manufactured goods for shipment to other parts of Canada or to other countries; and, second, industries which produce bulk cargoes for shipment to other parts of Canada or to other countries.
The businessmen of our ports know these factors very well indeed. Those who are appointed by us to be harbour commissioners are particularly well versed in these facts. The Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works give these commissioners, these municipalities and these municipal governments, every possible assistance when it is requested. We believe that the municipalities know their needs better than any government possibly can and it is our job to supply help and information when it is sought. The hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Essex East obviously believe that the businessmen of our ports, those who are appointed harbour commissioners, those who are interested in the welfare of the port, know nothing-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege; the hon. gentleman is

Oshawa Harbour Commissioners making a statement now for which I am sure he knows there is no foundation. I praised the personnel of the harbour commission in Windsor as being men of experience and men who were good citizens. The minister is not warranted in making that observation. The minister should not make that kind of statement, as he knows. What I should like to know is, is the minister going to do anything about the important needs for Windsor and other harbours or does he think they do not need to receive this kind of assistance?


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member would only pay attention, and if he would communicate with the various harbour officials across Canada he would ascertain we are doing a great deal in the way of giving help and advice when it is requested. In a number of cases we are actually giving financial assistance as well, where we think that is justified. We are doing everything we possibly can to help these harbours prosper and get all the trade they possibly can.
If the hon. member would go around to some of these harbours we have mentioned and ask the officials what they think about the assistance the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works team has given to them I think he will find that they believe they have been given a great deal of help.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that is so, but-


George Harris Hees: You have asked what we are doing and I have been telling you. When I try to answer your questions, you do not like the answers because they embarrass you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I must ask the minister to direct his remarks through the Chair, if he would.


Peter Francis Martin: I am simply interested in Windsor. Has there been a request for financial assistance-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not been given the floor to ask questions.


Peter Francis Martin: I have been given the floor; the minister has been allowing me to ask questions.


George Harris Hees: At the request of the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Essex East these bills, instead of being dealt with in committee of the whole, are going to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. The hon. member is a distinguished member of that committee and a

very voluble one. He does not restrain himself in asking questions and I know he will ask a great many. That is the place to ask these questions.
In conclusion, I should like to say that if the hon. member for Laurier-I wish he were here, and he knew this was coming up today-was keen on this over-all economic survey of the effect of the St. Lawrence seaway on all ports in Canada there were two occasions, I believe, when he should have instituted such an economic survey and when he was in a position to do something about it. The first time was when he was minister of transport and before the government decided to go ahead and spend $350 million on building the seaway. I believe at that time the government, and he for the government, should have conducted such an economic survey to ascertain what the justification for the building of the St. Lawrence seaway would be, what kind of picture would be presented. If he is as keen as he seems to be on these over-all economic surveys, that was one time when he could have had one made. I think it would have been a very useful one. At that time, he did not think about it; he was not interested. He just went ahead.
Then in 1957 when he was still president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, when he was in a position to do something about it, when it was only two years before the seaway would be opened, when it requires at least two years for harbours to plan, prepare and build for such an eventuality, that would have been an excellent time to have made an economic survey about which he is so keen. The hon. member made a speech in December of last year telling the government what it should do. I want to know why he did not do something about it and produce a survey to aid the harbours of Canada so that they could go ahead and prepare for the opening of the seaway. He was in a position where he could do something. He was interested in other considerations; he was just interested in making speeches telling people all the facts a few months later.
I should also like to know why the hon. member for Laurier when he was president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority in the early part of 1957, at the time when the Windsor harbour commission bill came forward, did not produce such an economic survey which he says I should produce now for the benefit of the Windsor harbour commissioners. I want to know where the hon. member for Essex East was at that time when the bill-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: You sit down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have asked me a question.


George Harris Hees: I will listen to your question afterwards.


Peter Francis Martin: On a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I heard the hon. minister asked a question, but as he did not sit down it was obviously rhetorical.


George Harris Hees: I am not asking a question; I am wondering.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Essex East has a point of order I will of course hear it.


Peter Francis Martin: I heard what
Your Honour said but I want to make it clear that the hon. gentleman asked me a question.


George Harris Hees: No, I did not; I was wondering.


Peter Francis Martin: I am now prepared to answer that question, but I cannot unless the hon. gentleman permits me.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the hon. member who asks the question yields the floor, it is obviously not intended to be answered.


