1961-05-19

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Following the usual custom I intend to make a statement concerning some of the matters which were discussed between President Kennedy and myself, in order to amplify to some extent the terms of the communique which, as is the case with all communiques-and I emphasize the comprehensiveness of that statement-did not cover in particular, or deal in detail, with what has taken place, for reasons which will be obvious to most people.
The President placed before parliament his views on certain major issues before us, and what he said to me personally was, of course, consistent with what he said in parliament although amplified in considerable detail. The scope of the discussions was set forth in the communique. While the nature of some of the subjects discussed denies that they be given public utterance, I think I can properly report on some of the main topics of the discussion.
As far as the world situation in general is concerned, there is a continuing crisis as the Soviet union wages its campaign for global domination, and the dust clouds of soft words and the periodic soft answers must not be allowed to delude anyone into believing that the Soviet challenge will not continue with unabated, or even increased, determination. However, today an announcement was made which all the world hopes will lead to an amelioration of relations between east and west. I refer, of course, to the prospective meeting between the President of the United States and Chairman Krushchev. Immdiately on his arrival, when we met together personally, the President gave me that information, and we both expressed the hope that out of that meeting in Vienna in consequence of the personal exchange of views might come, in the interests of humanity as a whole, that degree of agreement which has been the expectation and the hope of manking since 1946.
As far as our relations with the United States and the western hemisphere are concerned, President Kennedy laid strong emphasis on them, both in his public and in his
private discussions. We reviewed the problems facing all the countries of North and South America, and noted the situation, among a number of these countries, in connection with different ranges and stages of economic development, and the special situations in regard to their social and political structures which have such a bearing on both their development and stability.
The President would welcome Canada's participation in the organization of American states. This, of course, has been discussed and was recently discussed in this house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. So far as this question is concerned, which has been a continuing one throughout the year for the consideration of governments of Canada, it is still in that category and, of course, no commitments were made, or would be made, without parliament being made aware in advance of any such action.
I was much impressed with the emphasis which the President placed on the importance of the problems confronting our two countries' hemispheric affairs. I assured him that his views would be the subject of serious consideration. I referred to his reviews respecting membership in the organization of American states and the other problems that are incidental to that membership, and I should hope, that at an early date parliament will have the opportunity, if it so desires, of discussing this question.
With reference to Cuba, I made it clear to the President that the Canadian government has no intention of acting as mediator between the United States and Cuba. Indeed, as stated before, there was no foundation for the press report that such an offer had been put forward.
We discussed the affairs of southeast Asia, and particularly the situation in Laos and South Viet Nam. We are agreed on the objective of establishing a truly independent and neutral Laos, and of the necessity of securing general support for effective control machinery; because only if this is done will the Laos situation be resolved and peace and stability attained in southeast Asia. We discussed the experience of the international control and supervisory commissions, on which Canada has been serving, and the vital importance of the role of these commissions was emphasized.
It is natural that the question of Chinese representation in the United Nations at the next session of the general assembly should

External Affairs
have been canvassed, and we agreed to consult together, therefore, in the next few months in respect of this subject, because it will not come up for consideration until September.
The policies and programs of our countries in relation to underdeveloped nations received attention. We recognize that we now have, in the development assistance group, a new forum for reviewing and co-ordinating our programs in this field. I placed before the President, with some degree of pride, the outstanding record of Canada in aiding other countries since the end of world war II, and I also pointed out the very substantial increase in Colombo aid and in the general scale of aid that has been given since 1958.
There was some considerable discussion in the field of economic affairs. I pointed out that Canada has a tremendous balance of payments deficit in commodity trade, and that this was a matter that had to be resolved. Each of our countries is by a wide margin the other's most important trading partner. With the great volume and complexity of our economic relations it is realized that problems will arise, but what is of paramount importance is that these problems be met through discussion, by regular consultation and free exchanges of views and the continuing spirit of good will.
The European economic community and the tariff relationships now being worked out were discussed at length. Both countries have been working actively to ensure that trading relationships with this community should favour the maintenance and development of a large volume of trade in each direction. The importance of trading relationships with Europe would be considerably enhanced if the United Kingdom government decided to join the Six in the common market.
The problem that is common to both of us, namely farm surpluses, especially wheat, was discussed. We agreed to continue to work closely together in this field. I know the house will endorse the views expressed by the President on Wednesday about food surpluses and how to make constructive use of them. The food for peace program already embodies many of those ideas. I express my appreciation of the support which the United States has given to the Canadian suggestion for a food bank made at the U.N. and the F.A.O. My expectation is that some more specific proposals in this regard will be placed before the United Nations assembly in September.
Questions of defence were discussed mostly in connection with NATO. Emphasis was laid
tMr. Diefenbaker.]
on the increase in the capability of the alliance to wage war defensively with conventional forces in order to reduce the likelihood of having to rely more extensively upon nuclear weapons for defence.
In so far as NATO is concerned, the views I expressed to the President were that with a population of about 400 million people and with a gross national product four tims that of the Soviet union, the NATO nations possess great strength, but that the strengthening of unity in NATO is a continuing imperative and must not be neglected. I believe that the leaders of the NATO countries will have to advance further than the steps already taken to strengthen wider unity, not only in defence but economically and even politically.
The position of affairs in West Berlin was discussed. It is of great importance to Canada, and Canadians should realize this fact; for Canada has undertaken, along with its NATO allies, serious commitments in regard to West Berlin and the maintenance of the freedom of the people of that city.
The President told me of what was taking place in Geneva from the point of view of the United States, and of the endeavour in particular to reach agreement on a pact to end nuclear testing. I believe that as we endeavour to bring about disarmament, an effective treaty to end nuclear testing is a basic step before any disarmament of a more general character can be achieved. I believe we must continue to press for controlled disarmament and in particular, in the light of the progress of the last few years in the upper skies and the recent achievements of Commander Shepard and Major Gagarin, we face the stern fact that without international control of space the future will be even more perilous than the present.
In so far as our purposes are concerned, I am of those who have advocated not only to the President but on other occasions that we in the free world should explain our purposes, our ideals, our aims, to the non-committed world to a degree that we have not done heretofore. I found in my trip to Asia some years ago that too often the interpretation of what we stand for has been left to the whims of the communists. Indeed, I believe that in 1918 when President Wilson made his declaration, and again in 1941 with the Atlantic charter, these declarations had a tremendous effect; and I feel that today the ideals of the free world should be restated in simple terms so that all mankind will know that we have joined in a declaration of principles, and that all with recognize in these principles the equality of races and will condemn discrimination in any form.
I think all of us were very pleased at the manner in which Canadians received the

President and his wife. I want to say particularly now much I appreciated the fact that, while no arrangements had been made for him to meet the members of this house and the other place, as soon as I suggested it to him on the evening of his arrival he said he fully understood that this would be the proper course to follow and in keeping with the responsibility discharged by the parliamentarians of this country. We recognize President Kennedy as the courageous, inspiring leader of the free world. He bears a tremendous burden. His concern is great: his dedication is great. I think our meeting together was worth while in every sense of the word, for it underlined that spirit of co-operation between our nations that is a model for all mankind.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure all members of the house are grateful to the Prime Minister for the statement he has made, and which gives some indication of the extensive character of the discussions between himself and the President of the United States on the occasion of the latter's visit to our country. As the Leader of the Opposition said, speaking outside this house, the visit of the President of the United States was both a happy and an important event. It was to be hoped that the agreeable character of this visit was shared not only by Canadians but by citizens of the United States generally. It is well that we should underline the importance of a visit from the head of state and the head of government of the most powerful country in the free world. This visit of President Kennedy will take its place with the visits of some of his predecessors, notably President Roosevelt, President Truman and President Eisenhower.
The Prime Minister has said that the communique which followed the discussions between the two heads of government was of such a general character that it should not be presumed to have covered even in any measure of generality the discussions which took place between him and the President. I am sure the Prime Minister will not misunderstand me if I say that while his statement this morning was much more extended than was the communique itself, nevertheless the statement this morning likewise is in such general terms that it is not possible to derive a clear appreciation of the full nature of the discussions that took place. I am not complaining; the character of international affairs requires that negotiations should at certain stages be conducted in secret. However, it is only proper to point out that the range of subjects which formed the basis of discussion between the President
External Affairs
and the Prime Minister was of such a character as to give us at this time not much more than an indication of the nature of the discussions.
It is important to note that the Prime Minister said the June confrontation between President Kennedy and Chairman Khrushchev was a matter that was mentioned during their talks. This is an extremely important development. We can only hope that the necessary preparations will attend both President Kennedy and Chairman Khrushchev in this very important meeting which, I take it, is not of the nature of a summit meeting in the sense in which that meeting was understood last May. It is to be a brief meeting between the two heads of government. In any event, I am sure the Prime Minister would want Canadians generally to note that too much should not be expected from such a meeting. It would be better to have concrete results flow unexpectedly rather than to raise the anticipations of the Canadian and other nations and their peoples.
The Prime Minister said that he and the President discussed matters having to do with our relations with South and Central America. Indeed, in his memorable statement in this house the President called upon Canada to share to an even greater measure the responsibilities of hemispheric consultation and direction. The statement he made about Canadian participation in the organization of American states was couched in such terms as to warrant one in believing he had some reason for thinking that the government was going to make an important decision in this regard.
As the Prime Minister has said, it is not without significance that in the foreign affairs debate in this house two weeks ago, proposals were made for Canadian participation in the organization of American states, notably by the Leader of the Opposition. Since that time there has been a manifestation of increasing Canadian interest in the participation by Canada in the organization of American states and at the same time, in the face of what the Prime Minister has said today and what the President of the United States said in his speech here on Wednesday last, it would seem that the Canadian government is giving active consideration to participation in the organization of American states. If the government does announce its intention to participate in the organization of American states, the Prime Minister may be assured, it will receive the support of the members of the party on whose behalf I am now speaking, for we believe that the time has come when this step should be taken.
The Prime Minister referred to a whole series of other matters that were discussed,

External Affairs
including the situation in Asia and the situation in the Caribbean, as well as that in South America and in Central America and the admission of communist China to the United Nations. In that regard it is significant that the Prime Minister this morning said that further discussions between Canada and the United States will take place regarding this matter. The Prime Minister did not say whether, in his discussions with the President, note had been taken of the recent arrangements made with communist China for the sale of Canadian wheat and the relation of that arrangement, as noted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to the matter of Canadian recognition or Canadian acceptance of communist China in the United Nations.
Without traversing all the matters that were mentioned, among them the relation of the United States and Canada to the common market, I can only say that undoubtedly the Prime Minister meant to emphasize this morning the fact that he fully agreed with the President in what the latter had said as to the importance the government of the United States attaches to the organization known as O.E.C.D., which provides a liaison between certain countries, notably the United States and Canada, and the common market.
This visit of the President of the United States has come at a very important time in the administration of the new President. It has come at a very important time in the history of the world. This statement of the Prime Minister, couched in general terms, gives Canadians an opportunity of once again expressing their gratitude to the President for his visit and of once again affirming the friendship which this country has for the United States, recognizing as we do that an understanding between our two countries is essential in our own interests as well as in the interests of other countries which desire to see peace maintained at this time.
I should like to say that the words of the Prime Minister in this regard are echoed not only by those who sit on the treasury benches but by those of us who sit in the opposition and, I am sure, by the Canadian people generally. We are happy over this visit of the young President of the United States. We are happy because he affirmed the friendship of his country for us, and because he gave us an opportunity of letting him know that in matters of great moment at this critical time in human affairs, Canada understands not only its own responsibilities but those of the United States and other free countries which are anxious to pursue policies designed to maintain peace among the nations in this turbulent period of world affairs.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the visit to Canada of President Kennedy and his charming wife has been welcomed by all Canadians. The warmth of the reception given to the President and Mrs. Kennedy indicates the very friendly relationship between our country and the United States.
President Kennedy, when he spoke in this chamber, did so in a very forthright manner and left no room for misunderstanding about the attitude of the United States to important international events. I had expected the President of the United States to give us when he spoke here, as he did, in clear and concise terms the position of the United States on many vexing world problems. But I am not at all certain that when the President made it so clear to us what he wished Canada to do with regard to certain important and controversial problems, it was of assistance to Canadians in coming to a conclusion. I say this because the conclusions that we come to on these important questions must, most clearly, be our decisions made on the basis of what we believe to be in the interests of freedom, the improvement of living standards of the people of the world, and of peace.
The President made it clear that from his point of view he wished to see NATO strengthened, not only in the role of conventional weapons but also as far as nuclear armaments are concerned, and that he was prepared to sit down and consider the working out of some arrangement, I take it to broaden the control of nuclear weapons in the hands of NATO forces and forces attached to NATO.
While there may be some difference of opinion among the C.C.F. people and others who are interested in the New party on the question of NATO, there has been no difference at all in our attitude toward handing to NATO and all its members nuclear weapons to be placed in the hands of NATO troops. We oppose this particular policy, and should this be the policy adopted by the NATO organization we shall certainly oppose it when it is undertaken. NATO continues to be strictly a military organization, and over the years we have emphasized that article II was the part of the NATO treaty that we wished to see expanded and developed.
The President made reference to O.E.C.D., as did the Prime Minister this morning. We think this organization is important. We think Canada should play a most active part, and we hope that O.E.C.D. will see the economic development of the north Atlantic area, and from O.E.C.D. can go some of the economic help that will improve living standards in large areas of the world.

The President had another important proposition to put before us. That was his view with regard to the organization of American states. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have said that the government is giving careful consideration to whether or not Canada should decide to join the organization of American states.
I said in this house on a previous occasion that in my view the time had come for Canada to join the organization of American states. However, I am prepared, with the Prime Minister, to give further consideration to this most important question; because while I do see some advantage in being a member of the organization of American states in a time when we are able to deal in a cool and collected manner with the economic problems of the hemisphere, it does seem to me there may be a temptation on the part of some to develop the organization of American states to maintain the status quo in certain South American countries. Or even worse still, some may hope that it can be developed into a military organization, which we think would be a very serious mistake. We are considering this question as is the government, and we think the government is correct in giving the Canadian nation ample time to consider the pros and cons before making any decision to join this- organization.
There was one important statement made by the Prime Minister this morning which I was sorry to hear. It was that there was no truth in the newspaper reports that our Secretary of State for External Affairs had offered to mediate between Cuba and the United States. I think such an offer from Canada would have been wise. We can now see that the United States would have quickly rejected it. None the less it does seem to me that in the interests of peace and in the interests of the economic development of the hemisphere there must be some mediation in the conflict between Cuba and the United States. If we are to keep communism out of the western hemisphere, as we all wish to do, we must not be found on the side of dictators, on the side of vested interests and opposed to the improvement of health, education and living standards of the people of Latin America.
The Prime Minister went on to make some reference to China. He referred to the need to reconsider the admission of China to the United Nations. The Canadian government has said there can be no recognition of China. I think that Canada is, in an economic sense, recognizing China. It would seem to me that
Controls on Japanese Trade to undertake trade relations of a very extensive kind with China is in fact a type of recognition.
No less a person than Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent was reported in the press as having said that in light of the trade relations being developed between Canada and China he thought it only sensible that representatives of our country should be stationed in China and representatives of China should be stationed in Canada. We think this is a sensible attitude, and that it is only a matter of time before we do grant this type of formal diplomatic recognition to China, from which we think would flow improved and increased trade with China.
The President went on to emphasize-and in this we wholeheartedly agree-the need for those nations in the western world which have high standards of living to give a part of their production to improve the economic standards of people in less fortunate countries. The Prime Minister says that Canada has a good record in this regard. I will not dispute that but I will say that Canada's record should be much better than it is; that a record of $70 million or $75 million of economic assistance during the current fiscal year is not enough; that the figure of 1 per cent of the gross national product mentioned by the President of the United States is something for which we could well strive. I am convinced that by providing economic assistance we could do more than in any other field toward maintaining peace and improving economic relations amongst the peoples of the world.
We are glad, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the United States and Mrs. Kennedy have made this visit to Ottawa.


STATEMENT ON VOLUNTARY CONTROLS ON EXPORTS TO CANADA
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of a letter, dated May 15, which I have received from the ambassador of Japan informing me of the voluntary restraints the Japanese government has decided to apply on the export of certain products to Canada for the year 1961. These decisions have been taken by the Japanese government following extensive consultations with the government of Canada. I assume the house will wish to have this letter printed as an appendix to Hansard. The comparable information concerning the Japanese voluntary controls for 1960 is found as an appendix to Hansard of May 5, 1960.
Perhaps I might make a few comments on the arrangements which have been made for

Controls on Japanese Trade 1961. It will be recalled that in 1959 and 1960 the Japanese government extended its voluntary controls to cover a wider range of textile products. Controls were maintained in 1960 on cotton fabrics, most cotton made-up goods, various garments of spun rayon and other synthetic fabrics and bedspreads and elastics of all fibres. All these products will, of course, remain under control this year. It has also been decided to add several new items to the list of products under quota control, namely dish towels, ladies' fabric dress gloves, nylon fabric and certain types of ribbons. Several quota categories which covered groups of miscellaneous products have been divided into smaller categories in order to avoid the risk of undue concentration on particular products. For several particularly sensitive textile products the quotas for 1961 are somewhat lower than for 1960, while for certain other products provision has been made for a moderate increase. The details of the arrangements for textiles are to be found in annex A to the ambassador's letter.
In mid-1960 Japan introduced for the first time a system of voluntary restraints on rubber footwear and rubber-soled canvas footwear. The levels of shipment in 1960 were not established on the basis of consultation between the two governments. For 1961, however, the Japanese government has consulted us about the nature and levels of the quotas to be applied on these products. The details will be found in annex B to the ambassador's letter.
There will now be two categories, waterproof footwear and canvas footwear. The category known as canvas footwear will now include shoes with rubber soles and fabric uppers of any kind. In particular it will include rubber-soled shoes with corduroy or velveteen uppers, which have been shipped to Canada in considerable quantity over the past six months. In order to make allowance for some of the shipments of these shoes which took place before the revised definition was adopted, a special quota of 360,000 pairs has been established for this year only. This is in addition to the basic quota on this product of 2,200,000 pairs.
As the house is aware, exports of plywood from Japan to Canada have been subject to voluntary export control for several years. Owing to the difficulty of predicting market demand for this product for the full year, the quota outlined in annex C relates only to the first six months of 1961. Further consultations will take place in relation to the quota for the second half of this year.
Although stainless steel flatware was first placed under voluntary export control in 1959, the Canadian flatware industry has

continued to experience difficulty as a result of the volume of imports. Accordingly the Japanese government has taken the exceptional step of reducing significantly the export quota for 1961 below that for 1960. The figures appear in annex D.
In addition to rubber footwear several other items are placed under quota to Canada this year for the first time. These are transistor radios, radio and television receiving tubes, vinyl raincoats and polyester staple buttons. The arrangements for these products are set out in annexes E to H to the ambassador's letter.
The various measures described in this letter are being undertaken by the government of Japan in conformity with its established policy or promoting the orderly growth of Japanese exports to the Canadian market. May I say that I share the belief expressed by the ambassador that this policy of self restraint should pave the way for further expansion of two way trade on an orderly basis, to the mutual benefit of both countries.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: The statement which has been made by the Minister of Finance is an important one, since it has to do with quotas in connection with trade between Canada and Japan. It is, of course, impossible for me without having a copy of the statement, which contains a number of features affecting the textile industry and other industries in this country, to comment on it objectively. I should prefer to wait until I see the text; then if there are statements to be made they can be made at the opportune time.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Our group is immensely pleased with the announcement which has been made. Over many years we have advocated planning between nations in respect to the exchange of commodities as opposed to raising tariff barriers. I am happy to note that this is a voluntary arrangement agreed to by the government of Japan. I hope the government intends to enlarge its activities in this field and enter into further understandings of this kind with other nations of the world in order that we may have an orderly economic life in our own nation without the upsets which are inevitably caused by ruthless competition in the world's trading field.
I noted particularly the expression of opinion by the minister at the conclusion of his observations to the effect that he was looking for an expansion of our trade with Japan. We hope his prediction in this respect will be realized. We need Japan as an active trading partner, and we believe there is room in Japan for the export industry of Canada. We hope that at no time will the

government revert to the old policy of using tariff barriers. We are happy with the new attitude which is being taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the letter and appendices referred to by the minister be printed as an appendix to Hansard today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note:	for text of documents
referred to above, see appendix.]



