1961-02-22

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.


Mr. Pitman: 1.	What percentage of first grade butter produced in Canada is classed as 39-92?
2.	What percentage of first grade butter produced in Canada is classed as 40-93?
3.	What percentage of butter classed as 39-92 was produced by milk processing plants?
4.	What percentage of butter classed as 39-92 was produced by independent creameries?


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:
1.	64.20 per cent.
2.	31.27 per cent.
3.	20 per cent.
4.	80 per cent.


PIGEON RIVER, ONT. CUSTOMS OFFICE REMOVAL
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	Will the provincial government be paying any portion of the moving costs or costs of new buildings that will result from the shifting of immigration and customs facilities from the border crossing located at Pigeon River, Ontario, to a new site at High Falls?
2.	If so what portion of costs will be borne by the provincial government?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 of this question is no. The answer to part 2 is, not applicable.


HOG CHOLERA
Mr. Pitman: 1.	How many cases of hog cholera were reported in Canada in 1960?
2.	Did the Department of Agriculture determine the source of infection?
3.	Have any steps been taken to ensure that such infection does not recur?


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is that 106 cases of hog cholera were reported
90205-6-146i
in Canada during 1960. The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The answer to the third part of the question is that there can be no positive assurance against a recurrence of infection, but all practical control measures to guard against it are being taken.


FLOOD CONTROL, FAIRFORD RIVER, MAN.
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Has the federal government contributed to the cost of a flood control project in the Fairford river in Manitoba?
2.	If so, under what authority is the contribution being made, and what is the federal share?
3.	Has the project actually been started, and, if so, what progress has been made, and when is it expected to be completed?
4.	Is the work being performed by contract, and, if so, what is the amount of the contract?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is that the federal government has undertaken to contribute to the cost of a flood control project on the Fairford river.
The answer to the second part of the question is that this was authorized by governor in council on October 28, 1960. The federal share is 50 per cent of the cost to the province of Manitoba, not to exceed $300,000, to be charged to the parliamentary appropriation in the main estimates for land protection, reclamation and development.
The answer to part three of the question is that the work is more than half done and will be completed in 1961. The answer to part four is that the work is being performed by contracts let by the province. No claims have yet been submitted to the federal government.


GRAIN STORAGE COST
Mr. Boulanger: What is the cost of grain storage for each of the years 1957-58-59-60?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Speaker, the question is rather ambiguous. It is rather difficult to estimate the total cost of storage if you take into consideration all the people who are involved in the storage of grain. I presume, however, that the hon. member is asking for the storage cost under

Starred Questions
the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I do have those figures here, and they are as follows:
Crop year	Storage paid by
by government
1955-	56	
$31,486,1871956-	57	
28,816,7661957-	58	
35,553,5091958-	59	
39,825,3041959-	60	
43,604,073


POULTRY IMPORTS
Mr. Boulanger: 1.	What quantity of chicken broilers, fowl, turkeys and parts, have been imported for the calendar years 1959 and 1960?
2.	Are turkey and fowl placed under import control?
3.	If so, how many import permits have been issued for turkey broilers, turkey heavier weight, turkey parts, fowl and fowl parts, and chicken broilers imported from the United States during the year 1960?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND BALANCE
Mr. Robichaud: What was the amount remaining in the unemployment insurance fund on the last day of January 1961 as compared with similar dates for the years 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1960?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question consists of a series of figures. May I ask that they be printed in Hansard without being read?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that this answer be printed?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: They are very short. The answers should be read.


Mr. Pearson:: Read them.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently there is some objection. Would the minister read them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question requires some statistics, and I wonder whether the hon. member in whose name the question stands, and the house, would consent to allowing the answer to be printed in Hansard at this place.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member agreeable?


Mr. Boulanger:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows.1
1. Imports
Chicken & fowl, dead or alive,
n.o.p	
Turkeys, dead or alive,
1959	1960
(12 months) (11 months) lb.	lb.
7,214,993	15,410,750
n.o.p	 437,980	4,444,298
2. Turkeys, but not fowl, are under import control.
3. In 1960, 77 permits were issued for turkeys and 22 permits for turkey parts imported from the United States. In the issuing of import permits no distinction is made between turkey broilers and heavier weight turkeys. Fowl and fowl parts, and chicken broilers were not under import control in 1960; consequently permits were not required for imports from the United States.

January 31,	1957	
$916,429,487.77January 31,	1958	
$838,917,440.79January 31,	1959	
$586,990,920.89January 31,	1960	
$445,885,387.32January 31,	1961	
$283,742,150.10


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMANTS
Mr. Robichaud: What was the total number of claimants for unemployment insurance benefits on the following dates: February 1, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961?


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is as follows. As at January 31, 1956, 476,946; as at January 31, 1957, 545,981; as at January 31, 1958, 834,544; as at January 31, 1959, 785,071; as at January 31, 1960, 782,542. The figures as at January 31, 1961 are not yet available.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the way to read.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICE, TORONTO  PLANS
Mr. Bourgei: When will the plans and specifications for the construction of an unemployment insurance office in Toronto be completed?


Mr. Y. R. Tasse (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is that it was originally expected that the plans and specifications would be completed by April 1, 1961. A basic change in the accommodation requirements has been proposed, and until this has been dealt with it is not possible to say when the plans and specifications will be completed.

On the orders of the day:
(Translation) :


Mr. Maurice Bourget (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works, I should like to put a question to his parliamentary secretary. Could he elab-borate on the answer he gave a moment ago to question No. 140, to the effect that the department does not know as yet when the plans and specifications for the unemployment insurance building in Toronto will be completed, while in this year's estimates the item concerning this project has been increased from $400,000 to $900,000?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to want to argue about an answer that has been given. If we were to pursue that course we would have interminable debate at this period. Questions may be asked for the purpose of eliciting information but not for the purpose of presenting a point of view.


Maurice Bourget: But, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member if he disagrees.


Maurice Bourget: I was just asking the parliamentary secretary how he could reconcile the answer he gave me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The parliamentary
secretary does not have to reconcile answers that are given. That is not the purpose of the question period. If the hon. member wishes to debate it I hope he will defer his debate to the proper time.


FEDERAL BUILDING RENOVATION, KIRKLAND LAKE
Mr. Peters: 1.	Was a contract let recently for the renovation of the federal building at Kirkland Lake?
2.	If so, in what places was the advertisement for this work published or displayed?
3.	How many tenders were received, and from whom?
4.	What was the amount of each tender?
5.	To whom was the contract awarded, and where does the successful contractor reside?
6.	Was any preference given to encourage local contractors under the winter works program?


Yvon-Roma Tassé: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part is Kirkland Lake and New Liskeard, Ontario. The answer to parts 3 and 4 is that two tenders were received, one from Hill-Clark-Francis Ltd., of North Bay, Ontario, $53,187, and the other from G. L. Hamilton Construction Ltd., Kirkland Lake, Ontario, $65,000. The answer to part 5 of the question is that the contract was awarded to Hill-Clark-Francis Ltd., of North Bay, Ontario. The answer to part 6 is yes. It was part of the winter works pro-
Starred Questions
gram. Advertising of tenders was limited to the immediate area and the contract specified that preference was to be given to the use of local labour.


BOBCAT PILOT MODELS-DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Mr. Rouleau: Does the cost of the 20 pilot models of the bobcat plus production tooling, estimated at 31 million dollars by the Minister of National Defence on February 14, 1961, include the sum of $2,951,371.54 given as the full cost of the development of this carrier up to February 1, 1960, given in the answer to question No. 174, answered February 24, 1960?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: The short answer to this question is, no. The estimate of $3J million quoted in the house on February 14 last includes the cost of 20 pilot models, production tooling, production improvement and drawings and specifications suitable for the letting of a fixed price contract for the balance of the 500 vehicles authorized.


WHARF REPAIRS, BAY OF ISLANDS, NFLD.
Mr. Baiien: 1.	What was the hourly rate of wages paid for day labour on wharf repairs at Cox's Cove, Bay of Islands, Newfoundland, undertaken during the year 1960?
2.	What was the hourly rate of wages paid for day labour on wharf repairs at Gillams, Bay of Islands, Newfoundland, during the same period?
3.	If any substantial difference exists between these two rates, what explanation is given for such difference?


Yvon-Roma Tassé: In answer to part 1, hourly rates paid at Cox's Cove, Bay of Islands, Newfoundland, on wharf repairs during 1960 were: foreman, $1.30; timberman, $1.20; labourer, $1.
Hourly rates paid at Gillams, Bay of Islands, Newfoundland, on wharf repairs during the same period were: foreman, $2.15; carpenter, $2.00; labourer, $1.35. That answers part 2.
In answer to part 3, rates paid by the Department of Public Works on various projects across Canada are established on the basis of advice from the Department of Labour as to what rates prevail in the area concerned and at the time concerned. The explanation for the difference in this case is that Gillams is closer to Corner Brook than Cox's Cove, and many of the workers in Gillams are actually employed in Corner Brook. Therefore rates in Gillams are affected more by rates prevailing in Corner Brook. Workers at Cox's Cove are mainly involved in fishing and woods work, and the rates paid by the department there are based on rates provided by the labour department survey as prevailing in Cox's Cove and in other centres in the area.

Starred Questions


WHARF COST, ST. JOHN'S ISLAND, NFLD.
Mr. Batten: 1.	What was the total cost of construction of the wharf built at St. John's island, St. Barbe, Newfoundland, during the year 1960?
2.	What was (a) the total cost of material, and (b) the total cost of labour?
3.	From whom were materials bought, and what was the total cost in each case?
4.	What were the names of those employed, and the total amount of wages paid to each?


Yvon-Roma Tassé: The answer to part 1 is $17,017.20. The answer to part 2 (a) is $9,345.54 and the answer to part 2(b) is $7,671.66.
The answer to parts 3 and 4 involves a list of some 25 names and figures, so if the house would allow them to be inserted in Hansard as if read that would perhaps be the appropriate course to take.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables referred to above are as follows.3
3.	-Dunphy's Ltd., Curling, $6,494.05; J. E. Billard, Port aux Choix, $1,467.50; J. E. Bil-lard, Port aux Choix, $109.22; John Farrel, Port aux Choix, $73.75; A. O. Parsons, Woody Point, $6.82; John Rumbolt, Castor River, $297.50; Cost of transporting ballast to site by boat, $896.70.
4.	-Wm. L. Parsons, foreman, $1,077.12; Clyde Chambers, carpenter, $757.25; Hubert Chambers, labourer, $429.84; George Chambers, labourer, $514.08; Eli Chambers, labourer, $492.08; Michael Eastman, labourer, $334.56; Walter Galliott, labourer, $461.04; William Offrey, labourer, $582.24; Fred Parsons, labourer, $353.52; Joseph Offrey, labourer, $531.43; Henry Galliott, labourer, $510.00; Nelson McLean, labourer, $464.80; Absalom Chambers, labourer, $492.80; Frank Eastman, labourer, $444.24; Peter Offrey, labourer, $44.00; Francis Offrey, labourer, $44.00; Henry Offrey, labourer, $36.00; U.I.C. contributions, $102.66.


PARCEL POST REVENUES
Mr. Denis: For each of the last five fiscal years, what has been the gross revenues derived from domestic mail parcel post?


Hon. W. M. Hamilion (Postmaster General):: The answer to this question is just a column of figures, and perhaps it could be printed in Hansard as if read.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note; The table referred to above is as follows.'}
Estimated:	1959-60, $22,086,304; 1958-59,
$20,860,194;	1957-58,	$19,916,979;	1956-57,
$19,149,249; 1955-56, $18,163,471.
[Mr. Tasse.)


ESTABLISHMENT OF T.V. FACILITIES, SKEENA
Mr. Howard: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation any plans for the development or establishment of television facilities in the electoral district of Skeena?
2.	Have any surveys been made of the need for such facilities, and, if so, what are the results of these surveys, and the areas or communities so covered?
3.	When is it expected that such services will be installed, in what communities, and covering what areas?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: The answer to part 1 is, yes, as a result of numerous representations which have been received in connection with this matter.
The answer to part 2 is, yes. Preliminary studies have resulted in choosing two locations, Prince Rupert and Kitimat, for further study, with the possibility of Terrace being included if further studies indicate that such a scheme is feasible.
In answer to part 3, may I say that corporation management has approved the detailed study of the Prince Rupert-Kitimat proposal. An on the spot survey will be made this spring as soon as weather and road conditions permit. When the survey data is compiled and the cost of the proposal is determined, a decision as to its implementation will be made.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Granger: 1.	Is there an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland to provide certain payments to Newfoundland in lieu of federal expenditures on Indians and Eskimos in other provinces?
2.	If so, how much is paid under this agreement, and for what purposes?
3.	What is the estimated number of (a) Indians, and (b) Eskimos, in Newfoundland according to the latest available figures?


Noël Dorion: This
question involves several departments and I would suggest it be made an order for return.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, 1960-61

Mr. Tucker: 1.	What is the total contract value of construction projects which were actually being carried on by the Department of Public Works during the month of January 1961?
2.	How many standard post office buildings started in 1960 had been completed, or were under actual construction, up to January 31, 1961?
3.	How many slightly larger than standard post office buildings started in 1960 had been completed, or were under actual construction, up to January 31, 1961?

4.	What was the estimated cost of furniture and equipment ordered for winter delivery in the winter of 1960-61, up to January 31, 1961?
5.	On how many dredging operations was the Department of Public Works actually working at any time since November 1, 1960, and what is the estimated total cost of this work?
6.	How many small maintenance and repair work projects for various marine structures across the country was the Department of Public Works actually working on at any time since November 1, 1960, and what is the estimated total cost of this work?