George Harris Hees: I am wondering just where in 1957 the hon. member for Essex East, the member from Windsor, was.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister is getting a long way from the bill when he begins to inquire into the whereabouts of the hon. member from Windsor, when this bill actually relates to the establishment of a harbour commission in Oshawa.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member is telling me that in setting up this harbour commission I should not do it unless I have an economic survey.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. gentleman has no right to say that.


George Harris Hees: You are doubling back.


Peter Francis Martin: The hon. member for Laurier, the hon. member for Essex East or any other member who spoke on this side of the house never suggested that the harbour commission, in this particular instance in Oshawa, should not be set up unless there was an economic survey.


George Harris Hees: That is the impression you created.


Peter Francis Martin: It is not. The hon. member for Laurier made that clear. He said he was for this commission, but what he was
18, 1960
Oshawa Harbour Commissioners calling the government to do was to implement the recommendations of an all-party committee on which the members of the government had a majority.


George Harris Hees: That is not a point of order; the hon. member is making a speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East is going far beyond the subject on which he rose.


Peter Francis Martin: I speak feelingly about this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will allow the minister to finish without interruption. I hope the hon. minister will come back to the bill because it seems to me that this side issue about an economic report which was allowed to be debated is really not too pertinent and only deserves very minor treatment.


George Harris Hees: Judging from what was in the speech it really deserves very little attention at all, but I thought I would like to set the record straight on the matter. It just seemed to me a little strange that in 1957 the hon. member for Essex East, who was not asking for information which would be of assistance to the Windsor harbour commissioners-


Paul Joseph James Martin: We established the commission.


George Harris Hees: Yes, you let it be established because the chamber of commerce came to see the government and it just happened. It was through no fault of yours at all. I would say that if the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Laurier would take a little more time in future to find out concerning matters about which they make voluble statements, and find out what the government is doing and come to see the minister, then they would not make carping, tub-thumping political speeches about which they know nothing. If they did that they could make a much better and much more constructive contribution to the debates of the House of Commons than they are at the present time. The kind of thing we are hearing now is no improvement over the last three years, and I am afraid it looks as though they will be sitting on that side of the house for a long time to come.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if the minister will permit a question, if his fervour has abated. I would like to ask him what happened to the reports and whether they have been made public and so become of some use right within the community?


George Harris Hees: These are not public reports but reports made by the investigating team to the Minister of Public Works and myself. We
4016	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Nanaimo Harbour Commissioners
discuss these matters with the harbour com- hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Matthews), missioners and those who are in a position a very distinguished and able member, has to do something to benefit the harbour con- some words to say about his own harbour cerned.	commission.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the
minister, since so many of the places he mentioned have no harbour commission, how he gets this information contained in the reports into the domain? Take for example a place like Goderich.


George Harris Hees: We go to these harbours when we are requested to and take a look at them and give them some assistance. After we have been able to do that the team comes back to report to the Minister of Public Works and myself, and then the team works with the people who requested the help in order to give them all the possible aid we can.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit one more question before he sits down?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister has taken his seat so there can be no further debate.


George Harris Hees: I will answer questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the minister accept another question?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The question I was going to ask was, when we move a motion for the reports will the minister produce them?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the chortling hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who sits down smiling like a Cheshire cat after each question, knows perfectly well, they are privileged documents.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Secret reports.


George Harris Hees: They are not; they are documentary reports made by the members of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport to the ministers concerned. The hon. member knows perfectly well that they are privileged documents and are not produceable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No information.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


George Harris Hees: the second reading of Bill No. S-10, to incorporate the Nanaimo harbour commissioners.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this bill, and I know the