HOUSING


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Hon. members may recall that on April 17 I announced that the government had directed Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to initiate the development of an active secondary market for National Housing Act residential first mortgages. This was to be accomplished by the sale of a part of the large and diversified portfolio the corporation has acquired as a result of extensive lending operations since 1957. In answer to several inquiries I agreed to make a further statement when the modus oper-andi had been worked out.
The corporation's first offering of National Housing Act insured mortgages will now be made on or about June 1. The initial offering, in an amount of approximately $15 million, will be made to members of the investment dealers' association of Canada, N.H.A. approved lenders and their N.H.A. approved correspondents. These organizations may then offer the mortgages for sale to pension funds, trusts, estates, holding companies and the public, or they may wish to hold the mortgages and offer debentures or other forms of security to small investors. Prospective purchasers should therefore get in touch with one of the organizations I have just mentioned, and not with the corporation itself.
The mortgages to be offered for sale in about two weeks time have been assembled in packages valued at about $500,000 each. Some packages consist of mortgages in specific centres; others have been prepared on a country wide basis. Each contains fully advanced 6| per cent N.H.A. first mortgages.
On or about June 1, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will invite sealed tenders from prospective purchasers and bids may be for one or more of the $500,000 mortgage packages up to the maximum of $15 million. Tender documents will be mailed by the corporation from its head office in Ottawa. I might add that options for up to 60 days will be considered. Tenders will close at 11 a.m. E.D.T. on June 19, 1961.
Secondary Mortgage Market
The corporation will not insist upon retaining the servicing. The purchasers of the mortgages may choose their own servicing arrangement. I should point out, however, that under provinsions of the National Housing Act an insured mortgage may be sold and the mortgage insurance continued only if it is administered to maturity by the corporation or by an approved lender.
No further sales will be made for a period of 60 days from the date of the original option.
Subsequent government marketing policy will be determined in light of the experience we gain from the first offering. I am confident, however, that development of an active secondary mortgage market will create not only a more regular but actually a larger flow of National Housing Act mortgage funds.
In concluding my statement may I reiterate that the sale of mortgages by C.M.H.C. does not in any way affect the interests of borrowers. These are established when the mortgage is made, and do not change when it is sold.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house welcome this announcement of the minister in regard to the establishment of a secondary mortgage. We believe, however, that this move is long overdue. It will be recalled that we recommended the establishment of such a market on many occasions over the past three year period. Anything that can be done to encourage a steadier flow of mortgage money into housing will surely be welcomed by all groups in this house. We have seen the difficulties and great hardships which have faced the house building industry and the public in general, at a time not later than the year 1960, resulting from this lack of a steady flow as well as from the necessity, at times, of the government turning on and off the tap.
In respect to this announcement, I wonder whether I may be allowed to refer to a statement made yesterday by the minister regarding this same subject. This statement was made in Montreal and-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member embarks upon that course, may I remind him that statements are made and permitted by this house for the purpose of enabling the government to give information first to parliament, and not for the purposes of initiating a debate. What the hon. member proposes to do or say should be strictly in accordance with that principle and practice.


John Richard Garland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I propose should perhaps be followed

Secondary Mortgage Market up on orders of the day. I do want to say that we endorse very strongly any move in the direction, of a secondary mortgage market and it is to be hoped that there will he the greatest opportunity afforded for the broadest possible participation by the Canadian people in this particular program.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, as indicated on another occasion, our group is heartily in accord with the plan of the government to establish what we hope will be a reliable secondary mortgage market in Canada. We feel this project will go a long way toward meeting the need for capital on the part of the house building industry.
I noted very carefully that the minister announced it was the government's intention to place-if I heard him correctly-only $15 million of the securities on the market. I believe this is a wise move indeed. I was afraid the government might have flooded the market with a much larger amount, because we do know the government holds $1J billion worth of mortgage paper.
I can assure the minister that we welcome the move, and that we will be watching very carefully the method of its operation and particularly the effects on the market of any undue unloading on the part of the government.

On the orders of the day:


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement of the Minister of Public Works, are the chartered banks of Canada going to be permitted to submit bids on the blocks of mortgages referred to by the minister? If so, would this not be circumventing the intent of the Bank Act which limits the earnings of the banks?


David James Walker: The answer to the question is yes, but the banks would not be circumventing the Bank Act. The hon. member does not appear to appreciate that the banks can invest in securities yielding a greater rate of return than 6 per cent. With respect to lending to the public, and this is the distinction, the limit is 6 per cent. If the banks want to lend money on mortgages as approved lenders the rate is limited to 6 per cent. Does that answer the question?

On the orders of the day:


John Richard Garland: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public
[Mr. Garland.)
Works. It is based on a press report in this morning's Montreal Gazette reading as follows:
Public works minister Walker yesterday urged development of a secondary market for mortgages in Canada to reduce-
This is the pertinent part.
-dependence on government funds for new housing financing.
How does the minister reconcile this statement with his statement only one month ago that the funds to be realized from the sale of C.M.H.C. held mortgages would be reinvested in housing, thereby avoiding financial loss to the federal treasury?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction between the two statements. As a matter of fact we are very anxious to reduce the participation of government in mortgages provided we can get sufficient funds from the approved lenders. In order to reduce our call on the consolidated revenue fund for money to make direct loans we are creating a secondary mortgage market, which will involve our selling part of the stock of mortgages we have assembled over the years. The hon. member will realize, of course, that when we get cash from the sale of these mortgages we will be in a position to put that cash back into the market again without digging deeper into the consolidated revenue fund for further amounts.


John Richard Garland: Will the minister say, then, that all of the moneys realized from the sale of these mortgages will be reinvested in housing?


David James Walker: That, Mr. Speaker, is a difficult matter. My hon. friend will appreciate that it is impossible to give an accurate answer to a question of that kind in view of the fact that there might be more sales than the demand for new funds. On the other hand, the sales may be, and in my opinion no doubt will be, insufficient to provide funds to meet the constant demand we have for mortgages. My friend will appreciate that with 20,000 mortgages arranged this year, 9,000 have still been arranged through C.M.H.C. We would like to change that ratio and have a greater amount of these mortgages made by the approved lenders.



COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-96, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (twelve mile fishing zone).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.

Inquiries of the Ministry



FISHERIES

Frank Howard: The Canadian government's position as presented to the first United Nations conference on the law of the sea in 1958, was to the effect that a state has a fishing zone contiguous to its territorial sea extending to a limit 12 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of its territorial sea is measured in which it has the same rights in respect of fishing and the exploitation of the living resources of the sea as it has in its territorial sea.
The purpose of the bill is to extend the zone to a 12 mile area, which would then be the fishing zone, as distinct from the actual 3 mile zone. A further provision of the bill is that this would come into effect on July 1, 1963 in order to allow time for negotiations with other nations in respect of the question regarding fishing rights.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CAPE BRETON-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON OTTAWA MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the unfortunate absence from the house of the Minister of National Revenue, which we all regret. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would now answer the question which the Leader of the Opposition asked on Tuesday, concerning proposals emerging from the conference held in Ottawa on Friday of last week, and the following day, which would have the effect of avoiding the closure of three Cape Breton collieries.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman will agree that a statement like that cannot be made off the cuff. I join with him in expressing regret at the absence of the Minister of National Revenue, who is in hospital.
It was he who dealt particularly with this matter, and to whom the question was directed. However, at the earliest possible moment I will make a report to the house. Negotiations and discussions are continuing and, when there is something to report of a final nature arising out of the meeting the other day, not only in respect of the question asked but also in respect of the results of the negotiations, it will be brought to the attention of the house.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[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 Fisheries. In view of reports that dead codfish and herring have been noted floating in Newfoundland's Fortune bay and in other waters off the western shore, which is puzzling even the most experienced and oldest fishermen of that island province, would the minister inform the house whether he is having this situation investigated in an attempt to discover what is causing the death of these fish and, particularly, whether radioactive wastes are a factor?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the situation and provide an answer to the question at a later date.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the Minister of Transport will inform the house whether provision will be made for trucking industry representatives to appear before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in order that they may have the opportunity of expressing their views regarding the Freight Rates Reduction Act, which is being studied by that committee.


Lionel Chevrier: That question was asked a week ago.


Mr. Speaker:: I question whether the hon. gentleman should direct that question to thg minister. As I understand it the committee itself makes the arrangements regarding evidence to be called before the committee. If the hon. member wishes to make private representations in this regard, he could do so.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is my information that representatives of the trucking industry have already requested permission to appear before that committee. Of course, as you have said, this is a decision to be made by that committee.

Inquiries of the Ministry



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENTS RESPECTING CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS


[Stage Direction]
SEXUAL PSYCHOPATHS	LEGISLATION THIS SESSION
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschaielets (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Would the minister say whether it is the intention of the government to introduce at this session amendments to the Criminal Code with a view to imposing stiffer regulations with respect to sex offences? If so, would the minister give some indication as to these amendments?
Hon. E. D. Fulton {Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, in the speech from the throne, as I recall, it was announced that legislation would be introduced dealing with the problem of criminal sexual psychopaths. That legislation will be included in a bill to amend the Criminal Code which I expect to be in a position to introduce into the house very shortly.



INQUIRY AS TO SITTING OF HOUSE AFTER JUNE 30

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is a matter of interest and concern to all members of the House of Commons. In view of the fact that the budget will not be introduced until early in June, and in view of the fact that there is a great deal of business in the way of estimates and legislation still to be considered, is the Prime Minister in a position, out of courtesy and thoughtfulness, to give the house any advice on whether, at the end of June, the house will continue sitting to deal with the business if it is not completed, or whether there will be a recess for some weeks and then a continuation of sittings to deal with the business?


John George Diefenbaker: In reply to the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I simply say that I expect the house will proceed with a degree of acceleration which will make it unnecessary to answer his question.


Lionel Chevrier: I have a supplementary question. If that degree of acceleration is to be achieved, does he not think there should be something more on the order paper than there is now or has been for the last two weeks?


John George Diefenbaker: I think the house leader dealt with that problem yesterday. It has not been lack of legislation that has held up progress, or lack of matters on the order paper. I would emphasize those facts.


Mr. Pickersgill:: It is a back bench filibuster.

On the orders of the day:


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Minister of Justice whether it is still his intention to proceed with second reading and other stages of Bill No. C-70?


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, that matter also will have to depend upon the progress made in dealing with the legislative program of the session.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I may, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is there a possibility that the government proposes to drop this bill altogether?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is an expert at fishing. I do not think there is anything I can add to what I have already said, which was perfectly clear and understandable to most hon. members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And inconclusive.



BARBITURATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Romuald Bourque (Outremont-St. Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In a morning newspaper today a news item states that the attorney general of the province of Quebec has designated his deputy to accompany the Montreal committee headed by Mayor Jean Drapeau when it presents its goof ball report to the minister here. My question is, has the minister received a written request for a date when this delegation could meet with him and his officials to discuss ways and means to combat this most urgent problem of goof balls?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minisier of Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any communication in the office as yet, although there may be one there now. However, I should like to point out that some days ago I announced that we were bringing in legislation in respect of the goof ball problem.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: May I answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for St. Ann.

The question had to do with Canadian missionaries. All the Canadian Catholic missionaries in Cuba who expressed the desire to return to Canada have already been repatriated. A number of Canadian missionaries have elected to remain in Cuba to carry on their work.


INTER-AMERICAN ECONOMIC CONFERENCE- INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN DELEGATE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the house whether Canada is going to send a representative to the inter-American economic conference in Uruguay on July 15 of this year?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that was one of the
questions discussed with the President, and I expressed the hope that if an invitation were given, as I expect it will be, Canada would be represented at that conference.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question arising out of the reply of the Prime Minister, and also based on the statement of the chairman of the council of the organization of American states which was made yesterday in Washington. Will the representative of Canada at the conference, which I believe is to be held on July 16 and not July 15, go as an observer or as an official representative of the country?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is a question for determination. We are going to be represented, but what the nature of the representation will be has not been determined and, of course, will have to be discussed and decided by my colleagues.
As the hon. gentleman knows, in so far as the organization of American states is concerned, there has been available for years not only in that organization but in its predecessor, the Pan-American union, a seat for Canada. It is interesting to listen to the enthusiastic support given by the hon. gentleman to full membership in this organization. It was not always so, but in any event we shall be represented at that meeting by an observer.


Mr. Marfin (Essex Easi):: Will the Prime Minister permit me to ask a further supplementary question? In view of what he said earlier in his interesting statement which dealt with his conversations with the President, and what he now says, is the Prime Minister in a position to say whether Canada will announce its decision as to joining the organization of American states before the meeting on July 16?
90205-6-319
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: That will be a question to be determined in due course.


WATER RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Fort William asked this question:
Is the government opposed to a water diversion from James bay and Hudson bay watershed to enable replenishment of fresh water to the great lakes?
The hon. gentleman realizes that the House of Commons standing committee on mines, forests and waters, in its second report to the house on June 28, 1960, referred to the Harricanaw river proposal as follows:
The committee heard with interest from witnesses of the proposed Harricanaw river development project, but it feels that there has been insufficient basic engineering evidence presented to come to any conclusion on this matter.
I would say to the hon. gentleman that various proposals for diversions of water from the Hudson bay and James bay watershed have been considered in the past and are regarded as impracticable from an economic point of view on the basis of the engineering data available at this time.


BOW LAKE, ONT.    REPORTED POLLUTION BY RADIOACTIVE WASTE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the hon. member for Peterborough asked me whether I had received a letter from a Mr. H. L. Hook concerning conditions at Bow lake, Ontario. As I indicated at that time, a letter came in on Monday of this week. I have just advised Mr. Hook that as the matter falls within provincial jurisdiction I have forwarded his letter to the Ontario department of health. The pollution question involved here is still before the mining court of Ontario, which now has all the evidence before it. If the hon. member will refer to page 5880 of Hansard for July 7 of last year, he will find that I explained there why this must be regarded as a provincial matter under existing circumstances.


THE CENSUS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in my absence

Inquiries of the Ministry the hon. member for Port Arthur asked me the following question:
In view of press speculation and general criticism in many parts of the country, would the minister consider making a more specific and thorough statement on the matter of the information gained by census takers next month and its possible use for political purposes?
The answer is as follows. At every stage of their instructions the census enumerators are impressed with the confidential nature of their job. This action is in line with the first page of the enumeration manual, which contains the following instructions to the census takers:
You are not permitted to combine your census duties with any other work such as canvassing for personal gain or for political, church, or community organizations.
The law requires that all information collected for the census be kept confidential. You have taken an oath that you will not reveal any census information to anyone who is not a sworn census employee. To make sure you keep this oath, follow these rules:
(1)	Do not repeat any information you receive as an enumerator to anyone except census officials:
(2)	Do not leave completed census questionnaires where they can be seen by anyone except census officials;
(3)	Do not let anyone except census officials go with you on your visits;
(4)	Interview each respondent privately or with only members of his own family present. If necessary, explain that you are not supposed to get the information in the presence of anyone not employed in the census office.
Every census taker is required in section 6 of the Statistics Act to take and subscribe to the following oath:
I	 solemnly swear that I will faithfully and honestly fulfil my duties as (census enumerator) in conformity with the requirements of the Statistics Act and of all regulations thereunder, and that I will not, without due authority in that behalf, disclose or make known any matter or thing which comes to my knowledge by reason of my employment as such (census enumerator).
I can assure the house that the officials of my department have ben directed to ensure that these instructions and the safeguards provided to each individual Canadian by the Statistics Act are faithfully applied. Anyone found disclosing information for political or other purposes will be immediately prosecuted under section 34 of the Statistics Act. I am forwarding a copy of this statement to every census commissioner who has been appointed for the census next month.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: In the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I might address a question to the parliamentary secretary, and ask whether a protest
[Mr. Hees.l
will be issued in the strongest possible terms against the inclusion of the word "Indian" alongside the names of native Indian people on federal voters' lists, in order that these people will not suffer any further defamation such as occurred recently in the preparation of voters' lists in Esquimalt-Saanich.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member's question is not one of immediate urgency. I appreciate the fact that he wants to put forward his idea, but I think the question could more appropriately go on the order paper.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville asked a question, the important part of which was:
Did the Prime Minister and the President of the United States have any opportunity to discuss the Richelieu waterway during their meeting in Ottawa yesterday?
The answer is in the negative.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, because of the regrettable absence of the Minister of National Revenue I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Has he seen the continuing press reports that a chain of shops selling duty free goods is to be established at several key border crossing points in Canada; and will the minister say, first, what licence or permit is required from the federal government to operate these shops and, second, whether the government intends to allow the establishment of this chain of duty free shops?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not seen the articles to which the hon. member refers. I would suggest, however, that by its nature this question is one that ought to be placed on the order paper.



REPORTED IMPORT FROM JAPAN OF CANADIAN FLAGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. According to this morning's Gazette

many Canadian textile manufacturers feel they are hard hit because printed Canadian flags are being imported from Japan at prices far below Canadian prices. In view of the statement made this morning by the Minister of Finance, would he care to comment on this particular situation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article in question, but if the hon. member will examine the letter from the Japanese ambassador I think he will find his answer there. It would, of course, depend on the material out of which the flags were made as to the particular quota arrangement applicable thereto.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has yet received the report of the O'Leary commission, and whether it is still the expectation of the government that they will ask parliament to take any action on the subject matter of that commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the government has not yet received the report of the O'Leary commission. The second question therefore remains hypothetical until the report is received.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance agree with the widely held view that he is delaying the presentation of the budget because of the four by-elections?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not only would I not agree, but I would say that the suggestion is unworthy of any member of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Romuald Bourque: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and in his absence to his parliamentary secretary. I understand that representations have been made to the minister by the graphic arts industries association of Canada protesting the 90205-6-3191
Supply-Transport
fact that a cheque issued by the unemployment insurance commission to an unemployed printer bore the imprint "Printed in the United States by Remington Rand". Is it the intention of the minister in view of this protest, to instruct the officials of his department that in future all their printing requirements should be purchased in Canada and be printed by Canadian labour on Canadian made paper with Canadian made ink?


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: I will take this question as notice.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he indicate how soon the Sault Ste. Marie airport might be open for business?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure of the date, but I know the official opening ceremonies are tentatively set for early in September.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
402. Departmental administration, $3,395,700.
The Chairman:: This item will be found at page 75 of the blue book, the details at page 520.