Yvon-Roma Tassé: This question involves a considerable amount of research, and I wonder if the hon. member in whose name it stands would allow it to be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this be made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



MAIL CONTRACT, LADYSMITH

Mr. Denis: 1.	What is the name of the person who now has the contract for the rural mail delivery at Ladysmith, R.R. 1, Ontario?
2.	On what date will such contract expire?
3.	Has the said contract been renewed, or will the said contract be renewed in favour of the person who now has it?
4.	If not:	(a) have tenders been (i) invited
(ii) opened? (b) what are the names of the tenderers, and the amount of each tender? (c) to whom was the contract awarded?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, this question inquires about a place entitled Ladysmith, Ontario, which does not exist. I think the hon. member is referring to Ladysmith, Quebec, which does exist.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William McLean Hamilton: Subject to that reservation the answers to the four parts of this question are as follows:
1.	Reinhold Pasch.
2.	31st March 1961.
3.	No.
4.	(a) (i) No. (ii) Not applicable.
(b)	Not applicable.
(c)	James Turcotte.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, we have heard that the Postmaster General tries to be very smart and funny when he says he does not know what the province is. Following the motion I put on the order paper I received a letter written by the district director of the post office, addressed to Mr. R. Pasch,
Starred Questions
mail contractor, Ladysmith, Ontario. Therefore if I made a mistake in the first place, it was originated by one of his own officials.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member makes a question of privilege out of a rather minor mistake. 1 am sure his explanation will be of interest.
LLater:]


Azellus Denis: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General following the answer he gave to the house under starred questions to the effect that the contract at Ladysmith, Quebec, if he wishes, will terminate on March 31, that the contractor will be replaced by somebody else and that public tenders will not be called.
I have here a letter from the department and I want the minister to assert whether this report is true and say whether it is the new policy of his department that the new contract for such service is to be awarded to-


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is traditional in this house that correspondence is not read in connection with a question.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear the Postmaster General.


William McLean Hamilton: believe it is contrary to our accepted practice to read a letter in the house and found a question on it. Questions are intended to be short, direct and to the point, and I suggest that this wandering explanation leading up to the reading of a letter is not within the purview of the question period.


Mr. Chevrier:: What citation supports that view?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Denis may have a question to ask, but I found difficulty in following what his question was. Could the hon. member state the question he has to ask? Then perhaps we can determine whether there is any need to read the letter.


William McLean Hamilton: Further to the point of order, citation 176 of Beauchesne, at page 151, says that on February 24, 1933 a member said he would like to address a question to the minister of labour concerning the town of Transcona. He then read a telegram. Mr. Speaker said:
The hon. member should ask his question, not read a communication. The communication could have been sent to the minister in charge without it being necessary to read it in the house.
There are further citations to the same effect, pointing out that communications should not be read in connection with questions.

Starred Questions


Azellus Denis: In order to please the Postmaster General I will rephrase my question.
1	am informed that the contract at Ladysmith will be awarded to somebody else without any tenders being called. I should like to know whether this information is true and, if so, whether it is the new policy of the department to grant new contracts without calling for tenders.


William McLean Hamilton: Having answered the question earlier in the day in exactly those terms-that this contract had been awarded to another person and that tenders had not been called-it is hardly within the purview of the question period for an hon. member to stand up immediately afterwards and ask if that is the true situation.


Lionel Chevrier: Why not say you fired the fellow? Give us the facts.


Mr. W. F. Matthews (Nanaimo):: I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General, and I hope this continued nagging by the hon. member for St. Denis will not prejudice the interest of my constituents.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member appears to be making a statement. I suggest we pass to the orders of the day.



COAL MINE OPERATION, CAPE BRETON    SUBSIDY ON LOSSES

Mr. Dumas: 1.	Has any estimate been made of the cost (a) to the federal government (b) to the province of Nova Scotia, arising from the subsidy to be applied against company losses from the operation of three coal mines in Cape Breton for a temporary period?
2.	If so, what is any such cost to (a) the federal government (b) the province of Nova Scotia?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to 1 (a) and 1 (b) is yes. The answer to 2 (a) is $2,150,000. The answer to
2	(b) is $350,000.



LAND ACQUISITION FOR AIRPORTS, PITT MEADOWS

Mr. Winch: 1.	Has the federal government acquired land in the municipality of Pitt meadows for airport purposes?
2.	If so, how much has been acquired, how much more is to be acquired, and when can final settlement of intended further acquisition be expected?
3.	Is it still the intention of the government to proceed with development of an airport at Pitt meadows?
4.	If not, what are the intentions regarding properties already obtained in relation thereto?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes.
As to part 2, approximately 700 acres have been expropriated and settlements have been completed in respect of approximately 655

acres. Of the remaining 45 acres, about 9 acres are owned by the municipality of Pitt meadows and the balance by two individuals with whom it has not been possible to negotiate amicable settlements. These two cases have been referred to the Department of Justice for exchequer court proceedings and cannot be heard until the owners involved have filed statements of defence. At the moment it is not possible to say when such steps will be taken by these two individuals and when their cases will go before the exchequer court. With regard to the land owned by the municipality, there is some question as to whether this is actually required, and the matter is still under consideration.
The answer to part 3 is yes and the answer to part 4, consequently, is not applicable.



PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY

Mr. Winch: 1.	Is the government aware that the minister of finance of British Columbia has introduced a bill to authorize payment of advances to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway Company pending receipt of a federal grant, in which it is maintained that the government of British Columbia expects to be subsidized in the sum of $19,812,500 from the federal government?
2.	Has the federal government made any commitments to pay these moneys? If so, what amount was committed and has been paid?
3.	Has consideration been given to subsidizing the entire construction cost of extending the Pacific Great Eastern Railway from Prince George to the Peace river area? If not, for what reason?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the three parts of this question are as follows.
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) No.
(b). The federal government has paid the following subsidies toward the cost of construction of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway:
(i)	In 1951-52, for the extension of the line from Quesnel to Prince George, a distance of 82.7 miles at $15,000 a mile and amounting to $1,240,000.
(ii)	from 1956 to 1958, for the extension of the line north of Prince George, a distance of 50 miles at $25,000 a mile and amounting to $1,250,000.
3.	No.



CLOSING OF CAPE BRETON COLLIERIES- DISCUSSIONS WITH DOSCO

Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi): 1.	Were discussions held between the government and representatives of Dominion Steel and Coal Company with respect to the dates of closing of three Cape Breton collieries?
2.	If so, who attended such discussions on behalf of the government and on behalf of the company, and on which dates were any such discussions held?

3.	Were representatives of the united mine workers present at any such discussions as to dates for closing of the collieries?
4.	If so, who was present on behalf of the united mine workers, and what view did any such representatives take as to proposed dates of closing of such collieries?
5.	Did the government reach any understanding with company representatives that discussions would not be reopened with respect to the dates of colliery closures as announced on January 9, 1961?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the five parts of this question are as follows.
1.	Yes.
2.	Numerous discussions have taken place over a long period of time with respect to this matter. There is no record available of the dates on which many of these discussions took place. The government was represented on all occasions by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and by the Minister of National Revenue and from time to time by the Minister of Labour and by the Prime Minister. The company from time to time was represented by various officials including the president, Mr. A. L. Fairley; the vice president in charge of finance, Mr. Earl Clubb; the vice president in charge of sales, Mr. Charles Appleton; and the general manager, Mr. Harold Gordon.
3.	Yes.
4.	Present on behalf of the united mine workers were Mr. William H. Marsh, president, district No. 26; Mr. Stephen Dol-hanty, vice president; Mr. Michael Higgins, secretary treasurer, and Mr. John E. Delaney, international board member. These representatives asked for postponement of the closing of any collieries, which was accomplished.
5.	The answer to this part of the question is no, but the company stated that its decision with respect to the closing of these mines was final and in its opinion in the interests of the coal industry.

On the orders of the day:


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue arising out of the reply he gave to starred question No. 158 standing in my name, in which the minister said among other things that the united mine workers had asked for a postponement of the closing down of the collieries. My question is this. Is it not a fact that the united mine workers asked that the collieries should not be closed at all?


George Clyde Nowlan: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.
Motions for Papers



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Granger: 1.	Is there an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland to provide certain payments to Newfoundland in lieu of federal expenditures on Indians and Eskimos in other provinces?
2.	If so, how much is paid under this agreement, and for what purposes?
3.	What is the estimated number of (a) Indians, and (b) Eskimos, in Newfoundland according to the latest available figures?



PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, 1960-61

Mr. Tucker: 1.	What is the total contract value of construction projects which were actually being carried on by the Department of Public Works during the month of January 1961?
2.	How many standard post office buildings started in 1960 had been completed, or were under actual construction, up to January 31, 1961?
3.	How many slightly larger than standard post office buildings started in 1960 had been completed, or were under actual construction, up to January 31, 1961?
4.	What was the estimated cost of furniture and equipment ordered for winter delivery in the winter of 1960-61, up to January 31, 1961?
5.	On how many dredging operations was the Department of Public Works actually working at any time since November 1, 1960, and what is the estimated total cost of this work?
6.	How many small maintenance and repair work projects for various marine structures across the country was the Department of Public Works actually working on at any time since November 1, 1960, and what is the estimated total cost of this work?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) raised a point of order under this heading when it was last called. He has advised me that he will not be able to be here today and has requested that the matter stand until Monday.



URANIUM PURCHASES BY U.S.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Mcllrailh:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Canadian government, on the one hand, and the United States government on the other, since August 29, 1959, on the subject of the purchase of uranium by the United States of America from Canada.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I am advised that there are no such documents, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances is the hon. member prepared to withdraw his motion? Is it agreed that the motion may be withdrawn?


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

Motions for Papers
roads to resources program, Quebec


Some hon. Members:: Why?
Motion No. 49-Mr. Martel:
For a copy of all contracts and agreements entered into by the federal government and the province of Quebec with respect to the roads to resources program, together with copies of all riders and schedules pertaining thereto.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with the hon. member in connection with this order. I have provided him with a copy of the roads to resources agreement between the federal government and the province of Quebec. There is only one agreement and no riders or schedules pertain thereto. In the circumstances the hon. member has agreed that there would seem to be no need to make a formal return to this motion. I might add that all these roads to resources agreements have been tabled in the house and are available to all hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances does the house agree to the hon. member's motion being withdrawn?


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



ORDERS IN COUNCIL FIXING DUTIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Benidickson:
For copies of orders issued by the Minister of National Revenue since December 1, 1958, under the provisions of section 38 of the Customs Act for the purposes of fixing duties.
George Clyde Nowlan: With reference to the point you raised a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to accept this motion subject to the usual reservations. I understand however that at the request of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, consideration of this order is being deferred until his return when you will rule thereon.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the point of order taken, is it agreed that this motion stands?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



CAMPBELLTON-CROSS POINT BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 54-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged since June 21, 1957, between the federal government or any agency or department thereof, not including the Department of Public Works, with any individual, engineering consultant firms or others, in connection with plans and specifications for the Camp-bellton-Cross Point bridge, including correspondence exchanged with any groups or syndicate prior to the approval of the project and up to this date.
Noël Dorion: request that this motion stand.
[Mr. Speaker.)


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the hon. gentleman could explain.


Noël Dorion: In deference to the Prime Minister I ask that it stand.
Motion stands.



REMOVAL OF GENERAL MOTORS PLANT FROM WINDSOR

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 56-Mr. Martin (Essex East):
For a copy of any written communication or a record of any exchange between the government and General Motors on the subject of an unfounded report of a removal of General Motors plant from Windsor.
Noël Dorion: This motion is accepted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 57-Mr. Denis:
For a copy of a petition to the Postmaster General or his department from a group of citizens of Ladysmith, R.R. 1, Ontario, regarding the service of the mail carrier, Mr. R. Pasch.
William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, there is still, since my last observation, no place known as Ladysmith, Ontario. If the hon. member is referring to Ladysmith, Quebec, we will accept the motion.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I used the name "Ladysmith" because this place is known as Ladysmith and it has been so named by the minister's own officials. I have a letter from the Post Office Department, and the officer of the department called the place Ladysmith, rural route No. 1, Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion refers to Ladysmith, R.R. 1, Ontario. I understand the Postmaster General indicates that the post office is in Quebec. Will the house consent to the appropriate change being made in the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The word "Ontario" will be changed to "Quebec". Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion with the change made?


An hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the

Minister of Finance whether it is the intention of the government to refer the question of monetary policy, and more particularly government responsibility with regard to it, to the banking and commerce committee for examination during this session?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the latter part of the question in respect of these allegations of responsibility was disposed of yesterday. I think there is no further inquiry called for, and certainly it is precluded by the decision taken by the house yesterday.
As to the first part of his question, this is a matter that was raised several times earlier. I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that normally the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada reaches the minister's desk about March. This question can be taken into consideration in the light of that report.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the government to cause an investigation to take place into any aspect of the operation of the monetary policy of the government or the Bank of Canada other than that properly proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, namely a committee of this house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the curiosity of the hon. gentleman is more evident today than it was yesterday. If it became government policy to arrange for any such inquiry at any time I should be glad to see that the hon. member for Essex East is acquainted with this fact after it has been announced in the house.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the report that Russia has given a reply favourable to restoring the Laos international commission, I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs could give us any comment as to whether this new commission is likely to be re-established.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there have been two developments of major significance in respect of Laos during the last few days. The first was that the Soviet union replied on February 18 to the proposals made by the United Kingdom about the reconvening of the international supervisory commission for Laos. These exchanges between the co-chairmen of the Geneva conference-that is the United Kingdom and the Soviet union-are,
Inquiries of the Ministry of course, confidential, and must remain so until the co-chairmen decide to make them public. I can, however, say that further discussions between the co-chairmen appear likely. Canada has, of course, a direct interest in the outcome of these discussions because, as I informed the house on January 16, we are willing, if the United Kingdom and the Soviet union as co-chairmen of the Geneva conference so request, and subject to the agreement of the king of Laos, to appoint a Canadian representative to the commission.
The second development was a declaration on February 19-one day later-by the king of Laos in which he pointed out that the policy of the royal Laotian government is one of non-alignment, non-interference and good neighbourliness; that is to say a policy of neutrality. Further, the king appealed to all countries to respect the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and neutrality of Laos, and to renounce all intervention in the internal affairs of the kingdom, even in the form of aid if not sanctioned by international agreements. He went on to express the hope that Cambodia, Burma and Malaya, all close neighbours would form a commission to proceed to Laos in order to establish that the country threatens no one and aspires solely to peace. The purpose of the commission would be to take action to denounce all foreign intervention, direct or indirect, which would imperil the kingdom's independence, integrity and neutrality.
I should like to remind the house that the maintenance of the sovereignty, independence, unity and integrity of Laos, and peace and stability in southeast Asia, are objectives which Canada has sought to promote for many years. In line with this policy, Canada welcomes the declaration of neutrality made by the king of Laos on behalf of his government and his people, and will continue to respect and support the independence, sovereignty and neutrality of the kingdom, as it has in the past.
With these two suggestions having been made the situation is unclear at the moment. It may be that there will have to be some joining together of the two proposals, but at the present time I am not sure just what will happen with regard to the commission in respect of Laos.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the minister would care to comment on a further press report that Britain and the United States appear to be shifting position and favouring the formation of a commission of neutral observers?