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


George Harris Hees: I have not even started yet. That is just typical of the kind of opposition we are getting in the house these days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was just wondering how a question could arise before the minister had spoken.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, a petition sponsored jointly by the corporation of the city of Nanaimo and the Nanaimo chamber of commerce was received in my department regarding a proposal to establish a harbour commission for the harbour of Nanaimo, British Columbia. The city would upon the enactment of the necessary legislation vest in the proposed harbour commission harbour front property owned by the city for management and development by the commissioners.
It is considered advisable in the interests of proper and orderly development and expansion of the Nanaimo harbour that control be vested in a local body. The harbour is a natural, all year round deep sea harbour and is protected from the open waters of the straits of Georgia by the outer island of Gabriola and by the inner islands of Newcastle and Protection.
The strategic location of the harbour provides a loading and unloading point for the two main ferry services connecting Vancouver island and the lower mainland, that is Canadian Pacific railway and Black Ball Ferries Limited. During the peak of the summer season the ferries carry upwards of 1,250,000 passengers, 300,000 passenger cars and 50,000 trucks and trailers.
My department operates the government assembly wharf and the deep sea wharf which are approximately 1150 feet in length. They are used for the handling of lumber, pulpwood, fuel oil, iron ore, chemicals and other products from which a gross annual income is derived of approximately $30,000. These facilities would be placed under the management of the commisioners. In addition, the department collects in the neighbourhood of $16,000 annually in harbour dues and some $23,000 annually in water lot leases. This revenue would also be immediately available to the harbour commissioners.
The purpose of the bill is to establish a harbour commission to administer the harbour. There will be three commissioners, two appointed by the governor in council and

one by the city of Nanaimo. It is a bill similar to the one which set up the lakehead and other harbour commissions.
As already indicated, I propose to move after second reading that the bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. W. F. Matthews (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to notice that at last Canada has a Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) who certainly knows all about harbours. Actually the minister has robbed me of some very valuable opportunities. I had intended to tell hon. members all about this marvellous harbour. However, at last, as I say, we have a Minister of Transport who is certainly up to date, and I want to thank him very much on behalf of the chamber of commerce of Nanaimo and the city of Nanaimo for bringing this bill up at this time.
It has long been the thought of the chamber of commerce of Nanaimo that there should be a harbour commission, because it was realized what a great assistance this would be to the community. In the light of the growth and expansion which has taken place, particularly in the last two and a half years, it is more than ever necessary that this harbour commission be brought into being as soon as possible.
I want to explain that this harbour commission was not an idea of mine; I am not claiming credit for the idea, but I have not received any protests from anyone in the district. All the people there are very much in favour of it. I think they want this commission, and I am very pleased that they are to get it.
I wish to thank the Minister of Transport and the officials of his department for the wonderful help they gave me last year while I was working on this bill. I had a good deal to do with various men in the hon. gentleman's department and at all times they went all out to help me and give me all the assistance necessary. As a matter of fact, when the president of the Nanaimo chamber of commerce, Mr. John Cunliffe, came here he expected he would be here for five days. I think maybe he had in mind someone who was here five or six years ago. Because of the way things were set up in the department, he was able to complete all his business in one day. He asked me: What shall I do now? I said: Go back to Nanaimo, because you can save a bit of money. So he saved four days, and I am sure they all appreciated it.
The Nanaimo chamber of commerce is to be congratulated on the brief which it prepared about this commission. A number of people in the department here told me to
18, 1960	4017
Nanaimo Harbour Commissioners compliment them on the very clear brief, and I certainly want to pass on that word right now.
This matter goes back some time, because included in this harbour we have an assembly wharf which has been there for a number of years. It has served the whole central island in a very large way. As a matter of fact a lot of money is being spent on it right now to get it in shape for the tremendous amount of work that we expect in connection with the new extensions that are coming. Another notable thing is that while the Conservative party was in power this assembly wharf came into being and the Nanaimo member, Mr. Charles Dickie, of Duncan, British Columbia, was instrumental in getting this wharf for Nanaimo. A very interesting thing I noticed was this: at the time Mr. Dickie was advocating this, a Liberal member opposed very strongly having this wharf built there, and I should like to read out of the record of our debates for 1934, volume 4, page 4397, starting toward the bottom of the page, what was said by Mr. A. E. Munn representing Vancouver North:
Another item that I see in the schedule is an assembly wharf at Nanaimo. I wish to caution the minister about building an assembly wharf there. In my opinion Nanaimo is not a suitable location. Nanaimo is the centre of a coal-mining industry rather than a lumber industry. There are no lumber mills at Nanaimo-
I was surprised to read that, because I know there was.
-and if an assembly wharf is built there it will surely be a failure because the dust from the coal will get on the lumber and when it gets to the planing mills they will wonder what has happened.
A little coal dust on the lumber, apparently.
This is something of which I think the minister should take special note and make sure that the lumbermen of British Columbia want that assembly wharf built at Nanaimo. I am not holding any brief for any other town, but as a practical lumberman I know that Nanaimo is not a suitable location.
That wharf was put in by the Conservative government which had some of the same vision we certainly need today. They could see into the future, and they could see that Nanaimo was changing from a coal mining town to a town which had to depend on other things. They have tremendous mills there for lumbering and, as everyone knows, they have large pulp mills which are doing a wonderful job for the community. I never did hear at any time Nanaimo people complaining that coal mining was going out and that we are going to be a ghost town. We are very fortunate in the fact that we have other resources which can be developed. It is too bad that all other towns in Canada which have this problem have not the same thing,