Mr. Small:: At the time of adjournment last night, Mr. Chairman, I had touched on some of the subjects which I had discussed previously in connection with the C.N.R. I shall continue that discussion a little further. I intend to talk about the St. Lawrence seaway tolls after I get through speaking on these matters, if I have the time in which to do so. If not, I shall be obliged to take up the matter again at another opportunity and give others a chance to speak on the subject. However, I should like to finish my remarks if possible before the adjournment.
One matter that was mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver East was that of public ownership. I would go along with him in what he said. He pointed out that it seemed that only public ownership might make a success of anything. However, there are some cases in which it just does not happen. I know we have made a success of public ownership in Ontario in connection with

Supply-Transport
hydro and the development of power, and also in the city of Toronto in connection with our transportation. To date they have made an outstanding success in that regard. It is true that we have run into a little bit of difficulty in financing the subway. However, I am sure that public ownership, when it is handled in the right way, always results in outstanding success. Nevertheless I have found that when private enterprise cannot handle some matter or when it becomes a monopoly, the government generally takes it over.
In this case the government has taken over defunct railways of this country and given it to the Canadian National Railways to administer. So far the venture has not been an outstanding success. That is the reason for most of the comment that has taken place recently. People are not satisfied with the service that is given. I touched on that matter last night. The service has not been what it should be. Perhaps that is one of the reasons the undertaking has not been a success. There has been no attempt to make the service attractive. The convenience of the passengers or the people using the C.N.R. has been the last consideration.
I corroborate the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East with regard to reservations. You will be told that they are filled up and that you will have to wait. Then when you get on the train you find there is plenty of accommodation for you if they want to give it to you. I do not know where the fault lies. The board of directors is sufficiently large to take care of almost any incidental writing that needs to be taken care of. One would think this would be one of the things in which they would be vitally interested.
There is also the other matter that I mentioned with regard to stations. It occurs at both the union station in Toronto and the union station in Ottawa, which is one of the most deplorable of the stations. In fact it is not a union station any more either in Toronto or in Ottawa. These stations have just become glorified freight sheds. The convenience or service of the passengers is the last thing in which the railways are interested, in my opinion. Probably if they would smarten up they would find people willing to use their services. Probably they would like to use them. I do not mind paying for service, but I do not like paying for it when I do not get it.
As a matter of fact I can get home to Toronto from Ottawa more quickly by driving my car than I can by going by train. I might also say that not much time is saved in going by air, as far as I am concerned. These are things to cause one to ponder.

I refer particularly to the timetable. I do not ever remember arriving in Ottawa on the scheduled time in the morning. You are always late. I wonder what they do with the time during which they fool around down at Perth, Smiths Falls and the various other places, which could have been used in order to get them to the Ottawa station at the time indicated on the timetable.
Mention is made of the piggy-back service and of what a wonderful success it has been. That service is not anything new. It was being used on the Pacific coast from Seattle down to San Francisco and Los Angeles. It relieved the truck driver from having to make a tiresome drive. It gave him some rest. It was also done at a more economic rate. It is not something that is new. The situation is probably the same as it was when, if my memory serves me correctly, Sir Henry Thornton was head of the C.N.R. and Sir Edward Beatty was chairman of the C.P.R. The same thing applies here, I suppose. There was the time they lowered the rate from Toronto to Hamilton; it went down from something like $2.30 to $1.60 or $1.70. I can remember Tommy Church describing Sir Henry Thornton, the then president. He said, "It is the same thing; when the C.P.R. lowers the rates Sir Henry Thornton, as president of the C.N.R., just lowers their rates and follows along".
The same thing applies to the piggy-back. They have adopted what has been found to be successful with others. There is also the matter of trucking. I talked on this trucking matter with railroad men as far back as 1924. They had railway right of ways for running the trains, and the highways were not as large or as numerous then as they are now. They were running into trouble because the trucks were not making good time and I wondered why they could not use the railway right of way for putting trucks and goods on the railways. Then any time they wanted they could run the trucks off the railway right of way and onto any side road and have a good service. They said they would not be permitted to do that.
This was about 40 years ago, and they are just waking up now and getting into the trucking business. In those days these people were handling freight by horses and wagons, and only recently has there been a transition into trucking. They are just now getting around to going into the trucking business. They could have gone into it long ago. Now they are confronted with the vested rights of the trucking business, which are causing a lot of concern and they will find out that perhaps it is not going to be very successful or profitable for them.

Now I come to the question of the president of the Canadian National Railways. In the last two or three years there has been a lot of comment and a great deal of criticism in connection with the president. When you examine the matter you find that the president of the Canadian National Railways came to be on the board of directors because he had a nomination from the Bank of Canada. He took over, and there is some reason why he was sent to the railway, because he had made such a name during the war years in connection with the Bank of Canada and also, I think, with the wartime prices and trade organization. No one is trying to take away from the things he accomplished there; they were possibly good, but this did not mean he would be an outstanding railway man.
When he was appointed to the C.N.R. he was thought of as a wonderful individual who was going to accomplish great things for the Canadian National Railways. Because of his knowledge of banking and other things it was thought great things were going to take place in the C.N.R., but they did not take place. We have evidence that since he has been in office more things have not been accomplished than have been accomplished; we have more proof that he has not accomplished anything. He has not made the economies it was thought he would make, and what he has done since being appointed to the board is to practically truncate the service; he has reduced it. He can probably be called the great truncator of the Canadian National Railways.
This raises the question of the employees who are concerned. The employees of the railway are vitally concerned because this truncation has taken place on the railway. This matter was touched upon by the hon. member for Acadia last night when he mentioned the morale of the employees who were hired by the railway. Their morale is low, and perhaps rightly so, because they are in a better position to judge these matters than we are. They have probably come to the conclusion, and perhaps rightly so, that while he is the president and also a director, he is not in fact the manager of Canadian National Railways, but rather than being manager and director he is really the receiver the government has put in to fold up the railway. I think this is the thought that has got into their minds.
I would say that so far he has done a pretty good job of being the receiver of the railway, and the employees of C.N.R. have begun to look at it in this way. That is why their morale is low. There is no reason for high morale among the employees, because the president has not the respect of his employees and they have no confidence in him. He is not a railroad man; he is a banker.
Supply-Transport
Hon. members know the situation in regard to banks nowadays, and I should like to tell the committee the story about the man who went into a bank to get a loan. This man had good collateral and very good security, but times were something like they are now and banks would not loan money no matter what the security was. They were tight money days, as they are now. However, this man was a good customer of the bank and the banker did not want to offend him, so he talked about different subjects. Then he said, "Recently I had a serious illness. I had to lose an eye. I had to have an eye taken out and an artificial one put in, so I have a glass eye. I pride myself on the fact that this eye defies detection by anyone. No one can tell the difference between my glass eye and my good eye. I will bet you $10, if you want to take it up, that you cannot tell which is my glass eye". The man who wanted the loan said "I will take you up". The banker said, "Which is my glass eye?" The man said, "Your glass eye is the one that is on your left side". The banker said, "You are the first man who has ever been able to tell that by looking. How did you discover it?" "Well", the man said, "it was not too difficult on my part. I looked at your eyes and immediately said to myself that the glass eye was on the left side because it showed more warmth than your right eye".
That is the situation today with regard to the employees of the railway. They look upon this man as having no feeling for them, that he is just there in a receivership capacity, and that is probably what he is there for. They look upon him as being there to fold up the passenger services of this railway, when he was put forward as a man of such eminence. He has great eminence; I suppose he is one of the most powerful men of this country, because he is practically lord of this whole domain, as far as Canada is concerned, from the Pacific to the Atlantic and from the Arctic wastes to the United States border. He can go anywhere he likes. He is probably the second highest man in the country, perhaps even higher than the Governor General as far as salary is concerned. He issues his orders and no one can defy them. He is practically a law unto himself, something the same as the governor of the Bank of Canada. No one can question the right of this individual and his facilities for getting around the country at our expense, issuing great orders and doing great things. He even went to Ungava, Newfoundland, where he was investigating the narrow gauge up there to see if he could do something better for them

Supply-Transport
where the woods are small. I suppose he figured on getting great prestige up there and obtaining their support.
He puts in all this effort, but there are very few people that I know of, even on the opposition side, who stand up for him. Even on the Conservative side we find hon. members who will not stand up for him, and he is even losing the admiration of such hon. members as the hon. member for Greenwood, who has been a great admirer of his, and the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, who in the committee said he was a wonderful fellow and it is probably a tough type of job that he has; it is just like shovelling fog or smoke. But he shovels a lot of other stuff besides smoke and fog that has a little more substance in it and is better used for fertilizer than smoke or fog. The hon. member for York North is also a great admirer of his. Why he is remains a mystery to me. He will probably explain it one day. He is an individual who wants to sell everything we have that is profitable and tells us to hang on to the things that are not profitable.
I should like to take a poll of this committee today, or any time we could have a free poll, and ask hon. members what they think of this great individual who has this country so tied up as far as the transportation system is concerned. I think you would find he would lose out by a 20 to 2 vote. The thing that remains for us to do is to be a little more concerned about the people of Canada and the transportation system, and take the necessary steps to see this system improved. We should get a person who is a railroad man, who would have the confidence of the railway employees. Donald Gordon does not have the confidence of anybody on the railway, I would say, even up in the higher echelon. It would be a good thing for this country if we got rid of the people who are causing the trouble.
There is another matter I should like to discuss at the present time. I will just touch upon it for the time being. I refer to the matter of grade level crossings. For years this matter has been advocated and we have been very successful in increasing the amount of the fund from $1 million up to $5 million, but still too many accidents take place year after year on our doorsteps. It has been increased until now it is $15 million a year. Even when this matter is tackled under the most favourable conditions we find that because of the method of financing, neither the railways nor the municipalities are able to make rapid progress in reducing these grade crossing tragedies. We shall probably have to devise a means of removing this responsibility from the shoulders of the municipalities and of the railways. As we all know, the

railways are running continually into deficits, and it is not very practical to ask them to attend to this matter of the removal of level crossings.
In Scarborough, which is in my own riding, there are 82 of these level crossings, possibly 90 of various descriptions. About 30 of them are on the fringe of being a menace to life. However, it happens occasionally that there is an accident off the beaten path, so these less used crossings cannot be entirely ignored. The local authority has taken care of one or two of these crossings in the past year, but they cannot go further; the provisions of the act as now applied do not allow them to deal with more than one or two a year. This work could be extended threefold throughout the Dominion of Canada if the present arrangements were reviewed and new steps were taken to deal with this menace which presents itself to road and rail traffic.
Last year the hon. member for High Park spoke on this subject and dealt with the formation of a Canada Council whose first president was Mr. Brooke Claxton. Later Mr. Ashe was president; I do not know who is president at the present time. The hon. member was concerned with all the accidents which happen on the highways of Canada generally. The figures he presented were astounding and appalling, so much so that the figures we have with regard to accidents at grade level crossings, high as they are, pale into insignificance compared with them.
The comparison does not lessen the gruesomeness of the tragedies which occur, but it does raise a larger question; because in the light of the total figures one cannot very well put on undue pressure for more to be done with regard to grade level crossings until the whole situation on Canadian highways and the rate of accidents generally have been taken into consideration. We have arrived at the point when statisticians are able to predict the number of road accidents and fatalities which will take place on certain days. These predictions almost always turn out to be correct, or very nearly so, and when a situation of that kind exists it is clear that something should be done to deal with it even if it means greatly increasing the preventive force.
Now I have dealt with that subject and I should like to turn to another matter. I see the hon. member for Laurier in his place, and I think he would probably be able to give me the information in which I am vitally interested. It concerns a subject which has been before the committee and the house on previous occasions. The hon. member for Laurier was, of course, minister of transport in the former administration at the time he was the hon. member for Stormont. Later

he became chairman of the authority itself. He has spoken on this subject on many occasions in this house, and in the course of his remarks has made some statements which I am not able to fathom. I am not questioning that what he says is right, but I found it hard to understand when he said there had been complete agreement by all parties with regard to the St. Lawrence seaway development. On the surface that appears to be correct. The hon. member went on to say that there had been no objection to the terms, no objection to the tolls being charged.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. member from what he is quoting?


Robert Hardy Small: I am not quoting from anything at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member has been referring to me. He says that certain statements were made by me. 1 think he owes it to the committee to say when these statements were made.


Robert Hardy Small: I think this statement was in fact made by the hon. member. He said that the parties were in agreement-


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. gentleman put the quotations on record in Hansard so that I will be able to deal with them if the occasion arises?


Robert Hardy Small: The hon. member has got me stymied there, because I cannot refer to these quotations now. I have read them in Hansard. I did not make a note of them, but I do not think he will question the veracity of the statement I am making.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like the hon. member to give me the place where the statement was made. I shall then be able to determine for myself whether or not it is accurate.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Robert Hardy Small: I shall probably be able to do that during the lunch hour, after the committee has adjourned. I shall look up Hansard and find the place where the statement was made. I know the hon. member made it.
May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Robert Hardy Small: Mr. Chairman, there was a bit of hassle in the committee before the adjournment regarding a purported statement made by the hon. member for Laurier. During the luncheon adjournment I checked Hansard
Supply-Transport
for a number of years, but have not been able to pinpoint this particular statement. I have conversed with the hon. member for Laurier and feel that there is no disagreement between us about the statement having been made.
There apparently was agreement among all members of the house regarding enactment of the St. Lawrence seaway project bill. I understand one hon. member took exception to this suggestion, but I am unaware of it being recorded in Hansard.
I am bewildered by the fact that there was not much debate, and great consideration given to the matter of charging tolls on this project. There was, of course, a considerable lapse of time between the original decision to go ahead with the project and agreement being reached between United States and Canada. At one time agreement was reached between these two nations but that agreement was never ratified. It was intended at that time that the project should be proceeded with to suply power essential to the defence of these nations. That was certainly agreed upon.
I should like to offer some explanation as to why there was no question about or opposition to the charging of tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway. I should also like to seek information regarding the lack of opposition to the imposition of tolls on the Welland canal. I will, however, submit my views in respect to this lack of opposition.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I suggest the hon. member should be allowed to continue.


Jacques Flynn: Is it agreed that the hon. member's time be extended?


Mr. Drysdale:: I agree if it is a reasonable extension of time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Hardy Small: The then minister of transport informed the house, about the year 1947, that there was agreement between the two authorities to impose tolls. At that time there was apparently no opposition. The tolls were to be charged in an effort to recover the costs of the project on the basis of 50 year amortization. I have read the Wiley-Dondero act and am of the opinion that it was not necessary for this country to accept that term of amortization. However, the government of the day did go along with that suggestion. There was no mention whatever, at the time, of the imposition of tolls in respect of the Welland canal.
An agreement has been in existence with all governments, the Macdonald government,


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is he aware of the fact that in connection with the whole St. Lawrence seaway, including the Welland canal, tolls were imposed by order in council tabled in this house by the predecessor of the present Minister of Transport?


Robert Hardy Small: I certainly am aware of that, but all the groundwork was done long before the present government took office. Those agreements were made between the two authorities, one from the United States and the other from Canada. There had been an agreement on this matter, but it was never an accepted fact that tolls would be imposed on the Welland canal because it was never intended to be that way. The question is, why was the cost not absorbed by the Canadian government itself as was done in the United States with respect to the three rivers I have mentioned? The imposition of tolls on the Welland canal was an improper charge. The cost for deepening is a maintenance expense.
I was baffled when I learned that members of the Liberal party from Welland and that section of Ontario did not take strong exception to the imposition of those tolls. I believe the reason is that it never entered their minds there would be any tolls on the Welland canal. Thank you.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I feel somewhat impelled to speak on this item at this time because of what I consider to be an unwarranted, unreasonable and unmerited attack made on the T.C.A. yesterday by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. When in the interests of Canada this government or previous governments establish a policy and make provision for the financing of crown corporations and when those crown corporations prove successful, I fail to understand why attacks should be made upon them, and thereby attacks on policy of the government that took the action required, and why it is then said, "Let's get rid of it".
Let me give a brief illustration because, as I said, I cannot understand that kind of attack. A previous government, because of

necessity, established Polymer. A capital expenditure of $48,500,000 has returned over $100 million to the federal government. The government still owns a plant worth a maximum of $130 million, and now the cry is, "Let us hand this company over to the owners of free enterprise so that they can get their money out of it".


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Who said that?


Harold Edward Winch: I would say two members from British Columbia.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Name them.


Harold Edward Winch: The hon. member for one.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is misinterpreting and misrepresenting statements I made before the committee. The committee has not reported and I do not think the hon. member is in a position to discuss the matter at this particular time.


Harold Edward Winch: The investment of $9,500,000 in Eldorado has paid back $21 million and Canada still owns Eldorado.
Yesterday we heard, as I have said, an unwarranted, unreasonable and unmerited attack on the T.C.A. Without doubt, in an operation of the magnitude of T.C.A. all of us could find merited points of criticism. But, sir, I think such an attack on T.C.A. displays a deficient sense of responsibility. I acknowledge that the hon. member for Coast-Capil-ano was right; we have had a pioneering service in Canada which was established by our bush pilots in the northern territories of our country. But I challenge anyone to say that our bush pilots or free enterprise could in the 1930's have built anything to equal the Trans-Canada Air Lines system and an international airways system. That pioneering was done in 1937 with the establishment of the T.C.A. On an original investment of $5 million T.C.A. was formed.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: A very safe investment.


Harold Edward Winch: Its first route was only 122 miles, and that was in British Columbia, Vancouver to Seattle. From 1937 until today this great pioneering endeavour, established by the public of Canada through the government, has expanded from 122 miles to an air route service of 30,399 miles. It has a domestic service in Canada and a service to the United Kingdom, to continental Europe and to the Caribbean covering, if my memory is correct, some 60 communities. This public service operation in Canada, which in those 30 years has expanded from the original 122 miles of service, as I have already pointed out, is now recognized as the seventh largest air carrier in the world and as one absolutely 90205-6-320
Supply-Transport
unequalled in safety. Yet we had to listen yesterday to an indictment of this great enterprise operated on behalf of the Canadian people through the government of Canada. It was said that it should give way to free enterprise, and the hon. member named the enterprise, Canadian Pacific Air Lines.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Would the hon. member point out specifically to what portion of the hon. member's speech he is objecting? He has made a rather blanket indictment but I cannot find any support for it.


Harold Edward Winch: If the hon. member is interested in this matter I suggest that he speak or ask his questions after I have finished.


Mr. McGee:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has just referred to the question of speaking and I am wondering about the propriety of the hon. member speaking twice on the first item when many other hon. members, myself included, have been awaiting an opportunity to speak for the first time.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member can speak ten times if he wishes to.


Frank Charles McGee: I was about to appeal to the hon. member's sense of fair play, which I do not imagine the hon. member for Laurier would know much about, and ask the -hon. member whether in his own mind he thinks he should speak a number of times before other hon. members have had the opportunity to speak once.


Harold Edward Winch: I can most certainly answer the point of view presented by the hon. member. Yes, I have already spoken once on the first item. There is no restriction on the number of times a member may speak on item No. 1. I think the hon. member knows that I am very fair and so are the chairmen who preside over our committees. There is a big preponderance of Conservatives-


Frank Charles McGee: What has that got to do with it?


Harold Edward Winch: Suppose you let me finish before you interrupt. The chairmen of our committees are very careful in recognizing members from the Conservative, Liberal and
C.C.F. groups. In the working out of the speakers' list it so happened that this was the proper time for a C.C.F. member to speak. Unfortunately the hon. member from our group who was to speak could not be here so before we adjourned for lunch I had a discussion with the chairman about the speakers' list and it was agreed that if the hon. member for Port Arthur was not here I would speak to maintain the ratio

Supply-Transport
of C.C.F. speakers, and the hon. member for Port Arthur will have to take my position on the list.


Mr. Graffiey:: It means you speak every third time.


Harold Edward Winch: That matter was given fair consideration before I rose to speak but these hon. members do not want to hear what I have to say.


Frank Charles McGee: On the point of order, I can appreciate that generally speaking it is important that the points of view of the different parties be considered in sequence, but we are on estimates now. Hon. members have matters of vital concern to their own constituencies which they wish to discuss and the fact remains that in the present circumstances Conservative members of the house are being penalized by being prevented from speaking by the hon. member who has spoken twice on this item so far.


Harold Edward Winch: I have not.


Frank Charles McGee: As a matter of fact, he has spoken four times while many hon. members as individual private members of the house have not yet had an opportunity to speak.


Harold Edward Winch: I know that you want to say something but may I say that I have the floor because I have been recognized by the chairman. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, do I have the floor or do I not?