Howard Charles Green: I believe the government of the United States has approved of the declaration made by the king of Laos, and that

Inquiries of the Ministry subsequently the government of the United Kingdom indicated that it thought this might be a good idea. So at the moment we are between the two commissions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The other day the Prime Minister tabled an invitation from Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia for a 14-power conference with regard to the Laos situation. He did not table the reply of the government of Canada to that proposed arrangement. Would the minister tell us what reply Canada made to the proposal for such a conference?


Howard Charles Green: I am not certain, but I think the hon. member is wrong, and that on February 8 Canada's reply to that communication from Prince Sihanouk was tabled, or in any event that a summary was given to the house at that time.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister received any representations protesting the granting of a licence to CKY, Winnipeg, to operate a frequency modulation station on a frequency of 103.1 megacycles? If so, has he conveyed these representations to the chairman of the board of broadcast governors, and will he tell the house what reply he has received?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, offhand I would say no, I have not received any. It is our practice in the office to send these immediately to the board of broadcast governors, or the corporation, as the case may be, and it is possible that I received something in writing and passed it on to the board for their opinion and comment. I will check on the matter and advise the house in the near future.



COLUMBIA RIVER-INQUIRY AS TO CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I rarely bother him. Could the minister inform the house whether diplomatic relations have been re-established between the Minister of Finance and

the premier of British Columbia in connection with securing an agreement on the development of the Columbia in Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There has been no change on the part of the federal government. I think I will have to direct the hon. member, as to the balance of his question, to another source. I have not had any reply to the letter I wrote Premier Bennett several weeks ago, and which I tabled in the house at that time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Will the Minister of Finance be taking up this question with the premier of British Columbia when he arrives in Ottawa for the dominion-provincial conference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know precisely when Premier Bennett is arriving, but I believe he will be here tomorrow and Friday. I shall be glad to have the opportunity of discussing with him the making of arrangements for the discussions which were proposed.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE FEDERAL PROPOSALS RESPECTING TAX SHARING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: As the
Minister of Finance is shortly to be engulfed by the premiers in his confrontation with them, does he believe that he can tell the house what kind of policy he proposes, in principle, to outline to the provinces when he meets with the premiers tomorrow in connection with this very important matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The usual generous policy, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether at the dominion-provincial conference which opens tomorrow the government intends to propose to the provinces ways and means of mitigating the present unemployment problem?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this is a fiscal conference called for the purpose of discussing fiscal arrangements for the period commencing April 1, 1962.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Does the minister propose to take advantage of the presence of the provincial governments

to discuss the government's policy regarding the designation of depressed areas and the federal government's policy in connection therewith?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I never take advantage of anything or anybody, not even the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister will not take advantage of me, will he not on behalf of the federal government begin to do something about this serious problem of unemployment, instead of carrying on day by day doing nothing?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the impetuous impatience of the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Impatience is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I point out, however, that neither the hon. gentleman nor his leader displayed any interest in this question two days ago, when they had an opportunity of selecting the subject for debate on the supply motion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made a reflection on the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree that the hon. member's point is well taken.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was about to state my point more clearly, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree that the minister took an opportunity which was not his to make a statement, but it is neither a question of privilege nor a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, my hon. friends opposite do not like us to discuss anything, but we are going to discuss unemployment. Having in mind what the minister said, Mr. Speaker, do you not think the minister owes it to this house to withdraw those words? If he does not withdraw those words I simply suggest to the minister that if there has been any disregard for the unemployed, it lies on the doorstep of this government.


Mr. Hees:: Stop smiling.


Mr. Speaker:: I trust there will be an early opportunity to continue the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the answer just given by the Minister of Finance may I ask the acting house leader if he will now reconsider the
Inquiries of the Ministry announcement made last evening and allow the house to proceed at once to a consideration of the labour estimates so that we may examine the relevant minister thereon?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the opposition having had an opportunity, at the invitation of the Prime Minister, to discuss the question of unemployment on the motion to go into supply-an invitation which hon. gentlemen opposite saw fit to refuse-we will not be calling the labour estimates tomorrow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government violated its promise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschalelels (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to an answer given to me in this house last January 31 by the Secretary of State.
My question is based on the transcript of the television program involved that has just been made available to me.
(Text):	,


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member wishes to rise on a question of privilege on a reply given to him in the house on January 31. Since the hon. member has not raised the question before, I would think that he should first establish his right to raise it at this late date.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I was just about to give the reason this question was not raised before. I have just this morning received the transcript of the notes of the program concerned, so that I was not able to do it before. That is the reason for my question.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, last January 31, I put to the Secretary of State the following question which appears on page 1 of the appendix to Hansard for that date:
Is it true that last Sunday evening the Secretary of State stated over the French television network that the percentage of unemployed was lower in Canada than in the United States?
The Secretary of State then gave the following answer:
Mr. Speaker, I do not recall making any such statement. I might have said something along that line, but certainly not in those terms.
I now have here the transcript of the statement made on television last January 29 by the Secretary of State. This is exactly what he said:
2304	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
In that regard, I must point out however that the percentage of unemployed in the United States is higher, not much, but higher than in Canada. (Text):


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to raise a point of order I will hear him.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister cannot raise a point of order on a question of privilege. A question of order cannot be raised on a question of privilege.


Mr. Ricard:: It is up to Mr. Speaker to decide that matter.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my view that a point of order could arise on a question of privilege. It cannot arise, of course, when a point of order is being discussed. But if our proceedings are out of order in dealing with a question of privilege, I see no reason why the point of order should not be stated before the matter of privilege has been fully dealt with.


Lionel Chevrier: The question of privilege has not been fully stated.
(Translation):


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, because the very character of the words just spoken by the hon. member indicates that this is by no means a question of privilege. I believe, Mr. Speaker-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is for the Chair to determine whether there is a question of privilege raised by what has been said. I think the minister is premature in raising that matter as a point of order. If the hon. member's facts are accepted and if the notes are accepted as being an account of what was said, I have some doubt whether it raises a question of privilege in any event. It may indicate that in his reply the minister was not accurate, but that is not necessarily a question of privilege unless some attempt has been made to deceive the house. I think I should hear the balance of the notes and then give the minister the opportunity to reply.
(Translation):


Léon Balcer: Before the hon. member goes any further, may I be allowed to point out that on several previous occasions my hon. friend happened to quote documents in this house, by simply saying: I have here the transcript of a lecture which was given. But I think that before going on with his remarks, he should give some reference as to the source of his information and the transcriber of those notes. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: That is perfectly correct. The hon. member who is setting up some document
[Mr. Deschatelets.)

as against an answer he received should verify the document, what it is and its authenticity.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This document which I was reading when I was interrupted comes from the C.B.C.-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: It is the verbatim transcription of a program televised on January 29, 1961, when the Secretary of State held a press conference.
I shall now go on with his statement, just quoting a few lines, and after having read those lines, I shall state the basis for the question of privilege which I am submitting.


Mr. Fortin:: State the question of privilege first.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like the hon. member to give the basis of his question of privilege before he proceeds.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, on television at a press conference the Secretary of State gave figures indicating that there was more unemployment in the United States than we had in Canada at that time.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What is the question of privilege?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: That was his statement. When I asked him a question in the house the Secretary of State did not correct his statement, which was not correct. Since this program has been shown on many stations, I think I have the right today to correct the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is simply contradicting something which has been said, that is not a matter of privilege. If we raised questions of privilege every time we disagreed with what had been said on the other side of the house, it would result in perpetual questions of privilege. If that is the hon. member's question of privilege I think he has misinformed himself as to the extent of privilege. All he is saying is that he disagrees with the answer which was given to him, or that he contradicts the answer which was given to him by the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: Your Honour a while ago indicated that you were going to allow the hon. member to state his question of privilege by completing the reading of the notes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lionel Chevrier: Then Your Honour asked the hon. member to state what the question of privilege was. The hon. member stated it. I am saying to Your Honour with deference that there is a question of privilege because,

in answer to a question put by an hon. member in the House of Commons, a categorical answer was given by the minister which is contradicted by a statement made over television. Surely in this House of Commons there is a responsibility resting upon ministers of the crown to make statements which are in conformity with the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened carefully to the reply given by the minister to the answer which was read. It seemed to me that the reply was of such a general nature that one could not raise a question of privilege, even if the minister were incorrect in his account of what he had said. It was on that basis that I wanted the hon. member who has raised the point to indicate exactly where he feels there is privilege. He has not satisfied me that there is any question of privilege arising out of these circumstances.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, for guidance may I ask whether it is a question of privilege if a minister in this house gives information on a certain point and then outside the house over the radio gives different information on the same point? Is that a question of privilege or is it not, Mr. Speaker?


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the Leader of the Opposition stating that is the situation? The notes are of a broadcast on which the question was based as I understand it. Is that correct?


Lionel Chevrier: It is a tape.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to read the statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have asked the hon. member to state what is the question of privilege involved.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He does not know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If he feels that some specific answer which he received was incorrect in some respect and raises a question of privilege, I would like the hon. member to state to the house the words complained of and to what extent he says they are incorrect. Then I can determine whether there is any point of privilege. I do not wish the hon. member to introduce contradictory material until he has first stated the matter of privilege which he claims.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Here is the statement:
In that regard-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The percentage of unemployed in the United States-
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. J. O. Lalour (Argenleuil-Deux-Monlagnes): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The
hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member understands that I am asking him to indicate what part of the answer and in what respect he thinks a question of privilege arises before he goes on to cite contradictory matter.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: In his statement on the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?
(Translation):


Mr. Lalour:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont rises on a question of privilege and, to prove his point, he quotes a document received from the C.B.C. I imagine that at the C.B.C., there are some responsible people. Can he tell us who signed the document on behalf of the C.B.C.?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: With respect to the point raised, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont is not quoting the letter to which he has referred; he is now indicating what is his question of privilege arising out of the answer. Unless he can establish a question of privilege I propose to close the matter.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State made the statement on television that unemployment in proportion, is higher in the United States than in Canada. This is contrary to fact.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: State your point of privilege. Mr. Deschalelels: When I asked the Secretary of State about this in the house, he should have corrected the statement. He failed to do so. Since I have the transcript here, I would like to read the statement he made on television.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot accept this as a question of privilege. Whether or not what the Secretary of State said is contrary to fact is not something that can be specifically established. It is largely a matter of opinion. If the hon. member wishes to contradict the minister he will have plenty of opportunity to do so during debate.

(Translation) :


Louis Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I learned a few moments ago from

Inquiries of the Ministry the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) that certain hon. members enjoy the privilege of access to C.B.C. official records. Therefore, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue if he would find out from the C.B.C. what conditions are required, and what political party one must belong to in order to be granted access to the C.B.C. records?
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: I will inquire and see what clandestine political influence or interference is necessary in order to get such information.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Mary.


Azellus Denis: I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General-


Mr. Speaker:: I recognized the hon. member for St. Mary, which sounds not unlike St. Denis.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: I beg you, Mr. Speaker, not to insult my constituents by calling me the hon. member for St. Denis. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue in French. Although it is a question which seems to be like the one which was asked by the hon. member for Montmorency, I think there is a slight difference. I am sorry; I should have said by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet. (Translation):
Could the minister tell the house if the C.B.C. or its employees are authorized to send to hon. members, or to anyone else, the transcript of talks or political speeches made over its stations?
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sure there are regulations dealing with this matter which I do not want to discuss at the moment. That is why I say I want to see the exercise of whatever influence may be necessary in order to achieve such a result. I will answer the question when I get the information.


Georges-J. Valade: A supplementary question. If this permission is not allowed, would the minister take disciplinary action against those responsible?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is getting a little ahead of the game. The question is hypothetical.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Praif (Jacques Cariier-Lasalle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. An article appeared in the Toronto Telegram of February 21 under the by-line of Harvey Currell, in which it was stated:
Toronto township councillors have blocked extension of a runway at Malton airport until dominion Department of Transport officials are ready to tell them how loud jet noise will be from the big expanded jetport. They also want to know how big the airport can be expected to become in future years and how much valuable land will have to be kept sterile as a result.
Would the minister care to comment on this report, and also is he prepared to ask his department to consider the advisability of using such excess, sterile land around the perimeter of airports for parks and recreational purposes for the benefit of adjacent communities as some small recompense for the increased hazards and nuisances created by the advent of jet-powered aircraft operating out of these airports?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any runway hold-up at Malton airport. As far as runway construction is concerned, we own all the land necessary for our program this year and there will not be any hold-up at this airport.
With regard to the second part of the quotation, I must say that these councillors of Toronto township have asked for a meeting with the officials of my department to discuss this matter, and my officials are at the present time arranging such a meeting for some time in March.
As far as the last part of the quotation read by the hon. member is concerned, it is certainly an interesting proposition; but I would like to point out to him that these lands around the perimeter of airports are very often extremely useful for secondary industries.
(Translation):



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY STATEMENT BY ASSOCIATE DEFENCE MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Since the minister attended the meeting of protest against the proposed route of the trans-Canada highway, held in Dorion by

the hon. members for Vaudreuil-Soulanges and for St. James, is he now in a position to tell the house whether he concurs in the views expressed by his two colleagues at that meeting?


An hon. Member:: He has nothing to do with that.


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, since members of the opposition these days seem prone to demand affidavits I would suggest that my hon. friend approaches the 500 or 600 persons who attended that meeting. Those persons, in order to satisfy my hon. friend's curiosity, will be able to tell him that at the very beginning of the speech I made on that occasion, I stated that knowing nothing about the building of a bridge to connect with lie aux Tourtes instead of lie Perrot, I would say nothing about it. So, having said nothing, I feel that the hon. member's question has no foundation in fact.
Really, Mr. Speaker, once again in reply to the hon. member, I must say that if members of the opposition keep on talking about nothing, they will soon be considered as men of-well I leave that up to them to decide.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house whether he concurs in the opinion of his two colleagues?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I am not mistaken, the question relates to the trans-Canada highway route, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right, sir, but it was made a question of privilege by my hon. friend yesterday who rose before the orders of the day to explain his position. I am asking the associate minister now whether he is of the same opinion as his two colleagues from Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bourbonnais) and St. James (Mr. Campeau).