Nanaimo Harbour Commissioners some other industry to which they can turn. It certainly must be a worry if they have not got them.
I am very privileged to represent as a member of parliament a riding which was represented before by the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes). I found it was a challenge to follow a man of his calibre, a man who devoted his whole life to Canada before he ever came to parliament and who, since then, has continued to do so and is doing a marvellous job. I felt it was a considerable challenge, because everywhere I went people would say: If General Pearkes endorses you, we will be behind you. I certainly believe much of the reason I am here is because of the calibre of man I succeeded. I was new in this place, but I certainly had the advantage of having a man such as the Minister of National Defence behind me to help me out. I could go on and talk for a long time about the Minister of National Defence and all he did while he represented the riding. I do not think I would be out of order, because the Minister of National Defence was instrumental in getting public buildings, a new post office, and various other public works. He was also instrumental in getting a new wharf in Nanaimo, and a vocational school-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not like interrupting the hon. member, but all this is relevant only in the sense that a discussion of the Bomarc missile would also be relevant.


Walter Franklyn Matthews: I note with interest that the gas line has been completed into the House of Commons. I certainly do not want to disturb the hon. member for Essex East by talking any more about our present Minister of National Defence. I think that is what is worrying the hon. gentleman, because he swings right away to the very successful Bomarc. I want to get away from that subject. I want to swing back to Nanaimo.
I was interested that when this bill went through the Senate one of its hon. members remarked that it was just coastwise shipping that passed through Nanaimo. That is a mistaken idea because you often see big freighters tied up and others anchored waiting to come in. I wanted to explain to hon. gentlemen that this is a real harbour. I want to read the following article from the Nanaimo paper dated March 21, 1960:
Ocean-going freighters loaded cargoes at port of Nanaimo last month for delivery in almost every part of the world.
You see, the port handles not only coastal shipping but shipping to every part of the world. I continue:

Pulp exports ran to well over 6,000 tons, or better than 300 tons for each working day. Full-bleached and semi-bleached pulp made up these cargoes which went to the United Kingdom, the U.S.A. and South Africa.
Assembly dock in Nanaimo has been a busy place. From this dock lumber is loaded for overseas shipment. March was a busy month as nearly 7 million board feet of Vancouver island lumber started its trip abroad.
All this, despite the dim outlook taken by Mr. Munn on this matter. The article continues:
Japanese steel mills will continue to use B.C. iron ore. During March 17,000 tons of Texada iron ore were cleared through the customs at port of Nanaimo.
They do not load at this assembly dock but they do clear from this port. I have another article here but I will not read it. The Minister of Transport has spoiled this one for me so I will return the clipping to my file.
With respect to transportation we have 21 sailings a day each way from Nanaimo so that if hon. members are able to take the trip arranged for this fall certainly will not get marooned on any of the islands unless they happen to go out with some of the local boys.
The port of Nanaimo also serves the communities of Duncan, the Cowichan lake district where there are big mills, Crofton which has a pulp mill and others.
I was interested in what the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said about surveys being made before anything is done along the lines of establishing a harbour commission.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member did not say that at all. My hon. friend was talking about a survey recommended by an all-party committee in 1958 with regard to the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway in relation to ports on the great lakes. That is an altogether different question.


Walter Franklyn Matthews: I was under the impression that the hon. member thought a survey should be made but apparently I am wrong and will have to refer to the record. In any event I do not think the hon. gentleman made it very clear because as a rule I get these things right.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: The
hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is never very clear.