Mr. McGrath:: May I ask the hon. member whether he considers that because he is a C.C.F. member he is entitled to privileges that the rest of us are not?


Harold Edward Winch: Definitely not, and may I say that we are only exercising our rights having regard to the proportionate numbers in the different parties.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: Order. Would the hon. member take his seat when I stand, please. It seems to me it is only reasonable and equitable that the Chair should call-it is the only answer we have been able to find-alternate members from both sides of the house. When the chairman sees a speaker from the opposition side of the house that speaker has the floor and so the hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.


Harold Edward Winch: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I say it is very fortunate for me that I am speaking extemporaneously because if I had been using notes I might have been thrown off course.


Frank Charles McGee: You were always noted for a sense of fair play.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I think that remark should be withdrawn. I have explained that I am speaking because I have been recognized by the Chair and when the hon. member and his colleague beside him intimate that I do not have a sense of fair play because I am now speaking I submit that remark should be withdrawn and I ask that it be withdrawn.


Frank Charles McGee: The hon. member has asked me to withdraw the words that he is noted for a sense of fair play. I do so with great pleasure.


Harold Edward Winch: I never knew before how dirty my hon. friend could be. In accord with your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I am going to continue my remarks with respect to the attack on T.C.A. I have pointed out that I feel it is wrong, unreasonable and unjust that this attack should have been made upon T.C.A. I have pointed out and I repeat that from 122 miles in 1937 T.C.A. routes have expanded until they now cover approximately 30,000 miles and T.C.A. has established an unparalleled record so far as safety is concerned and is now the seventh largest air carrier in the world.
The criticism made yesterday by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano was on two grounds. First, he said that T.C.A. had a deficit of $2,607,000 last year. Admittedly it had a net deficit of $2,607,000 last year but those who now attack T.C.A. forget to mention that for the nine previous years it had surpluses. An attack is made on T.C.A. because it now requires an advance either from the C.N.R. or directly from parliament in the amount of $200 million in order to buy new equipment so that it may remain in the forefront and give leadership in air travel. What is wrong with that?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The method of doing it.


Harold Edward Winch: What is wrong with that?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The method of doing it.


Harold Edward Winch: If C.P.A. wishes to make such an expenditure it has to get the money from the C.P.R., its controlling body. T.C.A. gets its money either from the C.N.R. or directly from parliament. I gathered that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano thought that this was wrong but he forgets that we subsidize the C.P.R. and have always subsidized it since there was a C.P.R.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: That is your version.


Harold Edward Winch: Over the years the C.P.R. has received billions of dollars as a gift in the form of lands which are part of the people's natural resources. During one war it received a grant from the government of $60 million and did not have to pay it back. Every year

in the past few years the government has given the C.P.R. a direct subsidy by vote of parliament from which subsidy there is no return directly to the government of Canada. T.C.A. is a crown corporation and, whether directly or indirectly, it does not get subsidies. It gets capital grants which must be returned, and I think it should be noted that although T.C.A. started with $5 million in assets in 1937 it has assets today in the neighbourhood of $239 million.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Capital debt.


Harold Edward Winch: I said it has assets of $239 million.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Listed as capital debt.


Harold Edward Winch: And it has debt owing to the dominion-


John Andrew W. Drysdale: With interest at 5 per cent.


Harold Edward Winch: -with interest.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: At 5 per cent.


Harold Edward Winch: And the amount owing to Canada for debenture and by interest is $30 million less than its present asset value. All that my hon. friend who seems to be so intense about this matter has to do is to look at the Trans-Canada Air Lines last financial report.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I have looked at it.


Harold Edward Winch: If he does that, he will find that is the situation. I say without hesitation that the government which in 1937 in the interests of Canada established the T.C.A. did a good thing for Canada. T.C.A. has proven to be one of the great assets of Canada in developing national and international air lines. I say that although on small points- perhaps important ones but nevertheless small ones-we all can criticize, T.C.A. is an organization which has a record of which all of us can be mighty proud; and it ill behooves any member of parliament to make the kind of attack that was made yesterday on T.C.A.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: What kind of attack was that? The hon. member never specified.


Harold Edward Winch: If the hon. member was not here when the hon. member for Coast-Capil-ano spoke, I would refer him to Hansard. I will not try to educate him. It would not be possible in any event.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I have read Hansard.


William Heward Grafftey: And we were here when the hon. member spoke.


Harold Edward Winch: If that hon. member could speak as well as he can interrupt, he would be a useful member of parliament.
90205-6-320i
Supply-Transport


Mr. Broome:: As one who interrupts as much as does anyone, the hon. member ought to know.


Harold Edward Winch: Irrespective of party or party membership or representation in this house.
I say that T.C.A. is an operation of which over the years this country, the previous government and this government can be proud. I say that we should give commendation to T.C.A. for their leadership and for their looking forward to maintain Canada's position in the air passenger and freight transport of the world. I say that the investment of Canada has paid off in marvellous dividends, in work and in production and that Canada's investment and assets in that corporation are greater than its debt in debentures and in interest by millions of dollars.
I want to say with the utmost sincerity through you, Mr. Chairman to the minister that I hope he has the pride in T.C.A. that we in tnis group nave, having regard to its leadership, its pioneering and its forward-looking approach in the world of air transport. I sincerely hope that he will do everything possible to encourage and to assist this corporation and that he will not allow small, penurious free enterprise criticism to block his decision-as we hope it will be-not only to maintain but to extend the greatness and the efficiency of T.C.A., one of the prides of Canada.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Will the hon. member permit a question,?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The hon. member has attacked the hon. member for Coast-Capilano who unfortunately is not in his seat at the present time. I wonder whether the hon. member could indicate specifically what objection he has to the hon. member's speech. All he did was to use the usual C.C.F. technique of broad-spread attack but not once has he specified what he objects to.


Harold Edward Winch: I thought I had made the matter clear. I object to the attack on T.C.A. on the ground that it was not a significant pioneer in its field, and to the criticism that it had a deficit of $2,61)0,1)00 a year with no comment on its surplus in the previous nine years.


Ernest James Broome: What happened to it last year?


Harold Edward Winch: If my hon. friend had made a study of why it was necessary for heavy expenditures to be incurred last year, he would know the answer to his own question. He was on one of the planes that were bought by T.C.A. last year.

Supply-Transport


Ernest James Broome: 1 just asked what happened to the surplus last year.


Harold Edward Winch: There was no surplus.


Ernest James Broome: There was a surplus of $6 million, as the hon. member would know if he had studied the matter.


Harold Edward Winch: I can answer one at a time, Mr. Chairman, but I am afraid I cannot answer two at a time. I might also say I criticize that objection raised here yesterday by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano that something was wrong when there had to be an appropriation for expenditures of some $2 million advanced to T.C.A. for the new type of aircraft, and that this was not fair when the C.P.R. were prepared to do it without any advance at all. May I say to the hon. members that they will not be back the next time if they follow their present procedure and policy.


Ernest James Broome: Will the hon. member bet on that?


Mr. Pascoe:: I have a few remarks to make under this general item in the estimates of the Department of Transport, but first of all I should like to join with the other speakers in congratulating the Minister of Transport on the presentation of his first estimates and on the manner in which the department is being administered under his jurisdiction. When one looks at the eight pages of estimates in the blue book and sees that they cover marine services, railway and steamship services, air services including civil aviation, the meteorological branch, the St. Lawrence seaway authority, the air transport board and the board of transport commissioners, one gets some indication of the extent of the department's activities.
Comments on this item before us have ranged over nearly all the activities covered by the department. I will confine my remarks at this time to one subject that is of particular interest to many of my constituents, namely the lack of air service to my home city of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. I have spoken on this matter previously. I know the minister is familiar with the situation so I will make only brief comments at this time. Further details regarding the city's airport facilities are contained in letters sent to his department from time to time.
Moose Jaw actually pioneered air service in Saskatchewan, starting from a municipal air field on a flat piece of prairie grassland in the early 1920's. I well remember the start from this airfield of the first flight of the old western Canada air mail service to Edmonton. This was in the middle of the winter in 1927 or 1928, I believe. I was a passenger on that inaugural flight. In order to indicate

the great advances that have been made since that time, I might point out that the pilot was in an open cockpit in weather 30 degrees below zero.
Moose Jaw had the first air meet in the province in 1929 with planes coming in from many parts of Canada and the United States to put on an exhibition of stunt flying and parachute drops for a great crowd from all over southern Saskatchewan. Moose Jaw now has fine airport facilities in connection with the large R.C.A.F. station there. Up until May 6, 1959, the city had a scheduled commercial air service through Canadian Pacific Air Lines, and later through Pacific Western Airlines from Moose Jaw to Edmonton. Because of changes in the mail service, P.W.A. applied to the air transport board for permission to drop Moose Jaw from its flight schedule. I should like to quote one sentence from a letter received from Mayor O. B. Fysh of Moose Jaw as follows:
We are a city of 33,000 people, very much air minded, but having no air connections at all at the present time.
When T.C.A. established what is called the milk run, which takes in most prairie cities between Winnipeg and Calgary, Moose Jaw was not included although several smaller cities are serviced. As a member of the sessional committee which inquires into the annual report of T.C.A. I have presented Moose Jaw's arguments for air service on more than one occasion.
I have a letter from Mr. Gordon McGregor, president of T.C.A., commenting on the views I expressed at last year's committee meeting. He expresses the hope that at some time a satisfactory solution might be worked out.
It would appear, Mr. Chairman, that the time for a satisfactory solution is near at hand. According to reports, T.C.A. would like some other air line to take over the western milk run. Such a change will of course necessitate a public hearing.
My reason for speaking at this time is to ask the minister to make it possible for Moose Jaw to present its case at this hearing, to show that there could be sufficient passenger and air express business there to warrant a daily air service. There are new businesses in the city which could make use of air deliveries. A newly established greenhouse industry is now operating on a large commercial scale and no doubt could make large air shipments of cut flowers daily.
I do not believe the date has been set for a hearing on any possible change of service. When a hearing is arranged I hope that all interested parties will be able to attend. I hope the minister can give some assurance that this will be the case.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to speak at any length, nor do I propose to join in the debate which has taken place between hon. members from the province of British Columbia. Thus far that is a fight they have preferred to restrict to themselves and I think any intervention at this time would be most unproductive and unwise.
However, Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss a matter that is of great interest to the county from which I come, and particularly to the city of Windsor. I do so at this time because it is the first opportunity I have had since the minister took over the administration of the Department of Transport of bringing to his attention a matter which we discussed last year during the presentation of a bill providing for the management and development of the harbour in the city of Windsor, and a companion bill for the same purpose for the city of Oshawa.
As the minister knows, there are under his jurisdiction, as I understand it, three types of harbour commissions. One type, I think, runs into pretty large figures. That is the type of harbour commission which now exists and operates in the city of Windsor, and which has operated for some time in the city of Hamilton, in the city of Toronto, in Belleville and now in Port Arthur and the city of Oshawa.
The harbour commission bill setting up a harbour commission in Windsor was introduced in this house by the former minister of transport, the Hon. George Marler. Last year the present administration-as I noted a moment ago-brought forward a bill providing for the management and development of the harbours in the cities of Windsor and Oshawa.
I should like the minister to take advantage at the earliest opportunity to come to Windsor. I hope he will come not just before an election, but long before, if there is to be a long interval, so that he can acquaint himself with the potential value that could flow from the development of the harbour in the city of Windsor.
The minister will be warmly welcomed and I hope I will have an opportunity, together with my two colleagues from the county of Essex, to make the minister's visit not only agreeable but informative and, having in mind my immediate purpose, highly educational.
The harbour commission in Windsor is in the early stages of existence and I want to make a plea today to the minister for a greater interest on the part of the Department of Transport, in particular, in its operations.
Supply-Transport
The city of Windsor is situated along some wonderful bodies of water; contiguous is lake St. Clair, the Detroit river, and nearby is lake Erie. We are right in the heartland of Canada's great waterway system and now, with the development of the St. Lawrence seaway, our community, like many others, looks for a development from the St. Lawrence project which will add to the economic richness of the area.
One of the means by which that can be effected is through efficient administration of local harbour commissions such as the one in the city of Windsor. We there have three commissioners. They are all public-spirited men, but I believe they need assistance. They must, of course, provide assistance themselves, but they also need assistance from that agency of government which is responsible for their creation and much of their direction.
I do not believe it is wise to take the position that we must wait until there is more water traffic and more use of the harbour facilities to put forward a plea for greater interest, financial and otherwise, on the part of the central government.
I remember last year when we discussed this matter the hon. member for Greenwood participated in the debate. He complained about the reliance, seemingly, that was being placed on the central government by local bodies such as the one on whose behalf I was then speaking. I fully appreciate that every community must play its part in the development of operations of this kind. There is undoubtedly a local interest, but there is also a national interest. When one thinks of the assistance given by federal governments to the ports of Toronto and Hamilton I think one is justified in asking for a greater interest on the part of the federal government.
At the present time some of these large ports, such as	in the city	of	Toronto, havebeen able to	develop	so	as	to	afford tosend scouts into other cities for business. Some of these new commissions and some of the communities in which these new commissions operate are not in that happy revenue position.	I think	that	at	this time,when we are	seeking	to	bring	about the
greatest possible economic development for our country, we should recognize that one way by which this can be done is by assisting local bodies.
If the federal government has the responsibility in law, as it has, for the nomination of harbour commissions and for the creation, indeed, under the law of a harbour commission, it seems to me it has a responsibility way beyond the mere act of creation and nomination of administrative personnel. I know that requests have been made of the minister-I do not know whether I can say

Supply-Transport
that of the present minister, but with regard to his predecessor that is certain-and the government for financial assistance.
I know that the economics division of the Department of Transport, particularly that section which concerns itself with harbours administration, has looked into the economic potential of the harbour commission on whose behalf I speak. Their reports are available for the minister to study. The minister has, I believe, received requests by the harbour commission for assistance, financial and otherwise and I believe those requests deserve to be supported. That is why I am rising again on the occasion on which the minister presents his estimates for the first time to ask him to tell us at the appropriate moment in our discussion what the present policy of the government is in regard to harbour commissions of this type. I suggest to the minister that if we just wait for such time as more adequate and extensive use is made of these harbours we shall be postponing unnecessarily much business which X think could be available if we were to establish the necessary foundations. That requires some promotion work. That requires some advertising. That requires the building of certain facilities. A project of this sort should, I think, be assisted by the federal government. I suggest to the minister this is a matter about which he should be in a position to say something today.
Now is the time to do this, because right opposite Windsor there is a development taking place in the city of Detroit which I think should encourage us to take similar action on the Canadian side. The development which is going on in the development of harbour facilities both in Detroit and all along the great lakes in the United States is such that if we are to be able to capture as much of this business as is open to us as a result of the operation of the St. Lawrence seaway we should act with prudent haste. The minister will recognize, I hope, that the area from which I come does offer a very special opportunity for the development of the community and the county in which the city of Windsor is situated.
There is an added reason for urging the minister to give some attention to this situation. We are handicapped in our section of the country by an unfair freight rate structure which operates against us. It is possible, for instance, to ship a bushel of grain from Chicago to Montreal cheaper than it is to ship a bushel of grain from Windsor to Montreal. Our freight rates are, generally speaking 25 per cent higher than the rates which prevail in the Toronto area. The city of Toronto has become a great distributing centre. Many industries are locating there

because it is such an important centre of distribution and we are unfairly affected in our competition because of this freight rate structure. The advantage of water transportation will reduce the effect of unfair and discriminatory freight rates which do exist, in the event that the royal commission does not provide a satisfactory answer. This is an additional reason for seeing to it that the local harbour commission is given the fullest co-operation, the fullest encouragement and the greatest possible financial assistance to undertake these operations at this time-not tomorrow, not in the long run, but today, so that we may be in the best position possible to take advantage of the business which undoubtedly is there if we go after it.
I know that the local commission, the local citizens, must take the initiative. But it is an initiative which must be supported by the federal Department of Transport; otherwise there would not have been the decision made in the first place to establish a commission in 1956. So I ask the minister to look into this situation. Perhaps at some appropriate moment he would make the kind of comment which would please me or at any rate make the kind of comment he thinks is warranted in the circumstances.
When he does that he might take into consideration a decision reached by a committee of this house-a committee to which reference was made by my friend the hon. member for Laurier. That committee unanimously urged the fullest examination by way of economic survey of the potential available in areas served by harbour commissions such as the one I have mentioned. I do not know what is the present position of this over-all survey but it would seem to me that such a survey, together with the examination which has been made by the economics division, would reveal that I am not exaggerating when I say that there is much business available for a harbour such as that of the city of Windsor, ideally located as it is on rich waters-waters now witnessing the transportation of goods which mark the buoyant economy we want to see Canada possess, particularly in view of the activity that is taking place right across the river.
Harbour facilities in Detroit will be taxed. It will not be possible in time, with the economic power of that city, to take full advantage of the facilities which are being provided there. There will have to be some alternative provided, and that place could easily and should be the harbour at Windsor. This is something which requires vision. I know, as I said a moment ago, that vision must exist on the part of the city of Windsor. That vision does exist today. I assure the

hon. gentleman that there is a desire to promote harbour development, particularly at this time. But I do believe greater interest is necessary on the part of the federal government and I hope the Minister of Transport will have some very good news for the city of Windsor when he speaks later in connection with this matter.


Frank Charles McGee: A few minutes ago when I rose to speak on a question of privilege and complained about one member of this committee speaking, as the records will show, four times on the first item of the estimates, although other hon. members had not been called to speak even once, I was interrupted by the hon. member for Laurier who questioned the fair play on my part in challenging the right of the hon. member for Vancouver East to speak. I must say that coming from the hon. member for Laurier, a prominent member of the Liberal party, "fair play" is a peculiar word for him to use-


Lionel Chevrier: On a question of privilege. I ask Your Honour if the hon. member is speaking to the estimates or if he is speaking to a question of privilege or on a point of order. I undersand a decision has been taken to recognize hon. members from one side of the committee or the other alternately. If the hon. member is speaking on a point of order, I claim the right to reply to him.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the question put by the hon. member for Laurier, I should like to state that I was discussing the rights and privileges of individual members of this committee. The record of his party in this regard is not too good. I notice they have applied closure in respect of the estimates of the department of highways in the province of Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask what that interjection has to do with the estimates now before this committee, or for that matter, with the point of order?


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman, I should like to state that the hon. member for Laurier knows very well-


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member is talking through his hat.