Mr. Speaker:: His opinion in that matter is not an administrative one and could not be inquired into.


Lionel Chevrier: Then he should not have expressed his opinion.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In his absence yesterday I gave notice to the officials of his department of my intention to ask this question.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the very urgent need for a policy of housing reform in the Yukon generally and in Whitehorse particularly, can the minister say whether the federal government intends to assist in any way in the immediate relief of a situation which is causing serious health and welfare problems?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his interest in this matter, and I am happy to inform him that an urban renewal program is being developed for the city of Whitehorse to meet the problems mentioned in his question.
The federal government is prepared to lend the territory $145,000 both to purchase land for a new subdivision and to lend the city of Whitehorse funds for roads and utilities. It is estimated that over 100 families will find accommodation in this new area. We are also providing $25,000 to assist in moving to this subdivision or to other approved lots and houses which meet the area's building standards.
The federal government will also participate in a $300,000 low rental apartment project similar to urban renewal apartments in the south. This will provide at least 35 housing units. We will meet our normal 75 per cent share of the cost and are prepared also to lend the territorial government the remaining 25 per cent to encourage early development.
Finally, my department is studying details of a proposal to establish, in co-operation with the territorial government, a home building loan fund to help meet the need in the territory for funds to construct less expensive houses than those which can be approved under N.H.A. regulations. It is hoped that this study can be completed in time for the 1961 construction season in the territory.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has anything more up to date to tell us than his recent statement about the safety issue involved in the use of JP-4 jet fuel, in view of the fact that controversy is still raging since the crash of the Mexican jet in New York, and in the light of the fact that British airway companies in the main have ruled out the use of this fuel by their aircraft.


Léon Balcer: I am sorry, but I have no statement to make on that subject.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL REVENUE



FREE PORTS-INQUIRY AS TO NUMBER AND VOLUME OF BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I have already given him notice. Could the minister indicate to the house the number of free ports existing in Canada at the present time and their location? I have a second question to address to the hon. gentleman and perhaps he has not had enough time in which to prepare an answer, in which case he might take the question as notice. What was the volume of business at each of the ports during 1960?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless the hon. member has given notice I suggest that he put the question on the order paper, as it calls for statistical information.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of a statement he made last week in Toronto to the effect that the role of the R.C.A.F. was to intercept and identify intruders in our air space. Is the minister satisfied that this role can be performed by a reduced number of squadrons equipped with CF-lOO's?


Douglas Scott Harkness: What the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to do is to get me to make a statement on policy, which is not our custom on orders of the day.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to
direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of a report that at his forthcoming conference with Prime Minister Macmillan, President Kennedy will propose the admission of China to the United Nations on the ground that this will increase the chance of bringing about world disarmament. My question is, did the Prime Minister of Canada or the Secretary of State for External Affairs discuss this question with President Kennedy during their recent visit to Washington?
[Mr. Balcer.l


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister made a statement to the house on his return from Washington on Monday, and it would be very improper for me to add to that statement.


Hazen Robert Argue: Could the minister say whether Canada has given any recent consideration to supporting the admission of China to the United Nations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is endeavouring to secure an answer in relation to policy regarding a matter which is very controversial and important. He would not expect to get an answer to a question of that kind on orders of the day.



RAND REPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on February 15, on the orders of the day, the hon. member for Gloucester asked whether the Prime Minister had received a request from the island of Cape Breton requesting the government to make public a commentary prepared by Mr. Vissac on the report of Mr. Justice Rand.
The reply is that two such requests were received at the Prime Minister's office on February 14, one from the Holy Name Society of Glace Bay and the other from the Reserve Mines credit union association. Mr. G. A. Vissac, as a member of the dominion coal board, submitted his comments on the royal commission on coal in the form of a report for the consideration of his colleagues on the board. His comments have since been made available by the board to the interdepartmental committee of officials currently engaged in a study of the Rand report. It is not the practice to publish working papers of this kind.


Mr. W. C. Henderson (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister and inquire whether the hon. member for Timmins (Mr, Martin) has crossed the floor.


Mr. Benidickson:: He is almost a parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member attempted to speak from his present position it would undoubtedly be true.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we are very glad to welcome the hon. member for Timmins.

Canadian National Railways Mr. Argue: We hope he will bring some of supply this information to have it printed in you back with him.	Hansard.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-69, respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of Quebec by Canadian National Railway Company from a point at or near mile 72 of the Kiask Falls subdivision in a northwesterly direction to a point in the vicinity of Mattagami lake.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Construction and completion. (Translation) :


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister going to make a statement following the discussion on this bill which took place in the railway committee?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add for the moment, but I might, perhaps answer certain questions.


Lionel Chevrier: With regard to the discussion held in this house a few days ago and the one which took place in the committee, I refer the minister to page 2191 of the French Hansard where I asked the minister whether he was going to give us some information later and he replied:
Certainly, with pleasure.
I continued:
The total amount of expenses and profits?


Léon Balcer: Yes, you will definitely be provided with these figures.
What I was asking for at the time, Mr. Chairman, was a general statement on the operations of this line showing both revenues and expenses in order that the house may have a general idea of its economic feasibility. As the minister knows, Canadian National employees when faced with this question could not give me a satisfactory answer. Moreover, when some members asked for the production of the agreement passed between Canadian National and Mattagami Lake Mines Limited, I think that the railway employees objected to it. I did not press for the production of this document any more than the other members. But without such information which I deem necessary for a proper consideration of the bill, I would now ask the minister who promised to


Léon Balcer: It is quite true, Mr. Chairman, that I said at the resolution stage that I would give as much information as possible about the revenues and expenses of this railway. Now, my hon. friend has had the opportunity to ask questions when this matter was under discussion before the committee, and the witness representing the Canadian National Railways supplied him with a great deal of information. In fact, he declined to give him information on only one particular point, claiming that it was not in the interests of the C.N.R. at this time to give definite information on the matters raised by my hon. friend.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that, so far, we have given a lot of information. Besides, I stated personally when the resolution was under consideration, that the revenues from that line would cover all operating and maintenance expenses as well as pay off the cost of construction of this line, plus the interest.
In fact, the railway authorities expect to realize a substantial surplus each year.
I believe I have given several particulars about the volume of merchandise that this railway line would handle.
We have also discussed the guarantees, the basis they rest on, the quantity of ore required and so on. I have therefore supplied a great deal of information and I believe that by giving further particulars at this time, I would prejudice the C.N.R. in the negotiation of other contracts elsewhere.
Besides, I think that in that regard I am following the same policy as former ministers of transport.


Lionel Chevrier: Not at all.


Léon Balcer: Could my hon. friend quote instances where former ministers of transport have given more specific particulars as to the revenues and expenses of certain railway lines.
I know of several instances showing that on more than one occasion when a witness called before a committee of the house pointed out that an answer could prejudice the railway company, my predecessors never failed to ask the committee not to labour the point, always with a view to preventing any prejudice to the railways.

Canadian National Railways


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am not complaining about the information supplied, but about the particulars that were withheld. It seems to me that information regarding economic feasibility is so essential to the discussion of this bill, that the minister should supply it. I am convinced that if such information is available to the minister, he must provide it.
Now, it is on the advice of C.N.R. officials that the minister does not want to give this information, because he claims this will prejudice the interests of the Canadian National Railways.
If I asked the minister to give full particulars-but such is not the case-he might be justified in refusing. But I am not calling for full particulars. I am only asking that the minister give in round figures the general revenues and expenses as well as the profits that the railway might make the first year and in following years.
In my opinion, that information could in no way prejudice the interests of the C.N.R.
The minister also states it is highly possible that such information was not given in the past and that, in this, he is following the same policy as his predecessors.
Yet I somehow remember that on one or two occasions I tabled, even before the bill was referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, a detailed breakdown of estimates prepared by the Canadian National with regard to expenses, revenues and profits of projects.
I therefore see no reason why parliament should not be entitled to such information, particularly when it is available to the minister.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I agree
with my hon. friend that, on some occasions in the past, when he was minister of transport, he did table very precise information with regard to the expenses and revenues of certain railway projects. On those occasions, he also indicated the annual profits of the national railways.
But in the present case, Mr. Chairman, I am precisely following the tradition established by my predecessors when a witness was asked to give evidence before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and stated that he was unable to reveal certain information without causing prejudice to the C.N.R. in their negotiations with other companies or corporations. I think this is a similar

situation, and that supplying such information might jeopardize the Canadian National Railways.
The C.N.R., as we know, are a huge concern covering the whole country. Their success is directly dependent on contracts signed with various mining, financial and industrial companies in this country.
Consequently, in revealing at this time the detailed information requested by the hon. member for Laurier, when witnesses called before the committee have stated that such disclosure would be prejudicial to the parties, we would be spoiling things for everybody. I therefore believe that my hon. friend, and every hon. member in this house, will realize that it is preferable to restrict such data. As a matter of fact, I myself have given this house full indications as to the quantities of zinc ore and copper concentrates to be moved annually.
I also stated that the moving of mining products would amount to approximately $2 million a year while the moving of other goods would bring in $225,000. I think that should be enough information under the circumstances.
Moreover, a further guarantee has been supplied by the company when it undertook to pay a fine of $5.10 a ton, if the quantities moved were less than 140,000 tons a year for a period of ten years.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that such disclosures are ample information on the project.
Furthermore, the bill contains additional details with regard to the cost per ton to be paid for the construction of that railway.
The railroad officials who gave evidence readily answered all the questions asked, except precisely those of the hon. member for Laurier, who wanted to have two columns of figures, namely revenues and expenses.
I would not say that the hon. member is asking too much, but he is going against tradition in the sense that when a witness refuses to make a statement before the committee because it might cause prejudice to the company, the Minister of Transport does not supply any information of that kind.
My hon. friend will agree that the stand I am taking now is based on precedents and I would be pleased to indicate some if you wish. In fact I can give one which comes to my mind because I remember something which happened in 1956 in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Mr. Green, at the time a member of the committee, put the following question: (Text):
The question by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs was:
Could the agreement between the mining company and the railway company be included in the proceedings?
And the answer:
At this stage I would like to submit that it is not in the interest of the development of the Canadian National Railways to disclose the details of these guarantee agreements. We have always treated them as confidential documents. We have stated in general terms what they include, but I would respectfully suggest that their details should not be disclosed.
And Hon. Mr. Marler, my predecessor and the successor of the hon. member for Laurier, said at that point:
. I think it really puts the national railways at a disadvantage vis-a-vis its competitors across the country if it is called upon to answer that sort of question.
The present Secretary of State for External Affairs then very courteously said that he would not like to do that, and withdrew his question.
The hon. member for Laurier himself at the sessional committee on railways and shipping on Tuesday, March 28, 1950 at page 121 stated the principle very well, and I should like to quote his statement.
Well, Mr. Chairman, as far back as I can remember it has always been the policy of this committee to give as much information as possible, but when an officer of the Canadian National Railways makes the suggestion or gives it as his opinion that it might not be desirable to give out certain information, it has been my understanding always that such information was not made public; that in the past the committee has always followed the advice of the officers of the railway.
This principle is so well enunciated, Mr. Chairman, that I would have great difficulty arguing against it. Of course, Mr. Chairman, there seem to have been certain inconsistencies because, as I pointed out, the hon. member for Laurier at that time tabled this information.
I have discussed this particular matter at some length with the officials of the railway and have witnessed their reluctance to divulge any more details than have been given for the reason that it would hamper the railway's interest in this type of development. However, as the record shows, on some occasions net figures were given, and on some occasions they were not.
The passage of this bill will, therefore, not be held up. I think perhaps it would be a good thing to have this particular matter raised at the forthcoming sessions of the committee on railways so that we will have an opportunity to hear the management side of the issue.
Mr. Chairman, when the president of the railways appears before the committee he can
Canadian National Railways be questioned on this particular point and the principle involved. The committee can then make its recommendation, and to whatever recommendation is made I will give my wholehearted support. However, at the present time, in respect of what has been stated in the committee by the witness I would appreciate my friend not pressing further.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a few words to this discussion by saying that the precedents mentioned by the minister about the statements made by Mr. Green in 1956 do not at all apply to my question, for Mr. Green was then asking that the contract between the parties concerned be tabled. Now it has nothing to do with that. I am not asking that the contract be tabled. It was the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who asked for that document, and the representative of the Canadian National declined to produce it. Nobody insisted upon his doing so.
What I did ask-and the minister did not refer to any precedent on that matter-is general information. I am not asking for minute details or particulars; all I want is general information. I believe the precedents referred to by the hon. minister do not apply in this instance.
The minister has just suggested that this question be referred to the committee on railways, air lines and shipping.
Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that if this question were submitted to the committee, C.N.R. officials would give exactly the same answer they gave during the meeting held two days ago.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to say is that the principle itself should be referred to the committee. If the chairman appeared before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines as a witness, I believe it would be quite appropriate for the members of this committee to put this very question to him. He could then tell them why, in certain cases, officials who testify before the committee are not in a position to release certain information, because it might be detrimental to railway operations. He might choose to give examples and, at that time, the committee may decide on future policy. For my part, as minister, I should gladly adopt that attitude.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I gave up the floor to the minister, but I should like to continue with a few remarks that will be quite short.

Canadian National Railways
I simply wanted to add that I know beforehand what the chairman of the Canadian National Railways would answer. He would support the statements made by his officials, and what the minister has just said. However, I believe it is illogical that the minister himself, after telling that he would supply information, should change his mind two days later.
The minister himself agreed with me when I put the question hardly two days ago. He said: certainly, we will give you all this information in committee. Now, he has changed his mind. It is clearly because C.N.R. officials feel that the information must not be given out.
Mr. Chairman-and this is my final remark-it seems to me that parliament, which is entitled to this information as the minister himself stated, should have it, so that hon. members may be in a position to approve this project because it is economically feasible.