Walter Franklyn Matthews: Returning to the subject of the Windsor harbour commission I would take issue with the idea expressed by the hon. member for Laurier because on April 6, 1957, in moving second reading of the bill to incorporate the Windsor harbour

commissioners, as reported at page 3214 of Hansard, the then minister of transport, Mr. Marler, had this to say:
Increased activity expected to result from the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway is a further reason behind the proposal.
In other words Mr. Marler made no suggestion that any survey should be made. His idea was that the port should come into being as soon as possible.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Walter Franklyn Matthews: I am sure all hon. members agree with that policy. I also noticed that the hon. member-I get them mixed up because there are so many of them-for Essex West (Mr. Spencer) suggested that this bill be put through without being referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. That is not a new idea. Our very able Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) extended that courtesy to the Windsor harbour board when its bill of incorporation was presented in 1957. As reported at page 3214 of Hansard of April 6, 1957 the minister who was then the private hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said:
On behalf of the official opposition, I am very glad to speak in support of this bill.
In other words the hon. member was very much interested in it, felt it was a step forward and did not want to hold it back in any way. He went on to say:
In the ordinary course, this bill should have been referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines where it could be examined in detail and where we could hear evidence from witnesses. For example, we could have heard from representatives of the city council of Windsor as well as officials of the Department of Transport.
And the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) who, I am sure, would have made a real contribution to the proceedings. But in view of the fact that we are in the last days of the session, I am afraid if this bill went to committee the result might be the legislation would not become law at this session. It is for that reason we in the official opposition are not asking that it go to the committee.
Hon. members can readily understand why the hon. gentleman wanted to be of assistance to the east and west. That is why I believe the hon. gentleman will do a capable job in the present position he occupies as Secretary of State for External Affairs. That was an example of the need for us to work together and help one another and not get up and hold back the business of the house.
Because Bill No. 224 to incorporate the Windsor harbour commissioners was passed by this house on April 6, 1957 without being referred to the standing committee I would ask that the bill before us receive the same consideration and I commend Bill No. S-10 to the favourable consideration of hon. members.
79951-0-254
Nanaimo Harbour Commissioners


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I indicate to the minister through you what was in the mind of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who for obvious reasons was unsuccessful in posing his question. What the hon. member sought to do was inquire of the minister whether or not he would deem it advisable to follow the example set by a number of cabinet ministers in recent days who have taken their parliamentary secretaries into their confidence and allowed them to pilot legislation through the house. This would be a commendable thing for the Minister of Transport to do and his parliamentary secretary, who no doubt reads as well as the minister does, would have benefited from the experience.
I was interested in the historical and political account given by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Matthews) and thought his reference to the connection between one hon. gentleman and the trans-Canada pipe line was one of the most suitable retorts to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) I have heard.
I am indebted to the former member for Nanaimo, Mr. Cameron, for having given me when I first came to Ottawa an understanding of the need for establishing a harbour commission at Nanaimo. Although I had visited there briefly it is not possible in a short space of time to assess fully local needs. As Mr. Cameron was responsible for the establishment of a post office at Nanaimo I am sure he is partly responsible for doing the preliminary work leading to the introduction of this bill.
I do not intend to repeat what was said by the hon. member for Nanaimo concerning the need for establishing a harbour commission there. It is true that the city of Nanaimo is considered to be the hub of Vancouver island; it is the central port for shipping not only to the mainland, across to Vancouver, but also to many other countries of the world as was indicated by the hon. member for Nanaimo.
I would hope that through the passage of this bill the commissioners, when they are appointed, will be vigorous and imaginative and will tackle this question of the development of the harbour and shipping facilities in such a way that Nanaimo will truly become a port of much greater importance than it is now and will be a credit more than it is now to that jewel of the west coast, Vancouver island.
I have one thought that I should like to leave with the minister. There is this possibility, and we may be able to expand on this when we get into the committee stage.

Newfoundland Fisheries I notice that by this bill-and this is true of other bills establishing harbour commissions in other places-the commission is given borrowing powers; it is given authority to issue debentures and borrow money for the purposes required. It would be a commendable approach if within the Department of Transport-perhaps the Department of Finance would be the proper place to have this done-there could be established in cooperation with the Department of Public Works a revolving fund account which would allow the harbour commissioners or corporations as they are known to borrow money directly from the federal treasury. If they were allowed to do this it would be possible for them to borrow money at a lower rate of interest than they will be able to borrow it if they have to enter the money market. This would permit the commissioners to have more money at their disposal because they would be paying less in interest rates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was done in Hamilton.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) indicates that that was done in Hamilton. It is an approach that should be established here. For the benefit of the hon. member for Essex East and just to make sure that we are both discussing the same thing, I may say to him, through you, sir, that I am talking in terms of a revolving fund which would be available not only to Nanaimo but to all other harbour commissioners in the country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was referring to a loan from the federal government at a fixed rate of interest.