Jacques Flynn: Order, order. I must say that I did not understand what the hon. member was referring to. If his question has reference to a point of order he should rise on a point of order, otherwise it has no relevancy to the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Frank Charles McGee: Perhaps I should let the matter stand, as the record will show the statements
Supply-Transport
made by members of the opposition, and the position taken by the hon. member for Laurier.
Mr. Chairman, I rise this afternoon for the purpose of discussing, among other things, the activities of the Canadian National Railways in my constituency, and in particular, the application made by the officials of the Canadian National Railways to discontinue commuter train service in the eastern section of York-Scarborough. Last year officials of the Canadian National Railways appeared before a committee of this house and requested $100 million to construct a marshalling yard with by-pass routes through the north section of the Toronto area. The officials suggested, as one of the reasons for coming to this committee of parliament seeking $100 million, that the construction of this marshalling yard and by-pass route would solve the congestion problem which has occurred in the downtown and waterfront areas in the city of Toronto. They intended to clear that congestion by providing a feeder line similar to the spokes of a wheel, from the perimeter of Toronto to the centre of Toronto.
In answer to questions asked by myself and other hon. members of that committee, those officials suggested that with the establishment of this $100 million marshalling yard and by-pass route, the major impediment to the effective operation of commuter trains between the outskirts of Toronto and the downtown area would be removed. It was explained that the building of this bypass was of vital concern to these areas.
After every possible alternative route had been considered, it was decided that the only practical route was through the quiet, sleepy village of Thornhill in the north section of my constituency. The inhabitants of that village had established themselves there in an attempt to avoid the hustle, bustle and accompanying disturbances of big city business and traffic. However, they found themselves, following this decision, faced with the prospect of having a two line, 60 train per day freight route through the middle of the village. I am sure hon. members will appreciate that the inhabitants of that village were not wildly enthusiastic about that prospect. Perhaps I should repeat that this route was decided upon after each and every alternative had been considered exhaustively but reluctantly rejected.
Those officials came to that parliamentary committee requesting $100 million for the construction of these proposed projects, holding out as an inducement, the continuation and extension of commuter service in that area. I do not know whether the responsibility can be laid at the feet of the president of the Canadian National Railways, but someone in

Supply-Transport
the executive of that crown corporation should receive first prize for having the nerve of a canal horse, having come to this parliament offering the continuation of commuter service in exchange for $100 million and after two months making the decision to eliminate existing commuter services. I refer, of course, to the application which has been made in respect of Canadian National train No. 94. The reaction of the residents of Agincourt and Markham has been tremendous. A special meeting was held between the officials of the railroad and interested parties in that area. I attended that meeting as well. As a result of representations made at that time a tentative decision was reached, to discontinue the train service beyond the bounds of the Toronto limits and to retain the essential portion of the commuter service.
The metropolitan council of the city of Toronto has formed a committee with terms of reference to examine transportation problems generally in the city of Toronto, and to evaluate the necessity of commuter trains. It is my understanding this committee will also consider the cost and possibility of subsidizing these commuter services.
There has been some discussion during the consideration of this item regarding the degree of interest held by the officials of this railroad to passenger and commuter traffic. I have come to the conclusion that the railways officials would rather have their cars filled with cattle than human beings. I know of the existence of a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals but am not aware of a similar society in respect to human beings. I would suggest there should be such an organization in order to prevent some of the things which people are subjected to while travelling on the railways.
If it were my contention that the railway officials were intentionally trying to drive passengers away, I would suggest as an example, that hon. members consider the type and quality of food being served to passengers. In my opinion that represents one ingredient of this plot. The sandwiches now being dispensed by the express agent on these trains are priced at 35 cents. These sandwiches consist of two pieces of bread, ingeniously designed to turn into lumps of lead after being swallowed, covered with a microscopic film of what appears to be lard but what is probably uncoloured margarine, and a piece of the most tired rat cheese it has ever been my misfortune to attempt to consume. I use the words "attempt to consume" advisedly. I have been chewing on these sandwiches for some years now and I have never finished one yet.
I have discussed the situation with several of my colleagues and have arrived at the

conclusion that the cost involved in producing these sandwiches for sale on trains would not exceed 5 cents unless there was some formula involved in the making of the bread so that it will turn into lead. As I say, these sandwiches cost 5 cents to produce and are sold for 35 cents. One can of course purchase the ham variety of sandwich which is about as pleasurable and delightful to eat as an old piece of shoe leather.
I should like the minister to investigate this situation and inform the committee why these express agents are allowed to perpetrate what can only be described as a fraud against the travelling public of Canada. If a contract exists between the railways and the express agents allowing them to sell this outrageous product at an even more outrageous price, could the minister tell us when the contract will come up for renewal so that some form of control can be applied, or something can be done to correct this particular situation.
As I started to say, it would seem at times that there is a plot within the railway system to discourage passenger traffic. My hon. friend from Danforth has expressed opinions and related experiences concerning the relationship of passengers to baggage. Anybody travelling between Ottawa and Toronto and stopping at Leaside or at other stations along the way, and at the station here, of course finds the trains made up in such a way that when they arrive at the station and it is time for the passengers to disembark the baggage and the baggage handling get first preference. At times one has to walk for the better part of half a mile, part of it through cinders, and perhaps in the rain, on wet concrete the rest of the way to reach the station platform. There you will find the baggage handlers in dry comfort unloading their portion of the train. This is the attitude toward passenger traffic. It seems to me no imagination has been used in the provision of passenger comfort. People are discouraged from travelling on trains. As soon as the number of passengers declines the railways go before the board of transport commissioners and apply to have the passenger service dropped entirely. It is a very easy way to avoid one's responsibilities.
Another question that came up when the officials of the C.N.R. were present at Agincourt to determine the feelings of the community was that of advertising. It is my understanding that the C.N.R. spends some $2 million in general advertising. Some of that advertising abroad probably has a residual benefit in encouraging people to visit Canada. It seems to me, if you are going to operate an efficient passenger service and an efficient commuter passenger service the first

thing that an intelligent, reasonable man would do would be to approach the people in the area already concerned who are using the commuter trains and encourage them to extend their use of the trains; to do some advertising in the local newspapers and make some positive effort to encourage a greater use of the commuter trains.
They argue that the number of commuter cars do not justify the use of an engine. Obviously, if you want more passengers you are going to have to tell the potential customers about the service that is available, and make a great effort to convince those people that they should use the commuter trains. At no time have I seen in the local newspapers any advertisement of any description other than some general advertising proclaiming some great service such as "Travel with your family on trains". I could spend the next half hour describing some of the experiences I have had with my own family in travelling on trains, but perhaps that would not be quite to the point. The point is, Mr. Chairman, no real effort is made anywhere to examine the passenger structure in this country, to improve the service or to encourage people who would normally use the passenger service to use it to a greater extent.
I would hope that the C.N.R. would continue to operate the commuter trains which they have said would remain in the service. I would hope they would do everything they can to accommodate the timetables and schedules on the trains to the convenience of the passengers, and to encourage more passengers to use the trains. I would hope they would spend some of the $2 million in placing advertisements either in the local newspapers or in some other media to encourage people in the area to make full use of the commuter trains.
The congestion of traffic in Toronto, as in other major cities, is a difficult problem. We have a major through way program and an expressway program under way at the present time. We are embarking on an extended subway program, but still the most efficient, effective and fastest method of transportation from the perimeter to the centre of Toronto is over the existing rights of way. I would suggest further that some attempt be made to design a cheaper commuter car. Normally, those trains will not be travelling at the great speeds at which the passenger trains would be travelling. It seems to me, therefore, there should be some saving in the weight and in the solidity of the structure which would not be specifically exposed to any of the hazards of a trans-continental train which travels at speeds up to 80 and 90 miles an hour.
Supply-Transport
These are some of the suggestions that I would hope the minister would keep in mind in his consultations with the Canadian National Railways. I would hope that, with the co-operation of the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific and metro Toronto, we can look forward to the day in that city when an efficient, effective pattern of commuter service will be serving the people.
(Translation):


Mr. Caron:: After the friendly exchange between the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) and the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) I thought I should rise myself on that matter of canalization.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville seemed to think that the most important aspect in the matter of the Richelieu seaway project was that it should pay its way. Anyway, as the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville said, this matter also seemed vital to the minister because he stated that the project was not economically sound.
Now, I wonder what is meant exactly by an economically sound project? Does it mean only the immediate revenue from the passage of ships through the locks or elsewhere, or is the economic development which such canalization may entail taken into account?
The matter I want to deal with has been under consideration for years. It is the Ottawa seaway project.
We were discussing that even before the ' St. Lawrence seaway development, but I can quite understand why this Ottawa river scheme was set aside as a secondary project, if it is compared to the other.
However, I think deepening those waterways, both the Ottawa and the Richelieu, would tend to develop and decentralize some industries which, today, as everyone agrees, are too centralized in one community or an other. Furthermore, is it not a fact that the economic development of one or two areas would be well worth the expense required of the government to bring prosperity outside Canada's larger centres.
I think at the present time, there would be something to be gained in deepening both rivers at the same time. In my constituency, there are pulp and paper companies exporting rather large quantities across the border, where the New York market is considered most important. If the Ottawa and Richelieu rivers were deepened, it would reduce the distance by some 1,200 miles for those products.

Supply-Transport
If we consider that waterway transport is much less expensive than railway transport, this would allow our pulp and paper companies to compete with the European continent companies which have a kind of wood somewhat like the one in the province of Quebec, however, these companies can manufacture and sell their paper cheaper, for while transportation costs from Europe to the United States are expensive enough, European paper mills still have an advantage on ours.
However, if we had the advantages of both these seaways, we could see pulp and paper mills develop along the Ottawa river, for we are not short of power-we have it-and we could find the necessary labour, but what we lack are means of transportation.
As a matter of fact, on the Quebec side, we only have the Canadian Pacific, and if we want to use the Canadian National, we have to cross over to Ontario. Furthermore, transportation rates are increasing all the time. It could hardly be otherwise, since the administration costs of railways have increased and, on account of that, they have to find revenues from all quarters in order to have both ends meet.
That is a real difficulty, but we must not, on account of the expenses of our railways, allow our industries to sutler to the extent of losing certain foreign markets which we are entitled to nave.
That is why I think the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville was right when he said that the department should undertake at once a serious study of all those projects, because such a study requires researches in all fields, which means lots of work and time. If we lose time before undertaking such a study, where shall we stand?
Besides, on the matter of economic soundness, I should like to refer to a quotation made yesterday by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, which supports precisely my argument. It is part of a thesis submitted to the University of Syracuse by a Mr. Tefft who states the following:
Finally, I do not think that the ultimate decision as to whether or not the waterway should he deepened and, ii so, to what depth, should be overly influenced by cost-benefit ratios. I do not deny the usefulness of ratios, but a dollar and cent sign cannot possibly be hung on the defence value of an improved waterway.
Then too, I am struck with the highly problematical nature of benefit estimates. They cannot accurately take into account the future, if for no other reason than that they do not know what it will be. This is particularly true in a region that appears to be about to undergo the unusually rapid change that seems to be in store for the Champlain basin.

We also hope that the Department of Transport will favourably consider the deepening of the Ottawa river, for we can forecast in our area an industrial development that will employ all the available working force, and this would help our people a great deal.
Even though we know that we will not cover the cost of the project in one, 10 or even 20 years, we should not forget that the industrial development that would take place would yield taxes to the government; it would produce transport income which, in turn, yields taxes to the government.
It seems to us that, even if the project should not prove to be a profitable one as far as revenues from the waterway itself are concerned, there would be a certain degree of profit because of the indirect revenues that the government would derive from the industrial development of the area.
I therefore ask the minister to seek information from the experts of his department, to ascertain the possibilities of the development of these waterways.
The deepening of the Ottawa river would go hand in hand with the deepening of the Richelieu river. I think those projects would complement each other.
If they could be implemented, I am sure that, as a consequence, two important areas in the country would experience the expansion they are entitled to and we would have only congratulations and thanks to extend to the government.
(Text):


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say just a few words about Canadian Pacific Air Lines and Trans-Canada Air Lines. The hon. member for Vancouver East gave T.C.A. quite a boost. He went into rhapsodies about it. In the part of the country from which I come we would be walking or riding horseback if we did not have C.P.A. A railroad runs in there but the train only operates a couple of times a week or maybe once a week or maybe not at all. There is a sleeper on the train but you have to put a blanket across the window to keep the wind out.
C.P.A. really serves the north country. When we go home we land at Fort St. John. If we were waiting for T.C.A. we would still be in Edmonton. T.C.A. does not allow C.P.A. to pick up passengers who are going toward Toronto. T.C.A. insists on taking all such passengers from Whitehorse, the Yukon, Fort St. John, Prince George and that region.

C.P.A. renders a real service to the north and it is the north in which I am interested.
Canadian Pacific Air Lines and Trans-Canada Air Lines are two really good air lines. I was down in Kentucky on the 6th of May.


An hon. Member:: What were you doing?


Walter Clarence Henderson: I was at a church meeting. There is no comparison between C.P.A. and T.C.A. on the one hand and Eastern Air Lines on which I travelled. The employees are not interested in the passengers. I thought the girl on the plane had had a battle with her husband, if she had one, because she was so sour. But the personnel at the airports are excellent. I have never had better service from anybody.
When I came back from the race track to Louisville I told the fellow I wanted to get back to Ottawa. This was Saturday night at eight o'clock. He said, "Come on over and meet the boss". The boss turned out to be the head man at the Louisville airport. He said, "Where do you want to go"? I said, "Ottawa". He said, "I will get you there. I will have you in New York tonight." I said. "I do not want to go to New York". He said, "We will fly you to Columbus and then to Cleveland and then to Toronto". I was here next morning at eleven o'clock. That is service.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In time for church.


Walter Clarence Henderson: I think T.C.A. is giving C.P.A. a rough deal. I know Mr. McConachie, the president of C.P.A., personally. He lived at Fort St. John for four years. He was a bush pilot. If some Eskimo or Indian child or one of our own children was sick, he would fly them out no matter what the weather was like. He was a real credit to the north. I should like to see him get a break so that C.P.A. can have other routes across Canada.
T.C.A. gets all the breaks. They can fly to London. The British government will let Mr. McConachie's air line land in London but T.C.A. will not allow it. I am not too well versed in these matters. C.P.A. has to go to Amsterdam. Why can they not have the right to land at London, England? I understand the British authorities have given them permission to land there. The Minister of Transport can tell us all about it. On the west coast C.P.A. is losing passengers to another line running down to Seattle. Everybody goes that way and C.P.A. cannot have that route.
It was only a short time ago that T.C.A. were trying to make a deal with an air line from Japan. I think that C.P.A. should get a break in this deal. They are Canadians. It is true that the hon. member for Vancouver East attempted to "blow up" T.C.A. However, these people are also Canadians and they pay
Supply-Transport
taxes. Speaking of paying taxes, all we do is to pay taxes to Mr. McGregor's outfit. May I say that I am not against T.C.A. However,
I should like to see these other people get a break. If you are going across the ocean now via B.O.A.C., what do you find? You find that they are flying with the cheap propeller driven planes. T.C.A. do not use them. They do not have this kind. They are much higher than that. However, B.O.A.C. have them. I do not think C.P.A. are getting the break which they should get.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to take up the time of the committee unduly but there are one or two reasons why I desire to intervene at this stage. The first is to deal with some questions that were addressed to myself during the course of this discussion and also to say something in connection with what transpired yesterday when the hon. member for Coast-Capilano entered the discussion in connection with something I had said concerning T.C.A. and the air policy of the government. I did not take as seriously as did the hon. member for Vancouver East the statements made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. I thought that they were fair criticism. While I do not agree with him in many of the things he said, I rise to make a statement in connection with the matter. I have risen, Mr. Chairman, not to defend T.C.A. I think that is the responsibility of the minister. I think the minister is responsible to parliament for Trans-Canada Air Lines in the same manner as he is responsible for the Canadian National Railways. If he follows the practice which has been followed in the past and which most ministers of transport have followed, he will give the picture as it is related to him by the responsible officers of both those crown corporations. There is, of course, the committee in which members can examine the officers that come there from time to time.
I am rising chiefly to point out that under the former administration we were determined to prevent from arising a situation such as that which arose under the Borden government with railways when too many trans-continental lines were built and none of them could pay. I do not think there can be any challenge to that statement. As the committee knows, Mr. Borden had to bail out Mackenzie and Mann for $10 million which was a great deal of money in those days. In this whole picture of trans-continental air lines policy, the government should make sure not to distribute the transcontinental air lines in such a manner that neither company can make money and that the treasury will have to foot the bill. That is what the MacPherson commission is doing

Supply-Transport
at the present time with the railways. I hope it will not happen with the air lines. Perhaps the hon. member for Greenwood will remember that $10 million. As the hon. member said, all I am suggesting is that we should apply common sense to this policy. I refer to the policy of the government. If we do that, then I think we will arrive at a proper conclusion.
I want to make some reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway. I am sorry that he is not in his seat.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Keep it going; I will be right back.


Lionel Chevrier: It was, I must say at once, a remarkable speech and I wish to commend that hon. member not only for the knowledge which he possesses of the freight rate question but for the objective manner in which he spoke on this subject. It has been a long time since I heard a speech on freight rates of that calibre in this chamber. I am not saying that I agree with what he said. However, I am saying that he rose to deal objectively with the subject of freight rates. For instance, he pointed to a matter that has caused a great deal of concern to the former administration. It has to do with the one and one third rule and the agreed charges. I refer to the one and one third rule which was recommended by the Tur-geon royal commission on transportation. The agreed charges which amended the Transport Act, according to the province of Alberta, annulled the benefits of the one and one third rule. About the time at which I left the government there was a great deal of opposition to the effect of the amendment of the Transport Act on the one and one third rule. That was why it was necessary to call in the Turgeon commission again and to have it make a report such as the one it made.
The hon. member said another thing with which I am fully in agreement. I note that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is now in his seat. I am sorry he was not here earlier but I do not think he could have found any fault with what I said concerning his contribution. The other thing on which I agree fully with him is this. He said, "This is not a political question". There could be no greater truism than that. Freight rates are not and should not be a political question. I am sorry the hon. member was not here when I sat on the other side of the house in the place occupied by the present Minister of Transport and in a position to observe the kind of attitude the opposition took in this chamber. I made it quite clear that freight rates were effected by the board of transport commissioners and not 
by the cabinet or the government and that the board of transport commissioners was established for that purpose. But do you think the opposition listened to me? They did not listen to me in the slightest degree. From those who were interested to those who sit on our right now came the attack and the charge that we were the ones who were responsible for allowing these horizontal rates to increase unjustly from one end of the country to the other.
There was only once-and by once I mean during one period of time-in the long history from confederation down to the present time when the government was responsible for the establishment of freight rates and that was when the cabinet itself dealt with them. The cabinet used to deal with freight rates-just imagine that situation-across Canada. That power was taken away-and rightly so-from the cabinet and was put into the hands of the board of transport commissioners. Of course, if I have made the statements which I made earlier, I have done so as a result of the statements made by the Prime Minister during the campaigns of 1957 and 1958 when he went from one end of the country to the other and said, on freight rates, "Did we act? Of course we acted. Here is what we did". That is nothing but an invitation to political attacks.
The freight rate question is a highly complex and complicated matter which should be left to a technical board such as the board of transport commissioners.
I pass on to another matter which was raised by the hon. member for Danforth in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway tolls. I suppose that if I wanted to take the proper attitude I would say to the hon. member that the Minister of Transport is in his seat and the questions which the hon. member directed to me should be directed to the minister because he is now responsible for the administration of that body and I am not.
However, I will not take that attitude. The hon. member said, "Why was there no opposition to the question of tolls? No mention was made of tolls on the Welland canal". Perhaps I should say to the hon. member that under the 1932 treaty there was no question of tolls, and the situation was the same under the 1941 agreement, both of which, as the hon. member rightly said, were not ratified by the congress of the United States.
Then, because of the many delays occurring in the United States and Canada, there arose a great desire on the part of both countries to find a solution to this problem and to bring about the project. The solution was found by means of a joint application on the

part of Canada and the United States to the international joint commission whereby, if that application were successful, legislation would be introduced by Canada for the construction of the seaway.
That legislation was introduced in 1951 by the act known as 15-16 George VI, an act to establish the St. Lawrence seaway authority. So there may be no doubt in the mind of my hon. friend, who seems to think there was no authority for these tolls, I would point out that the authority is set out in the act of parliament just as clearly as it could be.
In the first place let me say that earlier Canada had decided to deepen the St. Lawrence waterway up to Montreal at a cost of about $100 million, payable by the taxpayers of Canada. Canada had also decided to deepen the new Welland canal at a cost of about $132 million, payable by the taxpayers of Canada, on both of which there were no tolls. On the other hand the United States had agreed to carry out the deepening of the connecting channels, which would cost about $100 million.
This act was introduced in 1951 and section 10 clearly sets out what were the purposes and powers of the authority. They were, first, to build a deep-sea waterway between the port of Montreal and lake Erie, which included the Welland canal; and next, to construct, maintain and operate all such works as were necessary for that purpose.
If we look at section 17 we find these words:
Where the works have been constructed and are maintained and operated by the authority to provide, in conjunction with works undertaken by an appropriate authority in the United States, the deep waterway mentioned in section ten,-
That is the section I have referred to:
-tolls may be established pursuant to sections fifteen and sixteen or by agreement between Canada and the United States-
We were defeated in 1957, after this legislation was passed, of course, but before- and long before-the agreement referred to herein had been made between Canada and the United States. I am not suggesting for a moment that the government should have repudiated this section, but I am stating that it was after 1957 that the international tolls-making committee was established; it was after 1957 that the former minister of transport, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, placed on the table the order in council which established the agreement and the tolls on both the St. Lawrence and Welland canals.
My hon. friend says, "The agreements were made between the two authorities, one from the United States and the other from
Supply-Transport
Canada. The question is: why was the cost not absorbed by the government itself, as was done in the United States with respect to the three rivers I have mentioned?"
I am afraid that question will have to be directed to the present Minister of Transport because that was done during the regime of the present government. But in so far as the former government was concerned, I must say that it would not have been possible to obtain the consent of the government of the United States unless those tolls had been imposed.
The reason we accepted the imposition of tolls was because we felt it was only fair that the users should pay for the canal, and not the taxpayers of Canada. The people of British Columbia and the Atlantic provinces would have opposed the seaway, and rightly so, if they had been expected to pay for it out of their taxes.
I remember that when this matter was discussed in the House of Commons there was unanimity. Hon. members from the Atlantic provinces said, "We fear this may be of some hurt to us, but we have come to the conclusion that this is a good thing for Canada. We have come to the conclusion that anything that helps one part will help the whole, and we will therefore support it on that basis".
I think, too, there was the other reason which I have just mentioned, namely that if we had not made this a toll seaway it would not have been possible to obtain unanimity from all parts of Canada.
(Translation) :
Mr. Chairman, I now wish to consider another question.
Yesterday, we had a debate on the deepening of the Richelieu river. The hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) who took part in the debate asked me certain questions, particularly why the member for Laurier, either as minister of transport or as president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority had not considered the possibility of deepening the Richelieu river. He also asked me why the member for Laurier, at the time he was either minister of transport or the chairman of the seaway authority, had paid absolutely no attention to the the Richelieu waterway.
Mr. Chairman, the answer is quite simple. In fact, if the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville had referred to the reports, or if he only had studied the act, he would not have asked that question. On the other hand, had he read the book he mentioned last night, he would also have found out that the answer to his question is given there in two parts.
As for my responsibility as minister of transport, I never had the opportunity of