Louis Fortin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier said the minister agreed with him the other day by saying that he would give the necessary information, and that he has now changed his mind.
On the other hand, the minister now says that he has received from high officials of the Canadian National representations to the effect that it might be detrimental to the company to give the house the required information.
Perhaps that is why the minister changed his mind; it is the privilege of any intelligent man to change his mind when necessary.
We are asked complete details on the economic feasibility-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I did not ask for complete details on the economic feasibility of the project. That is precisely the point. I feel that the minister is quite right in not giving complete details. I am simply asking for general information, which is an altogether different matter.


Louis Fortin: Mr. Chairman, some hon. members make a pretence of asking for general information as to the potential revenue of this particular railway line. Evidently, it is rather difficult to say whether or not the line will be self-sustaining; but in my opinion, the question is of minor importance, because on the basis of what the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) and the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Martel), said the other day concerning the development potentialities of the area, as a result of the construction


of that railway, I feel that parliament would be justified in voting the funds required for the construction of that railway, even if the line were not self-sustaining, which we do not know at this time.
As a result of the construction of the line, that area will, as it were, be opened to civilization. The hon. member for Villeneuve even referred to plans for settlement of the area, and mining and lumber operations there. If all those natural resources remain undeveloped because there is no means of communication with neighbouring areas, the development will be delayed to that extent. On the other hand, the development of the area in general will be economically profitable for the province of Quebec in particular and, in my opinion, all hon. members should consider the expenditure quite justified even if the operation of the line itself is not selfsustaining.
What surprises me, Mr. Chairman-or perhaps I should say that I am not surprised at that-is the fact that the hon. member for Laurier is making such a fuss about approving an expenditure that will benefit Canada as a whole and the province of Quebec in particular.
(Text):	i


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the caveat that I should like to register here really goes back to much more than this particular bill. It goes back to previous bills like it that have been brought in by ministers of transport. I feel that the minister did not give us enough information. I feel that ministers of transport rarely give us enough preliminary information. Then when we get into the committee examination process, in my opinion the actual statement by the officials who appear before the committee is never as satisfactory as it might be. I should like to give an indication of what dissatisfies me about this bill, although our party is anxious that it should go through.
It is necessary for me to start, Mr. Chairman, with an incident that gave me rather a shock a little bit over a year ago when we were investigating a situation concerning the province of Quebec, the city of Montreal and the federal government in relation to the Jacques Cartier bridge. We discovered the agreement that had been in effect lapsed or abrogated-I do not know what would be the technical term-for a number of years. That was one side of it. Another side was that before changes could be made in connection with the agreement, there needed to be a new table of tariffs in connection with the project; and again it appears that no really strenuous final efforts moving through to a solution had been made to bring this result about. The reason that was given to

me by the witness on the stand was that I just did not understand or appreciate the Quebec situation.
It may well be that an outsider cannot appreciate the Quebec situation and the kind of arrangement and diplomacy that needs to go on there between the federal government and the provincial government. But here we have a situation in which this government is going to spend a considerable amount of money guaranteeing a line in the province of Quebec that has more than just ordinary ramifications. It makes possible expenditures of some $50,000,000 in total if you include the refinery and the actual mine, and much more than that if you include the railway expense, the expense of building the town-site and the expense that the provincial government is going to have in putting in the road. In this kind of situation, I think we deserve more information.
At our committee meeting I was rather shocked to discover that the Minister of Transport has not had discussions with the minister who is in charge of natural resources in Quebec. I was just amazed that the minister, in connection with a project of this size, with so much government money going into it, has no idea where it is intended the refinery shall be. He just had the general expectation that it is going to be on deep water. He could give us no real information as Minister of Transport on what the factors were in the location other than the question of power and deep water. We were not given, by the company's witnesses or by the minister, any information that would indicate just where it should go.
One of the arguments I should like to make to the minister and to the committee is that we undertake big development projects of this kind on too haphazard a basis. I have here an article from the Financial Post of February 4, 1961. It is headed "Not Much Cheer for Lead, Zinc". It states as follows:
Canada's lead-zinc industry-which has hitherto sold half its output to the U.S.-gets little cheer from legislation before the House of Representatives this week.
Then it goes on to point out that there is before the U.S. house a new bill that is backed by the industry, and that has more congressional sympathy and the support of President Kennedy. What this bill sets out to do is really not to liberalize quotas but to protect the lead-zinc industry of the United States even more. The article goes on to state as follows:
What effect more protection for U.S. mines will have on Canada's three major potential producers is a question mark.
Canadian National Railways
Mattagami Lake Mines in Quebec, Brunswick Mining & Smelting in New Brunswick and Consolidated Mining & Smelting-controlled by Pine Point Mines in the Northwest Territories are planning big new mines.
Their combined, planned capacity could add more than 150,000 tons of lead and more than 400,000 tons of zinc to Canada's annual production-double present output.
In other words, we have on the cards- and this mine is a factor-a doubling of our zinc production in this country. Yet ever since I came into this House of Commons, the then hon. member for Kootenay East not the present hon. member, used to be always getting to his feet and worrying about the difficulties that Consolidated Mining and Smelting were having in getting rid of this production in the United States' market and in the world market. My particular point here is that there are indications that on the short run the zinc prospects are not good. Yet we are to have a doubling of capacity. When you have a situation like this it seems to me that we should know more about the kind of agreement that a crown corporation is entering into with the particular mining concern. There is nothing statutory about this agreement. I know it has a legal status, but not for members of parliament. In essence it is outside us in that it does not come within the act that is before us. Another feature about this question of the agreement is this: We had some evidence last year brought out by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, the hon. member for Laurier and myself in the questioning of the president of the Canadian National Railways about the various development lines that he had investigated. He indicated some of the principles that are involved as far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned in setting up these lines. At page 142 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping he stated as follows:
The Canadian National Railways was the originator of this traffic guarantee form of approach to this problem, and we originated it because of past experience where railway lines were pushed, back in the days when political considerations had something to do with these matters-happily gone now The railways were pushed on that basis, whether it was completely economical for the railway to build the line or not. So we do it on an arm's length basis and consider all the interests not only of the industry that wants the service but also the general effect to the community; and on the basis of our appraisal we are prepared to take care of our share of the risk.
It seems to me we have to take from this statement of policy of the president that they have gone into this whole matter. However, I would argue that we did not get satisfactory answers on this question from the officials of the railway who were before us. I refer to the general effect on the community. What
2314	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways do we know about this matter? It is surely an integrated operation. What do we know about the general effect to the community? We do not know where the refinery is going to be. We do not know whether all the productions from the mine, in terms of concentrates, is going to be shipped all the way to the refinery by the Canadian National Railway. We do not know what are the views of the provincial government of Quebec in the matter.
It seems to me these are all matters about which we could have more information. My own views and the good judgment of the Canadian National Railways executive are not particularly sanguine. I hope to express them later this day when we are considering the motion to set up a committee. But it seems to me, when we have a crown corporation that year after year has been burying itself further and further in deficits, and when we have indications even from Mr. Gordon's own analysis last year of these branch lines that at times traffic has not been everything that could be expected, it all adds up to the fact that we deserve and should have more detail on the agreement and on the project in total, where it is going to go and what it is going to do.
In conclusion of my comments on this matter, may I say I have often wondered what approach the minister takes when he is shepherding a bill through the house. It seems to me that the minister gives the members of the house the fairest treatment when he decides that through his preliminary statement he is going to cover every possible aspect of the situation. Then we have something on the record. I suggest to the present minister that he gives every indication of someone who is going to be very chary in the amount of information he provides.
I am not giving him advice; I am asking him in future, when he is bringing a bill before the house even though it is later going to committee, to cover all the ramifications of the matter. I think he would then save a great deal of the questioning that we have in committee, which often turns out to be futile, and many of the complaints that we have later.
Specifically I should like to know from the minister what attention the government is paying to the views of the people in the Abitibi country that they would like to have a refinery up there. I know this is a legitimate point of view because the people in my part of the country are very anxious to have a smelter, for example, at the lakehead to process the ores that are very close to us.
This is the kind of thing that keens and burns people in an area for many, many years. They ask, "Why was a refinery or a


smelter not established in our particular area, instead of being way up somewhere else?" I know the answer the minister gave about the economics of the situation, but the people in the region have a hard time believing some of these particular economics and I am sure they wonder why governments do not get together and try to direct a refinery or a smelter in such a way, even if necessary by subsidization, as to be an integrated part of the economy in the area.
If the minister says this is an interference with free enterprise, I suggest the subsidization of this refinery is an interference with free enterprise. Once you are in the situation of guaranteeing a crown corporation going into the area to help exploit private enterprise, surely you are in a position to suggest to that private enterprise that it do its utmost to help the particular region and economy that it is developing.
The other point I should like to make in connection with this whole arrangement is sparked a bit by the minister but also by the hon. member for Villeneuve. I think I made the same error myself. We talk grandiosely about our tremendous natural resources. One of the things mentioned is that this railway line is going to open up a tremendous pulp and paper area. We have more potential pulp scattered around this country that is not being exploited than we know what to do with. We always live in dreams. I come from a town that since 1922 has been told by politician after politician that some day there is going to be a large pulp mill there. I know the sense of disappointment people feel. All through northern Quebec, if my reading is correct-and my reading is necessarily skimpy-there are hopes that pulp and paper mills will be constructed. In a situation such as this, I think the minister should have more information on what is the potential cordage. What is this government itself doing to see that if we put in a railway line there is going to be some industrial development such as a pulp mill, whether it is newsprint, kraft or whatever the case may be? It seems to me these are all the kind of questions associated with resource development that should be answered in this house and in the committees of the house.
In summing it up, it is a case where we do a tremendous lot of dreaming and big talk about our resources, and then on something like this we vote the money very readily. I think it is a tremendous thing that we are going to have a line of this scope and size. However, there are some doubtful factors in it and we are not given the complete complex of the situation. Unless governments in Canada, and the federal government in particular, are prepared to take the kind of

initiative that will develop the thing wholly in the best interests of all, I think we are going to have this damnable failure of government enterprise and free enterprise working together and neither one really giving the leadership that is needed to develop our hinterland and frontier resources.
I think the most wonderful thing that could happen to the Abitibi region of Quebec would be to get not only the mine but also the refinery. I hesitate to accept the argument that a tidewater or a deep water location is fundamental in the economics. I should like to know what are the economics, and perhaps the government of Quebec could do something about shifting them so that the refinery would be placed where it would really do the most good.
I should like to ask the minister one specific question. Has the location or the development of this Brunswick Mining and Smelting property in New Brunswick anything to do with the location of the refinery? That is, are the concentrates from it expected to be treated at this particular refinery that may be going to deep water? That may go some way to explaining the location down on the St. Lawrence rather than in the Abitibi area itself.
In relation to the Abitibi region itself, any hinterland or frontierland area is always told it really has not a large enough labour market to support a complex industry such as a refinery. There are a number of members in this house who come from hinterland and frontier regions and I think they will tell you that labour mobility today is high enough that you do not have to worry about the labour market and the high cost of labour in the those regions. You can be sure that if in Canada there is going to be a new town of a continuing size and a good opportunity to make a go, you will get a flood of people coming into it. This happened at Elliott Lake with very stark results. That is an indication that you can get people to move very easily from metropolitan areas if they know there is a guarantee of remunerative work with some stability.
This is my final point in suggesting that we are entitled to have a certain disappointment about the way this particular bill has been introduced and taken through to this stage.


The Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?
Clause 1 agreed to.


Jacques Flynn: Before I recognize another hon. member and members of all parties having spoken up to now I think I should warn the committee that in my view the discussion we have had up to now has not been relevant at this stage of the proceedings. We 90205-6-147
Canadian National Railways have had what amounts to discussion on the principle of the bill. At this stage of the proceedings, the discussion should be on the drafting of the bill.
I do not intend to prevent the minister from replying or any hon. members asking questions, but I warn the committee that in my view the discussion up to now has not been in accordance with the rules.
On clause 2-Competitive bids or tenders.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal very briefly with what the hon. member for Port Arthur mentioned. I do not wish to usurp the function of the minister because of course he will have an adequate opportunity to reply. I was at the committee meeting. I went there to ask one question, particularly. I wanted to ask the C.N.R. officials if they had made an analysis, in connection with their economic report, of the long term future with regard to zinc production and sales. I come from one of the districts where the matter of the Pine Point Railway and the production of lead and zinc are of great concern, and I was interested for that reason. I do not know whether the hon. member was there at the beginning of the meeting of the standing committee but I know he came in later. The statement made by the railway official was, definitely, yes. They had made a careful analysis of this situation and had assured themselves that there was a good long term future in connection with the production of zinc.
I mention this because three zones were mentioned by the hon. member-this area, the area of the proposed railway going into Pine Point, and one other. He pointed out the possibility that these three mines going into production might have the result of building up possibly more of the product than could be absorbed. I do not think that is necessarily the case. At the Pine Point mine, for example, the concentrates are supposed to go to Trail. The situation there is simply that there are certain smelter residues which will be exhausted next year or the year after, and unless concentrates are brought down to the smelter at Trail-concentrates of the order of at least 200,000 tons a year-the operation at Trail will have to be modified and perhaps continued on what would not be an economic basis.
I think that is an adequate answer to the observations which the hon. member has quite properly made. In addition, we must bear in mind the Paley report which has been brought to the attention of the President of the United States. This report stresses the continuing requirements of North America for lead and zinc. The terms of that report are definite, and I am sure the hon. member

Canadian National Railways is aware of them. As far as I know there has been no attempt to suggest that the recommendations and statements contained in that report are not correct.
I am interested in this particular project;
I do not want to say anything as to the principle, but I certainly hope it will progress.
I am confident from what has been said that the aspirations and desires of those promoting this project will be realized and that it will become of great economic benefit to this country. From my knowledge, and from what has been said in the committee, I believe the economics of this mining area certainly justify the construction of the railway. (Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question.
What would happen if the railway line were not completed by the date mentioned in section 1?


Léon Balcer: Do you have in mind relations between the companies and the railway?


Lionel Chevrier: No. What I have in mind is this: Should the railway line still be incomplete by December 31, 1962, what would then happen?


Léon Balcer: I think the bill is clear as to what would happen in a case like that.
Therefore, the full completion of the railway will be before December 31, 1962, or at a later date to be determined by the cabinet.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, that was what I was asking the minister. What steps does the governor in council take when he is advised that the line cannot be completed on the date indicated in section 1?


Léon Balcer: Well, the general pattern, or rather the rigours of section 1 may be corrected by an order in council.