Frank Howard: Even so, it has a direct relationship to the Nanaimo harbour commissioners when the commission is established. This course is a commendable one and it would be following the pattern established in Hamilton. I think the principle can be established by setting up a general revolving fund account from which all harbour commissioners in Canada could borrow money and thus realize great savings for the tremendous amount of work they have to do in the particular harbours under their jurisdiction.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Gordon Minto Churchill: the second reading

of Bill No. S-3, to repeal certain fisheries laws in Newfoundland.


Frank Howard: May I raise a point of order? Perhaps this was arranged but I have no knowledge of it. As I read it, the following indication was given last night by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to what the order of the bills would be. First, there was Bill No. S-5, to incorporate the Oshawa harbour commissioners, which has been dealt with. This was to be followed by Bill No. S-10, with regard to the Nanaimo harbour commissioners, which has just been dealt with; then, Bill No. S-2, the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Agreement Act; and then Bill No. S-3, to repeal certain fisheries laws of Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I could say a word on the point of order, sir, a notice was sent to me by the house leader, and on my notice was an indication that a copy was also sent to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) indicating that Bill No. S-2 would not be proceeded with.


Frank Howard: That is fine.


Mr. McCleave:: The C.C.F. are leaderless and clueless.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on this bill will be brief, merely by way of explanation and to establish the authority for the action which is now proposed.
At present, under term 22 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada, certain fisheries laws, as defined in paragraph (1) of term 22, in so far as they relate to the export marketing of salted fish from Newfoundland to other countries or to any province of Canada, have been continued in force in the province of Newfoundland for a period of five years from the date of union and thereafter until the parliament of Canada otherwise provides.
Under term 18 of the said terms of union all laws in force in Newfoundland at, or immediately prior to the date of union, have been continued therein as if the union had not been made, subject to repeal or alteration by the parliament of Canada or the legislature of the province of Newfoundland according to the authority of the parliament or the legislature under the British North America Acts 1867 to 1946. Likewise, all orders, rules and regulations made under any such laws have been continued subject to revocation or amendment by the appropriate constitutional authority.
In 1959, the exportation of salt fish (permits) act, being No. 10 of the statutes of Newfoundland, 1942, and being one of the

statutes listed in paragraph (1) of term 22, was repealed by the parliament of Canada.
The remaining statutes listed in paragraph (1) of term 22 relate to the Newfoundland fisheries board, which board, under and by virtue of paragraphs (2) and (5) of term 22. have been brought within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. The board has been continued to date.
Since the proclamation in Newfoundland of the fisheries act on May 1, 1958, the proclamation in Newfoundland of the meat and canned foods act and the fish inspection act on July 1, 1959, and the repeal of the exportation of salt fish (permits) act as of August 1, 1959, the board has ceased to have any functions.
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to repeal, pursuant to terms 18 and 22, the remaining statutes which are listed in paragraph (1) of term 22 and which have been consolidated by the province of Newfoundland in the Newfoundland fisheries board act, being chapter 207 of the revised statutes of Newfoundland, 1952, and to repeal all orders, rules and regulations made thereunder, or made pursuant thereto under the terms of union.
In short, the Newfoundland fisheries laws, as defined under term 22 of the terms of union with Canada, are now redundant and serve no useful purpose. These laws have been superseded by the statutes of Canada relating to fisheries which have now been brought into force in Newfoundland.


Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on the act which we are about to repeal. This act had its roots in attempts made to standardize control of the marketing of dried salted codfish in particular. In the days prior to confederation and in the years immediately following, inspection or, to use the time-honoured word, "culling" had to do with grading of fish, and not only grading of fish for export but those regulations were two-pronged. Government inspection began when fishermen were selling their fish. Cullers would sort out the fish as it was being delivered to the merchant by the fishermen. The culler would separate the fish into various grades and the fishermen would be paid accordingly. The final act of inspection would be when the fish was ready for export. It would be inspected to make sure that the quality was as marked in order to maintain the standards of the fish in our markets.
The effect of this repeal bill will be that federal inspection will be limited to inspection for export. Personally I do not see too much wrong with this move. Quality as between merchant and fisherman is not really the business of the federal government. My own opinion is that when fish is in good 79951-0-254!
Newfoundland Fisheries demand the cull is easy. Competitors will pay high prices for a lower grade article rather than stick to strict grading and pay overly high prices. This redounds to the benefit of the fisherman. When the market is slow the culling regulations can be used as a stick to beat down prices and this redounds against the interests of the fisherman. Unless there were a strict policy of anchoring prices to grades I cannot see that federal or other control of fish as between the fisherman and the merchant can be of real benefit to the fisherman.
I think I should say, however, that easy culling and the lack of premium prices for premium grades do not encourage quality production. I intend to say more about this later on the fisheries estimates. However, the ancient practice of easy or hard culling, depending on market conditions will not pass away overnight. I doubt whether any legislation can eradicate it. Only time, industrialization or the extinction of the codfish will end it.
But there is much to be said for paying a premium on quality and unless there is a better price for a quality article the incentive to produce really good fish is somewhat limited. Fortunately most fishermen take pride in their work and do the very best they can. Such men should get a reward by way of a better price for the better article produced. The ideal situation would be a fair set of culling regulations which would be adhered to and a price set in accordance with quality.
Before union the Newfoundland fisheries laws were administered by the Newfoundland fisheries board. The board's authority covered the grading or culling of fish. Fish were culled when they changed hands from fishermen to merchants. The fish were inspected and graded before being shipped to the markets. I think I should say that quality has much to do with whether or not we retain our markets. I am convinced that every incentive should be offered and every care should be taken to see that Canadian fish is good fish. It is interesting to note that the world consumption of fish is increasing but that our production compared with the world increase in consumption is not keeping pace.
Much of the world's fish is caught off the east coast of Canada by foreign ships. I have gone into this matter before and shall not do so now. I feel, however, that I must emphasize again the need for recognition that in our fisheries we have a source of really great potential wealth. Yet only about 10 per cent of the world consumption of salted fish, which is estimated at half a million tons per year, is produced in Canada, which should be the greatest producer of fish in the world.
Quality must be maintained and markets developed. Culling regulations and inspection

Newfoundland Fisheries generally have a direct bearing on the article for sale. The final effect is what counts. The amount of fish we sell, the condition it is in when it reaches the markets and the way marketing is conducted are prime factors in the industry. I should like to include in my remarks an appeal for an aggressive marketing policy. I should like to emphasize that much has been done in recent years to assist the fisherman but much has yet to be done to round out a complete program. Finally, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) to give his personal attention to the matter of aggressive marketing of Canadian fish.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it has been very interesting to listen to the lucid explanation of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Granger) with respect to the Newfoundland fishing industry and the effect that the passage of the bill before us will have. He also referred to other matters about which he is concerned. We in the C.C.F. wish to indicate to the house and to the people of Newfoundland who will be affected by the bill that we support the bill.
If I may be allowed to venture into this field to a slight extent, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador related some of the difficulties experienced between the fishermen and the buyers with respect to the price paid for fish and the grading of fish. If I may be allowed to say so, I suggest that this difficulty can be overcome to a degree by the development of co-operative ownership of the various sections of the fishing industry so that the fishermen themselves can have far greater control over grading and prices and can establish a degree of uniformity with respect to prices and grades that will greatly enhance their economic position.
In those places where co-operatives are not possible or have not been formed, I suggest that the development of some form of union would be helpful in protecting the interests of the fishermen. I think it can be said that generally fishermen on the west coast and others connected with the industry have had a very good experience with the federal Department of Fisheries not only with respect to the inspection services but in the field of conservation and all the other fields in which the federal department is involved. I hope sincerely that the people of Newfoundland who will be affected by the passage of this bill will have the same beneficial experience with the Department of Fisheries that we on the west coast have had.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Fisheries laws repealed.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before clause 1 carries, if the minister will permit me I should like to echo the appeal of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador with respect to the need for the most aggressive possible marketing policy. As the minister has told us, under the legislation now being repealed there were provisions for marketing through a marketing board and through other agencies that will no longer be open under the laws of Canada which will supersede the legislation now being repealed.
As my hon. friend said in his speech, we have no quarrel with that position. But we are very gravely concerned, as I am sure the government, the minister, the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister without Portfolio are with a proposal that has been made by the common market, which happily has now been adjourned for some little time, to put a tariff around the whole common market area in Europe against Canadian codfish. The effect of that, if it were to be carried out, would of course be to give the French producers, who have a base eight miles off the coast of Newfoundland a differential advantage in a market where they have never had it before and would, to that extent, be a disability which would have to be overcome either by price cutting or by some other device which would be bound, in the end, to bring a lower return to our fishermen. We might, indeed, lose the market altogether.
Unhappily in the last few years, although the market has not been too bad itself, the production of the kind of fish that is required by the Italian market and also by the Spanish market has been going down and the production of the kind of fish that can be sold only in the West Indies has been going up. The consequence of this is that we are losing sales in a good market and tending, to some degree, to congest the supply in another market, to the disadvantage of all Canadian producers. I just echo very strongly the words of my hon. friend from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, that the government should give very careful consideration to the possibility of doing what was done before the war in order to supply the British market with bacon, that is to say, the establishment of a premium-perhaps for a year or two to see how it would work-on the Spanish and Italian fish in order to try to keep that market during the technological revolution of which I am sure the minister is aware on the east coast. What is going on at Valleyfield