Supply-Transport
studying the possibility of deepening the Richelieu, for a reason that is found in a preliminary report prepared by the boundary waters commission.
That commission in fact had been called upon, in 1937, to make a survey concerning the possible dredging of the Richelieu, and had submitted a rather lengthy report dealing with all aspects of the matter, that is: the five routes, specifications concerning the seaway, whether the channel should be 14 or 27 feet deep, its cost, the volume of traffic, etc. The commission arrived at the following conclusion which I read from the preliminary report:
The commission recommends that this report be considered as a preliminary report and that the commission be authorized to maintain its jurisdiction over that question until the St. Lawrence seaway project is completed, and that the commission be given the opportunity to study the impact of its operation on the Richelieu seaway project.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that as long as the St. Lawrence seaway was not completed, it surely was not proper for the government, in view of the decision of the boundary waters commission, to consider looking into that project.
In addition, the hon. member has asked me how it was that at the time I was chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, I did not request our engineers and my officials to study the matter. The answer is quite simple. It is found in section 10 of the St. Lawrence seaway authority act. That section is as follows:
The authority is incorporated-
Why?
(a) acquiring lands for and constructing, maintaining and operating all such works as may be necessary to provide and maintain, either wholly on Canada or in conjunction with works undertaken by an appropriate authority in the United States, a deep waterway between the port of Montreal and lake Erie-
Such, Mr. Chairman, were the powers vested in the authority, namely the power of constructing a canal between the port of Montreal and lake Erie, and there was no intention of the power to consider the possibilities of the Richelieu waterway project. If we had considered anything else besides the St. Lawrence seaway, we would have abused our powers, which would have been illegal.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for Laurier permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly.


Léon Balcer: Can the hon. member tell me who piloted the bill in the house and who led the debate on it?


Lionel Chevrier: Naturally, it is the member for Laurier who introduced the bill in the house and who led the debate on it, but as the minister himself stated yesterday evening, the member for Laurier had his own responsibilities and could not go beyond the powers he had under the act. As a minister of the crown, does the Minister of Transport have the right to go beyond the powers vested in him by the act? No.
In conclusion, I will say that I would not have been surprised had I been asked that question by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), because he has not had the same training as the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville. At least, the latter is a lawyer and he should know about the requirements of the law. Apparently, that is not the case.
So, you have two alternatives-he is not aware of the law or he is being unfair; you cannot have it both ways. The law is there, and it outlines the powers of the president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I prefer a learned agronomist to an ignorant lawyer like the hon. member for Laurier.


Mr. Johnson:: On a point of order.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for
Chambly-Rouville has raised a point of order.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Laurier is making all kinds of statements-if the hon. member would kindly resume his seat, I would continue. He is making all kinds of statements, but he did not refer to the exact text; I said, and I repeat it here:
Why has he not seen to it then that the authorities of the St. Lawrence seaway consider the problem of the Richelieu waterway, while it was time, that everything was organized to make a full study of it, and especially economic studies?
He was a minister at that time, and he had the right to insert such a provision in the act, but not to restrict the powers of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. Let him set the facts straight, then. Let him put the question as it should be and he will be able to provide an answer. He has no right to accuse me of being unfair and ignorant.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I shall answer the question of the hon. member who is asking me why I did not have the matter of deepening the Richelieu looked into in my capacity as chairman of the St. Lawrence

seaway authority. It is because the authority was not empowered to do so; under the boundary waters commission's report, this project was not to be considered before completion of the St. Lawrence seaway. Now, the seaway was completed late in 1958 or early in 1959, and since that time, a Conservative government has been in power. It is up to the present government to study the project.
I do not hesitate, therefore, to tell the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, who is a lawyer, that either he does not understand the law and the responsibilities provided under it, or that he is being unfair. It is either one or the other.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I have passed real law examinations, not mere prestige ones.


Lionel Chevrier: Moreover, Mr. Chairman, he asked several times who claims that this project is not feasible?
Well, if he takes that stand, I am convinced that the voters of his riding are going to wonder if he is really in favour of the Richelieu waterway or not. After all, when one wonders if a project is feasible, it shows that one doubts whether the project is even practicable. That is obvious. Another thing is that we, on this side of the house, have only asked for an engineering board to study the economic aspect of the project. That is all we have asked for.
Why is it that in the United States a similar agency is already operating? Why is it that the U.S. Corps of Engineers has already undertaken its investigations and, I am told- but I may be wrong here-that this same corps has made certain studies in Canada?
If I am correctly informed and the person from whom I got this information is a responsible engineer, why is it that Canada is not putting aside a few thousand dollars, let us say $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 in order that the project may be investigated?
It is not by assigning this task to officials of the transport department that we will get satisfactory findings. Not because these officials are not qualified engineers, but because they are overloaded with work in the department.
This matter is of the utmost importance for the people in the area and it is therefore essential that it be studied as would, I hope, the deepening of the Ottawa river. To establish whether a project will be profitable, one must study it, a technical committee must be instituted. One can-


Some hon. Members:: You could have done it.
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: You can hear them say, Mr. Chairman: You could have done it.
I have just given the reasons why we did not do so, the act was the obstacle.
Do you think, Mr. Chairman, that this will stop the member for Chambly-Rouville or the member for Joliette-l'Assomption-Mont-calm who is now behind me from uttering the same stupidities. Not at all. In spite of the law, they will continue to repeat in this house and outside that we' should have done it when we were in power. It just shows the stuff they are made of.


Some hon. Members:: Quite true.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, we could not do it under the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act. Moreover, we could not do it because of the decision of the boundary waters commission. It is obvious that those people lack good faith; otherwise, why do they not set up the engineering commission so that the question may be looked into and we may know whether the project is economically feasible, to what depth the river should be dredged and what traffic volume would be required?
Then, do not, by your speeches and cheap politics, impede the development of a project which means so much to the province of Quebec.
(Text):


Robert Hardy Small: The hon. member made reference to Mackenzie and Mann, but I should suggest to him that it was not the Borden government which started the railway. That was something which originated under the Laurier government. I am not suggesting he did not bail the railway out in respect of the $10 million, but it is something he inherited.


Lionel Chevrier: The Canadian Great Northern Railway was not begun during the regime of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Oh, yes it was.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But not as a government enterprise.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There were guarantees and more guarantees provided. I do not want the impression left unchallenged that the Borden government plunged into a whole new railways system. It was the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific that loaded us up with additional railway construction. I did not attempt to blame this on one government. I said it had been done by both sides. However, hon. members opposite have tried to

Supply-Transport
suggest that the Borden government was responsible for all this; they are either misrepresenting the situation or do not know what they are talking about.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand the hon. member for Greenwood has some knowledge of this question regarding the $10 million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not deny that.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would tell us exactly what the position was, because that happened before I entered the House of Commons and, if I am wrong in the statement I made earlier, I should like him to correct me.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am trying to correct the suggestion that nothing was done before 1911 by the government to stimulate the railway building that occurred at that time. That is a wrong suggestion.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege; I did not suggest that at all. I wrote down what I said and I shall repeat it. There can be no doubt about what I said. It was only a very short sentence. I said we were determined, in the former administration, to prevent a situation arising in air lines such as arose under the Borden government, with the railways, when too many transcontinental lines were built and none of them could pay. Then I went on to say that Mr. Borden had to bail out Mackenzie and Mann for $10 million, which was a great deal of money in those days and I added that perhaps the hon. member for Greenwood could tell us something about this.


An hon. Member:: He is telling you now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Surely what the hon. member said was that the Borden government was responsible for the creation of an utterly exaggerated railway situation, and that there had to be a bailing out. I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said the Liberal government had nothing to do with the Mackenzie-Mann construction. I do know something about that. I am quite confident that a check of what has been said will show that one of the two hon. members I have named said that the Liberal government had nothing to do with that previous construction, prior to 1911.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I can clear up what I did say.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know that the hon. member does not want to misrepresent what I said.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Be fair.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member for Greenwood is anxious to hear what I did say. I said the Laurier government had nothing to do with establishing the Canadian Northern Railway as a government enterprise. Everyone knows they established the national transcontinental and Grand Trunk Pacific as a government enterprise, but the Canadian Northern Railway was an entirely private enterprise.


An hon. Member:: Established under a Liberal regime.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was a private enterprise until 1911, although I believe it received provincial guarantees before that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There were many guarantees before that, and the Grand Trunk Pacific came along at the same time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was long before the beginning of the Canadian Northern.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, not long before, along with it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was 1903.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, 1903-04 is quite right, but the Canadian northern line, and the Grand Trunk Pacific, were being guaranteed by both provincial governments and the federal government and were built before 1911.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, but not before 1903.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will get the exact dates, but I think I can speak with knowledge of that. They were begun before 1911, but the last guarantee came in 1914, just before the beginning of the first world war. The impression that the hon. member for Danforth sought to controvert, as I do now, was the impression left by the hon. member for Laurier that Mr. Borden, as he was then, had a situation to deal with which was created by himself.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not say that at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: All I am saying now is, that is a wrong impression and I should like to correct it.
Mr. Pallet!: The Liberals always leave a mess when they go out of office.
(Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I refuse to answer any question from the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville who was most impolite to me last night.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Mr. Belzile:: Mr. Chairman, after that short period of stormy discussion, I am sure the house will be happy to bear with me during a few minutes in a more serene atmosphere. I do not wish to hold up unduly the debate on this first item. But let me discuss for a few minutes a matter of extreme importance which concerns me very much. That is the municipal airport of the city of Matane.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, the great difficulties and the many problems the Minister of Transport must face because of the exceptional and tremendous progress made in the last few years in the field of air transport and airports facilities.
In my region there are three airports: those of Matane, Mont Joli and Rimouski.
It is not my function to persent here requests concerning the Mont Joli and Rimouski airports, nor does it behoove me to criticize or minimize their requests.
I have here, Mr. Chairman, two good size files which represent quite a considerable amount of work. Since I have become member for Matapedia-Matane there has been a huge correspondance between the Department of Transport and the municipal council of Matane, the chamber of commerce of Matane and other citizens interested in the problem.
I would not want to go too far back and to recall every single step I took for the improvement of the municipal airport in my county seat.
May I be permitted, however, to mention that from the day I was elected in 1958, I have relentlessly attacked that problem. Unfortunately the results I have obtained so far amount to nil.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Alfred Belzile: At times, however, we had hopes. I would like to say for the record that on September 15, 1958, I received a letter from an official of the Department of Transport. It went as follows:
The department is preparing the plans lor additional facilities at the Matane airport. The necessary funds have been provided for in the department's supplementary estimates and we are doing everything we can to award the contract as soon as possible.
On March 20, 1959, I received a letter from the then minister of transport. Allow me to read a paragraph of that letter:
As you are aware, an item of $100,000 had been included originally in my department's estimates for the next fiscal year, in the hope that those
Supply-Transport
funds would enable us to finish the plans and at least undertake the works. Unfortunately, we had to cut down our estimates so that the total amount would not exceed that of the current year and, consequently, we had to leave out a certain number of items, including the one concerning the Matane airport. I realize that the city of Matane-
Mr. Chairman, needless to add that the letter was as unpopular with those immediately concerned-and I have no intention of dissociating myself from that group-as with the people of Matane and the surrounding area.
Since that date, I nevertheless energetically pursued my efforts in favour of the improvement and development of the Matane airport. However, on March 13, 1961, the Quebecair company, which served the Matane airport, the north shore and cities like Quebec and Montreal, notified us that it would abandon the service at Matane airport.
I should add that another company remains, with headquarters at Matane, Matane Air Services which is now using our airport for its north shore route. The company operates DC-3 aircraft and also smaller ones-I forget their name-which can carry up to 12 passengers.
If my information is correct, legislation on air security does not, at this time, allow DC-3 aircraft to be used at the Matane municipal airport, and it is because they have a special permit that Matane Air Services may do so.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier today, it is useless to go backwards. Up to now, our efforts have been in vain. But we still have the merit of having tried, at least I hope so. Nevertheless, one fact remains: what is done is done and to us all that matters is the present and future.
Quebec Air Lines have abandoned their Matane service and there are now only the Matane Air Services left, with headquarters at the airport. The latter gives adequate service for emergency transportation, that is transportation required by north shore towns. At this time, all concerned have plenty of good will. When I say all concerned, I mean the municipal council of Matane, the chamber of commerce there, the people of Matane and the surrounding area, that is the valley which brings business to the airport of Matane.
At this stage of my remarks, may I say to those who doubt that the traffic at the airport of Matane is considerable, that just a few weeks ago, in a single day, Matane Air

Supply-Transport
Services transported 240 people from Matane to Shelter Bay, to Port Cartier and other small airports along the north shore.
I received this very day a letter from the town council of Matane, to which was attached a copy of a resolution passed by the council. It reads as follows:
Excerpt from the minutes of the proceedings of the municipal council of the city of Matane;
Sitting held on Monday, May 1st, 1961 in the town hall of Matane, at 8 o'clock p.m.;
Members presents: His Honour the Mayor, Mr. F. Adrien Gauthier; aldermen Antoine Lavoie, Rene Pelletier, Benoit McMullen, Raymond Meu-nier, Fernand Dugas, Victor Fournier and J. B. Dionne, secretary-treasurer;
The following resolution was unanimously passed;
Moved by Benoit McMullen, seconded by Fernand Dugas:
Whereas correspondence has been exchanged between the city of Matane and the Department of Transport with regard to the extension and improvement of the municipal airport;
Whereas this request has been turned down by the treasury board as too costly;
Whereas a DC-3 air service is required for adequate operations between the two shores and particularly for the work now under way in the Manicouagan district, where approximately 10,000 men are employed;
Whereas the majority of those employed are from this area and need air service to travel in and out of the area;
Whereas to ensure the efficiency of such a service, particularly at peak periods in the fall and winter, it is essential to use several DC-3s between Matane and the seven stations serviced along the north shore;
Be it unanimously resolved that the city council urges the Hon. Leon Balcer, Minister of Transport, to extend the main runway by 1,000 feet on city owned property, as a substitute for the previous projects which have been found too costly.
In passing such a resolution, I think the Matane city council showed exceptional practical sense, as it gives the authorities a last chance to realize that the city of Matane is entitled to some assistance in the improvement of its airport.
We are asking for a 1,000 foot extension to the runway, and lighting facilities at the airport to permit night landings.
Mr. Chairman, I now close my remarks on behalf of the Matane airport. I feel sure that the present minister, who is very conscious of his responsibility as Minister of Transport, will devote his full attention and consideration to this project which is important both to my constituents and to the hon. member for Matane.
Before resuming my seat, I wish to say a word or two on another timely subject which is of interest to the C.N.R.
The Matapedia valley has a community by the name of Amqui, which is the seat of Matapedia county. The C.N.R. station at
[Mr. Belzile.l
Amqui serves the neighbouring communities of St. Leon le Grand, St. Zenon, Ste. Irenee, St. Tharcisius, St. Vianney. For many years, we have had a 24 hour operator service there. While I was visiting Amqui recently, the station master told me he had received a letter from the C.N.R. dispatcher saying that the night shift would be abolished as of May 22 next.
I believe such an attitude of the C.N.R. would certainly be prejudicial to the passenger traffic of the Matapedia valley and especially to the communities I mentioned a moment ago, because during that shift, three passenger trains stop at Amqui to take or leave passengers. There is the Maritime Express, between Montreal and Halifax; the Ocean Limited between the same points and the Maritime Express on its way back from Halifax to Montreal.
I made the necessary representations to the Minister of Transport and I repeat them here and ask him to use his influence on Canadian National Railway authorities in an effort to have them decide to maintain the operator service at Amqui as it is now and as it has existed for many years.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport complained the other day in another debate that I took part in debates on what were described as trivial matters and had nothing to say about the important declaration he made recently on shipping. So as to relieve the minister of his disappointment in the matter, I intend to say something about his announcement and I wish to say how much I welcomed these words uttered by the minister the other day, as found on page 4783 of Hansard. With respect to his statement he said;
We intend to help the fishermen who are working in very small boats. We are going to look after them, too.
That is a promise that will be welcomed by all the fishermen on the Atlantic coast. It was, of course, what was asked for by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador the other day in committee of supply on the estimates of one of the minister's colleagues, and we were rather disappointed when it was found that fishermen in small boats were not included in the declaration the minister made the other day with respect to aid for fishermen in the larger boats.


Frank Charles McGee: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a few things I should like to say in the short time I have before five o'clock. As I was saying, the fishermen who operate very small boats and who, as is well known, constitute the majority of fishermen on the east coast of Canada were naturally a little disappointed, I think, that the assistance by the government as set out in the statement made by the minister was related to the larger boats. Therefore I was immensely pleased when the minister made that statement, and I should like to repeat these two lines found at the bottom of the first column on page 4783 of Hansard for May 13.
We intend to help the fishermen who are working in very small boats. We are going to look after them, too.
Before we proceed to deal with this matter on the minister's famous $1 item, I think it would be very desirable if he would give us a precise account of how aid for small boats is going to be provided because this will be a matter of the greatest possible interest to the fishermen. It has been my feeling for a long time and the feeling of those of us who represent fishing ridings-I am sure I echo the views of some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house-that the limit of assistance on boats should not be restricted as at present to vessels more than 45 feet long. That was very welcome and important but since it was established the government has brought about the reformation of the farm loan board so that it now acts as an agricultural bank. There is no similar institution for fishermen and if the government has some plan for financial assistance either in the form of loans or in the form of subsidies, which would be even more welcome, of course, I think this will be very welcome news indeed.
When the minister replies on the first item I hope he will give us all the details as to how the plan is going to work so far as small fishing boats are concerned because there was no reference to this at all in the statement he made the other day. We should like to know whether the assistance is going to be on the same basis as for the larger boats or whether it is to be on some other basis.