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Chairman, what happened with the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railway might perhaps happen again; there was supposed to be a three years' delay, when it was the responsibility of the former member for Stormont.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, if the house wishes to pass the bill, very well, we are all for that; but if hon. members want a discussion, we are prepared for that too.
I say to those who a moment ago interrupted the discussion, through an intervention having nothing to do with the question I put to the minister, neither the hon. mem-

ber for Laurier nor the former regime prevented the construction of the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railway; on the contrary, they are responsible for it.
Besides, Mr. Chairman, in section 1, only one railway may be involved, i.e. the Mat-tagami railway, and no other such as the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railway.
I would therefore ask you to call the hon. member to order.


Mr.   Mariel@: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to make a few remarks before the third reading of the bill. And it is mainly about what was said a moment ago by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) in connection with the construction of a refinery in that district. Personally, at the resolution stage, I specified that in my humble opinion the refinery in question should be built in our area, that is, in the Mattagami lake area, where the railway will be built and where the mines are now located.
Obviously, the federal government, as well as the Canadian National Railways, both have considered the matter and they probably have not the necessary authority to determine the exact place where the refinery will be built, because that permit is issued by the provincial authorities; but I trust that this matter will be settled or, at least, I hope it will be settled to the benefit of the people of the Abitibi area. That railway will permit the development of a new area that offers great possibilities. I am sure that if the refinery were built there the future of that area would be assured for several years to come. Furthermore, this would permit the opening of new cities, as I already indicated at the resolution stage.
Mr. Chairman, I heard the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) ask a moment ago some information about the economic feasibility of the project, or generally about its revenues and expenditures. I believe that would be interesting. And he mentioned the fact that parliament should certainly be entitled to that information. But the minister explained that the railway authorities could not give that information because it might perhaps be detrimental to their future operations or to other agreements made elsewhere in Canada by the Canadian National Railways.
There is another point which has something to do with that and about which I believe parliament should get information. For the time being, I would not like to unduly embarrass the minister, but I do know, on the other hand, that the matter was referred to at the time the bill was considered by the committee on railways-that the tenders for the construction of that railway were invited for January 23 last.

Those tenders were received and are considered by the Canadian National Railways authorities as being confidential. That is all very well, but I think that parliament which is called upon to vote the sums required to cover the C.N.R. deficits, and which is now asked to pass a special act to provide for the construction of that railway, should be entitled to get that information.
Besides, most departments, I would even say all departments of the federal government, must, when they invite public tenders, reveal the names of the lowest bidders, except when the security of the country is at stake. But in this case, we are dealing with an important economic development, not only for my own area and for the province of Quebec, but for Canada as a whole.
(Text):


The Deputy Chairman:: Once again I remind the hon. member that he is straying away from the subject matter of the bill we are discussing. I ask him to return to the subject.


Mr. Martel:: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I was stating that the tenders called by the C.N.R. for January 23 last have been received but have been kept confidential.


Lionel Chevrier: That relates to clause 2.


Jean-Jacques Martel: I do not think clause 1 has been carried. I believe we still have the right to discuss the general principles of the bill.


Charles Edward Rea: We cannot discuss management. That was supposed to be discussed in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to which this bill was referred for study.


Jean-Jacques Martel: I thought that I could place my views on the record before third reading and ask if this situation cannot be changed with respect to future bills so that information would be made available to parliament. I did not think we had passed clause 1 and could discuss general principles. Clause 2 of the bill, a copy of which I have in French, reads as follows:
(Translation):
The company shall adopt the principle of competitive bids or tenders in respect of the construction of the railway line in so far as the company decides not to perform such work or any part thereof with its own forces, but the company is not bound to accept the lowest or any bid or tender made or obtained nor precluded from negotiating for better prices or terms.
It is precisely on such matters, Mr. Chairman, that I feel parliament should be kept informed. In this case, something unusual has
90205-6-1471
Canadian National Railways happened, since the project was quite an urgent necessity for the area concerned. Tenders were called as early as last January, that is immediately after the announcement of the project in the speech from the throne.
But I think that normally parliament would have a right to know the names of the lowest bidders and the amounts of the bids. I would not want, however, to embarrass the minister, but I think that parliament has the right to know these things. We are here to represent our constituents.
I know that it was said before the committee that such tenders were considered confidential matters and could not be disclosed before the passage of the act. I realize that it is not the practice to disclose confidential matters. I mention this while the house is studying it, but next time if an amendment is to be made to the Railway Act as suggested in the speech from the throne, I think this question should be settled in order that the members may be informed. There may be nothing wrong in that, but it gives the public the impression that certain matters are hidden. Therefore, if we want the people to continue to believe in our democratic system, that should be changed. After all, we are here to look after the interests of the people, that is of our constituents.


Lionel Chevrier: Could I ask the minister whether in the light of the last part of clause
1,	he is aware of instances in the field of railway construction by the C.N.R. where the line had not been completed by the date specified and a request had to be submitted to the governor in council for an extension of time.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I have no such instance in mind at present, but my hon. friend is probably aware of some. As far as I am concerned, however, I could not point out any at the moment.


Lionel Chevrier: Now, with regard to clause
2,	Mr. Chairman, and following the remarks just made by the hon. member for Chapleau who wanted information almost identical to what I asked myself, which is of a general character and is quite reasonable, notwithstanding the views of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), who said that the mere fact of seeking such information was delaying the progress of the bill. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the

Canadian National Railways hon. member lor Chapleau is in the same position.
I cannot accept such an attitude. To my mind, the hon. member for Chapleau is entitled to ask questions, and to seek clarification of any particular point.
As far as I am concerned, I was going to ask the minister, first of all, which part of the work on the line would be carried out by the employees of the C.N.R. and which part would be done under contract.
Again, I think the hon. member for Chapleau was reasonable in asking who submitted tenders and on what basis the tenders were submitted to the C.N.R.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, there is
no doubt that the remarks of both my hon. friends are quite sensible. When tenders are called, the lowest bidder gets the contract, except for very special reasons.
I want to assure my hon. friends that there is nothing secret about this, that there is no plot involved. The Canadian National received, in fact, 13 tenders.
The other day, a witness appearing before the committee did not have the figures on hand. Today, however, I am able to state that 13 tenders were received. The contract has not yet been awarded by the management of the C.N.R. They had to wait, of course, until the house passed the bill; that is only logical.
Some deposits, which accompanied tenders have been returned to their owners. This was done in order not unduly to retain rather considerable amounts of money, and not to force the firms who submitted tenders to pay additional interest to their bank. Needless to say that those tenders had not been accepted. There was, therefore, no other alternative than to return the money.
As regards the other tenders, as soon as the bill receives royal assent, the management of the C.N.R. will allocate the contract to the lowest or best bidder.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, could the
minister, without disclosing the exact amount of the tender, tell us the percentage of the total cost of the project represented by the work for which public tenders have been called? In this way, he will in no sense be disclosing the prices quoted by the lowest bidder.
I would therefore like to know what part of the job will be carried out by private

contractors and what part will be allotted to railway employees.
I am asking this question, Mr. Chairman, because the minister knows as well as I do that the C.N.R. have been laying off quite a number of people in the past few years. I therefore think it would be in the interest of the C.N.R. management to have their work carried out by their own people, using their own equipment.
In fact, the C.N.R. now has the necessary equipment, the engineers, superintendents and foremen required for this project.
Perhaps this has been said at the meetings of the committee that I missed on account of illness, but I believe the minister should discuss the matter with the authorities of the C.N.R. which has employees with 20, 25 and even 30 years of experience.
Besides, I know of no more qualified workers than those we call the B and B employees in my district, those who are engaged in the construction of buildings and bridges.
It is proposed to lay a railway line. I do not think private enterprise has employees that are as qualified for this type of work as those I refer to. So I repeat my question and I ask the minister to tell us what percentage of the work will be carried out by private enterprise, so we can deduct the part to be done by railway employees.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I do not have those percentages. The only reference I can give is to the schedule printed at the end of the bill.
As far as my hon. friend's argument is concerned, one must admit it might be double-edged. I think it would be unfortunate if the government, every time a project is carried out, hired only its own employees. Employees of contractors also have many problems, especially at certain periods of the year.
One should then seek a happy medium. As far as percentages are concerned, I could not now say what part will be given to railway employees and what part will not.
All I can say is that the schedule mentions an amount of $140,000. Since the proposed line is 60 miles long, the amount is a little over 8 million dollars.


Maurice Bourget: Could the minister at least tell us what are the works for which tenders

have been called? Those are obviously public documents, since specifications have been provided to contractors.
Consequently, could the minister tell us what are the various works for which tenders have been called? Are they bridges, culverts, rail laying, brush clearing, etc.? In short, what are the works for which tenders have been called?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, those details have been given to the committee at yesterday's meeting. Mention was made then of the number of bridges to be built on that line, as well as the kind of lines we intended to build. Experts in this field provided exact details.
As for the specifications, I have not seen them personally.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a simple question. If the estimated cost of the railway is $8,400,000, could the minister, in order to give us an idea of the lowest tender, tell us, not the exact amount, but whether it comes near $4,000,000 or $5,000,000, in order that we may determine what portion of the work is to be performed by private enterprise. That is my point, because I do not agree with the minister's view that in employing railway workers for these projects, we would be getting into a vicious circle. He is aware that each year from 4,000 to 5,000 railway employees are laid off and find themselves in a difficult position because, having been engaged in a particular kind of work for 20, 25 and even 30 years, it is hard for them to find other employment.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that I am wandering a little from the principle of the bill, so I shall not belabour the point. However I ask the minister-who is new in this office and whose position is understandable-to urge the Canadian National Railways to keep their employees and not dismiss them after 25 years of service. That is my point. The Canadian National Railways have all the equipment, they have the architects, the engineers, the foremen, and all the experienced men needed to perform the work. I therefore ask the minister to show sympathy to these men and to urge the Canadian National Railways to give them a chance to work. I am sure the minister sympathizes like I do with these people. There is still time to show it.


Jean-Jacques Martel: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to express my thanks to the minister for the
Canadian National Railways information he gave me and which I accept. As I have said, I wanted to tell the house that when tenders are called, these should be made available to the members of the house and to the public. Such a procedure would prevent the people at large from wondering whether there is something wrong or not. I wanted to mention that point because, as the minister said, certain deposits have been returned by the C.N.R., after the closing date for the receipt of tenders, exactly on account of this attitude, that is without divulging the names of the lowest tenderers. Some business magazines take a close interest in contract matters. I have in mind the Daily Commercial News for February 3, which published certain data about the contract for the building of the railway line. No exact amounts were quoted, but names were given. Such information may have been obtained by inference. I wonder if we could not be told these amounts in due time, once the work has been carried out. I refer to both the amount of the lowest tender and the amount of each tender.


Mr. English:: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the Minister whether the C.N.R. is following a different procedure, in building the line into Mattagami, from the procedure used in the past for the construction of the line between Chibougamau and St. Felicien? I am under the impression that the present policy of the C.N.R. is the same as was always followed in the past.


Maurice Bourget: Should one always follow the same policy, make no improvements, no progress, no changes?


Léon Balcer: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Levis has raised a storm in a teacup. The C.N.R. authorities have always sought to protect their employees first. There is no doubt about that. In a project such as this, certain jobs have to be done by contractors, and they have to go outside to get the work done.
As to the question put to me by the hon. member for Chapleau, I would not want him to feel we have adopted a different policy from the one which was followed in the past, because things were always done this way. What appeared in the Daily Commercial News and other similar periodicals is merely speculation such as anyone can indulge in before the contracts are allocated.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has not answered the question that I put to him a
2320	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways moment ago and which was quite simple, namely what portion of the work will be done by Canadian National employees and what portion by way of tenders. That is my question. Before the minister answers, however, I would like to say a word on the subject just mentioned by the hon. member for Chapleau. I do not quite agree with his suggestion that tenders should be made public at this time, I mean now, because parliament has not yet approved the bill. If tenders were made public before the bill was passed, I think it would be wrong.
However, there is a lot of sense in what the hon. member is asking, that is that the house should at least know those people to whom deposits were returned. That of course would not reveal the name of the lowest bidder, or of the successful bidder, but in any case we would have an idea of the contractors that were eliminated.
Now, I come back to the two questions that were asked. First, what portion of the work will be performed by the C.N.R. and what portion by private enterprise? Second, why should the minister be unable to give us, not the names of the bidders-I realize full well that he cannot give us that information-but the names of those to whom deposits were returned?


Léon Balcer: Honestly, Mr. Chairman, the questions raised in the house today should have been asked in the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee when the experts in that field were present. Hon. members could have asked then what portion of the contract would be performed by the railway workers themselves and what portion by a contractor. As far as I am concerned, I cannot give any information concerning those ratios.
As for the second question, well, I think it does not sound serious either. I can see no reason and no benefit in giving, before the contract is awarded the names of the bidders to whom we have returned their deposits because their tenders were too high. I cannot see how they can pretend to serve the public interest by asking such information.
That could only result in a little more speculation. That would urge the subcontractors to exert all kinds of pressure on the two or three general contractors still in the running.
Honestly, I think the C.N.R. management acts very wisely in keeping that information secret until the contract itself is awarded.