and elsewhere offers a real hope that it will not be very long before light salted fish can be produced in plants. Then it may be possible to survive in these markets without any need for a premium and allowing purely economic forces to operate. There is very grave danger, in the interval, of losing the market.
I noticed in an item in the newspapers only last night our ambassador to Spain was talking about the failure of Canadians to take advantage of the market in Spain. I do not know whether that is true, but this is one market, in Spain, which we know is the best market of all pricewise. If we can only make sure of hanging on to it for the next two or three years I think there would be a real hope of keeping it for good. It is very important, not merely in an isolated way but as part of the over-all picture of the markets in that area.
Perhaps, sir, if you construed the bill very narrowly you might find a little difficulty in ascertaining that my remarks were actually relevant. However, in view of the fact that this is really carrying out part of the terms of union, you would not wish to do that and perhaps you would wish to give the minister an opportunity to say a word in reply.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The suggestions made by the two members from Newfoundland who have spoken on this bill are helpful and constructive. I express the hope that they will continue to draw to the attention of the committee problems that may arise with regard to the fishing industry.
From the standpoint of the Department of Trade and Commerce, working very closely in co-operation with the Department of Fisheries, we want to do everything that is within our power to maintain the Canadian export market for fish. We put forth the same effort with regard to this product as we do with other products that are exported from Canada. The export of fish from Canada, as from the earliest days, has been one of the great factors in our economy and should be maintained.
We are watching continuously the developments in Europe with regard to the establishment of a common market and free trade area. From time to time we have put forward, and will continue in the future to put forward, Canada's position with regard to that market. Our position is one of concern lest it should
Business of the House
become a restrictive market and one of exhortation that Canada's position in that market for products of the sea and products of the farm should not be lessened in the future. I hope all members from Newfoundland will continue to bring forward constructive suggestions, as they have this afternoon, with regard to the marketing of Canadian fish.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


Gordon Minto Churchill: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and biff read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I believe there are some changes to be made in the announcement of the business last night. Perhaps the house leader could make them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have made excellent headway this week, Mr. Speaker, thanks to the mood of the house and the good co-operation we have received. The suggestion I have just received is a good one, and I will now introduce it. Tomorrow, we will start off with interim supply. After that is concluded, we will take item No. 11 on today's order paper which is the resolution in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare dealing with the Old Age Security Act. We will follow that with the estimates of the departments of agriculture, post office and public works during Thursday and Friday if the time becomes available.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might just ascertain if it is still the intention to go ahead with a motion for supply on Monday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, thanks for reminding me. On Monday and Tuesday, the fifth supply motion will be brought forward.


[Stage Direction]
At 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.	Were any expenditures made in the fiscal year 1958-1959 on east Ship Harbour, Halifax county, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, who was the contractor?
3.	What was the amount of expenditures involved?
Answer by:	Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of
Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	John Monk, for installing plank runners on the deck of the public wharf.
3.	$277.


RENE LEVESQUE, MONTREAL  C.B.C. EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Was Mr. Rene Levesque, of Montreal, employed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during the years 1956, 1957 and 1958?
2.	If so, what amount was paid to him by way of salary or other remuneration, and expenses, for each of these years?
Answer by:	Hon. George C. Nowlan
(Minisier of National Revenue):
1.	Mr. Rene Levesque was on the staff of the corporation as a producer from January 1 to April 30, 1956. At that time he ceased to be a member of staff and from then until the end of 1958 was employed on a per occasion basis as a free-lance commentator under contract.
2.	Statements of payments to individuals have been held not to be in the public interest as being detrimental to the position of the corporation in negotiating for such services for broadcasting.

Thursday, May 19, 1960

(Translation):