Léon Balcer: Before the hon. member takes his seat, would he tell us what he means by a small boat?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking the minister. He was the one who used the words. Surely the minister does not expect me to define his terms.
19. 1961
Senate and House of Commons Act


Lionel Chevrier: His own law.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Here are his words and I welcome the chance to repeat them:
We intend to help the fishermen who are working in very small boats. We are going to look after them, too.


Léon Balcer: A boat 65 feet long is certainly not a big ship.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not what we who represent the fishermen understand to be a small boat.


Jacques Flynn: Order. It being five o'clock, in order for the house to give consideration to public and private bills it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of public and private bills, the former having precedence.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. C-27, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (Solicitor General's eligibility).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to introduce the subject matter contained in this bill may I preface my formal remarks by saying that there is no thought whatsoever, nor do I think there should be, of connecting the principle of the bill with any individual who may hold the office at the moment, may have held it in the past or may hold it in the future. The bill deals in a purely objective way with the position itself. The salary of the solicitor general is the same as that of every cabinet minister except the Prime Minister, namely, $15,000 a year plus $2,000 per annum motor car allowance.
There is also protection in Section 14 in the Senate and House of Commons Act to the extent that the solicitor general and other members of the cabinet shall not be disqualified from sitting in the house by reason of accepting this particular salary from the crown. I think upon examination we shall find that the position of the post of solicitor general is different from that of each of his colleagues in the cabinet. I would say again

Senate and House of Commons Act that when I use any personal pronoun here, it is not meant in a specific sense but only in relation to any individual who might hold the office and the office itself. It is not meant in any personal way. However, the solicitor general is in a different position from that of the other members of the cabinet. I think his post is considered to be somewhat inferior to other cabinet posts.
In this regard I point out the fact that there are a number of references to the post of solicitor general in various statutes of Canada, and that each of them makes a distinction in so far as this post is concerned with respect to the question of motor car allowance. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, I raised this matter on a previous occasion as a question of privilege which, regardless of the opinions expressed at that time by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), I think is still valid. However, this is not the time at which to go into that matter. With respect to the motor car allowance of $2,000, in the Appropriation Act No. 5 of 1931, which is chapter 61 of the statutes of that year, vote 352 reads as follows:
To provide for payment annually from the consolidated revenue fund of the sum of $2,000 to each minister of the crown charged with the administration of a department, the Solicitor General, and the Leader of the Opposition,-
Then it goes on to deal with other matters. However, I point out that there is a distinct reference to the solicitor general's office as being somewhat apart and different from that of other ministers. The Salaries Act likewise, which establish as the amount of salary for members of the cabinet, also draws a distinction between the post of solicitor general and each of the other cabinet posts and, in fact, it sets apart the salary of the solicitor general in a separate section from that relating to the other cabinet ministers.
Even when it comes to the method of appointing the person to the office of solicitor general, we find that a distinction is made and that the solicitor general is not appointed, as the other acts say, by virtue of the great seal of Canada. This is notably appointment by the crown. The solicitor general is appointed by his other colleagues in the cabinet or by the governor in council. There again a distinction is drawn.
Even when we came to consider the estimates of the Department of Justice with which the solicitor general is associated, we have found on at least one occasion that it was not necessary or feasible to have the presence of the solicitor general in the committee when the estimates were being considered; and on one occasion when this matter was raised in 1959, the Minister of Justice indicated that he was the officer or the minister
responsible for the Department of Justice and would accordingly deal will all aspects of that particular department.
Last session I made an inquiry of the Prime Minister with respect to the duties, functions and responsibilities of the solicitor general. The answer is contained in Hansard of February 10, 1960, at page 919 and continuing over onto page 920. Perhaps it would be in order for me to quote a part of the answer given by the Prime Minister. He stated in part as follows:
The only order in council under which the solicitor general at present exercises any statutory functions is order in council P.C. 1959-1113 of August 27, 1959, under which he acts as minister of justice in the absence of the Minister of Justice. However, as one of the legal members of the cabinet he advises the Governor General on the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in all cases except capital cases, and in all capital cases he reports to cabinet.
Then the Prime Minister goes on to make mention of the fact that this is a post which does not have heavy departmental responsibilities and that from time to time the solicitor general may have given to him other assignments. For my part I think the post of solicitor general, with its present attachment of responsibilities which I consider to be extremely light, is nothing more than a high or overpaid position of parliamentary secretary. I think the duties, functions and responsibilities of the solicitor general, as they are at the present time, do not warrant that position either being of cabinet rank or commanding a cabinet salary.
The purpose of the bill may be by some considered to be a bit facetious but it seeks to remove the present protection in section 14 of the Senate and House of ommons Act in so far as the eligibility of the solicitor general is concerned to sit in the house as a member. If the bill passes, two alternatives would be open in so far as the post of solicitor general is concerned. One would be that the position of solicitor general could be held by a member of parliament and that no emolument would be attached to it other than the indemnity of a member. The other alternative would be that the post of solicitor general could be held by someone who is not a member of parliament but is an officer within the department.
I might say that a further clause of the bill provides that it is to come into effect on March 31, 1961. At the time of preparation of the bill it was hoped that it might receive the speedy attention of the house and might perhaps be considered before that date. This date, however, can easily be changed. While the reference is to March 31, 1962, in the bill itself, it is not a hard and fast integral part of the bill.


We know that the Department of Justice is a very extensive one and that it embraces a number of extremely important and complex fields. In fact, this situation was recognized by parliament during the last session when parliament authorized the creation of two associate deputy minister posts within the department.
I should like to make a brief reference to some of the extremely important matters which come under the Department of Justice. One is the administration of the Parole Act, which is extremely important in so far as rehabilitative measures are concerned for people who run afoul of the law. There is also the penitentiaries branch, which is another extremely important section of the Department of Justice and deals with the administration of justice and the meting out of penalties. It is also not dissociated from the administration of the Parole Act.
There is also the question of the administration of justice in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, which cover a very large area and where very complex matters arise. There is the subject matter of the Criminal Code and all the various fields with which the code deals.
There is the function of providing legal advice to the crown. There is the all-important operation of the combines investigation branch and the restrictive trade practices commission, their hearings and possible court cases which arise therefrom. Then there is the administration of the Bankruptcy Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, salaries of judges, and so on.
I think that if we are to retain the post of solicitor general we should recognize the fact that it is a post worthy of more than the sort of scanty responsibility which is attached to it at the present time. I think we should place the solicitor general in a position comparable with other members of the cabinet by establishing some definite departmental responsibility for the post in order that the rank and salary attached to the position will bear some equitable relationship to its responsibilities.
I should think, for argument's sake-and this is not said in any way to detract from the abilities of the present Minister of Justice -that the operations of the combines investigation branch and restrictive trade practices commission, each connected with the other, could very well be two of the functions of the Department of Justice for which the solicitor general could have some ministerial responsibility.
We could say this about the administration of the Parole Act or the penitentiaries branch,
19, 1961
Senate and House of Commons Act for argument's sake, or any of the other matters over which the Department of Justice has jurisdiction which could also be lumped together and the department in some way or other divided in so far as the responsibility of a cabinet member for those functions is concerned.
If the government would consider dividing the Department of Justice in this way in terms of ministerial responsibility, it would place the office of solicitor general in a much more decent light than I think it is in at the moment. As I have said, at the moment it has some sort of scanty or light responsibilities attached to it which result in it being nothing more than a highly paid position of parliamentary secretary. I think this particular post warrants much greater attention than it receives at the moment.
The initial purpose of the bill is to allow either one of two alternatives; that is, we either have a solicitor general to whom no salary is attached and who at the same time is eligible to sit in the House of Commons as a member, or we have the position of solicitor general as one which is official within the department but which does not allow the person holding that position to sit in the House of Commons as a member.
If the government will consider attaching more responsibility to the post of solicitor general, giving it greater recognition than it has in the past, and if it will cease looking upon this post as a position in which to put somebody who comes from a particular part of the country which should have representation in the cabinet, then I think there would be much greater respect for the post not only in the house, not only in the government but in the whole country.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, the first words the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) uttered when he began his presentation of this bill were that it was not his intention to discuss the individual who might now be occupying the position or those who have occupied it in the past; that somehow we should just forget what has happened in connection with this post and the very distinguished men who have occupied it from time to time in our history.
I suggest to the hon. member that it is a little unrealistic to discuss a cabinet post and say that we cannot discuss anybody who has occupied that position or say anything about the stature of those individuals. To my mind the two are intertwined and it would be folly to attempt to discuss this subject without mentioning some of the people who have occupied this post.
The first person, of course, who comes to mind when one considers the post of solicitor

Senate and House of Commons Act general is the late Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who has been judged by history to date and will be judged in the future as one of the outstanding parliamentarians in the history of Canada; a man described by Grattan O'Leary-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who is he?


Frank Charles McGee: -as being "an arrow's flight above them all"; a man described in various current publications, particularly compared with another late right hon. gentleman, as- if I can recall the words correctly-"looking down like a hawk on this little chicken clucking and scratching in the barnyard".
The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen brought to this post undisputed talent and while occupying it he undertook Herculean tasks. I do not think any other word can describe the undertakings which were assigned to and accomplished by him while he held this post.
In discussing Mr. Meighen's career it seems to me that the very arguments put forward by the hon. member for Skeena, in terms of the lack of departmental responsibility and other particular, defined matters to occupy the solicitor general's time, are defeated because Mr. Meighen was free to attack these serious and important problems and give his full time and effort to them, and they were better accomplished for that reason.
It does seem to me, also-knowing about as much of what goes on in the cabinet as the hon. member for Skeena-that there are a great many other tasks to which the solicitor general is assigned by various cabinet members. I refer to the special problems which we know arise from time to time, which do not come within the specific purview of any one minister, which the hon. member for Skeena pushed aside in a very cavalier fashion. It seemed to me that the hon. member could smell something bad when he referred to this nasty business of area representation. I think the hon. member might find he would have some argument with the people of Newfoundland at the present time.


Frank Howard: You are distorting my words.


Frank Charles McGee: Perhaps I was just looking at your nose as you said it. This post is also important, it seems to me, as a training ground. The present Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) whose estimates we were considering until five o'clock occupied that position with great distinction and is now doing a most outstanding job as Minister of Transport.
When the hon. member for Skeena was discussing the question of the tremendously important function performed by the solicitor general in presenting to cabinet the background and other related material in cases

where application is made to the cabinet in the question of the commutation of death sentences, he passed over the question very lightly. The hon. member for Skeena and I part company here, because I think it of tremendous importance particularly in the last four years when we have had, I think, 38 out of 44 death sentences commuted. If that pattern of commutation and the number of commutations can be attributed in any way to the abilities and talents of the former solicitor general, then if we are discussing how much work one has to do to earn a salary I would say he would be, if anything, underpaid.
I notice also that in the bill the hon. member has abridges the cabinet. He has apparently disbanded the Department of Forestry. He has not included the Associate Minister of National Defence. He has cast aside the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and come up with somebody called "the minister of resources and development". As a matter of fact for a C.C.F.'er approaching the situation I suppose these are modest changes indeed, but it seems to me he might have been consistent enough in his argument and proposal to include the present members of the cabinet, particularly a department like forestry which I honestly thought was of serious concern to the hon. member. There is no minister of forestry mentioned in this line-up.


Frank Howard: Is the hon. member not aware that at the last session of parliament we passed a special measure relating to the ministry of forestry and that provision for this post is contained therein and not in the Senate and House of Commons Act?


Frank Charles McGee: In any event, the fact of the matter is that in the list I have here those ministers are not mentioned. It seems to me the hon. member has not too clear an idea of what is going on in the cabinet nor an appreciation of the importance of the functions which are performed by the solicitor general.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has sponsored a number of bills this session and when they were good ones we were ready to give him credit. I know that in the case of the bill to amend the Penitentiary Act we said that there was some good thinking contained in it and I, personally commended him on it at that time.
Today, in this bill to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act in connection with the solicitor general's eligibility, we have a frivolous bill which, in my opinion, is time wasting. It would have the effect of

depriving the solicitor general of the privileges he enjoys by virtue of section 14 of the Senate and House of Commons Act wherein permission is given to members of the Queen's privy council to act as privy councillors and to receive the remuneration from that post, and also to be members and sit in the House of Commons. The hon. member's proposal would have the effect to making it impossible for a member of parliament to sit in the house and also to be solicitor general. You could have one or the other. That is a general interpretation of this proposal.
I took a moment to look at some of the background of this historic position of solicitor general. I find that for many years this position has existed in Canada as it has in most other commonwealth countries. In 1917, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, as has been said, was appointed solicitor general and a member of the cabinet. He had previously been solicitor general and a member of the ministry. I presume it was felt at that time that the job had become sufficiently onerous for him to become a full-fledged member of the cabinet. That has been the position since that time. There have been many distinguished solicitors general and they have performed worth while duties. We must bear in mind, of course the heavy legislative work that many of them have carried from the time of Arthur Meighen onwards.


Harold Edward Winch: Could the hon. member explain to the house what is the basis of the right to be a privy councillor? He has mentioned Arthur Meighen and others.


Thomas Miller Bell: I shall try to relate that to my remarks by saying that for many years in the early days the position of solicitor general was such that he was only a member of the ministry. He would be a member of the House of Commons and also a member of the ministry. He would have particular ministerial responsibilities. In 1915, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, as I recall, was solicitor general, a member of parliament and a member of the ministry but in 1917 it was felt important that the holder of this ministry should be included among those with full cabinet responsibilities. I am not able to say whether the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was a member of the privy council before 1917 but I am only making the point that in 1917 he became a full member of the cabinet and a member of the privy council, whereas before he had only been-
Senate and House of Commons Act


Harold Edward Winch: You have completely missed my point. Was he made a member of the privy council because he was solicitor general?


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member would have to ask Sir Robert Borden that, because I do not know whether he wanted the benefit of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen's experience in the cabinet, or the position of solicitor general or a combination of both.
I think the hon. member for Skeena made a most telling argument against his own bill when he quoted the Prime Minister speaking on February 10, 1960 in last year's Hansard as reported at page 919 on the occasion when the right hon. gentleman answered the question put to him by the hon. member who has been interested in this subject for some time. The Prime Minister said:
In addition, as is customary in the case of a legal member of the cabinet not having heavy departmental responsibilities he is assigned responsibilities from time to time for which he would not have time if he were engaged in the management of a department.
The hon. member then presented a long story about the heavy responsibilities that come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, and the complex legal nature of many of its activities. That, precisely, is one of the best arguments for the need for a solicitor general. I only suggest that there are these increasing responsibilities of a legal nature, and that we have a distinguished person presently in the position of solicitor general, as we have had in the past.
I remember in 1954 the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent was speaking in respect of the Salaries Act, when he outlined, probably in answer to some questions, the principle that each cabinet minister should receive the same salary. He made a very good case as to why he felt there should not be different designations of salaries. I was impressed with his statement at that time and suggest the reasons put forward then are valid now.
In dismissing this bill, I suggest it is frivolous and ridiculous, and has been brought forward in an attempt to seek publicity.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

Representation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it, and I declare the motion lost.


Harold Edward Winch: On division.
Motion (Mr. Howard) negatived on division.



REPRESENTATION ACT


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-29, to amend the Representation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to have this opportunity to introduce Bill No. C-29, an act to amend the Representation Act. The purpose of the bill is very simple, namely to change the name of the electoral district of Humboldt-Melfort to that of Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale.
The present name of the constituency, Humboldt-Melfort, was established under the Redistribution Act of 1952. Prior to that time there were two federal constituencies in existence, namely Humboldt and Melfort. Since that change, within the federal constituency of Humboldt-Melfort, the town of Tisdale and district has been added. The name of Tisdale also appears as one of the provincial constituencies in Saskatchewan. The people of Tisdale and district feel that, although no injustice was done to them through omitting the name of Tisdale, in all fairness it should be added to the names Humboldt-Melfort so that it would then be Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale.
Representations in this regard were first made to me in 1959 when I was home during the parliamentary recess. The Tisdale district chamber of commerce invited me to attend a meeting, having been in touch with me by letter. A letter was directed to Mr. Caston-guay, the electoral officer for Canada, which I should like to read into the record at this point. That letter is as follows:
Re: Humboldt-Melfort constituency
The matter of the name of our constituency was discussed at our recent chamber of commerce meeting.
As you know, this constituency includes the three major towns of Melfort, Humboldt and Tisdale. We feel that the size of Tisdale is such that it should be included in the name of the constituency.
We would be pleased to hear your comments in this regard.
This letter is signed by Mr. W. R. Hod-gins, the secretary of the chamber of commerce, and is dated October 5, 1959.
I have not read the reply to that letter but apparently Mr. Castonguay advised the

chamber of commerce that it was not within his jurisdiction to suggest or effect a change in name, but tnat on occasion private members introduced public bills in the House of Commons which were approved.
I received a telegram from the district chamber of commerce on May 18, 1961 which reads as follows:
Tisdale and district chamber request the name of Tisdale be added to the name of Humboldt-Melfort federal constituency-Tisdale and district chamber of commerce. W. R. Hodgins.
I should like to point out that this bill was introduced by me for the first time in 1960, but did not come before the house for approval before now. During this time no objection has been registered by any town, organization or individuals in the constituency, nor has any political party expressed any objection to the name of Tisdale being added to that of Humboldt-Melfort.
During the last few years the town of Tisdale and district has increased considerably in population and has also assumed a very prominent position as a distributing point for the Carrot river valley. This district is also known as a very productive farm district, evidence of which can readily be seen in the district.
Tisdale is known as the centre of the rape-seed industry in the west. Need I say more, Mr. Speaker? This fact alone has put Tisdale and district on the map as being the pioneer area in this very important grain industry in the west. Had it not been for the Tisdale rapeseed producers, and their early pioneering adventures in this field, Canada would not have been known in the world as the land where some of the best rapeseed is produced.
As a result of this worth-while undertaking by Tisdale inhabitants, the prairie farmers in the west have been able to diversify their grain production, thus taking thousands of acres out of wheat production, and have produced rapeseed, for which there is a tremendous export market available at the present time.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the time to speak on rapeseed, but it is very important and relevant to the growth and importance of Tisdale.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Reynold Rapp: I would appreciate very much if consideration could be given to this bill so that the name of Tisdale can be added to the federal constituency. The people of Tisdale will then realize that they have not been disregarded in this respect.
That is all I have to say at the present time as the mover of Bill No. C-29, which was seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu). Thank you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as a native of Norfolk county, from which the Tisdale came who went to Saskatchewan and gave that town its name, I should like to give the heartiest possible support to this bill. It is true that the Tisdales were Tories, and I think they still are-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I see the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton) is nodding his head because he has knowledge of these things.
I think the Tisdales are still Tories, although some of the individuals they had something to do with bringing into the world, have seen the light. There have been Tisdales representing Norfolk county on the wrong side of the house in the past, and there have been some who have unsuccessfully tried to represent that constituency in the twentieth century.
The name Tisdale goes back to the beginning of upper Canada, whence came so many of the pioneers of Saskatchewan who were joined later by pioneers such as the present hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort, who was wise enough and fortunate enough to come to Canada in 1929 when there was a Liberal government in power that would let him in. In view of all these circumstances and also because of the great affection I have had for the hon. member since he first came to the house it gives me great personal satisfaction to support this bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on other occasions I have supported the hon. gentleman who sponsors this bill. I supported him in his campaign to improve rapeseed. As he knows, no one has given him greater support in that regard than I have. I regret that both he and I have had some difficulty in impressing on the government the desirability of doing something about rapeseed; but the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has now made a rather serious charge. He says he supports this bill because of his own honoured connection with the name Tisdale, but he says the Tisdales are Tories. Since the hon. gentleman who sponsors this bill is not a Tory by nature I should like him to give some assurance that there is some hope of converting-


Reynold Rapp: On a question of privilege, I appreciate very much what my hon. friend from Essex East has said except the last sentence, with which I disagree, because I am a Progressive Conservative and I am proud to be one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has raised a question of
90205-6-321
Representation Act
privilege. If I have offended him in any way I of course want to withdraw my offensive words, but he has not made his case any stronger by the admission he just made. I did not charge him with being a member of the Progressive Conservative party, although I had thought that members of that party had long since abandoned the Progressive Conservative name. At one time they were known as Liberal Conservatives and Liberal Progressives. I thought they had abandoned the name "Progressive Conservative"; in fact, I thought they had abandoned the name "Conservative"; that they were no longer known as the Conservative party; that they were now called by the name of their leader. However, perhaps I misunderstand the situation.
I know that during the last election when I visited the riding of Prince Albert and saw the committee rooms of the candidate-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I inquire of the hon. member whether he is speaking to the question of privilege or to the bill?