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Chairman, if we read
carefully clause 2 under discussion, we realize that it is not clearly decided that the C.N.R. will have these works performed through tenders or through contracts awarded to contractors. In fact, clause 2 says this:
The Company shall adopt the principle of competitive bids or tenders is respect of the construction of the railway line in so far as the Company decides not to perform such work or any part thereof with its own forces, but the Company is not bound to accept the lowest for any bid or tender made or obtained nor precluded from negotiating for better prices or terms.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think the minister should be expected to answer that question because it often happens that a public body or corporation calls for tenders for the purpose of carrying out some work on its own account. In many cases, it is only to get an estimate of the cost of such work, and no company is in any way bound by the calling of tenders to carry out the work, either on its own or by way of contracts.
I happen to be the mayor of a municipality, and before getting a job done, I often want to know how much it will cost. I therefore call for tenders, and if I feel that the municipality can do the work at less cost than the prices quoted in the bids, I simply have the work performed by the municipality. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is useless to ask the Minister of Transport whether the Canadian National Railways will proceed by public tender. Even though tenders have been called, the company is in no way bound. In fact, under section 2 of this bill, the company may reserve the right "in so far as it decides not to perform such work or any part thereof with its own forces", not to consider the tenders made and to perform the work itself at a better price.
Such an attitude would, in my opinion, meet the purport of section 2 of this bill, and I am under the impression that neither the minister nor the company is in a position to decide whether such work will be performed by way of contracts awarded to private enterprise or whether the company itself will carry it out.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to my hon. friend from Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin). I know that very often, municipalities call for tenders and then decide they can do the job at less cost.
I feel however-and I think the minister will not deny this-that if the C.N.R. have

Canadian National Railways called for bids on a certain portion of the ground, and that the rest of the work would
work, it is because the company actually be carried out by_
intended to have that part of the work performed by the lowest bidder.	Mr. Bourget: No, it is the other way around.
This is the point I wish to make. Could the minister tell us what portion of the work will be performed by the C.N.R. and what portion will be carried out by private enterprise?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have just received more specific details with regard to the part of the work to be performed through contracts. I am informed that tenders have been called for tree felling and ground levelling. The other work, will be performed by C.N.R. employees.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell me whether the construction of the bridge piers, for instance-as I understand bridges will have to be constructed on that railway-will be made by what we usually call the B & B team of the Canadian National Railway? Will the steel structure be laid also by the same team or if others tenders will be invited a little later?
That is why I was asking those percentages. Being an engineer, I am perhaps in a better position to understand. That is why I was asking about percentages, in order to know what part, approximately, will be done by the Canadian National Railways employees, and what part will be done by private enterprise.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, not being an engineer, I am not in a good position to reply to that question by giving accurate percentages.
As for the bridges, my information is to the effect that they will be built by the railway employees. I say that tentatively, because 1 shall have to check again; but I believe that the contracts already granted are in connection with grading.


Maurice Bourget: Clearing and grading.


Léon Balcer: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the questions we have asked, the minister told us that the Canadian National Railway itself would cut the trees and level the


Lionel Chevrier: I understand the Canadian National Railways will carry out all the work, except the cutting of trees and grading, which will be carried out under contracts by contractors.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I say that tentatively, as it is the information I have at present. That is a question which should have been directed to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, when all that information was available.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, if we were given the percentages we would know where we stand.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3- Maximum expenditure. (Translation):
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, with regard to section 3, concerning the maximum expenditure, what would happen if the amount per mile were exceeded? For instance, it is stipulated in the schedule that the average cost per mile must not exceed $140,000. So what would happen if that amount were exceeded?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, section 3
specifically provides that if the actual amount exceeds the estimate, the governor in council's approval will be required.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, no. I understand that under that section provision is made to exceed 15 per cent of the estimates; so, the governor in council is not involved before that. What I want to know is this: I understand the Canadian National Railways is entitled to spend 15 per cent more than the estimates but if, by any chance, the amount should exceed that percentage, what would happen?


Léon Balcer: What is meant here is that the bill specifically provides for an expense of $140,000 per mile. Now there will be, in addition to that, 15 per cent for contingencies.
2322	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways So, for any amount exceeding $140,000, in addition to the 15 per cent for contingencies we would have to get the governor in council's approval.


Maurice Bourget: So you will not have to ask the house to pass another bill.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Issue of securities. (Translation):
Lionel Chevrier: With regard to section 4, which is subject to section 5, I should like to discuss them together, because one is subject to the other or depends on the other. Section 5 says that if the Canadian National Railways Company is in need of money, it may obtain it through a temporary loan guaranteed by a promissory note to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). Now, as regards section 4, when the line is completed, if the company does not want to borrow money from the Minister of Finance, it may issue obligations, bonds or other securities for that purpose.
So I would ask the following question: What will the company do? Will it proceed, (a) under section 5, or (b) under section 4? If it proceeds under section 4, how will it go about getting money on the market? Will it issue a series of obligations to cover the amount of the expenditure, that is to say $8,400,000, plus the 15 per cent provided for? Who will look after that, and what will be the rate of interest?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the question is one which strictly concerns the C.N.R. management. They are given certain powers under the present act. How are they going to use them? I believe that they are going to use them in accordance with the act which we are passing today. As far as the terms and provisions of the act are concerned it is up to the C.N.R. management to comply with them which no doubt they will do in the best interest of the railway.


Lionel Chevrier: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we should be given more information. For instance, what rate of interest will be charged to the C.N.R. by the Minister of Finance? It seems to me that the house is entitled to have that information. Second, if the C.N.R. issues bonds, what rate will it pay?


Léon Balcer: Concerning the amount of money the C.N.R. may borrow from the Minister of Finance, the rate of interest will be subject to the terms and conditions laid down by the governor in council. Therefore, the rate will have to be set by the governor in council every time the C.N.R. seeks a loan from the Minister of Finance. If that is not done, then it will be the responsibility of the C.N.R. management to decide on the interest rate, and I am not in a position to answer that now.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I do not think the decision rests with the C.N.R. authorities; I believe the decision rests with the Minister of Finance, because he is the one who decides at what rate of interest he will lend money to the C.N.R. The Minister of Finance lends money regularly, and it seems to me that we ought to know what the interest rate will be.


Léon Balcer: Well, clause 4-since both clauses are being studied together-provides:
-amounts ... not exceeding in the aggregate, exclusive of any securities issued to secure loans made under section 5, the sum of nine million six hundred and sixty thousand dollars, bearing such rates of interest and subject to such other terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve.
The amounts mentioned in section 4 are those which the C.N.R. may borrow through bonds, debentures or other securities which the railway company may issue directly. Well, it is said quite clearly there that the interest rate is subject to the terms and conditions which the governor in council may approve. As to loans granted by the Minister of Finance and approved by the Minister of Transport, they are guaranteed under the terms and conditions and bear the interest rate which the governor in council may approve. Then again, it is the same thing as in the other case, because what applies to bonds and other securities which may be issued directly by the C.N.R., applies equally to temporary loans granted by the Minister of Finance, in short, in both cases the interest rate is laid down by the governor in council.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not wish to press the point or to embarrass the minister. I shall let the matter stand. I simply wish to say this: The Minister of Finance determines the interest rate to be paid by the C.N.R.

I remember what it was at the time when I was sitting on the other side of the house- but I know the rate changes because the Minister of Finance announces it from time to time. So I feel that the minister should tell us what amount the C.N.R. is required to pay to the Minister of Finance under clause 5.
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 4
carry?


William Moore Benidickson: I think this is an important question, Mr. Chairman, because at times the government itself finds the money for the Canadian National Railways. In the budget presented last March 31 there was some claim that the government had not asked the money market for certain funds because the Canadian National Railways itself had gone into the bond market for new money. Surely the Minister of Transport is familiar with the requirements in this respect. This matter came into the debate on Monday and Tuesday of this week.
In October, I believe, last year the Canadian National Railways decided, itself, to launch an appeal for funds. In consequence of that decision the Bank of Canada, as has been presented to the House of Commons in debate in the last couple of days, enlarged the money supply in order to make this appeal possible. Then a matter of a month after the Bank of Canada came into the picture to facilitate this operation, Canadian National Railways bonds of October, 1960, depreciated by 8 points or 9 points on 100. With respect to the capital requirements related to this bill I think the minister should indicate to what extent the government is taking the responsibility. I think he should also indicate to what extent the Canadian National Railways is obligated to assume any deficits in its operating statements. I think this information is necessary and I should like to hear from the minister.


Léon Balcer: What we are discussing now is the bill in its present form. The situation as far as the interest rate is concerned is quite clear. It is subject to the conditions set forth by the governor in council once the bill is approved. But as to what the railroad will do, as to whether it will go on the market or whether it will borrow from the Minister of Finance, this is a matter for decision by the management of the C.N.R. I am afraid that I cannot give any further answer.
90205-6-148
Canadian National Railways


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 4 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Guarantee.
(Translation):
Lionel Chevrier: With regard to the guarantee mentioned in this section, could the minister tell us what procedure is followed by the governor in council in giving this authorization and what form this guarantee would take?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I think that the bill is clear on that point. Now, the terms and the conditions of this guarantee will have to be determined in due course. I cannot for the moment give this information.


Lionel Chevrier: But there must be a procedure for all financial transactions between the government and the Canadian National Railways as there was in the past. I merely want to know whether there has been any change. I want to know what form the guarantee would take that the government will give on Canada bonds when the management of the Canadian National will ask the public to lend it over $9 million for the construction of this line, or $50 million, including the $9 million and other amounts that will be needed. What form of guarantee will the government offer for those bonds?
And here is the second question I want to put to the minister-well, I will keep to the one I just asked for the moment.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the form of the guarantee. In the first place, the bill is in exactly the same form as before. It contains no changes, the formula is the same and it is exactly the same system, basically.
From the point of view of interests, conditions, forms of the guarantee and all that, the system of financing is exactly the same as my predecessors used for the construction of railway branch lines. There is no difference on that point.


Lionel Chevrier: I am prepared to believe that such is the case, but no matter how much I kept repeating this to the colleagues of the Minister of Transport when I was sitting on the other side of the house, no one would accept it. I had to give the proper information and explain to the house sitting in committee what were the forms of guarantee, and each time I said that the bill was similar to others, the discussion was on

Canadian National Railways again and I had to explain again. I was able to give the explanations; sometimes it took hours but I explained what the forms of guarantee were because if I had not done so, especially with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell)-and I am happy to see him here today-who would question me continuously on the financial clauses and to say "It is not sufficient to say that the bill is similar to the one which was passed by the house in the past, the house is entitled to know what are the details in the present case."
That is why I asked the minister which form this guarantee would take. For example, would the guarantee be part of the bond issue of the C.N.R. or would it be a separate document as one might think under clause 6?
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 6 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-Deposit of proceed of sale, etc., of securities.
(Translation):
Lionel Chevrier: As for clause 7, the marginal note reads as follows:
Deposit of proceeds of sale, etc, of securities.
The proceeds of any sale, pledge, or other disposition of any guaranteed securities shall in the first instance be paid into the consolidated revenue fund-
Well, the sale of what? Is it the sale of bonds or other securities? That is the first thing I would like to know.
Second, what is the meaning of
-proceeds of pledge-
I think the house should know how the proceeds of pledge can
-be paid into the consolidated revenue fund.


Léon Balcer: I understand, Mr. Chairman- as a matter of fact, the hon. member knows quite well what is the answer to his question-


Lionel Chevrier: No, I do not.


Léon Balcer: In this instance, priority is given to payments to be made into the consolidated revenue fund whenever there are proceeds from a sale or an issue, etc. If the Canadian National Railways owe money to the Minister of Finance, the payments must be made before anything else. That is how I understand it, but naturally, I am no financial expert.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the meaning of proceeds of pledge?


Léon Balcer: According to the English text [DOT]-I prefer not to give a definition, for fear

of misinforming the house; I would rather not at the moment.


Lionel Chevrier: Without giving a definition, the minister should be able to tell us what he means by "proceeds of pledge", as mentioned in clause 7 of the bill.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 7 carry? (Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker. The house is entitled to an explanation of the words, first: "proceeds of pledge" mentioned in that clause.
(Text):


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I have consulted a great expert on these matters. He started to give me all the necessary explanation, but I am afraid we are delaying the committee. This is a very important bill and I would refer the hon. member for Laurier to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. If he has some free time after this sitting of the committee he may consult the minister and get all the information he requires on these financial matters and definitions.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: I am not prepared to consult the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) because he is not an expert outside of his own department, and even there I have my doubts; but I shall give him the benefit of the doubt anyway. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare wants to tell us what is meant by the "proceeds of the pledge", I have no objection to accept his definition but it does seem to me that we should be told what is meant by this expression and also in what way the "proceeds of the pledge" shall in the first instance be paid into the consolidated revenue fund, because it is important for the committee to know the meaning and the definition of that expression.


Roland Léo English: Mr. Chairman, I think that "the proceeds of any sale, pledge-" simply means that a guarantee is being given.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I am not prepared to accept the definition given by the hon. member for Gaspe-


Roland Léo English: Could we have yours?


Lionel Chevrier: -because he is not the
sponsor of this bill; it is the Minister of Transport who introduced this bill to the house. Unless the Minister of Transport will accept the definition given by the hon. mem-

ber for Gaspe; that would be different. But as tar as I am concerned, I am not ready to accept it as an explanation of the expression "the proceeds of a pledge".


Roland Léo English: Mr. Chairman, I have
expressed my opinion about the definition of "a pledge" and if I am wrong, I would certainly be pleased to hear the hon. member for Laurier give us his definition.


Lionel Chevrier: 1 am not the sponsor of the bill.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a suggestion. Let a page boy bring a Larousse dictionary to the hon. member for Laurier; he would certainly find the definition there.


An hon. Member:: It is the minister who should have a dictionary.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 7 carry?


William Moore Benidickson: I think the minister might enlighten the committee as to the result of operations in connection with this line. Would the surplus, the profit or the loss, be incorporated entirely within the normal financial statement of the Canadian National Railways or does the minister propose to come again to the House of Commons in connection with this investment and ask, as he does in the estimates for 1961-62, page 76, item 417, for the house itself to approve payments to the C.N.R. for deficits certified by the auditors of the company arising in certain circumstances?
Will this particular line of the railway be incorporated in the C.N.R. operating expenses for future years or will an item be required such as those enumerated in vote 417 of the estimates in connection with which, if a deficit arises, a parliamentary vote is required.


Léon Balcer: To the best of my knowledge it would be the first alternative.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to insist unduly, but I think the minister should now be in a position to give us at least an explanation or a broad definition of what is meant by that phrase, and in what way the "proceeds of the pledge" will be paid into the consolidated revenue fund.


Léon Balcer: The definition I have before me is: "The proceeds of the pledge is the amount obtained through the borrowing,
90205-6-148J
Canadian National Railways against a transfer of security, chattels or real estate".
Mr. Chairman, such "proceeds of any pledge, sale or other disposition of securities" must be deposited to the credit of the Receiver General of Canada in repayment of the temporary loan or loans granted by the government.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 7 carry? (Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: I would refer the minister to subsection (2) of clause 7.
The board of directors of the company may authorize application to be made to the Minister of Transport for the release of any part of the proceeds deposited pursuant to subsection (1) to the company.
Could the minister explain that second subsection?


Léon Balcer: I do not think many explanations are necessary here. The subsection is clear; one only has to read it carefully.
The board of directors of the company may authorize application to be made to the Minister of Transport for the release of any part of the proceeds deposited pursuant to subsection (1) to the company.
Which provides that:
The proceeds of any sale, pledge, or other disposition of any guaranteed securities shall in the first instance be paid into the consolidated revenue fund or shall be deposited to the credit of the Minister of Finance in trust for the company, in one or more banks designated by him.
Therefore, it is the Minister of Transport who authorizes the withdrawal of that money and its use for the purpose of building the railway.


Lionel Chevrier: But what I would like the minister to clarify is how the proceeds of the sale or pledge of securities from the C.N.R. are to be deposited? It is said in subsection (2) that the application to the minister must originate from the board of directors of the company, or the C.N.R.
This matter does not seem clear to me. This is why I ask the minister to explain.


Léon Balcer: I did not fully understand the question. Would the hon. member state it again?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not understand the exact meaning of subsection (2), and here is why:
I am wondering how the proceeds of the sale or pledge which will be paid into the consolidated revenue fund can be returned or

Canadian National Railways requested from the minister, by the board of directors of the company, pursuant to subsection (2), for the purpose of meeting expenditures in respect of the construction of the railway line.
Because under the terms of the clause we just discussed, the C.N.R. may borrow either on notes, or through bond issues. This is the alternative.
I cannot see any need for subclause (2) of clause 7. Could the minister offer any explanation on that matter?


Léon Balcer: Subclause (2) provides that:
The Minister of Transport may approve the applications, and upon the request of the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Finance may pay the amount or amounts of such applications or part thereof accordingly.
I think the very wording of the subclause answers the member's question.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Clause 7 carried?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On the schedule.
(Translation) :
Lionel Chevrier: I have a remark to make with regard to the schedule, Mr. Chairman. Could the minister tell us if there is a marked difference between the estimated cost of the Canadian National and the actual cost?
Of course, he would be unable to answer that question with regard to the present line, because it has not yet been built.
However, the transport division must have faced that situation on some previous occasion. I cannot remember it right now, but, was the estimated cost of the Canadian National in the past not exceeded by the actual cost?


Léon Balcer: My hon. friend asked that question in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, the other day, and I have made some inquiries since.
With regard to the Beattyville-Chibouga-mau-St. Felicien line, which was, I think, built in 1954, the estimate for the 294 miles of track was $35 million, which meant an average cost per mile of $119,184,
The expenses actually incurred amounted to $34,788,219, or an average cost of $118,126 per mile.
We realize therefore that the margin between expenses and estimates was very slight. Nowadays, building costs are higher. That is why the basic estimate of $119,000, made in 1954, when the Beattyville-Chibou-gamau-St. Felicien line was built, has now increased to $140,000 for the same distance, that is, one mile.


Lionel Chevrier: It is obvious that formerly, the actual cost exceeded the cost estimated by the Canadian National Railways and I suppose we may safely conclude that it will be again the case for the construction of this line.


Léon Balcer: When I looked over the
statistics for the last ten years, year by year, I realized that the estimated cost always went up, which means that it was regularly higher than for the preceding period.


Lionel Chevrier: The building costs may, of course, increase, but that is not my point.
What I would like to know is this: Considering past experience, and also the known figures, can the estimate of the Canadian National Railways which now amounts to $140,000 per mile, be exceeded once the railway line is built, let us say in 1962?


Léon Balcer: No. I do not quite get the question. The hon. member asks whether the estimated cost arrived at by the C.N.R. or rather whether the C.N.R. will have to prepare new estimates as the months go by. Well, it will not be so. Since the amount is set for the whole contract, the amount will not be greater for the last month than for the first months of the contract.


Martial Asselin: It is hypothetical question.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps my question was not quite clear, but it was surely not hypothetical as the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) seems to suggest.
The figures given by the minister indicate that the estimated cost of the C.N.R. with regard to the railway lines that have been built, those from Chibougamau to St. Felicien, from Beattyville to Chibougamau, and from Barraute to Kiask Falls, has been exceeded in each case. It is a fact.
I am not referring to the increase of construction cost. That is a quite different matter. My point is that the C.N.R. said, according to its estimate-and I refer to the cost per mile only-that it would be $140,000 a mile. Now, I ask whether, in view of the experience with the Canadian National, you think that the $140,000 estimate will be exceeded once the line is completed.


Léon Balcer: I do not think so. I have confidence in the estimates made by the C.N.R. But the economic position of the country has of course, to be considered. However, I believe the company's officials who placed the cost at $140,000 per mile have based their calcula-

tion on normal cost figures for that kind of project. Anyway, it is not up to me, as a mere layman, to say whether the $140,000 figure is or is not a good estimate.


Lionel Chevrier: Now, on January 16 the minister tabled in this house document number 149 which fully explains the expenditures on the building of three railways, those from St. Felicien to Lac Cache, from Beattyville to Lac Cache, and from Hillsport to Mani-towadge Lake. There is a detailed account of the amounts spent annexed to that document and on page 1 of the annex there is an expenditure of about $8,400,000 plus 15 per cent, which would make a total of $9,600,000 or so, but I do not remember it too well. Could the minister tell us what percentage of this sum, for instance, would have been spent for land expropriation, engineering work, clearing, grading, bridge building, telephone and telegraph lines, stations, etc? Have the C.N.R. officials prepared a similar statement to that which was tabled in the house?


Léon Balcer: Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we had a meeting with C.N.R. experts who came here to provide every possible information. One was an engineer, the other was in charge of development and all those people were entirely at the disposal of the committee. I cannot understand why the member for Laurier did not ask his questions at that time. I am certainly not in a position to give him any figures. He asked for certain technical details, strictly pertaining to civil engineering, and technical details about building, and I cannot give them to him. If he had advised me of his intention two or three days ago, I could have done so. But, now-
I sincerely wonder why he insists and why he did not seek that information when the C.N.R. experts were available to the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have asked the committee several questions, and I have received some information. On other points, I did not get the answer I was seeking. But that is not the point. Now, we are no longer in the railway committee but in committee of the whole, and it is the minister's responsibility to supply the required information.
The minister can certainly not say that I took advantage of him today. I asked him some questions which seemed simple to me.
I asked questions that came to my mind without having prepared them beforehand.
Canadian National Railways I have here the document which the minister tabled himself in this house, and he seemed surprised when I asked him how the nine and odd million dollars provided for that line would be distributed in respect of expropriation, engineering work, and so on. That was certainly not a question which should surprise him, as it was based on a document which he tabled in the house which he has seen and probably studied. I am asking a quite natural question. If he is unable to give me the required information, very well.


Léon Balcer: I cannot give him that information, Mr. Chairman.
(Text):
Schedule carried.
Title carried.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time? Now, by leave?


Lionel Chevrier: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There has been no amendment to the bill. Third reading could proceed today.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, it has been the custom in the past to allow third reading to go over to another day because during the evening or the next day considerations may arise which might place hon. members in the position of wanting to participate in the debate on third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is up to the government whether or not it wishes to wait until tomorrow. If the minister wishes to move third reading today he may do so.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) would revise his attitude? This is a project of great importance and many people are waiting for this large project to proceed.
Many man hours will be involved in this project; it is a big project and it will bring employment to a great many Canadians. I do not know why we should delay it.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in view of the attitude taken, not by the Minister of Transport but by many of his colleagues, the government, in my opinion, does not deserve to get unanimous consent in so far as we are concerned, but-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have indicated to the hon. member for Laurier

Canadian National Railways that since the committee has not amended the bill unanimous consent of the house is not required.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the Deputy Speaker allow me to speak to the point raised by the minister?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: The point I wanted to make was this, and perhaps I made it too bluntly. In view of the attitude taken by certain hon. members toward the member for Lau-rier in connection with this legislation I do not think that the minister should have made the request he did. But, as I said, sir, I will disregard any of the statements made concerning myself, and in view of what the Minister of Transport said, I am quite sure that those of us who sit on this side of the house are perfectly happy to let the bill receive third reading, notwithstanding the fact that under normal circumstances it should stand over. Since the minister wishes the bill to receive third reading, and in view of the request he has made, we are perfectly satisfied to let it go forward. (Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add only one word in answer to the minister. (Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to speak on third reading he will have his opportunity in a moment.


Léon Balcer: the third reading of the bill.
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I intend to support the bill. The Minister of Transport just made a statement which seems to indicate that we are responsible for the delay in the passing of this bill. If it is not what the minister meant to say, I offer him my apologies, and I withdraw what I said. However, I understood the minister to say that we had delayed the passing of this bill and therefore delayed creating work for a number of workers.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I asked very politely the hon. member for Laurier whether he would reconsider his decision because this is a potential work-making project.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must inform the minister that since he moved the third reading of the bill he is not entitled to speak because having moved it he is considered as having spoken. Is the house ready for the question?
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Well, Mr. Chairman, it may be implied, I think, from his remarks that

the opposition was being blamed for having delayed the passing of this bill because the minister said: "Well, the purpose of this measure was to provide employment for a certain number of workers". We agree on that, but we are not ready to agree, for instance, that it is the fault of the opposition if this measure was not introduced before today or last week.
Repeatedly, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) if there were certain measures which could provide jobs for the workers and, if so, to introduce them in this house as soon as possible.
Consequently, I do not believe-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Vote, that is the best way to provide jobs.


An hon. Member:: Keep quiet.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, out of respect for you, I shall not answer the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) who interrupts again. I shall not answer because I wish to contribute-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Because you cannot.


Maurice Bourget: -because I want to contribute to the upholding of the proprieties of this house.
Once again, I say that we cannot be blamed under the circumstances, but we may come to the conclusion, by inference, that the minister blamed the opposition for having delayed the passing of this measure which would have provided jobs for workers. Well, the minister knows very well-


An hon. Member:: That is what you are doing now.


Georges-J. Valade: You may not have done so, but you are doing it now.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, for Heaven's sake, would it be possible for us to be given peace in this house? Could we have it once and for all?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind all hon. members that it is against the rules to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor without his permission.


Maurice Bourget: Well, Mr. Chairman-


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I have almost completed my remarks and I have only one more minute to go, but I shall allow the hon. member to put his question.


Georges-J. Valade: Does the hon. member intend to speak until six o'clock?


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak until six o'clock, but even if I did intend to do so, may I tell the hon. member that I would not need his permission to do it.
Mr. Chairman, the reason why I rose is because I do not want the opposition to be deemed responsible for having delayed the passing of a measure which could provide jobs for part of the 700,000 unemployed which we now have in this country.
That is the reason for my intervention.


An hon. Member:: That is another question.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Then vote.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the hon. member for Levis (Mr. B our get) understood very badly.


Maurice Bourget: Perhaps.


Martial Asselin: -the request for co-operation that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) made to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier).
The minister simply asked the hon. member for Laurier to reconsider his decision and to have the motion providing for third reading of Bill C-69 passed today. He gave his reasons for doing so. He did not accuse the opposition. On the contrary, it is the hon. member for Levis who accused himself, saying it had been claimed that the opposition was delaying the adoption of this legislation.
The hon. minister simply said this: If the motion providing for third reading were adopted today we could benefit from the fact that this project might be started as soon as possible and thus provide work for thousands of persons. That was what the Minister of Transport meant to say.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to challenge an allegation made by the hon.
Business of the House
member for Laurier. He stated in this house that, if the bill was not passed it was because of the attitude of some hon. members on the government side.
Let me tell the hon. member for Laurier that we all co-operated in order to have this bill passed as soon as possible, and that every member in this house, like the hon. member for Laurier himself, has done everything they could to that end.
(Text):
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the acting house leader what the business will be for tomorrow and the rest of the week?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, as I think I intimated last night, tomorrow we will proceed with the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, including all branches of that department such as the film board, the archives, the national library, everything for which the minister is responsible in addition to her regular departmental duties. Following the conclusion of the passing of those estimates we will take up the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and proceed with agriculture again on Friday, and when we have concluded those I will announce on Friday what we shall follow with.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it that there is no intention of going back to matters of transport which were announced last night?


George Clyde Nowlan: That is, there is no intention of going back to those on Thursday or Friday.


Lionel Chevrier: Estimates for both days?


George Clyde Nowlan: Estimates for both days.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	1. Yes.
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Howard: I Since July 1, 1960, has any Indian child other than one attending the Hazelton amalgamated school in British Columbia had any teeth extracted by a dentist or dentists within the government service?
2. If so, what is for each such child, the name, the village from which each came, the date and number of extractions, and the name of the dentist?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
2. See list attached.
The names of the patients are not shown as this would involve giving information which is normally considered as confidential between the practitioner and his patient.
As many of the children for whom dental services were carried out are in residential schools, the department is unable to indicate in each instance the village from which each child came. However, clinic locations are shown on the attached list.
While this inquiry relates to dental extractions only, it should be noted that more than 1,350 single tooth restorations as well as a considerable number of prosthodontic appliances were provided to Indian children in British Columbia during this same period.
DENTIST-Dr. C. J. Bannerman
No. of
Date	patients
Location of clinic
Extractions
deciduous permanent
July
Aug.
Sept.



HAZELTON SCHOOL, B.C.-INDIAN DENTAL SERVICES

Mr. Howard: 1.	Since July 1,	I960, has any Indian child
attending the Hazelton amalgamated school in British Columbia had any teeth extracted by a dentist or dentists within the government service?
2.	If so, what is, for each such child, the name, the village from which each came, the date and number of extractions, and the name of the dentist?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
1.	Yes.
2.	See list attached.
The names of the patients are not shown as this would involve giving information which is normally considered as confidential between the practitioner and his patient.
As many of the children for whom dental services were carried out are in residential schools, the department is unable to indicate in each instance the village from which each child came. However clinic locations are shown on the attached list.

Questions
DENTIST-Dr. S. J. McNee
Date	No. of patients	Location of clinic	Extractions deciduous permanent	Nov. 28/60	12	Hazelton	11" 29	13	"	16" 30	15	<<	27Dec. 1	19	<<	.	49" 2	8	St. Joseph's school, Hagwilget	
2	9" 5	17	
5	15" 6	9	Kispiox Indian day school	6" 7	16	u	12" 8	10	Glen Vowell school	5" 22	1	Miller Bay hospital	4" 29	1	1DENTIST-Aug. 2/60	-Dr. W. H. Derkson 1 Hazelton	
-	1
Thursday, February 23, 1961



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.