Murdo William Martin: Well, I thought I was talking about the bill but I may have perhaps strayed a little bit in saying that when I visited the committee rooms in Prince Albert I did not see any political designation other than the name of the candidate.
However, I want to say to the hon. gentlemen I sincerely hope that if his bill receives second reading, which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate wants it to receive, he will repair the damage to the great name of Tisdale which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has talked about.
In any event I wonder whether the sponsor of the bill can answer this question? Is it important that the bill receive second reading and be passed now or can we wait until 1963 when the government proposes to call the next federal election?


Reynold Rapp: It is important that it pass now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort speaks now he will close the debate. I see the hon. member for Athabasca.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to add my support to this bill. Since I am a native of the Carrot river valley and first became conscious of the wonders of northern Saskatchewan in the town of Tisdale I should like to have seen the bill add the name "Carrot River". I bow to the wishes of the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort, particularly because of the commendable work he is doing in pressing for a change in the rates for rapeseed on the railway.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I did
not realize the previous speaker was going to be so brief. I have been sort of delegated to

Representation Act
say a word or two about this bill in place of one of our members who is unfortunately detained at a committee meeting. I fully appreciate the desire of the hon. gentleman who sponsors this bill to include as many localities in the name of his constituency as possible. It has been brought to my attention that Tisdale is not the only thriving community in the area. The people in the town of Wadena would like to have the name of their town included in the name of the bill.
I understand that the majority of the people there are not of the same political complexion as the hon. member who represents the constituency, but I have been asked to bring this to the attention of the house. I hold in my hand a copy of the map showing the constituency of Humboldt-Mel-fort as it is now known. According to the explanatory note, the purpose of the bill is to change the name of the electoral district of "Humboldt-Melfort" to that of "Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale". In view of the fact I have been informed that the people of Wadena would like to have the name of their town attached to the new name proposed for this constituency, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman, when we get into committee, whether he has any objection to adding "Wadena" to his bill, in view of the representations that have apparently been made to some members of this group by persons living in the town of Wadena, which I understand is also a very progressive little town. If this were done they think it would more completely describe the constituency than the present bill which proposes to add only the word "Tisdale" to the name of the constituency.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort speaks now he will close the debate.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the suggestion of the hon. member for Kootenay West, I wish to say that I have just as much respect for Wadena as I have for any other town in my constituency. The people are just as thrifty as are the people of any other section of my constituency.
As I stated in my opening remarks, when I introduced the bill in 1960, it was advertised around the community and in the local press and no letter came to my desk requesting that the name of Wadena be added, nor was any complaint or any objection voiced in my constituency. It is now over a year since it has been known that the bill was before the house to change the name of the constituency by adding the word "Tisdale". Had I been asked I would have been prepared

to bring the matter to the attention of the house. What I am doing now is bringing before the house the request of the Tisdale district chamber of commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to what the sponsor of the bill has said about the various component parts of his constituency, how each of them naturally plays an extremely important role in the economy of the constituency and how much respect and admiration the hon. member has gained by getting in touch with the various people concerned with respect to altering the name of the constituency so that it would reflect-


Reynold Rapp: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said that I had been in touch with these people. It was the other way around. The chamber of commerce of Tisdale got in touch with me and made representations to have the name added.


Frank Howard: I did not mean that the hon. member precipitated it but rather that he had been in touch with these people. That was what I had in mind. Something has been said about another extremely important community in the riding, namely, Wadena, which is no less important than any of the others. From what the hon. member said in closing the debate I gather it is a community for which he has the highest regard and respect and which also would have liked to see its name included in the name of the constituency. I think we should afford Wadena the opportunity of also having its name included in the name of the constituency and I therefore move:
That clause 1 be amended by adding in line ten after the word "Tisdale" the following "-Wadena".
It would then read: "Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale-Wadena".


An hon. Member:: Cheap.


Frank Howard: That is a nasty remark for somebody to make.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Very nasty and uncalled for.


Frank Howard: Typically Conservative
though.


Jacques Flynn: Order.
Amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived: Yeas, 3; nays, 44.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Depuly Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now, by leave?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now, by leave.


An hon. Member:: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will give hon. members a few seconds to reflect and put the question again. Is there unanimous consent to third reading now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reynold Rapp: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-30, an act to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.-Mr. Howard.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, before the order is proceeded with I wonder whether it might not be considered to be six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Frank Howard: Then I should like to raise a point of order.


An hon. Member:: The order has been called.


Frank Howard: If hon. members are not inclined to follow the course suggested by me, I can understand why they feel that way. My point of order is that some time ago a statement of policy was made by a representative of the government with respect to public bills sponsored by private members. It was pointed out that this period of time was considered to be purely within the hands of private members and in order that they might prosecute properly the various proposals made by them it was felt that no interference should be placed in the way of members being given the fullest opportunity to present their different ideas as embodied in bills sponsored by them.
Today we have seen this course followed in an admirable way, I should say, in two instances, one of them involving a bill introduced by me which was defeated. I am not
Business of the House
upset about that. In my view more public bills sponsored by private members should come to a vote in tne house regardless of whether they are accepted or defeated. That is immaterial to the basic point of having a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Frank Howard: The same commendable course was followed with respect to the bill we have just passed, and I think the house should come to a decision on these bills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business is for tomorrow? I think the house leader also indicated that he would tell us what legislation would be taken next week as well as the order of business for the whole of the week.


Mr. Churchill:: The estimates of the Department of Transport will be taken tomorrow. If they are completed we will go on with the estimates of the Department of Justice. I said last night that we would take legislation on Monday and Tuesday and this will be the order. We will take first No. 1 on today's order paper, Bill No. C-94, an act to amend the Canadian National Railways Act. That will be followed by a bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act, notice of which has appeared in Votes and Proceedings and which will appear on the order paper for first reading tomorrow. The third item will be No. 4 on today's order paper, Bill No. C-77, dealing with agricultural development. The fourth item will be a resolution which will appear on the order paper tomorrow dealing with amendments to the Judges Act. The fifth item will be a bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act, notice of which has also appeared in Votes and Proceedings.
On Tuesday it is proposed to commence with item No. 5 on today's order paper, Bill No. C-92, an act to amend the Criminal Code.


Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the estimates will be for next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is difficult to forecast the estimates for next week. It will depend on the progress made tomorrow but the intention at the moment is to carry on with transport and then justice.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
90205-6-321J


[Stage Direction]
Room 701, Metcalfe Building, 88 Metcalfe Street,
Ottawa, Ontario.
May 15, 1961.
The Honourable Donald M. Fleming,
Minister of Finance,
Confederation Building,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,
I wish to refer to the annual consultations which have just been concluded between the Canadian government and this embassy about voluntary controls to be applied by Japan on the export of certain products to Canada in respect of the year 1961. As you know, the items we discussed were certain textile products, rubber footwear, plywood, stainless steel table flatware, transistor radios, polyester staple buttons, vinyl raincoats, and receiving tubes for radio and television.
I am now pleased to inform you that as a result of the consultations my government has decided to apply in respect of the calendar year 1961 voluntary export controls as set forth in the annexes to this letter.
Quotas will be allocated to Japanese exporters or producers so that shipments will be spread fairly evenly over the year, the quotas for textile goods, flatware and plywood being allocated on a quarterly basis, with due allowance for the fact that the demand in Canada for some of the quota items is seasonal in nature. However, it should be noted that in respect of a few items there are no actual quota allocations, exports being controlled by a different system.
I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate that, as I mentioned in my letter dated April 29, 1960, these measures are taken by the Japanese government on its own accord in order to conform with its established policy of gradual increase of Japanese exports on an orderly basis with a view to avoiding undue injury to the domestic industry of importing countries. It is the view of the Japanese government that export volumes of the controlled items should normally increase from year to year having regard to market conditions in Canada. Taking into consideration the adverse conditions in the Canadian textile industry and the general economic
situation in Canada, the export quotas for almost all of the textile products have been set for 1961 at the same levels as those for 1960. With the improvement of the situation in the Canadian market my government will naturally anticipate gradual increases in these export quotas in future years.
The quota figure indicated in the annex for stainless steel table flatware represents a large scale reduction of the previous year's export quota and therefore in terms of the concept of orderly growth constitutes an exceptional decision by my government for the year 1961. This decision has been taken in consideration of the difficult business conditions of the Canadian flatware industry as described by Canadian government authorities during the consultations. This exceptional reduction should not be regarded as a precedent in relation to future years or other products.
Furthermore, I should like to remind you again of what I stated in my letter dated April 29, 1960, to the effect that the Japanese government attaches the utmost importance to avoiding a situation where third countries are able to expand their sales to Canada of the products placed under Japanese export control by virtue of the fact that Japan has undertaken to limit her shipments. Should it transpire that such diversion of trade is taking place, I would hope your government would be willing to enter into consultation with my government at any time my government believes that developments warrant it in order to protect Japan's legitimate interests.
In communicating this information to you, I assume that in respect of the products listed in the annexes, for which firm quantities are specified, Canada will not, during the year 1961, invoke the provisions of article XIX of the GATT or those of the exchange of letters annexed to the agreement of commerce of 1954 between Canada and Japan.
I take this opportunity to renew my firm belief that by applying these self-restraining measures we help to pave the way for further expansion of two way trade on an orderly basis, to the mutual benefit of both countries.
Yours sincerely, Toru Hagiwara Ambassador

[Stage Direction]
Voluntary Quotas on the Export of Japanese Textile Goods to Canada for the Year 1961
Item	Fibre
Description
Quantity
1	Spun rayon	Blouses	
Shirts (including dress and work shirts and sport shirts)	
Total blouses and shirts	
Note: There is provision for a 10 per cent swing from one subquota to another but the total of the two subquotas will not exceed 301,000 dozen.
2	(a) Spun rayon	 Trousers and outer shorts	
(b)	Synthetic other than spun
rayon	 Trousers and outer shorts	
(c)	Spun rayon and other synthetic	 Other garments in the coats and slacks group:
Outer wear (includes suits, coats, raincoats,
jackets, jumpers, skirts, etc.)	
Inner wear (includes nightwear, woven underwear, etc.)	
Total coats and slacks	
Note: There is provision for a 10 per cent swing from one subquota to another but the total of the four subquotas will not exceed 237,000 dozen.
3	Spun rayon and other synthetic. T-shirts and other knitted shirts	
Other knitted wear	
Total knitted wear	
Note: There is provision for a 10 per cent swing from one subquota to another but the total of the two subquotas will not exceed 237,000 dozen.
4	All textile fibres	 Elastic braid	
124.000	dozen
177.000	dozen
301.000	dozen
125.000	dozen 6,000 dozen
85.000	dozen
21.000	dozen
237.000	dozen
129.000	dozen
108.000	dozen
237,000 dozen
400,000 lbs.
5	All textile fibres	
Elastic webbing, woven	6	Cotton	
Blouses	Sport shirts	Blouses and sport shirts	Dress and work shirts	Total blouses and shirts	
Note: There is provision for a 10 per cent swing between the two subquotas for blouses and sport shirts, but the total of the two subquotas will not exceed 390,000 dozen.
7	Cotton	 Trousers and outer shorts	
Other garments in the coats and slacks group:
Outer wear (includes suits, coats, raincoats,
jackets, jumpers, skirts, etc.)	
Inner wear (includes nightwear, woven underwear, etc.)	
Total coats and slacks	
Note: There is provision for a 10 per cent swing from one subquota to another but the total of the three subquotas will not exceed 325,000 dozen.
8	Cotton	 T-shirts and other knitted shirts	
Other knitted wear	
433,800 lbs.
185.000	dozen
205.000	dozen
390.000	dozen 90,000 dozen
480.000	dozen
80.000	dozen
196.000	dozen
49.000	dozen
325.000	dozen
270,000 dozen 93,000 dozen
Total knitted wear	 363,000 dozen
Note: There is provision for a 10 per cent swing from one subquota to another but the total of the two subquotas will not exceed 363,000 dozen.
[Stage Direction]
Item	Fibre	Description	Quantity9	Cotton	
Damask table cloths	
1,210,000 sq. yds.10	Cotton	
Pillowcases	
180,000 dozen11	Cotton	
Fabrics	
25,500,000 sq. yds.
Note: The Japanese government will use its best endeavour with Japanese producers and exporters so that within the quota gingham and velveteen will be shipped at least to the extent of actual 1960 shipments.
12 Cotton
Sheets
666,000 pieces
13	Synthetic (other than spun
rayon)	 Blouses	
Shirts (including work shirts and sport shirts)
Total blouses and shirts	
Note: There is provision for a 10 per cent swing from one subquota to another but the total of the two subquotas will not exceed 50.000 dozen.
14 All textile fibres	 Bedspreads	
15 All textile fibres	 Dish towels	
12.000	dozen
38.000	dozen
50,000 dozen
600.000	pieces
400.000	dozen
16	All textile fibres	 Ladies' dress gloves, sewn	 314,000 dozen
17	Synthetic (including rayon and ribbons of the following types:
spun rayon)	Faille; lingerie-grosgrain; woven-edge satin;
corded ribbon; seam-binding	 142,000 lbs.
Note: Corded ribbon of all types is to be subject to control within this quota figure, and it is to be noted that the following type of corded ribbon, which has been used by Canadian distillers, is specifically included:
"Corded ribbon, approximately wide, made of man-made fibres, with black edges and gold centre, whether shipped in various cut lengths or in continuous rolls."
18	Nylon	 Fabrics	 2,600,000 sq. yds.
Explanatory Notes
1.	All of the above quotas apply to total exports in the 12 month period ending December 31, 1961.
2.	Where there is provision for a 10 per cent swing between or among subquotas no subquota will be increased by more than 10 per cent of the result of any transfer. For example, in the case of cotton blouses and sport shirts, the maximum application of the swing provision would result in shipments of (a) blouses, 203,500 dozen; sport shirts, 186,500 dozen; or (b) blouses, 164,500 dozen; sport shirts, 225,500 dozen.
3.	In connection with the 10 per cent swing provision, and also more generally, the Japanese government will use its best endeavour to urge Japanese producers and exporters so that there will be no undue concentration on any item within the quota categories.
4.	The following is a table of criteria used by the government of Japan to distinguish the quota categories of made-up textiles which are a mixture of various fibre components. The basic principle for the criteria is chief value, converted into percentage of fibre content by weight, so that the percentages vary extensively.
	MAY 19, 1961	1
Defined as	Fibre Composition	Percentage of Fibre Content (By Weight)Cotton	Cotton and silk Cotton and wool Cotton and rayon filament Cotton and spun rayon Cotton and synthetic fibre	88 per cent and over cotton 67 per cent and over cotton 40 per cent and over cotton 30 per cent and over cotton 51 per cent and over cottonSpun Rayon	Spun rayon and wool Spun rayon and silk Spun rayon and jute, flax Spun rayon and synthetic fibre Spun rayon and cotton Spun rayon and rayon filament	91 per cent and over spun rayon 91 per cent and over spun rayon 71 per cent and over spun rayon 71 per cent and over spun rayon 71 per cent and over spun rayon Regardless of percentage fibre contentRayon filament	Rayon filament and cotton Rayon filament and synthetic fibre	61 per cent and over rayon filament 51 per cent and over rayon filamentSynthetic fibre	Synthetic fibre and rayon filament Synthetic fibre, jute, flax Synthetic fibre and cotton Synthetic fibre and spun rayon	50 per cent and over synthetic fibre 50 per cent and over synthetic fibre 50 per cent and over synthetic fibre 30 per cent and over synthetic fibre
Other Secondary Textile Products on Which Voluntary Controls Are Maintained
1.	Woollen sweaters, pullovers and cardigans
2.	Woollen knitted gloves and mittens
3.	Paper caps, paper hats and hat bodies
4.	Silk and silk rayon mixed scarves and mufflers
5.	Rayon gloves and mittens, excluding ladies' dress gloves, sewn
6.	Bed sheets other than cotton
7.	Pillow cases other than cotton
8.	Woollen coats and slacks
e.g. Suits, trousers, skirts, dresses, coats, etc.
Note: In respect of these items it is the intention of the Japanese government to establish export quotas for the year 1961 which will provide for moderate and orderly increases on the basis of actual shipments during 1959 and 1960.
ANNEX B Rubber Footwear
The quotas for the 12 month period ending December 31, 1961, are as follows:
Waterproof footwear 1,900,000 pairs Canvas footwear ...	2,560,000 pairs
The above figure for canvas footwear includes the quantity of certain types of rubber-soled footwear with textile uppers already
shipped since January i, 1961, which were previously free of export quota control but now fall within the definition of the canvas footwear given below, which special quantity in no way constitutes the basis for a quota for 1962.
Note: 1. Waterproof footwear means waterproof vulcanized rubber footwear including footwear either of rubber sole or rubber-like sole with cloth upper, lined or unlined, and also one-piece moulded plastic footwear, lined or unlined.
2. Canvas footwear means shoes with rubber soles or rubber-like soles, and with outer uppers of fabrics made of natural or manmade fibres or outer uppers simulating such materials, excluding slippers and sandals.
ANNEX C Plywood
The quota for the six month period ending June 30, 1961, is 22,500,000 square feet. The quota for the last six months of 1961 shall be determined after another consultation to be held between our two governments in due course.

[Stage Direction]
Stainless Steel Table Flatware
The quota for the 12 month period ending December 31, 1961, is 642,000 dozen pieces, of
[Stage Direction]
which 42,000 dozen pieces is a quota for 1961 only to provide for shipments of flatware for the premium trade in respect of which firm orders have been placed and irrevocable letters of credit transmitted.
Note: Stainless steel table flatware means stainless steel table knives, forks and spoons, of which the length is under 26 cm and of which the handles are made of metal.
ANNEX E Transistor Radios
The quota for the 12 month period ending December 31, 1961, for radios with 3 or more transistors is 395,000 sets.

[Stage Direction]
Receiving Tubes for Radio and Television
The quota for the 12 month period ending December 31, 1961, is 2,500,000 units, and it
will for the time being apply to all Japanese exports to Canada of radio and television receiving tubes. However, it is understood that the Canadian government will during the next few months give the Japanese government a list of tube types in respect of which Canada relies upon imports, rather than upon Canadian production. The types of tubes on this list will be freed of quota control.
ANNEX G Vinyl Raincoats
The quota for the 12 month period ending December 31, 1961, is 520,000 units.